to defend and extend their possessions, their interests, and their spheres of influence in these Asiatic States. These will be "inter-imperialist" alliances. Admitting that all the imperialist powers conclude an alliance for the "peaceful" sharing out of these parts of Asia. This would then be an "international unification" of finance-capital. (Such alliances have been produced in the 20th century, notably with regard to China.)
We ask, is it permissible to suppose, granted the permanence of the capitalist regime, and it is just this that Kautsky takes for granted, that such alliances would be more than temporary, that they would do away with frictions, conflicts and struggle in every possible form?
This question only requires to be stated clearly enough to make it impossible for there to be any other reply than a negative. For there can be no other conceivable basis, under capitalism, for the sharing out of spheres of influence, of interests, of colonies, etc., than a calculation of the strength of the participants, their general economic, financial, military strength, etc. And strength among them is constantly varying, for there cannot be, under capitalism, an equal development of different undertakings, trusts, branches of industry or countries. Half-a-century ago, Germany was an insignificant country, as far as capitalist strength is concerned, by comparison with Britain. Japan was similarly insignificant as compared with Russia. Is it thinkable that in ten or twenty years' time, there will have been no changes in the relative strengths of the capitalist powers? Absolutely unthinkable.
And so "inter-imperialist" or "ultra-imperialist"
