From Essays in Socialism New & Old (1907), pp.129-131.
The dominant political impulse has been for well nigh two decades past what at present is known under the name of Imperial Expansion. This impulse is not confined to Great Britain, nor even to Europe, for the United States have within the last few years been seized with the same craving or mania (if you will). To Socialists the significance of Imperial Expansion is perfectly clear. It means the latest and most developed form of the capitalist craving for new spheres of activity, for new markets, cheap labour, and the command of fresh sources of mineral wealth, besides new berths for the hangers-on of capitalism, the official classes. In this last connection it is worthy of remark that (as recently pointed out by our comrade Karl Kautsky), while at the time of Cobden the leading great capitalistic industry was the cotton industry, now it is the iron industry which is the dominating, or, at least, the foremost branch of capitalist production.
At an earlier stage the policy of Free Trade sufficed as an outlet for that expansion which is as necessary to the continued existence of the capitalist system as breathing space is to that of the animal body. This is now no longer the case. Since the great industry in its most developed forms has taken possession of well-nigh the entire Continent of Europe, the, until a generation ago, outlying states and territories of North America together with the older European and especially British colonies, the competition between the various national groups of capitalists has become too keen. Earlier markets have ceased to suffice or to be available, or, still worse, have become the hot-beds of competition in their turn. Hence it has become essential for capitalists to organise nationally and to employ the political power of the state directly for the purpose of obtaining for their capital fresh outlets in which they (the capitalists of the particular state in question) shall have a monopoly, or, at least the power of constituting one if they choose, against those of other states. Now, this means the bringing of all the barbarous and savage countries of the earth, together with all the weaker civilised states that possess anything worth having, under the political control of the great capitalist states; in other words, their absorption by the latter. This process has been going on unceasingly of late years, the instance of it on the largest scale being what is known as the “scramble for Africa.” The rapid absorption of that ever-diminishing portion of the earth’s surface which has not already been brought under the dominion of capitalism – where the factory with its machinery is unknown, and whose inhabitants remain unblessed by the wares of the Great Industry – into the world market and under the sway of modern production, is not merely essential, but of pressing urgency if the present system of society with its great capitalist syndicates on the one side and its army of wage-slaves on the other is to be maintained. Under the old conditions this is impossible. Those interested in the maintenance of capitalism are well aware that if the expansion does not take place fast enough, the system by which their class profits will dissolve in revolution. Hence their eagerness to leave no stone unturned to force annexation at a hot-house pace.
In order to effect this they are obliged to have recourse to various tricks. Among others, the “patriotic” swindle is the most effective for bamboozling the lower middle and certain sections of the working classes. And this brings us to the important question as to the relative position occupied by the several modern capitalist states in the scramble for new territory, from the point of view of the international Social-Democracy. It is needless to say, the Social-Democrat, in so far as he sees modern patriotism to be simply a stalking-horse of modern capitalism, will tend to regard the respective merits as between the claims of one state and another as a case of the proverbial tweedledum and tweedledee. In general he will be right in this attitude. But here, as elsewhere, we have to judge according to the circumstances as they present themselves, and cannot rest satisfied with a merely general view. And if we take the concrete situation into account we cannot fail to notice that it is not indifferent whether one capitalist Power or another obtains a position of advantage in the near future. For instance, any increase in the power of Russia is justly regarded with apprehension by many, owing to infamous character of the Russian Government. Germany, in a lesser degree, is also regarded with dread, owing to its quasi-absolutism and the semi-despotic power of its military and feudal-bureaucratic oligarchy. All this is true. But what is not often recognised is that from the Socialist point of view the most dangerous power of all is not Russia or Germany but Great Britain. The foregoing seems a paradox. Britain, it is often said, is the freest country – a proposition which, if it simply means that as compared with Russia, Germany, or even Italy, there is less direct coercion of the expression of opinion in Britain than elsewhere may be conceded up to a certain point, though, since the imperialist idea has seized the British public the force of this proposition has been very much weakened. But for the Socialist the question of mere political reaction must be subordinate to more far-reaching economical considerations. Governments may change or be overthrown from one year to another, a great economic movement makes itself felt through generations. Just at the present time we are at a turning-point in human history. It probably depends upon the course taken by politico-international events in the immediate future whether capitalism is to have a new lease of life, lasting, it may be, for generations, or whether the transformation of society shall take place within measurable time.
Let the present expansion of the sphere of action of the capitalist system go on unchecked or receive a further impulse, and the hopes of Socialism must be indefinitely postponed. Karl Marx has pointed out how a social system never becomes obsolete until it has exhausted all the forms under which it can function. Marx and Engels fell into the error, as they afterwards confessed, of thinking that already in 1848 the capitalist system had come to the end of its tether, notwithstanding that its most advanced form, that of the great machine industry, had at that time, in many parts of the continent, scarcely got a foothold. More than two generations have passed since then, and capitalism, with its “machine industry,” having exhausted itself in the old countries, feels compelled to make haste to go forth and conquer fresh fields on pain of its collapse as an economic system. This expansive movement makes itself throughout the whole capitalist world to-day, but the typical, because up to date most successful, representative of it is Great Britain. The Briton has the faculty of “opening up” new countries – possessed by no other nationality. The Frenchman, the Italian, even the German, are not “in it” in this respect compared with the Anglo-Saxon. Hence we may fairly conclude, in view of the pressing necessity of expansion evinced by modern capitalism, that the chances of a new lease of life for the present economic system of society largely depend upon the success of Great Britain in pursuing the imperial policy so popular recently. This is, it would seem, instinctively felt by the other capitalist Powers, who, much as they would like to get the game into their own hands, shrink from combining to destroy that great stronghold of the capitalist system, the British Imperial power.
It is sometimes alleged as a palliation of the successful attempt on the part of England to rob the South African Dutch Republics of their independence – and that, too, by disinterested persons who ought to know better – that it meant, after all, the substitution of a higher civilisation for a lower. Whether a civilisation of Stock Exchange gamblers and speculative mining agents is “higher” than a civilisation of peasant-farmers living in a semi-patriarchal condition, I will not stop at length to inquire. There seems to be a confusion here between “higher” and “more advanced.” That modern mining and financial capitalism represents a more advanced stage of civilisation than peasant-farming of the patriarchal type is obvious. But whether with any appropriateness it can bear the appellation “higher” may fairly be doubted. That those nations in the van of historical development have to pass through all the crucial phases of Capitalism before Socialism is possible, is true enough. But as we have before pointed out, the bringing of races and countries in the rear of historical development into the direct sphere of the capitalist world, is not an essential part of the historical process at all, but conduces to one end solely, the prolongation of the capitalist system by securing it a wider area of operation; in other words, consolidating it on a broader basis. Now, apart from the actual capitalistic issues for which the British directly fought in the late Boer war -the substitution of a twelve- for an eight-hour working-day in the mines, a seven-day working week, the replacement of white labour by the thinly disguised slavery of coloured labour, the raising of the dividends of the mining companies by £4,800,000 – apart from these I say, and even supposing the annexation of the peasant Republics to the British Empire, had been the sole point at stake, as it was the ultimate aim, the attitude of Socialists towards the late war (in so far as their Socialism is not a mere fair-weather sham) was necessarily on the side of the Republics. For the Boer States were admittedly the great thorn in the side of capitalist development in South Africa generally. Once get your Cape-to-Cairo British Empire fairly under way and the capitalist system will be rescued from the imminent danger which at present threatens it of internal collapse, and the advent of Socialism correspondingly postponed.
Last updated on 13.1.2006