THE LENINIST MYTH OF IMPERIALISM
653
end everybody finds himself where he was before. One may try to
eliminate a rival. But in doing so one also loses a customer and a
supplier, and the effect of the deprivation inflicted on one's neigh–
bor rebounds upon oneself. Modern economy creates solidarity
among the nations. The idea of sharing spoils, of seizing treasures, be–
longs to another age. In the century of industry and trade, war would
deal a fatal blow to everyone, victors and vanquished; in the dam–
age sustained by the capitalist system, no one would be spared.
This demonstration, which is valid on the whole
if
Angell's
implicit assumptions are granted (the existence of a world system,
and of respect for individual property on the part of belligerents),
holds true in regard to the relations between Great Britain and Ger–
many, as became evident after 1918. Leading circles in the two
countries were perfectly aware of the fact, notwithstanding that the
competition between them was very real. Germany and Great Britain
were first-rank customers and suppliers for each other. In 1913, more
than 20 per cent of German imports came from the British Empire,
which absorbed more than 18 per cent of German exports. Germany
bought 1, 168 million marks' worth of British products, and Britain
bought 1,534 million marks' worth of German products. In her
capacity as banker, carrier, underwriter, England drew indirect
profits from German exports.
It is true that from 1904 to 1913 these increased by 93 per cent
- that is, more than the British exports, which increased by only
74.7 per cent. But the per capita figure for volume of national exports
remained far higher in Great Britain- 233 marks as against 150.
Moreover, the exports of the two countries were channeled in different
directions, on the whole: 66 per cent of British exports went to non–
European areas, while 77 per cent of German exports went to Euro–
pean markets. This divergence did not exclude frictions: here and
there German products displaced British products. But a British
government or capitalist class that would have concluded, on the
basis of these marginal frictions, that it was imperative to crush the
competitor by force of arms, would have been acting like the folk–
tale hero who killed the goose that laid the golden egg. Before ac–
cepting an interpretation implying motives that may seem rational
but are actually absurd, one should have proofs. Now, there are
no proofs; rather, there are disproofs.
