72
WILLIAM APPLEMAN WILLIAMS
ism. Alvineri describes Marx (pp. 2-3) as "singing, tongue in cheek,
the praises of the bourgeoisie" for - in Marx's words - making "bar–
barian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilized ones,
nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois." (Also see Alvineri, pp.
16-17, 22.) As for Schlesinger's proposition that Lenin "promulgated
the 'Marxist' theory of imperialism" - that must be a put-on. Surely
he knows that Otto Bauer, Rudolf Hilferding and Rosa Luxemburg were
the major Marxian theorists of imperialism. (I am not as "innocent of
any interest" in such matters as he asserts.)
Schlesinger lays his greatest stress on this proposition: my analysis
is wrecked by a "total disregard of the strategic and political motives
in American imperial policy" (p. 511). He opens his argument with the
orthodox statistical gambit, noting correctly that the largest American
markets were in Europe. Like a good many other commentators,
Schlesinger seems to think that this fact disproves the importance of
economic motives and even the significance of economically-oriented
thought. It does nothing of the kind.
In the first place, the effort to enlarge other markets motivated
a large number of men who influenced the making of foreign policy.
Their calculations and expectations may have been fanciful, at least in
their time, and may indeed never have been realized, but that is beside
the point in understanding their behavior. Second, aggregate statistical
data is a gross and unreliable guide to the actions of individuals and
firms. One or two big operators splashing around in small markets have
generated major policy troubles. For that matter, some shopkeeper types
have caused serious difficulties. Finally, one of the main themes of
The
Roots
involves the very situation that Schlesinger describes: the long- as
well as the short-term impact on American policy of farm businessmen's
involvement in the European market.
Schlesinger discusses political motives in terms of "the passion for
political domination" (p. 511); and, relying heavily on Joseph Schum–
peter's essay on imperialism, presents those men he calls "our true ex–
pansionists - Seward, Mahan, Lodge, Roosevelt, for example," as
being concerned with "the international power competition,"
«raisons
d'etat"
and "the power and glory of the nation" (pp. 512, 513, 515).
Such men are placed in Schumpeter's "warrior class," an analysis which
does offer some limited insight into a few members of what I have
called the metropolitan minority, and which in other books and articles
dealing with their activities I have given the weight I consider ap–
propriate.
But Schlesinger slides over the way all such men - warriors or no
- conceptualized American foreign policy by accepting capitalism, ac-
