Imperialism: Necessary and Beneficial?—Review of the Works of Hobson, Weber, and Schumpeter

Abstract

Proponents of imperialism claim that imperialism is beneficial and necessary. J. A. Hobson, Max Weber, and Joseph Schumpeter have written scholarly critiques in which they question these claims. Hobson argued that imperialism is not only unnecessary, but is pernicious. Weber acknowledged the need for an expansive foreign doctrine, but he suggested that imperialism was neither necessary nor beneficial. Schumpeter argued that the various types of imperialisms were variations on war and he concluded that there were better methods to improve a country's economic standing. The critiques of imperialism by Hobson, Weber, and Schumpeter are noteworthy for a number of reasons, among them, that Weber and Schumpeter knew Hobson's writings well, and that Weber and Schumpeter not only read each other's writings but knew each other personally. All three offer penetrating scholarly critiques that can be used as critical commentaries on contemporary claims for imperialism.

Keywords:

• Imperialism
• Hobson
• Weber
• Schumpeter

Notes on contributor

Christopher Adair-Toteff is author of 40 articles on German sociology and philosophy. His articles on Max Weber include “Max Weber's Charisma,” “Max Weber's Pericles—The Political Demagogue,” “Max Weber's Mysticism,” and “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Politics.” His Sociological Beginnings was published by Liverpool University Press in 2005. He has taught extensively, including as Associate Professor of philosophy at the American University in Bulgaria. He is Honorary Senior Researcher at the University of Kent, and Fellow at the Center for Social and Political Thought, University of South Florida. Adair-Toteff is writing a book on the theological contexts of Weber's Protestant Ethic.

Notes

¹Not everyone is as convinced as Mommsen that Weber was a nationalist. Kari Palonen tries to argue against Mommsen, but he seems to ignore Weber's continued emphasis on culture and he tends to focus on Weber's post-war tendencies (Mommsen 1974, 76). Palonen is both a great Weber scholar and a well-respected political theorist, but here he is less than convincing (Palonen 2001).

²Swedberg points out in Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung that Schumpeter does not name Marx but has him in mind (Swedberg 1991b, 38). Wolfgang Mommsen calls Lenin Schumpeter's “Gegenspieler” (Mommsen 1979, 58).