develop capitalism and trade more rapidly. But the more rapidly capitalism and trade develops, the greater is the concentration of trade and capital which gives birth to monopoly. And monopolies have already been born—precisely out of free trade. Even if monopolies have begun to delay progress now, still this is not an argument in favour of free competition, which has become impossible once it has given birth to monopoly.
If we correct this reasoning, and if it be said as "Spectator" says, that the trade of the British colonies with the mother country is now developing more slowly than their trade with other countries—then this also does not save Kautsky. For Britain is being defeated still by monopoly, still by imperialism, only of another country (Germany, America). It is known that the cartels have resurrected tariffs, but of a kind which is new and original: i.e., products suitable for export are protected. (Engels noted this in Vol. III. of Capital.)
It is known, too, that the combines and finance-capital have a system peculiar to themselves, that of exporting goods at a price below their real value or "dumping," as the English say: inside a given country the combine sells its products at a high price fixed by monopoly, abroad it sells them three times cheaper to undercut a competitor, to extend its own production to the utmost, etc. If German trade with the British colonies is developing more rapidly than that of Britain with the same colonies, that only proves that German imperialism is younger, stronger, and better organised than British; in short, is superior to it. But this by no means proves the superiority of free competition,
