Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

NOTEBOOK “β”

(“BETA”)


EXTRACTS FROM DIE BANK [2]

Die Bank, 1912, 2.

Herr von Gwinner’s Oil Monopoly” (1032—) (Dr. Felix Pinner).

cf.
p. 13
here[1]
 
 
sic!
The Reichstag, on March 15, 1911, adopted
almost unanimously a request for an oil monopoly.
The government seized upon this “popular” (1032)
idea. It turned out that the banks... “could not
agree on the booty” (1033). Only the Deutsche
Bank
was in favour!! The others (headed by the
Discontogesellschaft) were against,
partly because they considered the Deutsche
Bank
’s booty excessive.[2]

The struggle between the banks is useful for
business: “Only when the interested parties exposed
one another—and they did so thoroughly, in a
masterly way and with intimate knowledge of
their mutual weaknesses—did clarity become pos-
sible” (1034)....

The consumers are afraid of terrific (“colossal”, 1034) prices. The Standard Oil Co. served the consumer excellently.

The oil trust could be fought only by an electricity monopoly, by converting water-power into cheap electricity. But we shall get an electricity monopoly only when this becomes profitable to the producers.

“But the electricity monopoly will come
when the producers need it, that is to say,
when the next great crash in the electrical
industry is imminent, and when the gigan-
tic, expensive power stations now being
put up at great cost everywhere by private
electrical ‘concerns’, which are already
obtaining certain franchises from towns,
from states, etc., can no longer work at
a profit. Water-power will then have to
be used. But it will be impossible to con-
vert it into cheap electricity at state
expense; it will also have to be handed
over to a ‘private monopoly controlled
by the state’, because private industry has
already concluded a number of contracts
and has stipulated for heavy compensation
for its expensive steam-power plants, which
will impose too great a burden on the
ground-rent of a state-controlled hydro-
power monopoly. So it was with the nitrate
monopoly, so it is with the oil monopoly,
so it will be with the electric power monop-
oly. It is time our state socialists, who
allow themselves to be blinded by
a beautiful principle, understood, at last,
that in Germany the monopolies have
never pursued the aim, nor have they had
the result, of benefiting the consumer, or
even of handing over to the state part
of the promoter’s profits; they have served
only to facilitate, at the expense of the
state, the recovery of private industries
which were on the verge of bankruptcy
[3]
(1036, author’s italics).
N.B.
sic!
!!
“tribute” to
finance
capital
!!
N.B.
N.B.

The Deutsche Bank was defeated by the
Standard Oil Co. and in 1907 concluded
with the latter (under compulsion) a very
disadvantageous agreement by which, in
1912, the Standard Oil Co. was able to
buy up cheaply the oilfields of the Deutsche
Bank.
And so the Deutsche Bank set to work
to build up a monopoly!!
there is
a table of
“interconnections”
in oil
“concerns”

Opposing the Deutsche Bank was the Discontogesellschaft (with its Deutsche Erdöl Aktiengesellschaft), which worked very cautiously for an agreement with the Standard Oil Co.

Die Bank, 1912, 2, p. 695:

“Statistics of English Joint-Stock Banks”
(England and Wales).
{ Colonial
banks
}

Deposits
(£ million)
N.B. 1890— 104 banks (joint-stock) with 2,203 branches 368
1911—  44   ”  ” 5,417 749
In Scotland
1890— 10   ”  ” 975
1911—  9   ”  ” 1,227
In Ireland
1890— 9 banks (joint-stock) with 456 branches
1911— 9   ”  ” 739
Colonial banks
N.B. 1890— 30   ”  ” 1,742
1911— 38   ”  ” 3,645

Die Bank, 1912, 2 (629 et seq.). “Oil Strategy” by Felix
   Pinner
:

on the one hand, the Germans (Discontogesellschaft and Erdöl Aktiengesellschaft) want to unite Rumania (and Russia) against the Standard Oil Co.;

N.B.
division
of the
world
by the
oil trusts
on the other hand, Standard Oil founded
a company (Nederlandsche Koloniale Pe-
troleum Maatschappy) in Holland herself,
buying up oilfields (and concessions) in the
Dutch Indies—a blow against its chief rival:
the Anglo-Dutch trust Shell
(Koninklijke Shell), etc.
Struggle for division of the world. “Divi-
sion of the World”, p. 630.

Anglo-Dutch trust—Asia.

Standard Oil—rest of the world.

Standard Oil wants to seize everything.

The Germans want to defend themselves (+ Rumania + Holland + Russia??).



Die Bank, 1912, 1.

Cinema
trust!!
The Patriotism of the Trusts”, by L. Eschwe-
ge: in Germany a trust has been formed for
buying up film distributors! (The firm of Pathé
(Paris) produces 80,000 metres of film daily at
one mark per metre. The cinemas of the world
put together yield an income of about one
thousand million
marks per year!!) (pp. 216-
17). This industry lags behind in Germany; it
is especially developed in France. In Germany
about forty distributing agencies buy up films
and “lease” them to cinema owners. (A trust
has been formed, Deutsche Filmindustrie A.-G. =
Fiag, headed by the National-Liberal Depu-
ty Paasche. Its capital = five million marks,
of which “no small part”, obviously, was intend-
ed to be used as “founders’ profit”).... A monop-
oly is being launched. Will it succeed??

Die Bank, 1912, 1 (p. 223 et seq.),
a short article by A. Lansburgh:
The Financial Transac-
tions of the Princes’ Trust

(the name given by the Stock Exchange
to the “business affairs” of Prince Für-
stenberg and Prince Hohenlohe, wealthy
financiers). They invested millions (of
their own and of the Deutsche
Bank
) in the building firm of Boswau
& Knauer, It raked in as much as
100,000,000 marks (!! p. 229), embarked
on a host of very risky enterprises
and went bankrupt. The Deutsche
Bank
lost about twelve million marks,
Fürstenberg about eight million (p. 226),
the whole extent of the crash being
covered and concealed (p. 226). Extreme-
ly indignant, the author writes: “Our
whole economic development is infected
by some of the Knauer poison” (230)....
“The principle by which they (Boswau
& Knauer) have worked, is hardly
different from that, for example, to
which the two biggest German electrical
concerns owe their successes” (228)....[4]
true face of
the
Deutsche
Bank
!!!
 
 
 
 
and
sic!!
“electrical
concerns”

If Boswau & Knauer had managed to wriggle out by making others bear the risk, everyone would have praised them, and hundreds and hundreds would have been ruined!


Die Bank, 1912, 1.

L. Eschwege, Etatisation of Capitalism (p. 12—). The Reichstag elections. The battle of conservatives and democrats. “The question of whether the people or the bureaucracy should rule is still being debated, but the decision has already been made in favour of a third force, namely, the plutocracy” (12) ... “political freedom becomes an empty phrase in a country where the economic sources of wealth have become the monopoly of a few supermen” (12). Capitalism is being etatised: members of Zemstvos!! (municipality, district, etc.) are being appointed to Supervisory Boards. For example, in the Tempelhofer Feld Aktiengesellschaft. What a shady business!! “Petty hypocrisy” (15)—these delegates also receive bonuses, etc., etc. “A situation which is intrinsically dishonourable” results (16).... Government officials make “common cause with the plutocracy” (19)....


“Foreign Capital Investments in Canada”, p. 82 et seq.

British . . . . . . . . . . >2,000 million dollars
American . . . . . . . . . . 420











French . . . . . . . . . . 80 80
German . . . . . . . . . . 32 32
Belgian . . . . . . . . . . {11.5
Dutch . . . . . . . . . . 11
123

L. Eschwege, The History of a Company Promotion. (p. 420 et seq.)—an aerodrome company.

Flugplatz Johannisthal near Berlin. The director Arthur Müller enlisted princes and princelings, took millions from them (share capital = 4 12 million marks), “gratis shares” for himself, resold them (the expert opinion of a venal valuer was that this land would yield colossal profit... in 10-20 years!!)—in general a gross deception, and everything strictly legal!!


American
banking
magnates
A. Lansburgh, “The Money Trust”
(p. 432 et seq.).
The National City Bank (Rocke-
feller and the Standard Oil Co.)
controls a capital of about $1,000
million
. The Bankers Trust Co.
(Morgan) controls a capital of about
$1,500-1,750 million.
2 banks—
2,750
million
dollars
(=11,000
million
marks)[5]

The author points out that nowhere are banks so strictly regulated as in America (“deposit” banks are strictly separated from “investment” banks; branch banks are forbidden, also the loan to any one person of more than 10 per cent of the capital, and so on). America has 26,000 “Lilliputian” banks (438)—and all to no purpose!! In reality the multi-millionaires rule and control. A change in the laws will merely lead to a change in the form of their rule.


Die Bank, 1912, 1, p. 523 et seq.

L. Eschwege, “Cultural Fertiliser” = German immigrants in Brazil. Unscrupulous advertising of the Brazilian Government (like that of the Canadian). Agents are paid ten marks for each immigrant. Lies about the prosperity of the immigrants, their poverty, etc., etc. They are sold land at speculative prices, etc., etc.


Die Bank, 1911, 1, p. 1 et seq.

A.  Lansburgh, “Germany—A
 Rentier State
”.
 Deposits in German savings banks =
about 16,500 million marks. This
is a transfer of capital from a latent to a
patent state, an aid to big capital, a con-
version into loan capital (mostly
in mortgages). By refraining from disposing
of their money themselves, the depositors
“strengthen the power of big capital and
weaken the strength of resistance of small-
scale industry” (8).
 N.B.
   title! 

“People in Germany ate ready to sneer at
the inclination to become rentiers that is ob-
served in France. But they forget that as far
as the bourgeoisie is concerned the situation
in Germany is becoming more and more like
if that in France”[6] (10-11).

About 45 of the amounts (45 per cent, apparently) in savings banks consist of deposits of 3,000 marks or over!!


Ibidem, p. 218: German Banks

Banks Own capital Borrowed capital
1883 160 890  + 850 (mill. marks)
1907 440 4,450  + 7,750 ”  ”
+175% +400% + 812% ”  ”

Austrian Banks

   (million kronen)
Banks Own capital Borrowed capital
1883 38 500  620 
1907 53 1,130  3,130 
+40% +126% +405%

Die Bank, 1911, 2, p. 605 et seq. “Twenty Years of English Banking”, by Alfred Lansburgh.

Develop-
ment of
English
banks
Banks Deposits
and
current
accounts
Scotland Ireland Capital
(England+
Scotland+
Ireland)
Reserves
1891[7] 110 408.5 +91.6 +38.5£
mill.
69.8 36.4
1911  46 776.6  106.6 62.5 78.7 49.0
Branches of 46 English banks— 5,218 (1910)
Isle of Man  2    9
Scottish  9 1,242
Irish  9   693

p. 813 et seq. Germany

No. of banks Own capital
(thousand mill.
marks)
Borrowed money Total capital
at the disposal
of the banks
1872 174 1  1 3,000 mill. marks Develop-
ment of
banking
in Ger-
many
1910 422 5 11 30,000 ”  ”

1872... 23 banks out of 174 had a capital of 10 million
   and >. They controlled 60 per cent of borrowed
   money.

1910—11... 53 banks out of 422 had a capital of 10 million
   and >. They controlled 82.5 per cent of borrowed
   money (p. 818).

Germany, output of iron 1870: 1,346,000; 1910: 14,793,000 tons.[18]


L. Eschwege, “Plutocracy and Officialdom” (p. 825 et seq.). Typical of a petty-bourgeois reformist. Two examples:

“Some years ago, owing to the rigid
attitude of the Rhine-Westphalian Coal
Syndicate, a strong anti-cartel movement
swept through Germany. The Reich govern-
ment appointed an Enquiry Committee to
study the problem of cartels. In the course
of its proceedings, Government Coun-
sellor Völker distinguished himself by his
brilliant mastery of the subject and his
sharp business-like speeches against the
cartel representatives. Shortly thereafter,
Counsellor Völker accepted a highly paid
post as leader of the German Steel Asso-
ciation, Germany’s most powerful and
closely-knit cartel organisation. With the
government thus deprived of its best
expert, the enquiry petered out” (827-28).
There is no need, he remarks, to point to
America!
good
example!
(finance
capital
and the
government)[19]

There is an Imperial Private Insurance
Supervisory Office, which has done much
to control private insurance companies.
And then the insurance companies come
along and entice the “controllers” with
offers of lucrative posts (including director-
ships). “In recent years, no less than three
control officials have made the leap from
the Imperial Supervisory Office to a direc-
torship in an insurance company” (831).
!!

Die Bank, 1911, 1, pp. 94-95. Recent statistics on the iron industry.

(Thousand tons)
 
 
produc-
tion of
pig-iron
1810 15 158 54
1820 20 198 1,650
1850 2,228 564 405 204 4,187
1870 1,346 6,059 1,665 1,178 360 12,021
1890 4,625 8,033 9,203 1,962 727 27,427
1910 14,793 9,664 27,250 3,500 2,870 60,000

Die Bank, 1910, 1 (p. 401 et seq.), Alfred Lansburgh, “The Bank in the Service of the National Economy”—in connection with Riesser’s book, whom the author accuses of optimism and of ignoring the defects of the German banks.


“holdings”
of
the modern
bank!!
Idem: Alfred Lansburgh, “The Hold-
ings System
in German Banking”
(497 et seq.) and “Dangers of the Holdings
System”. Both articles yield very little;
generalities, already known. The table of
“holdings” (p. 500) alone is good.

The Deutsche Bank[8] has holdings
(1) Permanently in 17 banks. Of these 9 have holdings in 34 banks; Of which 4 also in 7
(2) For an indefi-
nite period
5 ———————— ————————— ————
(3) Occassionaly 8 5 14 2 2
((My totals)) 30 14 48 6 9

N.B.   both banks and bankers included
 
 
     System of “holdings” N.B.
of these, i.e., out of 8—two Russian:
the Siberian Commercial Bank and the
Russian Bank for Foreign Trade, and
one Austrian; the Wiener Bankverein
         approximately thus

!!




in all the “concern” has
about 500 million marks
of its own money and
1,333 million marks
of borrowed money





_DESCRIPTION_  


the author has
squares with
the name of
the bank
 


apparently, these data on the Deutsche Bank can be taken to illustrate the holdings system

 approximately thus:
the size of the bank in the
centre (the Deutsche Bank)
is not in proportion, for
among the subsidiaries are
banks with a capital of 70-80
million marks!
_DESCRIPTION_

Die Bank, 1910, 1, p. 288. A note: “German Concessions Abroad.”

The Chamber of Commerce in Barmen writes in a Memorandum to the Minister of Trade:

“A considerable amount of German capi
tal is invested in the Transvaal gold
mines, despite which, unfortunately, sup-
plies from German engineering factories
for the Transvaal mines are only very
small, because the technical management
of the mines is predominantly in English
hands. From this point of view, it would
be extremely regrettable if the Mannes-
mann
concessions (in Morocco) were to be
absorbed in the French mining syndicate.
If that were to happen the technical man-
agement of the Moroccan mines would quite
certainly fall wholly into French hands,
and there would be no prospect of supplying
German machinery and equipment. It would
be an irreparable mistake if German capi-
tal, while sharing in Moroccan mining
enterprises, were to leave the technical
management in French hands, just as it
has been left in English hands in the
Transvaal. The German engineering indus-
try would not benefit from such an exploi-
tation of the Mannesmann mines, and
German capital participation would only
benefit the French engineering industry.
On the other hand, German industry would
benefit immensely if even only a compar-
atively small part of the Moroccan mines
were under German technical management”.
(Quoted from pp. 288-89.)
good example
of the role,
significance
and policy of
finance
capital

“The Campaign Against the French Big Banks”, p. 236 et seq.

Articles by Lysis (at first in La Grande Revue,
1906).

The book by his supporter, Jules Domergue, The
Question of Credit Societies
.
A reply to Lysis—Testis, The Role of Credit
Institutions in France
, 1907, a book (articles in
Revue politique et parlementaire).

A superficial appraisal: Lysis exaggerates but, basically, is correct. The rentier state= France. Capital flows from a country with a low rate of interest into countries with a high rate of interest. Lysis, his critic alleges, is not an expert, etc.

According to Lysis, the banks charge up to 7 per
cent as commission on the sale of foreign securities!!!
7%!!!

(1910, 2) p. 1200: from data of the American National Monetary Commission.

Statistics of Deposits and Savings
N.B. Great Britain (£ million) France (million francs)
Bank
deposits
Savings-
bank
deposits
Bank
deposits
Savings-
bank
deposits
1880  425 8.4 78 1.6 ? ? 1,280 0.9
1888  624 12.4 105 2.0 1,923 1.5 2,762 2.1
1908 1,160 23.2 212 4.2 4,703 3.7 5,226 4.2
(My) total
Germany Thousand million
marks
Bank
deposits
Deposits
in credit
societies
Savings-
bank
deposits
Britain France Germany
1880   529   364 2,614 10.0 ?  3.5
1888 1,142   425 4,550 14.4 3.7 6.0
1908 7,067 2,207 13,889 27.4 7.9 23.1

And the editors remark that this “apparent” national wealth should not be identified with the national wealth in general.


From a note on the financier Eduard Engel, who died in November 1910:

career
of bank
directors
“Many Berlin directors only obtained their
posts because their creditors saw no other
way of saving their money except by launch-
ing the debtor on a career. While secretly
cursing him for his frivolity, in public they
praised his diligence—in their own well-
understood business interests” (1202-03).

Die Bank, 1909, 1, p. 79. A note: “The Pull of the Bank”—government officials become directors of banks (Waldemar Muller, von Klitzing, Helfferich, Schönfeld) and in industry (Völker, Budde)....

“How about the integrity of a state official, whose secret longing is for a cosy niche in the Behrenstrasse [the Deutsche Bank]?”[9] (79).


p. 301 et seq. Alfred Lansburgh, “The Economic Importance of Byzantinism”—an ardent little article (petty bourgeois sentimentality) against the plutocracy’s connection with the Kaiser, etc.

well
put!
“We recall the journey to Palestine and the
immediate result of this journey, the construc-
tion of the Baghdad railway, that fatal ‘great
product of German enterprise’, which is
more responsible for the ‘encirclement’ than
all our political blunders put together”[10] (307).

Ludwig Eschwege, “Revolutionising Tendencies in the German Iron Industry”.

technical
revolution
in the
iron
industry
The main centre in Germany for ore extrac-
tion and iron has shifted from the Rhine-
Westphalian area to Lorraine-Luxemburg (in
the South-West). The rich phosphate ore
(the Minette ore of Luxemburg and Lorraine)
was previously of no value. It has become
excellent owing to (1) the Thomas method;
(2) electro-steel (electro-rods: 15 years’ guar-
antee against 9 years previously). Ores in
Luxemburg-Lorraine amount to 2,000 mil-
lion
tons (enough for 200 years at the pres-
ent rate of German consumption) (pp. 316-17)

A. Lansburgh, “How Great Is the German National Wealth?”, p. 319 et seq.

A criticism of the well-known book by
Steinmann-Bücher and his estimate: 350 thou-
sand million marks (190-200—Lexis and
Schmoller; Great Britain—250-300, France—
200-225). The chief component figure given
by Steinmann-Bücher (a) = 180 thousand
million of “private property in real and
personal estate”—two or three times
(p. 324) the real amount, for he (Ballod
p. 322), too, overlooked this!!) took insurance
policies
(162.6 thousand million, rounded off
to 180!!), whereas insurance is always at the
value replacement would cost, and not the
real value. “They made the same mistake as the
second-hand dealer who in taking stock listed
old furniture and clothing at the price of
new” (325). And a number of other mistakes
of Steinmann-Bücher!!!
German
national
wealth
(350??
thousand
million)

Ludwig Eschwege, “Cement”, 115 et seq. (1909, 1).

A strongly cartelised industry. Monopoly
prices (cost of production 180
marks per carload, sale price 280 marks!!,
230 marks!!). Sale price with delivery 400
marks per carload!! Profits yield 12-16 per
cent dividend. Every effort is made to elimi-
nate competition: false reports of the bad
situation in the industry, anonymous notices
in the press (capitalists, beware of invest-
ing your money in cement facto-
ries!!); buying up of “outsiders” (examples:
60,000-80,000-150,000 marks in “compensation”:
p.125). Cartels by regions: South German, Upper
Silesian, Central German, Hanoverian, Rhine-
Westphalian, North German and Lower Elbe
syndicates.[11]
how do the
syndicates
operate?

Die Bank, 1909, 2. Articles by Eugen Kaufmann on French banks. Three big banks—Crédit Lyonnais, Comptoir National, Société Génerale.

N.B.

incomes of
directors
and board
members
For all three: 1908—749.1 million francs
(capital + reserves) and 4,058 million de-
posits (in general, borrowed money).
Number of members of the board of manage-
ment (administrative councils) 13-15-17. Their
income 500,000-750,000 (!!) francs
(Crédit Lyonnais) (p. 851).

Crédit Lyonnais has a “Financial
Research Service
” with >50 per-
sons (engineers, economists, lawyers, statis-
ticians, etc.)—costing 0.6-0.7 million francs
annually (it studies industrial enterprises,
railways, etc., of various countries, collects
information, and so on). The service is divided
into eight departments: 1) industry; 2) railway
and steamship companies; 3) general statis-
tics; 4) information on securities; 5) financial
reports, etc. Cuttings from financial news-
papers and journals of the whole world, and
so on and so forth.[12]
“research
service”

The number of branches (in France) (1908) (p. 857):

Paris and
region
  Provinces   Total Abroad
French
big banks
Crédit Lyonnais . . . . 53 192 245 22 (mostly
in the
colonies)
(p. 954)
Comptoir National . . . 51 140 191 23
Société Générale . . . . 89 636 725  2
193  968 1,161 47 Σ mine  

The Société Générale figure includes 222mobile branches in the provinces (open once or twice a week on market days).

Employees boys (grooms) ages 13-16—30-40 francs per month; lower-grade office workers, above 16-60 francs per month. Then up to 2,000-2,400 francs annually. Departmental heads in the Crédit Lyonnais—up to 40,000 francs annually.

Number of employees
Crédit Lyonnais up to 5,000 
Comptoir National 4,000 
 (including Paris 2,500)
Socidté Générale 7,000 
 (including Paris 1,000)
 of whom 300-400 women.

p. 1101 (1909, 2). A note on the Bagh-
dad railway
“friction” with Great
Britain, etc.: 500 million of German money
in an unknown country, and friction with
Great Britain and France; is not worth the
bones of a single grenadier, is a “fatal
adventure”, etc. etc.
Baghdad
railway
attitude to
colonial
policy

p. 799. A note: “Banking in Occupational Statistics”.

(No. of women in brackets)
1882 1895 1907 banks,
their
economic
structure
(Headings)
(1 and 2) bankers,
bank directors,
etc . . . . . . .
6,896 (148) 7,719 (195) 11,070 (185)
(3) bank (and sav-
ings bank)
employees . . . .
12,779 (95) 23,644 (444) 50,332 (2,728)
(4 and 5) appren-
tices, watchmen,
members of
families, work-
ing part time,
etc. . . . .
6,207 (56) 5,268 (170) 9,275 (382)
Σ= 25,882 (299) 36,631 (809) 70,677 (3,295)
No. of (3) per 100
(of 1 and 2)
[employees per
100 bosses] . .
182.6 304.8 471.4

Alfred Lansburgh, “German Capital Abroad”, p. 819 et seq. Die Bank, 1909, 2.

N.B.
Kautsky
N.B.
The author tries to prove Kautsky’s
favourite argument that trade develops
better with independent countries.[13]
1889 1908 Per
cent
in-
crease
“Debtor
coun-
tries”
(of Ger-
many)
Rumania . . 48.2 70.8 + 47
Portugal . . 19.0 32.8 + 73
Argentina 60.7 147.0 + 143
Brazil . . . 48.7 84.5 + 73
Chile . . . . 28.3 52.4 + 85
Turkey . . . 29.9 64.0 + 114

author
does
not give
these
totals










——————— Σ = 234.8 451.5 + 92 %









financial-
ly inde-
pendent
countries
Great Britain 651.8 997.4 53
France 210.2 437.9 108
Belgium 137.2 322.8 135
Switzerland 177.4 401.1 127
Australia 21.2 64.5 205
Dutch Indies 8.8 40.7 363
——————— Σ = 1,206.6 2,264.4 + 87 %

The author draws the conclusion:

cf. Kautsky
(and
Spectator)
“This much is certain; it is a gross error
to regard foreign capital investment, in
whatever form, as a specially effective
force in favour of German products, to
regard it as the pioneer of German trade”
(828).

(The author did not sum up the results,
which refute him!!)
He is refuted even more emphatically
by the concrete data he himself cites on
the relationship between loans and exports
(Pp. 826 and 827)[14]:
“In 1890-91, a Rumanian loan was
floated through the German banks, which
had already in previous years made ad-
vances on this loan. It was used chiefly to
purchase railway materials in Germany.
In 1901,[15] German exports to Rumania
amounted to 55 million marks. The follow-
ing year they dropped to 39.4 million
marks and, with fluctuations, to 25.4 mil-
lion in 1900. Only in very recent years
have they regained the level of 1891,
thanks to two new loans.
“German exports to Portugal rose, follow-
ing the loans of 1888-89, to 21,100,000
(1890); then, in the two following years,
they dropped to 16,200,000 and 7,400,000
and regained their former level only in
1903.
“The figures of German trade with Argen-
tina
are still more striking. Loans were
floated in 1888 and 1890; German exports
to Argentina reached 60,700,000 marks
(1889). Two years later they amounted
to only 18,600,000 marks, less than one-
third of the previous figure. It was not
until 1901 that they regained and surpassed
the level of 1889, and then only as a result
of new loans floated by the state and by
municipalities, with advances to build
power stations, and with other credit
operations.
“Exports to Chile, as a consequence of the
loan of 1889, rose to 45,200,000 marks
(in 1892), and a year later dropped to
22,500,000 marks. A new Chilean loan
floated by the German banks in 1906
was followed by a rise of exports to
84,700,000 marks in 1907, only to fall
again to 52,400,000 marks in 1908.”
this especially
N.B.!!
My
addition:
Years of
loans:
1890-91
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
?
?
 
1888-89
 
 
 
 
 
1888
1890
 
 
 
 
 
?
 
 
 
1889
 
 
 
 
1906

Strange that the author should not see how these facts
refute him: the rise in exports occurs precisely after
the loans and in consequence (infolge) of
them.

Lansburgh’s petty-bourgeois standpoint:
“And German industry would profit [if
the exported capital remained at home]
not only in amount but in distribution.
Capital would be distributed freely over
many branches of industry, would flow
along numerous channels, whereas from
abroad, as experience has shown, it flows
into the order books of a few privileged
firms which, in addition, have to pay dearly
for their privileges. Krupp could tel
us a thing or two about how many millions
in expenses, known as baksheesh or by
some other name, have to be paid to support
German credit activity abroad. Yet the
distribution of capital, which has
to cover as many branches of industry as
possible, is of prime importance for the
whole industrial development of Germany”
(824-25).... “Production that in this way
constantly regenerates itself by its own
forces [by the investment of capital within
the country] guarantees continued har-
monious
development”[16] (p. 825).
!!
gem!!
he has
“persuaded”
Krupp!!!
“natural”!!
ha-ha
“harmony”

The export of capital does not produce stable trade
connections: the author tries to prove this by the exam-
ples (pp. 826-27), cited by me above: pp. 101-02 of this
notebook[17]

A. Lansburgh, “Trends in the
Modern Enterprise
” (“Two books”),
p. 1043 et seq. A short review of Levy’s
Monopolies and Trusts and Liefmann’s
Financial and Industrial Companies. Lans-
burgh
says, rightly, that both are one-
sided: Levy’s accent is on the technical
strength of concentration, Liefmann’s on
the strength of financial (oligarchic) oppres-
sion.
Levy
versus
Liefmann

“The growing role of stocks and securities
(“Effektifizierung”) in industry vastly in-
creases the scale of production, reduces the
number of independent producers and
makes it easier for the few—if they
are not prepared to be bought up by some
giant trust—to unite in order to suppress
all newly-arising competition. Though that
point is made neither by Liefmann nor
Levy, it clearly emerges from both books.
This might, perhaps, prompt someone to
write a book that is urgently needed:
a book that describes how a security-
manipulating oligarchy has wrested con-
trol of the republic’s economic life” (1051-
52).

Sometimes the development is through concentration to cartels (Levy has shown this particularly clearly). But not always. “Substitution of securities” can lead at one stroke to a trust, e.g., “in colonial railway construction”.... Technical concentration is progressive as regards technique; financial concentration can strengthen, and does strengthen, the omnipotence of monopoly capital alongside backward technique.


Notes

[1] See pp. 89-90 of this volume.—Ed.

[2] See present edition, Vol. 22, pp. 249-50.—Ed.

[3] Ibid., pp. 250-51.—Ed.

[4] See present edition, Vol. 22, p. 286.—Ed.

[5] See present edition, Vol. 22, p. 219.—Ed.

[6] See present edition, Vol. 22, p. 278.—Ed.

[7] In the first column the figures are for the years mentioned, in the following columns for 1890 and 1910.—Ed.

[8] See present edition, Vol. 22, p. 212.—Ed.

[9] See present edition, Vol. 22, p. 237.—Ed.

[10] Ibid.—Ed.

[11] See present edition, Vol. 22, pp. 207-08.—Ed.

[12] Ibid., pp. 222-23.—Ed.

[13] See present edition, Vol. 22. p. 291.—Ed.

[14] Ibid., pp. 291-92.—Ed.

[15] Lansburgh’s mistake; should be 1891.—Ed.

[16] See present edition, Vol. 22, p. 292.—Ed.

[17] See pp. 192-94 of this volume.—Ed.

[18] The figures on German iron output, written by Lenin in the margin, are from a table in the January 1911 issue of Die Bank (p. 95), in an item headed: “Iron and Steel Industry after 100 Years”. Lenin quotes part of the table on p. 184 of this volume, under the heading “Recent Statistics on the Iron Industry”. p. 183

[19] The data on the relations between finance capital and the governments, and Lenin’s comments on them, were further developed in Imperialism, and other writings. Lenin showed that the development of monopoly and finance capital inevitably leads to a small group of industrial and financial magnates—a financial oligarchy—playing a decisive part in the economy and politics of the capitalist countries, the bourgeois state, too, being wholly subordinated to it. The monopolies subordinate and use the state machine by putting representatives of the government on their boards of directors and by having their own representatives enter capitalist governments. This has become a regular practice. In the U.S.A., for example, all the top government posts are held by men representing the main financial groups of Morgan, Rockefeller, etc. p. 183

  STILLICH AND WORLD ECONOMY | REMARKS ((ON FINANCE CAPITAL IN GENERAL))  

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