The case against Hobson's concept of Sane Imperialism

The article aims to bring to light the philosophical background of J.S. Mill's views of colonialism. His philosophy of history and his philosophical anthropology are strongly connected to his theory of democracy in this area of Mill's social theory. Although he was undoubtedly radical according to the standards of his day, Mill adopts the anti-democratic logic of the capitalist mode of production and uses it as a gauge of cultural development. For the first time, this article aims to show that behind Mill's adoption of a Eurocentric logic lies a fear of democracy that is ultimately based on the fact that, for Mill, private property, enterprise, industry, accumulation of wealth and the work ethic are the main pillars of capitalism and are used by Mill as the essential determinants of cultural progress. Even the key tenet of his philosophy, utility, bears a meaning that is determined by these values. The article attempts to prove that Mill's ethical philosophy was formed on the basis of the social logic of capitalism and set the framework for Mill's analysis of the hierarchy of civilizations, since his utilitarianism was not applicable to those who did not abide by the values of the industrial ethic.

Postcolonialism and Political Theory, 2008

The nature and effects of imperialism are extremely complex, diverse, and multidimensional, including, among others, those on democracy; society; culture; ideology, mass psychology, and philosophy; productive forces; nature; and human nature. Starting with Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, numerous Marxists and Leninists contributed their insights and analyses of many of these. The most original and profound of these were those of V. I. Lenin, who was gifted with the extraordinary intellectual abilities to hit the nails on the head in diverse areas of extreme complexity. The most sinister dimension of imperialism (advanced capitalism) has been related to its effects on the human nature itself. However, it has remained, by and large, in the dark, even though, its symptoms are gigantic and everywhere. This author wrote two papers in the 1980s-one of them published in an interdisciplinary scientific journal in the US-to initiate efforts to fill this gap and address this deficiency (1, 2). Both these papers contained a new and original macro-level interdisciplinary theory on the biosocial regulation of human nature by the combined and intertwined social forces of advanced capitalism, technocracy, and culture, and showed the historical causal connections between these forces and the plague of one-sided advanced capitalist-technocratic civilization, which has been devastating both the ecology of nature and the inner ecology of human nature, the Human Soul-source of the spiritual-emotional parts-being its greatest casualty. Human Reason also underwent extreme reductionisms and is now reduced to capitalist-technological rationality, under the above civilization. This is indeed a most sinister development, as it distorts, perverts, and deforms both the Human Soul and the Human Reason. Among other contents, some general laws of interactions between imperialism, democracy, and human nature have also been proposed in this article. Following article, written after this paper, is most important for fully understanding all the complex effects and nature of imperialism: Biosocial and epigenetic relativity of human nature: Relative to political economy, technology, and culture. https://imperialismandthethirdworld.wordpress.com/2015/09/07/biosocial-and-epigenetic-relativity-of-human-nature-relative-to-political-economy-technology-and-culture-by-fazal-rahman-phd/

Utilitas, 2022

It is possible to distinguish between empire, as a form of political order, and imperialism, as a process of aggressive expansion. Mill's liberalism allows for a legitimate empire, in which a civilized state rules a less civilized foreign people paternalistically to prepare them for liberal democratic self-rule. However, it rejects paternalistic imperialism, in the sense of aggression designed to establish such an empire. Apparent textual evidence to the contrary really demonstrates Mill's commitment to three distinct theses: that imperialism may benefit those subject to it, and this can mitigate its evil; that it is easier to justify non-aggressive, empire-creating wars of conquest in response to aggression by barbarian powers; and finally, that civilized states are justified in engaging distant uncivilized peoples non-aggressively, even though the latter's aggressive tendencies mean that such engagement renders empire-justifying wars more likely.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. This content downloaded from 142.157.17.13 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 21:06:37 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

History of Political Thought, 2011

Recent critics have declaimed against John Stuart Mill's liberalism, arguing that his conception of civilization is inexorably bound to a hierarchal conception of social progress justifying Europeans' moral right to 'civilize' barbarian peoples. Without exonerating him from his undoubtedly problematic views regarding non-European cultures, I would like to argue that Mill in fact has a much subtler view of historical development and of civilization than such critics attribute to him. Central to these critics' charges is an 'aggregative' view of Mill's conceptualization of historical development -suggesting that Mill understood societies to move through discrete stages of social development, characterized by internally-correlated stages of economic, political, cultural and moral development -which fails to be borne out under close examination. I argue that Mill's view of historical development and his liberalism more generally are in fact significantly more capacious than is often recognized and are not inextricably bound to the project of imperialism.