20100475 30/01/2013

Compare Hobson and Lenins accounts of Imperialism.

Words 1,733 (1,523 without footnotes)

Hobson and Lenin share a critical, socialist account of Imperialism. Both theorists
argued that the economic conditions of the capitalist system accounted for
Imperialism. Some scholars, like Eckstein and Fieldhouse have argued that Hobson
and Lenins accounts of Imperialism are so similar that they form a shared Hobson-
Lenin thesis.1 However, other scholars, like Stokes and Etherington, argue that the
differences between Hobson and Lenin are so deep that the idea of a shared thesis
ought be rejected. 2 This essay will attempt a comparative examination of each
theorists account of Imperialism. Imperialism can be defined as, a policy of
extending a countrys power and influence through colonization, use of military
force, 3 internal commerce, or other means. The 19th century Imperialist powers
expansion, for both Hobson and Lenin, was rooted in economic concentration.
However, there are two fundamental disagreements between the two theorists: the
first, over which principle factor propels Imperialism. Hobson claims that excess
capital propels Imperialism, 4 whereas Lenin argues that it is the growth and
development of finance capital. 5 Secondly, they disagreed over what Imperialism
was: Hobson saw Imperialism as a crisis of capitalism that could be overcome, yet
Lenin believed Imperialism was a natural development of capitalism the highest
stage of capitalism that would result in Marxs predicted collapse of capitalism.
These two fundamental disagreements have led to four dichotomies between Hobson
and Lenins accounts of Imperialism. This essay proposes that the four intrinsic
differences between Hobson and Lenins accounts of Imperialism are: over-saving
versus finance capital; under-consumption versus the over-ripening of capitalism;
domestic and international sectionalism versus global division and social reform
versus domestic revolution. This essay thus argues that Hobson and Lenins accounts
of Imperialism were fundamentally different, despite their unquestionable similarities.

1
A.M Eckstein, 'Is there a 'Hobson-Lenin Thesis' on late 19th century Colonial Expansion', The
Economic History Review, 44:2, 1991, 297
2
Ibid, 315
3
W. R. Trumble and A. Stevenson (ed.), Shorter OED: On Historical Principles 1: A-M; Oxford UP,
Oxford:2002, 1328
4
D. H. Kruger, 'Hobson, Lenin, and Schumpeter on Imperialism', Journal of the History of Ideas, 16:2,
1955, 253
5
Ibid; 256

1
20100475 30/01/2013

Both Hobson and Lenin began their definition of Imperialism with economic
concentration; however, the two are distinguished by their focus on under-
consumption and finance capital, respectively. The growth of monopolies is
symptomatic of emerging economic concentration. 6 These monopolies concentrate
profit into a minority group, reducing competition. 7 For Hobson, this caused over-
saving: the minority would save profit, rather than re-distributing it. This wealth mal-
distribution results in under-consumption: the workforces lower wages rarely
provides sufficient purchasing capacity. This is, for Hobson, a self-perpetuating
economic condition that increasingly limits domestic investment opportunities.8 This
circular tension between over-saving and under-consumption is the glut of capital and
leads to the the taproot of imperialism.9 The taproot of imperialism is the existence
of excess goods or capital that necessitates foreign investment. This has a direct
influence on foreign policy. 10 Hobson accordingly argues that this domestic under-
consumption leads to Imperialist expansion. This expansion, consequentially, leads to
both international and domestic sectionalism and, eventually, to war. 11 He thus
proposed to domestically redistribute the monopolies profit, rather than searching for
foreign investment opportunities. This social reform would allow for such policies as
minimum wage and progressive taxation, thereby making society more efficient and
prosperous.12

Lenin explains Imperialism as a stage of capitalism whereby the dominance of

monopolies and finance capital has established itself.13 Lenin builds upon the same
economic foundation as Hobson: growing economic concentration. Lenin, however,
explains that these developments led to the growth and economic ascendancy of
banks. 14 The new, coexistent domination of banks and monopolies resulted in the
merging of monopolies industrial capital with this new banking capital, creating
moveable finance capital. This, alongside the backward stage of agriculture and the

6
P. Wilson, IR200 Lecture 2012, Topic 9
7
A. Brewer, Marxist Theories of Imperialism: A Critical Study, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London &
New York: 1990, 73
8
J.A. Hobson, Imperialism: A Study, James Pott and Co., London: 1902, 252
9
Ibid, 86
10
N. Etherington, 'Reconsidering Theories of Imperialism', History and Theory, 21:1, 1982, 18
11
P. Wilson, IR200 Lecture 2012, Topic 9
12
Ibid.
13
V.I Lenin, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, Pulto Press, London:1996, 90
14
Lenin, Imperialism, 89

2
20100475 30/01/2013

unequal distribution of wealth,15 caused capitalism to become over-ripe. Thus, akin

to Hobsons glut of capitalism, Lenins over-ripe capitalism necessitated the
exportation of capital and consequently formed international monopolies. 16 Lenin
claims that this is the highest stage of capitalism. At this point, these international
monopolies would then divide the world amongst themselves, through Imperialist
expansion. This would therefore complete the territorial division of the whole world
among the greatest capitalist powers.17 For Lenin, this would lead to international
wars and domestic revolutions, provoking the inevitable fall of capitalism.

Hobson and Lenins similarities are striking, especially as Hobson heavily influenced
Lenin; however, there are also undeniable differences between them. Both theorists
argue that economic concentration is where the Imperialist phenomenon begins. Both
highlight the importance of increasing monopolies in propagating Imperialism. Unlike
Hobson, Lenin emphasises the importance of banks, especially as they replace
Hobsons vague group of mysterious financiers.18 Lenin disagrees with Hobson that
excess capital propels Imperialism. Instead, Imperialism originates from the growth
and development of finance capital. Lenin subsequently explains the export and
accumulation of this capital in the form of Imperialist expansion. He accounts for this
by explaining that capitalism has over-ripened. Hobson, however, argues that the
growth of monopolies causes over-saving, resulting in under-consumption, which
severely decreases domestic investment profitability. This, he claims, forces foreign
investments to be found through Imperialistic expansion. Thus, although both
theorists began their argument with economic concentration, they differentiate in their
accounts of Imperialisms growth.

Both Hobson and Lenin agree that Imperialist expansion leads to international
monopolisation, yet they disagree on whether this causes division or sectionalism, and
what this will lead to. Hobson argued that the international monopolies created by
Imperialist expansion would cause both domestic and international sectionalism. The
profit from foreign investments would remain mal-distributed, concentrated within
these international monopolies of the worlds Imperialist powers. Lenin explained

15
Brewer, Marxist Theories, 118
16
Kruger, 'Hobson, Lenin, 256
17
Lenin, Imperialism, 90
18
Eckstein, 'Hobson-Lenin Thesis', 315

3
20100475 30/01/2013

how Britain exemplified this wealth concentration in 1912. Despite Germanys

domestic production of 17.6m tons of pig iron in comparison to Britains 9m tons,
Britain still managed to increase her railways by 100 000km, four times as much as
Germany. 19 He, therefore, could not help but to agree that Imperialist expansion
accumulated wealth in the hands of the few. However, Lenin also argued that the
international monopolies of Imperialist powers would divide the world amongst
themselves. He believed that the struggle of world imperialism was becoming more
aggravated: 20 this would make the 20th century a century of Imperialist wars. 21
Lenin, nonetheless, believed this was a stage of capitalism: the world was in the
process of irreversible, world-wide development,22 that would lead to inevitable
revolution 23 and, capitalisms fall. Therefore, although Hobson also proposed a
revolution of sorts social reform he fundamentally disagreed with Lenins claim
that this was a stage of capitalism. Hobson believed capitalism was in crisis but that it
24
could be reversed by the introduction of a welfare state. Consequently, both
theorists were arguably socialist in their critical accounts of Imperialism and, yet, they
were strikingly different.

The similarity between Hobson and Lenins accounts of Imperialisms economic

causation is a source of major criticism. Scholars including Stokes, Waltz and
Schumpeter fundamentally disagreed that economics can exclusively account for all
Imperialism. In fact, Stokes argued that Hobson interpreted imperialism as merely
another term [of] colonialism.25 Stokes, however, is the most extreme critic. Both
Waltz and Schumpeter criticise Hobson and Lenins methodological reliance on
economic factors to explain Imperialism. Indeed, both Waltz and Schumpeters
accounts of Imperialism argue that other principal factors have propelled Imperialism.
Waltz isolated the role of the state-system in the growth of Imperialism, arguing that
Imperialism was propelled by the nature of the international system. This, he
explained, determined states Imperialist behaviour through socialisation and

19
Lenin, Imperialism, 99
20
Ibid, 100
21
Etherington, 'Reconsidering Theories, 3
22
Eckstein, 'Hobson-Lenin Thesis', 315
23
Ibid.
24
Eckstein, 'Hobson-Lenin Thesis', 315
25
Etherington, 'Reconsidering Theories, 2

4
20100475 30/01/2013

competition. 26 On the other hand, Schumpeter argues that Imperialism was an

atavism in the social structure, in individual, physiological habits of emotional
reaction.27 He went so far as to emphasis how wars of Imperialist expansion have
been waged without adequate reason28 and, thus, cannot be rationalised. Yet, there
are scholars like Cain and Hopkins who somewhat agree with Hobson and Lenins
economic accounts of Imperialism. Cain and Hopkins argue that Imperialism was
used to support the gentlemanly lites adaption to the 19th century without
relinquishing its inherited social prestige, acquired wealth, or public acceptability.29
The discursive ramification of Cain and Hopkinss account of Imperialism is huge.
They bypass Schumpeters criticism of Hobson and Lenins solely economic accounts
of Imperialism by acknowledging the importance of other factors and, yet, they reach
a very similar conclusion: Gentlemanly Capitalism. Thus, although Hobson and
Lenin may be criticised for being fixated by economic Imperialism, they are not alone
in emphasising economics as Imperialisms driving force.

The goal of both Hobson and Lenins accounts of Imperialism was to provide the
world with a critical economic rationale for the social phenomenon Imperialism,
which they succeeded. Hobson and Lenins accounts of Imperialism were
unquestionably similar: they both accorded economic concentration to the birth of this
social phenomenon; they both understood the importance of monopolies in its growth;
they agreed that the world would be split by Imperialism and they fundamentally
agreed Imperialism could not continue forever. This essay has, however, emphasised
two fundamental differences between Hobson and Lenins, albeit similar, accounts of
Imperialism. Hobsons account of Imperialism pinpoints excess capital as the cause of
capitalisms glut: a crisis that could be overcome by social reform. Lenin, however,
focuses on the role of finance capital in the over-ripening of capitalism the highest
stage of capitalism that will lead to capitalisms inevitable fall. This essay has thus
demonstrated that, notwithstanding their similarities, Hobson and Lenins accounts of
Imperialism are strikingly different. It is, however, the amalgamation of their

26
M. Kahler, 'Rationality in International Relations', International Organization, 52:4, 1998, 925
27
Kruger, 'Hobson, Lenin, 258
28
Ibid.
29
P.J Cain & A. G. Hopkins, 'Gentlemanly capitalism and British expansion overseas II: new
imperialism, 1850-1945', Economic History Review, XL:I, 1987, 1.

5
20100475 30/01/2013

unquestionable similarities and striking differences that has ensured the discursive
importance of Hobson and Lenins accounts of Imperialism.

Bibliography

'Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: On Historical Principles', in William R. Trumble

and Angus Stevenson (ed.), (2002), Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: On Historical
Principles (1: A-M; Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Brewer, Anthony (1990), Marxist Theories of Imperialism: A Critical Study (London

and New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul).

Cain, P.J. and Hopkins, A.G. (1987), 'Gentlemanly capitalism and British expansion
overseas II: new imperialism, 1850-1945', Economic History Review, XL (I).

Eckstein, A.M (1991), 'Is there a 'Hobson-Lenin Thesis' on late 19th century Colonial
Expansion', The Economic History Review, 44 (2).

Etherington, Norman (1982), 'Reconsidering Theories of Imperialism', History and

Theory, 21 (1).

Hobson, J.A. (1902), Imperialism: A Study (London: James Pott and Co.).

Kahler, Miles (1998), 'Rationality in International Relations', International

Organization, 52 (4).

Kruger, Daniel H. (1955), 'Hobson, Lenin, and Schumpeter on Imperialism', Journal

of the History of Ideas, 16 (2).

Lenin, V.I (1996), Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (London: Pulto
Press).

Linklater, A. (1990), Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and

International Relations (Basingstoke: Macmillan).

Long, D. (1996), Towards a New Liberal Imperialism: International Theory of

Stokes, Eric (1969), 'Late Nineteenth-Century Colonial Expansion and the Attack on
the Theory of Economic Imperialism: A Case of Mistaken Identity?', The History
Journal, 12 (2).