The Czechoslovak Review/Volume 3/Masaryk's Message on First Independence Day

by Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk

Masaryk’s Message on First Independence Day

The president of the National Assembly in agreement with the government invited me to address you today. I speak reluctantly, because time was lacking to elaborate my speech properly, and yet I speak gladly, because I look upon this as a good opportunity to say a word about some of the burning questions of the day.

This day ends the series of the memorable days of our revolution and our political victory; it was declared a national holiday and it is thus very appropriate for serious counsels about recent past and near future.

Our revolution had a peculiar character. Abroad it consisted in thoughtful and industrious propaganda and diplomacy; beside that we organized an army and joined the other Allies who recognized us as a belligerent government. At home our people worked without bloodshed, although Hapsburg Austria hanged and shot our men brutally and used all means to suppress them.

It is surely a peculiar revolution—a revolution of work, and thus democratic in the best sense of the word. This revolution secured to us a victory, a great victory. It has been often said that states maintain themselves by the same means by which they came into being. Our republic arose out of battle and work, and by work it will maintain itself; the battle, let us hope, will not be necessary. We have got over this first year peacefully on the whole; physiologists say that the first year of humam life is decisive for the life of the individual. Perhaps we may employ this analogy for our state. But of course it is our task not merely to keep our republic alive, but to build it up completely through well-reasoned policies.

The heritage of Austria-Hungary and the difficult post-war situation of Europe and Eastern Europe particularly make our task very difficult.

Historians and politicians have discussed at great length the relation of foreign and domestic politics. Theories have ben expressed that for eign politics is of more importance, others have emphasized the part of internal politics. Undoubtedly it happens that sometimes foreign events and relations are decisive, at other times domestic; on the whole I want to emphasize the harmony of both. We must get accustomed in all our public activity to remember what impression we are making abroad. Any observer can see, how for instance our commerce is dependent on foreign politics. That applies to our finances and our entire industry, to our agriculture and our social reforms; in short all our political work is closely connected with foreign politics. That really is self-evident, but the world is such that we must emphasize even things that are self-evident.

In our case there is special reason for this emphasis. The Austro-Hungarian imperialistic regime did not grant to us Czechs and Slovaks any decisive part in government and in foreign politics; hence comes the fact that there is seen among us a certain fear of responsibility and that we are inclined to forget, what impression our acts make beyond our frontiers. Vienna did not teach our people to take decisive action and to keep an eye on the world outside. But now we have our own state and that postulates a sense of responsibility and a world view; we need state consciousness. Many German historians and politicians claim that Slavs, including Czechs and Slovaks, lack this state consciousness, that it is the peculiar property of the Germans. Let us admit that the absolutism of Vienna and Budapest compelled us to oppose the state constantly, that we have thus accustomed ourselves to the negation of state. Now this negative attitude must be replaced by a positive sense for the state.

If I desire to see this state consciousness strengthened, I do not thereby advocate an all-powerful and absolutist state. Our republic does not merely require of us all this general state consciousness, but we need a new set of officials, a new bureaucracy, if you like. New in the sense of industrious, conscientious, honorable and honest, and at the same time thinking and thoughtful. New conditions, the formation of a new state demand not merely from the highest authorities of the state and the parliament, but from every official new procedure. Laws and regulations do not suffice, every official must to some extent apply laws. Our administration must not remain Austrian in its essence. In short, both in internal and foreign questions we must take a higher stand, we must have courage to be bigger, to have world outlook.

If we are to build up our state successfully, we must all fight hard against the demoralization, caused by war and the disruption of Austria-Hungary. In all the states we hear complaints about this demoralization. But it seems to me that with us the complaints are one-sided, in that they refer to big transgressions and overlook small transgressions. I notice that often men who charge others with big crimes have themselves no regard for order and right in smaller matters. People call for a strong hand, for a dictator, for severe measures, but I want to tell you that every individual and every organization must help with the reform. We have thousands of societies, numerous organizations, Sokols, municipal bodies, our own parliament and press. Let every one in his sphere do his share toward moral well-being.

I do not want to cover up our defects, and yet it seems to me that our nervous impatience is to a large extent uncalled for. Foreign visitors who call on me often compare our conditions with conditions in neighboring states and praise what they find here. While I would not be satisfied merely with the thought that we are better off than some of our neighbors, I must admit that conditions are growing better. But in any case it will not do to look for moral help and salvation only from the state, and that means concretely from the bureaucracy. On the one hand there are constant complaints against the bureaucracy, on the other hand we turn over to it our fields and meadows, our shops and factories and in the end we would turn over to it our very souls, the training of our character. Let me say with all possible emphasis that our new state, that republic and democracy needs not only an administrative machine and an army, but also a firm moral foundation. Without individuals with morality and character, without healthy families, without faithful friendship, without loyalty to various social organizations of which we are members, without a sound basis in all we do, there can be no strong republic. Democracy without homage to moral authority—authority of principles and chosen persons—is impossible.

We have got an independent republic, because we were firmly devoted to our national ideals, because there were tilings which we recognized as holy, because we believed in men and in the people. We shall maintain republic and democracy, if we will continue to be devoted to ideals, if we will bow to what is holy, if we shall trust to each other.

Good political authors of whom I will mention among the older Tocqueville and among the living Bryce, called attention to the fact that America and its republic has been made possible by great respect for religion and morality. Our democratic republic which got rid of the old political authority, of monarchism and militarism, can rest securely only on general morality. Following the example of democratic republics, and especially of America, we aim at the separation of state and church. We want to free ourselves from church authority, as it was built up in Austria. But that does not mean emancipation from morality, but rather it must be conducive to the strengthening of general morality Because the Hapsburgs abused the church for their own ends, the church has lost respect with us and people dislike to hear moral admonition. But we cannot rest satisfied with negation of churches and we must not be ashamed to work positively for the raising of public and general morality, that internal strength which Havlicek so boldly demanded. I do not hesitate to state that in the separation of state and church I see a means for the strengthening of the authority of reliligion.

From this moral standpoint also I look at the present tasks of social reform. I have said before and I repeat that these reforms must be thorough. We all speak of socialization. Socialization under abnormal conditions brought about by lengthy war is a very difficult and responsible task. Eminent socialist leaders and authors declare that it is under the present war situation simply impossible. I wish to say something on this topic.

Socialization implies public control of all economic life. Just as the state must publish its budget, so we must ask for public accounting of all industrial enterprises in the state, a budget of all production and of all suplies. Marx and his followers have correctly analyzed the anarchy of modern production: without knowledge of all economic forces, without knowledge of total production and supplies it is impossible to introduce successful socialization.

Furthermore socialization is impracticable, unless the masses of the workers learn to understand the entire process of production and distribution. It will not do to compel the so-called bourgeoisie by a dictatorship to accept socialization; no violence is beneficial, and that applies not merely in giving the workers participation in management. Under normal conditions the running of an established factory is not a matter of very great dificulty; but when we plan such a radical economic and social reform, we must consider more than merely taking over of going concerns; there is the question of establishing new industrial enterprises and of course improvement of what already exists, transformation of the entire economic practice and organization. Production requires an enterprising spirit, the more so that all Europe has been beggared by the war. If I speak of enterprise, I do not mean speculation and hyper-speculation which always appears in abnormal times, but creative enterprise, inventiveness, wise application of given conditions, creation of new values. The question is, so to speak, not of the socialism of distribution, but of production.

If I speak thus of enterprise and creativeness, I do not mean to say that workers lack it and that bourgeoisie has it in plenty, On the contrary, if I am to speak directly, I must complain that part of our bourgeoisie seems to lack this enterprise. It seems to me that our industry, compared with the industry of western states, has still the character of a small shop; it is younger. And while that has a certain advantage, in the existing world competition it is a weakness. Just as in politics we must strive for a world outlook and world-wide views, so must all our national economy, our industry, our agriculture, our commerce and our banking reach a world standard. I know that even here great progress has been made, but we are compelled to leave behind us inherited economic smallness. A truly enterprising bourgeoisie will reach common ground with intelligent, enterprising workers. I was always struck in modern history with the behavior of hereditary aristocracy. How little did the French aristocracy understand the signs of times, how little did the Austro Hungarian aristocracy learn from the political and social revolutions of modern days. I often think that modern bourgeoisie, the so-called big capital, follows in the footsteps of the old aristocracy. “Fate leads the willing and drags the unwilling.”

The problem of socialization requires very earnest and sincere thinking and good intelligence on the part of both wrorkingmen and capitalists. But I look on the task of socialization as being not merely an economic, but also a moral demand. I do not believe that it is based on pure materialism; and besides I have more patience with materialism of the hungry man than of the well-fed.

Do not expect from me a detailed program of socialization. That is the duty not only of the government, but also of the parliament and of the representatives of workers and bourgeoisie. But it is important that we should realize the tendency of the time and spirit from which social reforms must be born. Deputy Němec recently emphasized that during the brief term of our republic many valuable social reforms have been achieved bloodlessly. I believe that all parties will, with all sincerity, approve the platform of thorough social reforms without bloodshed.

In this connection I do not want to avoid the problem of so-called bolshevism, particularly Russian bolshevism, because it has special significance for us by the relation of our army to Russia. I went through the bolshevist revolution in Russia; I saw it very closely and watched it with great interest, and I think quite objectively. Lenine declares his communistic program to be true marxism, but he is wrong. Marx passed through several stages of his socialistic development and it is necessary to distinguish between two marxisms. There is the marxism of the revolutionary year 1848, of the communistic program, of the first volume of the “Kapital”; but in his second stage Marx gave up the revolutionary character of his young days and accepted evolutionary viewpoint, and finally Engels shortly before his death completely and expressly gave up the revolutionary program. Lenine and his followers thus appeal to marxism which Marx and Engels themselves gave up later. Lenine’s bolshevism is really far more revolutionary anarchism or perhaps syndicalism than socialism. Many recent pronouncements of Lenine leave no doubt of it in the minds of those who understand the subject. Lenine, however, has no right to appeal to marxism even in other respects. Marx, it is true, places the mass of workers in sharp contrast against the bourgeoisie, but from that Engels and the followers of Marx have properly deduced the democratic principle of majority. Lenine resorts to the dictatorship of the proletariat as the rule of minority. When speaking of the proletariat Marx and Engels postulated a worker who would be a disciple of Fichte and of the whole German philosophy and science, and this philosophical proletariat was to take over from the bourgeoisie the leadership of society. Marx expected from the final over turn and dictatorship of the proletariat a higher stage not only of cultural development, but also of culture. But Lenine and his followers represent the primitive political economy and culture of the illiterate Bussian peasant. Lenine committed a crime against the law of division of labor, he did not realize that the creation of new society demands new political, economic and social experts. In his addresses Lenine frequently admits that he and his followers have committed errors and that they learnt from errors; but the point is that those errors cost thousands upon thousands of human lives lost unnecessarily.

A conscientious social statesman learns from the experience of ages; he must derive lessons from history, he must understand the true tendency of development, especially of his own time, and on this experience he must build his new structure or repair the old one. Lenine’s tactics resembles too much the tactics of Ivan the Terrible. Russian bolshevism has not got over Russian czarism. I will admit, for I have met them, that among Russian bolsheviks are men with ideals, with theories who were, however, not up to their task. Present Russia, its desperate economic anarchy, general misery and general famine make Lenine’s bolshevism absurd. In short I do not see in Russian bolshevism true marxism, and as far as it is marxism, it is its refutation rather than its confirmation, just as all this war and its result are not, in my opinion, a verification of marxism, but its repudiation. Everybody has surely noticed that bolshevism in Russia sprang up after military defeat, just as in Germany and Hungary, in defeated countries. This is a very eloquent fact for the phychological understanding of bolshevism.

Among us bolshevism is sometimes condemned as non-Slavic and non-Russian. But I believe that Lenine is Russian and typically Russian, even though spoiled by German socialism.

Bolshevism in our land would be inorganic. It would be foolish to transplant to our soil Russian programs and methods which were derived from very special and quite abnormal conditions; our workers possess higher education, other experiences and tasks than Russian workingmen. Therefore they cannot imitate the Russian example. Besides, I look upon bolshevistic communism as impossible in principle.

It is ,however, quite a different matter of a political and tactical kind, whether we should favor intervention against bolshevism. I have been and still am against intervention in Russia and Hungary. Every nation passing through a heavy crisis must help itself, and Russia is now living through a serious and heavy crisis. This crisis is not due merely to bolshevism, but to century-long development. Lenine’s bolshevism is the result of the Romanoff czarism. Against Russian bolshevism a military barrier of the smaller neighboring states will not help Europe; bolshevism can only be overcome morally, by social reforms and political education. I heartily desire for Russia quick recovery, I want Russia to be powerful, but democratic. We can help Russia best, if we help ourselves. A truly Czech and Slav policy will be a help to Russia and the Slav world.

Social reforms, such as are demanded by a well-thought out and scientifically sound program of socialization, presuppose industry of all, everywhere, in everything. Industry means a feeling of duty we owe to the regular daily work; war and its romanticism, as well as the revolutionary romanticism, stand in the way of the return to normal life; let us hope that we shall soon overcome this nervousness.

I am of the opinion that bolshevism will not maintain itself long. But its fall should not be an argument for reactionary policies. I know that politics has hitherto vacillated between extremes; we must have for our own state a reasoned program of reform and we shall follow it, whether in Russia bolshevism falls or holds on. Should bolshevism last relatively longer, that ought to open the eyes of conservative statesmen.

The problem is so serious that I will leave no doubt of my own position. I declare expressly that I am not opposed to socialization. War and its result, the social revolution, will not permit anywhere untroubled continuation of the pre-war social order. We have gone far in the direction of nationalization, but that very fact can teach us that nationalization is not always socialization.

It will be necessary to study and analyze the problem of socialization more carefully than hitherto; I am sorry to see that so many adherents and enemies alike do not go any deeper than his slogan. Above all, it will not do to make too great promises to the workers. It is doubtful, whether the workers in the first stages of socialization will be better off than under the capitalistic regime; quite possibly they will be worse off. Socialization demands sacrifice not merely from the capitalists, but also from the workers, and its possibility and desirability cannot be determined by its passing influence on us.

In the period of transition which would probably last long the condition would be one of mixed benefit, both in agriculture and in industry; socialization cannot be carried out suddenly and in all fields, but gradually one branch of industry after another.

For that we need a well formulated program, and we need it also so that those who carry the risks would know on what to count. And another presupposition: the program of socialization would have to be agreed upon internationally; and that is of great significance for the tempo of the advance.

Sound socialization program must not forget socialization of education. Not much is said of this kind of socialization, but without it there can be no economic socialization. Attempts made so far to popularize science, as it is called, are only a small part of the task which confronts a truly democratic ministry of education. By so cialization of education society will have assured to it creative individualism, strong personalities—strong in knowledge, strong in sacrifice. In short let me emphasize o~ce more that social reforms demand almost Mathematical calculations; it will be necessary to watch the consequences of single experiments in socialization and compare them with the previous condition. It will not do to draw various deductions from abstract mottoes, but we must be governed by our own experience, by knowledge of our own domestic conditions.

The desirable social reforms and the upbuild ing of our democratic state demand large financial sacrifices. The first cabinet laid before the National Assembly a budget with a considerable deficit, and this deficit will be even bigger. I cannot analyze here all the causes which brought about this deficiency. It is the result of the terrible, destructive war, of exclusive war production and of Austrian bureaucratic state socialism. A deficiency in the budget exists in other countries as well, defeated and victorious alike. But our state has a comparatively wealthy body of citizens, and our lands are richly endowed by nature. Therefore the government can demand a great deal from the citizens. We shall need new and profitable taxes.

I concede that state administration must be simplified in the democratic spirit and that sound economy must prevail in all departments of the government. Let me just mention here that the rection of a state bank is in my opinion urgently needed in the interest of state finances.

In order to accomplish all this fully, we must endeavor to get rid of the old language and nationality disputes which endangered Austria-Hungary and finally contributed so much to its downfall. At the Paris conference the principle of nationality was very largely carried out, but even the new states have national minorities.

The development of modern nationality took place side y side with the development of internationalism. As Dostoievsky well (pointed out, man has not only love for his own nation, but also desire for communion with other nations and for universal union. That is also the sense of the humanitarian program of our national awakencrs. Our revolutionary propaganda abroad gained sympathies for our nation by appeal to this program. Now we are an independent nation, we have our own state, we shall not be threatened by our former national enemies, Germans and Magyars, as we have been in the past. A truly national policy will not be chauvinistic. It is instructive to see serious German statesmen blame national chauvinism for war and German defeat. Chauvinism is always and everywhere blind. To be sure, there is also the international chauvinism or shallow cosmopolitism that despises small nations and does not realize that true internationalism is neither opposed nor indifferent to nationality. National minorities should contribute to the rapproachment of nations and thus to the desirable internationalism. The pure humanity of Kollar can manifest itself solely in nationality.

Our policy in this respect will gladly recognize national and language rights of the other nationalities of our republic. We have created the state, and it is thus natural that it will have a special character; that is implied in the very expression of independent state. But in our republic there will be no forcible denationalization.

I hope that the League of Nations will contribute to the strengthening of friendly relations between states and nations. In any case it must be the goal of our politics to further national tolerance; in our republic national minorities will be able to cultivate their nationality with out hindrance.

In conclusion I wish to take leave of you; probably I am speaking to you for the last time. The election law is being prepared, and elections should be held as soon as possible. You will be able to go with the knowledge that you have done big legislative work; under difficult and quite new circumstances you have worked very diligently.

Our parliament and our government must have their authority generally recognized in our republic, and I may say that since my return home I have supported their authority in every way. To that I shall remain faithful in the future. I have heard calls for a dictatorship, but I see in it only a desire for exemplary upbuilding of the republic. It may be that republican liberty is here and there badly understood, and that has its bad effects. But I am convinced that against liberty the only remedy is more liberty and true liberty.