NOTEBOOK

“η”

(“ETA”)
Contents

Excerpts and Notes on Imperialism. K., Kautsky (“The National State, etc.”) [3–4]
Lench [5–10] “Financial Capital in Russia” [13–14]
Barron’s Book on War (NB) [15]
Lesch on Modern Warfare [17–18]
K. KAUTSKY. “THE NATIONAL STATE, etc.”
“The National State, the Imperialist State, and the League of States” by K. Kautsky. Nuremberg, 1915 (50 pfennigs) (p. 80).
In §1—“Some Remarks on Democracy and the National State”—K. Kautsky takes issue with the Right (Winnig) and the Left in Halle (from the “Volksblatt” in Halle), who argue that the principle of “each people’s right to national self-determination” has become obsolete (p. 5) in the Declaration of August 4. K. Kautsky positions himself at the center of this debate, endlessly rehearsing the old refrain about the connection between democracy and the national state.
Incidentally, in this context he opposes “primitive democracy” and “direct popular legislation” (8), while regarding “primitive democracy” as including “its more active variant—the mass strike” (8).
We are not for the status quo (14), but for a different way of breaking free from national confines… “The proletariat cannot achieve liberation by allowing certain strata within it—those engaged in particular trades or residing in specific regions—to secure their share of exploitation and oppression. On the contrary, such an approach only serves to weaken its position” (16)… [And not a single word about the conclusion to be drawn from this!! Sophistry!] On p. 17, we encounter a mendacious distortion of the left’s position. They—like the Right—agree that imperialism is inevitable, yet in response they call for the “immediate realization” (17) of socialism…
“This may seem very radical, but it can only (!!!) drive away anyone who does not believe in the immediate, practical realization of socialism—and push them into the camp of imperialism.”
Next comes the most banal claptrap about society being an organism rather than a machine, and other childish nonsense (with hints that “national sentiments” (18) run strong among workers), culminating in the assertion that the inevitability of imperialism does not render futile the struggle against it “within this” (capitalist) “mode of production” (21). Against imperialism, and in favor of alternative means of expanding capital—beyond colonies—stand “the petty bourgeoisie and small peasants, even many capitalists and intellectuals” (21)…
LENCH. “GERMAN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY AND THE WORLD WAR”
Dr. Paul Lench. “German Social Democracy and the World War.” Berlin, 1915 (Vorwärts). 64 pages (1.00 mark).
A textbook example of servile, chauvinistic claptrap. It would be highly instructive to compare this with Plekhanov!
War is “a product of imperialist policy” (5). In Jena (1911), Bebel declared that instead of disarmament, armaments had taken hold—and that matters were heading toward “a great catastrophe” (5)… Pointing to the wars and revolutions of the early 20th century, Lench exclaims: “What we are experiencing is revolution” (6)… We German social democrats, “the strongest faction within the International” (6), have always been the most resolute in our struggle against our…

NOTEBOOK “η” (“ETA”)
government, etc., etc., consistently held up England as a model—as if England were governed not by a “capitalist clique,” but by a “committee tasked with enforcing the Ten Commandments and other moral laws” (6–7). The old traditions of German history, and of Liebknecht, who “was never entirely free from a certain South German particularism and a lingering hatred of the Prussians” (7).
At times, Kautsky went so far as to write that for England, naval supremacy was “absolutely essential” (7: citation needed?)—from the standpoint of securing livelihoods, as opposed to Germany…
“The danger inherent in this line of argumentation—which, however, reflected a view that almost universally prevailed within the party—became fully apparent in the present days of the world war” (7)…
…“this weakness in the critique directed toward foreign lands” (8)… was rooted in “the party’s immense strength”… in “its internationalist character.”
“Undoubtedly, this world war is an imperialist war” (9)… The politics of the East… the Baghdad Railway… England and Egypt, etc.; the partition of Turkey (in light of these developments), Morocco, etc.
“In this division of the world, Germany was never consulted at all” (10), and “more out of protest against this outrageous neglect than in defense of the relatively minor material interests of German trade in Morocco,” the German government protested the Anglo-French agreement concerning Morocco.
As early as 1908 (during the Revel Conference), plans were already underway to carve up Turkey—Russia + England + France—but the Turkish Revolution intervened (11).
By 1914, agreements between England and Germany regarding the division of spheres of influence in Africa (13) and the East, among other regions, were nearly finalized—only to be disrupted by Russia’s outbreak of war.
In 1913, Germany threatened war over Armenia.
“For Germany—by which we mean both the German Empire and Austria-Hungary—the question of capitalist expansion has come to be a question of national existence” (15).

Now the question is no longer one of dividing up colonies and spheres of influence, but rather this: “Should the German people continue to exist as a great and independent nation, or must a large portion of its national territory—whether in the East or in the West—be torn away and forcibly subjected to foreign domination?” (15).
“In this struggle, which concerns the threat to British global hegemony, whose interests does international socialism as a whole—and the German workers’ movement in particular—stand on?” (16).
British naval supremacy was the natural continuation of the wars waged against the French Revolution. By the mid‑19th century, England had established itself as the world’s “workshop.”
“The famed English ‘freedom’ was founded upon the subjugation of the entire world” (20).
“In a certain sense, England was the dominant class of the world” (20)...
I—Lench—quoted Engels in Chemnitz in 1912 (pp. 417 et seq. of the protocols), where he spoke of the decline of British monopoly power, saying:
“International socialism, however, has absolutely no reason whatsoever to contribute to the perpetuation of this long‑standing dominance of a single capitalist state over all others. To the contrary, such an outcome would only serve to artificially complicate and retard the conditions for victory for socialism” (22–3). …“The great historical success that the weakening of British naval supremacy ought to represent for the entire world—and especially for international socialism” (23–4)—would be all the more certain the longer peace endured… For the British bourgeoisie, the workers’ movement loomed as a grave threat…
—“If we consider the matter from this perspective, then participation in the Great War was nothing other than a flight from socialism for the British bourgeoisie” (24)…
…“In reality, if there were a way to set back the international liberation struggle of the proletariat against capitalism by decades, that means would lie in Germany’s defeat in this war against England” (25)…

NOTEBOOK “η” (“ETA”)
“The core of the International”—the German Social Democrats would be shattered, and the working class cast back into the camp of capitalism, and so forth (25)…
“Germany is the birthplace and cradle of scientific socialism” (26)… “The interests of the international proletariat lie on the German side” (27)…
Russian Tsarism… Marx and Engels in 1848—but now things are different. Engels in 1891 (quote: p. 29). But now,
things are different.
Germany, as a fully realized national entity, “only now,” “with this war,” “is born” (31)…
The German–Russian War “far transcended the confines of an imperialist war. It represents the final stage in the long‑suffering journey of the German people toward national unity.”
(33)…
A quote from Engels on Russian diplomacy (35): as if it had been written just yesterday…
Against the disintegration of Russia (37) (“not disintegration” (38)), against the formation of small states—what is needed is merely “a degree of national autonomy”…
The fall of Tsarism (which must be awaited from the Russian proletariat) will accelerate development…
France and the War (§ V)… Revenge “The interests of freedom and democracy are fundamentally incompatible with the victory of French arms” (42), for France stands in alliance with England and Russia.
German social democracy would “now” regard the loss of Alsace–Lorraine “as a mutilation of Germany” (43).
“A just peace” (44) with the French Republic—that is what is needed.
German History Past and Future (§ VI):
National culture and its significance (according to O. Bauer, quoted on p. 53). “Cultural community” (50 et seq.).
Capitalism must develop “toward democracy” (55)…
“The danger of war” (56)—this is the root cause of the delay in democratic progress in Germany.
“Militarism” (58) in Germany?? On the contrary, universal conscription is the very “and almost the sole democratic institution” (Engels), whereas you have “mercenary armies” (59),, “The Central European Union of States” (as List envisioned it)—(+ the Scandinavian countries + Switzerland + Italy + the Balkans + Turkey)—“a new era in global political development” (63)…—“the locomotive of world history” (62) = this war… “a step forward” “extraordinary” “in terms of democracy, world peace, the freedom of nations, and socialism” (62). “Yes, and socialism too!” (62)…
To break the power of Tsarism—to make peace with France—to shatter the “violent domination of the British bourgeoisie” (63)…
The International is now shattered, but it will rise again, just as it did after 1870 (64).
ARTICLE BY O. B. “THE EUROPEAN UNION OF STATES?”
“Die Grenzboten, 1915, No. 9 (March 3, 1915).
The article “The European Union of States?”—an open letter from a certain O. B. to Professor G. Heimans of Groningen.
This professor, together with four other individuals, forms a committee called the “European Union of States.” Among other works, this committee published Heimans’s treatise entitled “To the Citizens of Warring States.” In response to this, the open letter printed in Die Grenzboten was penned.
In the open letter, among other things, the question of colonies is raised (p. 270). “Is not their ‘internal self‑determination’ also desirable? And are Indians, Africans, and Tatars not, in every respect, fully ‘equal in rights’ with the English, French, and Russians?”… (270). …“The British colonial empire—like other colonial empires—was by no means founded ‘on the basis of equality and internal self‑determination’ for the colonized peoples; it occupies roughly one‑fifth of the Earth’s surface. Should Britain retain this colonial empire until, perhaps, the English themselves die out in England, while Germany is forbidden even to claim a single square meter from those lands—even if, by that time, its population has grown to 200 million?” (271)…

THE “η” NOTEBOOK (“ETA”)
FINANCIAL CAPITAL IN RUSSIA
“Finanz-Archiv” (a publication of Schanz). Berlin, 1915 (32nd year of publication, Volume I):
Dr. Ernst Schulze. “French Capital in Russia” (pp. 125–133).
“At the end of 1899, there were 146 foreign concessionary companies in Russia, with a total capital of 765 million rubles—or 207.5 million francs. Of this sum, France accounted for 79.2 million, Belgium for 73.4 million, Germany for 26.1 million, and England for 23.1 million francs” (p. 125)...
millions of francs
France Belgium 79.2 73.4
Germany England 26.1 23.1
= 201.8 “It is stated that of the total 73.2 billion francs invested worldwide in securities—such as government and municipal bonds, mortgages, industrial stocks, and corporate bonds—only about 20–25 billion francs were purportedly held in Russia. The principal holders of these securities were (p. 127):
United States 110–115 billion francs] 420
130 England 125–130 »
100 France… 95–100 »
75 Germany 60–75
25 Russia 20–25
22 Austria… 20–22
+12 Italy 10–12
5 Japan… 5 » » and so on”¹)
260 97 (my estimate = ) 440–484
+12
272
1) Axel von Bochstedt and David Trich. “The Russian Empire.” Berlin, 1910. p. 227.

In France, securities totaling 24 billion francs were issued between 1889 and 1908: 18 billion abroad, plus 6 billion (25%) within France.
In Germany, securities were issued between 1883 and 1907:

42 billion marks—10 billion abroad, and 32 billion (80%) within Germany.
French national wealth (1905) – 204 billion francs
1914 – approximately 250 billion francs (according to Cayo, who, however, used 200 billion as the basis for calculating income tax).
In 1912, French capital invested in Russian enterprises amounted to 367.66 million rubles—roughly 990 million francs (including 115.5 million rubles in railway projects; 96.25 million in state-owned enterprises; 70.9 million in commercial banks, and so forth).
At present, foreign capital in Russia stands roughly as follows:
France… approximately 20 billion marks (billions)
Germany… 4–5.5 billion marks
England – 0.25 billion marks
Belgium – 0.6 billion marks (my estimate) 24–26.35
The author is a German chauvinist. He predicts colossal losses for France due to the war: p. 133.
BARRON’S BOOK ON WAR “The Bold War.” C.W. Barron’s work—“Its Commercial Causes, Its Cost in Money and Men.” An announcement (not a review) in The Economist, March 20, 1915:
“As publisher of The Wall Street Journal, The Boston News Bureau, and The Philadelphia News Bureau, Mr. Barron traveled abroad to gather information on the financial and diplomatic underpinnings of the war—and he obtained it.”
Send your order to your bookseller or to The Wall Street Journal. 44 Broad Street, New York City. 4 shillings 6 pence (including postage), (Houghton Mifflin Co., publishers.)

LENZ ON MODERN WAR
Friedrich Lenz. “The Political Prerequisites of Modern War.” Deutsche Rundschau, Vol. XLI, No. 4, January 1915. Millions of English square miles (p. 81):

1862 1888 1912
British World Empire: 4,600 9,300 10,800
Russian Empire: 7,600 8,600 10,200
Turkish Empire: 1,800 1,300 700
United States of North America: 1,500 3,500 3,700
France with its colonies (rounded figures): 400 1,100 4,800
German Empire with its colonies (rounded figures): 240 600 1,200
Austria-Hungary: 239 241 241
Japan with its colonies: 150 150 260
Italy with its colonies: 100 110 700
By early October 1914, the following figures were recorded (p. 102):
Population in millions? Territory in English square miles Foreign trade in millions of marks
(1910) ) (1912) (1912)
(German-Austrian) 130 1,440,000 26,750 (Anglo-Franco-Russian) 670 26,090,000 76,750
(Neutral) (rounded figures) 800 24,470,000 58,000
1,600 52,000,000 161,500
Population (ibidem, p. 83):
Germany France (before 1870, without Alsace-Lorraine) (from 1870, without Alsace-Lorraine)
1700 14.21 million
1788 16.25
1816 23.29
1860 36.37
1912 66.40
1925–30 80.40