A. Sartorius Baron von Waltershausen, The National Economic System of Capital Investments Abroad,[1] Berlin, 1907. (442 pp.)
(Divided into four books ... most of which I have only managed to leaf through, selecting what is most important.)
Argentina = “in reality a trade colony of Great Britain” (45-46), “which has capital investments there of over £50,000,000” (46)....
| 50 ✕ 25 = 1,250 million francs = 1¼ milliard francs | ||
French capital
| in | Russia | about | 9-10 | thousand | million | francs | (1906 estimate) |
| p. 48 | |||||||
| ” | Belgium | ” | 0.6 | ” | ” | ” | |
| ” | Britain | ” | 0.9 | ” | ” | ” | |
| ” | Switzerland | ” | 0.4 | (and up to 1.0) | |||
| ” | Germany | ” | 0.2-0.3 | (Leroy-Beaulieu, L’Économiste Fran- çais, 1902, II, p. 449 et seq.). |
|||
| ” | Spain | 3,000 | million francs (p. 53)... | ||||
| ” | Tunisia | 512,000,000 francs ... (p. 50) | |||||
French capital abroad
| 30,000 | million | fr. | (p. 55) | (L.-Beaulieu, ibidem) | |
| 34,000 | ” | ” | (L.-Beaulieu, p. 98) | ||
| (*) | 40,000 | ” | ” | (1905: author’s estimate, | |
| p. 98) | |||||
British capital in America (1857)—£80 million (p. 62—according to Marx’s Capital, III, 2, p. 15, note).[2]
Transcriber note: The following sections were arranged in this fashion in the Collected Works.
| Section 1 | Section 2 |
Section 1
|
German capital abroad [securities only] |
|||||
| up | to | 10, | 000 | million marks | (1892) |
| (p. 101) . . . | |||||
| ” | ” | 16, | 000 | million marks | |
| (author’s estimate, p. 102, for 1906) |
|||||
| + | 10 | not in securities (p. 104) | |||
| (*) | 26, | 000 million marks | |||
|
German capital in German colonies (1904)=370 million marks (p. 133) |
|||||
| B. Harms (p. 234 et seq.) |
(*) Ergo (1905) 000 million Mk |
|||||||
| 70 | — | 65 | Britain | 55 | ||||
| 35 | — | 34 | France | 32 | ||||
| 35 | — | 35 | Germany | 26 | ||||
| 140 | 134 | 113 | ||||||
Section 2
|
“It has been calculated that Britain now receives from the United States about 1,000 million marks in cap- ital gains and interest” (68). |
|||
|
(*) British capital abroad (Speyer’s estimate for 1900)= £2,500 million (p. 94) |
|||
| ✕20=50,000 million Mk | |||
| +50 | million per annum | ||
| ✕ 5 | (1901-05) | ||
| 250✕20=5,000 | |||
| 5+50=55, my calculations | |||
Foreign capital
in Austria-Hungary (1903)=
(p. 107)
| 9,809 | mill. kronen | |||
|
⎧ ⎪ ⎪ ⎨ ⎪ ⎪ ⎩ |
including | Germany | 4,653 |
⎫ ⎪ ⎪ ⎬ ⎪ ⎪ ⎭ |
| France | 3,270 | |||
| Holland | 647 | |||
| Britain | 356 | |||
| Belgium | 243 | |||
| Switzerland | 242 | |||
| Others | 398 | |||
| ( |
Idem B. Harms, Problems of World Economy, Jena, 1912, p. 236. |
) |
Transcriber note: The following sections were arranged in this fashion in the Collected Works.
| Section 1 | Section 2 | |
| Section 3 | Section 4 |
Section 1
| Rumanian Oil (1905) (pp. 145-46) |
||
| Capital (private) |
Million francs |
|
| Germany | 92.1 | |
| Holland | 8.0 | |
| Britain | 5.2 | |
| France | 6.5 | |
| Belgium | 4.0 | |
| Italy | 7.5 | |
| America | 5.0 | |
Section 2
| Colonial Banks (1905) (branches) |
|||
| Branches | capital (millions) |
||
| Great Britain (p. 151) |
2,136 | £ 35.5 | |
| +175 | £ 17.2 | ||
| France | 136 | 328 fr. | |
| Holland | 67 | 98.3 guil- ders |
|
| Germany (p. 152) |
87 | 60 marks | |
Section 3
|
Belgian capital in Russia (1900) = 494 million francs (p. 182) |
Section 4
|
Foreign capital in the U.S.A. (p. 240) American loans (1902): $3,000 million in enterprises, etc. |
||
| Great Britain— | 4,000 | million |
| marks (approx.) (p. 242) | ||
| Germany | 2,000 | million marks |
| France | 450 | million francs |
|
...“There is often an equilibrium between the big money markets today, but under special circumstances the centre of gravity is at one time in London, at another in Paris, and at yet another in New York” (251).... |
American capital in Mexico (1902)—$500 million (p. 243) . . . in Cuba— $159 million (p. 244); since 1900 it has made “enormous progress” in Brazil (243).... total American capital abroad (p. 245). |
||||
| $ million | |||||
| (1897)— | 600 | — | 800 | ||
| (1902)— | 1,300 | — | 1,500 | ||
|
In 1870-71, Leroy-Beau- lieu estimated the (national) wealth of France at 140,000 million francs, annual savings at 2,000 million francs, (p. 348, chapter “Export Capital and War”); capital abroad= 15,000 million (its in- come=600-700 million). |
National Debt |
| Russia (1906) | |
| —9,000 mill. rubles or | |
| 20,000 ” marks | |
| (pp. 292- 93) |
|
| of which | |
| 9,000-10,000 mill. marks | |
| to France | |
| 2,000-3,000 mill. marks | |
| to Germany | |
| the remainder to Britain, | |
| Holland, | |
| Austria(!!) |
The fourth book, “Export Capitalism and Society” (357-442), is devoted mainly to the rentier state (Holland as an example)—now Britain and France are becoming rentier states too—“Germany’s World Economic Tasks” (Chapter III, Book 4):
Here the author clearly reveals himself as a German imperialist patriot. He is for a peaceful division of spheres of influence (and profits) in Africa, etc. (pp. 424-25 and others), but he is quite ready to fight a war (end of p. 440).... Favours armaments....
...“China, Morocco, the Congo State, the Turkish Empire, Russia ... still offer certain prospects for capitalists and entrepreneurs” (423)....
|
...“Africa ... a European domain” (425), if America is conceded to the United States. ...“The greatest future for the export of European capital lies between Cape Blanc and Cape Agulhas” (425).... |
N.B. | ||
| N.B. |
|
The socialists (he quotes Marx and Engels) cherish “utopias”.... In point of fact, the present social system affords the worker excellent prospects. The majority of rich men have come from workers and small people (he refers to The History of Modern Wealth, by K. Schmidt-Weissenfels, Berlin, 1893: “It contains instructive examples: Borsig was a carpenter, Krupp— a metalworker, Leitenberger—a small manufacturer, Lanna—a shipbuilding worker.... Siemens—a small- holder, Dreyse—a mechanic.... Rothschild—a small trader”, etc.).... |
||
| N.B. |
We Germans have not yet learned to value our colonies and appreciate their importance as the British do (434)....
The workers, as a class, gain economically from the possession of colonies and from world policy.... Socialism is stagnation: “Unscrupulous demagogues dare to preach this idiocy to the politically immature mass of workers, presenting it as the gospel of prosperity and tranquillity” (437)...
|
...“Our Social-Democrats will not hear of the steady rise of our national prosperity.... They want to unite the proletarians of all countries for the destruction of capitalist society. We know that this idea has proved ineffectual both as propaganda and in terms of useful social results. Why, then, insist on the destruction of the old dwellings if it is impossible to build a common new house? There is no answer to that, save propaganda phrases as a counterweight to the life-giving concept of the nation” (438).... |
||
| N.B. |
||
He praises the “realism” (438 and 439) of the British workers (their opposition to immigration) and would like the same for the Germans....
N.B. by the same author: “Contribution to the Question of a Central European Economic Federation” in Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaft, Vol. V, Nos. 7-11.
End
[1] See present edition, Vol. 21, p. 243, and Vol. 22, pp. 263, 278.—Ed.
[2] See K. Marx, Capital, Vol. III, Moscow, 1966, Chapter XXX, p. 478
| | |
| | | | | | | ||||||