CAPITALISM IN HISTORY 31 57. Art. in NYDT, 11 July 1853: Marx and Engels, On Colonialism, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1968, p.49. 58. Art. in NYDT, 30 April 1859: Marx and Engels, Collected Works, vol.16, p.286. 59. Art. of this title in Economic History Review, 2nd ser., VI(1), reprinted in A.G.L. Shaw (ed.) Great Britain and the Colonies, London, 1970, pp.142-63. 60. Shaw (ed.), op.cit., pp.144-5. 61. See for a summing-up of this discussion, Peter Harnetty, Imperialism and free Trade: Lanscashire and India in the Mid-Nineteenth Century, Manchester, 1972, pp.2-6. 62. To be fair to them, Marx's articles in the NYDT do not seen to have been known to either Rosa Luxemburg or Lenin. How innately imbedded imperialism is within capitalism is shown by R.W. Van Alstyne, who (quoted by Baran and Sweezy, Monopoly Capital, p.181 n.) says: "The concept of an American empire and the main outlines of its future growth were complete by 1800'. The rise of monopoly was then many decades away. 63. I resist the temptation here to discuss Luxemburg's important thesis. See, however, Sayera I. Habib, 'Rosa Luxemburg's Contribution to the Marxist Theory of Imperialism', Teaching Politics, Delhi, XIII (3-4), 1989, pp.21-29. 64. See the data in L.E. Davis and R.A. Huttenback, Mammon and the Pursuit of Empire, obidged ed., Cambridge, 1988, pp.83-87. 65. Cf. D.K. Fieldhouse, Economics and Empire, 1830-1914, London, 1984, pp.53-62. A recent long attack on foreign investment as the main lever of Imperialism is in L.E. Davis and R.A. Huttenback, Mammon and the Pursuit of Empire, pp .35-39. 66. In India, in fact, much British-owned capital in the latter half of the nineteenth century and later was indigenously generated (See Amiya Bagchi, Private Investment in India, Cambridge, 1972, pp.159, 165, 168; and Irfan Habib, Essays in Indian History, pp.290-93). As for the Tribute, L.A. Davis and R.A. Huttenback who in their Mammon and the Pursuit of Imperialism, are concerned mainly with the period 1860-1914, and lose no opportunity of sneering at the 'rhetoric' and 'tale'of the critics of Imperialism, have appropriately enough never heard of Dadabhoy Naoroji's data nor even of S.B. Saul's estimate of India's annual unfavourable balance of payments with Britain (£ 25 million in 1880). They can therefore confidently assure the reader that 'in summation. Great Britain provided both visible and invisible subsidies to the Empire' (Mammon, & C., p.l6l). Ignorance is bliss! 67. Capital, I, pp.788-9. 68. Which may be contrasted with Hilferding's argument as to why monopoly leads to (intensified) Imperialism. See the summary of his views in Fieldhouse, Economics and Empire, pp.42-43. I regret I have not had access to Hilferding's original work. 69. See the instructive tables of territories of foreign investments of Britain, France, Germany and US, 1914, in Fieldhouse, Economics and Empire, pp. 55-59. 70. Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, pp.86-7. 71. On Britain in its imperialist decline, see Michael Barratt Brown, After Imperialism, 2nd. ed., London, 1970.