THE TOWER OF BEBEL

Among the cloudy and symbolic stories in the beginning of the Bible there is one about a tower built with such vertical energy as to take a hold on heaven, but ruined and resulting only in a confusion of tongues.  The story might be interpreted in many ways—­religiously, as meaning that spiritual insolence starts all human separations; irreligiously, as meaning that the inhuman heavens grudge man his magnificent dream; or merely satirically as suggesting that all attempts to reach a higher agreement always end in more disagreement than there was before.  It might be taken by the partially intelligent Kensitite as a judgment on Latin Christians for talking Latin.  It might be taken by the somewhat less intelligent Professor Harnack as a final proof that all prehistoric humanity talked German.  But when all was said, the symbol would remain that a plain tower, as straight as a sword, as simple as a lily, did nevertheless produce the deepest divisions that have been known among men.  In any case we of the world in revolt—­Syndicalists, Socialists, Guild Socialists, or whatever we call ourselves—­have no need to worry about the scripture or the allegory.  We have the reality.  For whatever reason, what is said to have happened to the people of Shinak has precisely and practically happened to us.

None of us who have known Socialists (or rather, to speak more truthfully, none of us who have been Socialists) can entertain the faintest doubt that a fine intellectual sincerity lay behind what was called “L’Internationale.”  It was really felt that Socialism was universal like arithmetic.  It was too true for idiom or turn of phrase.  In the formula of Karl Marx men could find that frigid fellowship which they find when they agree that two and two make four.  It was almost as broadminded as a religious dogma.

Yet this universal language has not succeeded, at a moment of crisis, in imposing itself on the whole world.  Nay, it has not, at the moment of crisis, succeeded in imposing itself on its own principal champions.  Herve is not talking Economic Esperanto; he is talking French.  Bebel is not talking Economic Esperanto; he is talking German.  Blatchford is not talking Economic Esperanto; he is talking English, and jolly good English, too.  I do not know whether French or Flemish was Vandervelde’s nursery speech, but I am quite certain he will know more of it after this struggle than he knew before.  In short, whether or no there be a new union of hearts, there has really and truly been a new division of tongues.

How are we to explain this singular truth, even if we deplore it?  I dismiss with fitting disdain the notion that it is a mere result of military terrorism or snobbish social pressure.  The Socialist leaders of modern Europe are among the most sincere men in history; and their Nationalist note in this affair has had the ring of their sincerity.  I will not waste time on the speculation that Vandervelde is bullied by Belgian priests; or that Blatchford is frightened of the horse-guards outside Whitehall.  These great men support the enthusiasm of their conventional countrymen because they share it; and they share it because there is (though perhaps only at certain great moments) such a thing as pure democracy.