Geometry of Imperialism: Limits of Hobson's Paradigm

by Giovanni Arrighi

Few terms in the vocabulary of politics are so confused as “imperialism.” Does it refer essentially to colonial rule? Or is it primarily an economic phenomenon, connected to the export of capital? What is its relation to nationalism? Which societies, in the past or present, can be properly described as imperialist?Giovanni Arrighi resolves these ambiguities by the construction of a formal model that integrates all of them into a single structure. He shows how a coherent paradigm of imperialism can be derived from Hobson’s classic study of imperialism at the turn of the century, and illustrates it with a series of geometrical figures. The genesis of English imperialism is traced, from the seventeenth to twentieth centuries. Then the pattern of German and American imperialism are compared and contrasted. Arrighi looks at the consequences of the rise of multinational corporations for the traditional versions of the concept of imperialism and concludes that they transform its meaning.In a new afterword, Arrighi responds to his critics and sketches a reconceptualized theory of “imperialism” as a struggle for world hegemony.

Genres: Politics, Economics, History

260 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1983

About the author

Giovanni Arrighi was Professor of Sociology at Johns Hopkins University. His books include The Long Twentieth Century, Adam Smith in Beijing, and, with Beverly Silver, Chaos and Governance in the Modern World System. His work has appeared in many publications, including New Left Review.

Reviews

[Steve Rolf · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an advanced text dealing with Hobson’s (1902) theory of imperialism, but requiring the reader to possess some reasonable familiarity with (if not intimate knowledge of) cognate texts by Hilferding, Lenin, Bukharin, and Luxembourg. Arrighi’s argument, in brief, is that Hobson’s theory of imperialism was a product of its time, and is no longer applicable at the time of writing (1978) due to the internationalisation of capital under US hegemony.

This line of argument proceeds with impressive application of social scientific rigour to a concept Arrighi argues has become fundamentally muddled. Drawing on Weber’s insistence on absolute conceptual clarity, Arrighi at the outset develops a cross-shaped diagram with four poles (‘Colonialism’, ‘Informal Empire’, ‘Formal Empire’, ‘Imperialism’). Imperialism at Hobson’s time of writing was understood as a novel phenomenon, and Hobson thus counterposed it to Formal Empire as it represented anarchy in international relations, rather than the order (under the subordination of an imperial state) of Formal Empire. Colonialism and Informal Empire were attendant forms of overseas expansion, but Hobson sees both as being led by nations (rather than states) and in different ways ultimately reinforcing counterposed nationalisms, eventually undermining the initial overseas expansion. Colonialism was a dead end as it fostered resentment and nationalism of the colonised who would ultimately overthrow their colonial rulers, establishing Informal Empire whereby capitalism acted as a mutually beneficial, positive-sum game integrating the world system and lifting all boats.

Through an extensive historical critique (Chapters 3 and 4), Arrighi demonstrates how historically inaccurate this basic ‘geometry’ of imperialism developed by Hobson was. He did not at all consider the highly varied US and German experiences (of a drive to Informal Empire and Imperialism, respectively), and misconstrued the passage of English imperialism from colonialism through a phase of informal empire before the rise of such contender states in the latter path of 19th Century forced it to revive its Formal Empire and engage in Imperialist aggression to (attempt to) retain its predominance.

Through a maze of increasingly complex diagrammatic representations, Arrighi goes on to argue that a diachronic understanding of cycles of hegemony (rather than a synchronic [and, one might add, methodologically nationalist] geometry of imperialism) presents a far more compelling reading of the complex geopolitical trajectories of emergent capitalist states, the rise and fall of globally dominant powers, and the emergence of global financial flows, than Hobson’s polarity of Imperialism vs. Informal Empire as a simple policy choice for states. The reader struggles with the complexity of the visualisations here and one wonders how helpful they are, though they evidently inform Arrighi’s later (and in my view much superior) masterwork, The Long Twentieth Century (1994/2009). Arrighi cleaves too closely to an underconsumptionist theory of crisis, raising the question of why anti-imperialism could in fact not be a potential state policy of ameliorating economic crises and unintentionally weakening his argument against Hobson’s simple binary. Finally, the closing argument that multinational capital flows serve to undermine territorial state power and geopolitical conflict has ultimately not been borne out by reality (though Arrighi does admit that ‘decades in the future’ such conflicts might arise again he does nothing to spell out the precise circumstances in which this might become the case).

All in all, this book represents an interesting critique of Hobson and a clear staging post on the way to Arrighi’s extremely powerful later studies, but contains weaknesses and a lack of clarity which will likely frustrate many readers.

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fun precursor to late-career Arrighi—clarifies his particular definitions of imperialism, finance capitalism, multinational capitalism, and hegemony, all of which become very important to my favorite of his concepts (not introduced in this book), systemic cycles of accumulation. He does this mostly by reconstructing other, older, definitions (Hobson’s and Lenin’s) and outlining rather than filling their analytic blindspots, so don’t expect much in the way of original theorizing here. But it’s nonetheless a very effective, categorically reflexive clearing of the analytic ground from which Arrighi’s later, more constructive work proceeds.

[Drew · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting book that puts Hobson's theory of imperialism into a "geometry" or map. Arrighi, if I understood correctly, makes clear that he is not trying to create something new based on Hobson, but rather to use Hobson as a base to understand different forms of imperialism and how imperialism changes. I have only briefly read Hobson's works, but it doesn't seem like you need much more than a passing familiarity to get the gist of this book. Overall an interesting attempt to, at the very least, create a coherent theory of what imperialisms is that differentiates it from capitalism without making the term meaninglessly synonymous with territorial expansion. I think the most important element, however, is a better understanding of Arrighi's later work, as you can certainly see traces of this work in "The Long Twentieth Century".

[cunningrocks · Rating 3 out of 5]

didn't get the diagrams at all lol but still interesting. makes some interesting points about German and American imperialism. I suspect I need to read more Hobson/Lenin/Hilferding to really get it j suppose. uses the word hegemony but idt he mentions gramsci. goofy is a good way

[gulyas069 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredibly important book and required reading for anyone who wants to talk about imperialism after Bretton-Woods. It doesn't contain its own theory of imperialism but primarily reconstructs the theory of Hobson that Lenin's theory was based on. The conclusion is that the body of works on imperialism pre-Bretton-Woods has a wholly different object of inquiry as those who try to deal with imperialism after the agreement. Expanding older theories of imperialism to the the second of of the 20th century and beyond has fundamentally muddled the term to the point where the term imperialism itself seems unclear. Any who keep uncritically applying, say, Lenin's theory after WW2 are not just charging at windmills but also actively blocking theoretical progress.

A necessary discursive intervention.

[Leonardo]

Sobre la deuda de Lenin con Hobson ver: Giovanni Arrighi, The Geometry of Imperialism: The Limits of Hobson´s Paradigm, trad. Patrick Camiller (London: Verso, 1978), pp. 23-27.

Imperio Pág.174