V. I. LENIN
NOTEBOOK

“ν”

(“NI”)
Contents

Imperialism
Engels (Disarmament)
Laufenberg
Prison. World Politics (1)
Wegener [1–2]
F. Engels. “Disarmament”: 3–9
F. Engels. “Articles on International Topics from the Newspaper ‘Volksstaat’”: 10–[14]
Laufenberg: 15–[24] “Germany and the World War” [30–32]
Albrecht Wirth [24–25 and 33–38]
Georg Adler. “The Imperialist Social Policy.” 1897 [39]
A. Siegfried. “New Zealand.” 1909 [40–41]
Götch. “Turkestan” (42–3)
(p. 38: The Young Egyptian Congress)
42–43: Pan-Islamism.
Socialism in China… 44 “INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL REVIEW”
“La Revue politique Internationale,” March–April 1915, No. 14 (Lausanne).
“Democratic Russia and the War” by Mr. Grigory Aleksinsky, a former Duma deputy ((pp. 168–186)).
Editorial Note: “It is noteworthy to observe the solidarity that, despite all fundamental differences, at this very moment binds a large

NOTEBOOK “ν” (“NI”)
portion of Russian revolutionaries and liberals to the autocratic Tsarist regime” (p. 168).
Russia, after all, could not have desired war—even official Russia. Was Russia preparing for 1918, 1920? A murderer five years in advance??
[p. 177: Editorial note (from Aleksinsky’s book) stating that in Russia there were “two governments.”]
Russia defended weak Serbia and the like—“a noble cause” (181), despite the other “vile deeds” of Tsarist rule.
As for the neutralization of the straits—not a “war of conquest,” as Milukov argued… the victory of the Allies was a boon for the progress of Europe.
PRISON. “WORLD POLITICS”
Dr. Hans Plien. “World Politics: An Outline of Recent World History Following the Conclusion of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance.” Berlin, 1907 (214 pp.), 3rd edition. A quite good survey, largely devoted to England and Japan—in connection with them, to America and Russia. England–Japan–the United States–Russia.
In the second part (pp. 91–167), the author examines the organization of foreign policy in England—not the state itself, but “society.”
WEGENER. “MODERN INDIA”
Prof. Dr. Georg Wegener. “Modern India: The Foundations and Problems of British Rule in India” (“Studies on Colonial Questions,” Issue 61/63, 1 mark = 20 pfennigs). Berlin, 1912 (52 pp.). A very well-written, clear, concise survey. India covers 4,575,000 square kilometers; its population was 315 million in 1911 (compared to 297 million in 1901).
(1801–100) Military danger emanating from Russia: by now the British had armed themselves here “to the teeth.” There was no unified nation, no single language. The Bengalis numbered 70 million. In 1905, the British divided Bengal—seeking to weaken the national movement. By 1911, during the coronation ceremony in Delhi, it was promised that this measure would be rescinded.

The caste system.
The British ruled through a policy of “divide and conquer”…
Extreme diversity of geographical conditions.
Isolation from the rest of the world.
The Middle Ages—religion held sway, while the external world was of little consequence—agriculture—and vassal relationships.

Two-thirds of the country came directly under British rule; one-third consisted of vassal states.
Complete dependence (in agriculture) on summer rains—the summer monsoon, or trade winds. Without them, famine loomed.
The army comprised 75,000 British soldiers and 150,000 native troops drawn from various tribes. The British especially exploited the animosity between Muslims—some 60 million in number—and the Hindus.
The greatest threat came from the Sepoy Rebellion of 1857—the defection of the native army to the rebels. It was the divisions among different nations, coupled with the apathy of the masses, that ultimately saved the situation.
From plague, 1,069,140 died in 1905, 1,315,892 in 1907, and so on.
British administration was thoroughly “dictatorial” (31), “autocratic” (31).
The “Civil Administration in India” numbered around 1,000 personnel—a staff of highly paid, exceptionally competent officials.
England, after all, had given much—creating the British Empire, building railways, establishing postal services, reforming the judiciary, and more besides.
The causes of unrest:

1) The violence inflicted upon the people by foreign rulers…

2) The rapid growth of the population. (Famine.)
3) “The increasing agrarianization of India”: England was stifling the country’s nascent industry.
The Swadeshi movement (= the campaign for domestically produced goods)—a boycott of British products.

4) Taxes. Land taxes levied on peasants.

5) The emergence of an Indian intelligentsia. Schools had created “a proletariat of mental labor—of the worst and most politically burdensome sort” (43), whose authors were nothing more than reactionary scoundrels.

6) The formation of an Indian nation. (“National Congresses.”)

The notebook “ν” (“NI”)
7) A religious movement—against the British, in defense of Asians, for one’s own cause, for an Asian identity… (terrorism, etc.). The British provide artillery and armories exclusively to the White forces, p. 48. In general, the British are exceedingly cautious.
ENGELS. “CAN EUROPE DISARM?”
Friedrich Engels. “Can Europe Disarm?” Nuremberg, 1893. Separate reprint from “Vorwarts” (Verlag und Co.), no. 49.
In the Bern Workers’ Library, the collection opens with a pamphlet titled: “Karl Marx Before the Jury in Cologne.”
Preface: — These articles were published in March 1893 in Berlin’s “Vorwarts,” “during the debates in the Reichstag over the military bill” (p. 3).
“Proceeding, therefore, from this” (the present, heutigen) “situation, I propose here only those measures that any current government can adopt without compromising its country’s defensive capabilities. I merely seek to demonstrate that, from a purely military standpoint, there are absolutely no obstacles to the gradual abolition of standing armies,” and that if such forces are retained, they must be deployed “against the internal enemy” (p. 3).
“The gradual reduction of the term of service through international agreement”—this is “the central point of my argument” (p. 4)—“the general transition from a standing army to a militia” (p. 4, ibid., p. 3).
(Thus: the “essence” of Engels’s proposal is the transition to a militia. This is crucial.)
The preface is dated London, March 28, 1893.
§ I. For twenty-five years now, Europe has been arming itself “in an unprecedented manner”... “Is it not reckless, then, to speak of disarmament?” (p. 5).
But the popular masses… are calling… “for disarmament” “in every country”… Is there no way out of this deadlock other than a devastating war?
“I maintain: disarmament—and thereby the guarantee of peace—is possible” (p. 5)… and Germany possesses both the “strength and the vocation” to achieve this…

Next, § I briefly outlines the transition to universal conscription. Its “revolutionary” dimension (p. 6)—the mobilization of all men for “national defense”…
It is necessary to move toward an “international maximum term of service,” with the “militia system as the ultimate goal” (p. 7).
First, a maximum of two years; then one and a half years, and so on—until what??
§ II. The technical feasibility of a short term of service. The unnecessary length of long terms.
(The absurdities of drill sergeants (p. 9), sentry duty (p. 9), orderly services (p. 10), and the like—utter nonsense.)
And what about cavalry? It would be preferable to extend the term—especially if soldiers previously lacked riding skills. Yet even in this regard, much can be done; afterward, “volunteers serving for three or four years” become a viable option (p. 10).
In my lifetime, I have witnessed so many collapses of celebrated customs, institutions, rules, and military practices (p. 10) that
I would advise everyone to approach the opinions of military “experts” with particular skepticism (p. 11, end of §II).
§ III. The absurdity of conservatism in military affairs, especially when technology is undergoing such radical transformation.
Infantry fire:
Forty years ago, at… 300 paces; 1870/1: 600–1,000 paces (artillery:

3–4,000 paces)
“New” weapons could reach 3,000–4,000 paces (p. I).
The necessity of military training for youth, gymnastics, etc. (pp. 13–14), marching exercises (in summer), “field training” (p. 14), and so on.
And the teachers? Former non-commissioned officers. If we were to bring them “into the light of the schoolyard and under the umbrella of the civilian penal code”—“then, I wager, our rebellious (sic!!)
school youth would teach the most hardened of former tormentors—those soldiers—to see reason” (p. 15).

The notebook “ν” (“NI”)
§ IV. Will other countries accept this proposal? Austria and Italy—yes.
France?—“the decisive nation” (p. 15); will France drag its feet?
But Germany is far stronger: its population is larger; it has more officers—and that is of paramount importance. (“Up to now, in every war, after just a few months of combat, shortages of officers began to be felt” (p. 17))...
Incidentally, the “undemocratic and politically unsound” (p. 16) institution of voluntary service proves highly beneficial to Germany in military terms (>more officers). In contrast, in France, “soldiers serving three-year terms were simply weeded out by the privileged one-year volunteers. This clearly demonstrates how much lower the level of socio-political consciousness—and the political norms it permits—in Germany falls compared to France” (p. 16).
§ V. Russia? It hardly matters whether it accepts the proposal. In any case, there are no officers to spare.
The Russian soldier is remarkably brave and holds his ground firmly in close formation. But today, what is required is individualized action—and in this respect, he is utterly unfit, utterly incomparable to “soldiers of the West” (p. 19). Corruption and embezzlement, etc., are rampant in Russia (p. 20). “Should Russia lose just two or three battles, the theater of operations will shift from the Vistula to the Daugava and the Dnieper; behind the German army, under its protective shield, an army of Polish allies will take shape; and Prussia will be duly punished—if, in order to secure its own safety, it is forced to restore a strong Poland” (p. 20).
§ VI. Russia’s internal situation is “almost desperate”… “this European China” (p. 21)… the ruin of the peasantry following 1861… “This path” (“of economic and social revolution”—that is, of capitalism—in Russia) “has, for the time being, remained primarily a path of destruction” (p. 21).
The plundering of the soil, deforestation, and the like in Russia. Credit is collapsing. “It is not France that needs Russia—but rather, Russia that needs France… If France were but a little wiser, it could extract from Russia whatever it desired. Instead, official France crawls on its belly before the Tsar” (p. 23)…

{"src": "диалектика", "tgt": "dialectics"}
{"src": "самодвижение", "tgt": "self-movement"}
{"src": "познание", "tgt": "cognition"}
{"src": "империализм", "tgt": "imperialism"}
{"src": "буржуазия", "tgt": "bourgeoisie"}
{"src": "пролетариат", "tgt": "proletariat"}
{"src": "Советы", "tgt": "Soviets"}
{"src": "диктатура пролетариата", "tgt": "dictatorship of the proletariat"}
{"src": "классовая борьба", "tgt": "class struggle"}
{"src": "средства производства", "tgt": "means of production"}
{"src": "надстройка", "tgt": "superstructure"}
{"src": "базис", "tgt": "base"}
{"src": "мелкая буржуазия", "tgt": "petty bourgeoisie"}
{"src": "товарное производство", "tgt": "commodity production"}
{"src": "прибавочная стоимость", "tgt": "surplus value"}
{"src": "Совнарком", "tgt": "Sovnarkom"}
{"src": "ЦК", "tgt": "Central Committee"}
{"src": "ВЦИК", "tgt": "VTsIK"}
{"src": "СНК", "tgt": "Sovnarkom"}
{"src": "СТО", "tgt": "Council of Labour and Defence"}
{"src": "РКП(б)", "tgt": "RCP(b)"}
{"src": "РСФСР", "tgt": "RSFSR"}
{"src": "продразвёрстка", "tgt": "prodrazvyorstka"}
{"src": "продналог", "tgt": "tax in kind"}
{"src": "нэп", "tgt": "NEP"}
Russia lives by exporting rye—primarily to Germany. “As soon as Germany begins to eat white bread instead of black, the current official Tsarist–big-bourgeois Russia will immediately go bankrupt” (23).
end of § VI |
§ VII. So how do things stand with us? “Insults to soldiers” without end (24)... “parasitic nobility,” “arrogant bourgeois sons”... In the past, soldiers were accidentally shot during maneuvers (25)—“I knew a young man from Cologne who died in 1849 in this way, struck by a bullet meant for his superior” (25)—but now, with a small-caliber magazine rifle, “you can’t pull off such a trick so easily or so discreetly” (25)... In France, such treatment of soldiers is simply unthinkable... French soldiers are bound to despise their German counterparts when they read about the way those soldiers are treated in barracks... § VIII. Will this proposal be accepted? Germany is making it to Austria, Italy, and France. If the latter accepts, she will not worsen her position; if she rejects it, she will only make things worse.
“All armies are extraordinarily capable of learning after suffering heavy defeats” (27)...
“We must not forget that 27 years of Bismarck’s rule made Germany hated throughout the entire foreign world—and rightly so. Neither the annexation of the North Schleswig Danes, nor the failure to honor—and ultimately the fraudulent cancellation of—the clause in the Treaty of Prague pertaining to them, nor the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine, nor the abhorrent measures taken against the Polish population of Prussia had anything whatsoever to do with the creation of ‘national unity’” (27)... Bismarck succeeded in making Germany universally loathed...
“Wherever you go, you will find sympathy for France and distrust toward Germany” (28)... “Let us not forget that the outcome of the coming war will be decided by A
lia” (28)—control of the seas, “simply by wearing down (France or Germany).

NOTEBOOK “ν” (“NI”)
Germany would have won the archives by making such a proposal
(page 29)...
End
MARX. “EXPOSÉS ON THE COLOGNE TRIAL OF THE COMMUNISTS,” WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY ENGELS
In his article “On the History of the Communist League” (dated October 8, 1885), Engels wrote in the pamphlet “Exposés on the Cologne Trial of the Communists” (Zurich, 1885):
At the end of the article:
…Marx was “the man most hated by his contemporaries—and the one most slandered by them” 50 (p. 17)…
Marx’s postscript (January 8, 1875) to the same pamphlet:… 51
…“After the collapse of the 1848 Revolution, the German workers’ movement existed only in a theoretical form, moreover confined within the narrow bounds of propaganda—about whose practical viability the Prussian government never deluded itself for a single moment” (73).
ENGELS. “ARTICLES ON INTERNATIONAL TOPICS FROM THE NEWSPAPER ‘VOLKSTAAT’”
Friedrich Engels. “Articles on International Topics from the Newspaper ‘Volksstaat’” (1871–1875). Berlin, 1894.
PREFACE, 1894
Communists or Social Democrats?
In the preface (January 3, 1894), Engels notes, among other things, that in all these articles (written between 1871 and 1875), he refers to himself as a communist rather than a social democrat—because at that time, in France, the Proudhonists called themselves social democrats, while in Germany, the Lassalleans did likewise (p. 6).

“For Marx and for me, it was therefore utterly impossible to use such a broad and elastic term to denote our own specific standpoint. Today, the situation is different, and while the word * may perhaps suffice, it remains imprecise for a party whose economic program is not merely socialist in general—but directly communist—in a party whose ultimate political goal is the abolition of the state itself, and consequently also of democracy. The names of actual political parties, however, never fully correspond to their essence; the party evolves, while the name remains” (p. 7),
“BAKUNINISTS AT WORK” “Bakuninists at Work” (1873). End… “The Bakuninists in Spain gave us an unparalleled example of how not to” (Engels’s emphasis) “conduct a revolution” (p. 33).
o
“POLISH PROCLAMATION”
Ibidem, “Polish Proclamation” (June 11, 1874). “At the root of all European militarism lies Russian militarism. The Russian army, which during the War of 1859 stood in reserve on the side of France, and in 1866 and 1870 sided with Prussia, each time afforded the greatest military power the opportunity to defeat its adversaries single-handedly. Prussia, as the foremost military power in Europe, was in fact a direct creation of Russia—though later, to its great displeasure, it outgrew its patron” (p. 35). …“After the Napoleonic Wars, Russia seized the lion’s share of the former Prussian and Austro-Polish provinces and openly assumed the role of arbiter of Europe; it continued to play this role uninterruptedly until 1853. …During the years of revolution, the suppression of Hungary by the Russ-

* “social democrat.” Ed.

The notebook “ν” (“NI”)
The withdrawal of Russian troops was as decisive a turning point for Eastern and Central Europe as the June battles in Paris had been for the West… With the rise of Russian dominance in Europe came the ascendancy of reaction. The Crimean War liberated the West and Austria from the Tsar’s brazen ambitions… As we have seen above, the Russian army has served as both the pretext and the foundation for all European militarism… It was only because the Russian army intervened in 1870 to prevent Austria from siding with France that Prussia was able to defeat the French and complete the establishment of the Prussian–German military monarchy (38)…
The talk of the “essentially aristocratic” character of the Polish movement is utterly absurd.
“Poland, even more so than France, has been placed—by the very course of its historical development and by its present condition—at a crossroads: either become revolutionary or perish” (39)…
In 1871, most Polish émigrés sided with the Commune… “Was that the conduct of aristocrats?” (39).
“The Polish aristocracy is drawing ever closer to Russia, hoping to reunite Poland under Russian rule; yet the revolutionary masses respond by advocating an alliance with the German Workers’ Party and fighting within the ranks of the International” (39).
“No people can be truly free while they oppress other peoples. The very instruments of force required to subjugate another people will ultimately always turn against that same people” (40)—a pointed remark directed at Russia: the restoration of Poland “is a necessity… for the Russians themselves” (NB) (40),
“ON THE SOCIAL QUESTION IN RUSSIA” “On the Social Question in Russia” (1875) … “The large bourgeoisie of St. Petersburg, Moscow, and Odessa, which has been expanding at an unprecedented rate over the past decade—especially thanks to railway construction… the entire Russian heavy industry, which exists solely on the basis of protective tariffs—can it really be said that these powerful, rapidly growing segments of the population are not in the least concerned with the continued existence of the Russian state?…” 55 (p. 52) (in opposition to Tkachev).
The postscript (1894) to the article “On the Social Question in Russia” 56 concludes with the following passage:
“Its [the Russian Revolution’s] task will not merely be to dismantle the fragmentation of the villages—those villages where the great majority of the nation resides, where the peasants live and which constitute their ‘world,’ their entire universe—not merely to bring the peasants out into the wider arena where they come to know the external world and, in doing so, to know themselves, to understand their own position and the means by which they may escape their present plight—but the Russian Revolution will also give fresh impetus to the workers’ movement in the West, creating better conditions for struggle and thereby accelerating the victory of the modern industrial proletariat—a victory without which present-day Russia, whether through the commune or through capitalism, cannot achieve the socialist reorganization of society” (p. 72).
LAUFENBERG. “ORGANIZATION, WAR, AND CRITIQUE” “Organization, War, and Critique.” Documents pertaining to the Hamburg party debates
by Dr. Heinrich Laufenberg, Fritz Wolffheim, and Dr. Karl Hertz.
“Available for distribution to party members upon presentation of their membership card.”
(Printed and published by Dr. Laufenberg, Hamburg) (pp. 1–77)
Year???? (1915) ((1915 is certain)).
“Echo” 57 followed the government’s official line (8), citing passages from “Echo” (9–15) (on the militarization of youth, 26 and onward)—highly interesting. Laufenberg’s statements, along with those of others, were sharply critical.
The tactics of near‑denunciation and the like employed by the leaders.
The proposal to convene a body of “trusted representatives” was rejected (23 and elsewhere).

The notebook “ν” (“NI”)
…“a contradiction was bound to emerge between the leaders who oriented themselves toward the ‘Echo’ policy and the mass, which remained committed to the old proletarian principles and rejected the new revisionist politics of harmony” (34)…
§ VIII: “The Conclave (Sammlung) of Leaders” (NB) (in opposition to the mass).
The discussions revealed:
“The debates, which lasted for four evenings, were strikingly representative of the prevailing mood among the so‑called leading circles in Hamburg. It became abundantly clear—the fact long known to every attentive observer of Hamburg party life—that this upper stratum of leaders had, for quite some time, inwardly broken with the radical outlook of the Hamburg party’s rank-and-file. At party meetings, they might still employ radical slogans; in reality, however, Marxism had become for these circles nothing more than a restrictive uniform—one worn only on formal party occasions” (36).
von Elme, August Winnig, Gil-de-Brandt, and others defended imperialism and the like (p. 36).
(((G. Thomas on Elme and others, p. 47 and beyond)))
…“In the 1st and 2nd districts, where organizational affairs were managed by local executive committees, no meetings were held during the first four months after the outbreak of war” (37)…
From page 41 onward, the opportunists began to cite Kautsky—though Kautsky himself had spoken out against the misuse of his name—and the authors added a note pointing out that Kautsky had protested against this “abuse” of his reputation.
In the Hamburg district, there had been 6,000 members before the war—after just four meetings, an overwhelming majority rallied behind Laufenberg (p. 47)…
§ XI: “Carrot and Stick”—the opportunists, the “masters” of the organizations, Elme (Adolf von Elme) and Emil Krause—had “placed” a young worker (from the Central Committee for Workers’ Education) within the “Committee for Public Welfare”
(48)
to act in a moderate spirit…

The brochure by Laufenberg was sold by “Karl Goym” (48)—a worker at the Auer & Co. (party) printing house—and a campaign of harassment (“Treibe-rei”) was launched against him—allegedly because he had “complained to his own Dr. Laufenberg” (48).
The police went so far as to—just as they had done with the speeches of Comrades Scheidemann and Lenbach—issue specific directives to speakers regarding the content of their addresses and even prohibit debate. While the activities of bourgeois associations remained free from police interference, public life within party and trade union organizations now came under the watchful eye of the police. Thus, we find ourselves in a situation no different from that which prevailed during the era of the Socialist Law (52)...
The Press Commission—whose views were articulated by G. Thomas—rejected Laufenberg’s complaints… (claiming that the influence of Rosa, Mehring, Zetkin, and others “is utterly negligible throughout the Party,” p. 53, etc.), and in Bremen—as the same G. Thomas noted—“after Comrade Pannenkuh left Bremen” (54), meetings proceeded more calmly (“much more calmly”). From Laufenberg’s reply dated January 22, 1915:
… “Your confidence that broad circles of bourgeois society will shield your [the Press Commission’s] back from the blows of the Party’s opposition could well be rooted in the favorable reception that the ‘Echo’ policy enjoys among bourgeois circles, right up to the ‘Hamburger Nachrichten’—a policy that, in fact, largely coincides with the very views that earned Comrades Dr. August Müller and von Elbe the well-deserved favor of the bourgeois world” (55). … “the ‘Echo’s’ nationalist–socialist stance” (56)…
The Press Commission’s response of January 27, 1915, accused Laufenberg and Co. of “demagoguery” (59)… and declared that the Party’s Central Committee had officially labeled you and your friends “Party saboteurs” (62)…
From Laufenberg’s reply of February 4, 1915: … “the local ‘party bureaucracy’” (63), NOTEBOOK “ν” (“NI”)
NB:
international and German imperialism!
According to Thomas’s reply (February 4, 1915), the war was indeed imperialist—and we never denied that—but he insisted that the root cause lay solely in German imperialism. We all acknowledge, however, that the true cause is “international imperialism” (65).
… “Party meetings in Hamburg, Altona, and Ottensen—wherever debate took place—always sided with our [Laufenberg and Co.] position” (65).
The “Hamburger Echo” was “the second-largest newspaper of the German Social Democracy” (67).
The “New Yorker Volkszeitung” had “pursued a consistently proletarian policy throughout the course of the World War” (67).
NB
The “Echo” echoed the views of the New York Volkszeitung.
(The “Echo” resented this, criticizing “our old Schlueter” (p. 68) for it and dismissing as absurd the accusation that German Social Democracy had “in the course of its conduct allegedly lost its character as a proletarian party and renounced its principles” (68).]
… “But this small faction” (the opportunists) “is not content with imposing upon the Party a tactic of national reformism; it has already begun to attempt to split the Party into two camps… In contrast, the representatives of radicalism uphold the principle of unity within the German workers’ movement” (73)… (building on the long-standing foundations of its fifty-year history)…
and the conclusion of Section XV (“What Must Be Done?”)
… “For a prolonged period, as capitalist nation-states consolidated, proletarian organizations had developed on the assumption that major political upheavals were not to be expected anytime soon—and that the central focus of struggle would remain, for many years to come, on parliamentary compromise with the deeply entrenched forces of the old order…
oooThe World War altered the entire landscape in a single blow.
It revealed that the capitalist economy had moved from a phase of steady growth into an era of tumultuous expansion, driven by explosive surges and the relentless extension of its sphere of activity. In light of this transformation, the proletariat now faces the task of adapting its class organizations to the revolutionary demands of the future.
The monstrous events of last summer caught proletarian organizations unprepared. The determination of positions on global political developments was left entirely to local bureaucrats—as if the matter concerned nothing more than another monthly review of postage stamps sold for membership dues” (74)…
… “We believe that the primary task facing the current opposition is to introduce, in accordance with the exigencies of the moment, changes to the organizational forms of the German proletariat—which, given Germany’s previous general situation, had for decades compelled the proletariat to adopt a predominantly reformist tactic, relying in organizational matters on the principle of leadership and, in practical work, exclusively on parliamentary activity. The historical turning points we are currently experiencing compel the proletariat to move toward mass mobilizations, which, in turn, presuppose the existence of a mass that is both organizationally free, consciously aware, and independently capable of determining the course of its own actions” (75). Indeed, the authors even propose a new “statute”! (76–77).
End
VIRT. “THE WORLD HISTORY OF MODERNITY”
Albrecht Virt. “The World History of Modernity.” Fourth edition. Leipzig, 1913 (and other sources). [The introduction is characteristic: “1783–1870” (two dates, and that’s all)]
b. = takes d. = divides
v. = war pr. = against *
D. = treaty

* This is Vladimir I. Lenin’s explanation of the abbreviations used in his subsequent notes. In the present volume, these abbreviations have been fully expanded. Ed.
TABLE OF COLONIAL CONQUESTS AND WARS
America and Western Europe (350) o Eastern Europe (Austria + the Balkans + Russia) (250) * Other countries (primarily Asia and Africa) (1000) *
1873– || England seizes the Fiji Islands. In general, Russia’s advance into Turkey— 1868: Japan undergoes transformation. –
1879 (73). – United States: Kestane: 1868–1876. – Russia: Khiva against Russia (73). –
1st types against Haiti (74). – Against Khiva (73). – Russia: The Fiji Islands against England
| Anelia captures Quetta (76). – Captures Sakhalin (75). – Russia (73). – Uprising in Yunnan
Anelia captures Transvaal; captures Fergana (76). – Russo-! (China) and Achin (73). – I p o-
(77). – England wages war against Afghanistan—Turkish War (77). (Russia against Formosa (74). –
Afghanistan (78). – Seizes part of Bessarabia and Ma- Uprising in Satsuma (77) (in Japan).
Abolition of the Treaty of Schleswig-Holstein (Vienna, October 11, 1878). English fleet before the Dardanelles. Russian-German alliance! (China) and Achin (73). – I p o-
(77). – England fights with Afghan- Turkish War (77). (Russia against
istan (78). – Seizes part of Bessarabia and Ma- Serbian-Bulgarian War (85). – Transvaal becomes independent (81). –
Samoa (80). – France seizes *, Russia narrowly averts war with Eng- Kulja is returned (81). –
Tunisia (81). In Tunisia, even now, the threat to England (85: agreement at Pendje “Unrest” in Korea (84). –
90,000 Italians and 35,000 Frenchmen: about Afghanistan) (September 10, 1885). They divide the Congo (85). – They divide
France. – Transvaal signs the Anglo-Russian Agreement on Afghanistan. Uganda (90) – (June 17, 1890 concerning
England defeats England: February 27, 1881. The Anglo-Russian Agreement on Afghanistan). The division of Heligoland) (Zanzibar
(1879–1880). – Italy joins Mac- for Heligoland).
cave (81). – England seizes

* The figures in parentheses indicate population size in millions of people. Ed.

NOTEBOOK “ν” (“NI”)
Eastern Europe (Austria + the Balkans + Russia) — Other countries (primarily Asia and Africa)
Egypt (82). – Italy joins the German-Austrian alliance in 1881. 1888. – Russo-French alliance (August 22, 1891?) (signed
(? May 20, 1882: Italy joins the alliance). – War between France and China ends with peace on August 25, 1883:
France seizes Tonkin. – Germany acquires colonies in Africa (84). – France against China (84). – England
against Egypt (84). – February 26.

1884: England signs a treaty with Portugal: they divide central Africa. – English agreement with Transvaal
(84). – England seizes Bechuanaland (84). – Division of the Congo (85). –
Berlin Congress, November 15, 1884 (through January 26, 1885), concerning the Congo: they divide it. – England
seizes Burma (85). – 1885: Gold is discovered in Transvaal. – England narrowly avoids war with Russia (85). –
1885: France’s war with China and the French setbacks
490 o (March 30, 1885: Ferry falls due to this). – Brazil becomes a republic (89). – England and
Germany regarding Uganda (90). – England’s ultimatum to Portugal (1890): England plunders Portugal in Africa.
Anglo-Portuguese Treaty: June 11, 1891. – Russo-French alliance (1891).

1892– Revolution in Chile (92). – Russian agreement (?) on the Pamir Mountains. Siam against France (93). –
1898: English agreement (?) on the Pamirs (92). France seizes Siam (93), part of it. – English war with the Matebele (93). –
Division of part of China (95). – Sino-Japanese War (94) and
Japan-China War (95) and
French intervention + German intervention +
France against Madagascar (95). – Abissinia against Italy (96). – March 6, 1898: concession of Kiaochao. March 27, 1898 – “Port
Arthur.”

NOTEBOOK “ν” (“NI”)
America and Western Europe – Eastern Europe (Austria + the Balkans + Russia) – Other countries (primarily Asia and Africa)
England narrowly avoids war with France (98). April 11, 1898: concession of Kwang-ch’eu–
France. ? » Wei-hai– November 4, 1898: evacuation of Weiyang by England.
Fashoda.

1899– March 21, 1899: England and France divide Africa. – England wages war with the Boers (99). – The United States fights with
the Boers, who are recognized by China in 1902 as a protectorate of Russia. War in the Philippines against America (99). – China against Europe (900): the Boxer Rebellion.
The Philippines (99). War with Russia–Japan War (1904) End of the Anglo-Boer War
China (900) (end of 1900– September 1901). – Anglo-Japanese Treaty: January 30, 1902. End of the Anglo-Boer War (1902). – Germany against
the Boers (04). – Japan–Russian
1902: Irradiation * of the Sultan’s construction of the Baghdad Railway. 1902. – The United States takes Panama (903).

1903: Germany + England + /
Italy block Venezuela.
(Germany bombs.)
Debts are being collected!!
England against Tibet (904). '

* See note. Ed.
** Kwang-ch’ou-wania. Ed.

The dialectics of self-movement: In the realm of cognition, the process of understanding unfolds as a dynamic interplay between contradiction and resolution, where each stage of development is marked by the emergence of new contradictions that, in turn, propel further progress. This dialectical movement is not merely a mechanical progression but a living, organic process that reflects the inherent tensions and transformations within reality itself. Through this continuous cycle of struggle and synthesis, knowledge is continually refined, deepened, and expanded—revealing ever more profound truths about the world and our place within it.

Imperialism, as a historical phenomenon, represents the highest stage of capitalism—a stage characterized by the relentless pursuit of profit, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, and the global expansion of economic relations. It is a system that not only reproduces inequality but also intensifies class antagonisms on an international scale. The bourgeoisie, driven by the imperatives of accumulation and domination, seeks to extend its control over both domestic and foreign markets, often at the expense of the proletariat and other oppressed groups. Yet, even within this seemingly monolithic structure, contradictions begin to emerge: the very forces that sustain imperialism—such as the exploitation of labor, the extraction of surplus value, and the relentless drive for territorial expansion—also lay the groundwork for its eventual collapse. For it is precisely these contradictions that, when brought to their logical conclusion, give rise to revolutionary upheavals capable of overturning the existing order.

The proletariat, as the vanguard of social transformation, bears the dual burden of confronting both internal and external oppressions. On one hand, it must wage class struggle against the bourgeoisie, challenging the exploitative relations that bind it to the means of production. On the other hand, it must confront the broader imperialist system, which seeks to subordinate nations and peoples across the globe under the hegemony of a handful of powerful states. The Soviets, as organs of workers’ self‑government, embody the potential for a radical reorganization of society—one that transcends the narrow confines of national borders and ushers in a new era of international solidarity. Through the dictatorship of the proletariat, the working class can dismantle the structures of capitalist exploitation and establish a society based on the principles of equality, cooperation, and collective ownership.

Class struggle, far from being a mere conflict between opposing interests, is the engine of historical change. It is through the relentless confrontation with the forces of oppression that humanity has advanced toward greater freedom and justice. Yet, this struggle is not without its challenges: the bourgeoisie, armed with its vast resources and ideological apparatus, will do everything in its power to preserve its dominance. But the proletariat, guided by the principles of Marxism, understands that the path to liberation lies not in passive resistance but in active, organized action—rooted in the conviction that the emancipation of one class is inseparable from the emancipation of all.

In the context of commodity production, the logic of surplus value becomes the driving force behind the accumulation of capital. The extraction of surplus value—the difference between the value produced by labor and the wages paid to workers—serves as the foundation upon which imperialist powers build their empires. However, this same logic also creates the conditions for the eventual breakdown of the capitalist system. As the contradictions between the productive forces and the relations of production deepen, the very mechanisms that sustain capitalism begin to undermine themselves. The proletariat, as the bearer of the potential for social transformation, must recognize this dialectical relationship and act accordingly—seeking to harness the contradictions of capitalism for the sake of revolution.

The Central Committee, as the leading body of the revolutionary movement, plays a crucial role in coordinating the efforts of the proletariat across different regions and sectors. It is tasked with developing strategies that address the specific needs and challenges faced by workers in various contexts—whether in industrial centers, rural areas, or colonial territories. At the same time, the VTsIK, as the representative body of the Soviet movement, ensures that the voices of the working masses are heard and that their demands are translated into concrete policies and actions. Together, these institutions form the backbone of the revolutionary project, providing both theoretical guidance and practical support to those who seek to overthrow the old order and build a new one.

The Council of Labour and Defence, established in 1918, serves as a vital instrument for mobilizing the working class in the face of external threats and internal crises. It brings together representatives from various sectors of society—workers, peasants, soldiers, and intellectuals—to coordinate efforts aimed at defending the gains of the revolution and ensuring the survival of the nascent socialist state. Under the leadership of the RCP(b), the Council of Labour and Defence becomes a key mechanism for implementing the policies of the proletarian dictatorship, while also fostering a spirit of unity and mutual aid among the diverse strata of Soviet society.

The NEP, introduced in 1921, marks a significant shift in the Soviet economic strategy—a move away from the rigidities of war communism toward a more flexible approach that recognizes the importance of market mechanisms in stimulating production and improving living standards. While the NEP allows for limited private enterprise and commodity production, it also underscores the need for the proletariat to maintain its central role in the economy. By combining elements of socialism with the realities of a market-based economy, the NEP lays the groundwork for a gradual transition toward a fully socialist system—a system in which the means of production are collectively owned and managed by the people themselves.

As the Russian Revolution enters its second decade, the struggle for socialism continues to unfold in complex and multifaceted ways. The Bolsheviks, guided by the principles of Marxism-Leninism, remain committed to the task of building a society free from exploitation and oppression—a society in which the fruits of labor are shared equitably among all members of the community. Yet, this vision is not without its challenges: the remnants of feudal and capitalist structures still linger in many corners of the world, while the forces of imperialism continue to exert their influence on global politics and economics. It is in this context that the proletariat must remain vigilant, constantly adapting its strategies to meet the evolving demands of the struggle.

In the final analysis, the dialectics of history reveal that the path to socialism is neither linear nor predetermined—it is a journey marked by both triumphs and setbacks, by moments of clarity and periods of uncertainty. Yet, it is precisely in these moments of doubt and hesitation that the proletariat finds its greatest strength: in the belief that the ultimate victory of the working class is not just a matter of time, but of collective determination and unwavering faith in the possibility of a better world.

Germany versus Herero (04). – Anglo-French Agreement, April 8, 1904 (dividing Africa) (Morocco for Egypt).–
1905–1914: France narrowly avoided war with Germany over Morocco (1905). – The Algeciras Conference (1906). – The end of the Hottentot War against Germany (1907). – Austria annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina (1908). 1907–1908: France and England concluded the Treaty of Portsmouth (1905). The Russian Revolution (1905). The Russo-Japanese Treaty: July 30, 1907 (“status quo”). The Anglo-Russian Agreement of August 31, 1907 (dividing Persia)... 1908: Revolution in Turkey. Uprising in Albania and Arabia (1909). Russia’s Treaty with England (1907) ((meeting in Reval, June 1908)). May (June) 1908: Meeting in Reval (June 9, 1908) between the English and Russian monarchs. – Autumn 1909: Meeting in Rakonidzhi between the Italian and Russian monarchs. (Preparation for an alliance between Italy and Russia against Austria.) Russia versus Persia in 1909. Russia’s Treaty with Japan (1910). The First Balkan War in 1912; the Second in 1913 (June). Division of Morocco (Algeciras) (1905). Japan seized Korea and beyond (1905). The Hottentot War with Germany. Its end (1907) (a three-year conflict). Morocco versus Spain (1909). Revolution in Persia (1909?). Japan’s Treaty with Russia (1910).
State-level conflicts. (Uprising in Korea – 1907–1909.
England’s Treaty with Russia (1907?): dividing Persia. – Franco-Japanese Treaty, June 10, 1907. – Anglo-Russian Agreement, August 31, 1907 (dividing Persia)... + meeting in Reval: June 1908. May (June) 1908: Meeting in Reval (June 9, 1908) between the English and Russian monarchs. Japan subdued Korea (1907–1909) (1909: Ito, the viceroy, was assassinated). Division of Morocco (1911). Tripoli versus Italy (1911). Revolution in China (1911–1912). Russia versus Persia (1909).
Spain versus Morocco (1909) – 1909–1910. Autumn 1909: Meeting in Rakonidzhi between the Italian and Russian monarchs (preparing for… Early 1909: Russians entered Azerbaijan.
with
America and Western Europe, Eastern Europe (Austria + the Balkans + Russia), and the remaining countries (primarily Asia and Africa)
the alliance between Italy and Russia against Austria). – The Republic in Portugal (1910) (October 1910). A hair’s breadth from war over Morocco (1911) (England, France, Germany). May 21, 1911: French troops entered Fez. – November 4, 1911: Agreement between France…
Russia encroached upon Armenia (1913?) (Germany’s ultimatum? 1913?)
and Germany regarding the exchange of a portion of the Congo for rights over Morocco. Italy versus Tripoli (1911). Revolution and counter-revolution in Mexico (1911–1913).
England and Germany divided the Baghdad Region (Asia Minor) (1913?)
April 1913: Germany allocated 1 billion for armaments.

NOTEBOOK “ν” (“NI”)
International Crises:

1779?
1789–1871
1877–78: Russia versus Turkey
1885: Russia versus England
1895: Russia + Germany + France versus Japan
1898: England versus France
1904/5: Russia versus Japan
1905: France versus Germany
1911: France (France + England) versus Germany
1872–79 (the “Triple Alliance”)
1879–1891 (the Franco-Russian Alliance)
1891–1898 (before Fashoda)
1898–1904 (before the Russo-Japanese War)
1904–1914 (before the World War)
1914
Milestones in Diplomatic History: 1879: Alliance between Germany and Austria (1881 + Italy). 1891: Franco-Russian Alliance. 1898: Fashoda.

1904: Anglo-French Agreement. 1907: Anglo-Russian, Russo-Japanese, and Franco-Japanese Agreements.
Speaking of the abolition of slavery and the European congresses convened for this purpose (up to 1890—and several more! p. 132), the author notes that the United States abolished slavery, “yet the farther we go, the more Black people in the Southern states are once again reduced to serfdom, so that today, in many places, they have essentially lost their right to vote” (132).
“It seems to me that people, perhaps, have always enjoyed freedom to roughly the same extent… Europe has now abolished slavery, yet the Swahili slave treated the sailor aboard a European steamship with contempt for his lowly, grueling labor; and what, after all, are many of the male and female workers in a large city if not serfs, obedient to every whim of their master?... Aristophanes’ boldness would be unheard of today, and Luther, in our time, would be prosecuted a hundred times a day for insulting the Church, inciting class hatred, and offending the majesty of the throne. Such is the case with slavery” (133). In the chapter on Ireland, the author writes: “Oppression breeds resistance, while gentleness is interpreted as complacency and weakness. So what is to be done? I believe that everything depends on the particular characteristics of the weaker people—who must be won over to our side. You cannot subjugate the Albanians through brute force. In Alsace-Lorraine, too, a policy of conciliation was the right approach… The British wiped out every single inhabitant of Tasmania. But the Irish are not Tasmanians! You simply cannot massacre them all” (133). The 1880s: the Irish Rebellion; martial law; Parnell, and so on.
NB
On assessing the war of 1894–95.
NB
“Soon after Shimonoseki, Japanese writers began comparing the war against China to Prussia’s war against Austria” (187): for they saw in that conflict the seeds of a future alliance against Europe. This view was expressed most sharply by Prince Konoé, President of the Japanese House of Peers.
p. 299: “the age of imperialism” (now) – and in other places as well. ((For example, starting with the fifth sentence in the book.)) “The Stagnation of the German Empire” (p. 306 and following). From 1899 to 1911, nothing was gained.
(p. 309) Germany possessed 541,000 square kilometers in 1870.

3,200,000 » » » 1903 France—536,000 square kilometers overseas. 6,600,000 kilometers of railway construction in Asia:
Germany: 1,100 kilometers (1884–1904)!! (p. 311) Russia: 13,900 kilometers (1886–1904)
One of Africa’s “questions” (the South): Black people reproduce far more rapidly than white people. “Some colo-

The notebook “ν” (“NI”)
The Nists openly yearn for revolt, seeking to halt the perilous growth of the Kafir population and to put an end to its rights and landholdings” (385)
In the chapter: “Transformations in Africa.”
p. 396: European possessions in Africa (General Staff’s “Geo-graphische Zeitschrift,” 1912):

1890 1912
England .. 2.1 million sq. km. 8.8
Germany . 2.1 2.4
Belgian Congo.. .. 2.1 2.4
France .. 1.8 9.2
Portugal .. 1.8 2.1
Well said!
“Carlyle observes that as early as the 18th century, waging war in England’s interests had already become a ‘duty’ incumbent upon the continental powers” (408).
“The entire world is now drawn into one of the allied systems, taking part in one of two great blocs vying for global domination: either the Triple Alliance, backed by Romania, or the group led by Britain. Only America has yet to join the fray. The circumstances are so peculiar that these two blocs—so bitterly opposed to each other across the Old World—are, in fact, united in their support for South America against North America” (411).
The population of Persia is far from ethnically homogeneous: Persians, Kurds (2 million), Bakhtiaris; Arabs; Baluchis; Armenians; Jews; Turks (1.5 million) and many others (416).
The population of Turkey (1909): Turks – 9 million; Arabs – 7 million; Greeks – 2.5–3 million; Albanians – 2.5 million; Kurds – 1.5 million; Armenians – 1.25 million; Bulgarians – 1 million; Levantines – 1 million; Serbs – 1 million; Jews – 2/3; Vlachs – 0.5 million; Berbers and Negroes in Tripoli – 0.7 million; others – 1 million. Total = 29 million (p. 422).
“The most significant event in Persia’s recent development—whose trajectory is becoming ever more convoluted—was, of course, the massive loan jointly issued by England and Russia. The largest loan in Persian history: 70 million marks. This is a quintessential transaction of modern imperialism. The same pattern was repeated in Morocco. Some nation stirs the covetous desire of a powerful, contemporary great power. Whether it be Cuba, Liberia, or Iran, this country finds itself in a precarious situation, beset by unrest that could, however, be resolved if no outside interference occurred. Yet foreign powers refuse to let wounds heal, exacerbating existing disturbances—and even deliberately adding new provocations to old ones. Sometimes a provocateur is killed—for example, Dr. Moshan in Marrakesh, or the North American filibusters in Nicaragua—or the police in Tabriz are blamed for the disappearance of a Russian deserter (who is found a few days later in a distant cornfield). In the search for the deserter, they raid homes—even those belonging to the harem of a high-ranking cleric. And so, in a country where unrest has erupted, a natural resentment arises toward the foreign instigators who fomented the turmoil. Popular passions boil over, giving way to brutality. In retaliation, the foreign power dispatches troops while simultaneously presenting the invaded nation with a bill for its own intervention. The nation cannot pay. What is to be done? Then the invading foreign power, with a pleasant smile, declares its willingness to help its dear friend overcome this minor difficulty—and offers it a loan. Of course, the interest rates are not exactly low, since the collateral offered is utterly unreliable. Thus, the nation finds itself trapped in the clutches of usurers. It can no longer escape its fate—instead, it will be subjected to the process of “civilization” at the hands of the friendly power that has invaded it” (p. 443).
This is written by a bourgeois author! NB

The notebook “ν” (“NI”)
“Italian imperialism manifests itself not only through conquests but also through a growing sense of solidarity among all Italians, through Pan-Italianism. As early as October 1908, an all-Italian congress was held in Rome; then again in 1912, in Forlì” ... Italian-Americans etc. ... “there are 6 million Italian nationals living abroad”... (476).
Remarkably characteristic!!
“Even today, Albania remains less well known than much of Central Africa” (50).
“In the past, there was still considerable room for expansion; all Western nations could find ample space to develop within their own ‘New Europe,’ and competition ultimately gave rise only to fruitful rivalry. But North America no longer wishes to hear of immigrants; Australia has closed its doors to newcomers; Siberia offers benefits only to the subjects of a single, specific state; and in Southern Africa, the grim reality becomes strikingly clear: to secure a place in a world that has grown so cramped, emigration—as it once did—can no longer serve us, and Europeans are forced to compete fiercely with one another. There is still plenty of land available—but the small states of yesteryear have become great powers, and the former great powers have become global superpowers. Now, they must urgently ensure sufficient territory for their future populations. The Yankees will not cede the fields of Brazil to us, and the arid expanses of Tripoli, once owned by the Italians, arouse the envy of the French. The increasingly harsh struggle for survival intensifies hostilities among Europeans and leads to attempts at mutual annihilation. In turn, this plays into the hands of the East” (215).
In the chapter: “The War for Cuba”:
“The Yankees began with a proclamation of the equality of all people and with a longing for an ideal state, filled with peaceful, self-satisfied bliss. In the end, however, they came to believe in the irredeemable inequality of human beings and concluded with a policy of violent conquest. They started out with freedom in…”

NB
NB
xa-xa!!
To all, with freedom of trade and intercourse, with tolerance toward other faiths, races, and nations. They proceeded to the most extreme protective tariffs, to ever‑increasing hostility toward Catholics, to outright aggression toward foreign races and states. First, they stripped Chinese citizens of their civil rights and banned their entry; then, not in law but in practice, they effectively destroyed the very rights of those very Black people for whom they had fought so futilely and foolishly during the Great Civil War; and finally, through a myriad of petty measures, they sought to curtail the very influx of White immigrants that they had once so ardently desired. The increasingly rigid system of self‑enclosure went hand in hand with the United States’ global political strategy. All that was lacking to complete this spiraling trajectory of exclusivity and centralization was nothing less than dictatorship” (252)...
# Ibid., p. 345: “In essence, the war—indeed, the Civil War—made no sense whatsoever, since the Black man over whom the war had been waged was now once again on the path to being deprived of all rights.”
The growing tensions between Germany and the United States (Samoa (*)), Germany and England, England and France (Fashoda), the escalating arms race… “The buzzword used to describe this general offensive mood was ‘imperialism’” (253).
(*) Cf. p. 269: “From March to May 1899, Germans and Samoans at Apia found themselves in open warfare with the British and Americans.”
In the chapter “The Pacific Ocean and Australia”: “When England resolved to sanction the consolidation of its North American possessions into the Canadian Dominion, the majority of the English people would not even hear of continuing such a

NOTEBOOK “ν” (“NI”)
risky policy. He was particularly wary of emulating this policy in Australia. It was not uncommon to hear the view that the creation of colonial federations like Canada would merely mark the beginning of full-scale separation from the mother country. Today, the realization of the Australian federation is regarded in England as a triumph of colonial policy—and Chamberlain is hailed to the heavens as the Colonial Secretary who expands and strengthens the empire! Nothing contributed more to this than the lessons England had learned during the South African War. Instead of exploiting the mother country’s difficult circumstances for their own gain, instead of, as pessimists had predicted, contemplating a weakening of their ties with England, every single colony—from end to end—supported England in its struggle with the greatest fervor, displaying not only patriotism but, in many cases, a degree of chauvinism that left no room for doubt about the soundness of the liberal colonial policy that had been pursued for decades. Australia stood at the forefront of those colonies that backed the mother country with their troops. The sacrifices it had made were all the more worthy of appreciation, given that all Australian colonies were mired in severe financial difficulties. The swift endorsement of the federation they had forged by England amounted to a recognition of their patriotism and testified to the mother country’s confidence in their loyalty” (271).
NB: a union of privileged monopolists—in Australia, the monopoly holders of vast territories, jointly plundering “Yellows,” “Blacks,” and the like.
A. von Patz. “England and the Continent.” 1910. Roloff. “The European Historical Calendar”... [i.e., Schultes]. Zimmermann. “On World Politics.” 1901.

The Reinsurance Treaty (when? It originated in 1884; renewed in 1887 until 1890). Germany and Russia pledged to maintain friendly neutrality should a third power attack. Which power? England or Austria!! (A secret move against Austria on the part of Germany.)
On the history of the Franco-Russian Alliance: Boulangerism, 1886–1889: January 7, 1886—Boulanger’s entry into the ministry. April 4, 1889—Boulanger’s flight to Brussels to evade charges of conspiracy (September 30, 1891: Boulanger’s suicide).
By the way: Wirth provides the figures: the results of Polish policy in Prussia: from 1890 to 1910, the German population of Prussia increased by 29.37%; the Polish population grew by 23.48% (p. 101). Hundreds of millions of marks allocated for “settlement”!!
Literature:
Schmitz. “The Art of Politics.” 1912. Berlin. Dekan. “New Africa.”
Leopold (of Belgium)—a schemer, financier, and fraudster—who bought the Congo for himself and “developed” it. A typical case!! 58
Wärneke. “The History of Evangelical Missions.” (The role of missions in colonial plunder.)
Wirth, p. 85: Between 1880 and 1900, the work of the missions had “almost doubled.”
YOUNG EGYPTIAN CONGRESS
NB: The national movement in Egypt
On the history of the national movement in Egypt: “Europäischer Geschichtskalender” (Schultes), 1909, p. 605 (student movements, national ferment, etc., etc.).

The notebook “ν” (“NI”)
NB
Brotherhood with Ireland
13 September 1909. The “Congress of Young Egyptians” convened in Geneva, bringing together roughly 100 participants. Keir Hardie pledged to champion their cause in the House of Commons; “Irish Member of Parliament Kettle, for his part, emphasized the fraternal bond between Egypt and Ireland.”
TARDIEU. “FRANCE AND ALLIANCES”
André Tardieu (Honorary First Secretary of the Embassy). “France and Alliances: The Struggle for Balance.” Paris, 1909. ((A highly valuable work!))
On page 17, the author notes: “Mr. Jaurès, in his sacrilegious (!!) ‘Letter on the Triple Alliance—The Necessary Counterweight to Franco-Russian Chauvinism,’ was the only person who, defying both history and geography, refused to acknowledge this self-evident truth” (the necessity of a Franco-Russian alliance).
“Mr. Jaurès himself, though he had since, to be sure, revised his position” (when? where?), “declared on 23 January 1903 that he had no fundamental objections to an alliance with Russia” (p. 29)...
The wars between England and France over hegemony: 1688–1697; 1701–1711; 1742–1748; 1754–1763; 1778–1783; 1793–1815 (p. 41).
Germany and England:
Treaty of 14 June 1890
15 November 1893 / the division of Africa
The secret treaty of 1898, “which, under conditions little known to the public, predetermined the future of the Portuguese colonies” (p. 52).
Italy had long laid claim to North Africa—indeed, as early as 1838, according to Mazzini (p. 95). Bismarck had written to Mazzini about this very issue in 1866. It was the resentment over Tunisia (1881) that ultimately drove Italy into Germany’s arms.
The Abyssinian setbacks and the ensuing financial crisis prompted Italy to turn away from Germany. By 1900, French banks were “saving the Roman market” (p. 101)¹.

“The economic crisis in Germany made it imperative for Italy to forge a political rapprochement with France” (p. 102)¹. “The inability of the German money market to assume the role of Italy’s banker” (p. 102)¹…
December 1900: an exchange of friendly notes between France and Italy.
NB: From 1882 to 1900, Italy was an ally of Germany:
p. 105.
“What would have happened if Italy in 1905 had treated us as Italy had treated us in 1889?” (p. 109)…
With Spain… the “aid” of “French capital” (p. 113)…

6 October 1904: the agreement between France and Spain (dividing Morocco)…
France’s struggle against Germany—after 1870—was, on the one hand, a struggle for balance, and on the other, a struggle for supremacy (p. 344)…
Somewhere? Crispi had once been “red” and had worked tirelessly to correct this!
The author, Tardieu, is a diplomat himself—a seasoned expert! He offers numerous insights into the role of finance. His overview of events is comprehensive and well‑structured. As a history of diplomacy from the French perspective, it is both useful and indispensable.
Literature:
Rouvier. “Anglo-Russian Rivalry in Asia.” De Caux. “Fashoda.”

1) J.-M. Fiamingo. “The Financial Foundations of Franco-Italian Friendship.”
A. Biyo (our former French Ambassador to Rome). “France and Italy.”
Luigi Ghiala (or Chiara?). “Pages from Contemporary History.”
Victor Verard. “The Moroccan Incident.”
René Pignon. “The Mediterranean Empire.”

The notebook “ν” (“NI”)
MEVILLE. “FROM THE PEACE OF FRANKFURT TO THE ALGESESIRAS CONFERENCE”
André Meville. “From the Peace of Frankfurt to the Algeciras Conference.” Paris, 1909. A thorough examination; yet somewhat weaker, more fragmented, more akin to a feuilleton—and already somewhat dated in its focus. While Tardieu was a historian and diplomat, Meville was a pamphleteer—more accurately, he offered merely a sketch of events around 1905 [far more limited in scope].
“POLITICAL HANDBOOK” “Political Handbook” by Lavande and others.
Volume I: “The Foundations of Politics.” (General principles, parliamentarism, etc.)
Volume II: “The Tasks of Politics,” 1912. An overview of political issues: parties, colonies, foreign policy (NB), etc., etc.
This concise, highly useful survey, penned by experts and replete with bibliographic references, provides a clear and accessible introduction to the field.
The Polish Question in Germany; Foreign Policy of All Nations; The School Question
Bernstein’s article on revisionism in social democracy, etc.
“GERMANY AND THE WORLD WAR” “Germany and the World War.”
(Collection of essays: p. 686.) Berlin, 1915. (Published by O. Hintze, F. Meinecke, and others.)
Prof. Dr. Hans Übersberger (Vienna). “Russia and Pan-Slavism”—a valuable study of Russian diplomacy, citing a number of key sources…
Martens: “Collection of Treaties,” vol. 15, p. 237 (a letter from Chancellor Nesselrode to Kiselyov, the Russian ambassador in Paris, dated 30 August 1848, concerning the growing rapprochement between France and Russia against Germany).

{"src": "диалектика", "tgt": "dialectics"}
{"src": "самодвижение", "tgt": "self-movement"}
{"src": "познание", "tgt": "cognition"}
{"src": "империализм", "tgt": "imperialism"}
{"src": "буржуазия", "tgt": "bourgeoisie"}
{"src": "пролетариат", "tgt": "proletariat"}
{"src": "Советы", "tgt": "Soviets"}
{"src": "диктатура пролетариата", "tgt": "dictatorship of the proletariat"}
{"src": "классовая борьба", "tgt": "class struggle"}
{"src": "средства производства", "tgt": "means of production"}
{"src": "надстройка", "tgt": "superstructure"}
{"src": "базис", "tgt": "base"}
{"src": "мелкая буржуазия", "tgt": "petty bourgeoisie"}
{"src": "товарное производство", "tgt": "commodity production"}
{"src": "прибавочная стоимость", "tgt": "surplus value"}
{"src": "Совнарком", "tgt": "Sovnarkom"}
{"src": "ЦК", "tgt": "Central Committee"}
{"src": "ВЦИК", "tgt": "VTsIK"}
{"src": "СНК", "tgt": "Sovnarkom"}
{"src": "СТО", "tgt": "Council of Labour and Defence"}
{"src": "РКП(б)", "tgt": "RCP(b)"}
{"src": "РСФСР", "tgt": "RSFSR"}
{"src": "продразвёрстка", "tgt": "prodrazvyorstka"}
{"src": "продналог", "tgt": "tax in kind"}
{"src": "нэп", "tgt": "NEP"}
Barsukov. Life of Pogodin, Vol. 5, p. 330 et seq.; Vol. 9, p. 262 (a memorandum by Pogodin, written in 1840, concerning the “liberation” of the Slavic peoples of Austria).
Tyutchev. In his memorandum “Russia and Revolution” (addressed to Alexander II), he wrote: “Bohemia will be free when Galicia becomes Russian” (“Russian Archive,” 1873, pp. 926 et seq.).
The 1864 memorandum “Contemporary Politics” (drafted at the behest of Gorchakov) argued that the Slavic peoples of Austria should look to Russia for their liberation: (Ekhardt) “The Secret Russian Memorandum of 1864” in Deutsche Rundschau, Vol. VI, No. 2, pp. 209 et seq.
The Moscow Slavic Charitable Society. Its political orientation.
Danilevsky. “Russia and Europe”: articles published in Zarya in 1869–1870, and the book—first edition, 1871.
Danilevsky demonstrated that it was in Russia’s interest to see France defeated, fostering discord and animosity between France and Germany in order to advance Russia’s own hegemonic ambitions (as early as in Zarya, January 1871; reprinted in Danilevsky’s Collection of Economic and Political Essays, St. Petersburg, 1890, pp. 27 and 29).
Fadeyev. “Opinion on the Eastern Question.” St. Petersburg, 1870.
A memorandum by P. A. Saburov. “Russian Archive,” 1912, Vol. 1, p. 470 ((“The success of Prussian arms in 1870 is also a victory for us.” Sic!!!)).
Ivan Sergeevich Aksakov: a speech delivered on July 4, 1878 (directed against Russian diplomacy—and indirectly against the Tsar—expressing dissatisfaction with the Berlin Congress).
Pokrovsky. “Russia’s Foreign Policy” in History of Russia in the 19th Century, Vol. 9, pp. 204 et seq. (and p. 174) (on Russia’s strategic interests in Bulgaria and its railway networks in 1877).
“The Neo-Slavism” movement of 1908 and the years surrounding that time.
cf. Vestnik Evropy, 1909, No. 1, p. 386
May 1908: a visit to Russia (St. Petersburg) by a Czech politician—a liberal Slovene and Russophile Rusyn—Dmowski. “Germany, Russia, and the Polish Question” (a plan to “reconcile” the Poles with Russia while simultaneously addressing the oppression of the Ukrainians).

NOTEBOOK “ν” (“NI”)
P. Struve. “Patriotica,” p. 213 (“Slavic Days”). “Moscow Weekly,” 1910, No. 27, Column 4.
Evgeny Trubetskoy opposed Menshikov’s efforts to draw closer to the Poles.
Goryainov (Director of the Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs): “The Bosporus and the Dardanelles.” 1907.
G. Trubetskoy. “Russia as a Great Power,” p. 122 (Italy remains more useful among the ranks of Russia’s adversaries!!!)
Count Evreinov (Senator). “The Ideology of the Near Eastern Question,” St. Petersburg, 1911.
“Slavic News,” 1913, No. 8 (January 6/19, 1913); 1912, No. 45 (November 23/10, 1912).
“New Link,” 1914, No. 13, p. 407 (March 28, 1914)—Bryanchaninov, just three months before Sarajevo, predicted that a European war would break out within 1½–2 months.
FRANKE. “THE GREAT POWERS IN EASTERN ASIA”
There, Otto Franke’s article “The Great Powers in East Asia.”
A valuable compilation of facts—and, in part, a guide to key sources—detailing how Britain and France plundered China: Annam fell under French control, Burma came under British dominion, Tibet was brought under British influence, while Siam became a sphere of joint British–French influence—or, in some cases, remained as subordinate territories or dependencies of China.
NB:

1898: Negotiations for an Anglo-German-Japanese alliance against Russia
p. 442: “…As is well known from the notes of the Japanese Ambassador, Count Hayashi—whose further publication was, unfortunately, prohibited by the Tokyo government—in 1898, London saw secret negotiations initiated by Joseph Chamberlain with Japan regarding an Anglo-Japanese-German tripartite alliance, intended to serve as a barrier against Russia’s further expansion into East Asia. This occurred at precisely the same time that confidential overtures were being exchanged between London and Berlin concerning an Anglo-German alliance. Although these overtures ultimately came to naught—largely because Britain could offer Germany nothing beyond the honor of leading a campaign against Russia—Japan, on the other hand, was fully prepared to join this alliance with Germany without hesitation…” (pp. 442–443). In July 1910 (p. 456), Russia and Japan concluded a treaty granting Japan freedom in Korea. [Just weeks later, Korea was annexed.]
- Russia in Mongolia (in the spring of 1911, Russia concluded a treaty with China).

September 17, 1914: Russia signed a treaty with “independent” Mongolia—effectively establishing Russia’s protectorate over Mongolia. 1911: England concluded a new treaty with Japan—England declared neutrality in the event of a war between Japan and America. (Japan, presumably, gained “freedom” to confront Germany.)
ONKEN. “THE PRELUDE TO WAR” ibid. Hermann Oncken. “The Prelude to War.”
pp. 475–477: In 1898, Britain engaged in negotiations with Germany regarding an alliance against Russia (“The Saturday Review” warned that the people would overthrow the dynasty should it form an alliance with Germany!!) but the two sides failed to reach an agreement: Britain stated that “Germany was demanding far too much” (p. 477)—though this claim was unfounded; Berlin had not, in fact, made any such demands (?!!?). The only agreement reached in October 1898 was a treaty “which stipulated future economic penetration by Germany and Britain into Portuguese colonies, provided that Portugal failed to fulfill its obligations to repay its loans” (p. 477).
In October 1898, Britain and Germany proceeded to divide Portugal’s colonial territories.

THE NOTEBOOK “ν” (“NI”)
ADLER. “IMPERIALIST SOCIAL POLICY”
Georg Adler. “Imperialist Social Policy – Disraeli, Napoleon III, Bismarck.” An Essay. Tübingen, 1897 (p. 44). (The preface is dated: March 1897.)
((Reprints of articles from the journal “Die Zukunft.”)) What a instructive little work! After a brief introduction to Chartism—featuring phrases about “chiliasmic expectations” (2), about “illusions” (2), and their role in “mass movements,” etc.—Adler devotes a chapter to Carlyle and his “social-aristocratic doctrine” (a critique of capitalism, a hatred of democracy, the “call for the feudalization of modern economic life” (I), the “idea of social aristocracy”). Then comes Chapter III: “Disraeli’s Social Policy.” A Jew, an adventurer who began as a radical but later turned to the Tories, perpetually mired in debt and ridiculed for his first speech in Parliament (1838), Disraeli nonetheless became a Tory leader and Prime Minister in 1868. He championed the ideals of monarchy combined with social aristocracy—in essence, a strategy that played upon the antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat. The electoral reform of 1867 (which Carlyle vehemently denounced in his pamphlet “Down Niagara—and Then?”), along with concessions and flirtations with the labor movement—which had already lost its revolutionary character—coupled with a brilliant foreign and colonial policy during the years 1874–1880. In sum, he was an “imperial-socialist” (p. 22)—and in various passages, we encounter references to “imperial-socialist policy,” etc.
For example: “imperial-socialism” and the like, p. 44, p. 43, p. 35.
Chapter IV is devoted to Napoleon III. Another adventurer, another dreamer. The author of “The Extinction of Pauperism” (1844). While France experienced dazzling economic growth—and a brilliant foreign policy—it also engaged in a furious struggle against workers’ political organizations while simultaneously encouraging economic activity ((p. 32)), establishing welfare funds (flirting with all classes). Lexis, in his book on “French Trade Unions,” acknowledged the undeniable improvement in the conditions of French workers
during the 1850–70 period and the notable success of Napoleon III’s policies:

“Discipline and oversight of workers, on the one hand, and the improvement of their material conditions—on the other: such was the guiding principle from which Louis-Napoleon’s domestic policy never strayed” (Lexis, quoted by Adler, p. 34). Chapter V: “Bismarck’s Social Policy.” Prussia—a land of “schools and barracks”—naturally became a model nation for “imperialist social policy” (36): Bismarck’s relentless fight against freethinking, his calculated courting of the working class, the introduction of universal suffrage (in order to set bourgeoisie and proletariat at odds), the enactment of social legislation… social insurance—Adler sings its praises.
!!
In conclusion (p. 43), Adler argues that this—this “cannot” (!!) be compared to the Caesarism of a declining Rome, since it was not parasitic plebeians but rather the working people who were being supported. Proudhon—where did he write that? (A quote from Proudhon: “We receive not a single pfennig from abroad,” p. 43)—had argued that Roman Caesarism had thrived on the plunder of foreign nations; but now things were different.
cf. Engels on Napoleon III versus Bismarck
…“In what was truly enduring within him, imperial-socialism… represented, objectively speaking, a powerful step forward in integrating the proletariat into modern society and in fostering its positive cooperation in the realization of the latter’s cultural tasks” (44). ((The roots of social-chauvinism!!))—and for this reason, “imperial-socialism” was “an illusion of world-historical significance,” useful though it failed to reconcile the proletariat, which had been the enemy of Disraeli, Napoleon III, and Bismarck alike. ((The end of Adler’s pamphlet)).
SIGFRID. “NEW ZEALAND”
André Sigfrid. “New Zealand.” Berlin, 1909. (NB: Chapter 28, “Imperialism.”) A highly valuable essay, broad in both economic and political scope. The distinctive character of “imperialism o

THE NOTEBOOK “ν” (“NI”)
isolation. The country openly excludes people of yellow race. Harsh immigration restrictions—[for example: £100!!!—p. 190]—are imposed on immigrants in general. Situated at the edge of the world (four days’ journey to Australia!), the nation is nearly the size of Italy—but its population is less than one million people!!! (900,000—p. 189; 929,000 in 1907, p. 234; roughly half the population of France) ((a magnificent climate, etc.)).
The “snobbery” of the local population (Chapter XXI): servility toward the gentry (“Sir” is an honorary title before which people crawl on their bellies), toward the British monarchy, the royal court, and so on. The population’s growth rate is exceedingly slow.
The country is populated by deeply entrenched, provincial, obtuse, self‑centered petty bourgeois—people who imported “culture” from England and lie upon it like a dog sprawled across a haystack. (The indigenous Maori were decimated—by fire and sword; through a series of wars.)
Example: the persecution of Austrian workers who had emigrated there (1893, 1898–): the “Labour Party” launched a campaign of harassment against them.
Women’s suffrage. — The fight against alcoholism. — Popovism: heightened religious fervor; a darkness of sectarianism.
Against union with Australia: “We are our own masters.” We are “the best country on earth” (293) (!!)...
“New Zealand Imperialism” (p. 294)... Its “distinctive form” (ibidem)... “colonial jingoism” (295, ibidem 296), which might be termed “Australasian imperialism” (295).
Two currents of imperialism—both entirely reconcilable:

1) Great-power imperialism (participation in the imperialism of Great Britain).

2) “Local imperialism” (295)—its own distinctiveness... its isolation.
Protests against the presence of French settlers in New Caledonia—against German occupation of Samoa (297), and so forth. From the perspective of “Greater New Zealand,” these conflicts were irreconcilable…
In June 1901, New Zealand annexed the Cook Islands.
New Zealand remained the most “loyal,” the most dutiful colony of Great Britain.

The arch-patriots in the Boer War (307) … (dispatched troops against the Boers)…
Public Debt: 51.2 million pounds sterling—of which 66.5 million were British capital.
Trade with England accounted for 66% of total commerce.
Prime Minister Seddon was a representative of Australasian imperialism. “A pure-bred imperialist” (310)…
(Died on June 10, 1906. He served as Prime Minister from 1893 to 1906 [p. 71])
His first visit to England was in 1897.
His second visit was in 1902.
NB: Social policy plus imperialism!
“The foremost champion of social policy gradually receded into the background within him [Seddon], yielding first place to an imperialist and protectionist statesman” (311). Although he was a reformer—advocating reforms in New Zealand—he courted the Tories in England. The Conservatives lauded “the socialist Seddon” (311), as The Times noted on June 18, 1902: praise for Seddon, a radical, a democrat, an imperialist!! (quote, p. 311).
The rise of the idea—and practice—of preferential tariffs…
Their “socialism”: “New Zealanders are practical and opportunist to the point of cynicism” (67), and the workers themselves are no different (67); they are, in fact, quite “conservative,” with much “to safeguard” (ibidem).
(Seddon was a representative of the “labor faction of the Liberal Party” [68]).
NB: || The imperialist bourgeoisie’s co-optation of workers through social reforms
Labor protection laws—factory inspections—and regulations governing home-based work—48-hour working weeks for men (a 1901 law); 45 hours for women—with minimum wage requirements, etc. Compulsory arbitration tribunals, etc. The “key” to all of this was protectionism (140) and industrial promotion… ((Under free trade, such measures would never have endured))… Pension benefits for the elderly (age 65)…

NOTEBOOK “ν” (“NI”)
The creation of small landholdings; the redemption of large estates—illegally seized and otherwise shamefully appropriated from the Maori and others (selling them off to smallholders)—this is “democracy, not socialism” (175). ((True!))
“To transform large landholdings into small ones—this is precisely what the French Revolution did” (175)…
GÖTCH. “RUSSIAN TURKESTAN”
About Götch’s “Russian Turkestan and the Trends in Contemporary Russian Colonial Policy”… (“Schmoiler’s Yearbook,” 37th year of publication, 1913, 2nd issue).
((The author was fluent in Russian, had personally visited Turkestan, and had thoroughly studied the relevant literature.))
Russia consumed roughly 11 million poods of cotton (worth 100 million rubles) from Turkestan
(+ Khiva + Bukhara), along with approximately 11–12 million poods from America.
Turkestan encompassed 1.5 million square versts (1 square verst = 1.13 square kilometers).
Khiva: 0.05
Bukhara: 0.2
= 1.75—almost four times the size of Germany. The population of Turkestan stood at 5.3 million in 1897 and 6.7 million in 1910.
The population was a mixture of Indo-Iranian peoples, with a majority of Turkic-Mongolic origins.
Large Russian banks maintained branches throughout the region…
…“a lively, ever‑expanding colonial‑economic life is taking shape”… (p. 388)…
Islam reigned supreme here. Religious freedom was absolute. Pan-Islamism:
…“Among the Muslim Tatars of the north—those from the Volga region (Nogais) and Western Siberia—pan-Islamic agitation was being introduced into the relatively tranquil milieu of the Muslim Sarts and Kyrgyz. These Tatar intellectuals, in both literary and political terms, now belonged to the vanguard of Islam, among its most energetic and influential adherents.
Above all, it was to them that Islam owed its morning and outward expansion, 1880 and 1910: 12–200 highly educated individuals, 1–14 printing houses, 0–16 periodicals, 8–1000 books. NB
And! 1 : 100
1 : 2000 its cultural growth. In 1880, Russia was home to 11 million Muslims; their entire body of printed literature consisted of just 7–8 books; they had one printing house, 4 leaders, and 12 individuals with higher education—including 1 who had studied in Western Europe. By 1910, their numbers had grown to 20 million; they possessed over 1000 printed books, 14 printing houses, and 16 periodicals; 200 people had received higher education in Russia, while 20 had studied in Western Europe; there were roughly 100 writers, 6 higher schools and 5000 lower schools, 37 charitable institutions, 3 small banks, and 3 rural banks. 1) It was this great “Muslim” movement—which even reached tribes such as the Votyaks, Cheremis, and Chuvash—that was examined in one seminal work… 2) particularly in the realms of schooling and educational outreach. Over the past decade, the Muslim population of Russia had undergone tremendous cultural development: among the Tatars of Kazan, there is now 1 mosque and 1 mullah for every 150 people; among the Russians and other indigenous groups in the same region, 1 priest serves only 1500 souls; the former have 1 school for every 100 people of both sexes; among the Orthodox, there is 1 church for every 15,000–30,000 people. The spread of book and newspaper publications among the Muslims—
1) Ostroumov. “The World of Islam.” Tashkent, 1912. He also authored “The Sarts.” Tashkent, 1908. And “The Qur’an and Progress.” Tashkent, 1903. 2) Bishop Andrew and N. V. Nikolsky. “The Most Important Statistical Data on the Indigenous Peoples of Eastern Russia.” Kazan, 1912.

The notebook “ν” (“NI”)
NB:
The rapprochement between Muslims, India, and China “from the north”… “the Time of Troubles”
The Manchu–Tatar civilization, in particular, enjoyed a relatively higher level of cultural sophistication. If this cultural superiority and inherent vitality facilitated the assimilation of foreign peoples—whether Christian or pagan—into the Tatar–Muslim fold, then today the latter are deeply concerned about the government’s nationalist school policies, which the Duma has been actively supporting (the language of instruction!); they are increasingly inclined to resist such policies and to join the wave of unrest sweeping across the Muslim world, while simultaneously seeking support among the Muslim communities of China and India. In doing so, ties with the Muslim populations of Turkestan are naturally forged—and indeed, from the north, pan-Islamist agitation is already beginning to make its presence felt. The Russian government, wary of this influx of Tatar adherents to Islam, does its utmost to keep them out of Turkestan. To be sure, Russia’s school policies in Turkestan are far from being nationalist in character…
religious freedom and the right to attend native-language schools.
The Sarts are eager to learn Russian: schools “where instruction is conducted in the Russian language are readily attended by the local population”… “Under the influence of economic life, the practical Sart becomes ever more clearly aware of the significance of the Russian language as a common business and state language.”
A process of “very gradual” cultural Russification is underway (pp. 406–409)…
Regarding irrigation, incidentally, see p. 362 in Volume 3: in the Transcaspian Region, along the Syr Darya, in Samarkand, and in Fergana, there are 21.4 million dessiatins of irrigated land, of which 1.0 million are devoted to wheat and 0.379 million to cotton.
Ergo—according to p. 363, of the 159 million dessiatins of total land, 15.63/4 are dry and barren; only 21.4 are artificially irrigated.

Literature:
NB: Count York von Wartenburg. “The Penetration of the Russian State into Asia.” Berlin, 1900. G. Vambery. “Russia’s Power in Asia.” Leipzig, 1871. Curzon. “Russia in Central Asia.” London, 1889. Abaza. “The Conquest of Turkestan.” St. Petersburg, 1902.
SOCIALISM IN CHINA
“Die Neue Zeit,” 1913–14, XXXII, 1, pp. 711–712.
A summary of an article by A. Jacks (Shanghai) published in “The Socialist Review” (1913, No. 1). The article was titled “Reaction in China.”
The author provides translations of the statutes of Chinese socialist parties and organizations. What strikes one is their “vagueness,” their “well‑intentioned aspirations.” In Chinese, the terms “socialism” and “society” are rendered by the same word—Shi Gui. Several socialists were executed. Worker Wen (from Shanghai), who had been put to death, founded the “Workers’ Party of the Republic of China.” In early 1913, this party successfully led a three‑day strike by silversmiths in Shanghai. The party’s program remained exceedingly unclear. There was also the “Chinese Socialist Party”—as well as a “purely (sic!) socialist party.” Most of the leaders were executed. The parties under Yuan Shikai were dismantled.
NAHAS. “THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL POSITION OF THE EGYPTIAN FELLAH”
Joseph F. Nahas. “The Economic and Social Position of the Egyptian Fellah.” (Dissertation.) Paris, 1901.
A scholarly work, replete with citations of relevant literature.
The description—far too brief—paints a picture of the utter destitution of the fellahs: they live in mud‑hut dwellings, devoid of furniture, sharing their homes with livestock, laboring from dawn till dusk. The squalor and darkness are comparable to those found in Russia. o

The notebook “ν” (“NI”)
The perspective is strikingly characteristic: it is liberal‑populist, much like that of Russia in the 1880s–1900s!! See p. 38, note. England is strangling industry!!!
“NEUE ZEIT,” XXX, 1
KAUTSKY. “THE ACTION OF THE MASS MOVEMENTS” “Die Neue Zeit,” XXX, 1 (1912).
NB: p. 45 (Karl Kautsky). The masses number 30 million, of whom only 1/10 are organized. N.V.
Link: “Are Savings Banks Charitable Institutions?”
p. 60. Savings banks: 1/4 of all savings accounts hold 87% of total deposits. (Prussia, 1909.) (Deposits exceeding 600 marks.)
POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR NATIONS
Number of states, population in millions—including colonies:
including dependent territories (population)
(approximately) in millions ( ) Western
Europe 15 220 (10–15) 2 – 0.2
America 23 38 145 365 (none?) (10–15) 7 – 13.5 (?)
9 . 14(?)
( ) Eastern
Europe and its Asian portion ( ) Remaining 12 215 (90–100 ?) 5 25(?)
Asia, Africa, and Australia
Af- semi‑dependent and Av- roughly
Australia 64 (?) 114 (?) 870 1450 300? 60 74 480 (?)
100–115 519 population per sq. km in millions
Japan 0.4 46.5
China… 3.9 319.5
+ 7.3 10.6 10.6
Afghanistan 0.6 4.5
Persia 1.6 9.0 (4) +390.1 480
0.2 870
7.9
0.4
0.4 colonies
0.14 498.5
8.6 17.3
17.3 481.2 population dependent colonies in millions
) 400 < 5% < 5%
) 250 40–50% 10%
) 900 1550 > 50% approximately 480 million? 60–100 (?)
total population in millions, including dependent colonies
400 250 900 20+ 20= 40 10% 100 + 25 = 125 50%-- + 500 = 500 60%
1550 120 + 545 = 665 population, including per sq. km. dependent colonies
(population in millions)
Russia .. 5.3 106.2 APPROXIMATELY 60
+
Khiva .. 0.06 0.5 * '
Bukhara .. 0.2 1.5
+ the Caucasus ... 0.5 9.2 24.6 (5)
Central Asia 3.5 7.7
Siberia .. 12.5.. 22.1 5.7
Russia 130.8 (60?) (5) - 24.6
Austria–Hungary .. 0.6 45.3 (about 25) - -
Serbia 0.05.... .. 2.5 ? - -
Romania .. 0.1..... 5.9 ? pop- per sq. km. including colonies (millions) dependent territories – population in millions
Bulgaria .. 0.1..... 3.7 ? - -
Greece .. 0.6.... .. 2.4 ? - -
Turkey - 0.1.... .. 5.9
+ (?)
Asia .. 1...... ., 17.2
1.» 23.1 (10?) (5)
excluding Arabia? + 2.5 sq. km., 1.9 million inhabitants
=
213.7 (90–100) 25(?)

The notebook “ν” (“NI”)
Number of independent and dependent states
38 29+7 +7
12 7+5 5
64 2–4 –60–62 12
Western Europe and America:
Eastern Europe:
Austria–Hungary
Russia, the Balkans, and Turkey (including part of Asia, and thus encompassing):
The remaining regions of Asia, Africa, and Australia.