however, that the waste is there all the same.

Now let us look at this kind of war a little closer, run through some
of the forms of it, that we may see how the "burn, sink, and destroy"
is carried on in it.

First, you have that form of it called national rivalry, which in
good truth is nowadays the cause of all gunpowder and bayonet wars
which civilized nations wage. For years past we English have been
rather shy of them, except on those happy occasions when we could
carry them on at no sort of risk to ourselves, when the killing was
all on one side, or at all events when we hoped it would be. We have
been shy of gunpowder war with a respectable enemy for a long while,
and I will tell you why: It is because we have had the lion's-share
of the world-market; we didn't want to fight for it as a nation, for
we had got it; but now this is changing in a most significant, and,
to a Socialist, a most cheering way; we are losing or have lost that
lion's share; it is now a desperate "competition" between the great
nations of civilization for the world-market, and to-morrow it may be
a desperate war for that end. As a result, the furthering of war (if
it be not on too large a scale) is no longer confined to the honour-
and-glory kind of old Tories, who if they meant anything at all by it
meant that a Tory war would be a good occasion for damping down
democracy; we have changed all that, and now it is quite another kind
of politician that is wont to urge us on to "patriotism" as 'tis
called. The leaders of the Progressive Liberals, as they would call
themselves, long-headed persons who know well enough that social
movements are going on, who are not blind to the fact that the world
will move with their help or without it; these have been the Jingoes
of these later days. I don't mean to say they know what they are