 |
| Turner John Kenneth, Różne |
 |
|
|
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ] //-->onetwoDemocracy & WarOur war ‘causes’Four & halfWar for DemocracyFive & halfPatriotism of ProfitWilson ImperialismStrictly BusinessappendixShall it beAgain ?byJohn Kenneth TurnerNew York B.W. Heubsch, Inc.MCMXXIICopyright, 1922, by B.W.Heubsch, Inc.Printed in U.S.A.D619 .T9So long as a handful of men inWall Street control the creditand industrial processes of thecountry, they will continue tocontrol the press, thegovernment, and, by deception,the people. They will not onlycompel the public to work forthem in peace, but to fight forthem in war.America is a financial oligarchy, in which the President is the willing, though pretendedlyreluctant, servant of the financial powers.John Kenneth Turner was born in Portland, Oregon,on April 5, 1879, of old American stock. Hismaternal grandfather, a Methodist minister, had leda wagon train of pioneers across the continent fromKentucky to Oregon in 1849. Turner’s father was aprinter on the PortlandOregonian,and later had hisown printing shop in Stockton, California. ThereTurner passed his youth and learned the printer’strade. At sixteen he became interested in socialismand at seventeen he was publishing his ownnewspaper, a muckraking weekly called theStockton Saturday Night,which was devoted toexposing corrupt politicians and businessmen. Hedrifted into school-teaching and eventually into hisproper field, journalism. While a special student atthe University of California, he met his future wife,Ethel E. Duffy, a senior at the university. Theywere married in 1905 and made their home in SanFrancisco until driven out by the earthquake of1906. For a while they lived in Portland but soon moved to Los Angeles, California, whereTurner obtained a position as a reporter on the Los AngelesExpress.He wrote much for the Socialist New YorkCall,theAppeal to Reason,and various otherperiodicals. In the spring of 1915 he returned to Mexico to report on the United Statesoccupation of Veracruz, a move which he bitterly condemned. On this trip he had anexclusive interview with Venustiano Carranza. Shortly thereafter he published two books onMexico :Quién es Pancho Villa ?andLa intervención en México y sus nefandos factores.The following year he made two more trips to Mexico and wrote articles opposing thePershing Punitive Expedition.In April 1917, as a guest of Senator Robert M. LaFollette, Turner heard President Wilsondeliver his war message to Congress. From this time on he opposed United Statesparticipation in the war. His views on Wilson were expressed in his highly critical bookShall It Be Again ?Following the war, when there was still danger of United States intervention in Mexico, theRand School of Social Science published Turner’sHands Off Mexico.He was greatlyinterested in agrarian reform and in 1921 went to Cuernavaca where he interviewedGenevevo de la O, a notedzapatistageneral.He continued to make his home in Carmel but the reaction of the 1920’s discouraged himprofoundly and he did little writing. His last book came after a lapse of many years in 1941,when he published hisChallenge to Karl Marx.He died in 1948.Shall it be Again ?byJohn Kenneth TurnerNew York B.W. Heubsch, Inc.MCMXXIICopyright, 1922, by B.W. Heubsch, Inc.Printed in U.S.A.D619 .T9ToThe Lads Who Will Come Under The Next Draft“ I get a great many letters, my fellow-citizens, fromimportant and influential men in this country; but I get agreat many other letters. I get letters from unknownmen, from humble women, from people whose nameshave never been heard and will never be recorded, andthere is but one prayer in all of then letters : ‘Mr.President, do not allow anybody to persuade you that thepeople of this country want war with anybody.'”—Woodrow Wilson,to the New York Press Club, June30, 1916.So long as a handful of men in Wall Street control thecredit and industrial processes of the country, they willcontinue to control the press, the government, and, bydeception, the people. They will not only compel thepublic to work for them in peace, but to fight for them inwar.America is a financial oligarchy, in which the President isthe willing, though pretendedly reluctant, servant of the financial powers.Shall it be Again ?ITHE AUTHOR EXPLAINSWEREany excuse deemed necessary for this book, it would be enough to point to the likelihood ofanother war. No one will dispute that, notwithstanding complete victory was accorded us, thepromised goal, permanent peace, was not attained. If, indeed, we are to judge by the demands ofthe Executive for greater armament, the danger of future war at once became from three to fivetimes as great as before we took up arms to repel such danger. These demands were scaled down,but our peace-time armament remained far heavier than before. Those of us who, a little while ago,were most confident in asserting that our war would end war are the same who, as soon as it wasover, became most certain that we must be ready for the next one.But if the goal was not reached, our war could not have been in every respect the glorious thing wewere told it was. Nor will any one dispute that many of the other promised benefits are notforthcoming. Nearly all of us seem to be willing to assume—or to permit our neighbors to assume,which comes to the same thing—that the “reasons” justifying our war are sound. But if such“reasons” are sound how is it that the results are so disappointing ?The question cannot be dismissed simply by blaming Wilson, or the Republican party, or LloydGeorge and Clemenceau. Did we not fight on the theory of the perfect wisdom and purity ofWilson and the Entente statesmen—and, for that matter, of ourselves, which includes theRepublican party ?If we have been betrayed, it is not sufficient merely to acknowledge the fact, but to determine howand why, in order that provision may be made against betrayal in the future. Nor is it sufficient tolook for the secret in what happened at Paris. The great settlement—which, in the main, stillstands—was the logical and almost certain result of what had gone before.Although it will be pleasant for all who served or sacrificed in the late war always to believe the bestof it, no one who really sacrificed will wish for another such experience; nor would any one wish tocontinue believing well of recent events if such belief were to add to the danger of a repetition.Remember that for more than four years one side was permitted to speak and the other forced toremain silent. “The perspective that only time can give,” some say, “is necessary before the truehistory of our war can be written, and before proper criticism can be made.” But the end of thefighting saw a vast and complicated machine feverishly at work to crystallize into “history” thestory of the war as it was told to us as propaganda in the heat thereof. If we wait a generation toface the whole truth we shall probably never face it.If any of the “reasons” justifying our recent war is valid, it is not unlikely that one or more of themwill again apply, and another war will become both necessary and desirable.If, on the other hand,none of such “reasons” will bear the test of scrutiny, any probable future war will be inexcusable,since all probable “causes” and “objectives” were urged for the recent one.How, then, did it come about that America, in 1917, found itself a partisan in a conflict whichevoked only horror here in 1914—a conflict which not one in one thousand dreamed we could everenter-which not one in a million had the temerity to advocate entering ? How did it come aboutthat America was plunging ahead in policies which not a single public man dared openly favor in1914 ?In this book are set forth the essential facts tending to prove what many people already believe,though on incomplete evidence, that ours was a war for business. If, however, any of the non-business motives mentioned in justification for our war is sound, the theory of a war for businesscannot stand. Thus it is that the first parts of the book are devoted to an examination of suchalleged motives.Business, of course, was farthest from the minds of the masses of the American people. But therelationship between the masses, the government, and business becomes clear. Although millionsfought and served, the millions decided absolutely nothing except the physical victory. One manchose war for America, dictated the war policies, arrogated to himself the sole power to arrange theconditions of peace. The motives of the men who fought in Europe, and of the folks who servedat home, did not determine what the real motives of their war should be. The real motives of theirwar were the motives which Woodrow Wilson personally chose to serve, whether in public or insecret, and only those.From this it must not be imagined that Wilson is to receive the entire blame for the delinquenciesof our war and our peace. Although the responsibility lies as heavy upon Wilson as could be uponany individual, the culpability of Wilson explains only one-third of the riddle. As for ourselves, themotives that we professed are the same as the professed motives of Wilson. Is it already forgottenthat the rest of us also swore allegiance to the principles by which Wilson claimed to be guided inentering and prosecuting the war “tomake the world safe for democracy”;that the propaganda of“loyal patriots” everywhere, even among his bitterest political opponents, was little more than anecho of the President’s words; that “Stand Behind the President!” was the war slogan while theissue was in the balance, and trust in the President the acid test of patriotism after we were in; thatit wasbecauseof his proclaimed war motives that we glorified Wilson beyond any other man inhistory ?The question of Presidential fraud is determined by the discrepancy between the motives professedand the motives served. The question of national fraud is determined by the discrepancy betweenthe motives professed and the motives to whose service we complacently agree. For the fruit thatWilson plucked for us we still retain. Although the Republican party altered, in outward detail, thewritten forms of peace, it did not change the general nature of the settlement, nor attempt nor wishto do so. Although the phraseology varies at times, our foreign policies remain in principle thesame. Although a Republican Congress went through motions intended to discredit Wilson, it met,in a large measure, his wishes as to “reconstruction” legislation. Regardless of the judgment of anational election, Wilson’s work, on the whole, has been accepted by the “leaders of the people”and is tolerated by the country.Although it is of importance to present in a true light the most misunderstood figure in Americanhistory, the theme is much broader than that. Instead of laying the foundations for future peace,our war set up the groundwork for more and more war. This groundwork must be cleared away orthere is no hope. Only after the shams of the past war have been exploded, its true motivesrevealed, and its methods and results shine clear in the light of those motives, can a beginning bemade towards ways that will insure us against future horrors.Instead of being a dead issue, therefore, our late war is the livest issue of the day, and it will remainan issue so long as future war is in the reckoning. Its lessons hold not only the secret of avertingfuture war, but also the solution of other public questions of a pressing nature. [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ] |