Notebook “γ”

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

(“GAMMA”)

Contents

[[DOUBLE LEFT-BOTTOM-RIGHT BOX: γ ]] 1–52

Hoeniger	P. 2		Bérard	[23–24]
Théry	[3]		Lair	[25]
Lescure	[5–6]		Russier	[27]
Patouillet	[9–12]		Tonnelat	[35]
Moos	[14–15]		Colson	[37]
Bruneau	[17–18]		Redslob	[39–41]
Lysis	[19–21]		P. Louis	[43–45]
Hubert	[22]		Morris	[47–50]

Source References: 2; 7 and 8; 13; 15, 16 and 18; 34

HOENIGER, ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE GERMAN ARMED SERVICES

Professor Dr. Robert Hoeniger: Economic Significance of the German Armed Services, Leipzig, 1913. (Gehe-Stiftung Lectures, Vol. V, Part 2.)

Banalities of a pro-militarist who seeks to prove that military expenditure is not a loss, for the money remains in the country and yields vast profits, that military service educates, strengthens, etc., etc. }}

A characteristic quotation:

...“The deputy Erzberger told the Reichstag (April 24, 1912): ‘If the Minister of War were to satisfy all the '|' [[DITTO: '|' ]] requests for garrisons addressed to the War Department, he would have to ask for military appropriations six times as large’” (p.18).

[[BOX ENDS: The petty bourgeoisie gains in all sorts of ways from garrisons. One of the reasons why militarism is popular! ]]

Source References:

Wilhelm Ahr, The Armed Services and the National Economy of the Great Powers During the Last Thirty Years, Berlin, 1909.

Hartwig Schubart, The Relationship Between the National Economy and the National Defence Potential, Berlin, 1910.

Militärwochenblatt. Supplements: 90 (1902) and 10 (1904).

Fr. Braumann. The Economic Value of a Garrison, Magdeburg, 1913.

Modern Civilisation, Part IV, Vol. 12 (Military Technique).

THÉRY, ECONOMIC EUROPE

Edmond Théry, Economic Europe, Paris, 1911.

(He is editor of L’Economiste européen, and author of a mass of works on economics.)

The book has very many comparative tables: {the text, apparently, is only an adjunct to the tables}.

Population (millions)

	1858	1883	1908	1858–83	1883–1908
Germany	36.8	46.2	63.3	+26%	+37%
Great Britain	28.6	35.7	45.1	25	26
France	34.6	37.9	39.3	9	4
Russia (European)	66.8	86.1	129.8	29	51
All Europe	278.1	335.1	436.1	20	30

Government expenditure (million francs)

	1858	1883	1908	1858–83	1883–1908
Germany	801	2,695	9,263	+236	+244
Great Britain	1,651	2,192	5,169	33	136
France etc.	1,717	3,573	3,910	108	6

Expenditure on Army and Navy

	1883	1908
Germany	458	1,068
	+46	436
Great Britain	432	676
	270	811
France	584	780
	205	320
Russia	772	1,280
	122	231
etc.

Output of Coal (million tons)

	1898–99	1908–09
Germany	130.9	205.7	+57%
France	32.4	37.9	+17%
Great Britain	202.0	272.1	+10%

Pig-Iron (million tons)

Germany	7.4	12.7	+72%
France	2.5	3.6	+43%
Great Britain	8.8	9.7	+10%
etc.

NOTES ON BOOKS BY MONTESQUIOU AND ESTÈVE AND ON AN ARTICLE BY REVERE

Montesquiou, American Securities and French Holdings, Paris, 1912. (Advice to capitalists: beware.)

L. Estève, A New Psychology of Imperialism: Ernest Seillière, Paris, 1913.

(( A psychological interpretation of imperialism à la Nietzsche, deals only with psychology. ))

C. T. Revere, “Latin American Trade Possibilities”, article in The North American Review, 1915 (Vol. 201), p. 78:

| “The South American Journal, published in London, says British investments in Latin America at the end of 1913 totalled $ 5,008,673,000.”

[[DOUBLE BOX ENDS: Cf. with Paish 1909^[1] ]]

$5,000 million X 5 = 25,000 million franks || N.B.

LESCURE, SAVINGS IN FRANCE

Jean Lescure, Savings in France, Paris, 1914.

Author’s preface says this work has been published N.B. ||| in Schriften des Vereins für Sozialpolitik, Vol. 137, III—in a survey of savings in various countries.

Note p. 110, table VI. “Statistics of French Wealth” (according to Mr. Neymarck).

Thousand million francs
			French securities		Foreign securities
|	1850	———	9	—————————	–
	1860	———	31	—————————	–
	1869	———	33	—————————	10
	1880	———	56	—————————	15
	1890	———	74	—————————	20
	1902	———	from 87 to	90 ————————	from 25 to 27
	1909	———	” 105 ”	116 ————————	” 35 ” 40

Deposited securities (million francs)

(p. 51)

		Crédit Lyonnais		Société Générale		Comptoir d’Escompte
1863	–	9.8	–	57.4	–	—
1869	–	54.6	–	88.3	–	—
1875	–	139.7	–	205.7	–	—
1880	–	244.6	–	253.7	–	—
1890	–	300.8	–	251.9	–	122.9
1900	–	546.3	–	347.6	–	365.4
1910	–	839.0	–	562.2	–	633.3
1912	–	859.6	–	446.5	–	674.3

Number of accounts with the Crédit Lyonnais (p. 52) :

1863	—	2,568		1890	—	144,000
1869	—	14,490		1900	—	263,768
1875	—	28,535		1912	—	633,539
1880	—	63,674

p. 60: “Sums put to reserve by nine French iron and steel companies”:

Average (annual) for 1904–08 = 23.8 million francs (for the present, no more notes from this source).

HISHIDA, THE INTERNATIONAL POSITION OF JAPAN AS A GREAT POWER

Hishida, The International Position of Japan as a Great Power, New York, 1905. (Thesis.)

[[RIGHT-BOX-END: Amateurish. A rehash of the history of Japan versus other countries from 660 BC to 1905. ]]

“Since that time (the Chinese war 1894–95) the Far East has become a centre of the ambitions chiefly of France, Great Britain, Germany, Japan, Russia and the United States, in their efforts to satisfy the wants of ‘imperial expansion’, commercial and political” (p. 256).

“The economic activity of the Great Powers has assumed the form of ‘imperialism’, which signifies the ambition of the Great Powers to control, for economic or political purposes, ‘as large a portion of the earth’s surface as their energy and opportunities may permit’” (p. 269).

He quotes: =

|

Reinsch, World Politics, New York, 1902.

Hobson, Imperialism.

Colquhoun, The Mastery of the Pacific, New York, 1902.

Debidour, The Diplomatic History of Europe, Paris, 1891 (2 vols).

REFERENCES FROM ENGLISH SOURCES AND CONRAD’S JAHRBÜCHER

From English books

Ch. K. Hobson, The Export of Capital. 8°r; (290 pp.). 7s. 6d. (Constable), May 1914.

J. A. Hobson, Traffic in Treason: a Study of Political Parties. 8°r; (1s.) (Unwin), June 1914.

J. A. Hobson, Work and Wealth: a Human Valuation. (8°r;) (386 pp.). 8s. 6d. (Macmillan), June 1914.

J. A. Hobson, Towards International Government. 8°r; (216 pp.). 2s. 6d. (Allen and Unwin), July 1915.

J. H. Jones, The Economics of War and Conquest (about Norman Angell), June 1915 (King), 178 pp. (2s. 6d.)

H. G. Wells, The War and Socialism. 1d. (Clarion Press), February, 1915.

Hartley Withers, War and Lombard Street. 8°r; (180 pp.). 3s. 6d. (Smith), January 1915.

Cl. W. Barron, The Audacious War (4s. 6d.), May 1915.

A. L. Bowley, The Effect of the War on the External Trade of the United Kingdom 1906–1914. 8°r; (64 pp.). 2s., March 1915.

A. W. Humphrey, International Socialism and the War. 8°r; (176 pp.). 3s. 6d. February 1915.

F. W. Hirst, The Political Economy of War. July 1915. 8°r; (342 pp.). 5s.

Vigilant, Revolution and War. 1s. net (September 1915).

J. Connolly, The Reconquest of Ireland. 6d. April 1915.

Conrad’s Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie etc. (N.B. Third series, Vol. 49 = 1915, 1)

(Third series, Vol. 21 = 1901,

Vol. 40 = 1910.)

Glier, The Present Position of the American Iron Industry, Third series, Vol. 35, 587.

Jeremiah Jenks, The Trusts in the United States, Third series, Vol. I, 1.

Goldstein, The Present State of the Cartel Movement: Russia (Third series, Vol. 40, 162).

Saenger, The Economic Prospects of British Imperialism, Berlin, 1906. (Reviewed in third series, Vol. 36, 397).

PATOUILLET, AMERICAN IMPERIALISM

Joseph Patouillet, American Imperialism, Dijon, 1904. (Thesis.) (388 pp.)

[[BOX ENDS: A thesis. The frail effort of a student. Of no scientific value, apart from abundant quotations and a summary of certain facts. Mostly legalistic prattle; economic coverage poor. ]]

Quotes (at the start) widely known passages from Hobson (Imperialism).

Speaks of the fact of British imperialism (p. 33 et seq.) and German (p. 36 et seq.) (sections I and II of Chapter II).

A few words about Japanese and Russian imperialism (p. 39 in fine).

p. 43: “In practice imperialism means a bid for the keys of the world—not military keys as under the Roman Empire, but the main economic and commercial keys. It means not the rounding off of territory, || ? but the conquest and occupation of the big crossroads of world trade; it means acquiring advantageously located rather than big colonies, so as to cover the globe with a dense and continuous network of stations, coal depots and cables.” (Quoted from de Lapradelle: “Imperialism and Americanism in the United States”, Revue du droit publique, 1900, Vol. XIII, pp. 65–66. Quoted by Patouillet, p. 43.)

Driault (Political Problems, pp. 221–22): “The shattering defeat of Spain was a revelation.... It had seemed to be established that international equilibrium was a matter to be settled by five or six of the chief European powers; now an unknown quantity was introduced into the problem” (p. 49).

“Thus the Cuban war was an economic war inasmuch as its aim was the seizure of the island’s sugar market; in the same way, the purpose of annexing Hawaii and the Philippines || was to gain possession of the coffee and sugar produced by these tropical countries” (p. 51). (Idem, pp. 62–63)....

“Thus, the conquest of markets, the drive for tropical produce—such is the prime cause of the policy of colonial expansion which has come to be known as imperialism. And the colonies serve also as excellent strategic points, the value of which we shall indicate: ... to ensure Asian markets ... they had to have these support points”... (p. 64).

Exports from the U.S.A. (percentages)

Total exports ($ million)	Year	Europe	North America	South America	Asia	Oceania	Africa
	1870	79.35	13.03	4.09	2.07	0.82	0.64
	1880	86.10	8.31	2.77	1.39	0.82	0.61
857.8	1890	79.74	10.98	4.52	2.30	1.92	0.54
1,394.5	1900	74.60	13.45	2.79	4.66	3.11	1.79
	1902	72.96	14.76	2.75	4.63	2.48	2.42

[[BOX ENDS: numerous indications of a coming struggle for control of the Pacific ]]

Hawaii is half-way between Panama and Hong Kong.

The Philippines are a step towards Asia and China (p. 118). Idem 119–120–122.

The war with Spain over Cuba was justified by pleading the interests of freedom, the liberation of Cuba, etc. (p. 158 et seq.).

sic! '||' The constitution calls for equality of all taxes, etc. in all the States of the U.S.A. This has been “interpreted” as not applying to the colonies, for these are not part, but possessions, of the United States (p. 175). “Gradually”, we are told, the rights of the colonies will be enlarged (p. 190) (but equality will not be granted)....

Canada. Economic subordination prepares the way for political “integration” (p. 198).

||| “Germany” (sic) wants to “oppose a United States of Europe” to the United States of America (p. 205).... ||

|| United States of Europe (and Wilhelm II) ...“Ever since 1897, Wilhelm II has repeatedly suggested a policy of union to combat overseas competition—a policy based on a European customs agreement, a sort of continental blockade aimed against the United States” (205).... “In France, a European customs union has been advocated by Paul Leroy-Beaulieu” (206)....

||| “happy result” || ...“An entente between the European states would, perhaps, be one of the happy results of American imperialism” (206).

In America, developments have led to a struggle of the “anti-imperialists” against the imperialists (p. 268, Book II, Chapter I: “Imperialists and Anti-Imperialists”).... Imperialism, he says, contradicts freedom, etc., leads to the enslavement of the colonies, etc. (all the democratic arguments: ||| a number of quotations). An American anti-imperialist quoted Lincoln’s words:

“When the white man governs himself, that is self-government; but when he governs himself and also governs others, it is no longer self-government; it is despotism” (272).

—Phelps, United States Intervention in Cuba (New York, 1898) and others have declared the Cuban war “criminal”, etc.

Chapter III, p. 293, is headed: “Present United States Policy: the Combination of Imperialism and the Monroe Doctrine”: both combined, and interpreted!!!

The South Americans reject (p. 311 et seq.) the interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine to mean that America belongs to the North Americans. They fear the United States and want independence. The United States has “designs” on South America and combats Germany’s growing influence there....

(Cf. especially Novikov in the source references. )

In annexing the Philippines, the United States cheated Filipino leader Aguinaldo by promising the country independence (p. 373): “The annexation was described as ‘Jingo treachery’”.

N.B. '||' Atkinson, Criminal Aggression, by Whom Committed? Boston, 1899. ||

[[DITTO: N.B. '||' ]] The North American Review, 1899, September. Filipino: “Aguinaldo’s Case Against the United States.” [[DITTO: || ]]

N.B. In South America there is a growing trend towards closer relations with Spain; the (Spanish American) congress in Madrid in 1900 was attended by delegates from fifteen South American states (p. 326) (*). More contacts with Spain, growth of the latter’s influence and of “Latin” sympathies, etc. (**)

sic! || p. 379: “The era of national wars has evidently passed”....

(wars over markets, etc.).

N.B. || (*) Revue des deux mondes, 1901 (November 15).

(**) Slogan: “Spanish-American Union.”

SOURCE REFERENCES ON AMERICAN IMPERIALISM IN PATOUILLET

(References from Patouillet on American Imperialism, etc.)

Carpenter, The American Advance (Territorial Expansion), New York, 1902.

E. Driault, Political and Social Problems at the End of the Nineteenth Century, Paris, 1900.

W. E. Griffis, America in the East, New York, 1899.

D. St. Jordan, Imperial Democracy, New York, 1899.

De Molinari, Problems of the Twentieth Century, Paris, 1901.

Roosevelt, American Ideals, New York, 1901.—The Strenuous Life, London, 1903.

Paul Sée, The American Peril, Paris, 1903.

Seilliére, The Philosophy of Imperialism, Paris, 1903.

Stead, The Americanisation of the World, Paris, 1903.

Annales des sciences politiques: 1902 (Vol. XVII). E. Boutmy, “The United States and Imperialism” (p. 1 et seq.).

Le Correspondant, 1890 (January 25). Cl. Jannet, “Economic Facts and the Social Movement in America” (p. 348 et seq.).

L’Economiste français, 1899, 1, VII. Leroy-Beaulieu, “American Expansion, etc.”

Le Monde économique, 1896 (April 4 and 18). Machat, “United States and European Commercial Rivalry in America.”

La Grande Revue, 1899 (October 1). Weulersse, “American Expansion.”

Revue politique et littéraire (Revue bleue), 1896 (May 9). Moireau, “Jingoes and Jingoism in the United States” (pp. 593–97), 1900 (April 21). Driault, “Imperialism in the United States” (p. 502 et seq.).

La Revue de Paris, 1899 (March 15). De Rousiers, “American Imperialism.”

The North American Review, 1898, September. Conant, “The Economic Basis of Imperialism.”

[[—]]. 1897, No. 2. Chapman, “The Menace of Pseudo-Patriotism.”

[[—]]. 1899, No. 1. Carnegie, “Americanism versus Imperialism.”

[[—]]. 1902, No. 12. Winstow, “The Anti-Imperialist Faith.”

[[—]]. 1903, No. 1. Bonsal, “Greater Germany in South America.”

The Fortnightly Review, 1901, August. Brooks, “American Imperialism.”

Deutsche Rundschau, 1902, November. Schierbrand, “The Imperialist Idea in America.”

Revue socialiste, 1904, February. Colajanni, “Anglo-Saxon Imperialism.”

Le Mercure de France, 1904, April. P. Louis, “Outline of Imperialism.”

Revue des deux mondes, 1903 (July 15). Leroy-Beaulieu, “The British Empire and then Crisis of Imperialism.”

? Novicow, The Federation of Europe, 2nd edition, Paris, 1901.

|| E. Théry, The Economic History of Britain, the United States and Germany, Paris, 1902.

V. Bérard, Britain and Imperialism, Paris, 1900.

Lair, German Imperialism, Paris, 1902.

MOOS, “FRENCH CREDIT INSTITUTIONS AND FRENCH AND ENGLISH CAPITAL INVESTMENTS ABROAD”

Jahrbücher far Nationalökonomie, 3rd series, Vol. XXXIX (39), 1910.

|| Ferdinand Moos, “French Credit Institutions and French and English Capital Investments Abroad” (pp. 237–56).

[[BOX: scant ]] Only half a page on Britain, giving G. Paish’s totals. But there are source references and figures on France:

Polemic: Lysis, “The Financial Oligarchy”, Paris, 1907, and Testis, “Credit Institutions”, Paris, 1907.

Henri Michel, “Speech in the Chamber of Deputies, November 30, 1909.”

Le Monde économique, 1906 and 1907 articles (P. Beauregard).

Jules Domergue (Economic Reform).

||| M. Manchez (Le Temps, January 2, 1910) estimates French capital abroad at 35,000 million francs (p. 240).

[[DITTO: ||| ]] Neymarck (Le Rentier) estimates French capital abroad at 25,000–30,000 million francs (p. 243).

The total value of securities on the Paris Stock Exchange \=

= 130,000 million franks (p. 243)

including {{2 64,00 {{2 French }}2

{{2 66,00 {{2 foreign }}2

[[BOX ENDS: Portugal obtained from Brazil 2,400 million francs between 1696 and 1754 (p. 238).

Dutch capital in Britain in 1747 was 1,600 million gulden (ibidem). ]]

Money flows to where the rate of interest is highest.

According to Lysis: Deposits (of four banks)—(Crédit Lyonnais + Comptoir National + Société Générale + Crédit Industriel et Commercial) (p. 252):

1885—	912	million	francs
1890—	1,302	”	”
1900—	2,171	”	”
1905—	2,897	”	”	(according to Lysis)

|| 50 persons “For a seat on the board, one need only hold 50–200–300 shares.... Thus, about 50 persons, who need not have more than eight million francs between them, year after year control more than 2,500 million francs of deposits, and more than 1,500 million francs of new annual investments, without having to give account to anyone” (252).

In the case of loans, the borrowing state never receives more than 90 per cent (p. 253)—the banks get the remainder. The 1895 Chinese-Russian loan was for 400 million francs at 4 per cent. “The price on flotation was 450. The first market price was 495. The highest market price was 520. The difference in one month was 45 francs, or 10 per cent.... On this deal, the Banque de Paris et des Pays Bas alone made a profit of 20 million francs” (253), and so on.

)) N.B. January 1907—Socialists in the Chamber of Deputies sharply attacked investment in Russian loans:

KOUZNIETSOW, THE STRUGGLE OF CIVILISATIONS AND LANGUAGES IN CENTRAL ASIA

P. Kouznietsow, The Struggle of Civilisations and Languages in Central Asia, Paris, 1912. (Thesis—Paris.) (353 pp.)

Deals only with Turkestan—its history and colonisation (mentions the Andijan uprising of 1898, warns for the future).... ((p. 295 and others)).

The development of culture, cotton-growing, railways, etc., etc. Many literature references.... The standpoint, apparently, is official.

RECENT LITERATURE CITED IN CONRAD’S JAHRBÜCHER

From recent literature:

Léopold Lacour, Modern France. Political and Social Problems, Paris, 1909.

De Leener, Organisation of Leaders of Industry. Belgium, Paris, 1909 (two vols.).

J. S. Nicholson, A Project of Empire (Economics of Imperialism), London, 1909. (310 pp.)

Henri Andrillon, The Expansion of Germany, Angoulême, 1909.

“The Development of Germany as a World Power” (supplement to Annals of the American Academy, January 1910).

!! Nil. An ambassador’s speech!!!

Marcel Dubois, France and Her Colonies, Paris, 1910.

Jean Cruppi, For French Economic Expansion, Paris, 1910.

Jean G. Raffard, Concentration of British Banks, Paris, 1910.

L. Gautier, The Financier State, Paris, 1910.

N.B. || Eduard Driault, The World Today. A Political and Economic Survey, Paris, 1909. (372 pp.)

[A review in the Jahrbücher, Vol. 41, p. 269 speaks in a laudatory tone of this “textbook of world history”, especially the significance of “economic processes for modern politics”.]

Fr. E. Lunge, American Economic Policy, Berlin, 1910.

Godfernaux, French Colonial Railways, Paris, 1911 (439 pp.).

Aug. Terrier and Ch. Mourey, French Expansion. Paris, 1910.

? | Charles Du Hemme, Financial Imperialism. The General Society for the Promotion of French Trade and Industry. Prefaced by a Letter to the Finance Minister, Paris, 1910 (95 pp.)? (Paris, Trade and Financial Review).

J. Bourdeau, Between Two Servitudes (...Socialism... (!!!!) imperialism...), Paris, 1910.

Geoffray Drage, The Imperial Organisation of Trade, London, 1911. (374 pp.)

R. G. Lévy, Banks of Issue, Paris, 1911 (628 pp.).

Marcel Gras, Machinism and Its Consequences.... Paris, 1911. (Thesis.)

|| Edmond Théry, Economic Europe, 2nd edition, Paris, 1911. (332 pp.)

[[DITTO: || ]] Idem. The National Wealth of France, Paris, 1911.

Lucien Hubert, The German Effort, Paris, 1911.

Ed. Pfeiffer, The Fabian Society and the English Socialist Movement, Paris, 1911. (Thesis.)

Arthur Boucher (Colonel), Victorious France in the Coming War, Paris, 1911. (93 pp.) || N.B. Jahrbücher, Vol. 42 (1911). N.B. Article by Goldschmidt on agrarian laws and agrarian structure of New Zealand.

Schneider, Jahrbuch der deutschen Kolonien, 4th year, 1911.

Mamroth, Industrial Constitutionalism, Jena, 1911 (review in Volume 43, 1912).

Schachner, The Social Question in Australia and New Zealand, Jena, 1911 (a detailed account in Volume 43, 1912).

Overzier, The American-British Shipping Trust, Berlin, 1912 (4 marks).

Goldschmidt, Concentration in Coal-Mining, 1912 (Baden Higher School Economic Studies).

Ibidem: Briefs, The Alcohol Cartel, 1912.

Hillringhaus, The German Iron Syndicates, Their Development Towards a Single Syndicate, Leipzig, 1912 (3 marks).

Enrico Leone, Expansionism and Colonies, Rome, 1911 (235 pp.), 2 lire.

Jahrbücher, Vol. 44 (=1912, 2):

P. Passama, New Forms of Industrial Concentration, Paris, 1910 (341 pp.), 8.50 francs.

Bosenick, Germany’s New Combined Banking Economy. (Analysis.) Munich, 1912. (366 pp.)

Argentarius, Letters of a Bank Director, Berlin (Bank Publishing House), 1912 (1 mark) (??).

P. Hausmeister, Large-Scale Enterprises and Monopoly in Banking (a popular sketch), Stuttgart, 1912.

Hennebicque Léon, Western Imperialism. The Genesis of British Imperialism, Brussels, 1913 (295 pp., 6 francs) [Vol. 45].

René Pinon, France and Germany. 1870–1913, Paris, 1913.

Smile Becqué, Internationalisation of Capital, Montpellier, 1912 (432 pp.), 6 francs.

B. Ischchanian, Foreign Elements in the Russian National Economy, Berlin, 1913 (300 pp.), 7 marks.

Review in Vol. 47: a good deal on the import of capital.

||| Author estimates Russia’s indebtedness to Western Europe at 6,000 million rubles.

Paul Eckhardt, Studies In World Economy, Bielefeld, 1913 (140 pp.) (2.30 marks).

François Maury, French Securities During the Last Ten Years Paris. 1912. (Ten years’ statistics for capitalists. A mass of data with percentages and so on. Per cent of d securities, etc.)

LOUIS BRUNEAU, GERMANY IN FRANCE

Louis Bruneau, Germany in France, 2nd edition, Paris, 1914 (articles in La Grande Revue).

__ __ Quotes: [[WHOLE-LIST: | ]]

• L. Nicot, Germany in Paris (1887).
• G. Montbard, The Enemy (1889). It ends: “Germany must be destroyed if Gallia is to live.”
• M. Schwob, The German Danger, 1896.
• ” Before the Battle, 1904.
• Em. Jennissen, The German Spectre, 1906.
• André Barre. The German Menace, 1908.
• Jean d’Epée, Greater Germany, 1910.
• Henry Gaston, Germany at Bay , 19..?

Germany lacks iron (deposits will be exhausted within 40 years (p. 3))—imports are increasing:

8	million	tons	in	1908
11	”	”	”	1911		(p. 2)

while in France deposits have been discovered at Meurthe and Moselle—in French Lorraine — — —

Iron output...	2.6	million	tons	in	1890
	4.4	”	”	”	1900
	14.8	”	”	”	1911
Nancy . . . . .	200 million tons of ore
Briey . . . .	2,000
Longwy . . .	300
Crusnes . . .	500
	__ __
	3,000 million tons of ore (p. 5).

Deposits discovered in Normandy: 100–700 million tons of ore.

French iron	ore exports to Germany:
	1.7	million	tons	in	1909
	2.8	”	”	”	1912		(p. 21).
German coal	exports to France:
	1909	—3	million	tons
	1912	—5.7	”	”

A Dutch merchant (Poorter) is buying up land with iron ore deposits in Normandy (already has 3,496 hectares), selling the ore to Germany (pp. 24–25). (Details follow.)

Stinnes and Krupp are buying up iron ore mines (30–31)—partly through Poorter.

Examples of “holdings” and composition of management boards (35)....

...(mostly Frenchmen + Germans)....

Thyssen, growth of his concern, etc.

Examples, composition of boards, financial holdings, etc., etc.

Migration of firms to France, etc.

No generalisations.

(See articles on this in La Grande Revue.)

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES FROM CONRAD’S JAHRBÜCHER

Bibliographical references from Conrad’s Jahrbücher:

}} Vol. 45 }} Paul Pilant, The German Peril, Paris, 1913.

[DITTO:] }} Vol. 45 }} R. G. Usher, Pan-Germanism, London (7–6) (1913?).

[DITTO:] }} Vol. 45 }} The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 42 (1912): “Industrial Competition and Combination” (trusts (30 reports)).

|| ? | Hans Henger, “French Capital Investments”... 1913, Stuttgart (Munich Economic Studies No. 125).

Léon Wenger: Oil (Thesis), Paris, 1913 (Vol. 47, 1914).

G. Michon: The Big British Shipping Companies, 1913. (Thesis.)

Schiemann, Germany and high Politics, 1913 (Vol. 13), 1914.

0. W. Knauth, The Policy of the United States Towards || N.B. (?) Industrial Monopoly, New York, 1913. (233 pp.) (Columbia University Studies.)

?? E. Friedegg, Millions and Millionaires, Berlin, 1914. (383 pp.)

P. Baudin, The Money of France, Paris, 1914.

Vol. 46 (1913, I). Article on Marx’s theory of rent (Albrecht).

E. Rothschild, Cartels, etc., 1913.

Volumes 45–47 looked through.

Vol. 48 (1914, 2): Julius Hirsch, Branch Enterprises, etc., Bonn, 1913. (Cologne Studies No. 1.)

Laudatory review in Conrad’s Jahrbücher, Vol. 48).

N.B. [This volume—p. 649—contains nineteenth-century statistics of livestock farming (very full) for many European countries.]

Walter Straus, German Power Grids and Their Economic N.B. || Significance, Berlin, 1913 (especially about agriculture and for agriculture).

Conrad’s Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie, 1915, I (3rd N.B. series, Vol. 49): “Fluctuations in Immigration into the United States”. (Statistical totals for 1870–1910.)

LYSIS, AGAINST THE FINANCIAL OLIGARCHY IN FRANCE

Lysis, Against the Financial Oligarchy in France, 5th ed., Paris, 1908 (260 pp.). The chapters are dated November 1, 1906; December 15, 1906; February 1, 1907; May 1, 1907; November 15, 1907.

In the preface, Jean Finot states that the British press has confirmed the fact reported by Lysis (first in La Revue): A certain person made 12 million francs (p. vii) out of the 1906 Russian loan, besides “a hundred million” (ibidem) in commissions!!

Date?? ||| This was discussed at a sitting of the Chamber of Deputies (two days) (when?).

Four banks have an “absolute monopoly” (p. 11) (not a relative one)—in all bond issues.

“a trust of the big banks”(p. 12)	{{	Crédit Lyonnais
		Société Générale
		Comptoir d’Escompte +	Banque de Paris
			et des Pays- Bas
		Crédit Industriel
		et Commercial

The borrowing country receives 90 per cent of the sum of the loan (10 per cent goes to the banks, “distributing” and “” syndicates, etc.)—p. 26.

Russo-Chinese loan	400	million	francs.	Profit	about8%
Russian
(1904)	800	”	”	”	”	10%
Moroccan
(1904)	62.5	”	”	”	”	18 3/4%

“The French are the usurers of Europe” (29)....

“The financial press almost always enjoys subsidies” (35).

The Egyptian Sugar Refineries Affair: the public lost 90–100 million francs (39). The Société Générale issued 64,000 shares of this company; the price on issue was about 150 per cent (!!).... The company’s dividends were “fictitious” (39)....

“One of the Société Générale directors was a director of Egyptian Sugar Refineries” (39). ||| !!

Fifty persons, representing eight million francs, control 2,000 million francs in these four banks (40)....

What is to be done? “Return to competition” (42)....

“The French Republic is a financial monarchy” (48)....

The 1906 Russian loan: Mr. X, “an intermediary of the banks”, made 12 million (49).

It is impossible to understand anything from the reports and balance-sheets....

“1,750 million in three lines” (57)....

What is the source of bank profits? Stock issues. This is concealed.

“An example: without a prospectus, without publicity, secretly, by the muffled and hidden work of its ‘cashiers’ and ‘business agents’, the Crédit Lyonnais sold 874 million francs worth (nominal value) of Russian Nobility Land Bank bonds. At an average price of 96.80. The market price at present is 66. The loss to the public: 269 million francs!” (pp. 75–76)....

“Alarming export of French capital” (p. 93 et seq.).

France is the “world’s usurer” (119).

The fall in the market price of Russian bonds (as against the price of issue) is such that out of 14,000 million francs, 3,000–4,000 million are lost by the public: that is what the public pays the banks!!!

And endless wailing about the banks not supporting French industry.... Germany is advancing, we are marking time (187 and passim)... “anti-national policy”, etc.

Chapter V is headed:

“Complete Domination of the Financial Oligarchy; Its Hold over the Press and the Government”....

The banks’ means of pressure on the government: lowering the rate of interest... (!!)

secret subsidies:

1 million to a Minister } !

1/4 million to an ambassador (p. 212) [DITTO:] } !

bribes to the press...

(Has used only newspaper articles, nothing else).

Author’s conclusions: regulation of banking

separation of banks of deposit from banks of issue (d’affaires)

control....

((A commonplace philistine))

NOTES ON BOOKS BY MACROSTY, BAUMGARTEN AND MESZLENY, AND BERGLUND

Henry W. Macrosty, Trusts in British Industry, Berlin, 1910.

[BOX ENDS:] [[ Mass of facts, major and minor. Essential for information, etc. ]]

Baumgarten and Meszleny, Cartels and Trusts, Berlin, 1906 (an economic and legal survey. Apparently, nil novi).

Abraham Berglund, The United States Steel Corporation, 1907. (Thesis.)

(Description and literature references. Amateurish, but useful for information.)

HUBERT, THE GERMAN EFFORT

Lucien Hubert, The German Effort, Paris, 1911.

(A comparison of French and German (economic) development.)

Net railway income (per kilometre)
		1883	1906
	France	19,165 francs	19,560
	Germany	15,476	21,684
	Great Britain	26,755	26,542
Merchant shipping (thousand tons)
		1890–01	1906–07	+%
	Great Britain	5,107	9,732	+91
	Germany	656	2,110	+222
	United States	376	1,194	+217
	France	485	721	+49
	Norway	176	717	+308
	Japan	76	611	+704
	Italy	186	493	+165

Figures predominate, mostly given separately for both countries, without precise, comparative tables such as given above.

(Scientific value = 0)

BÉRARD, BRITAIN AND IMPERIALISM

Victor Bérard, Britain and Imperialism, Paris, 1900. (381 pp.)

{{ Cursory examination suggests a collection of newspaper articles: glib, extremely glib, journalism, but extremely superficial. Descriptive account, nothing more. “Joseph Chamberlain” is the heading of the first chapter. Quotations from his speeches, his career, fame, etc., etc. “Imperialism” forms the second chapter (or section: they are not called chapters nor are they numbered). This too is a “newspaper” account: “Markets, markets”, endless examples and figures (on the decline of British trade, etc.) from Blue Books, but it is all fragmentary, superficial, and after Hobson and Schulze-Gaevernitz reads like a schoolboy’s exercise—book.... Ditto about German competition, and so on and so forth. Nil. Nil. }}

[DITTO:] {{ A couple of examples which, possibly, might be useful: [DITTO:] }}

Some of the arguments against imperialism:

“The same statistics prove further that the occupation of a territory by His Majesty’s troops often benefits only foreigners and very little British subjects; in Egypt only German and Belgian trade has increased since 1881: British imports to Egypt amounted to £8,726,000 in 1870; £3,060,000 in 1880; £3,192,000 in 1892; £4,435,000 in 1897, whereas German imports rose from £E21,000 (Egyptian £ = 25.60 francs) in 1886 to £E281,000 in 1896, and Belgian imports rose from £86,000 to £458,000 in the same period” (p. 249).

“Having invented the extraction of sugar from beet, France became the world’s leading sugar producer: she still had a monopoly in 1870, when Germany entered the field. A study of the French crops showed that, like Northern France, she had a favourable soil and climate in areas near her coal mines. But her soil was less fertile and her climate more severe. The fight against the French would have to be waged on unequal terms. Nevertheless, by 1882, French sugar manufacturers were already complaining: German sugar is penetrating the French market.... German beet has a 12 per cent sugar content; French growers say they cannot obtain more than 7 per cent”—the Germans had improved cultivation methods, fertilisers, selection, etc., etc.

“In less than twelve years of German competition, France, which invented beet sugar, was deprived of the profit from her invention. Her sugar law of 1884 was dictated by German science, Germany being henceforth the empress of sugar, and, in addition, of alcohol” (pp. 311–12).

[TRIPLE BOX ENDS:] [[ Date at the end of the book: November 1898–April 1900. ]]

LAIR, GERMAN IMPERIALISM

Maurice Lair, German Imperialism, Paris, 1902 (341 pp.)

[	Begins with a brief, routine description of British imperialism, then American, Russian, Japanese, and German (“Imperialism and Imperialists”. Introduction).		]	Nil
	Chapter I. “The Origin of German Imperialism.”
		(1870.—Development and growth. Generally known data and figures. Much the same “journalistic” account as V. Bérard’s.)
	Chapter II. “The Soul of Imperialist Germany”...
		and the “Herr Doktor”—and Mommsen and Treitschke ... drawing-room gossip!—-and a little quotation from Marx (requoted from Bourdeau).... Wretched piece of work.
	Chapter III. “Imperialist Policy.”
	ha-ha!! ||	...“The twentieth century inaugurates the reign of the barons of the big banks” (165)—and a quotation from Toussenel: “The Jews—the Kings of the Era” (!!).
	Chapter IV. “Yesterday.” More and more
		figures on Germany’s economic growth. The Baghdad railway, etc.
	Chapter V. “Today.”—On the crisis of 1900,
		prattle....
	Chapter VI. “Tomorrow.”
		...Resolution of the Paris International Socialist Congress, September 1900—“against imperialism” (p. 324) and wars.... A bit of everything!...
		[ELECTRIC GROUND: _6_]

He quotes:

Forum, June 1899: “The Struggle for the Commercial Empire.”

The North American Review, September 1898: “The Economic Basis of Imperialism”.

Paul Arndt, Germany’s Trade Relations with Britain and the British Colonies, 1899.

Julius Wolf, The German Empire and the World Market.

BRIEFS, THE ALCOHOL CARTEL

Goetz Briefs, The Alcohol Cartel, Karlsruhe, 1912. (Baden Higher School Studies. New series, No. 7.) It seems—at a glance—to be a specialised, uninteresting work.

[PARTIAL LEFT BOX END:] Monopoly [[ pp. 240–41: “Thus de facto the ring of alcohol plants [there remain three “outsiders”, quite weak] has become a monopoly centred around the almost completely syndicated potato distilleries; this completes the external power structure of the cartel.” ]]

GOLDSCHMIDT, CONCENTRATION IN THE GERMAN COAL INDUSTRY

Kurt Goldschmidt, Concentration in the German Coal Industry, Karlsruhe, 1912 (122 pp.).... (Ibidem. New series, No. 5)

[little of value, no precise summary of data]

				Coal (milliontons)	Steel (milliontons)
1.			1 Krupp . . . . . . . . . . . .	2.4	0.98
2.			Haniel Family . . . . . . . . .	8.7	0.59
3.	{{	{{	Stinnes ” . . . . . . . . .	2.5
				5.5	0.79
				1.5
4.			Thyssen . . . . . . . . .	3.6	0.97
					0.27
6.			Gelsenkirchen . . . . . . . . . .	8.2	0.51
7.			Harpen . . . . . . . . . . . .	6.7	–
8.			Hibernia . . . . . . . . . . . .	5.1	–
9.			Phönix . . . . . . . . . . . .	5.4__	1.13__
				49.6	5.24
5.	{{		Karl Funke . . . . . . . . . .	3.1
				2.8	__
			Σ (my)	55.5	5.24

|| “Nine concerns control 66.9 per cent of the coal output of the basin” (((the Rhine-Westphalian))) “and 48 per cent of the output of the federation of steel plants” (p. 69). ||| The Stinnes concern (pp. 69–70) comprises the following enterprises:

(1)	coal mines . . . . . . . . . .		19
(2)	iron and steel mills . . . . . . . . . .		7
(3)	iron ore mines . . . . . . . . . .		numerous
		{in Germany, Luxemburg, France}
(4)	trading (coal) . . . . . . . . . .		6
(5)	shipping . . . . . . . . . .			}}
		in Germany . . . . . . . . . .	12
		” Great Britain . . . . . . . . . .	5
		” Italy . . . . . . . . . .	3
		” France . . . . . . . . . .	2
		” Belgium . . . . . . . . . .	1
		” Switzerland . . . . . . . . . .	1
		” Russia . . . . . . . . . .	2
etc.

RUSSIER, THE PARTITION OF OCEANIA

Henri Russier, The Partition of Oceania, Paris, 1905. (Thesis.)

A very detailed summary of a mass of material. Unfortunately, there are no exact statistical totals (à la Supan). Well compiled. Many source references, maps, photographs.

Author divides the history of the “political partition” into periods:

1. 1) discovery (16th–18th centuries)
2. 2) missions (1797–1840)
3. 3) “first conflicts” (1840–70)
4. N.B. ||| 4) “international competition”, 1870–1904.

{{ Author quotes, inter alia, the summary table (of the partition) from Sievers and Kükenthal, Australia, Oceania and the Polar Countries, Leipzig, 1902. Pp. 67–68. To be looked at. }}

This is followed by detailed economic, commercial and geographical information about each of the colonies.

To the economic causes of colonial policy the author adds (N.B.)—social causes:

“To these [enumerated above and well-known] economic causes must be added social causes.—Owing to the growing complexities of life, which weigh heavily not only on the masses of the workers, but also on the middle classes, gem!! || one sees accumulating in all countries of old civilisation ‘impatience, rancour and hatred that are a menace to public order, declassed energies and turbulent forces, which must be taken in hand and given employment abroad in order to avert an explosion at home’” (Wahl, France in Her Colonies, Paris, p. 92)—(pp. 165–66).

N.B. ||| References to British imperialism (p. 171);—to American (p. 175), after the Spanish-American war of 1898;—to German (p. 180).
__ __ __ N.B. |||| He quotes, among others, Driault, Political and Social Problems at the End of the Nineteenth Century, etc. (Paris, 1900), Chapter XIV, “The Great Powers and the Division of the World”.

VOGELSTEIN, CAPITALIST FORMS OF ORGANISATION IN MODERN BIG INDUSTRY

Theodor Vogelstein, Capitalist Forms of Organisation in Modern Big Industry, Vol. I: “Organisational Forms of the Iron and Textile Industries in Great Britain and America”, Leipzig, 1910.

pp. 54–56.

The British firms: Vickers, Son and Maxim, Ltd.; Browns; Cammels, now own (iron ore) mines, coal mines, iron and steel plants, shipyards, several explosives factories, etc., etc.

The Rail Cartel:

||| Division of the world: 1884 “During the very severe depression of 1884, British, Belgian and German rail firms agreed on a division of export business, on the understanding that there would be no competition in their home markets. At first Great Britain was allotted 66 per cent, Belgium 7 per cent and Germany 27 per cent of the exports; later the figures were somewhat modified in favour of the continental countries. India was reserved entirely for Great Britain.... The British firms divided their share among themselves and fixed a price which enabled plants working under unfavourable conditions to continue in operation.... Joint war was declared against a British firm remaining outside the cartel, the cost of which was met by a levy of two shillings on all sales. ||| 1886 But when two British firms retired from the cartel, it collapsed”.... (quoted from the edition of 1886).... “Twenty years elapsed before a new international association was formed. In spite of all efforts, it was impossible, during these decades of rapid industrial development on the continent and in America, to reach agreement on territorial limits and quotas.... ||| 1904 “In 1904 an agreement was at last reached with Germany, Belgium and France on the basis of 53.50 per cent, 28.83 per cent and 17.67 per cent for the first three countries” (sic?? Britain, Belgium, Germany??). “France took part with 4.8 units in the first year, and 5.8 and 6.4 units in the second and third years, in a total amount which was increased by these percentages, hence in 104.8, 105.8 and 106.4 units.

“In 1905 an agreement was reached also with the United States, and in the following year ... Austria and the [ DOUBLE BOX: ] Altos Hornos plants in Spain were brought into the alliance. At the present time, the division of the world is complete, and the big consumers, primarily the state railways—since the world has been parcelled out without consideration [ DOUBLE BOX: good example!! ] for their interests—can now dwell like the poet in the heavens of Jupiter” (pp. 99–100).

As regards the United States Steel Corporation, it is still an open question whether Charles Schwab is right in maintaining that the iron ore mines of Lake Superior (mostly bought up by the Steel Corporation) will soon be the only ones left—or whether Carnegie is right in thinking that many ore deposits will still be found in America.

The share of the Steel Corporation in American output (p. 275):

			1901	1908
Total	output	(extraction) of ore	43.9%	46.3%
”	”	of pig-iron . . . .	42.9	43.5
”	”	” steel . . . . .	66.3	56.1
”	”	” rolled goods . .	50.1	47.1

PLAN OF THE BOOK IMPERIALISM, THE HIGHEST STAGE OF CAPITALISM

Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism

(A popular outline)

[BOX ENDS:] [[ Approximate title for censorship: “Principal Features of Modern (Recent, the Recent Stage of) Capitalism”]

1. 1. The special stage of capitalism in our time. Theme: its study, analysis, conclusions.
2. 2. Growth of large-scale production. Concentration of production.

{[ Censuses of 1882, 1895, 1907 in Germany {[ " " 1900, 1910 in the United States

• Idem on Russia (The Development of Capitalism?).
• Heymann’s statistics... β 108 [20O–01].
• |_ Branches (of banks) and their growth: α 15 [39]. _|
• |_ Assets of German joint-stock companies: α 22 [44]. _|
• “Combination”: Hilferding υ 4 and 5 [334-37] (pp. 285, 358).
• Concentration in the German coal industry: γ 26 [226–27]. Especially α 7–8 [33–35].
• |_ New era of concentration: β 11 [85–86]. _|
• |_ Concentration of technique and finance. N.B. β 102–03 [194–96]. _|

3.3. Cartels and Trusts.

• (2) General figures: Liefmann: α 40 [55–56].
• Riesser υ 8 [360–63]. Tafel β 37 [113].
• (1) Periods of development: Liefmann. Vogelstein: α 33–34–35 [71–72].
• (4) Technique: Tafel: β 38 [113–14].
• (5) Compulsory Organisation by Kestner. α 23 [44–45] et seq., 27 [46–47], especially 28 [47–48].
• Immobility (hindrance to outflow) of fixed capital.
• Hilferding υ 4 [334–35] (p. 274).
• ||_ Merchants=agents: Hilferding. υ 5 [335–37] _||
• ||_ (p. 322). _||
• Example: Cement: β 99 [189–90].
• (3) Share of the United States Steel Corporation: γ 28–29 [228–30]. β 104 [197–98]. α 40 [55–56]. ι 8 [378].

3.3 bis, Crises? Disproportional development of agriculture and industry.

• (6) Crises and monopolies: β 78 [160–61] (Jeidels).
• β 90 [173–74] (especially in fine). Chance, risk, bankruptcies: ι 11. 12–13 [379–81].

4.4. Monopoly.

(2 bis) Percentage of industry involved: Vogelstein. Kestner: α 23–24 [44-45].

5.5. International Cartels. “Division of the world” among them.

• Cf. Hilferding υ 5 [335–37] (p. 491).
• 6. Total figure: Liefmann.
• 5. 5. Explosives trust: α 39 [55].
• 2. 4. Oil: β 13 [89–90]. β 64 [141]. β 87 [170–71].
• β 92+93 [175–77 + 177–79].
• 3. 3. Shipping: υ Riesser 10 [364–65].
• 4. 2. Rail cartel: υ Riesser 11 [367–68].
• Vogelstein: γ 28 [229].—Berglund, p. 169.
• 1. N.B.: Electricity trust. Die Neue Zeit, 1912: υ 7–8 [338–41] (cf. υ Riesser 1 [343–45]).
• + β 64 [140]. β 89 [172–73].
• Trade in metals: α 11–12 [36–38].
• Zinkhüttenverband: υ Riesser 13 [366].
• 7. Conclusions and significance.

6.6. Banks

• 0. Their general role. Cf. Hilferding: υ 3 [333–34] (p. 105) and υ 4 [334–35] (p. 108, p. 116).
• 6. “The form of social production and distribution” (Marx). Hilferding υ 4 [334–35] (p. 262) N.B.: β 41 [117–18] in fine.
• [BOX: Growth of British banks: β 95 [181–83] ]
• 1. Their concentration: υ Riesser 1.5 [343–45, 349–51]. γ 5 [206–07] France; β 99–100 [88–92]; β 7 [80–81] (300 million: 300 persons); β 13 [89–90]. (β 78–79 [160–61]—Jeidels). α 45 and 48 + 1 [59–60 and 64–66 + 66].
• 4. Letters: υ Riesser 2 bis [349].
• 5. Accounts: γ 5 [206–07].
• 2. Branches: υ Riesser 13 [353–54]. (β 50 [125–27]—Russia). β 66 [142–44] (France). β 67 [145–147] (Great Britain). Banks in Russia (1905 and after): β 42 and 43 [118–20].
• Banks and the Stock Exchange: Hilferding. υ Riesser 3 [347–48] + β 10 [84–85]. (N.B.: α 42 [53–54]).
• ((α 42 [53–54])). α 46 [60–62]. 3. Banks and employees: υ Riesser 3 [347–48]. β 66 [142–44]. β 100 [190–91]. α 43 [56–58].
• 5 bis. Banks and the Post Office: β 3 [77–78].
• ” ” savings banks: β 15 [92–93].

7.7. Banks

• 7. Merged with industry. Hilferding: Marx, II, 79 (υ 3 [333–34]). β 80–81 [162–65] (Jeidels).
• 8. Members of Supervisory Boards, etc. Hilferding: υ 4 [334–35] (p. 159. 162).—υ Riesser 7 [354–359].—β 79 [161–62] (Jeidels). β 81 [163–65]. (α 41 [52–53] example—bank’s letter to an industrial company).
• 9. “Universal character” (Jeidels): β 81–82. 83. 84–87 [163–65. 165–66. 166–70]. β 88 [171–72].
• (Technical role.) β 90 [173–74].—β 99 [190–91]. N.B. Tendency of the banks towards monopoly. Hilferding: υ 4 [334–35] (p. 278). α 48 [64–65].

8.8. “Finance capital.”

• 1. “Holdings.” β 96–97 [183–86] (β 53 [127–29]).
• β 46 and 47 [121–123] (Germany. Deutsche Bank). β 56 [130–32]. β 94 [178–81]. υ 11 [380].
• || __ N.B. example of distribution of shares: β 65 [140–42]. __ ||
• Ad § III. “Holdings” in Russian banks: β 49 (and 48) [123–26 (and 122-23)].
• 2. “Interlocking.”
• 3. “Subsidiary companies.” β 9 [83–84]. β 105–06 [198–200] υ 7. 9 [377–78. 379]. Fraud. Concessions. Bribes.
• 7. “Transport trust” and urban land: β 12 [86–89] + β 94 [178–81].
• (Speculation in land): β 15–16 [92–94].
• 8. Bank directors and officials (government): Russia
• β 50–51 and 53. 55 [125–27 and 127–28. 129–30].
• β 95–96 [181–85]. β 99 [188–90].
• 4. Company promotion; “Founders’ profit”: Hilferding: υ 5 [335–37] (p. 336). Lysis: γ 19. 20 [220–221. 221–22]. + β 65 [140–42]. German example: β 8 [81–83].
• Foreign loans: Lysis γ 19–20 [220–22]. α 2 [66–67]. (German) β 14 [91–92].
• 9. Statistics of issues (1910–12): υ 9 [341–42]. υ 23 [386–87]. (Idem from 1871): β 17 and 68 [94–96 and 147–49]. β 68 [147–49] (Neymarck and Zollinger]. α 47 [62–64] (ad § 18).
• 6. Profit from issues: α 38 [52]. υ 3. 5 [374–75. 376-77]. β 14 [91–92].
• 5. N.B. “Reconstruction.” Hilferding: υ [334] (p. 172). Stillich: α 38 and 41 [52–53]. Liefmann: υ 3 [374–75]. The financial history of France: λ 2–3 [437–38].

9.9. Export of capital (§ IV).

• Introduction? Growth of capital and its contradictions.

Growth {{

Hobson—χ 9 [409–10].

Lescure: γ 5 [206–07]. β 67 [145–47].

(Mehrens). β 69 [146] (Neymarck).

Amount:

Neymarck (β 68 and 69 [147–49 and 149–51]) + υ Riesser 14 [371].

Harms: ξ 3–5 [286–87]. ξ 30 [323].

Arndt: ε 1 [273].

Diouritch: β 63 [139–40].

Kaufmann: β 66 [142–44].

[BOX: Schulze-Gaevernitz: α 2 [66–67]. ]

• Significance.
• Connection with export of commodities. Exports and investment of capital: β 30 [108–10]. (Hilferding υ.) β 100–01 [191–94] (loans and exports). N.B. See 20.
• (Orders, etc.): β 14–15 [91–92].
• Contracts: β 27 [105–06]. β 28 [107–08]. β 29 [108–09].
• Banks in the colonies: β 65 [141–42]. α 30 [48–50].
• (+ υ Riesser 7 [354–59]).
• Foreign loans (? § III ?) (α 2 [66–67]) N.B. Foreign capital in China, Japan, etc. β 17 [94–96].
• German capital in Russia: γ 42 [249–50] (cf. β 58 [132–331). α 31 [68–69]. η 13 [330]. Foreign capital in Argentina and other countries β 29 [108–09] and β 30 [109–10].
• Canada: β 94 [180–81].
• [DOUBLE BOX: “Dumping”. Where to? Where? for § VII? see 16 ]

10.10. Colonies

• Their general significance: agriculture: β 18 [96–97].
• Colonial loans ι 21 [386].
• Colonial banks: υ Riesser 7 [354–59].
• Social significance of colonies. Wahl: γ 27 [226–28].
• Raw materials: β 18 [96–97].
• Sales: exports to colonies. β 20 [98–100].
• Suppression of industry and development of agriculture, etc. β 24–25 [103–05]. (India, etc.) β 26 [105–06].
• America in the Philippines: β 26 [105–06].
• Britain: Suez: α 44 [58–59].
• (1) Monopolies—(raw-material sources).
• (2) Export of capital (concessions).
• Finance capital = domination.

11.11. Growth of colonies.

• Morris: γ 47 [251] et seq.

1860	}}
1880		χ 2–3 [406–08]
1900

12.12. “Division of the world”: 1876 and 1914 (colonies).

• ξ 5–7 [294–99]. Britain’s virtual protectorate over Portugal, Norway, Spain (N.B.): β 21, 22, 23 [100–01–03]. Siam (ibidem). Argentina—Sartorius, p. 46 (Argentina): ξ 28 [545–46].
• λ 25 [452–53]. (idem).
• N.B.: (αα Colonies....) (ββ Semi-colonies....) (γγ Financially dependent countries....)—cf. α 31 [69–70].

13. [BOX upper: 3 ] 13. Uneven growth and “redivision” of the world.

• Britain versus Germany. Crammond: υ 35–36 [398–400].
• General (new discoveries) υ 12–13 [380–81].
• Patents: λ 28 [453–54].
• France versus Germany. Théry: γ 3 [204–05].
• Hubert: γ 22 [223]. Bérard: γ 24 [223–24].
• United States, Britain and Germany. Vorwärts, 1916. μ 1 [461–63].
• London as world market and money power. β 4–5 [78–80].
• (“3/4 of trade”, etc.) (cf. α 46 [60–62]).
• (Not for § 7 or 8??)
• β 96 [183–85] (iron (world output): 1850–1910).
• β 98 [186–88] (deposits).
• Water-power: β 62 [137–38].
• Cables: β 64 [140–41]. ζ 3 [290–93].
• [[Iron, steel, electro-steel: β 99 [188–90].]]
• [α 31–32 [69–71]: drive of German imperialism!]
• [BOX: Hobson: 103; 205; 144; 335; 386 [415–16; 419; 417–18; 429–30; 434–35]. ]

14.[BOX middle: 2] 14. Picture of relationships in the world economy.

• R. Calwer. (Corrections.) υ [464–66].
• Railways. 1890 and 1913. μ [484–490].
• Comparison of their growth with that of iron and steel production. μ [490].
• Chapter VII. 127–146–162.

15.[BOX lower: 1 ] 15. Summing up. Principal economic (industrial) features of imperialism....

α:	Concentration and monopoly.	1.	}}
β:	Export of capital (chief thing).	3.
γ:	Bank capital and its “threads”.	2.
δ:	Division of the world by industrial monopolists.	4.
ε:	Idem—colonies.	5.

K. Kautsky’s definition. δ [268] versus:

• {{ Incompleteness of Hilferding’s definition: υ 5 [335–37] (p. 338) cf. υ 6 [337–38] (p. 495).
• P. Louis in 1904: γ 43–45 [250–51].
• Distinction from the old colonial policy. χ 1. 36. 40 [405–06. 427–28. 429–31].
• Hobson’s definition or conception. χ 11 [411]. χ 13–14. 17 [412–14. 415–16]. χ 32 [425].
• Chapter IX. 162.

16.16. “The economic policy of finance capital” and the critique of imperialism?

• “Dumping.”
• “Protectionism”—its growth in Britain, Belgium, Holland. β 19 [97–99].
• The new significance of protective tariffs. Engels in Hilferding. υ 5 [335–37] (p. 300).
• Coercion χ 11 [411]; (annexations). 42 [431–33].
• β 97 [185–86]: exports and finance capital.

17.17. Back to free competition or forward to overcoming capitalism?

• Hilferding: υ 6 [337–38] (p. 567 N.B.).

18.18. Parasitism and “decay” of capitalism.

• The “rentier state”... (α 2 [66–67]). α 3 [67–69].
• β 30 [108–10] (five creditor states). (!!) β 95 [181–83] (Germany). γ 19 [445–47] (a creditor state). γ 21 (22–23) [448 (449–51)]. γ 25 [452–53]. γ 26. 27. 28. 29 [452–56]. χ 46–48 [434–36]. χ 18. 21. 25. 34 [415–17. 417–19. 420. 426–27].
• χ 9 [409–10] (15%) and 10.39 [410–11. 429–30] Holland. γ 14 [214–15] (Moos).
• Hildebrand = apprehensions about monopoly: β 34 [110–12] et seq.
• Foreign workers in Germany (statistics, 1907).
• Foreign workers in France. δ 8 [263–64].
• Emigration and immigration. χ 5 [409].
• [DOUBLE BOX: Statistics of issues from § 8. ]
• N.B.: Sartorius ξ 29 [547–48].

19.) 19. “Ultra-imperialism” or “inter-imperialism”?

• χ 7 [430–32] (cf. λ 20 [447–48]).

20.20. Kautsky and Hobson versus Marxism.

• N.B. Kautsky versus Agahd. β
• Exports to Canada: λ 20 [447–48].
• Trade with independent and dependent countries. β 100-02 [191–95].
• Puerto Rico. λ 21 [448–49].

21.21. Apologists and petty-bourgeois critics of imperialism.

• The apologist Schilder: β 27 [105–07]. Hildebrand: β 35 [111–13].
• Nieboer α 13 [38–39].—χ 25. 27. 30 [420. 421–22. 423–24] (Fabians). 31 [424–25]. Liefmann.
• {{2 Hobson. χ 1 [405–06]. χ 15.
• {{2 16 [414–16]. Cf. β 40 [116–17] on K. Kautsky.
• American anti-imperialists. Patonillet.
• γ 11 [209–11]. V. Bérard on Egypt: γ 23 [224].
• Agahd: β 41 [117–18] et seq. β 54 [128–30]. β 59 [133–34]. β 60. 61 [135. 136–37].
• (Eschwege. “Etatisation”; he is against it: β 94 [178–81]). β 100 [191]: against Baghdad.
• Neymarck is for “peace”: β 69 [149–51] (125).
• The Pereires are for world peace. α 42 [53–54].
• ||_ Apologists: Riesser (υ) and Schulze-Gaevernitz (α 47 [62–64]). _||

22.22. Imperialism and opportunism.

• British liberal labour policy.
• Definitive split in the working-class movement.
• Upper stratum of workers. λ 18 [446]. 22. 22–23. 23. 30 [449–50. 449–51. 450–51. 456–57]. χ 24 [419–20] (205) (bribery). [ad 18?]

23.2) 23. Diplomacy and foreign policy 1871–1914

• {brief mention}. α 3.
• ...Hilferding υ 6 [337–38] (p. 505) .... υ Riesser 11 [367–68].
• British foreign policy (1870–1914)... β 23 [100–02].
• German: β 97 [185–86].
• Hishida: γ 6 [207].
• Oceania: γ 27 [227–28].
• Patouillet: γ 9 and 10 [209 and 210].
• Hill: γ 46 [251].

23.3) 23 bis: Imperialism and democracy. Finance capital and reaction (&alpha 31 [68–70]).

• Nieboer: α 13 [38–39].

24.4) 24. The national question in the era of imperialism (brief mention).

• [BOX ENDS:] [[ “National wars.” Patouillet: γ 12 [210–11]. America and colonies. Patouillet: γ 10 [209]. ]]
• Growth of the national movement. β 28–29 [106–08].
• Hildebrand’s arguments contra. β 35 [111–12].
• Nieboer: α 13 [38–39].
• Hilferding: υ χ 17–19–20 [416–17–18]. υ 3 [374–75].
• Conclusion. The place of imperialism in history (?).

25.25. “Interlocking” versus “socialisation”.

• {{2 Rate of growth and over-ripening... (their) compatibility). 2}}
• {{2 “Decay” and birth of the new.... 2}}
• [BOX:] [[ Bottle manufacturers. Die Neue Zeit, 1912 (30, 2), p. 567. The inventor’s name is Owens, not Owen! ]]
• Liefmann: α 40 [55-56].
• Riesser: υ 3 and 10 [346–47 and 363–65].
• Saint-Simon and Marx (Schulze-Gaevernitz): α 43–44 [56–59].
• Rate of growth: υ Riesser 9 [362–63].
• [BOX:] [[ Technical progress and torment (Quälerei). Taylor and “Motion Study” β 70–77 [152–60]. ]]
• Summing up and conclusions. Imperialism and socialism. N.B.:
• Optimism [regarding opportunism?].
• Monopoly and free competition—banks and socialisation.—
• Interlocking and socialisation—division of the world and redivisions.—
• “Transition” to ...what? β 84 [166–69].
• Tschierschky in favour of cartels (against trusts): afraid: β 104 [197–98].
• Incompleteness of Hilferding’s definition. § 15. (To come here?)

ADDITIONS TO THE PLAN OF THE BOOK

(b) Three contradictions of capitalism: 1) social production and private appropriation, 2) wealth and poverty, 3) town and countryside, inde—export of capital.

(a) Its distinction from export of goods.

The distinctive character of modern colonial policy:

1. (1) monopoly (raw materials);
2. (2)—(reserves of land);
3. (3) (delimitation...“autarchy”);—monoculture: β 25 [103–05].
4. (4) (export of capital)
5. (5) concessions, etc.

__ N.B. || 1. Social significance (domination (Hilferding, 511)). Hilferding N.B. cf. Wahl.

2. Dependence of “independent” countries. ||__

p. 14, middle, “processing of raw materials”? Raw-materials industry? + (N.B.) (from Die Neue Zeit). Add about chemical trust. Add about “naïveté” of Die Bank in § on financial oligarchy.

PLANS OF SEPARATE CHAPTERS OF THE BOOK

3. III. Founder’s profit and profit from stock issues

• Reconstruction
• Urban land holdings
• Banks and the government
• Statistics of issues

6. VI.

• 1. Supan. % % 1876. Idem 1900.
• 2. Morris.
• 3. Table.
• 3 bis: “dependent countries”.
• 4. Colonies, formerly and now

{{ exports—sale

{{ raw materials

{{ suppression of industry.

8.VIII.

• 1. The rentier state.

• 2. Hobson 9 and 10 [409–10 and 410–11] (income from capital investment: λ 21 [448-49].
• 3. Hobson 30 and 46–48 [423–24 and 434–36]. Prospects.
• 4. λ 28. 29. [453–54. 455–56]. λ 24–25 [451-53].
• 4 bis. Foreign capital.
• 5. Decrease in the percentage of productive workers.
• 6. Engels and Marx on British workers.

300,000 Spanish workers in France.

La Bataille (June 1916).

9. IX. Critique of imperialism.

1. 1. Critique = ideas in general.
2. 2. Apologists. (“Fabians.”)
3. 3. Petty-bourgeois democrats.
4. 4. Kautsky versus Hobson (K. Kautsky and Spectator. N.B.)
5. 5. Forward or back?
6. 6. Free competition versus customs duties, dumping, etc.
7. 7. Exports to dependent countries.
8. 8. Ultra- or inter-imperialism?
9. 9. Political features of imperialism (diplomacy).

{{ reaction }}

{{ national oppression }}

10. X.

1. I. Imperialism is monopoly capitalism
2. II. Imperialism is parasitic or decaying capitalism.

1. (1) bourgeoisie, republican and monarchical? America and Japan?
2. (2) opportunism.

{{ the struggle against imperialism without breaking with and combating opportunism is deception.

3. III. Imperialism is transitional or moribund capitalism.

1. I. and 1-4.——
2. II. — and (1) + (2).“Optimism” about opportunism.——
3. III. Interlocking versus socialisation.

Saint-Simon and Marx.—Riesser on rate of growth.—Transition to what? (β 84 [166–69] already mentioned). Taylor to come here?

GENERAL PLAN AND VARIATIONS OF CHAPTER HEADINGS

A.	1.	Introduction.
B.	2–15.	Economic analysis (principal relations of production).
C.	18.	(Parasitism.)
D.	16–17.	Economic policy (customs policy).
E.	19–22.	Appraisal (attitude to ..., critique) of imperialism.
F.	23–24.	Some political relationships and connections.
	+ 18	parasitism.
	25.	ΣΣ.

Roughly:

1. I. Concentration of production, monopolies, cartels.
2. II. Banks and finance capital.
3. III. Export of capital.
4. IV. Economic division of the world: international cartels.
5. V. Political division of the world: colonies.
6. VI. General summary = the concept of imperialism and imperialist policy.
7. VII. Critique of imperialism.
8. VIII. Interlocking or socialisation?

Up to ten chapters, if II = two chapters + possible supplements, introduction and conclusion.

Roughly:

I.	Concentration of production and monopolies.—	about 30 pages
II.	Banks.—	” 20 ”
III.	“Finance” capital (and the financial oligarchy).—	” 30 ”
IV.	Export of capital.—	” 10 ”
V.	Economic division of the world.—	” 10 ”
VI.	Idem political.—	” 20 ”—120
VII.	General summary = imperialism (K. Kautsky).—	” 10 ”
VIII.	Parasitism.—	” 20 ”
IX.	Critique of imperialism.—	” 20 ”
X.	Socialisation. General significance of imperialism (?) The place of imperialism in history.—	” 10 ”
		Σ = 180

1. I. Concentration of production and monopoly.
2. II. Banks and their new role.
3. III. Finance capital and the financial oligarchy.
4. IV. Export of capital.
5. V. Division of the world by capitalist associations.
6. VI. Idem by the Great Powers.
7. VII. Imperialism, as a special stage.
8. VIII. The parasitism and decay of capitalism.
9. IX.
10. X.

    		Page
    I.	Concentration of production and monopolies.—	3
    II.	Banks and their new role.—	30
    III.	Finance capital and the financial oligarchy.—	58
    IV.	Export of capital.—	82
    V.	Division of the world between capitalist associations.—	91
    VI.	Division of the world between the Great Powers.—	106
    VII.	Imperialism, as a special stage.—	127
    VIII.	The parasitism and decay of capitalism.—	146
    IX.	Critique of imperialism.—	162
    X.	The place of imperialism in history.—	186

    Lenivtsyn. Heading: “The Basic Peculiarities of Con temporary Capitalism.”

[BOX:] [[

1. (α) Note No. 101 (N.B.)
2. (β) Publication in a magazine of the same publisher?

]]

TONNELAT, GERMAN EXPANSION OUTSIDE EUROPE

E. Tonnelat, German Expansion Outside Europe, Paris, 1908 (from 1906–08 articles in La Revue de Paris).

Author believes the occupation of Kiao-chow marks (pp. x–xi) the “beginning of the new period” of German colonisation, namely, the “imperialist” period (p. x and p. xi), the period of “world policy” (ibidem).

				pp.
Chapters:	Germans	in the	U.S.A.	(1–91)
	”	”	Brazil	(91–155)
	”	”	Shantung	(155–97)
	”	”	South Africa	(197–277)

In Brazil they “are not Germanising, but Americanising the south of Brazil” (p. 154)

(apparenly, nothing)

(a general account, no more, about Germans abroad).

DRIAULT, POLITICAL AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS

J. E. Driault, Political and Social Problems, Paris, 1907.

((A general historical sketch of the “problems”: Alsace-Lorraine, Rome and the Pope, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, the Mediterranean, Egypt, the “Partition of Africa”, China, the United States (Chapter XI and its subsection: “Imperialism in the United States”), the Triple Alliance; the Franco-Russian Alliance, Chapter XIV, see my quotation, Chapter XVI “The Social and Moral Problem”. Mostly the remarks of a historian and “diplomat”.))

From “Conclusion”:

“The present time is, in fact, marked by universal tension, in which the existing state of peace is merely a truce, which many find too long and which many do not observe. The world is seized by a strange fever of imperialism, by fierce cupidities arising on all sides and shamelessly allowed to take effect. || Society is shaken by the struggle of classes, everywhere violently conducted and hardly mitigated in recent times. Even the human mind is upset by doubts and the need for certainty.

|| “Mankind is in the throes of revolution—a territorial revolution, a new delimitation of frontiers, an assault on the great markets of the world, armaments up to the hilt, as if people were going to hurl themselves at one another tomorrow, for mutual ruin and extermination—a social revolution based on the worst feelings, the hatred of the |||| cf. K. Kautsky 1909 poor for the rich, the contempt of the rich for the poor, as if society were still divided into free men and slaves, as if it had not altered since olden times—a moral revolution, a laborious transition from faith to science, painful anguish for people of sensitive conscience, the hard necessity for the churches to renounce controlling people’s souls in order to devote themselves to educating them.—A profound revolution, the outcome of that of the preceding century, but much more severe because of its incalculable consequences: for at issue is not only the political organisation of states, but the material and moral condition of mankind” (393–94).

((And then platitudes: the nineteenth century accomplished much, it liberated nationalities, etc., etc., but it left much to be done. “For this (19th) century was a century of science, but it put it at the service of force.” The next century must be a “school of justice”, etc., etc. A liberal, nothing more. That makes his admissions all the more characteristic: he senses the storm.))

COLSON, THE ECONOMIC ORGANISM AND SOCIAL DISORDER

C. Colson, The Economic Organism and Social Disorder, Paris, 1912.

(Reactionary blather. Nil. Nil.)

This author has written a six-volume Course of Political Economy. Books 4–6 contain information on banks, trade, finance, etc.

Supplements to these (4–6) books, with new data, are published each year (1 franc). (Consult,)

REDSLOB, DEPENDENT COUNTRIES

Dr. Robert Redslob, Dependent Countries (An Analysis of the Concept of Original Ruling Power), Leipzig, 1914 (352 pp.). Purely legal study. Constitutional-law position of

	Alsace-Lorraine
	Finland	}
	Bosnia
(x)	Canada		{	only	}
(x)	Australia			legal
(x)	South Africa.			analysis

Examination of part of the chapters (x) shows that the author cites interesting excerpts from laws indicating growth of independence in these British colonies, which have almost attained the position of free countries. Nevertheless, they are dependent countries, says the author, since they do not enjoy full freedom (though development is obviously in that direction....)

[BOX ENDS:] [[ separation is spoken of freely.

Agreement with Britain on legislation. ]]

[BOX:] [[ Use for comparing imperialism (economic) and political independence. ]]

Things are moving towards free federation. Britain has granted parliamentarism, the author concludes, which she is now combining with “the organisation of a federal state” (p. 347). The South African parliament has authority to alter colony frontiers, unite several colonies into one. “But only at the request of the colonies concerned” (339)....

In Australia, parliament can divide colonies into smaller units, can merge colonies—“but only with the consent of the population concerned, or of its parliament” (p. 335). || N.B.

(( there were plebiscites; the drafting of a constitution with the consent of all the colonies—by agreement with Britain.... ))

p. 330, a note, Mr. Dibbs (an Australian) spoke freely of secession from Britain and the formation of an independent Australian republic.... __ __ __

1900: “An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia” (July 9. 63 and 64. Victoria).

[QUADRUPLE LEFT-BOTTOM-RIGHT BOX ENDS:] [[ A simple, brief account of the development of federalism and political freedom in Canada, South Africa and Australia. Very interesting, and should be used against the idiocy of the “imperialist Economists”.... ]]

NOTES FOR ARTICLES “THE ‘DISARMAMENT’ SLOGAN” AND “THE MILITARY PROGRAMME OF THE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION”

“Disarming is emasculation. Disarming is a reactionary-Christian jeremiad. Disarming is not a struggle against the imperialist reality, but a flight from it into the beautiful future after the victorious socialist revolution!!” (cf. Victor Fischer)....

“Militarisation of the nation” , “an armed people”, what a misfortune!—one hears this more and more frequently. But we say: militarisation of the nation, an armed people, drawing children and, if you like, women, into military training—so much the better, the speedier will the war be turned into a civil war, into an uprising. Help? No, we will not help the trusts.

Disarmament instead of arming the people.

1. 1. The voice of the small countries.
2. 2. Against all war?
3. 3. National war.
4. 4. “Theses.”
5. 5. Civil war.
6. 6. Socialist war.
7. 7. The oppressed class?
8. 8. Concession to opportunism?
9. 9. No opportunism and Kautskyism here.
10. 10. Militarisation of the nation.
11. 11. Commune.
12. 12. First, the fight against opportunism and Kautskyism.
13. 13. Second, a concrete programme.
14. 14. Third, practical “demands”.
15. 15. Two lines of policy in Switzerland.

To the question “Militia or disarmament?”

I. Disarmament or disarming of the people or something similar? (instead of a militia).

II. The oppressed class has not sought to study and master the art of war? (Engels in Anti-Dühring, on militarism on the way to destruction).

III. Concession to opportunism, or the ease of slipping into opportunism?

Not here, not in this.

+ attempts to avoid revolution	||	All democratic changes facilitate this. (The republic. Separation of the church from the state, etc.).... Exception (America)....
		General struggle, all along the line, against overt and masked opportunism (Kautskyism).
+ imperialism in Switzerland (Nakhimson)		Press down on the enemy (opportunism) everywhere. Changes in programme. No to Swiss militia (especially after 1907).

IV. Practice. Formulas or revolutionary practice? Now, at this moment—propaganda of disarmament or disarming? Nonsense! Help the revolutionary struggle in neighbouring countries, turn the imperialist war into a civil war. 20,000 x 2 pfennigs = 20,000 francs per annum. Three newspapers, their delivery.

ON ZAK’S BOOK GERMANS AND GERMAN CAPITAL IN RUSSIAN INDUSTRY

Conrad’s Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie, etc., III series, Vol. 49 (1915, January), p. 351.

|| Zak Small item (in “Miscellaneous”) by Waldecker on a book in Russian, by A. N. Zak, Germans and German Capital in Russian Industry (St. Petersburg, 1914)—(Zak director of the Central Bank of Mutual Credit Societies).

Total Share Capital in Russia:

	(million rubles)
		Russian	Foreign		Σ
(round figures)	1903—	41.7	+16.8	=	58.5
	1904——	92.5	26.7		119.2
	1905———	64.3	8.0		72.3
	1910———	190.5	33.7		224.2
	1912———	371.2	30.3		401.5

Number of Russian companies ... 1,237 capital = 410.3

(“operating” in Russia)

foreign ... 196

These companies have their head offices in:

Germany———	24	companies	Switzerland . . . . . . . . .	6
Sweden———	3	”	Italy . . . . . . . . .	1
Britain———-	33	”	Austria . . . . . . . . .	3
Holland . . .	2	”	Turkey . . . . . . . . .	1
Belgium . . .	70	”	U.S.A. . . . . . . . . .	6
France . . . .	48	”

Branches of Industry

	German capital	Its profit
	(million rubles)
1) Iron and steel . . . . . . . . .	20 (1912)	5.5
2) Machine building . . . . . . . . .	11.5
3) Engineering . . . . . . . . .	38.5
4) Soda . . . . . . . . .	1/2 of total capital
5) Electrical . . . . . . . . .	50
6) Electrical engineering . . . . . . . . .	57
7) Gas . . . . . . . . .	12.5=71.8% of total capital;
	+12.6% French
	+ 7.4% Belgian
	+ 8.2% Russian
8) Petroleum (Deutsche Bank) . . . . . . . . .	20
9) Textiles . . . . . . . . .	(34-50% in Moscow Gubernia and Baltic provinces)
	__ __ __
	Σ not given by the author

PAUL LOUIS, OUTLINE OF IMPERIALISM

Le Mercure de France, Vol. 50, April, Paris, 1904.

Paul Louis, Outline of Imperialism, p. 100 et seq.

|| “Imperialism is a general phenomenon of our age; more, a characteristic feature of the early twentieth century, and few nations have been able to avoid its influence.

“The world is passing through the era of imperialism, just as it has experienced the crises of liberalism, protectionism, colonialism,—just as it has experienced the collective effort of nationalities, just as in the last ten years it has witnessed the universal spread and increasing growth of socialism. || All these elements, all these aspects of the life of mankind, are closely linked, and imperialism and socialism to a very large extent form the fundamental contradiction of our age. To show up this contradiction amounts practically to defining the essential principles of both” (100).

...“Imperialism is equally triumphant in Britain and the U.S.A., in Japan and the Russian Empire, in Germany, France and Italy” (100–01)....

“It [imperialism] emerges everywhere as capitalism’s supreme effort to preserve its wealth, political domination, social authority. This involves territorial conquest, forcible or peaceful extension of possessions, closure of markets, creation of a closed empire” (101).

The wars of 1820–48 were bound up “with the formation of the great German and Italian nationalities” (102)....

...“Imperialism combines colonialism and protectionism” (105)....

“It [imperialism] should above all be studied in Great Britain, for there it has found its Promised Land” (106)....

But alongside Great Britain there has developed

(1) the competition of France, Germany, America and Japan;

(2) the struggle for colonial markets (of Europe and the colonial countries themselves);

(3) the merchant fleet of other countries. || “Imperialism arose from these three established facts”

(Chamberlain’s campaign. Imperial federation, etc.).

The same applies to the United states—Russia—Germany—Japan (109).

(Hence—the aggravation of nationalism, etc.)

“Nationalism, which merges with imperialism”... carries the threat of war, etc. (112).

But these wars “will deal irreparable blows to the social institutions of participating countries” (113).

It will lead to the formation of gigantic empires—to growing discontent among the workers (113), the “mob”... (113) (rising living costs, etc., etc.).

“The capitalist world regards imperialism, its last card, as the last refuge against the bankruptcy and spontaneous disintegration that threatens to engulf it with fatal certainty. But imperialism is also a remarkable, incomparable, artisan of revolution” (114).

(End of article)

HILL, HISTORY OF DIPLOMACY IN THE INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF EUROPE

David Jayne Hill in his History of Diplomacy in the International Development of Europe (Vols. I–Ill, Vol. I, preface dated February 1, 1905)

promises to examine in future volumes:

| N.B. “the Diplomacy of the Age of Absolutism, of the Revolutionary Era, of the Constitutional Movement, and of Commercial Imperialism, thus bringing the history of international development down to the present time.” (p. x).

MORRIS, THE HISTORY OF COLONISATION

Henry C. Morris, The History of Colonisation, New York, 1900, 2 vols.

A historical survey from the most ancient times until 1899.

Interesting statistical summaries.

Modern Development of French Colonial Power (p. 419. I)

	1815–30	1860	1880	1890	1899
Asia	197	197	69,147	201,000	363,027
Africa	1,034	185,650	624,624	2,128,814	3,320,488
America	16,000	48,011	48,011	48,043	48,011
Oceania	–	8,000	8,565	9,135	9,220
(Area in sq. miles).	17,231	241,858	750,347	2,386,992	3,740,746
	1815–30	1860	1880	1890	1899
Asia	179,000	221,507	3,333,500	18,000,000	22,679,100
Africa	95,000	2,800,000	3,702,482	16,800,000	33,257,010
America	225,000	300,000	391,084	372,805	383,750
Oceania	–	50,000	93,831	72,300	82,000
Population)	499,000	3,371,507	7,520,897	35,245,105	56,401,860

Idem of British (II, 88)

	1815	1860	1880	1890–91	1899
Europe		1,163	127	119	119
Asia		875,797	963,384	1,827,228	1,827,579
Africa		129,976	278,446	341,858	367,928
America		954,170	3,359,243	3,768,818	3,952,572
Australasia		580,134	3,083,770	3,175,153	3,175,840
(Area in sq. miles)		2,541,240	7,684,970	9,113,176	9,324,038
Europe	340,000	386,557	175,186	191,417	204,421
Asia	124,200,000	137,279,105	256,148,625	288,436,340	291,586,688
Africa	243,500	835,650	2,717,816	4,963,062	4,931,780
America	1,599,850	4,226,744	6,016,077	6,708,042	7,260,169
Australasia	25,050	2,401,024	2,877,440	4,416,843	5,009,281
Population)	126,408,400	145,129,080	267,935,144	304,715,704	308,992,339

The author gives the following table, II, 318, taking the figures from The Statesman’s Year-Book for 1900.

		Area (sq. miles)		Population
	No. of colonies	Metropolis	Colonies, etc.	Metropolis	Colonies, etc.
United Kingdom	50	120,979	11,605,238	40,559,954	345,222,339
France	33	204,092	3,740,756	38,517,975	56,401,860
Germany	13	208,830	1,027,120	52,279,901	14,687,000
Netherlands	3	12,648	782,862	5,074,632	35,115,711
Portugal	9	36,038	801,100	5,049,729	9,148,707
Spain	3	197,670	243,877	17,565,632	136,000
Italy	2	110,646	188,500	31,856,675	850,000
Austria-Hungary	2	241,032	23,570	41,244,811	1,568,092
Denmark	3	15,289	86,634	2,185,335	114,229
(x) Russia	3	8,660,395	255,550	128,932,173	15,684,000
Turkey	4	1,111,741	465,000	23,834,500	14,956,236
China	5	1,336,841	2,881,560	386,000,000	16,680,000
U.S.A.	6	3,557,000	172,091	77,000,000	10,544,617
Total . . . .	136	15,813,201	22,273,858	850,103,317	521,108,791

__ __ (x)In Austria—Bosnia and Herzegovina.—In Turkey—Egypt, Bulgaria (and Rumelia) and Samos. In China—Manchuria, Mongolia, Tibet, “Jungaria” and Eastern Turkestan.—In Russia—Bukhara 92,000 sq. miles, Khiva 22,300 sq. miles: ? + ? Port Arthur, etc.??

|| Not clear from the text (pp. 291–92), the references are mostly to The Statesman’s Year-Book. __ __

My calculations

Great Britain			France		Germany		All three ΣΣ
	Area (mill. sq. miles)	Popula- tion (mill.)
1815–30	?	126	0.01	0.5
1860	2.5	145.1	0.2	3.4	–	–	2.7	148.5
1880	7.7	267.9	0.7	7.5	–	–	8.4	275.4
1890	9.1	304.7	2.4	35.2	1.0	14.5	12.5	354.4
1899	9.3	309.0	3.7	56.4	1.0	14.7	14.0	380.1
Maximum (1890 to be deleted)	1860–80		1880–90		1880–90		1860–80

Growth of French colonies (from The Statesman’s Year-Book for 1900), I, 420.

	Year of acquisition	Area, sq. miles	Population
Asia
	India	1679	197	279,100
	Annam	1884	88,780	5,000,000
	Cambodia	1862	40,530	1,500,000
	Cochin-China	1861	23,160	2,400,000
	Tonking (+Laos)	1884–93	210,370	13,500,000
		Total	363,027	22,679,100
Africa
	Algeria	1830	184,474	4,430,000
	Algerian Sahara		123,500	50,000
	Tunisia	1881	50,840	1,500,000
	Sahara Region		1,684,000	2,500,000
	Senegal	1637	120,000	2,000,000
	Sudan	1880	300,000	2,500,000
	Ivory Coast, etc.	1843	100,000	2,500,000
	Dahomey	1893	50,000	1,000,000
	Congo and Gabon	1884	425,000	12,000,000
	French Guinea	1843	48,000	1,000,000
	Obok & Somali Coast	1864	5,000	22,000
	Réunion	1649	970	173,200
	Comoro Isles	1886	620	53,000
	Mayotte	1843	140	11,640
	Nossi-Be	1841	130	9,500
	Sainte-Marie	1643	64	7,670
	Madagascar	1896	227,750	3,500,000
			3,320,488*	33,257,010
America
	Guiana	1626	46,850	22,710
	Guadeloupe & Dependencies	1634	688	167,100
	Martinique	1635	380	187,690
	St. Pierre & Miquelon	1635	93	6,250
			48,011	383,750
Oceania
	New Caledonia & Dependencies	1854	7,700	53,000
	Other French establishments	1841-81	1,520	29,000
			9,220	82,000
			__ __	__ __
			ΣΣ=3,740,756	56,401,860

German Colonies, II. 304

			Area, sq. miles	Population
Oceania
	Kaiser Wilhelm’s Land	1885–86	70,000	110,000
	Bismarck Archipelago	1885	20,000	188,000
	Solomon Islands	1886	4,200	45,000
	Marshall ”	1886	150	13,000
	Caroline ”	1899	{{3 560	40,000
	Marianne ”	1899	{{3 250	2,000
	Samoan ”		{{3
	Savali	1899	{{3 660	12,500
	Upolu	1899	340	16,600
			96,160	427,100
China
	Kiao-chow	1897	200	60,000
Africa
	Togoland	1884	33,000	2,500,000
	Cameroons	1884	191,130	3,500,000
	German Southwest Africa	1884–90	322,450	200,000
	German East Africa	1885–90	384,180	8,000,000
			930,760	14,200,000
			__ __	__ __
			ΣΣ=1,027,120	14,687,100

	My calculations:			Ergo:
		__	__	__ __ __ __ __ __
(1880–90)	94,350	356,000	||	1860—	0	—	0
	930,760	14,200,000		1880—	0	—	0
	1,025,110	14,556,000		1890—	1,025,110		14,556,000
(1890–99)	1,810	71,100
	200	60,000
	2,010	131,000
	1,027,120	14,687,100		1899—	1,027,120		14,687,100

British Colonies, II. 88

			Area sq. miles	Population
India
	British India	1601-1856	1,068,314	221,172,952
	Feudatory States		731,944	66,050,479
			1,800,258	287,223,431
Europe
	Gibraltar	1704	2	24,093
	Malta & Gozo	1800	117	180,328
Asia
	Aden & Perim	1839	80	41,910
	Ceylon	1795	25,333	3,448,752
	Hong Kong	1842	406	354,400
	Labuan	1846	30	5,853
	Straits Settlements	1819	1,471	512,342
Africa
	Ascension	1815	35	430
	Basutoland	1868-83	10,293	250,000
	Cape Colony	1806	276,775	1,787,960
	Mauritius	1810	705	337,856
	Natal & Zululand	1824	35,019	902,365
	St. Helena	1651	47	4,545
West Africa
	Gambia	1631	69	14,300
	Gold Coast	1661	40,000	1,473,882
	Lagos	1787	985	85,607
	Sierra Leone	1789	4,000	74,835
America
	Bermudas	1609	20	16,291
	Canada	1763	3,653,946	5,185,990
	Falkland Islands & St. George	1833	7,500	2,050
	British Guiana	1803	109,000	286,222
	” Honduras	1670	7,562	34,747
	Newfoundland & Labrador	1497	162,200	202,040
West Indies
	Bahamas	1629	4,466	53,256
	Jamaica & Turks Islands	1655	4,359	733,118
	Barbados	1605	166	190,000
	Leeward Islands	17th century	701	127,800
	Windward ”	” ”	784	155,000
	Trinidad & Tobago	1763-97	1,868	273,655
Australasia
	Fiji	1874	7,740	121,738
	New Guinea	1884	90,540	350,000
	New South Wales	1788	310,700	1,357,050
	New Zealand	1840	104,470	796,387
	Queensland	1859	668,500	498,523
	South Australia	1836	903,690	362,897
	Tasmania	1803	29,390	171,340
	West Australia	1829	975,920	168,490
			__	__
	Total colonies		7,523,780	21,768,908
Total India plus colonies			9,324,038	308,992,339

{The “history” itself, it seems, is a dry enumeration of facts.}