Page:The New Europe (The Slav standpoint), 1918.pdf/38

 appreciate the religious and other forces. The reduction of all political phenomena to the economic interest is a psychological impossibility.

This is true, of course, above all, of German Marxists. Marx himself, before and even after the year 1848, looked upon nationality in the same light as all the German radicals and liberals of that time; then the struggle was for liberal reforms and for revolution against absolutism; there did not exist at that period a national question in Germany, just as there was none in England and France. But in Austria and Prussia and Turkey (in the Balkans) the liberal and democratic movement was at the same time national. Marx based his theories on his experiences in Germany, France, and England; he at that time, just as the German radicals, judged national movements by the degree in which they were revolutionary; being ignorant of national movements and aims he speaks of them, particularly of the smaller Slav nations, quite uncritically, in fact in a surprisingly superficial way. He gave his recognition to the Magyars, because they were against Austria and against Prussia; in Russia, Marx saw the quintessence of absolutism, just like all other liberals, radicals, and socialists; therefore, he gave his recognition to the Poles also, in the same way as the other liberals of his day. But all these Polonophiles failed to see the Poles of Prussia—they saw only those of Russia.

Later on, when he formulated and elaborated his historical materialism, Marx condemned nationalism, as he condemns all other “ideologies,” and he identified nationality with the State, and the State is to him only the greedy violence of the wealthy classes oppressing and exploiting the working people.

That the ideas of Marx on the question of nationality are uncritical and incorrect, and his judgments of the individual nations irrelevant and unjust, is to-day sufficiently evident; Marx is wrong, even if we accept his materialism. For that reason his followers in all the nationally mixed countries recognised the principle of nationality as an independent political factor alongside of the economic factor—the French, Italian, Polish, Czech, Jugoslav, &c. Marxist Socialists are also nationalists. The German socialists are not nationalists in theory, but they are so in practice, especially in Austria; in this war they (the majority) even joined the Pangermans. In England and America the national questions of the European continent are little understood. The same is true of the Russians, who are acquainted at home only with official nationalism which was working for the Russification of the other races. In fact all of them rejected nationalism as chauvinism.

From the analysis of the idea of nationality as given above, it is evident that nationality and language, given by nature and history, cannot be reduced either to the economic or to the political factor—nationality is an independent social force. Analysis makes it also evident that socialism cannot reject nationality: a nation subjugated politically is exploited economically, socially—the democratic program of liberty, equality and fraternity is at the same time a political, social, national, religious program. Therefore socialism and nationalism develop simultaneously and on the same ethical and humanitarian foundation.

24. The lack of understanding of the principles of nationality leads many Marxists to an incorrect interpretation of the war.

The favored phrase of the Marxists is that the present war is a capitalistic war. But capital is on both warring sides, how then did it become the motive of the war? The Germans declare that Russia started the war; and here the German Marxists get into a very queer position, when they claim in harmony with William and his chancellors that Serbia and Russia, countries that are not capitalistic, or only half so, were responsible for the war. That would really give us an agrarian aggression and capitalistic defence. Of course the situation is complicated by the