Page:Lenin - The Collapse of the Second International - tr. Sirnis (1919).pdf/24

 decades. The history of this period proves irrefutably that it was the seizure of colonies, the plunder of foreign lands, and the struggle between competitors for markets that formed the main pivot upon which turned the policy of the two groups of powers at present at war "The War of Steel and Gold" by Brailsford (London, 1914. The book bears the date March, 1914), the English pacifist who is even prone to masquerade as a Socialist, is very instructive. The author recognises clearly that in a general way nationalist questions occupy a secondary place, and that they have already been solved (p. 35); that they do not constitute the main point and that "the typical question for contemporary diplomacy" (p. 36) is the Bagdad railway, furnishing it with rails, mines in Morocco, and so forth. The author rightly regards as one of the "most instructive" incidents in the latest history of European diplomacy the struggle of the French patriots and English imperialists against the attempts of Caillaux (in 1911 and 1913) to become reconciled to Germany on the bases of an agreement concerning the demarkation of colonial spheres of interest and concerning the admission of German securities to the Paris Stock Exchange. The English and French bourgeoisie rendered this attempt abortive (pp. 38-40). The object of imperialism is to export capital to the weaker countries (p.74). In 1899 the profits on this capital in England amounted to £90,000,000-£100,000,000 (Giffen), and to £140,000,000 in 1909 (Paish). Lloyd George, in a recent speech, reckoned these profits, let us add, at £200,000,000. Shady dealings with, and bribery of, Turkish nobility, soft jobs for sons in India and Egypt―these are things that matter (pp. 85-87). An insignificant majority derives gain from from armaments and wars, but it is supported by society and by financiers, whereas the adherents of peace are supported by a a divided population (p. 93). A pacifist who, to-day, talks of peace and disarmament, to-morrow turns out to be a member of a party which is completely dependent upon war contractors (p.161). If the Triple Entente turns out to be the more powerful it will capture Morocco and divide Persia; if the Triple Alliance turns out to be the more powerful it will take Tripoli, consolidate its position in Bosnia, and subdue Turkey (p. 167). London and Paris advanced millions to Russia in 1906, and thus assisted Tsarism to crush the liberation movement (pp. 225-8); at the present time England helps Russia to throttle Persia (p. 229). Russia instigated the Balkan war (p. 230). Of course there is nothing fresh in all this. These facts are known to all and have been repeated a thousand times in the Socialist Press of the whole world. On the eve of the war and English bourgeois sees all these things with surprising clearness. In the face of these simple and commonly known facts, what indecent nonsense, what unbearable hypocrisy, what sickening falsehoods are Plekhanov and Petresov's theories concerning the culpability of Germany, or the theories of Kantsky concerning "possibilities" of disarmament and a lasting peace under capitalism.

As applied to wars, the fundamental proposition of dialectics, so shamelessly distorted by Plekhanov to please the bourgeoisie, consists in that "war is merely a continuation of politics by other (namely by violent) means.” Thus it is formulated by Clausewitz, one of the great writers on questions of military history, whose ideas have been fructified by Hegel. Such was always the point of view of Marx and Engels, who regarded every war as a continuation of the policy of certain interested powers―and of diversdiverse [sic] classes within it―at a given time.