THE "NEW ORDER"
293
ized monopolistic countries compete with capitalistically weaker
nations, the latter must oppose a practically dictatorial economic
policy with still greater dictatorial measures. State protection in
the traditional sense is not forceful enough; complete state control
is needed. And just as Hitler's rise to power coincided with the
economic crisis that in 1929 spread from the United States to
Europe, so also the German totalitarian state is a product of both
German and world capitalism. Whoever favors American democ–
racy necessarily also favors German fascism. In turn, the German
fascists are just as responsible for the growing authoritarian ten–
dencies in America as are Americans.
6
In brief, the "new order"
cannot be divorced from the "old order."
The replacement of economic competition by open warfare,
the predominance of politics over economics, which seems to dis–
tinguish the present from the past, is not new. Wars accompanied
the whole capitalist development; politics have always interfered
with economic activities. The expansion of capital demands an
increase of exploitation and likewise the development of the con–
ditions of exploitation. The military aspects of imperialism are
as essential as its economic reasons and results. Besides, one
should not be surprised, as Marx once said,
"by the bourgeoisie's thirst for conquest. To seize things is
the vital principle of every bourgeois and to take foreign
provinces is after all 'taking'.m
The proportions in which nationally and internationally the
surplus labor of the world was divided among the diverse ruling
classes was to a large extent, hut never absolutely, determined by
exchange processes. Thus what is new in the "new order' is that
the former relationship between "economic" and "extra-economic"
means for appropriating and distributing the surplus labor of the
world has been reversed. In this sense Gustav Stolper is right when
he says that the Germany of today
__"has staked her very existence on the
Blitzkrieg
technique.
'The
New York Times
of May 11th, 1941, quotes L. Domeratzky, trade specialist
of the Department of Commerce, as saying: "Confronted by a political combination
on the Continent of Europe under the domination of Germany, the
individual Ameri–
can entrepreneur
would hardly be strong enough to find a market for his product or
service except on terms laid down by the National Socialist State; ... the mere fact
that an American product or service might be superior would not be a sufficient basis
for successful export trade....
If
we should be compelled to adopt economic self·
sufficiency as a national policy, it would involve a degree of economic planning that
might seriously affect some of our fundamental political institutions."
'Letters to Dr. Kugelmann;
p.
114.
