Imperialism: A Study

by J.A. Hobson

Making History. The Home of 99p/99c History Books

“Changed the contours of social thought.” - The Guardian

J. A. Hobson's critical treatise on the practice of imperialism - whereby countries acquire territories for economic gain - is a classic in its field.

First published in 1902, Hobson’s critique of imperialism was regarded as controversial by a society where many considered the social and political procedures of imperialism acceptable.

The economic origins of imperialism are outlined with an analysis of methodology and results. Hobson expands on the theory and practice of imperialism and its political significance at the turn of the century.

The author acknowledges that imperialism is often supported by a sense of nationalistic pride and achievement, particularly when regarding the British Empire's colonial imperialism.

Hobson identifies capitalist oligarchy as the true motivation behind imperialistic ventures. Owners of productive capital, such as factories, generate a large surplus which they desire to reinvest in further factories; this prompts capitalist expansion and exploitation into foreign lands.

A must-read for students studying Social Science subjects, such as Politics and History.

John Atkinson Hobson (1858–1940) was an English economist and early social theorist who wrote and lectured on the subjects of imperialism, poverty and unemployment. Other titles by Hobson The Economics of Distribution , The Evolution of Modern Capitalism and Problems of An Inquiry Into the Industrial Position of the Poor.

Genres: History, Politics, Economics, Nonfiction, Sociology, International Relations, Philosophy

371 pages, Kindle Edition

First published November 30, 1901

About the author

John Atkinson Hobson (1858–1940), was an English economist, social scientist and critic of imperialism, widely popular as a lecturer and writer.

Hobson studied at Derby School and Lincoln College, Oxford, afterwards teaching classics and English literature at schools in Faversham and Exeter.

When Hobson relocated to London in 1887, England was in the midst of a major economic depression. While classical economics was at a loss to explain the vicious business cycles, London had many societies that proposed alternatives. While living in London, Hobson was exposed to the Social Democrats and Henry Mayers Hyndman, Christian Socialists, and Henry George's Single-tax system. He befriended several of the prominent Fabians who would found the London School of Economics, some of whom he had known at Oxford. However, none of these groups proved persuasive enough for Hobson; rather it was his collaboration with a friend, the famous businessman and mountain climber Albert F. Mummery, that would produce Hobson's contribution to economics: the theory of underconsumption. First described by Mummery and Hobson in the 1889 book Physiology of Industry, underconsumption was a scathing criticism of Say's law and classical economics' emphasis on thrift. The forwardness of the book's conclusions discredited Hobson among the professional economics community. Ultimately he was excluded from the academic community.

During the very late 19th century his notable works included Problems of Poverty (1891), Evolution of Modern Capitalism (1894), Problem of the Unemployed (1896) and John Ruskin: Social Reformer (1898). They developed Hobson's famous critique of the classical theory of rent and his proposed generalization anticipated the Neoclassical "marginal productivity" theory of distribution.

Soon after this period Hobson was recruited by the editor of the newspaper The Manchester Guardian to be their South African correspondent. During his coverage of the Second Boer War, Hobson began to form the idea that imperialism was the direct result of the expanding forces of modern capitalism. He believed the mine owners, with Cecil Rhodes, who wanted control of the Transvaal, in the vanguard, were manipulating the British into fighting the Boers so that they could maximize their profits from mining. His return to England was marked by his strong condemnation of the conflict.

His publications during the next few years demonstrated an exploration of the associations between imperialism and international conflict. These works included War in South Africa (1900) and Psychology of Jingoism (1901). In what is arguably his magnum opus, Imperialism (1902), he espoused the opinion that imperial expansion is driven by a search for new markets and investment opportunities overseas. Imperialism gained Hobson an international reputation, and influenced such notable thinkers as Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky, and Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951).

Hobson wrote for several other journals before writing his next major work, The Industrial System (1909). In this tract he argued that maldistribution of income resulted, through oversaving and underconsumption, in unemployment and that the remedy was in eradicating the "surplus" by the redistribution of income by taxation and the nationalization of monopolies.

Hobson's opposition to the First World War caused him to join the Union of Democratic Control. His advocacy for the formation of a world political body to prevent wars can be found clearly in his piece Towards International Government (1914). However, he was staunchly opposed to the League of Nations.

Reviews

[unperspicacious]

So much valuable ink has been spilled in response to this hundred-year old book - and the later works and actions that it inspired - that to give it any kind of starred rating at all feels like an petty insult. Its chief value lies its pioneering systematic treatment of imperialism as a leading force within the international political economy, and the analytic links made between finance capital, domestic inequality and competing empires. For better or worse, the book's understanding of political economy lies much closer to what Keynes would endorse later, rather than Marx. One could certainly pick apart the various problems and weaknesses in the analysis of imperialism, and there are many - ranging from problems of analytic coherence (the book's understanding of nationalism, Hobson's Kantian political solution to imperialism) to historical accuracy and balance (actual international trade figures, accounting for non-Western capitalist activity)...But this would miss the point about why so many of the features Hobson writes about seem to apply with even more resonance in recent history. For this day and age, it simply cannot be read alone, but must be seen as part of a broader dialogue with other writings: Lenin, Kautsky, Luxemburg, Hilferding, Harvey, Hardt & Negri, Mann, Fieldhouse, Cain & Hopkins, Cohen, Alatas, Fanon, Memi, Kay, Warren, just to name a few. And then one has to get to grips with the messiness of actual modern history itself, at the world, regional and local levels...a stupendously long and time-consuming enterprise...but in the end, all histories of modern 'development' are ultimately histories of imperialism of a kind...

In any case, this is all just thinking out loud...I will have to revisit this book when I am more ready...

[Domhnall · Rating 5 out of 5]

John A Hobson's 'Imperialism' was published in 1902 at the height of Britain's pomp as a world power, and it is soaked in the racist, anti Semitic, white supremacist as well as plain arrogant attitudes of the upper ranks of society in his time and place at the heart of the empire, which he doesn't challenge and often shares. I suppose one could indulge in a tirade at his expense, if that seemed like a useful thing to do: certainly many of his contemporaries would have disliked these attitudes, with my own Irish ancestors in the van. This was the era of the Dreyfus Affair for instance, with powerful voices against as well as for anti-Semitism, so one would not excuse Hobson by suggesting he could have known no better. He certainly could not have known how these racist theories would work out in Europe later in that century, but in his own times they were already working out pretty disgracefully.

The fact is that we are reading a historical document which belongs to its times; it would have been difficult for Hobson to write for any audience other than his contemporaries or to think in radically different ways to them, and he would have had little impact if he did not present the world in a way they could accept. It is also a fact that his work is overwhelmingly destructive of contemporary racist theories: he wanted racists (specifically, the educated, conservative establishment in British society) to read his book in order to confront them with his evidence. If he does deploy their concepts, attitudes and value judgements in order to give a full and fair account of their justifications for imperialism, and for long passages appears to accept their case entirely, he consistently reaches conclusions that refute and destroy the accepted wisdom, taking each major line of argument in turn for this purpose of exposition, criticism and refutation. He does not object to the use of racist concepts such as inferior and superior races, which were absolutely prevalent in his time, but he routinely places such terms inside inverted commas and he routinely subverts the meanings placed on these terms by racists. Even when we try our best to see the world as they saw it, he demonstrates over and over again that the advocates and apologists for empire were disgracefully dishonest.

The interest in reading Hobson today is to look directly at the way these issues were argued then, the way people were thinking about issues then, not to seek a bowdlerized and insipid modern edition, safely expurgated for gentle souls to read without being offended. When modern social commentators raise an uproar to discourage reading this document on grounds of racism or anti-semitism, it is not hard to suspect that they protest both too much and frankly too unconvincingly and have other reasons to dislike its messages. We do not read historical documents to have our modern attitudes affirmed but to have an insight into the past as it was, not as we wish it had been.

Surprisingly, the general issues and even the specific arguments of that distant time remain alive and relevant today, in ways that can be disconcerting. What Hobson said about China's relationship with the Western powers in 1902 for example could be applied in broad terms and with only minor adjustments to present day relations with Trump's USA and with Brexit Britain. The mission of Western capitalism to fully and exhaustively exploit the natural resources of the globe and the forced labour of its people for the enrichment of a relatively small plutocracy was as blatantly rapacious then as it is today, but a modern reader would relate this to environmental degradation in ways that were not possible for Hobson and recognise the pivotal role of capitalism in the ongoing climate emergency. The arrogant assumption that a Western, largely Anglo-Saxon cultural and political system should be applicable universally and without adaptation, while wantonly wrecking other societies and cultures beyond hope of recovery, was outrageous then and remains so today, notably in Western attitudes to the Islamic world. Hobson’s comments about the relationship between nationalism and internationalism remain meaningful, notably in today’s Brexit debate, with Hobson pointing out the many ways in which the interests of a plutocracy conflict with the interests of the people and their appeals to a false, nationalistic patriotism and militarism deflect working people from their true economic interests. The interest of speculators in creating and sustaining conflict and chaos was as valid for the Boer War as it has been for the Iraq War; the interest of arms dealers in unprincipled wars such as Yemen today are no different to their interest in the colonial expansion of Hobson’s generation. The danger that imperialists will bring back to the home country the tyrannical and oppressive methods of imperial expansion and control is demonstrably real today, especially in the USA.

Hobson was attacked for his views then and Corbyn has been attacked today (in vile and abusive terms) for recommending this book to modern readers. It is well worth the effort to read this and see what the book burners want to hide. As for arguments that modern readers need some kind of a warning or trigger alert, and hence that Corbyn for example should have supplied one, that is plain patronising and dishonest drivel. Any racist looking to this book for support of their oppressive theories will find in it a firm rebuttal and that is the point of the book.


Some quotes

The vested interests which, on our analysis, are shown to be the chief prompters of an imperialist policy, play for a double stake, seeking their private commercial and financial gains at the expense and peril of the commonwealth. They at the same time protect their economic and political supremacy against the movements of popular reform. The city ground landlord, the country squire, the banker, the usurer, the brewer, the mine owner, the ironmaster, the shipbuilder, and the shipping trade, the great export manufacturers and merchants, the clergy of the State Church, the universities and great public schools, the legal trade unions and the services have, both in Great Britain and on the continent, drawn together for political resistance against the attacks upon the power, the property and the privileges which in various forms and degrees they represent.

Could the incomes expended in the Home counties and other large districts of Southern Britain be traced to their source, it would be found that they were in large measure wrong from the enforced toil of vast multitudes of black, brown, or yellow natives, by arts not differing essentially from those which supported in idleness and luxury Imperial Rome. It is indeed a nemesis of Imperialism that the arts and crafts of tyranny, acquired and exercised in our unfree Empire, should be turned against our liberties at home. Those who have felt surprise at the total disregard or the open contempt displayed by the aristocracy and the plutocracy of this land for the infringements of the liberties of the subject and for the abrogation of constitutional rights and usages have not taken sufficiently into account the steady influx of this poison of irresponsible autocracy from our “unfree, intolerant, aggressive” Empire.

So easily we glide from natural history to ethics, and find in utility a moral sanction for the race struggle. Now, Imperialism is nothing but this natural history doctrine, regarded from the standpoint of one’s own nation. We represent the socially efficient nation, we have conquered and acquired dominion and territory in the past: we must go on , it is our destiny, one which is serviceable to ourselves and to the world, our duty. Thus, emerging from natural history, the doctrine soon takes on a large complexity of ethical and religious finery, and we are wafted into an elevated atmosphere of “imperial Christianity,” a “mission of civilisation” in which we are to teach “the arts of good government” and “the dignity of labour.” That the power to do anything constitutes a right and even a duty to do it is perhaps the commonest, the most “natural” of temperamental fallacies…. The belief in a “divine right” of force, which teachers like Carlyle, Kingsley, Ruskin did so much to foster, is primarily responsible for the transmutation of a natural history law into a moral enthusiasm.

The main economic conditions affecting the working life of the masses of the peoples, both in town and country, on the one hand, the matter and methods of education through the school, the church, the press upon the other, show features of similarity so much stronger and more numerous than those of difference as to make it a safe assertion that the “people” of Europe are far closer akin in actual interests than their governments, and that this common bond is already so strong as to furnish a solid and stable foundation for political federal institutions, if only the obstruction of class governments could be broken down and the real will of the peoples set in the seat of authority.

Secure popular government, in substance and in form, and you secure internationalism: retain class government and you retain military imperialism and international conflict.

The notion of the world as a cock-pit of nations in which round after round shall eliminate feebler fighters and leave in the end one nation, the most efficient, to lord it on the dung-hill, has no scientific validity. Invoed to support the claims of militant nationalism, it begins by ignoring the very nature and purposes of national life, assuming that uniformity of character and environment which are the negation of nationalism. … Internationalism is no more opposed to the true purposes of nationalism than socialism within the nation, rightly guided, is hostile to individualism. The problem and its solution are the same. We socialise in order that we may individuate, we cease fighting with bullets in order to fight with ideas.

The real determinants in education are given in these three questions “Who shall teach? What shall they teach? How shall they teach?” Where universities are dependent for endowments and incomes upon the favour of the rich, upon the charity of millionaires, the following answers will of necessity be given: “Safe teachers. Safe studies. Sound (orthodox) methods.” The coarse proverb which tells us that “he who pays the piper calls the tune” is quite as applicable here as elsewhere, and no bluff regarding academic dignity and intellectual honesty must blind us to the fact… It is the hand of the prospective, the potential donor that fetters intellectual freedom in our colleges and will do so more and more as long as the duty of organising public higher education for a nation out of public funds fails of recognition.

The recurrent quarrels of the armed white nations, each insisting on his claim to take up the white man’s burden in some fresh quarter of the globe, the trading companies seeking to oust each other from a new market, the very missionaries competing by sects and nationalities for “mission fields”, and using political intrigue and armed force to back their special claims, present a curious commentary upon the “trust for civilisation” theory.

The notion that there exists one sund, just, rational system of government, suitable for all sorts and conditions of men, embodied in the elective representative institutions of Great Britain, and that our duty was to impose this system as soon as possible, and with the least possible modification, upon lower races, without any regard to their past history and their present capabilities and sentiments, is tending to disappear in this country, though the new headstrong imperialism of America is still exposed to the taunt that ‘Americans think the United States has a mission to carry ‘canned’ civilisation to the heathen.” The recognition that there may be many paths to civilisation, that strong racial and environmental differences preclude a hasty grafting of alien institutions, regardless of continuity and selection of existing agencies and institutions - these genuinely scientific and human considerations are beginning to take shape in a demand that native races within our empire shall have larger liberty of self-development assured to them…

Early imperialism had two main motives, the lust of “treasures” and the slave trade… Now modern imperialism in its bearing on the “lower races” remains essentially of the same type: it employs other methods, other and humaner motives temper th dominance of economic greed, but analysis exposes the same character at bottom… The use of imperial force to compel “lower races” to engage in trade is commonly a first stage of imperialism. China is here the classic instance of modern times, exhibiting the sliding scale by which sporadic trade passes through “treaties,” treaty ports, customs control, rights of inland trading, mining and railway concessions towards annexation and general exploitation of human and natural resources.

The actual history of Westrn relations with lower races occupying lands on which we have settled down, throws, then, a curious light upon the theory of a “trust for civilisation.” When the settlement approaches the condition of genuine colonisation, it has commonly implied the extermination of the lower races, either by war or by private slaughter, as in the case of australian bushmen, African Bushmen and Hottentots, Red Indians, and Maoris, or by forcing upon them the habits of a civilisation equally destructive to them, This is what is meant by saying that the “lower races” in contact with “superior races” naturally tend to disappear. How much of “nature” or “necessity” belongs to the process is seen from the fact that only those “lower races” tend to disappear who are incapable of profitable exploitation by the superior white settlers, either because they are too “savage” for effective industrialism or because the demand for labour does not demand their presence. Whenever superior races settle on lands whre lower races can be profitably used for manual labour in agriculture, mining and domestic work, the latter do not tend to die out, but to form a servile class.

All taxation is “forced labour” whether the tax be levied in money, in goods or in service. When such “forced labour” is confined to the needs of a well ordered government, and is fairly and considerately administered, it involves no particular oppression… The case is different where government regulations and taxation are prostituted to purposes of commercial profit; where laws are passed, taxes levied, and the machinery of public administration utilised in order to secure a large, cheap, regular, efficient and submissive supply of labourers for companies or private persons engaged in mining, agriculture or other industries for their personal gain.

Break up the tribal system which gives solidarity and some political and economic strength to native life, set the Kaffir on an individual footing as an economic bargainer, to which he is wholly unaccustomed, take him by taxation or other “stimulus” from his locality, put him down under circumstances where he has no option but to labour at the mines - this is the plan which mine owners propose and missionaries approve.

It may well be doubted whether there is a net gain to the civilisation of the world by increasing the supply of gold and diamonds at such a price.

The condition of the white rulers of these lower races is distinctively parasitic; they live upon these natives, their chief work being that of organising native labour for their support. The normal state of such a country is one in which the most fertile lands and the mineral resources are owned by white aliens and worked by natives under their direction, primarily for their gain: they do not identify themselves with the interests of the nation or its people, but remain an alien body of sojourners, a “parasite” upon the carcass of its “host”, destined to extract wealth from the country and retire to consume it at home.

Under the pretence of free trade, England has compelled the Hindus to receive the products of the steam-looms of Lancashire, Yorkshire, Glasgow &c, at mere nominal duties; while the handicraft of Bengal and Behar, beautiful in fabric and durable in wear, have had heavy and almost prohibitive duties imposed on their importation to England… In India the manufacturing power of the people has been stamped out by Protection against her industries, and then free Trad enforced upon her so as to prevent a revival…

The idea that we are civilising India in the sense of assisting them to industrial, political and moral progress along the lines of our own or their civilisation is a complete delusion, based on a false estimate of the influence of superficial changes wrought by government and the activity of a minute group of aliens. The delusion is only sustained by the sophistry of imperialism, which weaves these fallacies to cover its nakedness and the advantages which certain interests suck out of empire.

China seems to offer a unique opportunity to the Western businessman. A population of some four hundred millions endowed with an extraordinary capacity of steady labour, with great intelligence and ingenuity, inured to a low standard of material comfort, in occupation of a country rich in unworked minerals and destitute of modern machinery of manufacture or of transport, opens up a dazzling prospect of profitable exploitation.

China, passing more quickly than other “lower races” through the period of dependence on Western science and Western capital, and quickly assimilating what they have to give, may re-establish her own economic independence, finding out of her own resources the capital and organisational skill required for the machine industries, may quickly and … may quickly launch herself upon the world market as the biggest and most effective competitor, taking to herself first the trade of Asia and the Pacific, and then swamping the free markets of the West and driving the closed markets of the West to an ever more rigorous protection with its corollary of diminished production.

That the squabbles of European potentates for territorial expansion, the lusts of merchants or financiers, the ludicrously false expectations of missionaries, the catch-words of political parties in European elections, should be driving European nations to destroy the civilisation of a quarter of the human race without possessing the ability or even recognizing the need to provide a substitute, ought surely to give pause to those imperialists who claim to base their policy on reason and the common good. … For Europe to rule Asia by force for purposes of gain and to justify that rule by the pretense that she is civilising Asia and raising her to a higher level of spiritual life, will be adjudged by historians, perhaps, to be the crowning wrong and folly of imperialism. What Asia has to give, her priceless stores of wisdom garnered from her experience of ages, we refuse to take; the much or little which we give, we spoil by the brutal manner of our giving.

To term imperialism a national policy is an impudent falsehood: the interests of the nation are opposed to every act of this expansive policy.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really deserves its place among the classics of imperialist literature. Despite its non-Marxist presuppositions and politics (Hobson’s social reformism certainly falls short of Marx’s social revolution and he consistently frames imperialism as a policy choice instead of as a stage of capitalist development), he manages to anticipate many later developments in Marxist theory—for example, the monopoly capitalist analysis of Baran and Sweezy and the emphasis on foreign investment à la Harry Magdoff. I also saw a lot of Chomsky in here and would not be surprised if this book was a major influence on him. I recommend it especially to newcomers to the literature. Its concrete and nontechnical analysis was a stark contrast to Luxemburg’s abstract and theory-heavy Accumulation of Capital which I reviewed here .

Here are some short chapter summaries to give you a sense of the argument…

Intro

The introduction attempts to establish a “certain consistency of terms” in lieu of rigid definitions of imperialism, nationalism, and colonialism. The main distinction to be drawn here is that while settler colonialism consists in transplanting ones civilization to a new territory including the people, customs, and institutions, imperialism is the minority rule from the metropole over a subject majority without attempting to establish the mother country’s ways of life in the subjugated territory (it is this latter form that defines the “new” imperialism Hobson is mostly concerned with dating since, roughly, the late 1870s).

Ch. 1: The Measure of Imperialism

Hobson begins the argument proper with some descriptive statistics on the growth and current state of the British Empire in its latest phase in which most of the acquired territory existed in tropical and sub-tropical regions where whites did not settle en masse and permanently. This is distinct from the colonialism that brought such territories as Australia, Canada, and America into the British Empire much earlier.

Ch. 2: The Commercial Value of Imperialism

This chapter makes the following 3 points all supporting one of Hobson’s main points that imperialism is not primarily about opening up export markets for trade goods: (1) for Britain, external trade is small and diminishing relative to the internal trade of the country, (2) the trade conducted between it and its colonial possessions is a small and nonpregressive (i.e. static or declining) proportion of that external trade, and (3) trade with the newly acquired territories is a small and nonprogressive proportion of that trade conducted between Britain and all its colonial possessions. So at each level trade is becoming a less and less important part of the overall economic picture. Basically, Hobson is trying to undermine the idea that “trade follows the flag” and that, whatever economic benefits there are of imperialism, they must not be because of the trade it affords with colonial markets.

Ch. 3: Imperialism as an Outlet

This short third chapter simply presents and then refutes the argument that imperialism serves as an outlet for overpopulation. I mean, most of the new possessions of the empire weren’t even really habitable for British colonists.

Ch. 4: Economic Parasites of Imperialism

This is a really excellent chapter on who it is that imperialism really serves. It would make a great stand-alone introduction to the topic for newcomers. After demonstrating the prior two chapters that imperial policy in Britain appears to be “bad business” (winning, as it does, very small, precarious, and poor markets at huge costs), Hobson now sets out the rational underpinning of imperialism as serving the interests of the investor and financial classes.

The direct consequences of imperialism are large profits for the military-industrial complex, the internationalization of finance through loans, growth in foreign investments, expanded markets for some goods, and lucrative positions for state bureaucrats and their family. But more than anything, imperialism provides investment opportunities for domestic capital that is unable to find profitable opportunities at home. Hobson gives a sharp political economy explanation for imperial policy in this chapter. It is clear and supported by the statistics available to him at the time. He does lapse momentarily into a somewhat idealist account of how patriotic attitudes serve as the motive force behind aggressive foreign ventures having been “directed” by the investor class but he also has a clear idea of the way consent is manufactured by the press at the behest of their corporate owners.

Ch. 5: Imperialism Based on Protection

This chapter takes a cost-benefit analysis approach to the new imperialism and, in Hobson’s view, it fails to make business sense. He is always finding fewer pros than cons due to the small and poor markets acquired at large costs. If military expenditure is seen as an insurance premium for the protection of colonial assets, Britain is certainly overpaying.

Ch. 6: The Economic Taproot of Imperialism

This is the central chapter of the book where Hobson lays out the economic dynamics at play in monopoly capitalism (though he does not use that phrase) which are at the heart of the imperialist drive. According to Hobson, monopolies (or ‘trusts’ or ‘combines’) create the economic conditions for imperialism in two ways: (1) they reduce the number of capitals in operation by consolidating and closing inefficient producers and (2) by earning extra profits by reducing supply to hike prices they transfer purchasing power away from consumers to monopoly capitalists. Both of these generate excess savings in search of profitable outlets. This need for profitable investment of excess savings is the prime driver of imperialism.

That being said, trade also does play a part (despite Hobson’s denigration of this line of reasoning before) because industrial production saturates domestic demand so some producers find it necessary to offload their inventory onto foreign markets. In short, the economic taproot of imperialism is the overproduction of goods and the overaccumulation of capital. These drive the acquisition of export markets and profitable investment opportunities, respectively.

Hobson probes deeper to ask: what causes overproduction/under-consumption? If the total amount of output produced yields an equivalent income then there should be sufficient purchasing power to buy the supply of goods. The answer is that in each period some purchasing power is withheld as savings. But if the investment made in each period matched the quantity of savings financing it then, again, there should be no problem. So the question becomes why do savings tend to exceed investment? Hobson only partially manages to answer this riddle—he is right that fundamentally it is because we have organized society to produce for profit and not for consumption leading to a distribution which gives to some people more purchasing power than can be used while giving others less than is required. But a mainstream economist could answer that the equilibrating mechanisms of markets and prices (particularly the market for loanable funds and adjustments in the interest rate) always, or normally, induce investment when demand is deficient (excess savings) and reduce it when expenditures exceed income (over investment). As Anthony Brewer (1980) notes, the Hobsonian under-consumptionist thesis is saved if we assume the (growth of the) labor force is fixed or investment is interest inelastic or there is limited substitutability between labor and capital. Hobson does not much pursue these possibilities so the deep economic explanation remains lacking though the intuition is certainly correct.

With this diagnosis in hand Hobson can propose a cure for imperialism: a socialistic redistribution of income that eliminates excess savings.

Ch. 7 – Imperialist Finance

This chapter discusses how imperialism is financed in Britain, the large public expenditures involved, and the limited private benefits accruing to the elites through interest on investments, profits on trade, and employment for the administrative class of imperialist bureaucrats.

Ch. 8 – Political Significance of Imperialism

Here Hobsons is concerned to dispense with the myths justifying British imperialism—in particular, those propounded by liberal apologists about The Empire’s civilization mission to spread the arts of self-government to “lesser races”. Hobson has palpable contempt for these pretenses and dispels them with an evidence-based investigation of the realities of colonial administration which make clear that freedom and self-government are antithetical to the minority rule imposed on subject populations by British administrators.

Ch. 9 – Scientific Defense of Imperialism

Mainly refuting biological and social Darwinist justifications for imperialism: that survival of the fittest is only natural therefore divinely ordained therefore necessary and therefore right.

Ch. 10 – Moral and Sentimental Factors

Having laid out the economic basis of imperialism and shown that it benefits only a few at the expense of the many, Hobson asks ‘why do the people tolerate it?’ The answer lies in the multitude of misconceptions and base attitudes the imperial class find pre-existing among people everywhere and which they foster and channel to their expansionist ends. Hobson, with biting and forceful prose, reveals liberal pretenses to be baseless and marked by constant inconsistences. His social psychology of sport and of indoctrination in the school system were highlights of the chapter for me and he ends with a concise summary of the classes and interests served by imperialism: (1) investors and speculators: pushing private business at public expense, (2) manufacturers and merchants: opening up export markets, (3) professionals: offering lucrative careers in the colonial bureaucracy, (4) the church: spiritual control over the “lower peoples”, and (5) politicians: diverting democratic forces and opening public careers in empire-making.

Ch. 11 – Imperialism and The Lower Races

A bit of a low point of the book. It’s clear in these sections Hobson is not totally immune to the liberal paternalism that infected many progressives of his time. He is too generous with his oppnents’ racist arguments and indulges in sophistic speculation on when it might possibly sometimes be justifiable ot impose Western “civilization” on a native population even if, in reality, the necessary conditions are never met. There are however, some good sections on the various forms of forced labor practice by companies in South Africa and Belgium as well as a section on the use of taxation to disposses natives of their land and to impose market dependence (either by marketing household products or entering the labor market) in order to secure the means of payment for taxes. This discussion is echoed in by Luxemburg’s investigations in the 3rd Section of her book.

Ch. 10 – Imperialism in Asia

This chapter uses the case-studies of India and China to test the myth that imperialism benefits the “lower races”. Hobson finds that the native population doesn’t share in the economic prosperity enjoyed by colonial administrators and traditional forms of social life are “broken up” by capitalist relations production and the centralization of government it requires. The thoughtful exploration of Asian cultures and their merits so often ignored by Europeans is of course limited by its time and social context. It’s progressive for the era but very dated.

Ch. 11 – Imperial Federation

In the penultimate chapter Hobson turns the focus inward, to imperialism’s impact on the political relationship between Britain and its existing and older settler colonial domains of Australia, Canada, and South Africa. It is framed in terms of the recent historical tendency of the colonies toward independence and asks “what are the prospects for reversing this trend and for Britain and its colonies to form a kind of federated system of self-governing states?” (A union that Hobson supports. A sort of United States of English possessions). In short, the prospects are not good so long as imperialism remains the guiding policy in light of the expenses required and animosities engendered by imperialism despite the “genuine” sentiments of “loyalty” and “attachment” Hobson perceives in the white settler colonies.

Ch. 12 – The Outcome

The final chapter begins with a quick review of the main thesis: imperialism is a deliberate state policy harmful to the nation overall but beneficial to a special oligarchical class of businessmen and financiers who spend public resources to safeguard and improve their private ventures and sell it to the public under the attractive guise of patriotism. The remedy is a democratization of decision making, critical education of the masses, and redistribution of income. This will culminate in a genuine internationalism based on economic cooperation as the true antidote to imperialism.

Contrast this humanist vision with the ominous parallels Hobson draws between the British and late, declining Roman Empires: the rise of a money-lending elite in control of government, the displacement of the rural workforce into cities as paupers, replacing domestic forces with hired mercenary armies, and the traditional leadership’s withdrawal from public service to comfortable lives of luxury consumption while hiring out important administrative functions to foreign subjects. “The new imperialism differs in no vital point from this old example” so Britain must abandon its imperialist policy if it wants to avoid a similarly ruinous fate.

[Feliks · Rating 3 out of 5]

A useful reference book containing myriad facts & figures on the operation of the British Empire in the Victorian era. Surprisingly slim volume--you can really race through it. The first half is better than the latter: right-off-the-mark, Hobson makes no bones about identifying the true cause of imperialism. Investors and speculators and financiers. Everything else dovetails with this unwholesome and revolting truism. Colonialism simply never generated enough money on it's own via trade and markets) to make them worth their cost. No--only stock market sharpers ever gained from crown possessions.

The second half of the book deals with more intangible subject matter: patriotism, religion, population issues. Less clear and more murky than the above.

It really is a disturbing and disquieting little book; to see the raw, brute monetary values behind this great age of enterprise. Worth keeping on hand for random debates on Brit History.

~Dzerzh

p.s. another aspect which hurried me through this title: this was my first-ever experience of an 'OCR' scanned book. HORRIBLE. It turns the prose into childish GIBBERISH. Nausea-inducing, wearying, and queasy-making sensation on the eyes. And far worse than a 99% accuracy as claimed. AVOID, unless you only want to retain 30% of any book.

[Czarny Pies · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ce livre est un incontournable pour l'étudiant en histoire moderne et surtout celui qui s'intéresse au développent de l'idéologie marxiste-léniniste. Publie en 1902 et basé sur ses réflexions sur la guerre des Boers, Hobson a lance la thèse que la course aux colonies africaines livre au deuxième moitie du XIXe siècle a été la conséquence de la sous-consommation de la classe ouvrière. Parce que les capitalistes donnaient pas aux ouvriers leur juste part de la richesse crée par l'industrie, ils avaient un surplus de capital qu'ils investissaient dans les entreprises coloniales qui étaient fortement risqués et qui donnaient rarement un retour adéquat sur le capital investi.

Voila! Hobson a donne a peu de chose prés la même thèse que présentera quinze ans plus tard Lénine dans L’Impérialisme, stade suprême du capitalisme. La grande différence entre les deux est que Lénine propose qu'il sera possible de faire crouler le capitalisme international en l'attaquant dans ses colonies.

Je suis en désaccord et avec Hobson et avec Lénine. Cependant, je conseille tout étudiant au premier cycle en histoire de lire ces deux livres qui ont fortement marqué le 20e siècle.

[noblethumos · Rating 5 out of 5]

J. A. Hobson’s Imperialism: A Study (1902) remains one of the foundational texts in the analysis of modern empire, offering both a moral critique and an economic interpretation of imperial expansion in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Written in the aftermath of the South African (Boer) War, Hobson’s work emerged as a powerful indictment of what he perceived to be the corruption of liberal capitalism by financial and industrial interests. At once an economic treatise, a political polemic, and a sociological analysis, Imperialism transformed the discourse on empire by locating its origins not in national glory or racial destiny but in the structural dynamics of capitalist accumulation and underconsumption.


Hobson’s central thesis is that imperialism represents not a national necessity or a civilizing mission, but a distortion of economic and political life driven by a small class of financiers and monopolists seeking external markets for surplus capital. In his view, advanced capitalist economies, particularly Britain, suffer from underconsumption due to the maldistribution of wealth: the masses lack purchasing power, while the wealthy accumulate savings that cannot be profitably invested domestically. The solution sought by the capitalist elite is foreign expansion—new markets, cheap labor, and investment opportunities abroad. Thus, for Hobson, imperialism is the outward expression of an internal economic malaise, the “taproot” of which lies in the inequitable distribution of income and power within capitalist society itself.


Hobson’s argument unfolds through a careful synthesis of economic reasoning, political critique, and moral philosophy. He distinguishes between what he calls “colonialism”—the legitimate settlement of surplus population in new territories—and “imperialism”—the aggressive subjugation and exploitation of foreign peoples for economic gain. The former, he suggests, might have served productive ends under conditions of equality and self-government, but the latter, dominated by plutocratic interests and militarism, represents a perversion of liberal principles. In this sense, Imperialism is not merely an economic analysis but a deeply moral one: Hobson condemns the hypocrisy of imperial ideology, which cloaks greed and coercion in the rhetoric of civilization and progress.


A significant portion of the book is devoted to analyzing the institutional and psychological mechanisms that sustain imperialism. Hobson identifies the collusion between finance, the press, and the political establishment in manufacturing consent for imperial wars—a process he describes as the “economic parasitism” of the few upon the many. His analysis anticipates later theories of the “military-industrial complex” and the manipulation of public opinion through propaganda. Moreover, Hobson offers a psychological account of imperialism as a form of collective self-deception, whereby national pride and racial superiority serve to rationalize domination and plunder.


The final chapters of Imperialism advance a normative alternative rooted in democratic reform and international cooperation. Hobson envisions a more equitable distribution of income within industrial societies, which would eliminate the economic compulsion toward imperial expansion. He also calls for the development of international law and arbitration as instruments of global order—a vision that would later influence liberal internationalist thought in the interwar period. In this respect, Hobson’s work can be read as both a critique of the imperial system and a program for a reformed, cooperative world economy.


From a historiographical perspective, Hobson’s Imperialism has had a far-reaching intellectual legacy. His economic interpretation profoundly influenced later Marxist and neo-Marxist theorists, most notably Vladimir Lenin, whose Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916) adapted Hobson’s analysis to a revolutionary framework. While Hobson saw imperialism as a correctable distortion within capitalism, Lenin radicalized it into an inevitable phase of capitalist development, thereby transforming Hobson’s reformist critique into a doctrine of historical necessity. Beyond Marxism, Hobson’s insights have resonated in subsequent debates about globalization, dependency, and the political economy of development.


Yet, from a contemporary standpoint, Hobson’s analysis also exhibits certain limitations. His model of surplus capital and underconsumption has been challenged by later economists, who argue that it oversimplifies the dynamics of investment and international trade. Moreover, Hobson’s own writings reflect the racial attitudes of his time: his critique of imperialism is occasionally framed within assumptions of European cultural superiority, which he contrasts with the alleged “backwardness” of colonized peoples. These tensions—between his humanitarian universalism and his Eurocentric worldview—illustrate the moral and intellectual contradictions of early twentieth-century liberalism.


Stylistically, Hobson’s prose is lucid, impassioned, and rhetorically forceful. His synthesis of economic analysis and moral argument gives the work a polemical vitality that distinguishes it from both purely theoretical and purely historical studies. The tone of Imperialism is simultaneously analytical and prophetic, anticipating many of the critiques of globalization and corporate influence that would emerge in later centuries.


Imperialism: A Study endures as a landmark in the literature of political economy and international relations. Its blend of economic theory, moral critique, and political foresight secures Hobson’s place among the most influential interpreters of modern empire. Though shaped by its Edwardian context and limited by its reformist optimism, the work’s central insight—that imperial expansion reflects the internal contradictions of capitalist society—remains a cornerstone of critical thought on global power and inequality. For historians, political theorists, and economists alike, Hobson’s Imperialism continues to offer a penetrating framework for understanding the entanglement of economic interests, political power, and moral ideology in the making of the modern world.

GPT

[William Gregory · Rating 4 out of 5]

There’s a 10/10 book in part 1 and then there’s a part 2 that shows it age. Amazing analysis at beginning that is really original and gets at the economic base of imperialism and how it subverts real national interests. The second half is a lot of race science and opinions on how imperial policy should be carried out if it’s going to happen anyway.
If you’ve been recommended this or have heard it’s an important book then I’d say that Part 1 is far more important for studies of imperialism while Part 2 is good for context of what the state of more general debates on the function of the British empire were in 1902.

[Robert Varik · Rating 4 out of 5]

The big story of the 20th century is often told as such, how the great European empires disintegrated, and new nation states took their place. With some, like the Russian and German empires, the disintegration was revolutionary and swift, with others, like the British empire, the process was more gradual (but violent nevertheless). The story usually follows a liberal moral. Empires were bad and evil because of their anti-democratic nature. Their replacement with democratic republics was meant to happen eventually, because national strive for liberty always overcomes imperial despotism. This line of anti-imperialist thinking has perhaps even become a cliché, a mainstream self-evident truth. However, if one starts to follow the intellectual roots of anti-imperialism, they will soon find themselves in the undercurrents of European thought and then end up at the taproot that is John A. Hobson and his magnum opus Imperialism: A Study, first published in 1902. There are very few thinkers who equal Hobson’s influence on modern anti-imperialist thinking and some of them, like Lenin, have even been directly influenced by Hobson’s work.

Hobson’s book is divided into two parts. Part one touches on the economics of imperialism and part two on the politics. The crux of Hobson’s criticism is introduced in the economic part of the book and in a Marxist sense forms the base of Hobson’s argument, while the politics part makes up the superstructure, explaining how the many reasonings for imperialism are actually not that reasonable at all.

Simply put, Hobson finds that although empires run on public money, they do not serve the interests of the public but rather the interests of the rich and wealthy, whom the author sees as parasites on the society. Hobson also distinguishes imperialism and colonialism. The latter for Hobson is the “natural overflow of nationality”, while imperialism occurs when states “unnaturally” advance beyond their national borders and rule over alien peoples and lands. This for Hobson is both economically disadvantageous as well as unjustified in any acceptable way.

Through a remarkable knowledge of fiscal statistics, Hobson guides the reader through numerable tables, which show just how badly the British public pays the price of operating costly overseas territories that are claimed to benefit the whole nation. Hobson concludes, “First, the external trade of Great Britain bore a small and diminishing proportion to its internal industry and trade. Secondly, of the external trade, that with British possessions bore a diminishing proportion to that with foreign countries. Thirdly, of the trade with British possessions the tropical trade, and in particular the trade with the new tropical possessions, was the smallest, least progressive, and most fluctuating in quantity, while it is lowest in the character of the goods which it embraces.“

If so harmful to the public funds, then why in their right minds does the government support the imperial system? Hobson does not waste too much time on speculation, but traces down, as he calls, the taproot of imperialism quite hastily – the class of investors are the life blood of any imperial policy. As he writes: “It is not too much to say that the modern foreign policy of Great Britain has been primarily a struggle for profitable markets of investment. To a larger extent every year Great Britain is becoming a nation living upon tribute from abroad, and the classes who enjoy this tribute have had an ever-increasing incentive to employ the public policy, the public purse, and the public force to extend the field of their private investments, and to safeguard and improve their existing investments. This is, perhaps, the most important fact in modern politics, and the obscurity in which it is wrapped has constituted the gravest danger to our State.“ This is perhaps the most important quote of the book, because it so well encapsulates one of the main theses of Hobson’s book: imperialism is in its essence anti-nationalist because it poses a danger to the state and thus to the economic well-being of its people as a whole. Many modern imperialists of course claim to be nationalist-patriots and are very good at manipulating the public to make them believe their claims. In Hobson’s times the imperialist lie ruled the public thinking. In the second part of the book Hobson goes through in detail all the different methods and arguments that imperialists use to make their objectives seem moral, virtuous and serving the common good.

As also claimed by many other thinkers, the public opinion is most strongly manipulated by schools, churches and the press. Controlled by the money of “parasites”, the manipulators of public mind advocate a message of antagonism (against other empires, against the lower races, against barbaric cultures etc.) that supports imperial interests, but not really the interests of nations and ordinary people.

One momentous lie that European empires want their people to trust is that they are the capable pioneers of civilization in the barbaric lands outside their home continent. This is a claim that Hobson most splendidly debunks. Of course, there is nothing wrong with Europeans wanting to improve the lives of other peoples around the world by investing money, new technologies and scientific knowledge in the name of progress. But the truth is that such relationships never work on grounds of pure altruism. The talk about bringing progress to uncivilized lands is usually brought up when the reality of crude exploitation becomes too explicit and impossible to hide. It is the dark irony of Arbeit macht frei, which tries to make it seem that oppression works for the benefit of the oppressed.

Moreover, Hobson philosophically asks, how can we know that our European idea of civilization can also benefit the subjected peoples somewhere in Africa, Asia or Oceania. What makes things even more complicated, is that Europeans themselves do not even know what the best kind of progress for the humankind in general would be – the Frenchman will likely never agree with an Englishman’s ideal of enlightened civilization.

By claiming to represent true civilization, imperialism also demonstrates its perhaps most anti-nationalist aspects, that today would be characterized as globalist. For Hobson this was most evident in Asia where the British tried to “bring civilization”, but at the same time attacked the local cultural traditions or peculiarities. The national character of Indians and Chinese (two cultures that themselves were paradoxically considered to be ancient civilizations), were thought to be inferior to the British and Europeans. From the perspective of Asians, the seemingly cosmopolitan British actually acted as chauvinists. In the words of the Russian linguist Nikolai Trubetskoy: "When assessing European cosmopolitanism, one must always remember that words like "humanity", "universal civilization" and others are in fact inexact expressions that conceal specific ethnographic meanings. European culture is not the culture of humanity." Even if the British had a pinch of good intentions by conquering Southern Asia, the methods they used were terribly ignorant and as Hobson states “the most fatally blind misreading of the true process of world-civilization that it is possible to conceive.” Hobson’s accurate criticism, published during the heyday of European imperialism, predicts the problems of decolonization and Asian nationalism that would trouble the British and other Western powers about half a century later.

In conclusion, Hobson touches upon almost all the most important problems concerning imperialism, offering logical, philosophically coherent and fact-based criticism against maintaining empires. His early and far-seeing study forms the taproot of modern anti-imperialism. Paraphrasing A. N. Whitehead’s famous quote about philosophy and Plato, it could be said that the tradition of anti-imperialism consists of a series of footnotes to John A. Hobson.

[Michael]

http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBoo...

[Stephanie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very important historically

[Kaarel Aadli · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Hobson begins his book setting an aim to “give more precision to a term which is on everybody’s lips and which is used to denote the most powerful movement in the current politics of the Western world” (p. v) using the British empire as a perfect example. In a sense Hobson’s ambition to define a crucial term could be seen very much like Benedict Anderson’s – setting out to lay the basis of future thought regarding world politics (and empires!) in many ways. And as the defining of a greatly undefinable term goes, easy it is not.
Covering the Second Boer War in South Africa for The Manchester Guardian, Hobson had witnessed the workings of the imperial system, the violence and maltreatment of “lower races” by the white man firsthand, an experience which helped him produce the first part of his book: on the economics of imperialism. He saw the British government as acting on behalf of British mine owners, condemning imperialism as a simple tool for capitalists to further their business interests. Finding new markets and investment opportunities in the “savage lands” of the colored peoples was the “taproot of imperialism” (p. 79) in Hobson’s eyes, generated by the everlasting and ever growing amount of surplus goods and surplus money back home. The more the empire expanded, the more massive was the production. A vicious circle, one could say, for the natives of the colonized and conquered lands. To these capitalists Hobson gives the name of “economic parasites” (p. 46). He explains in great detail the ways in which the capitalists use the government for their personal interest serving no great cause for the whole nation, a notion rather disturbing for Hobson and every other able-minded nationalist, coming to the conclusion that even when these parasites are not the engine of the imperial drive, they are the governors of it (p. 59), directing when and where the white man takes over. In essence, Hobson is a clear nationalist, though not being able to condone the “nationalist” values, he comes into stark contradiction with the imperial ones, showing once again the incompatibility of the nation and the empire.
The second part of the book centers on imperial politics. The author goes through the scientific, moral and sentimental factors that have been used to justify the acts of state expansion. Hobson agrees that the statesmen and businessmen alike have themselves truly believed in the falsehoods they had created: the Belgians’ only programme was “the moral and material regeneration of the country”, the South African wars were for “the benefit of the people of South Africa” and the Chartered Company desired to “improve the material and moral condition of the natives of Rhodesia” (p. 197-198). This not only shows the utter deviousness of the politics of imperialism, but also makes one think of the lengths the individual is willing to go to deceive themselves. In this sense the history of imperialism is maybe also the history of self-deception on a grand scale, bringing to mind emperor Nero and everything he thought of himself. Then again, one cannot blame the imperial “adventurers” without keeping in mind the scientific discourse of the times – for example the law of “social efficiency” –, which was for the average imperial mind rather difficult to discard. Why would anyone not act in the way the expansionists did, when there is noteworthy (pseudo-)scientific evidence to justify it? It would take a madman not to. The same sort of argumentation works when we consider the masses fooled by the national socialists, it is easy to forget how impressionable we all are. And when the violence between men has been described as essential to the “”natural selection” of nations” (p. 172), then what is left for the British than to take on the role of a universal do-gooder.
“Where British government is real, it does not carry freedom of self-government” (p. 116) and vice versa, Hobson exposes the hypocrisy of the government. It looks ever more as if the British were not at all morally sound humans acting on principles of good-will, bringing cherished values of statehood from Europe to the “savage lands”. He is also showing the Pax Britannica in the same light: “along our [...] frontiers [...] fighting has been well-nigh incessant. (p. 126). It becomes ever clearer to the reader why this work is of such great value – it dismantles in a quiet manner almost all of Western politics since the beginning of civilization. Hobson compares the British empire to the Roman empire drawing on similarities between the two to solidify this notion.
Imperialism: A Study is a work which revealed in full scope the absurdity, deviousness and hypocrisy of the imperial system not only in regard to the conquered and colonized natives, but also in regard to the British nation revealing an ever present contradiction between nationalism and imperialism – a notion tested times and again since 1902. The thought that one should take away from this book? Imperialism has never worked and never will. Truly.

[Alan Carlson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Imperialism: A Study is the iconoclastic 1902 work from British economist J.A. Hobson. Today it is more generally known for having inspired Vladimir Lenin to write his 1916 treatise, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. Secondarily, Hobson advanced his theory that the British investor class had "oversaved," with domestic production outstripping domestic consumption, in consequence thereof leading the investors to seek investment opportunities overseas: first in Europe and from 1870 onward in Africa and Asia - the "tropics".  A Socialist, Hobson argued that the funds should have been directed homeward by increasing the income placed at the disposition and advantage of the working classes, thereby increasing domestic consumption to match production. 

An exhaustive (and exhausting) reading of the text reveals a persistent shadowed motivation: British investment overseas will empower the "black" and "yellow" races, literally imperilling "white civilization." While Hobson is rightfully criticized for anti-Semitism in his earlier book on the Boer War (UK vs ethnic Dutch settlers in South Africa, 1899-1901), blaming the war on "Jewish financiers," such blatant anti-Semitism is missing from "Imperialism." It is beyond curious that modern reviewers of Imperialism so blithely skate past the racism that persists throughout the text. 

Hobson supports "colonisation" as opposed to imperialism, which he sees as white families settling in temperate climes - without regard for extant aborginal society and culture. 

Hobson's analysis of British imperialism - that is to say, abusive exploitation - of Africa is extensive, cogent and well-supported by citations. (Part II, Chapter IV - "Imperialism and the Lower Races.")  Not so the following Chapter on "Imperialism in Asia," which is painted on a phantasmagorical background of an innately corrupt India and a peaceful, wise and complacent China robbed of its innocence and riches by European buccaneers. 

Hobson has both an eye and a pen for a good turn of phrase. 

Pithy metaphor: 
"A coma accompanied by fits." Miss Mary Kingsley on British policy in the West African colonies. p. 128

Insouciant nationalism:
 "Probably every one would agree that an Englishman would be right in considering his way of looking at the world and at life better than that of the Maori or Hottentot, and no one will object in the abstract to England doing her best to impose her better and higher view on those savages." (Goes on to accord Belgians, Germans, Nordics the same lack of disrespect, if at a higher step.) Earl Grey on Hubert Harvey of the British South African Chartered Company, p. 167

Outrageous sanctimony: 
"Our only programme is that of the moral and material regeneration of the country." King Leopold II of Belgium, referencing the Congo. p. 209 

{I cannot praise too highly King Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hochschild in refutation of this hypocrisy.} 

Damnation of Populism:
They are no longer seriously frightened by the power of the people as implied by a popular franchise, nor are they prepared to conciliate it by further taxes on property; .... 'Panem et circenses' interpreted into English means cheap booze and Mafficking (Mafeking, Siege of: ed.). Popular education, instead of serving as a defence, is an incitement towards Imperialism; it has opened up a panorama of vulgar pride and crude sensationalism to a great inert mass who see current history and the tangled maze of world movements with dim, bewildered eyes, and are the inevitable dupes of the able organised interests who can lure, or scare, or drive them into any convenient course.  p. 107

Fake News:
Imperialism is based upon a persistent misrepresentation of facts and forces chiefly through a most refined process of selection, exaggeration, and attenuation, directed by interested cliques and persons so as to distort the face of history. The gravest peril of Imperialism lies in the state of mind of a nation which has become habituated to this deception and which has rendered itself incapable of self-criticism. p. 223

Prophesy: 
"[China] may turn upon her civiliser [.] .... [T]here is no consideration, theoretic or practical, to prevent British capital from transferring itself to China, provided it can find there a cheaper or more efficient supply of labour, or even to prevent Chinese capital with Chinese labour from ousting Britsh produce [.] .... China might so turn the tables upon the Western industrial nations, and, either by adopting their capital and organisers or, as is more probable, by substituting her own, might flood their markets with her cheaper manufacturers, and refusing their imports in exchange might take her payments in liens upon their capital, reversing the earlier process of investment until she gradually obtained financial control over her quondam patrons and civilisers. This is no idle speculation." pp 329-330

And Condemnation of the "Upper" Class:"
... vulgar ostentation, domineering demeanour and corrupting largesse to dazzle and degrade the life of our people." p. 158

[Kerem · Rating 3 out of 5]

Considering the book was written at the peak of imperialism, Hobson provides an interesting analysis of the economic and political aspects of it. He makes in particular a strong argument that economically imperialism doesn't make sense for the nation, as it drains the resources for the sake of the benefits of a small minority of people. On the political end, he also has some good points, though at times, Hobson shows a bit of naivety with his utopian views, such as his strong belief of the possibility of a functional international government. Overall I'd give it 3.5 stars, it's certainly worth a read even if it's not always easy to follow Hobson's arguments.

[Diego · Rating 4 out of 5]

Imperialismo un estudio es un libro muy importante, fue sumamente influyente en el desarrollo del pensamiento económico tanto de Keynes como de Lenin y Luxemburgo. Su idea de el imperialismo siendo impulsado en el mundo por una falta de demanda interna que se buscaba substituir creando demanda en nuevas colonias es muy atractiva aunque controversial en la histografía actual. Une lectura muy recomendada.

[Bernard English · Rating 5 out of 5]

Other than perhaps giving the British in India just a tad too much credit, this is an outstanding book. An impassioned plea to reign in the military-industrial complex made way back in 1902. So many of the themes he hits on are still with us today which I guess is why this is a classic. An excellent one-hour review video of this was made by professor Alexander Koryagin in his introductory international political theory playlist--just search it.

[Iñaki Tofiño · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting point of view about colonialism and imperialism written in Britain way before the decolonization era. It is reassuring to see that at least somebody thought that imperialism was not the best of ideas, if only because at the end of the day it went again the UK's best interests.

[Sergio Medinaceli · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excelente documento histórico sobre el origen de la desigualdad moderna en Gran Bretaña.

[Emily · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read as part of my midterm paper for History 239D.

[Santiago · Rating 3 out of 5]

6/10

it's fine. the first in a long line of more interesting theories

[Aaron · Rating 4 out of 5]

the first part is a good breakdown of the economics of imperialism the second part isn't that interesting

[Brian · Rating 3 out of 5]

A liberal critique of imperialism (especially British imperialism) written very early in the 20th century... What's interesting to me about this book is how relevant his critiques could be to US imperialism today, as much as I disagree with his perspective. His detailed speculations about how and why China is destined to be an economic superpower are also pretty interesting and worth updating. The author is quite nationalist (while at the same time calling for strong international institutions) and racist, but still has some pretty interesting insights about what the modern empire is all about.

[Leonardo]

Discutido en The Geometry of Imperialism: The Limits of Hobson's Paradigm.

[Dina · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best books i've read in a while. The fact that its written in 19th century yet exactly describes the conditions of today. Damning condemnation of everything that Western civilization prizes itself for.