fore the war that German Socialism, as it has developed in practice, is not a pure and exemplary product, but spurious and adulterated. The German Socialists have not backslid on an avalanche of world war; they had little worthy to backslide from; their decadence began and reached low depths long ago. They have not suddenly become bankrupt; political Socialism in Germany has been bankrupt for years; it needed only the shock of a great crisis to throw it into the hands of a receiver. If that kind of Socialism is done for, all the better for real Socialism. Bury the corpse on the battlefield, no matter whether the grave is dug by French or German soldiers. Recover from the ruin the true body and spirit of the German revolution of older days, and start again. Authority is dead, long live reality!

At this point the argument is taken up by nonpolitical and anti-political Socialists, and concurred in by other Revolutionists, Anarchists, Syndicalists, Industrial Unionists, who are with the Socialists as against militarism, royalism, capitalism, imperialism, but are opposed to Socialists in so far forth as Socialists ally themselves with governments, reformers, liberals, and bourgeois institutions. This is the most

difficult confusion of bedfellows to disentangle limb from limb, smooth out and lay on their pillows so that one can see them. We shall perhaps understand their alliances and hostilities a little later. For the moment consider them in relation to this war. They say (one can lump them and disregard their differences) that the failure of the German Socialists and also of the French, British, and Belgian Socialists is not a local and momentary phenomenon. All political Socialism has gone to the devil, returned to the bosom of the father that begot it. What, they say, did you expect of the German Socialists? Did you not know that they had most of them ceased to be Socialists in any real sense of the word? We told you long ago that they had the insidious disease, reformism, opportunism, which had undermined their system. Because great numbers got the disease and because those great numbers were recruited from the working class, the little farmer, the little trader, the best people on earth, you saw strength; but we saw weakness in your very numbers, weakness and death. The lesson to be drawn from the Suedekums and Guesdes, and the thousands for whom their names happen to stand, is that all political action is a delusion,

a swindle, a snare, a corrupter. The Germans put time, money, heart, and brains into building up the greatest so-called Socialist party that the world has seen. In the crisis that party is worthless; in the long run it is worthless; in all other countries similar parties are worthless. We welcome the war if only because it will teach you well-meaning but misguided Socialists that politics is a disease.

Thus the failure of the European Socialists, not only in Germany but in other belligerent countries, is used as an argument to prove that political Socialism is and must always be a failure. The logic of this is not quite perfect. Moreover, the political Socialists are not the only revolutionists who have been swamped. Many skeptics as to the value of political action and preachers of "direct action" have shouldered the gun or refilled the fountain pen in defence of their country. French syndicalists, notably, have become the staunchest of patriots and have exchanged the sword of revolution for the sword of France.

The shock of war has shattered some Socialist hopes, strained the fabric of Socialist theory, and subjected to fiery test the metal of the men and women who call themselves Socialists.

Workmen who have affirmed that the exploited of all lands have common interests and that the exploiters of all lands are their common enemies are on the battlefields shooting each other. Each national group excuses its murderous denial of oft-repeated professions on the ground that it is engaged in a holy defensive war. The German Socialist is fighting to save his home and wife and children from the barbaric hordes of Russia. The French Socialist is defending his home and wife and children against the barbaric Prussianism of Germany. The Belgian Socialist, with whom everybody, including the German, has at least a sportsman's sympathy, is obviously in arms against the invader. Even the English Socialist makes a case for England as a defendant nation. “We regard this war as a war of self-defence. If England or Belgium had stood on one side now, no one would have cared if a victorious Germany had swallowed us up later. Only those extreme internationalists who think it a matter of no importance if one nation tries to tear the very tongue from the mouth of another nation and blot out all that is distinctive in its habits of life could refuse to fight against the German aggressor." That might have been uttered by

a member of the British Cabinet.

It was writ

ten by a British revolutionist, Mr. Arthur D. Lewis. I do not know how he stands with his fellow Socialists in England, but he is a competent student of revolutionary unionism and politics. In times like these the only smile that is seemly upon the human countenance is the smile of irony.

The apostasy of the majority of Socialists in the murdering nations has given great satisfaction to the political masters and their literary apologists. And when your enemy praises your conduct you can be dead sure that you have done wrong. Every German professor, psychologist, journalist, military expert, and clergyman who argues for the Fatherland points with pride to the magnificent unity of Germany, to the laying aside of party differences, yea, even to the loyalty of the Social Democrats. The entire empire marches to one tune and therefore its cause is just and holy. If a minority of unreconciled Socialists tried to pipe a different tune, the censor has taken care of them. France, too, is united as never before. Hervé, who served a term in prison for treasonous antimilitarism, is now as patriotic a warrior as the

rest.

And Great Britain is united (excepting