Lenin's theory of imperialism and Hilferding's have in common and in what ways do they diverge? john brewer: There are obvious areas of agreement between Lenin and Hilferring's work. But what is interesting is the commentary it has received on the similarities between his ideas and Hobson's, he writes.
Lenin's theory of imperialism and Hilferding's have in common and in what ways do they diverge? john brewer: There are obvious areas of agreement between Lenin and Hilferring's work. But what is interesting is the commentary it has received on the similarities between his ideas and Hobson's, he writes.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Lenin's theory of imperialism and Hilferding's have in common and in what ways do they diverge? john brewer: There are obvious areas of agreement between Lenin and Hilferring's work. But what is interesting is the commentary it has received on the similarities between his ideas and Hobson's, he writes.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
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.