V. I.

Lenin

Book Review: J. A. Hobson. The Evolution of Modern Capitalism

J.A. Hobson .

The Evolution of Modern Capitalism .
Translated from the English. St. Petersburg, 1898. Publ. 0. N. Popova. Price 1 rb. 50 kop .

Hobson’sbook is, strictly speaking, not a study of the evolution of
modern capitalism, but a series of sketches, based mainly on English data,
dealing with the most recent industrial development. Hence, the title of
the book is somewhat broad: the author does not touch upon agriculture at
all and his examination of industrial economics is far from complete. Like
the well-known writers Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Hobson is a
representative of one of the advanced trends of English social
thought. His attitude towards “modern capitalism” is critical;
he fully admits the necessity of replacing it by a higher form of social
economy and treats the problem of its replacement with typically English
reformist practicality. His conviction of the need for reform is, in the
main, arrived at empirically, under the influence of the recent history of
English factory legislation, of the English labour movement, of the
activities of the English municipalities, etc. Hobson lacks well-knit and
integral theoretical views that could serve as a basis for his reformist
programme and elucidate specific problems of reform. He is, therefore, at
his best when he deals with the grouping and description of the latest
statistical and economic data. When, on the other hand, he deals with the
general theoretical problems of political economy, he proves to be very
weak. The Russian reader will oven find it strange to see a writer with
such extensive knowledge and practical aspirations deserving of full sympathy helplessly
labouring over questions like, what is “capital,” what is the role
of “savings,” etc. This weak side of Hobson is fully explained by
the fact that he regards John Stuart Mill as a greater authority on
political economy than Marx, whom he quotes once or twice but whom he
evidently does not understand at all or does not know. One cannot but
regret the vast amount of unproductive labour wasted by Hobson in an
attempt to get clear on the contradictions of bourgeois and professorial
political economy. At best he comes close to the solutions given by Marx
long ago; at worst he borrows erroneous views that are in sharp
contradiction to his attitude towards “modern capitalism.” The most
unfortunate chapter in his book is the seventh: “Machinery and
Industrial Depression.” In this chapter Hobson tried to analyse the
theoretical problems of crises, of social capital and revenue in
capitalist society, and of capitalist accumulation. Correct ideas on the
disproportionateness of production and consumption in capitalist society
and on the anarchic character of capitalist economy are submerged in a
heap of scholastic arguments about “saving” (Hobson confuses
accumulation with “saving”), amidst all sorts of Crusoeisms (suppose
“a man working with primitive tools, discovers an implement... saving food,” etc.), and the like. Hobson is very fond of
diagrams, and in most cases he uses them very ably for graphic
illustration of his exposition. But the idea of the “mechanism of
production” given in his diagram on page 207 (Chap. VII) can only
elicit a smile from the reader who is at all acquaint ed with the real
“mechanism” of capitalist “production.” Hobson here confuses production with the social system of production and evinces
an extremely vague understanding of what capital is, what its component
parts are, and into what classes capitalist society is necessarily
divided. In Chapter VIII he cites interesting data on the composition of
the population according to occupation, and on the changes in this
composition in the course of time, but the great flaw in his theoretical
arguments on “machinery and the demand for labour” is that he
ignores the theory of “capitalist over population” or the
reserve army. Among the more happily written chapters of Hobson’s book are
those in which he examines modern towns and the position of women in
modern

industry. Citing statistics on the growth of female labour and describing
the extremely bad conditions under which this labour is performed, Hobson
justly points out that the only hope of improving these conditions lies in
the supplanting of domestic labour by factory labour, which leads to
“closer social intercourse” and to “organisation.”
Similarly, on the question of the significance of towns, Hobson comes
close to Marx’s general views when he admits that the anti thesis between
town and country contradicts the system of collectivist society. Hobson’s
conclusions would have been much more convincing had he not ignored Marx’s
teaching on this question too. Hobson would then, probably, have
emphasised more clearly the historically progressive role of the cities
and the necessity of combining agriculture with industry under the
collectivist organisation of economy. The last chapter of Hobson’s book,
“Civilisation and Industrial Development,” is perhaps the best. In
this chapter the author proves by a number of very apt arguments the need
to re form the modern industrial system along the line of expanding
“public control” and the “socialisation of industry.” In
evaluating Hobson’s somewhat optimistic views regarding the methods by
which these “reforms” can be brought about, the special
features of English history and of English life must be borne in mind: the
high development of democracy, the absence of militarism, the enormous
strength of the organised trade unions, the growing investment of English
capital outside of England, which weakens the antagonism between the
English employers and workers, etc.

Inhis well-known book on the social movement in the nineteenth century,
Prof. W. Sombart notes among other things a “tendency towards
unity” (title of Chapter VI), i. e., a tendency of the social
movement of the various countries, in its various forms and shades,
towards uniformity and along with it a tendency towards the spread of the
ideas of Marxism. In regard to England Sombart sees this tendency in the
fact that the English trade unions are increasingly abandoning “the
purely Manchester standpoint.” In regard to Hobson’s book we can say that
under pressure of the demands of life, which is increasingly corroborating
Marx’s “prognosis,” progressive English writers are beginning to realise the unsoundness of traditional bourgeois political economy and,
freeing themselves from its prejudices, are involuntarily approaching
Marxism.

Thetranslation of Hobson’s book has substantial short comings.

---
Notes: