The Foundations of Imperialist Policy

Front matter

WORKERS’ LIBRARY. Second Series

THE FOUNDATIONS OF IMPERIALIST POLICY

THE FOUNDATIONS

Lecture I: The Philosophical Theory of the Essence of Imperialism—The Theory of Seyère

LECTURE I

THE PHILOSOPHICAL THEORY OF THE ESSENCE OF IMPERIALISM—THE THEORY OF SEYÈRE

AN ancient Greek legend relates the crusade of the Argonautæ, mythical heroes, who sailed in the ship Argo to the fabulous country Colchis, in modern Georgia, in search of the Golden Fleece, which these heroes succeeded in obtaining with the help of Medea, the daughter of the King of Colchis. To gain possession of the Golden Fleece the Argonautæ had to overcome the most difficult obstacles, to accomplish a series of heroic deeds.

In the course of centuries the poets have devoted to this beautiful legend of the Argonautæ many works. Many beautiful pictures have also been dedicated to it, as well as sculptures, such for instance as are contained in the Paris museum, the Louvre. The essence of the legend about the Argonautæ was expressed by the poets as a symbolisation of the eternal struggle of humanity towards the sun, towards the unattainable, to the truth, to beauty, to goodness. But prosaic historians and merciless philologians came upon the scene and revealed the real meaning of the legend regarding the Argonaute.

This legend by no means symbolises the striving of humanity to good, to beauty, to the unattainable, to the sun. Its essence is simply the following. Many of the ancient nations had a particular method of obtaining gold which has been preserved to the present day by some of the African tribes. The following was the method of obtaining gold on the banks of the gold-bearing rivers. The gold sand was washed by passing it through sheep’s wool, the gold particles remained on the wool, and the latter was thus transformed into a seemingly whole compact golden fleece.

The legend of the Argonautz represents in poetical form the brutal materialist fact of the hunt of man for the yellow metal in his most ancient stages of development. Around this simple fact—the fact of the hunt of man for gold—the poets have produced a splendid legend and a series of remarkable poetical works.

When we come across fine high-sounding phrases regarding the interests of civilisation, progress, goodness, truth and beauty in connection with many facts of ancient or contemporary history, such, for instance, as the present war which the patriots of every country have represented as a holy war of liberation and so forth, or regarding some grandiose railway project from Bagdad to Berlin or from Cairo to Cape Town, and so on, we must treat these fine words in the same way as the historians like Strabo treated the legend of the Argonaute, the meaning of which does not consist in the symbolisation of the striving of man after the infinite, but in the representation in a poetic form of a brutal actual fact—the hunt for the yellow metal.

The analysis which we applied to the legend of the Argonaute was made by the Marxists at the very beginning of the World War. When the war broke out, in every country two camps were formed. The minority, in some countries consisting only of a few people, affirmed that this war was not a war of liberation but an ordinary war of conquest, a war for new territories, for markets, for gold mines, and so on. And the other side in every country tried to prove that this was a great war of liberation, a war for the annihilation of imperialism, for the destruction of militarism, and so on. Even in the socialist parties of all countries the overwhelming majority, in the course of the first few years of the war, upheld the point of view that the war carried on by their country was, forsooth, a holy war, and the war carried on by the opposing side was a criminal, murderous war. Nevertheless, now it is evident that the governments of all the countries waged this war for conquest, that it was an "imperialist" war.

What is the meaning of the term "imperialist war"?

The word imperialism is often repeated by many. You meet this word thousands of times in speeches, in the papers, in scientific books. But, as often happens with many terms which are repeated every moment in conversation and books, the term "imperialism" is little understood by many writers and lecturers using this word every minute.

What does the conception of "imperialism" signify? A series of theories have arisen regarding this term "imperialism."

I divide all the existing theories regarding imperialism into three groups: the philosophical group on the essence of imperialism, the historical and Marxian groups.

The French writer, Romain Rolland, the author of the famous work Jean Christophe, in one of his novels, Le Buisson Ardent, uses the word imperialism as a synonym for the ideas of murder, theft, violence. He thus says: "Everywhere imperialism reigns supreme: theocratic imperialism of the Catholic Church, which aims at subjecting everything to its influence; military imperialism of the trading and mystic monarchies; official imperialism of the Free-mason and avaricious republics; the dictatorial imperialism of the revolutionary workers' organisations. Poor liberty—you are not of this world! In reality, at the present time we have to choose not between imperialism and freedom but between imperialism and imperialism." Consequently, from the point of view of Romain Rolland, imperialism is a phenomenon which penetrates all forms of life and all social currents, including socialism.

I quote this opinion of Romain Rolland, not because he is in any way a great sociologist, but because as a novelist, as a conspicuously talented man, he formulates aptly in these few words the view of a whole school on the essence of imperialism. What then is this school? It is the "philosophical" school of Seyère. Romain Rolland affirms that imperialism even makes its appearance in the activities of the workers' socialist organisations. From his point of view, if the workers on strike compel blackleg workers not to go to the factories, and throw these blacklegs out by force from the factories where they wish to take the place of their comrades on strike, this act of the strikers is one of violence, hence it is imperialism. Romain Rolland discovers imperialism in the acts of self-defence of the working class. Others go even further in their arbitrary interpretation of the term imperialism. Thus Mario Morasso has written a whole book about imperialism in art, and the well-known French writer, Ernest Seyère, has sent forth into the world a whole four-volumed work on the "Philosophy of Imperialism," in which the chief intellectual representatives and inspirers of imperialism are represented as being the famous French writer, Gobineau, then the German author, Nietzsche, then Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Proudhon, and finally, Karl Marx.

The first volume of the "Philosophy of Imperialism" is entitled Comte Gobineau et Arianisme Historique (Count Gobineau and Historical Aryanism). Gobineau's theory sanctifies racial imperialism. Gobineau, a famous French writer, had in his time great influence not only in France but also in Germany. Gobineau affirmed that the Aryan race, as a higher race, is destined to dominate all other races. The Chinese, Japanese, Negroes, Indians and so on must submit to the white race, for this white race, because of its inherent racial peculiarities and abilities, had the right to command over the whole earth and to subject to itself the yellow and black continents.

This racial theory prevailed during a long period of time. When the Russo-Japanese War broke out many scientists in Western Europe expressed their firm belief that Russia would crush Japan into smithereens. They said that Japan could adopt perfected weapons, and so on, but they would be incapable of fighting against the Russian race, because the Russian race is white, whereas the Japanese is a yellow race, they are "macaques," capable of imitating like monkeys. The battles of Markdam, Liau Tung and Tsu-shima dealt a terrific blow to this racial theory. The Europeans saw that the Japanese were not inferior, at any rate in military art, to a European race, and when, following this, after this brilliant victory of the Japanese, Europeans started to become acquainted with Japanese literature, poetry, art, they were convinced that the Japanese did not merely "ape"—that they had their own scientists and writers of genius. One of the best-known contemporary specialists in the sphere of the fight against venereal disease, one who discovered a remedy against syphilis, was the friend of Ehrlich, a Japanese scientist. The Japanese have done a great deal in the study of geology, and in the struggle against earthquakes. It had to be recognised that this was an original nation which is in no way inferior to any other race. The racial theory suffered a terrific defeat on the fields of Manchuria.

In the present war it was found that this theory had had enormous success in Germany. After the first German successes, after the crushing of Russia, after the occupation of Belgium and the whole of Northern France, the German scientists and authors began to affirm that the German race is a race which, in accordance with its inherent abilities, has the right to command the whole world and to subject to itself the whole of Europe. They proved this in the following way. Certainly, the Russian race was a highly remarkable race: it has produced such men as Termontov, Pushkin, Leo Tolstoy; it has given a series of remarkable artists and poets. The French nation was also a remarkable nation: it has produced Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire; it has given us such famous novelists as Romain Rolland. The English race is also a remarkable race—writers like Shakespeare were a witness thereof. But all these races lacked that feature which distinguished the German race—namely, they were devoid of organising ability. Only one race in the world was perfect master of this ability—that was the German race. If the German race were to subject the whole world it would introduce everywhere an ideal order, it would organise production everywhere. It would raise the productive forces in all countries to an unprecedented height, and so on.

If these German writers and scientists had taken the trouble to remember what Heine had written a few decades back they would have seen that Heine looked upon the German race in a different way. In Heine we find a page in which he says that nowhere is there such an anarchical disorderly race as the Germans. "It is incapable of any order," said Heine, and in his works he emphasised this view.

I cite Heine to show that if, at the present time, the Germans evidence a high degree of organising ability, this last is not to be explained by some hereditary feature inherent in the German race, but exclusively by reasons of quite another order: by the development of capitalism in Germany as a result of the creation of a unified state, by the increase in the productive forces, by the given economic conjuncture and by a series of other circumstances which have transformed that same German nation, at one time incapable of any order, into one highly capable of organisation. Thus, this organising talent is by no means inherent in the race—an inseparable part of the "German" soul.

Until 1847, when Germany was broken up into a series of small states, constantly at war with one another, the German nation showed no special organising talent. The ideal order reigning in Germany on the eve of the war was the result of a definite stage of development of the productive forces attained by the country. When, recently, the victors demanded from the Germans the delivery of a certain number of locomotives and carriages, Solf begged the victors almost on his knees to limit their demands, for if they did not, anarchy would reign supreme in Germany.

Until the present war the idea of Deutschland über Alles, the idea that the German race is distinguished by special qualities, was accepted by many German representatives, not only of the big but also of the small bourgeoisie. Frequently in working-class circles we could find that these or those representatives were infected with the idea that the Germans are master of certain special faculties. Now there is beginning a transformation in the opposite direction, and many Germans are starting to affirm that the most remarkable nation is the Russian nation, and that the Germans must learn much from it. The present war will finally shatter the race theory, and will give it its death-blow. And then the events which will occur in India, Persia, China, as a result of the Russian revolution, will prove that these countries too in no way differ from us, and when they raise the banner of revolt against the existing order, then all will understand and declare that the race theory cannot stand the test of criticism and that, given the same culture and political conditions, all races are capable of showing the same talents and exploits in the spheres of military art, of culture, of art, and so forth. This theory has been smashed by the facts of life.

The second volume of the "Philosophy of Imperialism" is dedicated to the famous German writer, Friedrich Nietzsche. In this writer Seyère sees the theoretician of individualist imperialism, because Nietzsche put the individual personality above all things, and affirmed its right to dominate the whole world and the surrounding masses.

What did the theory of Friedrich Nietzsche consist in? Nietzsche recognised the right of the separate personality excelling in any kind of talent, in any abilities of organisation—for instance, a military or political genius to dominate over the whole surrounding world. This is the imperialism of the individuality, imperialism which reserves the right to the single individual, the separate personality, to dominate the whole sphere surrounding it. You understand what is being dealt with here? This theory of "individual imperialism" grants the right to a Napoleon, who has exceptional military talents, to a Cæsar or Alexander of Macedon, to dominate over the masses surrounding them.

There is no need to go into a detailed criticism of this theory. This theory of individual imperialism is already rejected by the consciousness of contemporary society—not only proletarian but even bourgeois, which does not recognise the right of a single individual to dominate the whole world. The introduction of a constitution in the bourgeois state was a limitation of the right of the monarch to autocratic domination over the given country. The third volume of the "Philosophy of Imperialism" is dedicated to Rousseau, Proudhon, Karl Marx, and finally, the fourth volume is a study of Irrational Imperialism.

In Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Seyère sees a representative of "plebeian imperialism." By this term Seyère understands that striving for domination which manifested itself in the activities of the bourgeoisie during the era of the great French Revolution—that bourgeoisie, that "third estate" which was a mere nothing before the great French Revolution, and which desired to become all. This bourgeoisie produced a series of active men—such, for instance, as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Voltaire—who in their works formulated the essence of the demands of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie endeavoured to overthrow the domination of the nobility. It attained this, and consolidated its own domination over the other classes of society. This was the so-called plebeian imperialism—the domination of the bourgeoisie over the other classes.

Finally, in Karl Marx aiming at the dictatorship of the proletariat, Seyère sees the theoretician of class imperialism expressed, if you please, in the aim of the proletariat to enslave other classes.

It goes without saying that we quite disagree with such a statement of the question regarding the essence of socialism. We do not admit that the proletariat aims at the consolidation of its domination over the other classes. The proletariat places before itself the question of the overthrow of the domination of the bourgeoisie, that class which oppressed other classes, and the creation of such a social order as will admit of no classes, where all citizens will be equal. Consequently, Seyère's deduction that the proletarian policy is a policy of its own kind of class imperialism will not stand the test of criticism.

In the socialist structure of society created by the proletariat there will be no place for enslaving, violence, conquest, and therefore for imperialism. At the present moment, when we are surrounded by enemies, we are forced to destroy counter-revolution by fire and sword. We have to fight with all our forces against the enemies surrounding us, but surely the fundamental aim of our war, of our class-struggle, consists precisely in the destruction of all war, and of all class struggles. The proletariat cannot strive to enslave other classes. When the bourgeoisie crushes the proletariat and the poorest peasantry it has some sense, because the bourgeoisie is weak numerically, and for one representative of the bourgeoisie there are ten to twelve thousand workers and peasants whom it can oppress, from whom it can squeeze out their sweat and find therein certain benefit for itself. But the proletariat and the poorest peasantry is a class consisting of ninety-five per cent. of the population and has no interest in exploiting anyone whatever. Our final aim is to destroy economic inequality, and therefore, of course, not to re-establish it in this or that form.

Ernest Seyère discovers imperialism in the efforts for advancement of separate individuals in racial or national struggles, in the endeavours of one class to dominate another, finally even in socialism. The followers of Seyère have gone even further. Thus some of his pupils discover imperialism not only in human society, but in all phenomena of organic and even inorganic life. One can make the discovery of an "ant imperialism," of a "bee imperialism," of "tree imperialism," and so on. When one ant makes war on another ant it is a manifestation of imperialist tendencies of a certain ant tribe which is struggling with other ant tribes. Amongst bees too there is their own sort of imperialism. Finally, there is imperialism even in the world of plants. Thus, for instance, when an oak in its growth crushes the young shoots, and does not allow the young shrubs to develop, it consummates plant imperialism, the individual imperialism of the mighty oak. When the forest, in spreading, throws its shoots on the neighbouring cultivations it practises collective imperialism. Consequently, imperialism exists even in the vegetable kingdom.

All these discussions about the existence of individual imperialism, race imperialism, plant imperialism, and so on, all flow from one fundamental mistake of the Seyère school, consisting in the too arbitrary interpretation of the term "imperialism." It is evident that with Seyère and his followers the term "imperialism" is a substitute for the conception of "the struggle for existence." Of course, if we include in the conception of "imperialism" the Darwinian principle of "the struggle for existence," we shall indeed find imperialist tendencies not only in the society of men, but also in the world of the lower beasts and plants. In such an extended interpretation every man, in so far as he struggles for his existence or strives to satisfy his ambition or love of power, is to that extent an imperialist. In so far as one race tries to subject to itself another race, we have to deal here with race imperialism. In so far as an oak in its growth crushes small shrubs, in so far does the oak struggle for its existence—hence it practises imperialism, and so on.

At first sight, it might appear that all these philosophical exercises regarding the conception of "imperialism" are a mere bandying of words, an empty play of words, a dispute as to terms. But in reality this play of words has a definite aim, and in this theory of Seyère there lurks definite class tendencies.

Why has Seyère's theory had such great success in bourgeois circles? Why has it enjoyed such respect and prestige in professional circles? This theory, which at first glance appears so meaningless, has a reactionary lining, for it justifies the whole existing structure of society. Affirming that imperialism existed in all human society, that it also exists among the lower animals, and even in the vegetable kingdom, that "it was always thus," Seyère's followers have deduced that imperialism is an eternal law of life, that it is as old as organic life, as the formation of the first cell. Consequently, the struggle against imperialism and its accompanying phenomena in human society—namely, constant wars, militarism, navalism, and so on—are doomed to fail. The hope of destroying imperialism is a pure Utopia. Thus it was, thus it will be.

Some of Seyère's followers—as, for instance, Edward Rod—cross the t's and dot the i's, and say decisively: "We can fight only against the excesses of imperialism, we cannot fight against its essence. Imperialism always was and ever will be. One might perhaps consider the question of decreasing the number of ironclads, or decreasing the numerical strength of the army, but an army there always must be, there must be dreadnoughts or other military men-of-war, for the armed fleets and armies will never disappear."

Above all Seyère's theory is unscientific because it throws into one heap the most varied phenomena. The problem of science cannot consist in making these too wide generalisations, which would make one mass of the most heterogeneous phenomena. Seyère's theory does not allow of the separation of one order of phenomena from another and therefore it is unscientific. Apart from this, it is reactionary, for it represents an apologia for imperialism.

Lecture II: The Historical School Regarding the Essence of Imperialism

LECTURE II

THE HISTORICAL SCHOOL REGARDING THE ESSENCE OF IMPERIALISM

LAST time I expounded the essence of the so-called philosophical theory of imperialism. I pointed out that the chief representative of the philosophical theory of imperialism is the well-known French writer Ernest Seyère.

Seyère's theory has no scientific significance; it mixes up in one heap the most heterogeneous phenomena, and so does not permit us to analyse and understand all these phenomena. Besides this, the theory is reactionary; if we recognise that imperialism always has existed, and ever will exist, we must come to the conclusion of the immutability of the foundations of the present order based on robbery and force.

The historians, searching for imperialism at different stages of development, are differentiated from the philosophers in that they do not look for this imperialism either in the animal or vegetable worlds, but limit their task to the effort to discover imperialist tendencies at all stages in the history of mankind.

From the point of view of the representatives of the historical school, imperialism exists at all stages of human development: from the moment that human society was formed, imperialist policy commenced. According to these historians, we can find proofs of the imperialist policy of the Judean tribes even in the Bible. When we read the Bible we learn on every page of the struggle of the Judeans, here with the Philistines, there with the Amalekites, and so on, an soon. What does this mean? This, that the Jewish nomadic tribe was very war-like, and desired to seize the whole Arabian peninsula and Palestine. For this the given tribe had to subject, to conquer, all the other tribes. This Jewish tribe put forward the idea of a one all-powerful God, and, utilising this theory of the one God, declared itself to be the chosen people, having the right to dominate all the heathen tribes. As for the Judean God, Jehovah, he is a most cruel, vengeful God. He is a God who calls for the destruction of the heathen. This God is the representative of imperialism. He is a God who demands that all the surrounding tribes should submit to his tribe. The former will be annihilated if they do not recognise Jehovah, if they do not submit to the Judean tribe.

The historians of the above-mentioned school find imperialism also in the history of ancient Hellas. Thus Fergusson, a professor of the famous Harvard University in the U.S.A., in his book, published on the eve of the World War, Greek Imperialism, studies the conquering policy of Athens, the "Imperialist Democracy" of Sparta, of Alexander of Macedon, of the Ptolemy dynasty, of the Seleucian Empire, and finally of the Antigonian Empire (301 ).

We reject these attempts at this too extended interpretation of "imperialism." We consider it wholly unscientific to try to discover the phenomenon of imperialism in the history of the Jewish nation, of Sparta, of Athens, and so on.

It goes without saying that the wars of ancient Judea, of ancient Greece and Rome with their neighbouring countries, were conditioned by economic reasons, and were defined by the interests of the dominating social groups. But this was not yet imperialism.

Undoubtedly, from the very moment that the institution of private property had arisen and the various human societies gradually split into classes, the interests of the dominating social groups became the main stimulus of wars.

It would be erroneous to imagine that it is only in the contemporary capitalist states, with their characteristically more acute class wars, and the hegemony of the bourgeoisie in the home and foreign policy of all countries, that class interests are the fundamental reason of prolonged international conflicts, constant arming and bloody wars.

The policy of conquest of Biblical Judea and of the states of antiquity, of Sparta, Athens, and finally Rome, was already dictated by economic causes, by the class interests of the dominating social groups.

The wars of the Athenian republic with the Persian monarchy were wars for Asia Minor and Black Sea colonies, for trade hegemony, for supremacy over the seas bounding the southern and eastern parts of the Balkan peninsula—that is, over the Ionic, the Ægean and Black Seas.

The victory of continental Greece over the Persians heightened the economic importance of Athens. The domination and profits arising from the exploitation of the Ægean, Ionic, and even the Black Sea, fell to the lot of Athens which directed the military movements. Athens strove to get into its hands a full monopoly of all Grecian trade, and as Greece was at that time the trade intermediary between the East and West, the monopolisation of Greek trade into the hands of Athens would have signified the trade hegemony of Athens in the whole world. Enormous riches flowed into Athens, industry there became extraordinarily flourishing. Athens became the economic and cultural centre of the world at that time. Here science and art flourished: nowhere could thinkers and artists find more favourable conditions for their development.

True, the riches flowing into Athens did not merely fall to the lot of an insignificant handful of aristocrats. Athens was a democratic community, and all free citizens enjoyed all the blessings of both the economic and the intellectual prosperity of the republic. Nowhere had artists and thinkers such a public as in Athens, and the responsiveness of this public to questions of philosophy and art had a remarkable influence on the intensive development of Greek art and philosophy, creating unfading and undying samples of works, such as those of Homer, Æschylus, Plato; beautiful works of sculpture, such as the Venus of Milos, and so on. But this democratic Athens community was limited in numbers, the community of free citizens rested, as on a foundation, on the institution of slavery.

The slaves were the domestic servants, carrying on all the work, whilst their masters took part in political meetings or sat in the theatres. The slaves made clothes and boots, arms, and so forth, for their masters. The slaves performed all the heaviest work on the Athenian military and trading vessels, cutting across the waves of the Ægean and Ionic Seas, and transporting riches to the capital of the world of that time. But in return for all this the slaves were excluded from participation in all the blessings of the economic and cultural wealth of Athens, and it goes without saying that military booty was not shared out amongst them.

Thus the whole policy of conquest of the Athenian and other Greek republics was carried on exclusively in the interests of a definite class, a class of free Greek citizens—or, in other words, of slave-owners. This policy of conquest pursued definite economic aims: firstly, the consolidation of the trading hegemony of ancient Greece in Asia Minor, the southern part of present-day Russia, and in all the waters reaching the shores of territories where Greek influence penetrated; secondly, the multiplication of the number of slaves—that is, of the class of men without rights mercilessly exploited by the free citizens of Greece. Thus the Grecian policy of conquest was a continuation of its internal class policy.

The rôle of class interests in the foreign policy of the states of antiquity in relation to the Roman Empire is described with marvellous salience and talent by the famous Italian writer, Ferrero, in his classic six-volume work, The Greatness and Decline of Rome. Ferrero reveals with wonderful talent and mastery the economic causes of the second and third Punic Wars, right up to the destruction of Carthage, the campaign in Macedonia, Greece and Gaul. He shows that all this policy of conquest, both in its origin and its fundamental features, was a phenomenon of an economic order, and he describes how the bankers, farmers, merchants, usurers, financiers—all this class of exploiters—put into motion the victorious force of the legions of Ancient Rome.

Ferrero views the Roman policy of conquest as a result of the decomposition of the Antique World, as the beginning of the fall of this State. He shows that side by side with the decay of the agricultural commune and the creation of a military hegemony on the Mediterranean Sea, side by side with the growth of wealth and the strengthening of the power of the capitalists on the one hand, and on the other the multiplication of slaves, there grew up in Roman society the spirit of brutal violence, greed, thirst for enjoyment, love of gain, a striving for world domination, and that as a result of this decay of the economic foundations and the consequent depravity of the morals of the primitive commune, with its originally simple modes of life, there grew up this rapacious Roman policy, a policy of robbery and violence which started with the perfidious declaration of war against Carthage, followed by the conquest of Greece, Macedonia and Asia Minor. In bold and vivid colours Ferrero sketches for us the striking image of robber Rome, growing up out of the decaying military agricultural commune, and he reveals the dark sides of this organisation, the historical mission of which Virgil characterised in the arrogant words: