Militarism

MILITARISM. - Militarism can be defined as: the stable, actual disposition of a State toward war, together with the simultaneous decisive influence of military organization on the direction of the State itself. Its foundation lies not in the immediate threat of a foreign State or in the necessity of a defensive war imposed by present dangers that jeopardize the security of the State, but in the principle that peace can be assured only when one is in a state of war readiness. From this it follows that militarism is nothing other than a political philosophy that regards social conflict as inevitable and peace as something unattainable and sporadic. The principle that only force can resolve political conflicts spurs nations to the arms race: if a State is dominated by the principle of militarism, other States too, in order to provide for their own security, are driven to secure an armament capable of standing up to the other's dimensional development. Such bellicose dynamics will have repercussions on national and international life. The history of Europe, from the 17th century — in which standing armies were introduced — recounts the sad consequences of militarism, which led to the two great world wars of 1914 and 1939. The principles of militarism are also found in ancient Sparta and in Rome, but its full development occurred only in modern times, with even more deleterious consequences for the system of waging war that mobilizes the entire vitality of the nation and not only the armies.

Militarism — especially the Prussian and Hitlerian kind — never succeeded in settling political conflicts, but only in asserting them under the aegis of force: this failure must be sought in the root of militarism, which is nothing other than nationalism carried to extremes, which does not unite but divides peoples, shutting them up egoistically within their own territory.

Modern militarism regards constant armament for war as the center of gravity of State life, to which it sacrifices the best energies of the nation and which inevitably leads to State centralism in order to coordinate all the energies of the nation toward maximum military production. Consequently there is a constant influence on the direction of the State: an enormous increase in taxes to cover the high State budgets, which demand continuous sacrifices from the nation with a slowing of material well-being; an increase in military industries and in the studies and research that promote the progress of military science; general compulsory military service; the aspiration to a permanent state of war and of education for war; the high military virtues that are exalted in function of militarism and not in relation to the end of society itself; the very institution of the State, which gives greater weight to the military system than to the needs and demands of peoples.

The system contrary to this doctrine is antimilitarism, which can be divided into two classes: to the first belong those who promote the general disarmament of all nations as the only remedy for safeguarding peace; in the second class are those who, while not condemning the thesis of disarmament, see its impossible realization, and therefore maintain that nations should arm themselves only for a possible aggression. Arms must not be the spur of the State's policy or impede the material progress of peoples: peace in social coexistence is not won by material force, but by mutual understanding and the distribution of wealth and labor.

Giuseppe Damizia