You are on page 1of 1

What do Lenin's theory of imperialism and Hilferding's have in common and in what ways do they

diverge?

J. A. Hobson's theories of imperialism have had considerable influence on twentieth century


economic historians to the extent that his work is regarded as one of the most influential theories of
imperialism. Shortly after Hobson's famous work was published, socialist writers on the continent
also offered theories of imperialism that similarly discussed the increasing power of banks and
financiers to explain the increasing trend of monopoly growth in the early part of the twentieth
century. Inter-dependency between large financial institutions and the concentration of power in the
hands of the few became one definition of the many terms used to describe imperialism. It was,
however, this increase in economic power of capitalist agents and the influence such agents were
thought to carry over political and state agenda, that was given as a possible reason to explain the
annexation and exploitation of underdeveloped countries (this 'outcome' now being the most widely
accepted definition of the word imperialism). Marxist theories were also concerned with explaining,
in accordance Marx's predictions about the fall of capitalism, imperialism's role in sustaining its
continuation and present impact on societal structures. Certainly this is where Rudolf Hilferding's
major work Finance Capital can be positioned and as Brewer argues, it is Hilferding's extensive
work, particularly on the rise of monopoly and capital export, that deserves the major credit for later
socialist, economic theories that Y. Lenin often receives the credit for conceiving. There are indeed
obvious areas of agreement between Lenin and Hilferding's work, but what is interesting about
Lenin's work is the substantial commentary it has received on the similarities between his ideas and
Hobson's (of whom it is widely known that Lenin read) and whether his work could, in fact, form
part of a Hobson-Lenin thesis. This is interesting because it is also argued that Hobson and Karl
Krautsky's arguments bore more similarity, and it is widely thought that Lenin wrote Imperialism
The highest Stage of Capitalism to directly contend Krautsky's ideas amid the disarray of the
Second International. Commentary has also been made and justified by those such as Etherington
and XXXX on Lenin's theory of imperialism as not so much concerned with imperialism in the
tropics, but as an expansion on Marxist ideas; imperialism is a stage in capitalism and one that
would inevitably lead to war before revolution. In this essay it is therefore intended that Hilferding
pioneering Marxist theories of imperialism and Lenin's crucial arguments that extend these shall be
discussed in order to distance Lenin from Hilferding to a further extent than either xxx such as
Warren or Brewer detail he deserves.

As Brewer argues Hilferding

Yet as Eckstein has argued Y. Lenin's theor

You might also like