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
