MILITARI-
MILITARI-
SM. — Militarism may be defined as the stable, present disposition of a State toward war, together with the simultaneous decisive influence of military organization upon the direction of the State itself. Its foundation lies neither in the immediate threat of a foreign State nor 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 prepared for war. 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 disagreements spurs nations to compete in armaments: if a State is dominated by the principle of militarism, the other States too, in order to provide for their own security, are driven to secure armaments capable of matching the quantitative development of the other. This bellicose dynamic will have repercussions in national and international life. The history of Europe, from the seventeenth century—in which standing armies were introduced—relates 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 Rome, but its full development occurred only in modern times, with even more deleterious consequences because of the system of warfare that mobilizes the entire vitality of the nation and not merely its armies.
Militarism—especially Prussian and Hitlerian militarism—never succeeded in smoothing over political disagreements, but only sharpened 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; it does not unite peoples as brothers, but divides them, shutting them selfishly within their own territory.
Modern militarism regards constant armament for war as the center of gravity of the life of the State; to this it sacrifices the nation’s best energies and it inevitably leads to State centralism, in order to coordinate all the nation’s energies toward maximum military production. Consequently, there is a constant influence upon the direction of the State: an enormous increase in taxes to cover the high State budgets, which demand continual sacrifices from the nation and slow down material well-being; the growth of military industries and of studies and research promoting the progress of military science; general compulsory military service; the aspiration
toward a permanent disposition for war and education for war; the high military virtues that are exalted in the service 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 requirements of the peoples.
The system opposed to this doctrine is antimilitarism, which may be divided into two classes: the first consists of those who promote the general disarmament of all nations as the only remedy for safeguarding peace; the second consists of those who, while not condemning the thesis of disarmament, recognize its impossible realization and therefore maintain that nations should arm themselves only against possible aggression. Weapons must not be the spur of State policy or hinder the material progress of peoples: peace in social coexistence is not won through material force, but through mutual understanding and the distribution of wealth and labor.