NOTEBOOK “κ” (“KAPPA”)
J. A. GOBSON. “IMPERIALISM”
“Imperialism.” A Study by J. A. Gobson (London, 1902), p. 37.
p. 4. True colonization consists in the resettlement of metropolitan inhabitants into a desolate, uninhabited land, where they bring their own culture; to subjugate other peoples, on the other hand, is already a violation of the very bounds of genuine nationalism (“debasement of this genuine nationalism”)—a form of “spurious colonialism”—and thus a manifestation of imperialist order. Canada and the self-governing islands of Australasia serve as exemplary models of true colonies.
p. 6. “The new feature of modern imperialism, considered from a political standpoint, lies primarily in the fact that it has been embraced by multiple nations. The notion of a series of competing empires is, in its very essence, a modern conception.”
p. 9. “Nationalism is a direct and broad path toward internationalism; if it begins to deviate, we are justified in suspecting that its nature and its mission have been perverted. Such a perversion is… imperialism, in which nations, having crossed the threshold of painless assimilation, transform the healthy, stimulating competition among diverse national types into a predatory struggle among rival empires.”
pp. 17–18. The core of the British Empire comprises a population of 40 million, spread across an area of 120,000 square miles. Over the course of just one recent generation, the empire’s territorial expansion…

…amounted to 4,754,000 square miles and added 88 million people to its domain.
p. 19. In 1900, Britain’s colonies and dependent territories covered an area of 13,142,708 square miles, with a population of 366,793,919(*).
N.B.: Gobson included “protectorates” such as Egypt, Sudan, and others—territories absent from Morris’s account!!
(*) Here Gobson cites Morris, II, 87, as well as R. Gibbon: “The Comparative Growth of the Component Parts of Our Empire,” a paper delivered at the Colonial Institute in January 1898.
(Following this, “The Statesman’s Year-Book” for 1900.)
p. 20. From 1884 to 1900, 3,711,957 square miles were annexed to the British Empire—including Sudan and other territories—with a total population of 57,436,000*.
pp. 21–22. In Germany, literature advocating the necessity of colonial possessions for the German nation began to emerge in the 1870s. The first official support for the “German South Seas Trading and Plantation Society” was granted in 1880. Around the same time, Germany established its “connection with Samoa”; however, Germany’s truly imperialist policy only took shape in 1884, when African protectorates were established and the islands of Oceania were brought under German control. Over the following fifteen years, under German influence, colonial territories expanded to encompass 1,000,000 square miles, home to a population of 14,000,000. The majority of these lands lay within the tropics, while only a few thousand were inhabited by Europeans.

* See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th ed., vol. 22, p. 243. Ed.
In the early 1880s, France saw a revival of its long-dormant colonial spirit. The most influential economist to champion this resurgence was Léon Say. By 1880, French holdings in Senegal and the Sahara had been significantly expanded; a few years later, Tunisia was annexed. In 1884, France actively engaged in the scramble for Africa, while simultaneously consolidating its rule over Tonkin and Laos in Asia. Since 1880, France…

NOTEBOOK “κ” (“KAPPA”)
had acquired 3.5 million square miles, with a population of 37 million—almost entirely in tropical and subtropical regions, populated by lower races and largely inaccessible to French colonization.
In 1880, Italy suffered defeat in its Abyssinian expedition, and its imperialist ambitions were dashed. Its possessions in East Africa were limited to Eritrea and a protectorate in Somalia.
The African Agreement of 1884–86 ceded to Portugal the vast territory of Angola and the Congo coast, while by 1891 a significant portion of East Africa had come under Portuguese political control.
The Free State of the Congo, which in 1883 had become the property of the King of Belgium—and which had grown considerably since then—must be regarded as a fragment seized by Belgium in the great contest for Africa.
Spain was effectively removed from the arena of the imperialist struggle.
The Netherlands did not participate in the modern imperialist competition; its substantial holdings in the East and West Indies dated back to ancient times.
Russia, the sole northern power pursuing an imperialist policy, directed its primary efforts toward the conquest of Asia. Although its colonization was more natural in character—proceeding along the path of expanding state borders—it would soon find itself confronting other great powers over the division of Asia.

* See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th ed., vol. 22, p. 243. Ed.

p. 23. In total, the European states—along with Turkey, China, and the United States of America—encompassed a territory of 15,813,201 square miles, with a population of 850,103,317. They administered 136 colonies covering 22,273,858 square miles, with a population of 521,108,791 (taken almost verbatim from Morris, II, 318, whom Gobson himself cited).
pp. 26–27. *. “The Expansion of the Major European Powers Since 1884”
England (see France, Germany, from p. 20). 3,711,957 square miles… 3,583,580,1026,220 square miles… 57,436,000… 36,553,000… 16,687,100 (population) »

Russia (?) 114,320 square miles (?) 3,300,000 (population)
(This refers to Khiva + Bukhara) (This equals Khiva + Bukhara)
Russia ((Khiva (1873), Bukhara (1873*), Kwantung (1898)
Manchuria (1900)))
Although the title specifies “since 1884,” Gobson nonetheless included both Khiva and Bukhara.
Belgium (Congo) 900,000… 30,000,000
Portugal (Angola, 1886; East Africa, 1891 and others) 800,760… 911,1757
NB NB: (Gobson adds, pp. 28–29, two maps of Africa—dating respectively to 1873 and 1902—which vividly illustrate the extent of its territorial expansion.)
p. 34: The percentage share relative to total value:

* This is how Gobson presents it. It should actually be 1868. Ed.

p. 37
Annual Averages of Imports and Exports to and from Great Britain; Average Figures for Four-Year Periods; Percentage Shares of Imports and Exports from Colonies, etc., into and out of Great Britain.
Foreign States, British Possessions – Foreign States, British Possessions
1856–59: 46.5% imports, 57.1% exports
1855–59: 76.5% imports, 23.5% exports; 68.5% imports, 31.5% exports
60–64: 41.0% imports, 65.4% exports
60–64: 71.2% imports, 66.6% exports; 64–67: 38.9% imports, 57.6% exports
65–69: 76.0% imports, 72.4% exports; 68–71: 39.8% imports, 53.5% exports
70–74: 78.0% imports, 74.4% exports; 72–75: 43.6% imports, 54.9% exports
75–79: 77.9% imports, 66.9% exports; 76–79: 41.7% imports, 50.3% exports
80–84: 76.5% imports, 65.5% exports; 80–83: 42.8% imports, 48.1% exports
85–89: 77.1% imports, 65.0% exports; 84–87: 38.5% imports, 43.0% exports
90–94: 77.1% imports, 67.6% exports; 88–91: 36.3% imports, 39.7% exports
95–99: 78.6% imports, 66.0% exports; 92–95: 32.4% imports, 36.6% exports
96–99: 32.5% imports, 34.9% exports

p. 38. For the year 1901, ending in December:
(in millions of pounds sterling) Imports % Imports from Britain % of British Imports Exports % Exports to Britain % of Exports to Britain
Foreign States: 417.615 = 80%, 178.450 = 63.5%
British India: 38.001 = 39.7%, 53.753 = 14%
7
Australasia: 34.682 = 26.9%, 26.932 = 9.5%
7
Canada: 19.775 = 7.797 = 3%
4
British South Africa: 5.155 = 17.006 = 6%
1
Other British Possessions: 7.082 = 10.561 = 4%
1
522.310 = 100%, 280.499 = 100%

NOTEBOOK “κ” (“KAPPA”)
p. 39 *. Trade between the Empire and Great Britain (in thousands):
Annual Average Total Imports, £ Sterling Imports from Britain % of British Imports Total Exports, £ Sterling Exports to Britain £ Sterling / Exports to Britain
India: 45,818 = 31,707 = 69.2%; 56,532 = 29,738 = 52.6%
Self-Governing
1867–71 Colonies
42,612 = 24,502 = 57.5%; 42,386 = 23,476 = 55.0%
Other Colonies: 23,161 = 52,577 = 7.955 = 37.811 = 34.3%; 74,572 = 44,133 = 59.2%; 83,528 = 58,714 = 70.3%
Colonies: 39,835 = 10,443 = 26.2%; 36,626 = 10,987 = 29.3%
Extracted from Prof. Flax’s article “Flag and Trade,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, September 1899, Volume LXII, pp. 496–498.
p. 48. “The total number of emigrants of British origin constitutes but a small fraction of the population; this fraction has declined markedly in recent years, as imperialist expansion has intensified. In British possessions, only a small number of emigrants settle, and an utterly negligible proportion are found in the countries acquired during the era of neo-imperialism…”
Since 1884, emigration figures have been falling*: 1884… 242,179 (including 155,280 to the United States), not to mention the need to account for immigration!! 1900… 168,825 (including 102,797 to the United States)
((p. 49)) (the author provides monthly data and further details).

* See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th ed., Vol. 22, p. 209. Ed.
** Ibid., pp. 229–230. Ed.

p. 58. (According to calculations by Mr. Melchall) the scale and growth of British investments abroad and in the colonies since 1862:
Year Total £ Sterling Annual Increase (in billions of francs)
England France Germany in %
1862: 144,000,000 * * 3.6 _ _
1872: 600,000,000 45.6 15 10 (1869) _
1882: 875,000,000 27.5 22 (1880) 15 ?
1893: 1,698,000,000 74.8 42 (1890) 20
27 (1902) 12.5 (1902)
40 (1910) 35 (1910)
1914: 4,000,000,000 (75–100 (1914)) 60 (1914) 44 (1914) **

p. 59. “In 1893, British capital invested abroad accounted for roughly 15% of the total wealth of the United Kingdom. Nearly half of this capital—770 million pounds sterling—was placed in the form of loans to foreign and colonial governments; of the remaining sum, the greater part was invested in railways, banks, telegraphs, and other public utilities owned by governments or under their control or strong influence, while the largest share of what remained was directed toward land and mines, or toward industries directly linked to the land.” * The figure of 1,698,000,000, according to Sir R. Giffen’s calculations, should be regarded as somewhat lower than the actual amount.
(*) p. 59. Investments: foreign loans—525 million £ sterling; colonial loans—225 million £ sterling; municipal loans—20 million £ sterling; total loans—770 million £ sterling. Railways: United States of America—120 million £ sterling; colonial railways—140 million £ sterling; miscellaneous railways—128 million £ sterling; total railways—388 million £ sterling. Other investments: banks—50 million £ sterling; land—100 million £ sterling; mines, etc.—390 million £ sterling.
= 770 388 540

p. 60. “It would not be an exaggeration to say that modern British foreign policy is, above all, a struggle for favorable investment opportunities and outlets for capital.” p. 62–63. “Many of these debts—perhaps even the majority—are ‘public’ in nature, while credit itself is almost always private… Aggressive imperialism, which exacts such heavy costs from taxpayers yet yields so little benefit for industrialists and merchants… is, in fact, a source of substantial profits for capitalists.”

* See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th ed., Vol. 22, p. 263. Ed.

NOTEBOOK “κ” (“KAPPA”)
seeking suitable outlets for their capital…
The total annual income that Great Britain derives from all its foreign and colonial trade—imports and exports—is estimated by Sir R. Giffen to be 1) 18 million pounds sterling for the year 1899, calculated at 2.5% on a total turnover of 800 million pounds sterling.” However impressive this sum may be, it cannot fully account for the aggressive imperialist policies pursued by Great Britain. The true explanation lies in the sum of “90 or 100 million pounds sterling, representing net income from invested capital,” *
1) Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Vol. LXII, p. 9.
Investors are keen to mitigate the risks associated with the political conditions prevailing in the countries where they place their capital. “Investors—and indeed, speculative capitalists in general—also hope that Great Britain will extend its flag over additional foreign territories, thereby securing new regions for profitable investment and speculation.”
p. 63. “While the particular interests of investors may sometimes clash with the broader public interest, leading to disastrous policies, even more perilous are the SPECIFIC INTERESTS OF FINANCIAL INVESTORS, who often assume the primary role in investment decisions. Ordinary investors, both economically and politically, generally serve merely as tools in the hands of large financial firms—firms that use funds and shares less as instruments yielding steady returns and more as…”

* See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th ed., Vol. 22, p. 264. Ed.

as a subject of speculation in the money market.” p. 68. “Such are the concrete economic forces that operate to the benefit of imperialism: a vast, loosely interconnected group of individuals engaged in commerce and industry, as well as in diverse professions—seeking lucrative ventures and remunerative positions through the expansion of military and civil services, through expenditures on military operations, through the exploitation of new territories and trade with them, through the mobilization of fresh capital required by these very operations—and all of them find their central, guiding, and directing power in the might of the financiers who stand at the head of them all.” (“Finance Capital.”)
p. 72. As a consequence of the closure of markets seized by France and Germany, England in turn closes its own markets to them. “Once imperialism has shaken off the ‘old guard’ of politicians who were raised in their youth on the doctrine of free trade, it will openly embrace protectionism—the very form of protectionism necessary to round out imperialist policy” (pp. 72–73)...
p. 78. While manufacturers and merchants are content to trade with other nations, capital investors, on the other hand, strive with all their might “to politically annex those countries where their most speculative investments are located.”
The investment of capital benefits the nation by opening up new markets for trade—and by creating opportunities for English enterprise. To renounce “imperial expansion” means to cede the world to other nations. “Thus it turns out that imperialism is not a path chosen voluntarily, but a necessity” (= the reasoning of imperialists)...
pp. 80–81 (trusts). Free competition has always been accompanied by “overproduction,” which drove prices down to levels that forced weaker competitors out of the market. The first step in the formation of a trust is the closure of the least well-equipped and least favorably situated factories, along with the reduction of production costs through the use of only the most advanced machinery.
“The concentration of industry into ‘trusts’ simultaneously limits the amount of capital that can find effective application and increases— NOTEBOOK “κ” (“KAPPA”)
the portion of income from which new accumulations and new capital will arise.” The trust emerges as an antidote to overproduction, to the excessive allocation of capital to a given branch of production; therefore, not all of the capital that the trust’s participants wish to put into circulation can be fully utilized within the confines of the trust itself. Trusts seek to deploy surplus capital “in the creation of similar organizations in other branches of industry, thereby economizing still further on capital and making it increasingly difficult for ordinary depositors to find suitable outlets for their savings.”
pp. 82–84. America’s domestic market is saturated; capital no longer finds adequate outlets.
“It was precisely this sudden demand for foreign markets—both for industrial goods and for investment—that became the clear catalyst for the adoption of imperialism as a political principle and political practice by the Republican Party, to which industrial and financial leaders belonged and which they controlled. The adventurous zeal of President Roosevelt and his party of ‘manifest destiny’ and ‘civilizing mission’ should not mislead us. Imperialism is needed by Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Pierpont Morgan, Mr. Hanna, Mr. Schwab, and their associates—and it is they who heave the burden of imperialism onto the shoulders of the great Republic of the West. They need imperialism because they wish to harness their country’s state resources in order to find profitable outlets for capital that would otherwise prove superfluous.
Of course, there is no need to possess a country in order to trade with it or to invest one’s capital therein—and undoubtedly, the United States could have found some outlet for its surplus goods and surplus capital in the European states.
“Yet in most cases, these countries are capable of providing for themselves: the majority have already instituted tariffs against the importation of manufactured goods, and even Great Britain has been compelled, in self‑defense, to return to protectionism. Major American industrialists and financiers will be driven, in their search for the most advantageous opportunities, to turn their gaze toward China, the Pacific, and South America. Being protectionists in both theory and practice, they will strive to secure as complete a monopoly as possible over these markets—and the rivalry between Germany, England, and other trading nations will prompt them to establish special political relations with those markets that hold the greatest value for them. Cuba, the Philippines, and Hawaii are but ‘appetizers,’ meant to whet the appetite for a more substantial feast. Moreover, the powerful influence exerted on politics by industrial and financial magnates constitutes yet another special incentive—which, as we have shown, operates in Great Britain and throughout the world. In the implementation of imperialist endeavors, government expenditures will serve as yet another gigantic source of profit for these men, who act as financiers, arranging loans, shipbuilders and shipowners receiving subsidies, suppliers and manufacturers of weapons and other equipment for imperialism.”
p. 86. As the introduction of advanced methods of production, the concentration of property, and the consolidation of control proceed, capitalists encounter ever greater difficulties in the “profitable utilization of their economic resources,” and they become increasingly tempted to enlist the aid of their governments—to secure, through annexation or protectorate, some remote, underdeveloped country for their own private gain.
Ha-ha!! The essence of petty-bourgeois criticism of imperialism
At first glance, it may seem that the productive forces and capital have outgrown consumption and can no longer find adequate outlets within their own country. This, so the argument goes, is the root of imperialism. But… “if the consumers of a given country were to raise their rate of consumption in line with the growth of the productive forces, then there could be no surplus of goods or capital crying out for the need to resort to imperialism in order to find markets.”

THE NOTEBOOK “κ” (“KAPPA”)
p. 89. “The scale of production has been steadily expanding thanks to the development of modern machinery.” Wealth may be consumed by the population as well as by a small elite of the rich. The limits on consumption by the general population are set by wage levels. Because of their small numbers, the personal consumption of the wealthy cannot absorb a truly vast quantity of goods. “The rich will never be so astute as to spend enough to avert overproduction.” The primary focus of production is directed toward “accumulation.” Yet the flow carrying this enormous volume of products “suddenly proves not only incapable of further expansion, but appears to begin stagnating.”
p. 91. “Thus, we arrive at the conclusion that imperialism represents the drive of large industrial magnates to widen the channels for the flow of their surplus wealth by seeking out foreign markets and foreign investments—seeking to place goods and capital that they are unable to sell or utilize at home.”
The Inevitability of Imperialism cf. K. Kautsky
The fallacy of the assumption that imperialist expansion is an inevitable outcome of a developing industry is now plainly evident. It is not the growth of industry that necessitates the opening of new markets and new spheres for capital investment; rather, it is the MISDISTRIBUTION OF CONSUMPTION CAPACITY—which hinders the absorption of goods and capital within the domestic economy.”
cf. K. Kautsky
p. 94. “There is no need to open new foreign markets: domestic markets are capable of unlimited expansion.”
p. 96. “Thus, trade unionism and socialism are the natural enemies of imperialism, since they deprive the ‘imperialist’ classes of those surplus incomes that serve as the economic incentive for imperialism.”

p. 100. “As we can see, imperialism signifies the use of the governmental apparatus in private interests—primarily capitalist interests—in order to secure economic benefits for these classes beyond the borders of their own countries.”
“The average annual value of our foreign trade, which stood at £636,000,000 in the period 1870–75, rose to £737,000,000 during the years 1895–98. During the same period, government expenditures increased from an average of £63,160,000 to £94,450,000. Expenditures grew more rapidly than national income itself, which, according to rough estimates by statisticians, increased over that same period from approximately £1,200,000,000 to £17,000,000,000.”
pp. 101–102. “The increase in military and naval expenditures—from £25 million to £60 million over just under a quarter of a century—is the most significant feature of imperialist finance. The financial, industrial, and professional groups that, as we have shown, form the economic backbone of imperialism have used their political power to wrest these sums from the people—investing them in more lucrative ventures and seeking new avenues for capital deployment, while also striving to find profitable markets for the surplus output of their goods. At the same time, from the public funds expended for these purposes, they derive substantial personal gains in the form of lucrative contracts and high‑paying or honorary positions.”
p. 103. “The architects of this distinctly parasitic policy are the capitalists; yet the very same motives also exert their influence on SPECIAL STRATA OF WORKERS. In many cities, the most important branches of industry depend on government contracts; the imperialism of the metallurgical and shipbuilding centers is, to a considerable extent, shaped by this very fact.”*
p. 114. “In other countries that have already embarked upon—or are only now beginning—the path of imperialism, and moreover,

* See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th ed., vol. 22, pp. 265–266. Ed.

THE NOTEBOOK “κ” (“KAPPA”)
With the same intricate web of economic interests concealed beneath the guise of patriotism, civilization, and the like, protectionism had long been a traditional fiscal policy; all that remained was to broaden its scope and steer it into the desired channel.”
p. 115. “Both countries (*) will increasingly succumb to the influence of a class of individuals who lend money and present themselves as imperialists and patriots.”
p. 120. “Of the 367 million British subjects living beyond the British Isles, no more than ten million—put another way, just one thirty-seventh—enjoy any genuine self-government in matters of legislation and administration.”
p. 121. “In some of our older Crown colonies, representative elements do exist in the system of governance. While administrative authority rests entirely in the hands of the governor appointed by the Crown, who is assisted by a council he himself appoints, the colony’s population elects a portion of the legislative assembly…
In these colonies, the extent and influence of the representative element vary considerably, yet nowhere does it exceed the non‑elective component in number. Thus, it functions more as an advisory body than as a truly legislative force. Not only do elected members consistently lag behind their non‑elected counterparts in number, but in every instance the Colonial Office reserves the right of veto over measures adopted by the assemblies. To this must be added that, in almost all cases, suffrage is tied to relatively high property qualifications, effectively barring the colored population from exercising electoral rights in proportion to its numerical strength and its significance within the country.”
p. 131. “In short, the new imperialism expands and divides territory—subjecting it to British despotism, far
°growing population and real freedoms, (*) namely, Great Britain and the United States.

The few democratic colonies we have established.
He did not contribute to the spread of British freedom or our methods of governance. Insofar as we govern the very countries and peoples we have annexed, we do so through distinctly autocratic methods—methods dictated primarily from Downing Street, and in certain cases, from the centers of colonial administration itself, whenever self-governing colonies were permitted to be annexed.
p. 133. “The British Empire, which has always been a brazen lie, has in recent years reached the pinnacle of monstrous hypocrisy. Along our borders in India, West Africa, Sudan, Uganda, and Rhodesia, wars have scarcely ceased.”
p. 134. “Our economic analysis has revealed that the interests of competing cliques of merchants—investors, suppliers, export-oriented industrialists, and certain professional groups—are fundamentally at odds with one another. These cliques, having usurped power and the voice of the people, employ public resources to further their private agendas, squandering both the blood and the wealth of the nation in this colossal, devastating military game—fabricating national antagonisms that have no real basis in objective reality.”
pp. 135–136. “If we wish to retain everything we have seized since 1870 and to compete with the young industrial nations in the further division of territories and spheres of influence in Africa and Asia, then we must be prepared to wage war. The hostility among rival empires, which became openly apparent during the South African War, is clearly rooted in the very policies by which we have overtaken—and continue to strive to overtake—these rivals in the race to annex lands and markets across the globe.”
pp. 143–144. “The organization of large indigenous armies, armed with ‘civilized’ weapons, drilled according to ‘civilized’ methods, and commanded by ‘civilized’ officers, was one of the most characteristic features of the final stages of development of the great Eastern empires—and later, of the Roman Empire.”

NOTEBOOK “κ” (“KAPPA”)
the empire. It proved to be one of the most perilous inventions born of parasitism—a system whereby the population of the metropolis entrusts the protection of its life and property to the unreliable hands of ‘subjugated tribes,’ under the command of ambitious proconsuls.
One of the most striking symptoms of imperialist blindness is the reckless ease with which Britain, France, and other imperialist nations embark upon this path. Britain has gone furthest down this road. Most of the campaigns that secured our Indian Empire were waged by troops composed of natives; in India—as recently as in Egypt—large standing armies are commanded by British officers; and nearly all the wars associated with our conquest of Africa, with the exception of its southern regions, were fought on our behalf by native forces.” *
p. 151. “As a practical political force, the Liberal Party in Germany, France, and Italy has either disappeared altogether or been reduced to impotence. In England, it has now been exposed in blatant and coarse betrayal of the fundamental principles of liberty, vainly searching for programs that might serve as substitutes for those principles. …This capitulation to imperialism signifies that they have chosen the economic interests of the propertied and speculative classes—classes to which the majority of their leaders belong—over the cause of liberalism.”
p. 157. “Amid this general decline of parliamentarism, the ‘party system’ is clearly unraveling, for it has grown out of divisions over domestic policy issues that carry little weight compared to the demands and the sheer power of imperialism.”
pp. 158–159. “Reaction is not only possible—it is inevitable. For the portion of our empire governed despotically has steadily expanded in territory—

* See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th ed., vol. 22, p. 266. Ed.

and an increasing number of individuals have returned to England—individuals who, as soldiers and civil servants in our crown colonies and protectorates of the Indian Empire, had been raised according to the customs and methods of autocratic rule; alongside them came countless merchants, planters, engineers, and overseers—those who formed the upper caste of people living artificial lives, devoid of the wholesome restraints found in ordinary European society; all these individuals brought with them the morals, sentiments, and thoughts nurtured in that alien environment.”
Chapter II (pp. 162–206) — A Treatise. Entitled “The Scientific Defense of Imperialism,” it is devoted to the “scientific” (in reality, merely pseudo‑liberal) refutation of Darwinian ‘biological’ and other such ‘scientific’ justifications of imperialism.
pp. 204–205. “If we were to envision a federal form of government for the European nations and their colonies—one capable of preventing internal conflicts among them—then this world of Christian peoples would remain perpetually threatened by the ‘lower races’—the Black and the Yellow—who, having acquired weapons and mastered military tactics abandoned by the ‘civilized nations,’ could, through barbaric raids, shatter those nations just as more primitive European and Asian tribes once shattered the Roman Empire.”

Two factors weakened the power of the old empires: (1) “economic parasitism”; (2) the employment of foreign troops.*

* See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th ed., vol. 22, p. 266. Ed.
** Ibid. Ed.

p. 205. “First comes the custom of economic parasitism, whereby the dominant state exploits its provinces, colonies, and dependent territories to enrich its ruling class and to bribe its lower classes, keeping them content and compliant.” **

Notebook “κ” (“Kappa”)
pp. 205–206. “This fateful combination of madness and vice has, throughout history, invariably contributed to the downfall of empires. Will it prove equally disastrous for the federation of European peoples?
Clearly, yes—provided that their collective power is harnessed for the same parasitic, self-serving ends, and provided that the white races, having cast off labor in its most arduous forms, come to LIVE AS THE WORLD’S ARISTOCRACY, EXPLORING AND EXPLOITING ‘lower races,’ while at the same time entrusting the maintenance of global order ever more firmly into the hands of representatives of those very same races.”
p. 207. “An analysis of the actual history of modern (NB: a concept) imperialism has revealed the specific configuration of economic and political forces that give rise to it. These forces originate in the self‑interested pursuits of certain industrial, financial, and professional strata—strata that seek personal gain through imperialist expansionist policies, yet employ those very same policies to shield their economic, political, and social privileges from the pressures of democracy.”
On the Question of “Self‑Determination” pp. 210–211 (note 2). “How far the manipulation of motives can lead even an experienced political thinker becomes evident in the striking argumentation of Professor Giddings, who, when discussing ‘the consent of the governed’ as a condition of governance, asserts that ‘if a barbaric people are compelled to accept the rule of a more civilized state, then the true measure of the justice or injustice of this compulsion lies not in the consent they may give—or the resistance they may offer upon the establishment of that rule—but solely in the degree of probability that, once fully acquainted through experience with what the government can accomplish in raising the standard of living of the subjugated population, those who have come to understand all that has been done will ultimately grant ethical socialist 38
Well said!!
A gem!
“financial capital” free and rational consent” (“Empire and Democracy,” p. 265). Professor Giddings, it seems, fails to recognize that the entire ethical force of this intriguing doctrine of retrospective consent rests upon a judgment concerning the likelihood that free and rational consent will be expressed—and that his doctrine offers no guarantee whatsoever that this judgment will be competent or impartial; indeed, in practice, IT GRANTS ANY PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO SEIZE AND ADMINISTER THE TERRITORY OF ANY OTHER PEOPLE, on the basis of superiority and qualifications they themselves arbitrarily ascribe to themselves for the task of civilizing others.
pp. 212–213 (a response to defenders of imperialism who invoke “Christian” missionary activity): “How, then, are we to balance these two sets of outcomes? How much weight should we assign to Christianity and civilization, and how much to industry and commerce? These are the curious questions that, it seems, demand an answer.”
p. 214. “He” (Lord Hugh Cecil, in his speech of May 4, 1900, before the Evangelical Missionary Society (!!!)) “believes that by elevating the importance of missionary work in our consciousness, we can, to some extent, sanctify the spirit of imperialism.”
p. 224. “As we have seen, the controlling and guiding force behind the entire process is the pressure exerted by financial and industrial motives—motives that operate in the direct, immediate, material interests of SMALL, ENERGETIC, and WELL-ORGANIZED groups within the nation.”
From afar, they watch and incite—as they did during the Boer War.
pp. 227–228. “Jingoism is nothing more than an unrefined, unenlightened craving for risk, for danger, for the thrill of witnessing the suffering and annihilation of brothers whom one does not know—but whose destruction one longs for, consumed by a blind, artificially stoked impulse of hatred and vengeance. The jingoist is wholly absorbed by risk and by the blind fury of combat. The hardships and exhausting monotony of marching, the long periods of waiting, the severe privations, the agonizing boredom of protracted campaigns—all of this plays no role in his imagination; the moments that ennoble war—the noble sense of camaraderie forged in the face of shared peril, the fruits of discipline and self‑sacrifice, the respect accorded to the enemy’s individuality, whose courage must be acknowledged and whose humanity is gradually recognized as akin to one’s own—these mitigating aspects of real warfare remain utterly inaccessible to the jingoist’s sensibilities. It is precisely for this reason that some friends of peace contend that the two most powerful factors restraining militarism and war are the obligation of all citizens to perform military service and the lived experience of invasion.”
…It is perfectly clear that the SPECTATORIAL PLEASURE DERIVED FROM JINGOISM constitutes a profoundly significant factor in imperialism. The deliberate dramatization—both of war itself and of the entire policy of imperialist expansion—aimed at stirring this passion among broad masses occupies a considerable place in the art of the true organizers of imperialist enterprises: small groups of entrepreneurs and political figures who know exactly what they want and how to achieve it. Blinded by the real or imagined aura of military heroism and by the glittering pretensions of empire‑building, dialectics!
Jingoism becomes the soul of a PARTICULAR KIND OF PATRIOTISM—one that can be driven to any conceivable madness or overreach.
“to distract” pp. 232–233. “The sphere giving rise to danger is, of course, far broader than imperialism itself, encompassing the entire realm of material interests. Yet if the analysis presented in the preceding chapters is sound, then imperialism stands as the outpost of these very interests: for financial and speculative classes, it means pursuing their private agendas at the expense of society; for industrialists engaged in export-oriented production and for merchants, it signifies the forcible expansion of foreign markets—and the associated policy of protectionism; for bureaucrats and professional elites, it opens wide the doors to prestigious, lucrative positions; for the Church, it entails the consolidation of its authority and the establishment of spiritual control over vast masses of lower tribes; for the political oligarchy, it offers the sole effective means of diverting the forces of democracy and the prospect of a glittering political career through ostentatious endeavors in empire-building.” p. 238. Mr. Kidd, Professor Giddings, and the “Fabian” (NB) imperialists justify the necessity of “civilized nations’ control over the tropics” on the basis of material necessity. The natural resources of tropical countries “are of vital importance for the survival and progress of Western civilization… Partly due to the simple increase in population within the temperate zone, and partly due to rising standards of material well-being, the dependence of temperate nations upon tropical lands is bound to grow.” All the vast expanses of tropical regions must be cultivated. Meanwhile, owing to the qualities that the hot climate develops in local inhabitants, they are incapable of genuine progress: they are heedless, and their needs do not expand. “The natives themselves will not, of their own accord…”

NOTEBOOK “κ” (“KAPPA”)
>…to exploit the natural riches of the tropics” (239).
pp. 239–240. “It is said that we cannot leave these lands uncultivated; it is our duty to ensure that they are developed for the common good. But white men cannot ‘colonize’ these regions and, by settling there, cultivate their natural wealth with their own hands; they can only organize the labor of the natives and oversee it. In this way, they can train the natives in various trades and kindle in them a desire for material and moral progress, instilling in them new ‘needs’—the very foundations of civilization in every society.”
p. 251. “In short, until there exists a truly international council capable of compelling civilized nations to nurture inferior races, claims to ‘trust’ amount to nothing more than an act of brazen self‑aggrandizement.”
(*) !! Trust (colonies are ‘entrusted’ with being educated, entrusted with this ‘task’ to the metropoles)!!
pp. 253–254. A trust among the major European powers would amount to the exploitation of non-European lands. The Europeans’ rule in China “sufficiently exposes, through the facts of history, the utter absurdity of the claim that the foreign policies of the Christian world—or of the peoples that comprise it—are inspired by, and guided by, a concern for civilization… If any overarching international policy is pursued with regard to inferior races, it springs not from moral trust, but from commercial ‘deals.’”
(((On the Question of the United States of Europe!!)))
pp. 259–260. “The most significant—and ultimately the most crucial—struggle in Southern Africa is the contest between the policies of Basutoland and those of Johannesburg and Rhodesia, for it is precisely in this struggle that we clearly discern the difference between ‘healthy’ imperialism, devoted to the patronage, education, and self‑development of ‘inferior races,’ and ‘unhealthy’ imperialism—which condemns these races to economic exploitation at the hands of white colonists who treat them as ‘living instruments’ and their lands as mere repositories of ore or other profitable treasures.” p. 262 (note). “In the British Protectorate of Zanzibar and Pemba, slavery still persists, and British courts continue to recognize this state of affairs”... Emancipation proceeds all too slowly—and many have a vested interest in keeping things that way. “Of the roughly 25,000 slaves once registered in Pemba, fewer than 5,000 have been freed by decree.”
((1897–1902))
The Sultan’s decree on the emancipation of slaves was issued in 1897, while this statement was made on April 4, 1902, at a rally held by the “Society for the Abolition of Slavery.”
p. 264. “The actual history of imperialism, unlike that of colonialism, vividly illustrates this tendency”—the tendency to compel indigenous peoples to exploit their own lands for our benefit.
p. 265. “In most countries around the globe, it was purely or predominantly commercial interest—and the corresponding patterns of action—that gave rise to the core from which imperialism emerged; the earliest trading settlements evolved into industrial villages, around which concessions were granted for land and mineral resources; the industrial village required armed force for its defense, for securing new concessions, and for suppressing and punishing any violations of agreements or breaches of order; other interests—political and religious—began to assume greater significance, and the former trading settlement gradually acquired a more distinctly political and military character; the reins of governance typically passed from the company to the state, and the vaguely defined protectorate slowly took on the form of a colony.”

THE NOTEBOOK “κ” (“KAPPA”)
p. 270. Local residents are forcibly conscripted to work for industrial enterprises; sometimes this is disguised as the establishment of a “militia” composed of local inhabitants, ostensibly tasked with defending the nation—yet in reality, it exists solely to serve the interests of European industrial corporations.
p. 272. A boat docks at the shore, and the tribal leader is lured ashore with beads and trinkets; in exchange for these gifts, he affixes his signature to a “contract” whose true meaning he does not comprehend. The contract is signed by a translator—and by an adventurer who has come to the land, a man whose origins lie in France or England—and from that moment on, the country is regarded as an ally (a colony) of the nation from which the visitor hails.
p. 280. Where direct slavery has been abolished, taxes serve as a means of compelling indigenous peoples to enter into wage labor. “These taxes are often levied in such a way as to strip indigenous peoples of their lands, force them to sell their labor power, and even drive them to revolt—revolts that are followed by mass confiscations.”
p. 293. “But as long as white farmers or white mine owners, shortsighted in their narrow commercial interests, are permitted—through actions undertaken either at their own risk or by exerting pressure on colonial or imperial governments—to invade territories inhabited by ‘lower races’ and to appropriate their lands or labor for their private gain, the first principle of ‘sound’ imperialism is violated. And the platitudes about ‘training in noble labor’ and preparing ‘infantile’ races for maturity—whether uttered by directors of mining companies or by statesmen in the House of Commons—are little more than crude examples of hypocrisy. They are founded upon the FALSIFICATION OF FACTS and the PERVERTION OF MOTIVES that, in reality, determine policy.”
p. 295. “The stigma of ‘parasitism’ rests upon
every white settlement nestled among these lower races; in other words, nowhere do relations between whites and people of color take on the character of healthy mutual assistance. The best service—the one that would consist in white civilization setting forth examples of normal, healthy white communities, practicing the finest forms of Western life—almost always proves impossible due to climatic and other physical conditions. The mere presence of a scattered handful of white officials, missionaries, merchants, and overseers in mines and plantations—those men who form a dominant caste, largely ignorant of the social order of the people they govern and lacking any genuine sympathy for it—is utterly ill-suited to enable these lower races even to attain those achievements that Western civilization might otherwise have been capable of bestowing.”
p. 301. “Rev. J. M. Bowill, the Dean of the Cathedral,” is “a professional mediator between God and Mammon.” In his book, “Tribes Under the Transvaal Flag,” he describes how, in the mines, indigenous people are allowed to erect tents, thereby enabling them to “live more or less under conditions similar to those in their native kraals.” All of this is nothing but hypocritical rhetoric; the lives of indigenous people “remain entirely agricultural and pastoral in character,” yet they are forced to work in the mines for wages. p. 304. “On the lands allotted to them, indigenous people are bound to the soil and live in complete bondage, possessing neither the right to vote nor any other political means of voicing their grievances—and lacking the economic resources necessary for progress.”
p. 309–310. “Yet millions of peasants in India struggle to survive on just half an acre of land. Their existence is a constant battle against hunger, one that too often ends in failure. It is not merely that they can scarcely hope for a human existence—let alone a life that offers even the meager comforts that are customary for them—but that they can barely manage to stay alive, to avoid dying… We may truly say that in India, except in irrigated regions, famine is a chronic, endemic phenomenon.”

THE NOTEBOOK “κ” (“KAPPA”)
p. 323. “This delusion—that ‘we are civilizing India’—is sustained only by the sophisms of imperialism, which spins this falsehood in order to conceal its nakedness and the profits that certain vested interests within the empire extract from it.”
p. 324. “New imperialism differs from old imperialism, first, in that it replaces the ambitions of a single rising empire with the theories and practices of competing empires, each driven by the same lusts for political expansion and commercial gain; second, in that it subordinates commercial interests to the interests of finance—or, more precisely, to the interests of capital investment.”
N V: The distinction between new imperialism and old imperialism
p. 329–330. “No, in any case, there is nothing impossible about the prospect that China might repay the industrial nations of the West with their own coin—and, by harnessing their capital and organizational capacities, or, more likely, by substituting its own, it might flood their markets with cheaper manufactured goods of its own production. By refusing to accept in return the commodities they import, China could secure the payments owed to it, placing a lien on their capital—and thus reverse the previous flow of capital investment, until, in time, China gradually achieves financial control over its former patrons and civilizers. This is by no means idle fantasy” (China may yet awaken)...
p. 332–333. “Militarism may endure for a very long time, for it has already been shown—in many respects—that it serves as a bulwark for plutocracy. The expenditures associated with militarism provide lucrative support to certain powerful financial interests; it constitutes a decorative element in social life,
* see V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th ed., vol. 22, p. 250. fed.

Well said!!
“The United States of Europe”
And most importantly, it is indispensable for curbing the momentum of those social forces that clamor for domestic forms. Everywhere, the forces of capital—in their more concentrated and consolidated form—are better organized and have attained a higher level of development than the forces of the working class; while the working class was still debating international labor cooperation, capital had already begun to forge transnational alliances. Consequently, when it comes to the largest financial and commercial interests, it is quite likely that future generations may witness such a powerful international union of capital that wars among Western nations will become virtually impossible. Despite the selfishness and greed that currently undermine European activity in the Far East, the real drama will unfold when the forces of international capitalism—those that aspire to serve as the bearers of culture within a unified Christian world—are harnessed for the peaceful conquest of China. It is then that the “Yellow Peril” will truly emerge. If it proves futile to expect China to embrace a national patriotism capable of empowering it to cast out Western exploiters, then China is doomed to decay—a process that would be more accurately described as the “fragmentation” of China rather than its “development.” Only then will we fully grasp the sheer peril and utter madness of this undertaking—the most colossal, the most revolutionary enterprise in all of human history. Perhaps only then will Western nations realize that they allowed a small clique of private speculators to draw them into such a disastrous— NOTEBOOK “K” (“KAPPA”)
Imperialism, under which all costs and all risks associated with this adventurist policy are magnified a hundredfold—and from which there seems no escape without suffering grave losses,” p. 335. ((NB: the prospect of parasitism)). “The greater part of Western Europe might then assume the appearance and character now found in certain regions of these countries: the south of England, the Riviera, the most heavily frequented tourist destinations and the favored retreats of the wealthy in Italy and Switzerland—namely, a small elite of affluent aristocrats drawing dividends and pensions from the distant East, joined by a somewhat larger group of professional clerks and merchants, and further augmented by a growing number of domestic servants and workers in the transportation industry and in industries devoted to the final finishing of manufactured goods. The major branches of industry, meanwhile, would vanish, while mass-produced foodstuffs and mass-produced semi-finished goods would flow in as tribute from Asia and Africa.” *
The Essence of Imperialism
p. 337. “But the economic task of imperialism in opening access to China, as we can see, does not consist at all in engaging in ordinary trade: rather, it lies in creating a new, vast market for Western European investors—a market whose profits will accrue not to the entire people, but only to that segment of capitalists who invest capital. The very nature of imperialism itself obstructs the normal, healthy progression of peoples’ efforts to harness the world’s growing wealth; for the essence of imperialism is to develop markets for the deployment of capital—not for trade—and to exploit economic superiority through cheap foreign products in order to displace domestic industry and sustain the political and economic dominance of a particular class.”

* See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th ed., vol. 22, p. 266. Ed.

p. 346. “The power wielded by Europe over Asia—exercised through force, driven by profit, and justified on the pretext that it is supposedly civilizing Asia and elevating its spiritual life—will likely be remembered by history as the crowning folly and injustice of imperialism. We refuse to accept what Asia has to offer us: its priceless treasures of wisdom, accumulated over centuries of experience. And whatever little or much we might have to give her, we ruin it through the barbarism with which we go about doing so. This is what imperialism has done—and continues to do—to Asia.”
p. 350. “Speaking about Gladstone’s bill of 1886, Mr. Chamberlain remarked concerning Home Rule: ‘I would seek a solution along the lines of federal principles. My esteemed friend looked to the model provided by the relations between our own country and its self-governing, de facto independent colonies.’ But federation is preferable, for in that case Ireland would remain an integral part of Great Britain, while the ties with the self-governing colonies would be purely moral. Today, the development of democracy is moving toward federation, toward unity, rather than toward fragmentation” (all from Chamberlain’s speech).
Chamberlain advocated for federation against fragmentation, against the “centrifugal” tendency. 40.
NB
cf. Kautsky on “ultra-imperialism”
p. 351. “Christianity, firmly established within a few large federal empires—each of which encompasses a number of uncivilized colonies and dependent states—appears to many as the most legitimate expression of contemporary trends, and moreover, as the path that offers the greatest hope for lasting peace built upon a solid foundation of inter-imperialism.”*
The idea of Pan-Tyrolism, Pan-Slavism, Pan-Latinism, Pan-Britannism, and the like is taking shape—alongside a series of “unions of states.” (“Unions of States”).

* See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th ed., vol. 22, p. 280. Ed.

NOTEBOOK “κ” (“KAPPA”)
What would Kautsky’s “ultra-imperialism” and the United States of Europe, built upon the foundations of capitalism, ultimately amount to? To “inter-imperialism”!!
pp. 355–356. Under contemporary imperialist policies, the “United Kingdom cannot bear, without substantial assistance from its colonies, the financial burden associated with the need to expand its naval fleet.” This could lead to the secession of the colonies—whose interests do not lie in being drawn into imperialist politics, in which they can exert no decisive influence—and whose individual status as federated states would leave them with only a negligible minority among the vast number of British colonies, most of which have little in common with one another. For Britain, an “imperial federation” is advantageous; for the colonies, it is not.
p. 373. “New imperialism is killing the federation of free, self-governing states: the colonies may well take note of this, but they will nonetheless continue down their own familiar paths.”
politics of financial capital pp. 378–379. “The practice of investing capital in foreign lands, which has recently become widespread, has now developed to such an extent that the wealthy and politically powerful classes of Great Britain are deriving an ever-increasing share of their income from capital invested beyond the borders of the British Empire. This growing interest on the part of our affluent classes in countries over which they wield no political control constitutes a revolutionary force in modern politics; it signifies a steadily intensifying tendency to use the political power of citizens of a given state as a means of intervening in the political life of those states whose industries hold material stakes for them.

The fundamentally illegitimate nature of this use of a nation’s public resources to safeguard and enhance the profitability of private investments must be clearly acknowledged.”
p. 380. “These forces are usually referred to as capitalist, but the most serious danger does not arise from genuine industrial investment abroad; rather, it stems from the fact that funds and shares based on these investments are managed by financiers.”
pp. 381–382. “An analysis of imperialism and its natural underpinnings—militarism, oligarchy, bureaucracy, protectionism, the concentration of capital, and sharp economic fluctuations—reveals it to be the greatest threat facing modern nation-states. The power wielded by imperialist forces within a country, enabling them to exploit national resources for their private gain through the apparatus of the state, can be overthrown only by establishing genuine democracy—only by a politics guided by the people in the interests of the people, carried out through representatives over whom the people exercise real control. Whether our own country—or any other country—already possesses the capacity for such democracy is highly questionable; yet there is little hope of finding a remedy until a nation’s foreign policy ‘rests upon a broad foundation of popular will.’”
pp. 382–383. “Imperialism is only just beginning to fully realize its potential and to transform itself into the subtle art of governing peoples; the broad franchise granted to a populace whose level of education has reached only the stage where people begin to read printed materials without yet approaching what they read with critical discernment—such a system is extremely conducive to the ambitions of

NOTEBOOK “κ” (“KAPPA”)
bold business leaders who, by exercising control over the press, the schools, and, when necessary, the church, instill imperialism in the masses while cloaking it in the alluring rhetoric of patriotic sentiment.
As we have established, the primary economic source of imperialism lies in the inequality of economic opportunities, whereby a privileged class accumulates surplus incomes that, in their quest for profitable outlets, drive them ever further afield. The influence of these investors and their financial orchestrators over state policy ensures the consolidation of other material interests—interests that are themselves threatened by movements advocating social reform. Thus, the establishment of imperialism serves a dual purpose: it secures private material gains for privileged classes of investors and merchants at the expense of the public good, while simultaneously reinforcing the broader cause of conservatism by diverting society’s energy and attention away from domestic agitation and directing them outward.”
a la Kunov and Co.!!
p. 383. “To call imperialism a ‘national’ policy is nothing short of brazen falsehood: the interests of the nation are diametrically opposed to every step taken in this policy of expansion. Any extension of British influence into the tropics represents an unmistakable weakening of true British nationalism. In certain circles, imperialism is even praised precisely because, by breaking the narrow confines of national identities, it facilitates and promotes the development of internationalism. There are even those who, pressured by the forces of imperialism, advocate the violent suppression of smaller nations by larger ones—or excuse such actions, imagining that in doing so they are merely bringing about the natural progression toward a world federation and eternal peace.”
Defenders of imperialism who seek to absorb small nations!!

p. 384. “The hope for a coming internationalism requires, above all, the preservation and free development of independent nations, for without this, the gradual evolution of internationalism is impossible; all that can be achieved is a series of ill‑fated attempts at a chaotic, unstable cosmopolitanism. Just as individualism is essential to any healthy form of national socialism, so too is nationalism indispensable to internationalism; no organic conception of world politics can be built upon any other premise.” pp. 384–385. As long as genuine national governments emerge—governments that represent the interests of the people rather than those of a clique of oligarchs—the conflicts between nations will be eliminated, and a peaceful internationalism—based on the shared interests of nations (as embodied in postal conventions and the like)—will increasingly flourish. “Economic ties are far stronger and more reliable as the foundation for a rising internationalism than so‑called racial bonds” (Pan-German, Pan-Slav, Pan-British, etc.) “or a political alliance constructed on some short‑sighted calculation of power equilibrium.”
pp. 385–386: “Such are the possibilities opened up before us by a broader union of Western states—a European federation of great powers: not only would it fail to advance the cause of global civilization, but it could instead herald a colossal danger in the form of Western parasitism—segregating a group of advanced industrial nations whose upper classes exact a tremendous tribute from Asia and Africa, using this tribute to sustain vast hordes of salaried employees and servants who are no longer engaged in the mass production of agricultural and industrial goods, but rather in personal service or secondary industrial labor under the control of a new financial aristocracy.

NOTEBOOK “κ” (“KAPPA”)
Let those who are quick to dismiss such a theory* as unworthy of serious consideration reflect upon the economic and social conditions prevailing in those districts of modern southern England that have ALREADY BEEN REDUCED TO SUCH A STATE. Let them ponder what an immense expansion of such a system might entail—if China were brought under the economic control of similar groups of financiers, “landlords of capital,” their political and commercial‑industrial functionaries, who drain profits from the greatest reservoir of potential wealth the world has ever known, with the sole purpose of consuming these profits in Europe. Of course, the situation is far too complex, and the interplay of global forces is far too difficult to fully account for, to render this—or any other—interpretation of the future highly probable in a single direction. Yet the forces currently shaping Western European imperialism are moving precisely in this direction, and unless they encounter resistance, unless they are diverted into another path, they are working toward precisely such an outcome**.
If the ruling classes in Western countries succeed in advancing their own interests through such a combination—and if China proves unable to develop sufficient strength of resistance—then the prospect of parasitic imperialism becomes all too real, one that, on a larger scale, would reproduce many of the features of the late Roman Empire.”
p. 389. “In essence, the new imperialism differs in nothing from its ancient prototype” (the Roman Empire)

*- In his work “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism,” I. Lenin added in parentheses after the word “theory”: “It should have read: ‘perspectives.’” See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th ed., vol. 22, p. 267, and vol. 23, p. 98.) Ed.
** See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th ed., vol. 22, pp. 266–267. Ed.

He is no different from a parasite. But the laws of nature, which doom parasites to extinction, apply not only to individuals, but also to nations. The complexity of the process and the concealment of underlying realities may slow the inevitable demise—but they cannot avert it. “The claim that an imperialist state, by forcibly subjugating other peoples and their lands, acts in order to bestow upon the conquered peoples services equal to those it itself demands is fundamentally false: it has no intention whatsoever of providing equivalent services—and is, in fact, utterly incapable of doing so.”
The End