cracy. Let those who would scout such a theory as undeserving of consideration examine the economic and social conditions of districts in Southern England to-day, which are already reduced to this condition and reflect upon the vast extension of such a system which might be rendered feasible by the subjection of China to the economic control of similar groups of financiers, investors and political and business officials, draining the greatest potential reservoir of profit the world has ever known, in order to consume it in Europe. The situation is far too complex, the play of world forces far too incalculable, to render this or any other single interpretation of the future very probable; but the influences which govern the Imperialism of Western Europe to-day are moving in this direction, and, unless counteracted or diverted, make towards some such consummation."86
Hobson is quite right. If the forces of imperialism do not meet with resistance, they will lead to what he has described. The meaning of the "United States of Europe," in the contemporary imperialist sense, is correctly appreciated by him. He should only have added that, even inside the working class movement, the opportunists, who are for the moment dominant in nearly all countries, are "working" systematically and without except in this very direction. Imperialism, which means the partition of the world and the exploitation not of China alone, and which means the high profits of monopoly for a handful of very rich countries, creates the economic possibility of corrupting the upper layers of the proletariat, and thereby nourishes, defines and strengthens opportunism. Only, it must not be forgotten that the Social-
