MA History: Imperialism and Culture

Theories of Imperialism

Module Leader: Professor Peter Cain

Assignment 2 of 2

“What do Lenin's theory of imperialism and Hilferding's have in

common and in what ways do they diverge?”

Victoria Allen

Submission Date: 25/01/10

Word Count: 3,307

Theories of Imperialism Assignment 2

Anthony Brewer argues that for classical Marxists imperialism meant rivalry between advanced

capitalist counties1. Control by one nation is not simply achieved by militarism but by the

implementation of economic structures that reinforce oligarchy over competition and work to

reinforce class divisions. In this sense, Brewer suggests that such ideas of 'imperialism' were

introduced into Marxist theory between 1900 and 19202; it was during this time that Marxist writers

on the continent began offer interpretations of imperialism that discussed the increasing power of

banks and financiers to explain the increasing trend of monopoly growth in the early part of the

twentieth century. In these interpretations it was outlined that inter-dependency between large

financial institutions and the concentration of power in the hands of the few was securing the

survival of capitalism. The increase in economic and political power of capitalist agents, and the

influence such agents were thought to carry over state agenda, was offered as a direct link in

explaining the continued annexation and exploitation of underdeveloped countries (this latter

'hallmark' now being the most widely accepted definition of the word imperialism as per

dependency theory3).

Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin's famous pamphlet Imperialism: The Highest Stage of

Capitalism certainly interprets imperialism as inextricably linked with the monopolistic stage of

capitalism4 and was to become, as Bernard Semmel suggests, the standard Marxist theory of

imperialism for at least half a century.5 Both Brewer and Norman Etherington argue, however, that

much of Lenin's work is actually based on earlier work, primarily Austrian Marxist Rudolf

Hilferding, and it is claimed that Lenin therefore simply popularised theories that were already in

existence.6 Hilferding's extensive work on the rise of monopoly, the move towards protectionist

policy and capital export as a final phase of capitalism do indeed form the basis of Lenin's work,

particularly his treatment of the importance of the export of capital as central to imperialism.7

However, the fact that much of the debate details a 'Marxist-Leninist' critique of imperialism

1
Theories of Imperialism Assignment 2

denotes that Lenin did expand, contribute to or, in fact, deviate from, Marxist ideology in his

writing. Indeed Lenin's rationale, as Bill Warren explicitly argues, was to over turn any previous

ideas of Karl Marx and Joseph Engels of capitalism as a means to social progress, and his method to

this end was to use the phenomenon of imperialism to explain the origins of the First World War

and the vast support it received from the proletariat.8 Even Brewer argues that amid the obvious

similarities with Hilferding, it was Lenin that declared imperialism as the final stage in capitalism,

as opposed to monopoly capitalism, and the stage that would inevitably lead to war before

revolution in both old and new capitalist states.9

What is also interesting about Lenin's work is the substantial commentary it has received on the

similarities between his ideas and J.A. Hobson's, of whom it is widely known that Lenin read and

admired.10 Again, Lenin's concentration on the export of capital as being a direct result of an 'over

ripe' domestic market links directly to Hobson's theory of under-consumption. Yet the similarity

also requires further investigation not simply because Hobson was not a socialist but because it is

also argued that Hobson's and socialist leader Karl Kautsky's work bore some similarity in terms of

their basic liberal ideas providing a starting point for Marxist commentary in general,11 and it is

widely thought that Lenin wrote his pamphlet to directly contend Kautsky's ideas of 'ultra-

imperialism12 amid the disarray of the Second International.

In this essay it is therefore intended to argue that Hilferding's discussion in his 1910 publication

Finance Capital formed the core of Marxist-Leninist theories of imperialism. It is also intended,

however, to discuss the extent to which Lenin's extension arguments on these ideas distance Lenin

from Hilferding to a further extent than opponents such as Brewer afford.

Although John Kautsky suggests that Karl Kautsky was the first Marxist to attempt to explain

imperialism after the deaths of Marx and Engels,13 Brewer argues that Hilferding is the 'real father'

of a classical Marxist theory of imperialism,14 with Wolfgang Mommsen similarly claiming that

2
Theories of Imperialism Assignment 2

Hilferding's work was the first genuine Marxist theory of imperialism.15 Etherington further outlines

how it was Hilferding's early conversion of data by German capitalist protagonists that contributed

to Marxist understanding about capitalist motives.16 An assessment on the movement towards

monopolisation of sectors as the first step towards socialism was central to Marx's earlier work17,

but it could be argued that Hilferding proposed his theory in a direct attempt to outline the evolution

of monopoly and imperialism as a means to explaining the survival of capitalism before revolution.

He states, “Finance capital...brings the dictatorship of the capital magnates to perfection...The

domination of capital at home is more and more at variance with the interests of the masses...In the

violent clash of hostile interests the dictatorship of capitalist magnates is transformed into the

dictatorship of the proletariat”.18 Thus it could be argued that it was Hilferding who initially made

the distinction, from a Marxist standpoint, between old capitalism and monopoly as core to the

system of imperialism.

Much of this distinction was concerned with an analysis of the rise of the joint stock company,

which in essence represented a new regime in the function of the capitalist from fragmented

individuals to collective units. Inter-connected blocks of capital, owned by an increasingly smaller

number of inter-connected capitalists, were therefore key to the growth of monopoly and

cartelisation creating “relations of mutual dependence and mutual dominance”.19 Monopoly was

achieved through the ability to generate large amounts of centralised wealth. “In the relations of

mutual dependence between capitalist enterprises it is financial strength, which determines which

enterprises will become dependent on others”.20

For Hilferding, however, it was the rising power of the banks that he believed integral to the

formation of these inter-dependent cartels. This assessment of the banks formed his theory of

finance capital. For Hilferding finance capital was the fusion of industrial capital and strong

financial capital and this was also to form the basis of his theory of imperialism.21 To exemplify

his desire to offer an assessment of an imperialist movement post Marx, Etherington argues that

3
Theories of Imperialism Assignment 2

Hilferding is very clear that this fusion of industry and finance commenced after 1895.22

Etherington further suggests Hilferding saw the phenomenon of the banks moving into important,

controlling positions as the centrepiece to his argument.23 The once separate business sectors were

evolving into vertically integrated finance capital, controlling the means of production, distribution

and funds, with Hilferding asserting that “...the capital of industry does not belong to the industrial

capitalists...they only get the use of it through the bank”.24 Indeed in Warren's refute of Lenin's

analysis of capital export, it can be argued that in relation to the developments in Germany (of

which Hilferding was primarily concerned) the distribution of German exports was indeed financed

by German banks.25

As Brewer argues Hilferding also furthered his ideas on the development of finance capital's

control over a nation state through a comparison of Britain and Germany, using this examination to

discuss the changes in class structure and national ideology.26 He argued that Britain, although rich

in territory had not shown evidence of a movement towards advanced monopolisation of its

industries. Hilferding accounted this to the lassiez-faire, liberal ideology that had promoted free

trade, and thus competition, in the first place27. Germany on the other hand was state protected. Its

political ideology of nationalism combined with a rise of finance capital encouraged Hilferding to

argue that finance capital breaks from capital liberalism promoted by Britain. To reinforce the idea

of a shift from a liberal hegemony to the promotion of imperialist dogma, Hilferding argued that,

“the idea of humanity is replaced by the ideal of the grandeur and owner of the state”.28

As part of this Hilferding strongly argued that protectionism was part of securing the expansion of

finance capital. Certainly Brewer claims that protective tariff policies of the advanced countries

were crucial to his argument.29 Indeed Hilferding believed that free trade promoted competitive

capitalism and “a means to guaranteeing the maximum possible productivity of labour”,30 and as

early as 1903 he detailed that the evidence of the benefits of monopolistic enterprise on the

continent through the policy of protective tariffs threatened the continuance of free trade in

4
Theories of Imperialism Assignment 2

Britain.31 The tariffs, according to Hilferding, were needed to allow cartels to form on a national

basis, and thus finance capital have a direct interest in increasing protection tariffs. Lenin similarly

described the role of tariffs as part of his analysis but, based on work by fellow Marxist Nikolai

Bukharin, he devoted more attention to how the use of protective tariffs had an effect on the

organisation of world economy. Hilferding suggested that limitations on trade were important in

early stages of capitalism, but he also argued that, “the function of protectionism has been

completely transformed. From the means of defence against the conquest of home markets to means

of conquest of external markets by national industry”.32 Goods that may sell at a loss abroad still

make profit because of raised domestic prices, and Hilferding saw this as a direct way that

protectionism served the interests of the ruling classes. In this context his analysis of the ways in

which tariffs were implemented on an individual, national basis expanded the theory of imperialism

as not simply used to exploit dependent or colonial territories but to simply preserve territory for

national monopoly finance capital. The larger the territory owned, the stronger the cartels would

be, hence finance capital was linked in one swoop as a hallmark of aggressive imperialism that

served the ruling class and economic order. Brewer argues, however, that Hilferding did not realise

how important this was to his argument as a whole,33 as protectionism, it could be argued, secures a

direct link between state policy for the benefit of finance capitalists. As he was writing before the

outbreak of war, Hilferding argued that imperialism was opposed to the interests of the working

class, and as state and capital revealed a their true union, the proletariat would be led into a stance

of opposition. Etherington suggests that Hilferding hoped for this realisation amongst the working

classes; as soon as economic expansion required assistance from the state socialists would expose

the autocratic nature of new capitalism, thus leading to Hilferding formulating a socialist theory of

imperialism34.

In terms of Hilferding's contribution to the discussion of the growing control of finance capital it

5
Theories of Imperialism Assignment 2

seems that the consensus of his importance to the formulation of a theory of imperialism is

therefore justified. It is clear much of Lenin's work on his five features in the development of

monopoly capitalism derive from Hilferding's analysis, for he states earlier in the pamphlet that

“free competition gives rise to the concentration of production which, in turn, at a stage of

development leads to monopoly”.35 Indeed Semmel argues that the early chapters of the pamphlet

relied firmly on Hilferding's ideas,36 Lenin replicating the work in the description of his first two

features by detailing a direct link between rise of monopoly in staving off class conflict.37 To

consolidate this it is clear that Lenin thoroughly assessed, as Hilferding had done, the new role of

banks in facilitating industry and securing its influence on the economic structure of a nation.38 In

this sense it is also clear that Lenin's argument about the concentration of production into smaller

units is related to Marx's own predictions, yet in furthering his discussion of monopoly as a final

stage Lenin diverged from Hilferding. He argued that monopoly demonstrated a clear “tendency for

stagnation and decay”39 in contrast to Hilferding's assertion that monopoly intensified competition.

Brewer argues that Lenin furthered the discussion of monopoly by proposing imperialism slowed

down the development of technological development in even the richest countries, which was to

foreshadow later Marxist-Leninist theories of imperialism.40

V. G. Kiernan argues that it was Kautsky who first alluded to the export of capital as central to the

phenomenon of imperialism.41 However it could be argued that Hilferding consolidated ideas of

capital export to explain the links between finance capital and protectionism. As Brewer suggests

although the movement of capital in search of maximum return is regarded as a normal part of

capitalism, Hilferding specifically argued that the export of capital was a means of overcoming

other countries' tariffs.42 He also claimed that countries strong enough to export capital en-mass

would gain an advantage in terms of competition with rival producers. Securing new territory was

also important for the exportation of surplus capital that could not find be invested in domestic

6
Theories of Imperialism Assignment 2

business, and therefore this surplus was responsible for the rise of militarism as part of state

policy.43 According to Hilferding there were two distinct types of capital export. The first was loan

capital, whereby investment was made in business controlled by foreign counterparts, and the

second was known as industrial capital export, which enabled the exporting, imperialist power to

establish their industry. Hilferding's ideas on capital export as imperialist thus led to his conclusion

that it facilitated the path for the dominant economic powers to carve up the world between

themselves based on their levels of market control and that this was facilitated by state intervention.

It is clear that with regards to an initial analysis of capital export as central to a theory of

imperialism Lenin relied heavily on the works of both Hilferding and Hobson.44 Lenin proposed, as

Hilferding had done, that cheap materials and high profits acted as an incentive to the advanced

countries who were looking to gain control of resources that would expand their means of

production. For “in...backward countries profits are usually high...the price of land is relatively low,

wages are low, raw materials are cheap”.45 However Brewer argues that Lenin's further analysis of

the export of capital raises problems owing to the lack of evidence presented. Lenin claimed that

capitalism had become “overripe”.46 He believed that “owing to the backward stage of agriculture

and the impoverished state of the masses, capital cannot find a [domestic] field for 'profitable'

investment”.47 This argument is similar to that of Hilferding, in that there is a need to find a home

for surplus capital and, according to Brewer and Semmel, this also outlines Hobson's clear influence

on Lenin's work.48 Hobson claimed that over-saving or under-consumption had stifled investment

opportunities in the domestic market49 and Lenin clearly adapted this to form the basis of his main

discussion of capital export. He claimed that the opportunities for capital export were created by the

fact that a number of underdeveloped countries had been drawn into a capitalist intercourse through

expansionist policies. This was initiated by a rise in monopoly surplus capital and thus conquering

underdeveloped territories, particularly those in the tropics, in order to find a means for investment

formed part of state policy.50

7
Theories of Imperialism Assignment 2

Lenin's analysis of capital export also differed from Hilferding's by the inclusion of an explicit

discussion on the dominance of 'parasitic' rentiers as protagonists of the phenomenon.51 Lenin took

Hobson's commentary on 'rentier state'52 and argued that the export of capital by monopoly

companies produced a “userer state”. In his analysis, Lenin details that the world had become

distinctly divided “into a handful of userer states on the one side, and a vast majority of debtor

states on the other”,53clearly linking to his main argument that a main division of territory and

economic power had been completed at this final stage of capitalism. He claimed that further

exploitation of underdeveloped countries, primarily in the tropics, would gain momentum. Lenin

argued the parasitic capitalism that had created the divisions would ultimately fall under an

international proletarian movement.

Although Brewer and Semmel state that on the whole Lenin's pamphlet makes little or no

contribution to developing Hilferding's, or indeed Bukharin's, theory of imperlialism,54 Brewer does

say that Lenin's key difference to Hilferding was the fact that the connection between war and

capitalism was clearly stated.55

As a liberal Hobson argued that instead of continuing to export surplus capital, capitalism could

redeem itself through a policy of positive re-distribution of capital to the working classes on a

domestic basis by raising wages and thus consumer demand.56 Lenin claimed that this could never

be the case, and “that if capitalism could raise the standard of living then it would not be

capitalism”57 and that the only possible outcome was war. It could be argued that support of Lenin's

thesis offering emphasis on a link between imperialism and conflict comes from Eric Stokes'

conclusions on the debate concerning the similarities between Hobson's and Lenin's work.58 Since

D. Fieldhouse's critique of both Hobson and Lenin59, there has been recurrent debate as to whether

there is, in fact, a Hobson-Lenin thesis of imperialism that is focused on colonisation of the tropics,

primarily owing to their discussions on capital export. Debate to this end would indeed be outside

8
Theories of Imperialism Assignment 2

the remit of this essay, but as A. M. Eckstein concludes, Lenin was clearly only discussing the

emergence of imperialism as a stage of capitalism between the years 1898-1900.60 Thus he was

more concerned with an analysis of imperialism and its direct link to the First World War as

opposed to Hilferding who did not go so far as to detail that imperialist policies would lead directly

to the outbreak of war. Brewer, however, does detail that Lenin had a clear advantage in

formulating this argument as he was writing after 1914.61 In the build up to this section of his

theory, Lenin also assessed why the proletariat were in support of the war. Hilferding had always

claimed that imperialism took no consideration of the needs and interests of the working class.

Lenin, however, argued the opposite noting the emergence of a labour or proletariat aristocracy. He

claimed that this section of the working class benefited from monopoly position of the capitalist

owners. However, this only applied to a minority of the working class who were being effectively

bribed by the ruling classes. Ultimately any benefits the labour aristocracy believed they gained

would be wiped out by war.62

In conclusion, the original Marxist theory of imperialism can be attributed to Hilferding's work

based on his assessment of the emergence of finance capital as central to the extension of

capitalism. Lenin's work, however influential, was anything but 'revolutionary' in theoretical content

and ultimately owed much to Hilferding, along with Hobson's even earlier liberal critique.

Bukharin's use of Hilferding's ideas in forming an assessment of the imperialism of world economy,

also deserve credit. Even though this has not been discussed in any depth it should be noted that

Lenin also used Bukharin extensively, particularly in his formulation of a theory of capital export.

The main key difference between Hilferding and Lenin, however, is that Hilferding offered a

theoretical starting point before the First World War and centralised his work on the capitalist

expansion he witnessed in Germany, without, it seems, having prior knowledge of liberal

commentary such as Hobson to provide further contemporary comparisons between Britain and

9
Theories of Imperialism Assignment 2

Germany. Lenin's concentration on imperialism leading to the war was a direct attack on Kautsky.

As a Marxist, Kautsky had supported free trade as this meant low food prices for the working

classes. His theory of ultra-imperialism followed that of Hobson's inter-imperialism whereby ruling

classes or economic powers will be drawn into inter-imperial cooperation and work for peace not

war. Kautsky fully believed that after war broke out peace was still achievable, as finance capital

would succumb to the threat of colonial subjects and their own proletariat.63 Lenin however, could

not agree and as such the main outcome of his work, as opposed to Hilferding, was to outline a

thesis that was intended to galvanise a socialist movement into accepting that imperialism was the

end of the line for capitalist regimes and full social revolution was imminent.

10
Theories of Imperialism Assignment 2

End Notes

1 A. Brewer, Marxist Theories of Imperialism: A Critical Survey (1st ed. 1980) p.80
2 A. Brewer, op. cit., p.16
3 An overview of the debate of imperialist exploitation of underdeveloped economies as central to dependency theory
is discussed by P. Wolfe, History and Imperialism: A Century of Theory, from Marx to Postcolonialism; The
American Historical Review, Vol. 102, No. 2 (Apr., 1997), pp. 388-420
4 W. Mommsen. Theories of Imperialism (1981) p.48
5 B. Semmel, The Liberal Ideal and the Demons of Empire: Theories of Imperialism from Adam Smith to Lenin (1993)
p. 157
6 For assessments of Lenin's similarities to Hilferding see A. Brewer, op. cit., pp. 79 – 100, N. Etherington, Theories
of Imperialism: War, Conquest and Capital (1984) pp. 132-135 and W. Mommsen. op. cit., p.29
7 For assessments of Lenin's discussion of capital export see V. G. Kiernan, Marxism and Imperialism (1974) pp. 42-
49 and B. Warren Imperialism Pioneer of Capitalism (1980) pp 57-70.
8 B. Warren, op. cit., p. 48
9 A. Brewer, op. cit., p.102
10 For discussions on Lenin's use of J.A Hobson Imperialism: A Study (1902 ed) see A. Brewer, op. cit., p.112,
B.Semmel op. cit., pp162-167, P. Wolfe, op. cit,. P338-340 and A. M. Eckstein, Is There a 'Hobson-Lenin Thesis' of
Late Nineteenth-Century Colonial Expansion? The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 44, No. 2
(May1991), pp. 314-317
11 J. Kautsky, J. A. Schumpeter and Karl Kautsky: Parallel Theories of Imperialism Midwest Journal of Political
Science, Vol. 5, No. 2 (May, 1961), p. 103
12 B. Semmel op. cit., p. 164
13 J. Kautsky, op. cit.,
14 A. Brewer, op. cit., p.100
15 W. Mommsen. op. cit., p.29
16 N. Etherington, op. cit., p.109
17 For a discussion of Marx's predictions about the centralisation of capital see P. Williams Monopoly and
Centralisation in Marx, History of Political Economy 1982 14(2) pp.228-241
18 R. Hilferding, Finance Capital: A Study of the Latest Phase of Capitalist Development (1970) p.507
19 R. Hilferding, op. cit., p.315
20 R. Hilferding, op. cit., p.315
21 A. Brewer, op. cit., p.82
22 N. Etherington, op. cit., p.111
23 N. Etherington, op. cit., p.111
24 R. Hilferding, op. cit., p 318
25 B.Warren, op. cit., p.63
26 A. Brewer, op. cit., p.97
27 R. Hilferding, op. cit., p.440
28 R. Hilferding, op. cit., p.450
29 A. Brewer, op. cit., p.86
30 R. Hilferding, op. cit., p.421
31 For discussion of Hilferding's earlier writings in Kautsky's journal Die Neue Zeit see N. Etherington, op. cit.,p.108
32 R. Hilferding, op. cit., p.419
33 A. Brewer, op. cit., p.86
34 N. Etherington, op. cit., p.112
35 Y. I. Lenin Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1950 ed) first published (1917) p. 448. Lenin's five
features of capitalism are listed on p. 525.
36 B. Semmel op. cit., p. 164
37 W. Mommsen. op. cit., p.49
38 Y. I. Lenin op. cit., p. 15
39 Y. I. Lenin op. cit., p. 527
40 A. Brewer, op. cit., p.112
41 V. G. Kiernan, op. cit., p. 9
42 A. Brewer, op. cit., p.92
43 A. Brewer, op. cit., p 92
44 B. Semmel op. cit., p. 164
45 Y. I. Lenin op. cit., p. 496
46 Y. I. Lenin op. cit., p. 495

11
Theories of Imperialism Assignment 2

47 Y. I. Lenin op. cit., p. 495

48 For discussion on Lenin's use of J.A Hobson's underconsumptionist theory Imperialism (1902) see A. Brewer, op.
cit., p.112, B. Semmel op. cit., pp162-167
49 J. A. Hobson, Imperialism: A Study (2005 4th ed) pp. 82-85
50 According to Warren, it cannot be proven that has no correlation between export capital and rise of monopoly
and thus Lenin's argument about expansion and capital export is unsubstantiated. Warren offers statistical evidence to
the extent that exporting loan capital was common practice way before Lenin's assertions. B. Warren, op. cit., p. 63
51 B. Semmel op. cit., p. 164
52 Lenin detailed that even the liberal Hobson had identified the parasitim of capitalism more so than the Marxist
Hilferding. For Hobson's discussion on 'rentier state' see J. A. Hobson, Imperialism: A Study (2005 4th ed) pp. 86 -
105
53 Y. I. Lenin op. cit., p. 527
54 For discussions on Lenin's lack of theoretical development of a theory of imperialism A. Brewer, op. cit., p.124,
B.Semmel op. cit., pp162-167,
55 A. Brewer, op. cit., p.124
56 J. A. Hobson, Imperialism: A Study (2005 4th ed) pp. 86 - 105
57 Y. I . Lenin op. cit.,
58 E. Stokes' conclusions concerning the era of Lenin's 'final stage' is discussed in A. M. Eckstein, Is There a 'Hobson-
Lenin Thesis' of Late Nineteenth-Century Colonial Expansion? The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 44,
No. 2 (May1991), pp. 307
59 D. Fieldhouse's conclusions concerning the era of Lenin's 'final stage' is discussed in A. M. Eckstein, Is There a
'Hobson-Lenin Thesis' of Late Nineteenth-Century Colonial Expansion? The Economic History Review, New
Series, Vol. 44, No. 2 (May1991), pp. 297-299
60 A. M. Eckstein, Is There a 'Hobson-Lenin Thesis' of Late Nineteenth-Century Colonial Expansion? The Economic
History Review, New Series, Vol. 44, No. 2 (May1991), pp. 306-308
61 A. Brewer, op. cit., p.126
62 Y. I . Lenin op. cit.,540
63 For discussions on Lenin writing his pamphlet to oppose Kautsky see A. Brewer, op. cit., p.124,
B.Semmel op. cit., pp162-167

12
Theories of Imperialism Assignment 2

Bibliography

Documentary

Hilferding, R. Finance Capital: A Study of the Latest Phase of Capitalist Development (1970 ed) first published 1910

Lenin. Y.I. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1950 ed) first published 1917

Secondary

Brewer, A. Marxist Theories of Imperialism: A Critical Survey (Routledge, 1980 edn)

Eckstein, A.M. Is There a 'Hobson-Lenin Thesis' of Late Nineteenth-Century Colonial Expansion? The Economic
History Review, New Series, Vol. 44, No. 2 (May1991), pp. 307

Etherington, N. Theories of Imperialism: War, Conquest and Capital (Barnes and Noble, 1984)

Hobson, J.A. Imperialism: A Study (Cosmo Classics, 2005 edn)

Kautsky, J. J. A. Schumpeter and Karl Kautsky: Parallel Theories of Imperialism Midwest Journal of Political
Science, Vol. 5, No. 2 (May, 1961)

Kiernan, V.G. Marxism and Imperialism (Edward Arnold, 1974 edn)

Mommsen. W. Theories of Imperialism (Chicago University Press, 1981 edn)

Semmel, B. The Liberal Ideal and the Demons of Empire: Theories of Imperialism from Adam Smith to Lenin (John
Hopkins University Press, 1993)

Warren, B. Imperialism Pioneer of Capitalism (Verso, 1980)

Wolfe, P. History and Imperialism: A Century of Theory, from Marx to Postcolonialism; The American Historical
Review, Vol. 102, No. 2 (Apr., 1997), pp. 388-420

13