A MENACE TO LIBERTY
WHAT is patriotism? Is it love of one's birthplace, the place of childhood's recollections and hopes, dreams and aspirations?
Is it the place where, in childlike naivete, we would watch the fleeting clouds, and wonder why we, too, could not run so
swiftly? The place where we would count the milliard glittering stars, terror-stricken lest each one "an eye should be," piercing
the very depths of our little souls? Is it the place where we would listen to the music of the birds, and long to have wings
to fly, even as they, to distant lands? Or the place where we would sit at mother's knee, enraptured by wonderful tales of
great deeds and conquests? In short, is it love for the spot, every inch representing dear and precious recollections of a
happy, joyous, and playful childhood?
If that were patriotism, few American men of today could be called upon to be patriotic, since the place of play has been
turned into factory, mill, and mine, while deafening sounds of machinery have replaced the music of the birds. Nor can we
longer hear the tales of great deeds, for the stories our mothers tell today are but those of sorrow, tears, and grief.
What, then, is patriotism? "Patriotism, sir, is the last resort of scoundrels," said Dr. Johnson. Leo Tolstoy, the greatest
anti-patriot of our times, defines patriotism as the principle that will justify the training of wholesale murderers; a trade
that requires better equipment for the exercise of man-killing than the making of such necessities of life as shoes, clothing,
and houses; a trade that guarantees better returns and greater glory than that of the average workingman.
Gustave Hervé, another great anti-patriot, justly calls patriotism a superstition--one far more injurious, brutal, and
inhumane than religion. The superstition of religion originated in man's inability to explain natural phenomena. That is,
when primitive man heard thunder or saw the lightning, he could not account for either, and therefore concluded that back
of them must be a force greater than himself. Similarly he saw a supernatural force in the rain, and in the various other
changes in nature. Patriotism, on the other hand, is a superstition artificially created and maintained through a network
of lies and falsehoods; a superstition that robs man of his self-respect and dignity, and increases his arrogance and conceit.
Indeed, conceit, arrogance, and egotism are the essentials of patriotism. Let me illustrate. Patriotism assumes that our
globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who have had the fortune of being born on some
particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other
spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his
superiority upon all the others.
The inhabitants of the other spots reason in like manner, of course, with the result that, from early infancy, the mind
of the child is poisoned with bloodcurdling stories about the Germans, the French, the Italians, Russians, etc. When the child
has reached manhood, he is thoroughly saturated with the belief that he is chosen by the Lord himself to defend his
country against the attack or invasion of any foreigner. It is for that purpose that we are clamoring for a greater army and
navy, more battleships and ammunition. It is for that purpose that America has within a short time spent four hundred million
dollars. Just think of it--four hundred million dollars taken from the produce of the people. For surely it is not
the rich who contribute to patriotism. They are cosmopolitans, perfectly at home in every land. We in America know well the
truth of this. Are not our rich Americans Frenchmen in France, Germans in Germany, or Englishmen in England? And do they not
squandor with cosmopolitan grace fortunes coined by American factory children and cotton slaves? Yes, theirs is the patriotism
that will make it possible to send messages of condolence to a despot like the Russian Tsar, when any mishap befalls him,
as President Roosevelt did in the name of his people, when Sergius was punished by the Russian revolutionists.
It is a patriotism that will assist the arch-murderer, Diaz, in destroying thousands of lives in Mexico, or that will even
aid in arresting Mexican revolutionists on American soil and keep them incarcerated in American prisons, without the slightest
cause or reason.
But, then, patriotism is not for those who represent wealth and power. It is good enough for the people. It reminds one
of the historic wisdom of Frederick the Great, the bosom friend of Voltaire, who said: "Religion is a fraud, but it must be
maintained for the masses."
That patriotism is rather a costly institution, no one will doubt after considering the following statistics. The progressive
increase of the expenditures for the leading armies and navies of the world during the last quarter of a century is a fact
of such gravity as to startle every thoughtful student of economic problems. It may be briefly indicated by dividing the time
from 1881 to 1905 into five-year periods, and noting the disbursements of several great nations for army and navy purposes
during the first and last of those periods. From the first to the last of the periods noted the expenditures of Great Britain
increased from $2,101,848,936 to $4,143,226,885, those of France from $3,324,500,000 to $3,455,109,900, those of Germany from
$725,000,200 to $2,700,375,600, those of the United States from $1,275,500,750 to $2,650,900,450, those of Russia from $1,900,975,500
to $5,250,445,100, those of Italy from $1,600,975,750 to $1,755,500,100, and those of Japan from $182,900,500 to $700,925,475.
The military expenditures of each of the nations mentioned increased in each of the five-year periods under review. During
the entire interval from 1881 to 1905 Great Britain's outlay for her army increased fourfold, that of the United States was
tripled, Russia's was doubled, that of Germany increased 35 per cent., that of France about 15 per cent., and that of Japan
nearly 500 per cent. If we compare the expenditures of these nations upon their armies with their total expenditures for all
the twenty-five years ending with 1905, the proportion rose as follows:
Great Britain from 20 per cent. to 37; in the United States from 15 to 23; in France from 16 to 18; in Italy from 12 to
15; in Japan from 12 to 14. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that the proportion in Germany decreased from about
58 per cent. to 25, the decrease being due to the enormous increase in the imperial expenditures for other purposes, the fact
being that the army expenditures for the period of 190I-5 were higher than for any five-year period preceding. Statistics
show that the countries in which army expenditures are greatest, in proportion to the total national revenues, are Great Britain,
the United States, Japan, France, and Italy, in the order named.
The showing as to the cost of great navies is equally impressive. During the twenty-five years ending with 1905 naval expenditures
increased approximately as follows: Great Britain, 300 per cent.; France 60 per cent.; Germany 600 per cent.; the United States
525 per cent.; Russia 300 per cent.; Italy 250 per cent.; and Japan, 700 per cent. With the exception of Great Britain, the
United States spends more for naval purposes than any other nation, and this expenditure bears also a larger proportion to
the entire national disbursements than that of any other power. In the period 1881-5, the expenditure for the United States
navy was $6.20 out of each $100 appropriated for all national purposes; the amount rose to $6.60 for the next five-year period,
to $8.10 for the next, to $11.70 for the next, and to $16.40 for 1901-5. It is morally certain that the outlay for the current
period of five years will show a still further increase.
The rising cost of militarism may be still further illustrated by computing it as a per capita tax on population. From
the first to the last of the five-year periods taken as the basis for the comparisons here given, it has risen as follows:
In Great Britain, from $18.47 to $52.50; in France, from $19.66 to $23.62; in Germany, from $10.17 to $15.51; in the United
States, from $5.62 to $13.64; in Russia, from $6.14 to $8.37; in Italy, from $9.59 to $11.24, and in Japan from 86 cents to
It is in connection with this rough estimate of cost per capita that the economic burden of militarism is most appreciable.
The irresistible conclusion from available data is that the increase of expenditure for army and navy purposes is rapidly
surpassing the growth of population in each of the countries considered in the present calculation. In other words, a continuation
of the increased demands of militarism threatens each of those nations with a progressive exhaustion both of men and resources.
The awful waste that patriotism necessitates ought to be sufficient to cure the man of even average intelligence from this
disease. Yet patriotism demands still more. The people are urged to be patriotic and for that luxury they pay, not only by
supporting their "defenders," but even by sacrificing their own children. Patriotism requires allegiance to the flag, which
means obedience and readiness to kill father, mother, brother, sister.
The usual contention is that we need a standing army to protect the country from foreign invasion. Every intelligent man
and woman knows, however, that this is a myth maintained to frighten and coerce the foolish. The governments of the world,
knowing each other's interests, do not invade each other. They have learned that they can gain much more by international
arbitration of disputes than by war and conquest. Indeed, as Carlyle said, "War is a quarrel between two thieves too cowardly
to fight their own battle; therefore they take boys from one village and another village, stick them into uniforms, equip
them with guns, and let them loose like wild beasts against each other."
It does not require much wisdom to trace every war back to a similar cause. Let us take our own Spanish-American war, supposedly
a great and patriotic event in the history of the United States. How our hearts burned with indignation against the atrocious
Spaniards! True, our indignation did not flare up spontaneously. It was nurtured by months of newspaper agitation, and long
after Butcher Weyler had killed off many noble Cubans and outraged many Cuban women. Still, in justice to the American Nation
be it said, it did grow indignant and was willing to fight, and that it fought bravely. But when the smoke was over, the dead
buried, and the cost of the war came back to the people in an increase in the price of commodities and rent--that is, when
we sobered up from our patriotic spree it suddenly dawned on us that the cause of the Spanish-American war was the consideration
of the price of sugar; or, to be more explicit, that the lives, blood, and money of the American people were used to protect
the interests of American capitalists, which were threatened by the Spanish government. That this is not an exaggeration,
but is based on absolute facts and figures, is best proven by the attitude of the American government to Cuban labor. When
Cuba was firmly in the clutches of the United States, the very soldiers sent to liberate Cuba were ordered to shoot Cuban
workingmen during the great cigarmakers' strike, which took place shortly after the war.
Nor do we stand alone in waging war for such causes. The curtain is beginning to be lifted on the motives of the terrible
Russo-Japanese war, which cost so much blood and tears. And we see again that back of the fierce Moloch of war stands the
still fiercer god of Commercialism. Kuropatkin, the Russian Minister of War during the Russo-Japanese struggle, has revealed
the true secret behind the latter. The Tsar and his Grand Dukes, having invested money in Corean concessions, the war was
forced for the sole purpose of speedily accumulating large fortunes.
The contention that a standing army and navy is the best security of peace is about as logical as the claim that the most
peaceful citizen is he who goes about heavily armed. The experience of every-day life fully proves that the armed individual
is invariably anxious to try his strength. The same is historically true of governments. Really peaceful countries do not
waste life and energy in war preparations, With the result that peace is maintained.
However, the clamor for an increased army and navy is not due to any foreign danger. It is owing to the dread of the growing
discontent of the masses and of the international spirit among the workers. It is to meet the internal enemy that the Powers
of various countries are preparing themselves; an enemy, who, once awakened to consciousness, will prove more dangerous than
any foreign invader.
The powers that have for centuries been engaged in enslaving the masses have made a thorough study of their psychology.
They know that the people at large are like children whose despair, sorrow, and tears can be turned into joy with a little
toy. And the more gorgeously the toy is dressed, the louder the colors, the more it will appeal to the million-headed child.
An army and navy represents the people's toys. To make them more attractive and acceptable, hundreds and thousands of dollars
are being spent for the display of these toys. That was the purpose of the American government in equipping a fleet and sending
it along the Pacific coast, that every American citizen should be made to feel the pride and glory of the United States. The
city of San Francisco spent one hundred thousand dollars for the entertainment of the fleet; Los Angeles, sixty thousand;
Seattle and Tacoma, about one hundred thousand. To entertain the fleet, did I say? To dine and wine a few superior officers,
while the "brave boys" had to mutiny to get sufficient food. Yes, two hundred and sixty thousand dollars were spent on fireworks,
theatre parties, and revelries, at a time when men, women, and child}en through the breadth and length of the country were
starving in the streets; when thousands of unemployed were ready to sell their labor at any price.
Two hundred and sixty thousand dollars! What could not have been accomplished with such an enormous sum? But instead of
bread and shelter, the children of those cities were taken to see the fleet, that it may remain, as one of the newspapers
said, "a lasting memory for the child."
A wonderful thing to remember, is it not? The implements of civilized slaughter. If the
mind of the child is to be poisoned with such memories, what hope is there for a true realization of human brotherhood?
We Americans claim to be a peace-loving people. We hate bloodshed; we are opposed to violence. Yet we go into spasms of
joy over the possibility of projecting dynamite bombs from flying machines upon helpless citizens. We are ready to hang, electrocute,
or lynch anyone, who, from economic necessity, will risk his own life in the attempt upon that of some industrial magnate.
Yet our hearts swell with pride at the thought that America is becoming the most powerful nation on earth, and that it will
eventually plant her iron foot on the necks of all other nations.
Such is the logic of patriotism.
Considering the evil results that patriotism is fraught with for the average man, it is as nothing compared with the insult
and injury that patriotism heaps upon the soldier himself,--that poor, deluded victim of superstition and ignorance. He, the
savior of his country, the protector of his nation,--what has patriotism in store for him? A life of slavish submission, vice,
and perversion, during peace; a life of danger, exposure, and death, during war.
While on a recent lecture tour in San Francisco, I visited the Presidio, the most beautiful spot overlooking the Bay and
Golden Gate Park. Its purpose should have been playgrounds for children, gardens and music for the recreation of the weary.
Instead it is made ugly, dull, and gray by barracks,--barracks wherein the rich would not allow their dogs to dwell. In these
miserable shanties soldiers are herded like cattle; here they waste their young days, polishing the boots and brass buttons
of their superior officers. Here, too, I saw the distinction of classes: sturdy sons of a free Republic, drawn up in line
like convicts, saluting every passing shrimp of a lieutenant. American equality, degrading manhood and elevating the uniform!
Barrack life further tends to develop tendencies of sexual perversion. It is gradually producing along this line results
similar to European military conditions. Havelock Ellis, the noted writer on sex psychology, has made a thorough study of
the subject. I quote: "Some of the barracks are great centers of male prostitution.... The number of soldiers who prostitute
themselves is greater than we are willing to believe. It is no exaggeration to say that in certain regiments the presumption
is in favor of the venality of the majority of the men.... On summer evenings Hyde Park and the neighborhood of Albert Gate
are full of guardsmen and others plying a lively trade, and with little disguise, in uniform or out.... In most cases the
proceeds form a comfortable addition to Tommy Atkins' pocket money."
To what extent this perversion has eaten its way into the army and navy can best be judged from the fact that special houses
exist for this form of prostitution. The practice is not limited to England; it is universal. "Soldiers are no less sought
after in France than in England or in Germany, and special houses for military prostitution exist both in Paris and the garrison
Had Mr. Havelock Ellis included America in his investigation of sex perversion, he would have found that the same conditions
prevail in our army and navy as in those of other countries. The growth of the standing army inevitably adds to the spread
of sex perversion; the barracks are the incubators.
Aside from the sexual effects of barrack life, it also tends to unfit the soldier for useful labor after leaving the army.
Men, skilled in a trade, seldom enter the army or navy, but even they, after a military experience, find themselves totally
unfitted for their former occupations. Having acquired habits of idleness and a taste for excitement and adventure, no peaceful
pursuit can content them. Released from the army, they can turn to no useful work. But it is usually the social riff-raff,
discharged prisoners and the like, whom either the struggle for life or their own inclination drives into the ranks. These,
their military term over, again turn to their former life of crime, more brutalized and degraded than before. It is a well-known
fact that in our prisons there is a goodly number of ex-soldiers; while, on the other hand, the army and navy are to a great
extent plied with ex-convicts.
Of all the evil results I have just described none seems to me so detrimental to human integrity as the spirit patriotism
has produced in the case of Private William Buwalda. Because he foolishly believed that one can be a soldier and exercise
his rights as a man at the same time, the military authorities punished him severely. True, he had served his country fifteen
years, during which time his record was unimpeachable. According to Gen. Funston, who reduced Buwalda's sentence to three
years, "the first duty of an officer or an enlisted man is unquestioned obedience and loyalty to the government, and it makes
no difference whether he approves of that government or not." Thus Funston stamps the true character of allegiance. According
to him, entrance into the army abrogates the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
What a strange development of patriotism that turns a thinking being into a loyal machine!
In justification of this most outrageous sentence of Buwalda, Gen. Funston tells the American people that the soldier's
action was "a serious crime equal to treason." Now, what did this "terrible crime" really consist of? Simply in this: William
Buwalda was one of fifteen hundred people who attended a public meeting in San Francisco; and, oh, horrors, he shook hands
with the speaker, Emma Goldman. A terrible crime, indeed, which the General calls "a great military offense, infinitely worse
Can there be a greater indictment against patriotism than that it will thus brand a man a criminal, throw him into prison,
and rob him of the results of fifteen years of faithful service?
Buwalda gave to his country the best years of his life and his very manhood. But all that was as nothing. Patriotism is
inexorable and, like all insatiable monsters, demands all or nothing. It does not admit that a soldier is also a human being,
who has a right to his own feelings and opinions, his own inclinations and ideas. No, patriotism can not admit of that. That
is the lesson which Buwalda was made to learn; made to learn at a rather costly, though not at a useless price. When he returned
to freedom, he had lost his position in the army, but he regained his self-respect. After all, that is worth three years of
A writer on the military conditions of America, in a recent article, commented on the power of the military man over the
civilian in Germany. He said, among other things, that if our Republic had no other meaning than to guarantee all citizens
equal rights, it would have just cause for existence. I am convinced that the writer was not in Colorado during the patriotic
régime of General Bell. He probably would have changed his mind had he seen how, in the name of patriotism and the Republic,
men were thrown into bull-pens, dragged about, driven across the border, and subjected to all kinds of indignities. Nor is
that Colorado incident the only one in the growth of military power in the United States. There is hardly a strike where troops
and militia do not come to the rescue of those in power, and where they do not act as arrogantly and brutally as do the men
wearing the Kaiser's uniform. Then, too, we have the Dick military law. Had the writer forgotten that?
A great misfortune with most of our writers is that they are absolutely ignorant on current events, or that, lacking honesty,
they will not speak of these matters. And so it has come to pass that the Dick military law was rushed through Congress with
little discussion and still less publicity,--a law which gives the President the power to turn a peaceful citizen into a bloodthirsty
man-killer, supposedly for the defense of the country, in reality for the protection of the interests of that particular party
whose mouthpiece the President happens to be.
Our writer claims that militarism can never become such a power in America as abroad, since it is voluntary with us, while
compulsory in the Old World. Two very important facts, however, the gentleman forgets to consider. First, that conscription
has created in Europe a deep-seated hatred of militarism among all classes of society. Thousands of young recruits enlist
under protest and, once in the army, they will use every possible means to desert. Second, that it is the compulsory feature
of militarism which has created a tremendous anti-militarist movement, feared by European Powers far more than anything else.
After all, the greatest bulwark of capitalism is militarism. The very moment the latter is undermined, capitalism will totter.
True, we have no conscription; that is, men are not usually forced to enlist in the army, but we have developed a far more
exacting and rigid force--necessity. Is it not a fact that during industrial depressions there is a tremendous increase in
the number of enlistments? The trade of militarism may not be either lucrative or honorable, but it is better than tramping
the country in search of work, standing in the bread line, or sleeping in municipal lodging houses. After all, it means thirteen
dollars per month, three meals a day, and a place to sleep. Yet even necessity is not sufficiently strong a factor to bring
into the army an element of character and manhood. No wonder our military authorities complain of the "poor material" enlisting
in the army and navy. This admission is a very encouraging sign. It proves that there is still enough of the spirit of independence
and love of liberty left in the average American to risk starvation rather than don the uniform.
Thinking men and women the world over are beginning to realize that patriotism is too narrow and limited a conception to
meet the necessities of our time. The centralization of power has brought into being an international feeling of solidarity
among the oppressed nations of the world; a solidarity which represents a greater harmony of interests between the workingman
of America and his brothers abroad than between the American miner and his exploiting compatriot; a solidarity which fears
not foreign invasion, because it is bringing all the workers to the point when they will say to their masters, "Go and do
your own killing. We have done it long enough for you."
This solidarity is awakening the consciousness of even the soldiers, they, too, being flesh of the flesh of the great human
family. A solidarity that has proven infallible more than once during past struggles, and which has been the impetus inducing
the Parisian soldiers, during the Commune of 1871, to refuse to obey when ordered to shoot their brothers. It has given courage
to the men who mutinied on Russian warships during recent years. It will eventually bring about the uprising of all the oppressed
and downtrodden against their international exploiters.
The proletariat of Europe has realized the great force of that solidarity and has, as a result, inaugurated a war against
patriotism and its bloody spectre, militarism. Thousands of men fill the prisons of France, Germany, Russia, and the Scandinavian
countries, because they dared to defy the ancient superstition. Nor is the movement limited to the working class; it has embraced
representatives in all stations of life, its chief exponents being men and women prominent in art, science, and letters.
America will have to follow suit. The spirit of militarism has already permeated all walks of life. Indeed, I am convinced
that militarism is growing a greater danger here than anywhere else, because of the many bribes capitalism holds out to those
whom it wishes to destroy.
The beginning has already been made in the schools. Evidently the government holds to the Jesuitical conception, "Give
me the child mind, and I will mould the man." Children are trained in military tactics, the glory of military achievements
extolled in the curriculum, and the youthful minds perverted to suit the government. Further, the youth of the country is
appealed to in glaring posters to join the army and navy. "A fine chance to see the world!" cries the governmental huckster.
Thus innocent boys are morally shanghaied into patriotism, and the military Moloch strides conquering through the Nation.
The American workingman has suffered so much at the hands of the soldier, State and Federal, that he is quite justified
in his disgust with, and his opposition to, the uniformed parasite. However, mere denunciation will not solve this great problem.
What we need is a propaganda of education for the soldier: antipatriotic literature that will enlighten him as to the real
horrors of his trade, and that will awaken his consciousness to his true relation to the man to whose labor he owes his very
existence. It is precisely this that the authorities fear most. It is already high treason for a soldier to attend a radical
meeting. No doubt they will also stamp it high treason for a soldier to read a radical pamphlet. But, then, has not authority
from time immemorial stamped every step of progress as treasonable? Those, however, who earnestly strive for social reconstruction
can well afford to face all that; for it is probably even more important to carry the truth into the barracks than into the
factory. When we have undermined the patriotic lie, we shall have cleared the path for that great structure wherein all nationalities
shall be united into a universal brotherhood, --a truly FREE SOCIETY.
The text is from Emma Goldman's Anarchism and Other Essays. Second Revised Edition. New York &
London: Mother Earth Publishing Association, 1911. pp. 133-150.
Selected by Dana Ward, Professor of Political Studies at Pitzer College.