Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

NOTEBOOK “α”

(“ALPHA”)


FROM PRINCIPLES OF SOCIAL ECONOMICS

Principles of Social Economics, by S. Altmann...
K. Bücher and many others.

Section V, Part II: “Banking” (Schulze-Gaevernitz and Jaffé), Tübingen, 1915.

I. Schulze-Gaevernitz, “The German Credit Bank” (1-190).
 II. Edgar Jaffé, “Anglo-American and French Banking” (191-231).
   (More like a textbook, by paragraphs, apparently mostly chatter and “systematics”.)

There is also interesting mate-
rial
. The spirit of “imperialism
throughout.

p. 53: in 1914 eight Berlin big banks owned

share capital— 1,245 mill. marks
including Deutsche Bank 250
Discontogesellschaft 300
Dresdner Bank 200
reserves . . . . . . . . . . . 432
1,677
borrowed money . . . . . . . . 5,328
(“total capital”) . . . . . . . . 7,005

p. 140: Specialisation: “Money and Credit Operations”.

1882 1907
Establishments . . . . . . . . . . 5,879 13,971
Persons employed . . . . . . . . . 21,633 66,275
(of whom women) . . . . . . . 244 3,089
in 1907 there were 3 establishments with > 1,000 employees
Deutsche Bank in 1912 had . . . . 6,137
Dresdner Bank ” 1912 ” . . . . 4,638

cf. p. 11: there were 14,000 banking houses in Germany in 1907, of which 4,000 were auxiliary establishments....


p. 145: ... “The big banks have become the most important means for the economic unification of the German Reich”....

 “Once the supreme management of the
German banks has been entrusted to the
hands of a dozen persons, their activity is
even today more significant for the public
good than that of the majority of Ministers
of State” (145-46).[1]
“a dozen
persons”

ha-ha!! “If, however, this is so, then the national
welfare requires the development of a new
spiritual type of bank magnate whose abstract
[ha-ha!] urge for profit is permeated by
national-political and therefore national-eco-
nomic
considerations....

“If we imagine the development of those
tendencies we have noted carried to their
logical conclusions we will have: the money
capital of the nation united in the banks; the
banks themselves combined into cartels; the
investment capital of the nation cast in the
shape of securities. Then the forecast of that
genius Saint-Simon will be fulfilled: ‘The
present anarchy of production, which corres-
ponds to the fact that economic relations are
developing without uniform regulation, must
make way for organisation in production.
Production will no longer be directed by iso-
lated manufacturers, independent of each
other and ignorant of man’s economic needs;
that will be done by a certain public insti-
tution. A central committee of management,
being able to survey the large field of social
economy from a more elevated point of view,
will regulate it for the benefit of the whole
of society, will put the means of production
into suitable hands, and above all will take
care that there be constant harmony between
production and consumption. Institutions al-
ready exist which have assumed as part of their
functions a certain organisation of economic
labour, the banks.’ We are still a long way
from the fulfilment of Saint-Simon’s forecast,
but we are on the way towards it: Marxism,
different from what Marx imagined, but
different only in form!” (146)[2]
Saint-
Simon
 what
Marxism!!!

“Of course, investments like those made by
Britain, e.g., in the Suez Canal, on the basis
of her political power—the shares were bought
in 1876 for £4 million and today are worth
£30 million—are still unattainable for Ger-
many”...(159-60).
good
example!
(envy)
4 and 30


p. 164 quotes J. Lewin, German Capital in Russia, St. Petersburg, 1914.


 “The economic function of the banks is the
already much discussed management
of the national property
[a refer-
ence to Lansburgh’s article in the magazine
Die Bank, 1908]. Today, the greater the devel-
opment of credit operations, the greater
becomes the share of the total capital going
to entrepreneurs chosen by the bank. The
banks now provide the channels through which
flow not only annual savings but also previous-
ly accumulated (and continually renewed)
capital. One recalls, above all, the enormous
growth of ‘borrowed money’. In our joint-
stock banks in Germany these deposits amount-
ed to about 1,280 million marks at the end
of 1891; to about 6,305 million marks at the
end of 1906; at the present time they are
estimated at approximately 10,000 mil-
lion marks.

 “At the end of 1913, deposits of the nine big
Berlin banks alone were about 5,100 million[3]
marks. At the same time, however, the
banks act as channels for still larger move-
ments of capital in dealings in stock. In
this matter, even if there is good will, they
may make mistakes; they may direct thousands
of millions into the wrong channel and,
under certain circumstances, lose. At the
present time a few big banks can to a certain
extent determine the course of our econo-
mic development. Hence their economic
responsibility to the shareholders becomes
a national economic responsibility in relation
to the state as a whole. They do, in fact,
direct capital into industrial and commercial
channels, primarily into the giant enterprises
of heavy industry, and also into real estate—
formerly into the estates of the nobility
but nowadays into the leasehold houses of the
big cities. Hence the rapid progress of the
German iron industry, which is second only to
America, and of the German big cities, which
are overtaking even their American proto-
types” (p. 12)....
N.B.
N.B.

10,000
million

5,000
million
N.B.
N.B.

N.B.  p. 27: “Borrowed money (of creditors and
depositors) at the end of 1908: 8,250 million
marks in credit banks, 15,000 million
marks in savings banks, 3,000 million
marks in credit associations. Σ = 26,250 mil-
lion marks.

N.B.  “‘Private banking houses’ are increasing in
number (1892: 2480; 1902: 2,564; 1912: esti-
mated at about 3,500) and decreasing in
importance” (p. 16).

Everywhere (passim), throughout, Schulze-Gaevernitz’s tone is that of triumphant German imperialism, of a triumphant swine!!!!


Chara-
cteristic
of a
crisis!!
p.35: 1870— 31 banks with a capital of 376 million marks
1872— 139  ”  ”  ” ”  ” 376  ”   ”
(1873)— 73 banks, the rest with a capital of 432
mill. marks liquidated by the crisis

State Bank endorsement and clearing operations (thousand million marks)

1891 1901 1913  N.B.
98.7 196.6 452.8
including turnover of cash payments
24.3 (=24.7%) 29.7 (=15.1%) 43.4 (=9.6%)

...“In 1909, the Bank of France discounted
7,500,000 bills below 100 francs, whereas
the German State Bank discounted only 700,000
bills below 100 marks”. (p. 54).

“Democratisation” of banking!![14] Compare the one-pound shares in Great Britain and the minimum of 1,000 marks in Germany (p. 111).[4] The average size of a bill of exchange in Germany = 2,066 marks (State Bank); in France it is 683 francs (Banque de France).

“G. von Siemens declared in the Reichstag
on June 7, 1900, that the one-pound share
was the basis of British imperialism” (p. 110).[5]
 N.B.

“The British industrial state is based less
on credit than the German, and more on its
own capital” (55).

“Even today, Great Britain, as the international intermediary for payments, is said to earn about 80 million marks annually as commission on acceptances. It is said that 6,000 million marks are paid annually through Great Britain for the overseas trade of Europe” (83).


p. 100: § entitled “The Banks’ Domination over the Stock Exchanges?”—This is said to be an exaggeration but “their [the banks’] influence is far-reaching”....

“While formerly, in the seventies, the Stock
Exchange, flushed with the exuberance of
youth, opened the era of the industrialisation
of Germany, taking advantage of the opportu-
nities offered by shares, nowadays the banks
and industry are able to ‘manage it alone’.
The domination of our big banks over the
Stock Exchange, which is bound up with
contango business—but not only with this—
is nothing else than the expression of the
completely organised German industrial state.
If the domain of automatically functioning
economic laws is thus restricted, and if
the domain of conscious regulation by the
banks is considerably enlarged, the national
economic responsibility of the few directing
individuals is immensely increased” (101).[6]
“com-
pletely
organ-
ised”[15]

N.B.  (Quoted) A. Löwenstein, “History of
the Württemberg Credit Bank System and
Its Relation to Big Industry”... Archiv
für Sozialwissenschaft
. Supple-
mentary issue No. 5. Tübingen, 1912.

Issues (p. 104):

Internal securities
1909 1910 1911
Germany with colo-
 nies . . . . . .
3.2 2.5 2.2  7.9:3=2.6 
Britain with colo-
 nies . . . . . .
1.9 3.1 1.8  6.8:3=2.3 
France with colo-
 nies . . . . . .
1.4 0.7 0.6  2.7:3=0.9 

Foreign
securities
My calculations
1909 1910 1911 Σ:3 = ΣΣ
Germany with
 colonies . .
0.3 0.5 0.5 1.3 : 3 = 0.4  
3,000 million
   marks
Britain with
 colonies . .
1.8 2.3 2.0 6.1 : 3 = 2.0  
4,300 million
   marks
France with
 colonies . .
2.0 3.8 3.1 8.9 : 3 = 2.9  
3,800 million
   marks

Issues in Germany (at market value)

000 million marks
Social credit
(state and mu-)
muncipal loans
Land credit
(mortgages)
Industrial
and trade
credit
Internal
securities
Total
Foreign
securities
Total
[1886-1890] 1.8 1.2 1.3 4.3 2.3
[1891-1895] 1.8 2.2 0.8 4.8 1.5
[1896-1900] 1.7 1.9 4.3 8.2 2.4
[1901-1905] 3.3 2.3 2.6 8.3 2.1
[1906-1910] 6.0 2.6 4.8 12.6 1.5

The author concludes:

“The statistics of issues very clearly reveal the state-socialist and industrial colouring of the German national economy” (104).

Germany’s “Prussian railway system”, the author says, is “the greatest economic undertaking in the world” (104)....

Joint-Stock Companies in Prussia in 1911

(million marks)
Invested capital Annual profit
No. of compa- 
nies
Nominal 
value
Market  
value
% (market)  Million marks  % of nominal 
value
% of market 
value
15,700
-8,800
177.9% 890 8,821 15,969 177.9 952 10.8% 6.1%  6,900 mill.

....“Advocates of the small share emphasise that
it enables workers to participate in industry,
interlocking the interests of the worker and
the employer in a way that is socially and
economically desirable. It is profit-sharing
in a modern form” (pp. 110-11)—(in connec-
tion with one-pound shares).
N.B.

phrase-
mon-
gering
and
lies!!
















 In the § on “speculation in securities”
(p. 111 et seq.), instead of exposing
speculation by the banks ((cf. the magazine
Die Bank, Eschwege and others)), the scoun-
drel Schulze-Gaevernitz gets out of it by
phrases: “If our banks were speculative compa-
nies ... it would mean ... the collapse of the
German national economy” (112)... ((“if”))...
saves the “propriety” of our “business world”,
and our bank officials are forbidden to spec-
ulate in alien banks (of course, he says,
this can be easily circumvented!! in large
cities) ...but what about bank direc-
tors
? For they are “in the know” (“Wissen-
den”)!! Here, he says, legislation is of no avail,
what is needed is “strengthening of the com-
mercial sense of honour and standing” (113)....
!!

“At the end of 1909, the nine big Berlin
banks, together with their affiliated banks,
controlled 11,300,000,000 marks, that is,
about 83 per cent of total German bank
capital. The Deutsche Bank, which together
with its affiliated banks controls nearly
3,000,000,000 marks, represents, par-
allel to the Prussian State Railway Admin-
istration, the biggest and also the most
decentralised accumulation of capital in the
Old World” (137)....[7]
9 banks
83% of
the total!!

Agreements between banks: the Darmstäd-
ter Bank wanted to conclude an agreement
with the city of Berlin on “revenue-use” of
the Tempelhof area, at a 10 per cent profit.
Later, when the Deutsche Bank made this
deal—the Darmstädter Bank was found to be
in its consortium!! (p. 139).... “Bank consor-
tiums of this kind tend to make price agree-
ments”....

“Nevertheless, the ‘general agreements’ con-
cluded in the summer of 1913 go so far that,
after their implementation, there can hardly
be any further talk of free competition in
banking”... (139)...
towards
a bank
cartel
(1913)

“The Discontogesellschaft, for example, em-
ploys a permanent staff of 25 to check accounts
and the formal aspect of operations” (143).
25 persons
control....

“Army service in Prussia and Germany,
with the mass training it provides in disci-
plined work, performs important preparatory,
work for big firms, especially the banks. If,
it were not indispensable already on polit-,
ical grounds, it would have had to be intro-,
duced as a preparatory school for big capitalist,
firms and for raising the intensity of economic,
activity” (144-45)....
banks
and the
army!!

“Thirty years ago; businessmen, freely com-
peting against one another, performed nine-
tenths of the work connected with their
business other than manual labour. At the
present time, nine-tenths of this ‘brain work’
is performed by employees. Banking is in the
forefront of this evolution (151).[8] In the gigan-
tic firms, the official is everything, even the
director is a ‘servant’ of the institution
N.B.
N.B


N.B.




...“The Frankfurter Zeitung (May 2, 1914)
greeted the fusion of the Discontogesellschaft
with the Schaaffhausenscher Bankverein with
the following words:

“‘The concentration movement of the banks
is narrowing the circle of establishments
from which it is possible to obtain credits,
and is consequently increasing the dependence
of big industry upon a small number of bank-
ing groups. In view of the close connection
between industry and the financial world,
the freedom of movement of industrial com-
panies which need banking capital is res-
tricted. For this reason, big industry is
watching the growing trustification of the
banks with mixed feelings. Indeed, we have
repeatedly seen the beginnings of certain
agreements between the individual big bank-
ing concerns, which aim at restricting com-
petition’” (p. 155).[9]

154-55: The question is: who is more
dependent on whom, the banks on industry
or vice versa?...
N.B.

Wiewiorowski, The Effect of the Concentration of German Banks on Crisis Phenomena (Freiburg Thesis), Berlin, 1911.

N.B. Völker, Forms of Combination and Interest
 Sharing in German Big Industry
, Leipzig,
 1909 ((Schmoller’s Jahrbuch, Vol. 33,
 No. 4)).

Chapter X. “Foreign Investments.”

N.B. “For our banks to be able to channel the
inflow of capital into foreign investments
requires definite prerequisites of a private
economic nature on the part of their clients.
The chief stimulus is the need for a higher rate
of profit than that from investment at home,
where capital wealth is increasing and the
rate of interest falling....
N.B.
N.B.

“...The banks therefore aim primarily at
stock issues, which usually yield higher
profits in foreign countries poor in capital
and rich in raw materials” (158)....
N.B.

N.B. [cf. above, p. 44 quotation: from pp. 159-60[10]] N.B.

“According to statistical data, foreign capi-
tal investments are estimated at 7 0,000 milli-
on marks for Britain, 35,000 million for
France (1910), but hardly 20,000 million for
Germany in 1913” (160).
70
35
20

Quoting facts confirming “export stipulations” and the benefit accruing to industry from foreign investments, Schulze-Gaevernitz says, incidentally, that France also benefits from this:

“The French rentier state is thus experienc-
ing a second industrial flowering”—the float-
ing of the Turkish loan in 1910 was made
conditional on Turkey not giving to any coun-
try more orders than to France... (p. 163).
character-
istic!!!

“Germany today is a typical ‘entrepreneur
operating abroad’, whereas France, and grad-
ually also Britain, are becoming ossified as
rentiers.... Though the world of today has an
Anglo-Saxon countenance, our banks, by
means of railways, mines, plantations, canals,
irrigation works, etc., are working to give
this countenance traits of the German spirit”
(164)....
N.B.

(N.B.: p. 1, note. “Written before the war.”)

In Chapter X.

C. “Political appraisal of foreign invest-
ments.”

“The export of capital is a means for achiev-
ing the foreign policy aims and, at the same
time, its success depends on foreign policy.
N.B.

“a) The creditor’ states: France, Great Brit-
ain, Germany
. Great Britain and France,
the two big creditor powers of the world, are
political bankers. The state and the banking
community act as one and the same person.
Such is the French Government and the
Crédit Lyonnais. Such is the friendship of
Edward VII and Sir E. Cassel. Hoping to
win the main prize in the political lottery,
France staked thousands of millions of francs,
on the Russian card alone. Russia, by obtain-
ing money from France, was even able to act
as a political loan giver in the Far East—
in China and in Persia. France, as a loan
giver, had a hold over Spain and Italy, and
as her clients they helped her in Algeciras.
France was prepared to extend to the Kossuth
ministry loans she refused to Count Kuehn:
‘the earnest-money would have been the
Triple Alliance’. As a political creditor,
Great Britain cemented afresh the British
world empire, without fear of pressure on the
current value of her Consols. The guaranteed
safety afforded colonial state loans in the
metropolis enabled, for example, such a half-
opened-up new country as Natal to enjoy cheap-
er credit than long-consolidated, highly
respectable Prussia with her gigantic property
in railways and state lands. This credit
nexus is a ‘bond of interests’, stronger, per-
haps, than Chamberlain’s preferential tariffs
would ever have been. Going beyond the
imperial connections, the British creditor keeps
Japan in political vassalage, Argentina in
colonial dependence, and Portugal in uncon-
cealed debt bondage. The governors of Portu-
guese Africa, for all their gold braid, are
British puppets” (165)....

...“The total [of German capital in Russia]
is estimated at 3,000,000,000. The preference
shown by our banks for this greatest of all
the debtors in world history is understandable
if one bears in mind the high bank profits
from Russian securities” (166).

“There can be no doubt, that, in their
efforts for political and economic independ-
ence, the semi-civilised countries not yet
allotted as colonies cannot receive from any
European power such unselfish support as
from Germany. China, Persia and Turkey
know that Germany has no territorial claims”
(167).
N.B.



gem!!!
gem!!

...“Conditions within a country that are
inimical to freedom are an obstacle also to
world political thought penetrating deeply
into the soul of a people. How far we are from
the slogan ‘imperium et libertas’, to which
the Anglo-Saxons, from Cromwell to Rhodes,
owe their greatest successes!” (168)




impe-
rialism
and
democ-
racy[16]




gem!
and N.B.

the bribing of wide sections of the petty bourgeoisie
and of the upper strata of the proletariat is more subtle,
more cunning

“The German banks abroad everywhere
encountered the competition of the long-
established British ‘foreign banks’, which
even today far surpass them in volume of
business and size of share capital” (173)....

...“All the more soberly, therefore, must we
regard the fact that we have arrived late on
the scene. The activity of the German foreign
banks can be likened to the highly promising
steps of an eager youth from whom the greater
part of the world has been barred by its for-
tunate possessor. Hardly a single German
banking establishment is from be found in the
British Empire, to say nothing of the French
and Russian empires, and yet it is claimed
that the Britisher rules the world in the inter-
ests of all. The future of German foreign
banking depends largely on solving a political
problem
: keeping of an open door to the still
uncolonised countries, rebirth of the Moslem
world, creation of a German colonial empire
in Africa”... (174).
gem!
N.B.

The second part of the book, the work of Jaffé is a dry-as-dust survey of Anglo-American and French banking. Nil.




Section VI of Principles of Social Economics. “Industry, Mining, Building.” Tübingen, 1914.

Many source references (cf. p. 37[11]).

For statistical data on big industry see ruled notebook.[12]

Copy from the book: pp. 34 and 143,
industry in 1882 and 1907

From the article by M. R. Weyermann: “Modern Industrial Technique.”

N.B. quotes K. Rathenau’s book, The Effect of
Increased Capital and Output on Production
Costs in German Engineering Industry
, 1906.

(pumps)
Pump Models
Approximately 50%
output increase.
A B C
197 880 1,593 marks
162 738 1,345

Typewriters (p. 157)
Number produced 100 Price= 200 marks
500 160
1,000 140
2,000 125

Issues of German industrial shares {according to the Frankfurter Zeitung and the Dictionary of Political Science} ((“New Issues”))

1903—195,300,000   Beginning of boom boom
versus
crisis
1904—267,600,000   ”   ” ”
1905—492,500,000 Boom
1906—624,300,000 Boom peak
1907—240,200,000 Crisis
1908—326,700,000 (Beginning of revival)

According to Behr’s data, consumption of footwear in the United States was (p. 175):

1880— 2.5 pairs per inhabitant N.B.
1905— 3.12 ”  ”  ”

From Th. Vogelstein’s article “Financial Organisation of Capitalist Industry and Formation of Monopolies”.

“Ten years after May 9, 1873, when, in
Schönlank’s exaggerated expression, the bells
tolled the death of the economic boom and
the birth of cartels, Fr. Kleinwächter pub-
lished his book on cartels” (216).
N.B.

From the history of cartels:

“Isolated examples of capitalist monopoly
could be cited from the period preceding 1860;
in these could be discerned the embryo of
the forms that are so common today; but all
this undoubtedly represents the prehistory
of cartels. The real beginning of modern
monopoly goes back, at the earliest, to the
sixties. The first important period of develop-
ment of monopoly commenced with the inter-
national industrial depression of the seventies
and lasted until the beginning of the nineties”
(222).
N.B.

“If we examine the question on a European
scale, we will find that the development of
free competition reached its apex in the sixties
and seventies. It was then that Britain com-
pleted the construction of her old—style
capitalist organisation. In Germany, this
organisation entered into a fierce struggle
with handicraft and domestic industry, and
began to create for itself its own forms of
existence” (ibidem).
N.B.

“The great revolution commenced with the crash of 1873, or rather, the depression which followed it and which—with hardly discernible interruptions in the early eighties, and an unusually violent but short-dived boom about 1889—occupies twenty-two years of European economic history” (222)....

...“During the short boom of 1889-90, the system of cartels was widely resorted to in order to take advantage of favourable business conditions. An ill-considered policy sent prices soaring more rapidly and steeply than would have been the case if there had been no cartels, and nearly all these cartels ended ingloriously in the ‘grave of bankruptcy’. Another five-year period of bad trade and low prices followed, but a new spirit reigned in industry. The depression was no longer regarded as something to be taken for granted; it was regarded merely as a pause before another boom.

second
epoch
of
cartels
“The cartel movement entered its second
epoch: from a transitory phenomenon, the
cartels became one of the foundations of econo-
mic life. They were winning one industry after
another, primarily, the industries processing
raw materials. By the early nineties the cartel
system had already acquired—in the organi-
sation of the coke syndicate, on the model
of which the coal syndicate was later formed—
a cartel technique which has hardly been
improved on. For the first time the great boom
at the close of the nineteenth century and
the crisis of 1900-03 occurred entirely—in the
mining and iron industries at least—within
a cartel economy. And while at that time it
appeared to be something novel, now the
general public takes it for granted that large
spheres of economic life have been, as a general
rule, removed from the realm of free compe-
tition” (224)....[13]
N.B.

Forms of cartels:

a) Cartels fixing sales conditions (terms, time limits,
  payment, etc....)
 b) Cartels fixing the sales areas
 c) Cartels fixing output quotas
 d) Cartels fixing prices
 e) Cartels fixing distribution of profit

Syndicate—single sales office (Verkaufsstelle)

Trustownership of all enterprises

sole and absolute power

Consult Kondt
Lindenberg
Sayous
Steller
Stillich
Warschauer
Weber

Notes

[1] Ibid., p. 303.—Ed.

[2] See present edition, Vol. 22, pp. 303-04.—Ed.

[3] Ibid., p. 211.—Ed.

[4] See present edition, Vol. 22, p. 228.—Ed.

[5] Ibid.—Ed.

[6] See present edition, Vol. 22 p. 218.—Ed.

[7] See present edition, Vol. 22. p. 211.—Ed.

[8] Ibid., p. 219.—Ed.

[9] See present edition. Vol. 22 p. 220.—Ed.

[10] See p. 59 of this volume.—Ed.

[11] See pp. 50-51 of this volume.—Ed.

[12] This refers to Notebook “μ”. see pp. 464—65 of this volume.—Ed.

[13] See present edition, Vol. 22, pp. 200-02.—Ed.

[14] Lenin refuted the apologetic inventions about the “democratisation” of capital as far back as 1902. He conclusively showed that individual workers acquiring small shares do not become owners of joint-stock enterprises, “propertied” people. The ones who profit from the issue of small shares are the big shareholders of the capitalist monopolies and joint-stock companies—they use for their enrichment even the very small crumbs of the people’s savings (see present edition, Vol. 6, p. 96). p. 61

[15] In the Notebooks and Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin exposes the bourgeois-apologetic nature of “organised capitalism”, an unscientific theory that seeks to prove that imperialism is a special, transformed capitalism which has abolished competition, anarchy of production and economic crises, and has achieved planned economic development. This theory, advanced by the ideologists of monopoly capitalism—Sombart, Liefmann, etc.—was seized upon by Kautsky, Hilferding and other reformist theoreticians of the Second International. Lenin demonstrated that monopolies’ rule, far from abolishing, intensifies competition and anarchy of production, and does not rid the capitalist economy of crises (see present edition, Vol. 22, p. 208). p. 62

[16] In his study of imperialism, Lenin showed that political reaction in all aspects of home and foreign policy is the political superstructure of monopoly capitalism. Imperialism, he pointed out, is the negation of democracy in general (see present edition, Vol. 23, p. 43). Monopoly capitalism curtails or nullifies even formal bourgeois democracy, and establishes its unlimited dictatorship.

The characteristic features of imperialist for policy are aggression, violation of the national sovereignty of weak and dependent countries. p. 69

  LIEFMANN, CARTELS AND TRUSTS |  

< Backward     Document Index     Forward >
Works Index   |   Volume 39 | Collected Works   |   L.I.A. Index