2001 Volume 43 Issue 3 Pages 19-27
Social reform and imperialism were the greatest political questions in Britain at the turn of the century. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the difference between the new liberalism and Fabianism of the time by comparing how J.A. Hobson and the Webbs understood the relations between them. In this paper, I point out that the difference between Hobson and the Webbs derives from their respective methods of study. Hobson's method was based on deduction while the Webbs' method was based on induction, and this led to the different ways in which they evaluated social policy. Since Hobson evaluated individual policies from the standpoint of deduction, he showed little attachment to implementing any particular policy. On the other hand, the Webbs conceptualized the notion of the National Minimum on the basis of how to guarantee a minimum standard of living for the workers in the context of trade unionism. The Webbs propagated the philosophy and policy of the National Minimum based on their faith that this method, the newest to appear in history, was the most effective policy for the future. On the other hand, although this has been neglected in the past, there are many points in common between Hobson and the Webbs. First, they had a common awareness of the need to address the social problems that had become apparent at the end of the nineteenth century. Second, they believed that specific social problems were the "diseases" of capitalism or social institutions. Third, they had a shared aspiration to an economics which emphasized the consumer. Finally, since Hobson opposed the Anglo Boer War while the Webbs supported the war, it may seem that they held different views of imperialism. However, a close reading of Hobson's Imperialism and the Fabian Society's Fabianism and the Empire reveals a common "racist" stance. In other words, both parties opposed self government by "lower races" or "colored natives".
