Date: 1912
Source: ru:PSS/v28

ТЕТРАДЬ

«δ»

(»DELTA»)
Contents
Page
Steffen. "World War and Imperialism"... 3-7
Literature references.
Henger. "Placement of French Capital etc." 7
Kautsky 1914 and 1915 (on imperialism, war and social democracy): 9
12. "Die Neue Zeit", 1897/8. NB.
B. Ishkhanian. "Foreign Elements in the Russian National Economy". 14
Pannekoek. "The Problem of Covering State Expenditures and Imperialism". 15
NB. "Die Neue Zeit" XXVI, - I - on immigration,
STEFFEN. "WORLD WAR AND IMPERIALISM"
Gustav F. Steffen. "World War and Imperialism. Socio-Psychological Documents and Observations During the World War 1914/5". Jena, 1915. (Translated from Swedish.) (p. 3): "Imperialism is as old as world
history"...

ТЕТРАДЬ «δ» (»DELTA»)
"Speaking in the most general terms, imperialism is the desire to build a great state of world significance through conquest, or colonization, or through the peaceful political unification of already existing states, or through the simultaneous application of these methods; such a world power that encompasses all of humanity or divides humanity between itself and some other world states" (4)... The concept of "the whole world" depends "on the knowledge" of a given people about the earth etc. "Imperialism is a purely psychic factor" (4).
"Social fantasy is the mother of imperialism" (5).
Imperialism has its history. "There is primitive imperialism and imperialism that is higher, more mature" (6).
Caesar, - Napoleon etc. etc.
The current "imperialism of division" (division of the world) in contrast to ancient "mono-imperialism" (one monarchy) - (p. 15)...
On p. 14, the author promises to consider the "special" features of "today's" "European imperialism"...
The earth is divided between 10 empires... (p. 15) and 50 other independent states...

1. Russia ]with mono-imperialist) "semi-European"
2. England ]"dreams of the future"... /states (their vast possessions outside of Europe are characteristic).

3. France - also "a little lower imperialist rank" (16)...
("empires with a non-European orientation").

4. Japan.

5. Turkey - a weak empire.

6. China - "a sleeping empire" (17)... in the future we will still have to reckon with "Chinese imperialism"
7. Germany.
- the war revolves because of its "imperialist position and power"... 8. Austria-Hungary. 9. Italy ("imperialist newcomer", 18)...

10. United States.
What part of the earth is "imperialized"?
these 10 empires = 96.66 million square kilometers = 66% of the earth
South America = 18.6 » » » = 13% of the earth (p. 18). The author gives (according to Hübner) the results (square kilometers and population) of all these states. = 96.662 million square kilometers and 1,399,689 thousand population. The whole earth (145.918 million square kilometers) (1,657.097 million
population) Entente (68.031 million square kilometers) (777.060 million population) Germany + Austria
+ Turkey 5.921 » » » 150.199 » »
well said!
Clearly, the whole thing is in "psychic" (25) factors!! ... "Now the world is almost completely "divided." But world history teaches us that empires tend to divide each other after they have more or less distributed among themselves the lands "without an owner" in all parts of the world" (37). (detailed retelling of Seeley...)
Germanophile!!
"Swedish" imperialism for German imperialism
English and French imperialism today, - as well as that of Spain, Holland, Portugal, France and England in the 16th, 17th, 18th centuries - is "Western European imperialism, based on overseas colonization" (43). It is different in Russia. Russia > Asian country. The interest of all of Europe is to fence itself off from Asia. Great Russians = a mixture with Asians; the border of Europe = the border of the Great Russians (p. 50). The alliance of France and England with Russia is an alliance against the "common vital interests of all of Europe" (51). By the way: p. 46, it is mentioned that Sweden is a "former great power, dethroned by Russia itself."
There is nothing > legitimate, like the formation (1871) of the German Empire. England, France and Russia considered the fragmentation and powerlessness of Germany to be their "right"!! (56).

ТЕТРАДЬ «δ» (»DELTA»)
imperialism = law of history!
"Imperialism is a universal (sic!) political stage of development that every (!!) great people with great internal forces and great universal tasks must pass through" (56-7).
% of expenses for the army and navy - and Е per capita in Germany is less than in France and England (58). "Legend" (59) about the special "militarism" of Germany!
"This reason (of the world catastrophe of 1914/5), as it seems to me, lies in the relative weakness of Germany, and not in its relative strength" (60)... From the point of view of Russia + England + France, a "preventive war" was needed...
"Indeed, modern economic imperialism and imperialist expansion are possible to a certain extent even without the direct acquisition of land in foreign parts of the world, which we call "colonization." Capital, merchants, entrepreneurs are directed, railways and canals are built, vast areas of all parts of the world are made accessible to modern capitalist development, and, thus, spheres of influence of economic interests or spheres of domination in foreign parts of the world are acquired without direct seizure of land or political conquest.
Without a doubt, it is German imperialism that has so far manifested itself to a large extent by such more peaceful methods of expansion, which may or may not have been only a preparation for colonial acquisitions in the former sense" (62).
It was mainly directed at Asia Minor and Mesopotamia - lands not belonging to the British Empire.
England wants to deprive Germany of the development that she herself widely enjoys, + France + Russia (62-3).
"The World War of 1914/5 is thus truly a world war - a war for the participation of the new German Empire in the possession of the world - a war in which the mistress of the world, Britain, plays the leading role, and the two world powers that are next in power -
Russia and France - act as interested accomplices" (63).

England + France + Russia = 46% of the earth and 43% of humanity; + United States + Germany = 55% and 53% (p. 68)... "In other words, the world is indeed divided between some few states" (69)... Seeley - 1883 ("Expansion...") ... Ch. Dilke - 1890 ("Problems of Great Britain").
Three empires must be: England + United States + Russia.
France and Germany - "pygmies" (!!) (p. 71). James Anthony Froude - 1885 ("Oceania or England and
its colonies"). "Empire and Age" 1905 (collection of 50 authors).
From the introductory article of this collection by W. F. Moneypenny: "Imperial Ideal", the author quotes:
"In our days, the words "empire" and "imperialism" have taken in everyday political language the same place that the words "nation" and "nationality" had before... the national ideal has given way to the imperialist one" (72)... Imperialism (Rome!) is older than "nationalism" (72-3). But the newest (moderner) imperialism is based "to a very high degree" on nationalism (73)... J. A. Cramb. "Germany and England" 1913... ("Germany is our worst enemy"...). For a standing army... "For 500 years England has fought for the empire" (79)... The alliance with Russia is "unnatural" (80)...
"Simply, the fact is that Germany is now immeasurably higher in the overall development of its forces than France, Russia and Japan, and only it can cause real concern that it will become a threat in the future to the world domination of the British Empire, especially its dominion over the sea. Therefore, England's agreement with the three mentioned great powers was incomparably easier than with Germany in particular" (85).
A darkness of chatter, - quotes from Trubetskoy, - the German chancellor is more moral than Lloyd George etc. etc. A chauvinistic blather! Juicy quotes from George Bernard Shaw about English hypocrisy (120-123) etc. But Shaw wrote a darkness of articles [including in the "New Statesman"] about the need to "defeat" Germany (128 p.).

ТЕТРАДЬ «δ» (»DELTA»)
One of the reasons is "ignorance" of each other (136); - education in the spirit of "national prejudices" (137).
For peace, the deprivation of state "independence" (138) (=right to war) etc. etc. is needed.
Quotes from Bernhardi... he accuses his people of a lack of militancy (!!)... and from Rohrbach (that he
is also "moderate"! (p. 150) "humane (!!!) leading motives" in Rohrbach). Well, this Steffen is a vulgarian!..
German imperialism is "more defensive than aggressive" (157).
Germany is waging a "defensive" (158) war - it is "ridiculous" to think that Germany would choose "such an insanely unfavorable situation as the present one" etc. etc. German imperialism is "deeply cultured, socially constructive" etc. (163)..,
The book, which promised something at the beginning, has been reduced to the vulgarest Germanophile chauvinism! NB
Diplomatic documents are arch-confused - in all countries there were (some) diplomats for the war, - the military also intervened (and powerfully)... "The causes of the World War of 1914/5 we can only establish by studying world history" (180)...
And further to the end (p. 254) quotes from well-known "books" in a Germanophile spirit... Nil! Nil! It is not worth the effort to read this "dreck"!
OPPENHEIMER. "ENGLISH IMPERIALISM"
Dr. Felix Baron von Oppenheimer. "English Imperialism". Vienna, 1905. (booklet 64 pp. Nil except for the well-known chatter about Chamberlain and "his" movement. Nil!)
HENGER. "PLACEMENT OF FRENCH CAPITAL"
Hans Henger. "Placement of French Capital in Securities". Stuttgart, 1913 ("Munich National Economic Studies". 125th issue),

A work that gives very little. Repeats Neumark's figures on securities.

815 billion, without repetition 600 billion francs, of which 106-110 are in France.

4% coupon tax (tax on interest and dividends) increased from 70.4 million francs in 1891
to 102.5 » » » 1910 (p. 1).
securities (owned by the French): (according to Edm. Thery) 1891- 77.1 billion francs
1907- 98.6 » » (according to the author) 1891/5- 79.0 » »
1906/10-110.4 » »
Annual placement of capital in joint-stock companies in France... 566.2 million francs
in Germany... 1,080.5 » »
Economic progress of France:

1890
1909 wheat harvest 117 million hectoliters 126
» oats 94 » » 117 iron production 3.5 million tons 16.6 (1911)
merchant fleet 0.9 » » 1.4 (1909)
number of steam engines in industry 55 967 (1891) 81335
their horsepower 916 000 2 759 350 wealth of France (according to inheritance tax) * 243 billion francs (1892) 287 (1908)
coal consumption 28.96 million tons (1885) 56.4 (1911)
(Germany 67.1 205., (1908))
Special trade
France
1891-3 1903-10
7 692 million francs per capita 200.4 francs 12 020 + 56.2% 304.7+ 52 %
Germany 7 117 million marks 15197 +113.5% per capita 141.5 marks 238.6+ 68.6%
{ 238.6 marks = 294.5 francs. Less than in France! }

ТЕТРАДЬ «δ» (»DELTA»)
NB: In the mining industry of France, the workers are "to a significant extent" foreigners: Poles, Italians, Spaniards *.
"If the French produce less, if industry and trade in France do not develop as quickly as in Germany, then this is, of course, not yet an indication that France is in danger of becoming a rentier state" (78)... development (of industry and trade) is moving forward, although slower than German.
N B. Quotes: "Annuaire statistique de la France", 19 10 (economic and social indices).
KAUTSKY 1914 AND 1915 (ON IMPERIALISM, WAR AND SOCIAL DEMOCRACY)
K. Kautsky. "Imperialism", "Die Neue Zeit", 1914, 2 (32nd year of publication), p. 908 et seq. No. 21 (I. IX. 1914).
((Note to the article that it was written before the war, for the congress and slightly changed.))
Now, sometimes under imperialism: "all the phenomena of modern capitalism, cartels, protectionism, the domination of financiers, as well as colonial policy, are subsumed under imperialism" (908). Then "the flattest tautology", then "naturally imperialism is a vital necessity for capitalism" * * (908).
It is necessary to take this word "not in this generality, but in its historical definiteness" (909), as in England, i.e. "as a special kind of political aspirations." "The English understand" (909) by imperialism the desire, on the one hand, to unite all parts of the empire with the metropolis, on the other - to expand the empire...

* See V. I. Lenin. Works, 4th ed., vol. 22, pp. 269-270. Ed.
** Ibid., p. 254. Ed.

worthless "Imperialism is a product of highly developed industrial capitalism. It consists in the desire of each industrial capitalist nation to annex to itself or subordinate ever larger agrarian (Kautsky's italics) regions, regardless of what nations inhabit them" * (909)... And further reasoning about the "Proportionality of Production" (title of § 1 of the article) between agriculture and industry, means of production and consumer products.
§ 2: "Simple commodity production" (blather, old stuff). § 3: "Capitalist production": for capitalist industry it is necessary that "the agricultural region, serving it as a supplier and buyer", "constantly expands" ((blurred!)). § 4: "Accumulation and imperialism." The contradiction between industry and agriculture - is expressed in two ways (917):
(1) overproduction (in industry)...
(2) high cost (of raw materials and food products)... Imperialism was preceded by the "form" (of the desire for
expansion) of free trade: "half a century ago it was also considered the last word of capitalism, as imperialism is today" (917)...
Freedom of trade developed other countries (United States + Europe); their protectionism: to replace the division of labor between English industry and the agriculture of all other countries, "they" (other countries) "carried out the division of agrarian regions still remaining free on the globe, between large industrial states, in view of the fact that these regions proved powerless to resist. England reacted to this. This is where imperialism began.
The system of exporting capital to agrarian regions, which arose simultaneously with it, especially contributed to it" (918)..,

* See V. I. Lenin. Works, 4th ed., vol. 22, p. 255. Ed.

ТЕТРАДЬ «δ» (»DELTA»)
Railways in new countries - development of exchange - protection of them by state power - the desire for annexations (+ not to allow the development of industry in them)...
"These are the most important roots of imperialism, which replaced free trade"...
"Does it form the last of the possible forms of manifestation of capitalist world politics or is some other possible?"
One "side of imperialism" is a "vital necessity for capitalism" and can be overcome "only through socialism" (920), namely: the construction of railways, domination over agricultural regions, their enslavement...
But there is another side of imperialism: the struggle of states, armaments, war, resistance of India, Islam, East Asia, resistance of the proletariat - all this causes the desire of "capitalists of all countries to unite" (920)...
ultra-imperialism * ha-ha "From a purely economic point of view, therefore, it is not impossible that capitalism will experience yet another new phase, the transfer of cartel policy to foreign policy, a phase of ultra-imperialism, with which we would, of course, have to fight as vigorously as with imperialism, although it carries dangers in a different direction, not in the direction of the arms race and the threat to the peace of the whole world" (921)...
This was written before the war. Its, Austria's, conflict with Serbia "did not arise exclusively from imperialist tendencies" (922) - it has "as much (ebenso) a nationalistic" "as an imperialist root" (922). True, there are "contradictions" that imperialism created "between other great powers." It is possible that armaments will increase and peace (after this war) will only be a truce.

* See V. I. Lenin. Works, 4th ed., vol. 22, p. 258. Ed.

"From a purely economic point of view, nothing more prevents this enormous discharge of tension from finally leading to the abolition of imperialism through a holy alliance of imperialists" (922)... The longer the war and exhaustion will be.., the closer we will be to this solution...
Ibidem, p. 981 - in the article on "The Influences of War" - that internationalism "does not exclude" "national feeling" and the defense of the fatherland, but requires recognition of it "for every nation"; "in this sense" (sic!) Germans and French voted for credits.
p. 975 - ibidem - "our comrades" voted for credits both for the sake of defending the fatherland and for the sake of "liberating Russia from tsarism" (!!)...
p. 974 - "it is necessary to call for moderation from the statesmen of the victorious states" (three times). p. 846 (21. VIII. 1914) - in the article "War" (dated 8. VIII. 1914) - ends with a call for "trust", and not for "criticism" - "discipline in the party"...
In the article "Two Articles for Retraining" (1915, 2) § d: "The Concept of Imperialism".
Against Cunow, that "the conclusions" (of Hilferding) about financial capital "are unanimously (K. Kautsky's italics) accepted by socialist theorists" * (p. 107) (23. IV. 1915).
Cunow identifies imperialism and "modern capitalism" (109).
I reject this identification. In England in the 90s of the 19th century (110), imperialism meant the desire for Great Britain (110), for the empire, "a special kind of imperial policy" (110. K. Kautsky's italics) - colonies, protectionism.
"It ("this new policy") was designated by everyone as imperialism" (NB) (ibidem).

* See V. I. Lenin. Works, 4th ed., vol. 22, p. 275. Ed.

ТЕТРАДЬ «δ» (»DELTA»)
NB
"Die Neue
Zeit" 1897/8, year of publication
XVI,
volume 1 evasion and dispute about words
I was "the first" to study "the new imperialism" ("Die Neue Zeit", 1897/8 (16.1), "Old and New Colonial Policy") - pointed to the export of capital, to the role of the financial elite. Hilferding in 1910 did not call this new phase of capitalism "imperialism" (110-111). "And he" (=Hilferding) "with the word "imperialism" denotes a special kind of policy, and not a "phase of the economy." Imperialism for him" (= Hilferding) "is a policy that financial capital prefers" (111)...
We must distinguish this: imperialism is not a "phase of the economy", but a special policy, like Manchesterism 25. It is necessary to distinguish financial capital and imperialism - "its policy" (111).
well then!
"Imperialism is a special kind of capitalist policy, just like Manchesterism, which it replaced. The latter also did not mean a certain "phase of the economy", although it was necessarily associated with such a phase" (111) *.
Imperialism is the policy of the "economic phase" of financial capital!! Is that what you wanted? A pettifogger and sophist 26, a rabble-rouser 27, a quibbler - that's who you are! He avoids the essence of the matter with evasions.
§ e) "The Necessity of Imperialism" (112 et seq.).
"That imperialism was inevitable and therefore necessary - no one will deny. ... The controversial question is whether it is necessary for the future"... (FROM).
And further the places I quoted in "The Communist" 28 (pp. 144-5 and others **)...
(ultra-imperialism is also possible... etc. See "The Communist"...)
By the way:

* See V. I. Lenin. Works, 4th ed., vol. 22, p. 254. Ed.
** See V. I. Lenin. Works, 4th ed., vol. 21, pp. 198-199. Ed.
Kautsky: "Kiao-chao". "Die Neue Zeit" XVI, 2 (1898) - (No. 27. III. 1898) - among other things, that "the policy of conquest" in China etc. is

"it is not a progressive, but a reactionary policy, not a modern bourgeois policy, but a part of the newly revived feudal-absolutist policy... a reaction against Manchesterism... Even standing on a more developed bourgeois point of view, it is just as necessary to fight it as with taxes on consumer goods, premiums, guild system and restriction of freedom of movement" etc. (p. 2 5)... NB. "Die Neue Zeit" XV, 1 (1897). Lafargue. "Economic Functions of the Stock Exchange".
NB. 1915, 2 (33rd year) article about the book by Hergarth Hüttler. "The English Labour Party" (Jena, 1914).
ISHKHANIAN. "FOREIGN ELEMENTS
IN THE RUSSIAN NATIONAL ECONOMY"
Dr. of Philosophy B. Ishkhanian. "Foreign elements in the Russian national economy. History, distribution, grouping by professions, interests and economic and cultural significance of foreigners in Russia". Berlin, 1913 (Siemenroth). 7 marks.
Retelling of Alexinsky in "Die Neue Zeit", 1913-4, 32, 1, p. 435 et seq.
N B: Among other things, the following table from Ishkhanian (p. 438):
NB: capital abroad France has Belgium » Germany » England » Other countries have Billions of francs4032.5 78.7 In general beyond the border40 billion2.715 "26.o "63.0 "- " e for the whole of francs" marks"" % In Russia of the latter14 billion fr. (X)27.5 0.634 » » 23.1 4.00 » mar. 15.380.775 » » 1.20 0.500 » » -
151.2 my total = ¦ ¦
United States?? 10?? minimum160 billion francs > 141/2 billion marks (X) 14 582 million marks, of which 83.76% in government loans.
(X) My calculation: 14 634 fr X 8 = 11 707 m. + 5 275 = 16 982 marks, and not 14 582?? _______

ТЕТРАДЬ «δ» (»DELTA»)
PANNEKOEK. "THE PROBLEM OF COVERING STATE EXPENDITURES AND IMPERIALISM"
Ant. Pannekoek. "The Problem of Covering State Expenditures and Imperialism". ("Die Neue Zeit", 1913-14, 32, 1, No. 4, 24.X.1913, p. 110 et seq.). (X) "The contradiction between principled and reformist tactics lies, in our opinion, in the fact that reformist tactics are too determined by the immediate interests, easily achievable and apparent results, and sacrifice the internal strength of the proletariat to them. Principled Marxist tactics, since it has in mind first of all the growth of the power of the proletariat, thereby ensures the highest positive results; after all, these results, which are concessions of the ruling classes, depend primarily on the power of the proletariat" (p. 111).
And before this phrase:
"The essence of the socialist class struggle lies in the inseparable unity of the struggle for socialism (**) and the representation of all the immediate interests of the proletariat. Only because the party is fighting for all the current interests of the working class, it is the party of the proletariat, the party of the masses, and can win" (X).
NB: Pannekoek's posing of the question of reformism is incorrect.
Pannekoek approached the most important question here, but poorly - or at least - inaccurately, answered it. "The unity of the struggle for socialism and for reforms" or "and for the immediate interests of the workers"? And what is the struggle for socialism? In Pannekoek's formula, the distinction between the left and the "center" is blurred, erased, disappeared. The formula

(given, this one) of Pannekoek will be signed by K. Kautsky as well (who, by the way, did not object to Pannekoek to this article). This formula is incorrect. The struggle for socialism consists of the unity of the struggle for the immediate interests of the workers (respectively for reforms) and the revolutionary struggle for power, for the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, for the overthrow of the bourgeois government and the bourgeoisie.
It is necessary to combine not the struggle for reforms + phrases about socialism, the struggle "for socialism", but two types of struggle.
Approximately:

1. Voting for reforms + revolutionary actions of the masses...

2. Parliamentarism + demonstrations...

3. Demand for reforms + demand (concrete) for revolution...
Economic struggle together with the unorganized, with the mass, and not only for the organized...

4. Literature for the top + free mass literature for the bottom, for the unorganized, for the "lower mass"...

5. Legal literature + illegal...
{cf. in the same volume "Die Neue Zeit", p. 591, about "untrained" workers in America}