capitalism, this meant that a “socialist”nstate such as the USSR could nevernbe guilty of imperialism—no matternhow far it expanded or how violent itsnmethods. That is, the reality of Sovietnimperial expansion was denied by definition.nSecond, since “imperialism”nwas the final stage of capitalism, asnlong as capitalist states and societiesncontinued to exist they were “imperialist.”nThus, the reality of the end ofnEuropean overseas empires by 1970ncould be denied—by definition. Fromnthis last intellectual sleight of handnderive such current theories as “neocolonialism,”nin which “imperialism”nhas ceased to be identified with territorialnannexation and in which it is nonlonger clear what exactly the wordnmeans, other than a sinister Europeannplot. Finally, and most importantly fornour purposes, the Soviet imprimaturnmade Hobson’s basic ideas attractive tonvery many thinkers on the left, whongave his theory of empire an extraordinarynlease on life.nIt is to this element of the intellectualntradition on “imperialism” that AlinMazrui’s The Africans owes its allegiance:nThe book is pure Hobson. TonMazrui, Africa is poor because thenEuropeans are rich, for the Europeansngot rich by extracting surplus profit outnof their possessions, out of their empires,nas they had all along intended.nAnd even after the end of empire, then”imperialist” exploitation continues,nvia the sinister machinations (i.e., investments)nof the multinational corporations.nFor Mazrui, the consequencesnof this predatory, profit-driven imperialismncan be ameliorated only by a vastntransfer of capital “back” to the victims.nAnd that is precisely the politicalnagenda of the book: to create an atmospherenof guilt in the West conducive tonthe payment of such “reparations.”nAstonishingly, Mazrui was allowednto propagate these views for weeks onnnationwide television without rebuttal,nvia a presentation of The Africans onnPBS (“Your Tax Dollars at Work!”).nThe reason this is astounding is thatnwhen one says The Africans is purenHobson, one means that the book isndecades out of date on the facts. Thatnis, the intellectual tradition on “imperialism”nis poisoned here not only becausenof the hidden agenda of then”analysts” of empire-for-profit, butnalso because their facts are just plainnwrong. In fact, the British flag hadnsimply not followed the flow of Britishnmonetary investment overseas.nThe major British overseas investmentsnin the 19th century had notnbeen in Africa, nor in any of the areasnthat eventually wore British red, butnrather in the U.S. and Argentina—nareas where no annexation ever occurred.nSimilarly, German capitalistsnwere notoriously reluctant to invest innthe German colonies overseas. Andnsome of the most prosperous Europeanncountries (for instance, Switzerland)nnever acquired empires at all.nConversely, it cannot be shown thatnimperial control had impoverished thensubject areas. If that were the case,nthen those areas least penetrated bynEuropean investors ought now to benthe wealthiest; instead, they have remainednthe poorest (for instance, Ethiopianand Afghanistan). Moreover,nthose areas most exposed to Europeanninvestment became not the poorest butnthe wealthiest. In a few spectacularncases in southern Africa, this was becausenof the exploitation of great naturalnresources. But more typical are thencases of Ghana or Sumatra. Both werenprimitive fever swamps in 1800; thenEuropeans introduced new cash cropsn(cocoa, rubber) and an entire economicnand educational infrastructure; byn1930 both areas had been transformednunrecognizably for the better, especiallynin terms of the standard of living andnlife expectancy of the indigenous population.nFinally, Hobson-Lenin couldnnot explain the existence of the greatnempires of antiquity, none of whichnhad anything to do with capital investmentnoverseas, since capitalism hadn’tnbeen invented yet; they were run bynland-owning warrior aristocracies.nIt is obvious, in fact, that Hobson,neagerly followed by Lenin, made anmistake in attempting to generalizenfrom the particular circumstances ofnone war, the Boer War: Their theoriesnof the growth of empire did not worknexcept in this one particular case, eithernas an explanation of causes or ofneffects. Yet the concept of “imperialism”nas rational empire-for-profit hasnbeen such a useful stick with which tonbeat the West that it continues to benemployed by hostile intellectuals suchnas Mazrui right up to this day.nThe hard economic facts aboutn19th-century imperialism were care­nnnfully established by work done in then1960’s. But already 40 years previouslynthe outline of economic reality wasnobvious enough to those who cared;nthis led to dissatisfaction with the Hobsonnmodel and a search for an alternativenone. Here the lead was taken bynJoseph Schumpeter in his crucial essayn”The Sociology of Imperialisms”n(1919). Schumpeter outiined the basicnargument against Hobson and thennwent on to argue that one shouldninstead see imperial expansion as annessentially irrational process and anthrowback to a more primitive time.nHe defined “imperialism” as “the objectlessndisposition of a state to expand,na warlike disposition, an instinctualnelement of bloody primitivism.” It wasnan unfortunate survival from earliernages—“an atavism in the social structurenand in individual habits of emotionalnreaction.” Schumpeter held thatncapitalism and imperialism were unrelated,nfor imperialism derived preciselynfrom the /jrecapitalist elements in societynand psyche. Indeed, Schumpeternargued that capitalism and “imperialism”n(as he defined it) were antithetical,nfor merchants want peace and freentrade, not war, expansion, and protectionism.nThe dynamo behind imperialnexpansion was not the capitalist classnbut the old “warrior aristocracies” ofnEurope and their ideologies of militaristnachievement.nAs with Hobson, Lenin, and Mazrui,nso too with Schumpeter the theorizingnabout empire was actually in thenservice of a particular political goal.nSchumpeter was from Mittel-Europa;nhaving seen the vast destructionnwrought during World War I by thenaristocratic “warrior classes” (generalsnand diplomats), he was calling in hisn”Imperialisms” for control of these precapitalist,nprimitive, and warlike elementsnwithin society.nBut if Hobson stands at the source ofn”rational imperialism” (empire-forprofit),nso Schumpeter stands at thenwellspring of the theory of “irrationalnimperialism” (empire-as-neurosis).nAnd this basic Schumpeterian thesisnhas had a long intellectual life. Thenreason: As it became increasinglynimpossible to ascribe imperialismnto profit-seeking (of course, somenpeople — the Ali Mazruis of thisnworld—simply remained imperviousnto the data), a way had to be foundnNOVEMBER 1987133n