The Collapse of the Second International/Chapter 5
CHAPTER V.
"Ultra-Imperialism" versus Revolutionary Mass
Action
The Socialist jingo theory of "ultra-imperialism" put forward by Kautsky is very subtle and most skilfully arranged to bear a scientific and internationalist aspect. The author himself recently formulated the theory with great clearness, as follows:
The weakening of the protectionist movement in England, the lowering of the duties in America, the striving after disarmament, the quick shrinkage of the capital exported from France and Germany during the years before the war, and, finally, the growing interlinking of the various international cliques representing finance-capital—all these factors induced me to weigh the possibility of the present imperialist policy being ousted by a new ultra-imperialist policy which would substitute for the mutual struggle of the various national units of finance-capital, the general exploitation of the world by a united international finance-capital. Such a new phase of capitalism is at all events thinkable. As to whether it be feasible, the premises for solving this question are not yet sound enough. (“ Neue Zeit,” No. 5, April 30th, 1915, p. 144.)
...The trend and the result of the present war may prove to be the deciding factors in this regard. The war may utterly crush the feeble germs of ultra-imperialism by inflaming to the highest degree national hatred, even amongst capitalist financiers, by intensifying the growth of armaments and the desire to outbid each other in this respect, thus rendering inevitable a second world war. In that case the anticipation formulated in my pamphlet “The Path to Power,” will to a terrible extent come true. Class antagonisms will become more acute and will at the same time hasten the moral Abwirtschaftung[1] (downfall) of capitalism.
....But the war may end differently. It may bring about a strengthening of the weak germs of ultra-imperialism. Its lessons (note this!) may accelerate a development which might have been slower in times of peace. If things come to such a pitch, if agreement between nations and disarmament becomes a fact, together with a lasting peace, then the worst of the causes which before the war were tending more and more to bring about the moral downfall of capitalism may disappear. The new phase, of course, will bring with it “fresh calamities for the proletariat,” which may be even worse than the present one, yet for a time ultra-imperialism could create an era of fresh hopes and expectations within the confines of capitalism ” (p. 145).
jingoism from this “theory"?
It is done in the following manner, a strange one for a “theoretician”:—Social-Democrats of the Left wing in Germany say that imperialism and the wars produced by it are not an accident but a necessary product of capitalism which has led to the domination of finance capital. Therefore, transition to a revolutionary struggle on the part of the masses is needed, for we have come to the end of the comparatively peaceful period. Social-Democrats of the "Right Wing" declare, crudely, that since imperialism is necessary we must be imperialists, too. Kautsky, who sides with the “Centre,” tries to act as conciliator.
“The extreme Left,” Kautsky says in his pamphlet, “The National State, the Imperialist State, and a Union of States” (Nuremberg, 1915), “wants to oppose Socialism to inevitable imperialism—that is to say, not merely the propaganda of Socialism which we have opposed to capitalist domination in every form in the course of half a century, but an immediate realisation of Socialism. This appears to be a radical step, but capable of driving into the camp of imperialism all who do not believe in an immediate practical realisation of Socialism ” (p. 17. The italics are ours.)
When speaking of the immediate realisation of Socialism, Kautsky resorts to exaggeration, for he knows that in Germany, especially under military censorship, one cannot speak of revolutionary action. He knows well that those of the Left wing desire the party to do propaganda work forthwith and to prepare for revolutionary action, and not for “the immediate practical realisation of Socialism.”
Those of the Left wing deduce the necessity of revolutionary action from the inevitableness of imperialism. “The theory of ultra-imperialism serves Kautsky to whitewash the opportunists, to put the whole thing in such a light as if the latter had not gone over to the side of the bourgeoisie, but had merely “no faith” in the immediate realisation of Socialism, or in the expectation that “there may ensue” a new era of disarmament and of a lasting peace. The "theory" merely amounts to this, that by the expectation of a new peaceful era of capitalism Kautsky justifies the opportunists and the official S.D. parties which have joined the bourgeoisie and have repudiated revolutionary i.e., proletarian tactics during the present stormy period, in spite of the solemn declarations contained in the Basle resolution! It should be noted that Kautsky does not declare that a new phase is resulting, and must result, from such and such circumstances and conditions. He declares plainly that he cannot even decide the question as to whether such a new phase is "feasible." And, indeed, let us glance at the "tendencies" which protend the new era pointed out by Kautsky. It is surprising that the author enumerates the "striving for disarmament" as an economic fact! This means to forsake undoubted facts which are compatible with the theory of the weakening of antagonisms, and to take cover under innocent bourgeois chatter and fantasies. Kautsky's "ultra-imperialism" though, by the way, this term does not at all express what the author wishes it to convey—means that under capitalism (class) antagonisms have been greatly weakened. Though they tell us of the weakening of the protectionist movement both in England and America, where do we espy therein the slightest tendency towards a new era? Though protectionism—which in America has reached its highest pitch—has been weakened, it still remains protectionism, as also remain the privileges and preferential tariffs in those of the English colonies which favour England. Let us recall what induced a substitution of the present-day imperialist era for the former "peaceful" era of capitalism. The facts are that free competition has given way to capitalist monopolies, and that the whole globe has been divided up. It is clear that both these facts and factors have a real world significance. Free Trade and peaceful competition were possible and necessary as long as there was nothing to hinder capital from increasing the number of its colonies and from seizing unoccupied lands in Africa and elsewhere; furthermore, the concentration of capital was then weak, and there did not exist monopolies gigantic enough to dominate the whole of a certain branch of industry. The inception and growth of such monopolies (this process has probably not yet been arrested either in England or America, and possibly not even Kautsky will dare to deny that the war has accelerated and intensified it) renders the former free competition impossible, cuts the ground from under its feet, where as the division of the globe compels the rivals to pass from peaceful expansion to an armed struggle for a re-division of colonies and of spheres of influence. It is ridiculous to imagine that the weakening of protectionism in two countries can change the essence of the question.
Then there is the export of capital from two countries for a number of years. These two countries, France and Germany, according to Harms's statistics of 1912, had capital invested abroad to the amount of about 35 milliard marks (about £1,700,000,000) each. England has double that amount invested.[2]
The growth of the capital exported never was, and never could be, uniform under capitalism. Kautsky cannot possibly imply that the growth of capital has been checked or that, for instance, the home market has absorbed more capital because a considerable improvement in the condition of the masses has been effected. It is impossible under such circumstances to deduce the advent of a new era from a decrease in the capital exported in a given number of years from two countries.
"The growing interlinking of the international cliques representing finance-capital"—this is indeed the only universal and undoubted tendency which manifests itself, not in the course of a few years, nor in two countries alone, but under capitalism throughout the whole world. But why should there arise from it a striving for disarmament and not for armaments, as heretofore? Let us take a gun-manufacturing firm (or any firm manufacturing military supplies), such as that of Armstrong, for instance. The English Economist for May, 1915, recently stated that the firm's profits amounted to £606,000 for 1905–6, and rose to £856,000 in 1913, and to £940,000 in 1914. The interlinking of finance capital in his industry is very great, and continues to grow; German capitalists "take part" in the business of the English firm; the English firms build submarines for Austria, and so forth. Capital interlinked internationally does splendid business in armaments and wars. To induce an economic tendency towards disarmament from the amalgamation and interlinking of various units of capital into a single international whole means the substitution of goody-goody lower middle-class desires for a weakening of class antagonisms, for the real fact that such antagonisms are actually becoming more acute.
- ↑ We must here note that by this pretentious word Kautsky understands simply “enmity” towards capitalism on the part of “the sections which are placed between the proletariat and finance capital―that is to say, the intellectuals, members of the lower middle class, and even petty capitalists.”
- ↑ See Bernhard Harms: "Probleme der Weltwirtschaft," Jena 1912—George Paish: "Great Britain's Capital Investments in Colonies etc." in the "Journal of the Royal Statistical Society," vol. lxxv 1910–11 p. 107. Lloyd George, in his speech at the beginning of 1915, considered that British capital invested abroad amounted to about £4,000,000,000.