Hobson merely identified the "peculiar race" that united many international financiers. So nothing 'anti-semitic' about it, merely an accurate observation but one that is unwelcomed by those being observedScott wrote: ↑05 Jan 2020, 19:39 Since this thread is about the Spanish Civil War and involves aspects of Jews and the semantics of the term "Imperialism," it might be useful for this thread to note the context where Lenin used the idea:Although I do agree with some of his takes here, there is much of Lenin's analysis that I don't.Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1917), by Vladimir Lenin, describes the function of financial capital in generating profits from imperialist colonialism as the final stage of capitalist development to ensure greater profits.
Interestingly, in this Wiki article it is mentioned that Lenin's Imperialism was influenced by the English economist J.A. Hobson, whom I have not read, but whose works apparently had some early anti-Semitic overtones.
Hobson wrote:Economic parasites of imperialism
If the special interest of the investor is liable to clash with the public interest and to induce a wrecking policy, still more dangerous is the special interest of the financier, the general dealer in investments. In large measure the rank and file of the investors are, both for business and for politics, the cat's-paws of the great financial houses, who use stocks and shares not so much as investments to yield them interest, but as material for speculation in the money market.
In handling large masses of stocks and shares, in floating companies, in manipulating fluctuations of values, the magnates of the Bourse find their gain. These great businesses—banking, broking, bill discounting, loan floating, company promoting—form the central ganglion of international capitalism.
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?
-- John A. Hobson, 'Imperialism: A Study'. Pg.45. .
Available in PDF form here
Yes. And I would argue that that is NOT 'anti-semitic' if it is a true and accurate analysis.Scott wrote: ↑05 Jan 2020, 19:39Imperialism: A Study (1902), by John A. Hobson, is a politico–economic discourse about the negative financial, economic, and moral aspects of imperialism as a nationalistic business enterprise.
[...]Hobson states that what he called the "taproot of imperialism" is not in nationalist pride, but in capitalist oligarchy; and, as a form of economic organization, imperialism is unnecessary and immoral, the result of the mis-distribution of wealth in a capitalist society. [Emphasis mine.][...]
Hobson's writings on the Second Boer War, particularly in The War in South Africa: Its Causes and Effects, attribute the war partly to Jewish influence, including references to Rothschild bankers.
No 'liberals' then?
Whare do you get the idea from that Blair/Orwell ever admired Stalin or what you called "Stalinist communism"? I was not aware that he EVER "admired" Stalin. In 1941 he went against the common conditioned mindset to write this in his diary.Scott wrote: ↑05 Jan 2020, 19:39I am not an expert on the Spanish Civil War, but when I have time I'll try to put together a brief outline of my understanding, and hopefully that will help ─ or at least add ─ to the discussion.
I think it is also notable that the Left-Liberal writer Eric Blair (better known by his pen name as George Orwell) lost his admiration for Stalinist Communism while observing the Spanish Civil War as a journalist. Orwell was one of the first Liberals to expose the hypocrisy of what Prof. Harry Elmer Barnes later called 'Totalitarian Liberals'.
Your use of the categorisation 'liberal' seems to me to be a peculiar American distortion of the European meaning. Blair/Orwell is regarded in Britain as left-wing Socialist. That is considered politically quite far from what is regarded here as a centrist Liberal.Eric Blair/George Orwell wrote:One could not have a better example of the moral and emotional shallowness of our time, than the fact that we are now all more or less pro-Stalin. This disgusting murderer is temporarily on our side, and so the purges, etc., are suddenly forgotten.
-- George Orwell, war-time diary, 3 July 1941
As I understand it 'liberal' in America is almost a term of abuse, isn't it?
As I understand it, no liberals went from Britain to fight in Spain. Only left wing socialists who saw the civil war as an expanding global conflict between right-wing fascism and left-wing socialism/communism.Scott wrote: ↑05 Jan 2020, 19:39It is difficult to overemphasize that this was at a time when most Liberal intellectuals were still singing the praises for the Russian Revolution, and the Spanish Civil War was an extreme cause célèbre issue in the West, when many affluent young Liberals, especially of a certain non-Christian persuasion, yearned to make a pilgrimage to Spain to "Fight Fascism."