Talk:Imperialism (Hobson book)

Vandalism

IP Address: 72.82.233.15 (talk · contribs) vandalized this page in two separate edits on 6 February 2013. One of these edits was undone by a user while another one (stating that the economic taproot of imperialism was found "in the anus of a monkey" was disregarded as only being questionable (a "citation needed" tag was later attached to it by another user). I have reverted this page to its state before this vandalism and plan to increase the quality of this page. --02:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Kevin Lakhani (talk)

Addition of ISBN from Wikidata

Please note that this article's infobox is retrieving an ISBN from Wikidata currently. This is the result of a change made to {{Infobox book}} as a result of this RfC. It would be appreciated if an editor took some time to review this ISBN to ensure it is appropriate for the infobox. If it is not, you could consider either correcting the ISBN on Wikidata (preferred) or introducing a blank ISBN parameter in the infobox to block the retrieval from Wikidata. If you do review the ISBN, please respond here so other editors don't duplicate your work. This is an automated message to address concerns that this change did not show up on watchlists. ~ Rob^Talk 01:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Daniel Finkelstein states that the book has antisemitic content and criticises Jeremy Corbyn for writing a foreword in the 2011 edition.[1] JFW | T@lk 19:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a quote from the book that is particularly damning. "United by the strongest bonds of organisation, always in closest and quickest touch with one another, situated in the very heart of the business capital of every State, controlled, so far as Europe is concerned, chiefly by men of a single and peculiar race, who have behind them many centuries of financial experience, they are in a unique position to control the policy of nations. No great quick direction of capital is possible save by their consent and through their agency. Does any one seriously suppose that a great war could be undertaken by any European State, or a great State loan subscribed, if the house of Rothschild and its connections set their face against it?" It's pretty clearly trying to scapegoat Jews. It's not the whole of the book, but it is an important component. 66.108.31.114 (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

"The play of these forces does not openly appear. They are essentially parasites upon patriotism, and they adapt themselves to its protecting colours. In the mouths of their representatives are noble phrase, expressive of their desire to extend the area of civilisation, to establish good government, promote Christianity, extirpate slavery, and elevate the lower races. Some of the business men who hold such language may entertain a genuine, though usually a vague, desire to accomplish these ends, but they are primarily engaged in business, and they are not unaware of the utility of the more unselfish forces in furthering their ends. Their true attitude of mind is expressed by Mr. Rhodes in his famous description of “Her Majesty’s Flag” as “the greatest commercial asset in the world.” " 66.108.31.114 (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Jfdwolff -- I wanted to add something like the below to the article, but I couldn't find a good reference. (I couldn't read the Times article)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

==Controversy==

In April, 2019, UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn was criticised for endorsing the book and writing a foreword for 2011 edition of it, despite it containing anti-semitic conspiracy theories about the Rothschilds, and Jews being responsible for the Boer War.[]

• Hobson was notorious for his antisemitic diatribes, and the antisemitic canard of Jewish conspiracy present in the book is well discussed in academic sources. As this book (and author) have been well analyzed in academic sources over the past century, we should stick to academic sources (as opposed to recent news items - which convey the same).Icewhiz (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Should we add something about how there was no reference to his anti-Semitism on this page or on the author's page prior to 1st May 2019? 83.218.151.178 (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

That's factually incorrect (there was in the past), and in any event this article is about the book - not about the Wikipedia article on the book. You could consider creating Wikipedia article on Imperialism (Hobson) if you consider the Wikipedia article itself notable, though I think it fails notability guidelines. Icewhiz (talk) 09:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

83.218.151.178 -- that's actually quite a common phenomenon with Wikipedia articles on individuals in the second and third tiers of historical fame. Their articles are often maintained by people trying to keep their memory alive, and unpleasant details sometimes have a way of dropping out over time. For a long time, there was nothing on the Pierre-Joseph Proudhon page about what many people would call his blatant misogyny (or at a minimum his militant rampaging rabid anti-feminism). I had to recuse myself from efforts to get this mentioned on the Proudhon article, since I would have gotten into bitter disputes with the person maintaining the Proudhon article, without accomplishing much, probably... AnonMoos (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Questionable rewrite

The way the article has been changed based on Daniel Finkelstein's politically and nationalistically motivated propaganda campaign against Jeremy Corbyn is completely dishonest. To act as if this work, an overview of imperialism, belongs in the same category as full on "conspiracy" works like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is absolutely laughable. The fact of the matter is, at the turn of the 20th century, Jewish financiers did play a prominent role in imperialism and capitalism, whether or not certain individuals would like this to be discussed today or not. Hobson simply mentioned this in his works and indeed, many other people on the left and right mentioned this too. In particular in relation to South Africa, which Hobson mentioned explicitly, you had the Randlords (Barney Barnato, Alfred Beit, Solomon Joel, Lionel Phillips, Samuel Marks, Sir Carl Meyer, 1st Baronet, etc), you had the Oppenheimer family in South Africa too of De Beers diamond fame. The power of the Rothschilds through imperialism was (is?) an objectively real thing, not a jokey "lizard people" conspiracy theory; they funded imperialist projects such as the contruction of the Suez Canal and financed extensive railways which aided the spread of imperialism. These people existed, they were Jewish, this happened and Hobson, a serious economist of the day wrote about it. He was not a Victorian David Icke and it is an insult to the intelligence of people with a basic level of literacy to try and pass this off in such a crude way on Wikipedia (just because pro-Israel partisans like Finkelstein want to play silly little games regarding Mr. Corbyn in contemporary politics). Ishbiliyya (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Please note WP:BLPTALK applies to talk pages. Some of your assertions above in regards to South Africa are roundly rejected by RSes who treat this as a conspiracy theory. We are not using Finkelstein as a source - we are using academic sources which have been covering Hobson's antisemitism and antisemitic stmts in Imperialism for decades (yes decades - e.g Hobson revisited, H Mitchell - Journal of the History of Ideas, 1965 - JSTOR) prior to 2019.Icewhiz (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying the above people did not exist? This is relevant because in the latest round of partisan attacks against Jeremy Corbyn from the likes of Mr. Finkelstein, Jonathan Freedland, etc, they gloss over Hobson's treatment of this topic and make it sound like what he was proposing is just a crazy vague "conspiracy theory". Hobson named names, Henry Hyndman, another leading leftist of the Victorian period named names too. In the age of the internet where the existence of these people can be easily verified, it is untenable to pretend that the prominence of some Jews in imperialism is an David Icke-esque proposition. Some of those names which Hobson and Hyndman regularly mentioned feature above and some of the same names feature in the introduction of our very own articles about imperialist creations such as the De Beers diamond company;

"The company was founded in 1888 by British businessman Cecil Rhodes, who was financed by the South African diamond magnate Alfred Beit and the London-based N M Rothschild & Sons bank.[6][7] In 1926, Ernest Oppenheimer, an immigrant to Britain and later South Africa who had earlier founded mining company Anglo American plc with American financier J.P. Morgan,[8] was elected to the board of De Beers.[9] He built and consolidated the company's global monopoly over the diamond industry until his death in 1957."

Do we need to rewrite the entire De Beers article too? Where is the evidence that before this week, the general treatment of Hobson's Imperialism was that is was some kind of esoteric New Age "conspiracy theory" tract? The primary treatment of Hobson's work is that it is a foundational academic treatment on imperialism and its relationship to capitalism by a respected economist (though with a notable left-wing slant) and its subsequent influence on other theorists who oppose imperialism (in the same sense of say Das Kapital, but obviously not as well known by general public). By all means, have a section dedicated to the recent Finkelstein-vs-Corbyn controversy and that some Jews have ocasssionally said that Hobson was "anti-semitic" for mentioning the prominent role of individual Jews in modern imperialism, but the general tenor of the article should remain as it was before (Jews are not the primarily focus of this book in any case, their involvement in imperialism is simply noted by Hobson in passing). Ishbiliyya (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Repetition of century old rubbish on Wikipedia doesn't look good. We aren't using Finkelstein - though he could be used (mainstream newspaper) - we have much better sources. Hobson was "one of the most rabid anti-Semites of the period" - Routledge book (1996). Hobson has a full fledged entry in an encyclopedia on antisitism - published by ABC-CLIO in 2005. Journal papers have been written on his anti-Jewish attitudes - e.g. New Liberalism, Old Prejudices: J. A. Hobson and the "Jewish Question" from 1987 - "Hobson is prone to stereotyping Jews. Particularly revealing in this regard is his description of an international conspiracy of Jews manipulating British foreign policy toward South Africa". Professor Norman Etherington noted (back in 1984!) - that this tract in Imperialism "was an unsubstantiated accusation that was unworthy of his intelligence and generally high moral principles" - and also notes that it doesn't quite fit with the British establishment's partiality to Jewish financiers.[2] RSes roundly reject Hobson's views on Jews, "Jewish financiers", or financiers of a "singular and peculiar race"Icewhiz (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I'm uncomfortable with the current section on antisemitism in Imperialism. The Cowen and Marks references, having read both chapters, do not make the claim that Hobson's antisemitism was "influential", and the quotations are out of context, especially the Cowen quotation. Antisemitism is mentioned only on pp.259-8 of the Cowen book, as confirmed in the index. The Cunningham Wood reference refers to antisemitism in Hobson's The War in South Africa, but not in his Imperialism. Both the Brustein and Roberts, and Levy references explicitly state that Hobson's antisemitism is "less evident in his major work" (Levy), and the point is made that Hobson insinuates Jewish influence rather than making explicit reference to "Jews". I therefore suggest that devoting an entire section to antisemitism in this article, presumably in response to the Daniel Finkelstein article, is inappropriate. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPA please. Cowen to be precise says "one of the most rabid anti-Semites of the period". Hobson insinuation of a "singular and peculiar race" clearly refers to Jews - as evident by every WP:RS covering this. Additional sources covering Imperialism's much discussed antisemitic diatribe are available. Icewhiz (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Additional sources covering Imperialism's much discussed antisemitic diatribe are available: That won't wash I'm afraid. Please actually respond to my review of the references used here. Cowen does refer to Hobson's antisemitism, but this is not in the context of Imperialism: A Study. Inappropriately citing NPA won't work either. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Quite appropriately - please strike any and all comments on other editrs above - e..g "presumably in response..." . Cowen is cited to give context to Hobson's antisemitism - "Hobson's antisemitic views have been described as influential" - though we could match the language in the source better ("one of the most rabid anti-Semites of the period" - Hobson being the author of the book this is rather relevant - it isn't used to support anything on this book specifically. Additional sources for Imperialism specifically are available - The Oxford Handbook of Victorian Literary Culture, Juliet John, Oxford University Press, Informal Empire and the Rise of One World Culture, G. Barton, page 30, Springer. There is of course extensive coverage of Imperialism in Allett, John. "New Liberalism, Old Prejudices: JA Hobson and the" Jewish Question"." Jewish Social Studies 49.2 (1987): 99-114. - which also notes that Hugh Stretton contrasted Hobson's scapegoating in Imperialism to the Nazis: "A final attraction of Hobson's explanation of imperialism was its deft choice of scapegoats.... The ideal scapegoats should be few, foreign connected, readily recognizable and already disliked. (Like the Nazis, Hobson included international Jews as the most sinister of all)". Icewhiz (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Making reference to other users in talk posts is not inconsistent with NPA, and I am not obliged by NPA or any other policy to strike out a comment which makes vague reference to another user (which at the time I did not realise was you). I have added the Allett reference and converted the Stretton quote into a block quote. Endymion.12 (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Why do we have a sentence about his other works? I don't see that as particularly relevant to this article. Also, while there is a distinction between Jewish financiers and Jews as a race, it is not clear what point is made in saying that here. The comments are speculative. It might be better to paraphrase what he did say in the book and add critiques as to its validity or otherwise. Jontel (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Why do we have a sentence about his other works? Because the antisemitism is largely missing from Imperialism and it is necessary context. I'm trying to compromise at the moment. Endymion.12 (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed - reliable sources place the context of the somewhat toned-down antisemitic content in Imperialism in reference to the extensive antisemitic conspiracy theories in his 1900 and 1901 works on South Africa. In any case this isn't an isolated disconnected rant but a strain of through that runs through Hobson's successive works on the topic. Icewhiz (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Objectivity and style: "states that", "argues that"

In the section called "Taproot of Imperialism", I've attempted to rephrase some things to make them seem more neutral. It might sound more clumsy now. I invite someone to take a look. Here is the relevant diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imperialism_%28Hobson%29&type=revision&diff=930820714&oldid=927596207 --Svennik (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)