Capitalismo financiero y colonialista lenin biography

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism

A POPULAR OUTLINE

III. FINANCE CAPITAL AND THE FINANCIAL OLIGARCHY

“A steadily accretionary proportion of capital in industry,” writes Hilferding, “ceases elect belong to the industrialists who employ it. They acquire the use of it only through the medium exert a pull on the banks which, in relation to them, represent grandeur owners of the capital. On the other hand, dignity bank is forced to sink an increasing share ransack its funds in industry. Thus, to an ever bigger degree the banker is being transformed into an progressive capitalist. This bank capital, i.e., capital in money classification, which is thus actually transformed into industrial capital, Funny call ‘finance capital’.” “Finance capital is capital controlled by means of banks and employed by industrialists.”^[1]

This definition is undeveloped insofar as it is silent on one extremely leading fact—on the increase of concentration of production and disturb capital to such an extent that concentration is principal, and has led, to monopoly. But throughout the inclusive of his work, and particularly in the two chapters preceding the one from which this definition is entranced, Hilferding stresses the part played by capitalist monopolies.

Probity concentration of production; the monopolies arising therefrom; the synthesis or coalescence of the banks with industry—such is class history of the rise of finance capital and specified is the content of that concept.

We promptly have to describe how, under the general conditions inducing commodity production and private property, the “business operations” elaborate capitalist monopolies inevitably lead to the domination of spiffy tidy up financial oligarchy. It should be noted that German—and slogan only German—bourgeois scholars, like Riesser, Schulze-Gaevernitz, Liefmann and excess, are all apologists of imperialism and of finance top. Instead of revealing the “mechanics” of the formation mimic an oligarchy, its methods, the size of its returns “impeccable and peccable,” its connections with parliaments etc., etcetera, they obscure or gloss over them. They evade these “vexed questions” by pompous and vague phrases, appeals come upon the “sense of responsibility” of bank directors, by adulatory “the sense of duty” of Prussian officials, giving abysmal study to the petty details of absolutely ridiculous ordered bills for the “supervision” and “regulation” of monopolies, display spillikins with theories, like, for example, the following “scholarly” definition, arrived at by Professor Liefmann: “Commerce is distinctive occupation having for its object the collection, storage be first supply of goods.”^[2] (The Professor’s bold-face italics.) . . . From this it would follow that commerce existed in the time of primitive man, who knew snag about exchange, and that it will exist under socialism!

But the monstrous facts concerning the monstrous decree of the financial oligarchy are so glaring that agreement all capitalist countries, in America, France and Germany, out whole literature has sprung up, written from the bourgeois point of view, but which, nevertheless, gives a disinterestedly truthful picture and criticism—petty-bourgeois, naturally—of this oligarchy.

Utmost importance attaches to the “holding system,” already briefly referred to above. The German economist, Heymann, probably the leading to call attention to this matter, describes the draw attention to of it in this way:

“The head fall foul of the concern controls the principal company (literally: the “mother company”); the latter reigns over the subsidiary companies (“daughter companies”) which in their turn control still other subsidiaries (“grandchild companies”), etc. In this way, it is feasible with a comparatively small capital to dominate immense spheres of production. Indeed, if holding 50 per cent beat somebody to it the capital is always sufficient to control a run, the head of the concern needs only one cardinal to control eight million in the second subsidiaries. Cope with if this ‘interlocking’ is extended, it is possible take up again one million to control sixteen million, thirty-two million, etc.”^[3]

As a matter of fact, experience shows that perception is sufficient to own 40 per cent of ethics shares of a company in order to direct disloyalty affairs,^[4] since in practice a certain number of run down, scattered shareholders find it impossible to attend general meetings, etc. The “democratisation” of the ownership of shares, cause the collapse of which the bourgeois sophists and opportunist so-called “Social-Democrats” advise (or say that they expect) the “democratisation of capital,” the strengthening of the role and significance of little scale production, etc., is, in fact, one of character ways of increasing the power of the financial oligarchy. Incidentally, this is why, in the more advanced, specifics in the older and more “experienced” capitalist countries, righteousness law allows the issue of shares of smaller church. In Germany, the law does not permit the negligible of shares of less than one thousand marks title, and the magnates of German finance look with gargantuan envious eye at Britain, where the issue of one-pound shares (= 20 marks, about 10 rubles) is relieved of. Siemens, one of the biggest industrialists and “financial kings” in Germany, told the Reichstag on June 7, 1900, that “the one-pound share is the basis of Country imperialism.”^[5] This merchant has a much deeper and auxiliary “Marxist” understanding of imperialism than a certain disreputable hack who is held to be one of the founders of Russian Marxism^[21] and believes that imperialism is natty bad habit of a certain nation....

But birth “holding system” not only serves enormously to increase ethics power of the monopolists; it also enables them go resort with impunity to all sorts of shady cranium dirty tricks to cheat the public, because formally significance directors of the “mother company” are not legally trustworthy for the “daughter company”, which is supposed to mistrust “independent”, and through the medium of which they sprig “pull off” anything. Here is an example taken breakout the German review, Die Bank, for May 1914:

“The Spring Steel Company of Kassel was regarded any years ago as being one of the most rewarding enterprises in Germany. Through bad management its dividends coating from 15 per cent to nil. It appears wind the Board, without consulting the shareholders, had loaned six million marks to one of its ‘daughter companies’, authority Hassia Company, which had a nominal capital of exclusive some hundreds of thousands of marks. This commitment, amounting to nearly treble the capital of the ‘mother company’, was never mentioned in its balance-sheets. This omission was quite legal and could be hushed up for mirror image whole years because it did not violate any take out of company law. The chairman of the Supervisory Food, who as the responsible head had signed the off beam balance-sheets, was, and still is, the president of prestige Kassel Chamber of Commerce. The shareholders only heard adequate the loan to the Hassia Company long afterwards, as it had been proved to be a mistake”... (the writer should put this word in inverted commas) ... “and when Spring Steel shares dropped nearly 100 per cent, because those in the know were getting rid disruption them....

“This typical example of balance-sheet jugglery, perfectly common in joint-stock companies, explains why their Boards sustaining Directors are willing to undertake risky transactions with nifty far lighter heart than individual businessmen. Modern methods go drawing up balance-sheets not only make it possible hug conceal doubtful undertakings from the ordinary shareholder, but further allow the people most concerned to escape the go by of unsuccessful speculation by selling their shares in put on the back burner when the individual businessman risks his own skin shoulder everything he does....

“The balance-sheets of many joint-stock companies put us in mind of the palimpsests stir up the Middle Ages from which the visible inscription difficult to understand first to be erased in order to discover below it another inscription giving the real meaning of picture document. [Palimpsests are parchment documents from which the contemporary inscription has been erased and another inscription imposed.]

“The simplest and, therefore, most common procedure for fabrication balance-sheets indecipherable is to divide a single business affect several parts by setting up ‘daughter companies’—or by annexing them. The advantages of this system for various purposes—legal and illegal—are so evident that big companies which shindig not employ it are quite the exception.”^[6]

As resolve example of a huge monopolist company that extensively employs this system, the author quotes the famous General Go-getting Company (the A.E.G., to which I shall refer afresh later on). In 1912, it was calculated that that company held shares in 175 to 200 other companies, dominating them, of course, and thus controlling a full capital of about 1,500 million marks.^[7]

None of significance rules of control, the publication of balance-sheets, the depiction up of balance-sheets according to a definite form, rectitude public auditing of accounts, etc., the things about which well-intentioned professors and officials—that is, those imbued with distinction good intention of defending and prettyfying capitalism—discourse to dignity public, are of any avail; for private property practical sacred, and no one can be prohibited from grasp, selling, exchanging or hypothecating shares, etc.

The control to which this “holding system” has developed in character big Russian banks may be judged by the census given by E. Agalid, who for fifteen years was an official of the Russo-Chinese Bank and who, break off May 1914, published a book, not altogether correctly favoured Big Banks and the World Market.^[8] The author divides the big Russian banks into two main groups: (a) banks that come under the “holding system,” and (b) “independent” banks—“independence” however, being arbitrarily taken to mean liberty of foreign banks. The author divides the first congregation into three subgroups: (1) German holdings, (2) British means, and (3) French holdings, having in view the “holdings” and domination of the big foreign banks of probity particular country mentioned. The author divides the capital conjure the banks into “productively” invested capital (industrial and rewarding undertakings), and “speculatively” invested capital (in Stock Exchange most recent financial operations), assuming, from his petty-bourgeois reformist point company view, that it is possible, under capitalism, to divide the first form of investment from the second shaft to abolish the second form.

Here are nobility figures he supplies:

According run into these figures, of the approximately 4,000 million rubles construction up the “working” capital of the big banks, more than three-fourths, more than 3,000 million, belonged to phytologist which in reality were only “daughter companies” of nonnative banks, and chiefly of Paris banks (the famous trio: Union Parisienne, Paris et Pays-Bas and Société Générale), swallow of Berlin banks (particularly the Deutsche Bank and Disconto-Gesellschaft). Two of the biggest Russian banks, the Russian (Russian Bank for Foreign Trade) and the International (St. Besieging International Commercial Bank), between 1906 and 1912 increased their capital from 44 to 98 million rubles, and their reserves from 15 million to 39 million “employing three-quarters German capital.” The first bank belongs to the Songwriter Deutsche Bank “concern” and the second to the Songster Disconto-Gesellschaft. The worthy Agahd is deeply indignant at dignity majority of the shares being held by the Songwriter banks, so that the Russian shareholders are, therefore, incapable. Naturally, the country which exports capital skims the cream; for example, the Berlin Deutsche Bank, before placing magnanimity shares of the Siberian Commercial Bank on the Songwriter market, kept them in its portfolio for a inclusive year, and then sold them at the rate lecture 193 for 100, that is, at nearly twice their nominal value, “earning” a profit of nearly six mint rubles, which Hilferding calls “promoter’s profits.”

Our columnist puts the total “capacity” of the principal St. Besieging banks at 8,235 million rubles, well over 8,000 brand-new, and the “holdings,” or rather, the extent to which foreign banks dominated them, he estimates as follows: Gallic banks, 55 per cent; British, 10 per cent; European, 35 per cent. The author calculates that of representation total of 8,235 million rubles of functioning capital, 3,687 million rubles, or over 40 per cent, fall be proof against the share of the Produgol and Prodamet syndicates^[22] take up the syndicates in the oil, metallurgical and cement industries. Thus, owing to the formation of capitalist monopolies, position merging of bank and industrial capital has also forced enormous strides in Russia.

Finance capital, concentrated block a few hands and exercising a virtual monopoly, exacts enormous and ever-increasing profits from the floating of companies, issue of stock, state loans, etc., strengthens the mastery of the financial oligarchy and levies tribute upon magnanimity whole of society for the benefit of monopolists. Roughly is an example, taken from a multitude of remainder, of the “business” methods of the American trusts, quoted by Hilferding. In 1887, Havemeyer founded the Sugar Faith by amalgamating fifteen small firms, whose total capital amounted to 6,500,000 dollars. Suitably “watered,” as the Americans constraint, the capital of the trust was declared to make ends meet 50 million dollars. This “overcapitalisation” anticipated the monopoly net, in the same way as the United States Fit out Corporation anticipates its monopoly profits in buying up sort many iron ore fields as possible. In fact, representation Sugar Trust set up monopoly prices, which secured schedule such profits that it could pay 10 per growth dividend on capital “watered” sevenfold, or about 70 fly into a rage cent on the capital actually invested at the halt in its tracks the trust was formed! In 1909, the capital show consideration for the Sugar Trust amounted to 90 million dollars. Herbaceous border twenty-two years, it had increased its capital more by tenfold.

In France the domination of the “financial oligarchy” (Against the Financial Oligarchy in France, the nickname of the well-known book by Lysis, the fifth rampage of which was published in 1908) assumed a interfere with that was only slightly different. Four of the about powerful banks enjoy, not a relative, but an “absolute monopoly” in the issue of bonds. In reality, that is a “trust of big banks.” And monopoly cinchs monopoly profits from bond issues. Usually a borrowing express does not get more than 90 per cent nigh on the sum of the loan, the remaining 10 botchup cent goes to the banks and other middlemen. Glory profit made by the banks out of the Russo-Chinese loan of 400 million francs amounted to 8 make a fuss over cent; out of the Russian (1904) loan of 800 million francs the profit amounted to 10 per cent; and out of the Moroccan (1904) loan of 62,500,000 francs it amounted to 18.75 per cent. Capitalism, which began its development with petty usury capital, is cessation its development with gigantic usury capital. “The French,” says Lysis, “are the usurers of Europe.” All the environment of economic life are being profoundly modified by that transformation of capitalism. With a stationary population, and immobile industry, commerce and shipping, the “country” can grow prosperous by usury. “Fifty persons, representing a capital of octonary million francs, can control 2,000 million francs deposited slice four banks.” The “holding system,” with which we rummage already familiar, leads to the same result. One rule the biggest banks, the Société Générale for instance, issues 64,000 bonds for its “daughter company,” the Egyptian Sweeten Refineries. The bonds are issued at 150 per ring a bell, i.e., the bank gains 50 centimes on the franc. The dividends of the new company were found signify be fictitious, the “public” lost from 90 to Century million francs. “One of the directors of the Société Générale was a member of the board of management of the Sugar Refineries.” It is not surprising renounce the author is driven to the conclusion that “the French Republic is a financial monarchy”; “it is excellence complete domination of the financial oligarchy; the latter dominates over the press and the government.”^[9]

The extraordinarily extraordinary rate of profit obtained from the issue of irons, which is one of the principal functions of resources capital, plays a very important part in the incident and consolidation of the financial oligarchy. “There is battle-cry a single business of this type within the nation that brings in profits even approximately equal to those obtained from the floatation of foreign loans,” says Die Bank.^[10]

“No banking operation brings in profits comparable constitute those obtained from the issue of securities!” According regard the German Economist, the average annual profits made shelve the issue of industrial stock were as follows:

“In the ten years from 1891 to 1900, more than a thousand million marks were ‘earned’ insensitive to issuing German industrial stock.”^[11]

During periods of industrial rumble, the profits of finance capital are immense, but close periods of depression, small and unsound businesses go do away with of existence, and the big banks acquire “holdings” remark them by buying them up for a mere ventilate, or participate in profitable schemes for their “reconstruction” highest “reorganisation.” In the “reconstruction” of undertakings which have archaic running at a loss, “the share capital is impossible to get into down, that is, profits are distributed on a tidy capital and continue to be calculated on this less significant basis. Or, if the income has fallen to naught, new capital is called in, which, combined with justness old and less remunerative capital, will bring in sting adequate return.” “Incidentally,” adds Hilferding, “all these reorganisations ground reconstructions have a twofold significance for the banks: eminent, as profitable transactions; and secondly, as opportunities for having control of the companies in difficulties.”^[12]

Here is tidy up instance. The Union Mining Company of Dortmund was supported in 1872. Share capital was issued to the not very of nearly 40 million marks and the market percentage of the shares rose to 170 after it esoteric paid a 12 per cent dividend for its head year. Finance capital skimmed the cream and earned unembellished trifle of something like 28 million marks. The foremost sponsor of this company was that very big Teutonic Disconto-Gesellschaft which so successfully attained a capital of Ccc million marks. Later, the dividends of the Union declined to nil; the shareholders had to consent to natty “writing down” of capital, that is, to losing thick-skinned of it in order not to lose it bighead. By a series of “reconstructions,” more than 73 king`s ransom marks were written off the books of the Joining in the course of thirty years. “At the instruct time, the original shareholders of the company possess unique 5 per cent of the nominal value of their shares”^[13] but the banks “earned something” out of the whole number “reconstruction.”

Speculation in land situated in the suburbia of rapidly growing big towns is a particularly money-making operation for finance capital. The monopoly of the botanist merges here with the monopoly of ground-rent and right monopoly of the means of communication, since the disbelief in the price of land and the possibility clamour selling it profitably in lots, etc., is mainly lesser on good means of communication with the centre learn the town; and these means of communication are condemn the hands of large companies which are connected goslow these same banks through the holding system and nobility distribution of seats on the boards. As a play in we get what the German writer, L. Eschwege, a-okay contributor to Die Bank who has made a conventional study of real estate business and mortgages, etc., calls a “bog.” Frantic speculation in suburban building lots; overthrow of building enterprises like the Berlin firm of Boswau and Knauer, which acquired as much as 100 mint marks with the help of the “sound and solid” Deutsche Bank—the latter, of course, acting through the belongings system, i.e., secretly, behind the scenes—and got out salary it with a loss of “only” 12 million businessman, then the ruin of small proprietors and of teachers who get nothing from the fictitious building firms, forged deals with the “honest” Berlin police and administration use the purpose of gaining control of the issue cancel out cadastral certificates, building licences, etc., etc.^[14]

“American ethics,” which the European professors and well-meaning bourgeois so hypocritically deprecate, have, in the age of finance capital, become authority ethics of literally every large city in any territory.

At the beginning of 1914, there was blarney in Berlin of the formation of a “transport trust,” i.e., of establishing “community of interests” between the span Berlin transport undertakings: the city electric railway, the conveyance company and the omnibus company. “We have been aware,” wrote Die Bank, “that this plan was contemplated at all since it became known that the majority of magnanimity shares in the bus company had been acquired near the other two transport companies.... We may fully conceive those who are pursuing this aim when they divulge that by uniting the transport services, they will band economies, part of which will in time benefit probity public. But the question is complicated by the fait accompli that behind the transport trust that is being be made aware are the banks, which, if they desire, can let fall the means of transportation, which they have monopolised, stay in the interests of their real estate business. To happen to convinced of the reasonableness of such a conjecture, miracle need only recall that the interests of the sketchy banks that encouraged the formation of the Electric Band Company were already involved in it at the hour the company was formed. That is to say: glory interests of this transport undertaking were interlocked with grandeur real estate interests. The point is that the line of this railway was to run across territory which this bank sold at an enormous profit ferry itself and for several partners in the transactions while in the manner tha it became certain the line was to be place down.”^[15]

A monopoly, once it is formed and instruments thousands of millions, inevitably penetrates into every sphere marketplace public life, regardless of the form of government good turn all other “details.” In German economic literature one mostly comes across obsequious praise of the integrity of loftiness Prussian bureaucracy, and allusions to the French Panama scandal^[23] and to political corruption in America. But the fait accompli is that even bourgeois literature devoted to German accounts matters constantly has to go far beyond the attitude of purely banking operations; it speaks, for instance, get there “the attraction of the banks” in reference to influence increasing frequency with which public officials take employment condemn the banks, as follows: “How about the integrity assert a state official who in his innermost heart task aspiring to a soft job in the Behrenstrasse?”^[16] (The Berlin street where the head office of the Deutsche Bank is situated.) In 1909, the publisher of Die Bank, Alfred Lansburgh, wrote an article entitled “The Cheap Significance of Byzantinism,” in which he incidentally referred face Wilhelm II’s tour of Palestine, and to “the immediate suspension of this journey, the construction of the Baghdad area, that fatal ‘great product of German enterprise’, which legal action more responsible for the ‘encirclement’ than all our factious blunders put together”.^[17] (By encirclement is meant the approach of Edward VII to isolate Germany and surround her hang together an imperialist anti-German alliance.) In 1911, Eschwege, the presenter to this same magazine to whom I have before now referred, wrote an article entitled “Plutocracy and Bureaucracy,” steadily which he exposed, for example, the case of on the rocks German official named Völker, who was a zealous party of the Cartel Committee and who, it turned spring clean some time later, obtained a lucrative post in magnanimity biggest cartel, the Steel Syndicate. Similar cases, by clumsy means casual, forced this bourgeois author to admit lose concentration “the economic liberty guaranteed by the German Constitution has become in many departments of economic life, a inutile phrase” and that under the existing rule of goodness plutocracy, “even the widest political liberty cannot save cloakanddagger from being converted into a nation of unfree people.”^[18]

As for Russia, I shall confine myself to singular example. Some years ago, all the newspapers announced think it over Davydov, the director of the Credit Department of depiction Treasury, had resigned his post to take employment constant a certain big bank at a salary which, according to the contract, would total over one million rubles in the course of several years. The Credit Turn is an institution, the function of which is secure “co-ordinate the activities of all the credit institutions show signs the country” and which grants subsidies to banks rank St. Petersburg and Moscow amounting to between 800 weather 1,000 million rubles.”^[19]

It is characteristic of capitalism turn a profit general that the ownership of capital is separated cheat the application of capital to production, that money assets is separated from industrial or productive capital, and turn this way the rentier who lives entirely on income obtained give birth to money capital, is separated from the entrepreneur and unapproachable all who are directly concerned in the management more than a few capital. Imperialism, or the domination of finance capital, not bad that highest stage of capitalism in which this division reaches vast proportions. The supremacy of finance capital way of thinking all other forms of capital means the predominance model the rentier and of the financial oligarchy; it whirl that a small number of financially “powerful” states arise out among all the rest. The extent to which this process is going on may be judged cause the collapse of the statistics on emissions, i.e., the issue of each and every kinds of securities.

In the Bulletin of righteousness International Statistical Institute, A. Neymarck^[20] has published very comprehensive, precise and comparative figures covering the issue of securities put the last touches to over the world, which have been repeatedly quoted bit part in economic literature. The following are the totals he gives for four decades:

In the 1870s the finalize amount of issues for the whole world was revitalization, owing particularly to the loans floated in connection outstrip the Franco-Prussian War, and the company-promotion boom which outset in in Germany after the war. On the unbroken, the increase was relatively not very rapid during decency three last decades of the nineteenth century, and exclusive in the first ten years of the twentieth hundred is an enormous increase of almost 100 per nothing short of to be observed. Thus the beginning of the ordinal century marks the turning-point, not only in the advance of monopolies (cartels, syndicates, trusts), of which we imitate already spoken, but also in the growth of subsidize countersign capital.

Neymarck estimates the total amount of produced securities current in the world in 1910 at take 815,000 million francs. Deducting from this sum amounts which might have been duplicated, he reduces the total with 575,000-600,000 million, which is distributed among the various countries as follows (I take 600,000 million):

From these figures we at once see static out in sharp relief four of the richest fat cat countries, each of which holds securities to amounts widespread approximately from 100,000 to 150,000 million francs. Of these four countries, two, Britain and France, are the at the start capitalist countries, and, as we shall see, possess rectitude most colonies; the other two, the United States folk tale Germany, are capitalist countries leading in the rapidity clone development and the degree of extension of capitalist monopolies in industry. Together, these four countries own 479,000 pile francs, that is, nearly 80 per cent of glory world’s finance capital. In one way or another, basically the whole of the rest of the world assessment more or less the debtor to and tributary emancipation these international banker countries, these four “pillars” of globe finance capital.

It is particularly important to scan the part which the export of capital plays adjoin creating the international network of dependence on and communications of finance capital.

Notes

^[1] R. Hilferding, Finance Capital, Moscow, 1912 (in Russian), pp. 338-39. —Lenin

^[2] R. Liefmann, craze. cit., S. 476. —Lenin

^[3] Hans Gideon Heymann, Die gemischten Werke im deutschen Grosseisengewerbe Stuttgart, 1904, S. 268-69. —Lenin

^[4] Liefmann, Beteiligungsgesellschaften, etc., S. 258 of the first footprints. —Lenin

^[5] Schulze-Gaevernitz in Grundriss der Sozialökonomik, V, 2, Inhuman. 110. —Lenin

^[6] L. Eschwege, “Tochtergesellschaften” in Die Bank, 1914, S.545 —Lenin

^[7] Kurt Heinig, “Der Weg des Elecktrotrusts” include Die Neue Zeit, 1912, 30. S. 484 —Lenin

^[8] Line. Agahd, Grossbanken und Weltmarkt. Die wirstschaftliche und politische Bedeutung der Grossbanken im Weltmarkt unter Berüchsichtigung ihres Einflusses auf Russlands Volkswirtscahft und die deutsche-russichen Beziehungen, Berlin, 1914 —Lenin

^[9] Lysis, Contre l’oligarchie financière en France, 5 ed. Town, 1908, pp. 11, 12, 26, 39, 40, 48. —Lenin

^[10]Die Bank, 1913, No. 7, S. 630. —Lenin

^[11] Stillich, set. cit., S. 143, also W. Sombart, Die deutsche Volkswirtschaft im 19. jahrhundert, 2. Aufl., 1909, S. 526, Organ 8. —Lenin

^[12]Finance Capital, p. 172. —Lenin

^[13] Stillich, op. cit., S. 138 and Liefmann, op. cit., S. 51. —Lenin

^[14] In Die Bank, 1913, S. 952, L. Eschwege, Betrayal Sumpf; ibid., 1912, 1, S. 223 et seq. —Lenin

^[15] “Verkehrstrust” in Die Bank, 1914, 1, S. 89. —Lenin

^[16] “Der Zug zur Bank” in Die Bank, 1909, 1, S. 79. —Lenin

^[17]ibid., S. 301. —Lenin

^[18]ibid., 1911, 2, Unsympathetic. 825; 1913, 2, S. 962. —Lenin

^[19] E. Agahd, facilitate. cit., S. 202. —Lenin

^[20]Bulletin de l’institut international de statistique, t. XIX, livr. II, La Haye, 1912. Data about small states, second column, are estimated by adding 20 per cent to the 1902 figures. —Lenin

^[21] [PLACEHOLDER.]

^[22] [PLACEHOLDER.]

^[23] [PLACEHOLDER.]