The curious position of the Krupp firm in the awful story developing around us is not quite sufficiently grasped.  There is a kind of academic clarity of definition which does not see the proportions of things for which everything falls within a definition, and nothing ever breaks beyond it.  To this type of mind (which is valuable when set to its special and narrow work) there is no such thing as an exception that proves the rule.  If I vote for confiscating some usurer’s millions I am doing, they say, precisely what I should be doing if I took pennies out of a blind man’s hat.  They are both denials of the principle of private property, and are equally right and equally wrong, according to our view of that principle.  I should find a great many distinctions to draw in such a matter.  First, I should say that taking a usurer’s money by proper authority is not robbery, but recovery of stolen goods.  Second, I should say that even if there were no such thing as personal property, there would still be such a thing as personal dignity, and different modes of robbery would diminish it in very different ways.  Similarly, there is a truth, but only a half-truth, in the saying that all modern Powers alike rely on the Capitalist and make war on the lines of Capitalism.  It is true, and it is disgraceful.  But it is not equally true and equally disgraceful.  It is not true that Montenegro is as much ruled by financiers as Prussia, just as it is not true that as many men in the Kaiserstrasse, in Berlin, wear long knives in their belts as wear them in the neighbourhood of the Black Mountain.  It is not true that every peasant from one of the old Russian communes is the immediate servant of a rich man, as is every employee of Mr. Rockefeller.  It is as false as the statement that no poor people in America can read or write.  There is an element of Capitalism in all modern countries, as there is an element of illiteracy in all modern countries.  There are some who think that the number of our fellow-citizens who can sign their names ought to comfort us for the extreme fewness of those who have anything in the bank to sign it for, but I am not one of these.

In any case, the position of Krupp has certain interesting aspects.  When we talk of Army contractors as among the base but active actualities of war, we commonly mean that while the contractor benefits by the war, the war, on the whole, rather suffers by the contractor.  We regard this unsoldierly middleman with disgust, or great anger, or contemptuous acquiescence, or commercial dread and silence, according to our personal position and character.  But we nowhere think of him as having anything to do with fighting in the final sense.  Those worthy and wealthy persons who employ women’s labour at a few shillings a week do not do it to obtain the best clothes for the soldiers, but to make a sufficient profit on the worst.  The only argument is whether such clothes are just good enough for the soldiers,