Lenin: 1916/ni-lam: SCHULZE-GAEVERNITZ, BRITISH IMPERIALISM (original) (raw)

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

NOTEBOOK “λ”

(“LAMBDA”)


SCHULZE-GAEVERNITZ, BRITISH IMPERIALISM

Dr. G. von Schulze-Gaevernitz, British Imperialism and English Free Trade at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century, Leipzig, 1906 (477 pp.).

Scoundrel of the first order and vulgar to boot,Kantian, pro-religion, chauvinist,—has collected somevery interesting facts about British imperialism andhas written a lively, readable book. Travelled inBritain and collected a mass of material and observa-tions. You’ve done a lot of plundering, you Britishgentlemen; allow us, too, a bit of plundering—withKant, God, patriotism, and science to “sanctify”it = such is the sum and substance of the positionof this “savant”!! (Also a lot of needless verbiage)

Introduction describes the “foundations of British world power”—the struggle against Holland, France ... the important role of puritanism, religious feeling ((especially)), sexual discipline, etc., etc.

In Britain, “religious sects have theirstronghold in the middle classes, andpartly in the upper stratum of the work-ers, whereas the broad middle strataof workers, especially those of the bigtowns, are in general little susceptibleto religious influences”
⎛⎝ N.B.workers’_upperstratum_and religion ⎞⎠
p. 56: The Republic and Cromwellgave a tremendous impetus to imperial-ism in Britain, and _especially_to the building of the navy: under Charlesnot more than two “ships of theline” were built annually; under theRepublic, 22 ships were built in asingle year (1654).
therepublic andimperialism!!!
And at the apogee of Manchesterismand free trade, foreign policy went for-ward with particular rapidity: _1840-42_Opium War; naval expenditure (p. 73):1837 3s. 3d. per capita1890 10s. 0d. ” ”
“colonies_doubled_” Between 1866 and 1900 colonialpossessions doubled (ibidem).
“Sir Robert Peel said long ago: ‘Inevery one of our colonies we have a secondIreland’”... (75). N.B.

Towards the end of the nineteenth century, the British Empire’s appetite was insatiable: Burma, Baluchistan, Egypt, the Sudan, Uganda, Rhodesia, the South African republics were being devoured” (87).

Incidentally, there is a mention of, Multatuli, his description of Europeanadministration of the colonies (104). to beverified!!
...“The Asiatic states, which Lord Curzon has called‘the glacis of the Indian fortress’: Persia, Afghanistan,Tibet and Siam” (119).
“Great Britain is gradually becomingtransformed from an industrial intoa creditor state. Notwithstand-ing the absolute increase in industrialoutput and the export of manufacturedgoods, there is an increase in the relativeimportance of income from interest anddividends, issues of securities, commis-sions and speculation for the whole of thenational economy. In my opinion, it isprecisely this that forms the econo-mic basis of imperialist ascendancy.The creditor is more firmly attachedto the debtor than the seller is to thebuyer”[1] (122).
N.B. true!!
“He [Peel] thereby” (by establishingand safeguarding a gold currency)“raised the pound sterling to the levelof world money—a position which itmonopolised until the end of the nine-teenth century” (159). N.B.:“monopoly”untilthe endof the19th century
“To substantiate these views” (infavour of a customs union of the coloniesand Great Britain) “reference is madeto the damage imperialist tariff policycauses German exports to Canada.
Canada is the only country whereGermany’s trade expansion has recentlycome to a halt. This is in contrast to thepowerful growth of British trade, andto the advantage of the West Indiansugar producers” (p. 174).
to bereturned to**(N.B.)** Exports to Canada German sugarexports to Canada(mill. marks
British German
(£ mill.)
1898 5.8 1.2
1899 7.0 1.2
1900 7.6 1.0 4.3
1901 7.8 1.3 6.2
1902 10.3 1.9 9.2
1903 11.1 1.8 2.4
1904 10.6 1.2 0

(p. 217) United Kingdom exports, in £ mill.

1866 1872 1882 1902
To British possessions . . . 53.7 60.6 84.8 109.0
” Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.8 108.0 85.3 96.5
” non-British Asia, Africa and South America 42.9 47.0 40.3 54.1
” America . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.5 40.7 31.0 23.8
N.B. “One can, therefore, fully agree with the imperial-ists in their appreciation of the value of colonialmarkets. But, in opposition to the financial reformadvocates, it has to be noted that Great Britainhas not so far required preferential tariffs in orderto dominate these colonial markets. The best thatBritain can expect from such preferential tariffsis to strangle the slowly penetrating foreign capitalin the future”.
N.B.

...Incidentally, imperialist trends are strengthened by the fact that “some of these [foreign] protectionist states gain possession of ever more extensive raw-material areas and monopolise them for their own highly protected industry and shipping....

...“The United States has acted especiallybrusquely in this respect. Previously, tradebetween the West Indies and the United Stateswas carried exclusively by British ships. AfterPuerto Rico had been drawn into a customsunion with the U.S.A. and American coastalshipping was given preference, British freightcarriers were cut out at a single stroke. In 1900,97 per cent of the foreign trade of the conqueredisland was carried by American vessels” (229). “The German customs tariff hitherto in forcea British Blue Book notes, amounted to about25 per cent of the value of the main Britishexport commodities; France, however, took34 per cent, the United States 73 per cent, andRussia 131 per cent” (230).
N.B.goodexample!!figures_N.B._
“Whereas from 1865 to 1898 the Britishnational income approximately doubled,the ‘income from abroad’ during the sameperiod, according to Giffen, increased _ninefold_”[2] (p. 246). N.B.(veryimportant)_doubled_and ninefold

The following quotations are from Robert Giffen, Economic Enquiries and Studies, 1904, Vol. II, p. 412 [and Fabian Tract No. 7].

The income from foreign capital investments in 1898 was from £90 million (Giffen)
and up to £118 million. Not less than £100 million (p. 251):

population income (estimate) i.e per capita
1861 28.9 mill. £ 311.8 mill. = £ 10.7 N.B.
1901 41.4 £ 866.9 = £ 20.9
Export of British Products (excluding ships)(£ 000)
(A) (B) (C)
To countrieswith protectivetariffs To neurtalmarkets To Britishpossessions Total
1870 94,521 53,252 51,814 199,587
1880 97,743 50,063 75,254 223,060
1890 107,640 68,520 87,371 263,531
1900 115,147 73,910 93,547 282,604
1902 100,753 69,095 107,704 277,552

(A) = Europe and United States. (B) = South America, Asia and Africa = “non-European raw-material areas.” (C) = British colonies.

⎛⎛⎝⎝ come backto thisagainandagain ⎞⎞⎠⎠ “The workers [of Great Britain] organ-ised in trade unions began to engage inpractical politics long ago. The extensionof the franchise made them masters of ademocratised state system—the more so
N.B.veryimportant!! because the franchise is still sufficientlyrestricted to exclude the really pro-letarian lower stratum”[3] (298).
“This powerful position of the worker is not dan-gerous for Great Britain, for half a century of tradeunion and political training has taught the workerto identify his interests with those of his industry.It is true that he opposes the employer in questionsof the level of wages, hours of work, etc., but exter-nally he is at one with the employer in all matterswhere the interests of his industry are concerned.It is not rare for employers’ organisations and work-ers’ trade unions to act together on current economicquestions. For example, the Lancashire trade unionssupported bimetallism until the Indian currencywas put on a gold basis; today they are assistingthe efforts to introduce cotton cultivation in Africa” (299). He quotes E. Bernstein: “British Workersand the Imperialism of Tariffs Policy” in Archiv fürSozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik. Vol. XIX, p. 134.
N.B.N.B.
Now (1903) the workers are againstChamberlain (458 votes to 2 at the1903 Trades Union Congress).... “The Co-operative Congress, whichembraces the entire upper stratumof the workers, adopted thesame attitude” (p. 300).
N.B.(on theco-operatives)N.B.
That the position of the workers has improvedis incontestable. Unemployment is not so con-siderable: “It [unemployment] is a problem thatconcerns mainly London and the **proletarianlower stratum, which is politicallyof little account**”[4] (p. 301) (author quotesthe Board of Trade, Labour Gazette, December1905, p. 355. “In November 1905 there were24,077 unemployed in London as against 12,354in the rest of England and Wales”) (note No. 400)
N.B.N.B.
“In view of these facts, the u p p e r strataof the British workers see no reason at presentfor radical changes in British tariff policy”(p. 301).
= N.B.
“What the Manchester Exchange used tobe, the London Stock Exchange is now—the focal point of the British nationaleconomy. However, it is generally admittedthat in the multiform world of the StockExchange, the leading place today is takenby exotic securities: colonial, Indian,Egyptian, etc., government and municipalloans; South American, especially Argen-tine and Japanese loans; American andCanadian railway and copper shares, butabove all South African and West Austra-lian gold-mining shares, African diamondshares, Rhodesian securities, etc.... “In this connection, a new type of man iscoming to the fore to take over the helmof the British economy. In place of theindustrial entrepreneur with roots in hisown country and heavily equipped withbuildings and machines, we have the financier, who creates values in order to getthem off his hands again as quickly aspossible” (310).
“financecapital”N.B.
Plant growth in the tropics is immeasurably morevigorous. There is “a tremendous future” for the banana(its flour), which is very easy to produce, and sorghum,dates, rice, etc. “These products are available in practicallyunlimited quantities, so that the old Malthusian notionof a limited supply of food is refuted and a possibleexhaustion of grain areas is no longer a threateningdanger” (315-16).
imperialist ⎛⎝ The European is of no use here,but the Negro, he says, cannotbe trained without coercion. ⎞⎠
N.B.!! “In that lies the cultural-historicaljustification of modern imperialism.
N.B.(prospect)_N.B._“Europe”=rentier(rides on theNegroes) Its danger is that Europe, under theextreme stress of the relations of polit-ical rule, will shift the burden of phys-ical toil—first agricultural and mining,then the unskilled work in industry—on to the coloured races, and itselfbe content with the role of rentier,and in this way, perhaps, pave theway for the economic, and later, thepolitical emancipation of the colouredraces”[5] (317).
“South America, and especially Argentina,is so dependent financially on London that it ought to bedescribed as _almost a British commer-cial colony_”[6] (318).

(The tropics and subtropics are mostly in British hands.)

N.B.N.B. “At the top of the list of foreign investments arethose placed in politically dependent or allied coun-tries: Great Britain grants loans to Egypt, Japan, Chinaand South America. Her navy plays here the partof bailiff in case of necessity. _Great Britain’spolitical power protects her fromthe indignation of her debtors_”...[7](320).“As a creditor state, she [Great Britain]relies increasingly on colonial, politically moreor less dependent regions, on a ‘New World’” (authorquotes here note No. 422, data on incomes in 1902-03:from colonial loans—£21.4 million, from foreignloans—£7.56 million, of which Europe accountsfor only £1.48 million!!!). “As a creditor state, GreatBritain does not depend on the free-trade interestsof Britain as an industrial country; on the contrary,under certain circumstances, she is interested inaccelerating colonial development through financialreform. Such is the inner connection betweenthe Stock Exchange and imperialism, betweenforeign policy and Britain’s interests as a cred-itor.
!!!
N.B.
N.B.
“The creditor state is steadily advancing to theforefront, compared with the industrial state. At anyrate, Great Britain’s income as acreditor is already many timesgreater than net profit from allher foreign trade. Giffen estimated that in1899, net profit from foreign trade was £18 millionon a total import and export turnover of £800 millionwhereas, according to a most cautious estimate, theinterest on foreign loans was already £90-100million. Moreover, it is rapidly growing, whilethe per-capita foreign trade income is diminish-ing. It should also be borne in mind that warsand war indemnities, annexations and foreignconcessions stimulate Stock-Exchange security issuesand that the leaders of the financial world can usemost on the press to cultivate imperialistic sentiment.There can be no doubt, therefore, about the economicfoundations of imperialism” (321).
N.B.

((but, he adds, not only economics: also ideas, religion, and so on and so forth))

“The dependence of the most important and effec-tive financial interests of the London Stock Exchangeon political imperialism is especially noticeable:the South Africans received a victory reward inthe form of Chinese labour that they could neverhave obtained from old Krüger or from a reformedVolksraad.[11] Nothing is more uncomfortable forthem than an opponent as weighty as John Burnswho believes the Chinese should be sent home andSouth Africa made a nursery for cultivating whitetrade unions. Even Cecil Rhodes, the idol of theSouth Africans, preferred unorganised black labourand is supposed to have shifted white employeeswhose trade union sympathies were known to himto remote regions of the country, where they couldfreely preach their doctrines to the Bushmen andZulus. The fear of a white labour movement on theAustralian pattern is one of the ties which bindsthe Rand mining magnates to the chariot of polit-ical imperialism” (322).
!!!
!!!N.B.N.B.
N.B.N.B.N.B. ⎛⎝ ⎛⎝ and a note, No. 424, directly quotes thisstatement: the local, South African “leaders ofindustry” fear the example of Australia.... ⎞⎠ ⎞⎠

“The number of rentiers in Great Britain can be reckoned at about a million” (323).

N.B. Population ofEngland andWales No. of workersin main indus-tries Per cent
1851 17,928,000 4,074,000 23
1901 32,526,000 4,966,000 15

=“a decline in the proportion of productively employed workers to the total population”[8] ((p. 323))....

“The creditor state is laying a deep imprint on some parts of Great Britain. Free trade or financial reform is, in a certain way, an issue of struggle between the industrial state and the creditor state, but, at the same time, it represents the contradiction between the ‘suburbia’ of Southern England with its villas, where industry and agriculture have been forced into second place, and the productive factory regions of the North. Scotland, too, has been largely taken over by the rentier class and shaped to serve the needs of people who go there for three to four months in the year to play golf, travel in cars and yachts, shoot grouse and fish for salmon. Scotland is the world’s most aristocratic ‘playground’; it, as has been said with some exaggeration, lives on its past and Mr. Carnegie”[9] (324) ((here, as in many other places, the author quotes Hobson)).

This is from §5 (of Chapter III), headed: “The Rentier State.”

§6 is headed: “Capitalist Enervation.” Author sets out facts showing Great Britain’s lag (behind Germany) in industrial development.

Cites following figures inter alia:

Patents were granted (p. 347):

To GreatBritain To Germany To theU.S.A.
In Germany (1904) 574 474
France (1904) 917 2,248 1,540
Gr. Britain (1903) 2,751 3,466
Italy (1904) 337 1,025 314
Austria-Hungary (1904) 154 962 209
Russia (without Finland) (1901) 146 438 196
Switzerland (1903) 164 897 198
Canada (1904) 310 185 4,417
the U.S.A. (1903) 1,065 1,053
Total 3,667 9,559 10,814

[Author does not give totals.]

The old puritan spirit has disappeared.Luxury is increasing (360 et seq.).... “On horse-racing and fox-hunting alone, Britain is saidto spend annually £14,000,000”[10] (361).... £ 14million!!

Sport. The Puritans waged a struggle against it. Sport is the sole occupation of “members of the idle, rich class” (362).

“Characteristically, the favourite forms of national sport have a strongly plutocratic stamp” (362).

“They [these forms of sport] assume the existence of a breed of aristocrats who live on the labour of Negroes, Chinese and Indians, on interest and ground-rent flowing in from all over the world, and who value the land of their own country only as a luxury item” (363).

...“The public, and in particular the working-classpublic, becomes an inactive but passionately interestedspectator” (of sport) (363).

...“The rentier stratum is essentially without culture. It lives on past and others’ labour and, as William Morris said, it stifles in luxury” (363).

“For Great Britain, the question is whether the rentier class has a sufficiently strong neck to bear the social and political yoke which socialism would like to impose on it. Do the British rentiers already possess enough wealth to be bled for the honour of consuming goods produced by British workers, who have an eight-hour day and a ‘living wage’?” (374)

“The social protective tariff”, the idea behind it: the worker is interested in high prices (Fabian Tract No. 116)—p. 375—so that the country should be richer and able to give the worker a greater share.

“It” (the realisation of such ideas) (der Ausbau) “is pos-sible, perhaps, for a twentieth-century Great Britain on thebasis of a rentier class which exacts tribute from extensiveraw-material areas, pays for raw materials and foodstuffswith interest coupons and dividend warrants, and defendsits economic domination by political imperialism. Anyattempt to bring the socialist state of the future outof the clouds and on to the earth, would have to reckonwith the fact that this is possible only on the basis ofa strictly national organisation. The country closest tothe social utopia, the Australian Commonwealth, wouldbe lost if, with the words ‘Proletarians of all countriesunite’, it took the Chinese coolie to its heart. The Britainof which the Labour Party dreams is by no meansto be dismissed out of hand as a utopia,but it would be an artificial social structure andwould collapse owing to a revolt of the debtors, whomthe ruling creditor state would no longer have the strengthto subdue by political means” (375).
And in note No. 512 he quotes from Justice magazine,December 16, 1905 (!), that “we” must “crush theGerman fleet”.... “Hyndman [he remarks] embodies theconnection between socialism and jingoism, which isespecially directed against Germany” (p. 474).
N.B. (1) the “connection” between socialism andchauvinism; (2) the conditions for the “realisation” ofsocial-chauvinism (the rentier state, keeping thecolonies in subjection by political means, etc.).... (3) workers’ exclusiveness and aristocraticattitude (coolies).

Idealism in the service of imperialism:

“Economic activity as such does not raise man above the ‘animal world’; this is achieved only by subordinating economic life to supra-economic aims. Thereby, and only thereby, does the simple workman, as also the world ruler, become civilised man in the economic sphere. Idealistic population policy, idealistic national policy, and idealistic social policy require a broad economic foundation, which is thus included in the ‘realm of aims’; they present expanding claims for which the stagnated and fettered type of economy of the previous period does not suffice. In order to cope with our cultural tasks, we need the broad shoulders of the forward-storming Titan called modern capitalism” (401).

The nation which achieves this“will—for the good of mankind and bythe will of God—be at the head of thehuman race” (402). Germanyat the headof the world

End


In general, everything of scientific value hasbeen stolen from Hobson. He is a plagiarist in thecloak of a Kantian, a religious scoundrel, animperialist, that’s all.

Literature sources:

Richard Jebb, Studies in Colonial Nationalism, London, 1905.

A. F. W. Ingram, Work in Great Cities, London (year?)

Schulze-Gaevernitz is especially delighted by Bishop Westcott, who “organised friendly intercourse betweenemployers and labour leaders by inviting leadingpersons from both sides to quarterly conferences inthe Bishop’s palace ... here people who had hithertopassionately fought one another learned mutualrespect” (p. 415, note No. 53).
!!
Holland, Imperium and Libertas, London, 1901. Hobhouse, Democracy and Reaction, London, 1904.
(( has much of interest on the old, liberal colonialpolicy ))
R. Cobden, Pamphlet by “a free-trader and friend of peace”,
Bremen, 2nd edition, 1876. Cobden was a supporter of peace and disarmament.
Also discussed in Nasse, “The Development andCrisis of Economic Individualism in England”, Preus-sische Jahrbücher, Vol. 57, No. 5, p. 445.
For instance, Cobden’s remark about colonialpolicy: “Is it possible that we can play the partof despot and butcher there [in India] withoutfinding our character deteriorate at home?”(p. 423, note No. 104). Ibidem for the separationof Canada.
Cobden

Cobden was against the Crimean War (p. 70 in Schulze-Gaevernitz).

John Morley, Life of Cobden, London, 1896, Vols. 1 and 2.

CobdenN.B. “Cobden declared Britain’s mastery of theseas a ‘usurpation’, the possession of Gibraltara ‘spectacle of brute violence, unmitigatedby any such excuses’.... For Cobden, Britishrule of India was ‘an utterly hopeless task’...‘a gamble’.... Cobden demanded unilateral reduc-tion of the British army and navy as a firststep to international disarmament.... Cobden de-clared that war was only justified when partof the country’s territory had been occupiedby the enemy”... (70-71). Marcks, The Present-Day Imperialist Idea, Dresden, 1903.
!!N.B.
N.B.

De Thierry, Imperialism, London, 1898.

G. P. Gooch, The Heart of the Empire, London, 1902 (a Liberal criticism of imperialism).

Doerkes-Boppard, History of the Constitution of the Australian Colonies, Munich, 1903.

Baron von Oppenheimer, British Imperialism, Vienna, 1905.

Irishman’s hatred of Britain
The newspaper _The Gaelic American_in New York. Inter alia, the meeting of November 18, 1905 (p. 429, note No. 136)—a protest againstthe policy of Edward (Delcassé, etc.) of in-volvement in a war with Germany.From the resolution: N.B.

“England’s alliance with Japan guarantees Japanese aid to enable her to hold India in subjection, and she seeks American help to keep Ireland and South Africa down”....

On the “oppositional tone of the Indian press” ....

Meredith Townsend, Asia and Europe, 3rd edition, 1905.

Younghusband, “Our True Relationship with India” in the symposium Empire and the Century. Also his article in The Monthly Review, February17, 1902 (it is now easier for us to transport200,000 troops to India than it was to transport20,000 in 1857, and in face of excellent artillery,what can they do? p. 434, note No. 155). N.B.

Of the many books about Cecil Rhodes, the author mentions a “highly amusing lampoon” (note No. 171):

Mr. Magnus, London (Fisher Unwin), 1896.Title? N.B.?

Africander, “Cecil Rhodes—Colonist and Imperialist” in The Contemporary Review, 1896, March.

Paul Jason, Development of Income Distribution in Great Britain, Heidelberg, 1905.

R. Giffen, Economic Enquiries, London, 1904. Two vols. (“extremely optimistic”) (p. 458, note No. 342).

E. Bernstein, “British Workers and the Imperialism of Tariffs Policy” in Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft, Vol. XIX, p. 134.

L. G. Chiozza-Money, British Trade and the Zollverein Issue, London, 1902.

E. Jaffé, British Banks, Leipzig, 1905, pp. 125, 142,
172 and passim. “The ratio of bills drawn by foreigncountries on Britain to bills drawn by Britain onforeign countries is as 9 : 1” (p. 464, note No. 404). N.B.
⎧⎪⎨⎪⎩ Charles Dilke, The Problems of Greater Britain, London (year?)H. D. Lloyd, Newest England, 1902 (London).Schulze-Gaevernitz, Towards Social Peace, Leipzig, 1890. Two vols.⤜⟶The example of Australia, and her influence:“a socialism that addresses itself to the ruling class”.

End


Multatuli.

Gooch, History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century (1913).


Notes

[1] See present edition, Vol. 22, p. 278.—Ed.

[2] See present edition, Vol. 22, p. 281.—Ed.

[3] See present edition, Vol. 22, p. 282.—Ed.

[4] Ibid., p. 282.—Ed.

[5] See present edition, Vol. 22, p. 281.—Ed.

[6] Ibid., p. 263.—Ed.

[7] Ibid., pp. 277-78.—Ed.

[8] See present edition, Vol. 22, p. 282.—Ed.

[9] Ibid.—Ed.

[10] Ibid.—Ed.

[11] _Volksraad_—the Boer parliament.



Works Index | Volume 39 | Collected Works | L.I.A. Index
< Backward Forward >