Imperialism as an Economic System of Expansion Flashcards
Foundational concept (23 cards)
What conviction united early twentieth-century critics of imperialism despite their ideological differences?
Whilst early twentieth-century critics of imperialism varied in their ideological commitments and analytical approaches, they were bound by a shared conviction that imperialism was fundamentally driven by economic imperatives, which in turn created instability and crises.
What is Hobson’s core theory about imperialism in Imperialism: A Study (1902)?
In Imperialism: A Study (1902), he contended that if wealth were more equitably distributed, imperial expansion would be unnecessary.
How did Hobson link underconsumption to imperialism?
Hobson saw imperialism as a consequence of economic inequality, arguing that the financier class, accumulating excessive wealth, faced domestic underconsumption and thus sought foreign markets for surplus capital
What economic theory did Hobson and Mummery begin to develop in The Physiology of Industry (1889)?
Hobson utilises his seminal text to advance a social scientific theory of “underconsumption,” which he began writing in The Physiology of Industry with Alfred Mummery.
How did Hobson aim to persuade the British public about the dangers of imperialism?
Whilst his expression of this economic argument is articulated concisely through empirical data to generate utility, Hobson remains conscientious of his audience, the public, as the merits of imperialism were topical in British public debate forums
What was Hobson’s relationship to liberalism, and how did it influence his critique?
Hobson seeked to expand the standard liberal analysis of empire as immoral, having acquainted himself intimately with key liberal thinkers such as T.H Green at Oxford, and aimed to utilise his empirical argument to convince readers that financier capitalists amassed and retained wealth to the point of conquering territories to generate further profit.
What was Lenin’s central disagreement with Hobson in Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1917)?
Lenin, engaging directly with Hobson in Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1917), fundamentally rejected this view, asserting that imperialism was not a policy choice but an inevitable final stage of capitalism
How does Lenin critique Hobson’s focus on financier capitalists?
Lenin criticised Hobson’s analysis as more akin to Karl Kautsky, as too vague in pinpointing what drives imperialism.
Whilst Hobson’s argument rests entirely on the whims of the “financier capitalists,” Lenin further clarifies the forces of capitalistic development which guide the actions of commercial actors as a whole.
What structural technique does Lenin use to advance his historical argument?
This is indicative in the structural technique of his pamphlet as his first chapter begins with a historical perspective in considering how monopolies were barely discernible before the 1970s due to free competition prevailing.
How does Lenin describe the evolving role of banks under capitalism?
He dedicates a substantial amount of the text to banks no longer being just intermediaries for credit, as they increasingly formed monopolies and concentrated wealth in their hands.
How does Lenin’s Marxist tradition shape his theory of imperialism?
This is a testament to Marx and Engels’ dialectical materialist model as Lenin’s Marxist tradition provides him:
- with the conceptual framework to root his analysis in a study of history to explain the intricate contradictions of thecapitalist economic system.
What does Lenin mean by “new capitalism” and how does it relate to imperialism?
Lenin outlines how “new capitalism [has] superseded the old,” as imperialism merely represents how capitalism seeks to continually reinvent itself to find new “markets of investment” abroad.
What characterises the beginning of the twentieth century for Lenin
As such, he declares “the beginning of the twentieth century” as defined by the formation of monopolies.
Lenin posits this teleology of capitalistic monopolisation as central to his theory.
How does Lenin fill in the looseness in Hobson’s theory?
Whilst there is a certain looseness in Hobson’s theory, Lenin believes that it is the “parasitic” nature of venture capital to continuously seek profitable areas of investment in the resources of territories abroad.
What is Schumpeter’s main argument in his text?
Schumpeter, in contrast, rejected the economic determinism of both, arguing in Imperialism and Social Classes (1919), that imperialism was not a capitalist necessity but an atavistic relic of pre-capitalist militarism, pursued by elites for power rather than profit
Why did Schumpeter critique Hobson and Lenin’s economic grounding of imperialism?
While Lenin and Hobson grounded imperialism in political economy, Schumpeter was unsatisfied with his predecessor’s conceptualisation of imperialism and seemed a more sociological explanation for who the groups in society forming the spearhead of imperialism were
How does Schumpeter contrast imperialism and capitalism?
He diverges sharply from the other philosophers as he posits capitalism and imperialism as diametrically opposed.
What is Schumpeter’s definition of imperialism?
In Schumpeter’s view, imperialism is the “objectless disposition on the part of the state to force expansion” whereas capitalism, in its purest form, thrives on peaceful trade and rational economic decision-making
What historical examples does Schumpeter use to explain imperialism?
Indeed, his historical narrative of “warrior nations” ranging from Ancient Egypt to Assyria provides Schumpeter a lens through which to examine an innate, “atavistic” human desire to conquer
How does Schumpeter frame the relationship between free trade and imperialism?
For Schumpeter, “when free trade prevails, no class has an interest in forcible expansion.”
How does Du Bois challenge economic accounts of imperialism?
While Lenin and Hobson grounded imperialism in political economy, Du Bois introduced a racial dimension, arguing in The African Roots of the War (1915) that imperialism was sustained not just by economic forces but by a civilisational hierarchy that legitimised European power dominance
What did Du Bois mean by “the colour line began to pay dividends”?
“The colour line began to pay dividends,” he observed, linking expansion to European power shifts post-Franco-Prussian War.
How does Du Bois’s analysis differ from Hobson and Lenin?
Unlike Hobson, who saw imperialism as a response to underconsumption, or Lenin, who viewed it as the capitalism’s highest stage, Du Bois argued that imperialism was a fundamentally racialised project aiming to reinforce white supremacy.
