the premium on revolutions. There was always the incentive to the
upstart political and military buccaneer to overthrow the dictator and
gain possession of the spoils, to sell new doubtful concessions and levy
new tribute on the capitalists holding claims from a former tyrant.

The foreign capitalists appealed to their governments; commercial
imperialism responded by dispatching military forces to protect the lives
and "property" of its citizens, in some instances going so far as to take
possession of the country. A classic case, as cited by Hobson, is
Britain's South African War, in which the blood and treasure of the
people of the United Kingdom were expended because British capitalists
had found the Boers recalcitrant, bent on retaining their own country for
themselves. To be sure, South Africa, like Mexico is rich in resources
for which advancing civilization continually makes demands. And, in the
case of Mexico, the products of the tropics, such as rubber, are
increasingly necessary to the industrial powers of the temperate zone.
On the other hand, if the exploiting nation aspire to self-government,
the imperialistic method of obtaining these products by the selfish
exploitation of the natural and human resources of the backward countries
reacts so powerfully on the growth of democracy at home--and hence on the
growth of democracy throughout the world--as to threaten the very future
of civilization. The British Liberals, when they came into power,
perceived this, and at once did their best to make amends to South Africa
by granting her autonomy and virtual independence, linking her to Britain
by the silken thread of Anglo-Saxon democratic culture. How strong this
thread has proved is shown by the action of those of Dutch blood in the
Dominion during the present war.

Eventually, if democracy is not to perish from the face of the earth,
some other than the crude imperialistic method of dealing with backward