My Review of Sven Beckert's "Capitalism: A Global History"

Anti-Capitalism

Harvard history professor Sven Beckert offers up a history of capitalism, but in fact he has written an anti-capitalist screed. Although never mentioned, he follows in the footsteps of Honoré de Balzac’s well-known aphorism, “behind every great fortune there is a great crime.” Beckert treats capital as a unitary bloc, rather than as a multitude of businesses in competition with each other. Further, he sets up a strawman argument that from its creation, capitalism needed state support—as if that violates the notion of a free market. So, what? Adam Smith noted that capitalism needs the state to enforce laws and contracts and provide for defense, among other functions.

He starts his history in Aden around the year 1000, where, to him, the first islands of capitalism are formed. Trust me, he has written a very long history that takes up 1300 pages. His definition of capitalism is a society where capital seeks to reproduce itself in an ever-growing accumulation. This differs, to him, from the primitive markets of 4000 years ago. What is strange to me is that he hardly discusses money and its role in creating a capitalist society. Money in the form of gold coins existed 2500 years before his Aden merchants. (See: https://shulmaven.blogspot.com/2026/01/my-review-of-david-mcwilliams-history.html) He also ignores the role of the free trade zone established by Rome, while noting the importance of the free trade zone established by Islam that supported the Aden merchants.

In Beckert’s opinion, the critical catalysts that put capitalism into hyperdrive were the Caribbean sugar trade centered around the British colony of Barbados and the great Potosi silver mine in Bolivia, which flooded Europe with money. Great fortunes were made, and those fortunes were built on slavery—in other words, Balzac’s crime. However, slavery existed long before capitalism, as in the Hebrew slaves of Egypt. He makes short shrift of the anti-slavery movements in capitalist England and the United States that brought it to an end. One thing he gets right is that capitalism is highly adaptable to changes in circumstances.

With the rise of industrial capitalism in the 1700s, he not only notes its effects on cities but also on the countryside. In the country, common land became enclosed to increase food production and drive farmers off the land into the city to supply labor for the new factories. Beckert is critical that through about 1850, real wages stagnated in England. This is when Marx wrote his famous manifesto highlighting the immiseration of the working class. Nevertheless, that very same manifesto offered a paean to the new capitalist world that was being born. Then, of a sudden, real wages started to increase. He offers no explanation.

He casts blame on capitalism for causing racism, sexism, and environmental destruction. None of these are unique to capitalism, as all three have existed for millennia. And if Beckert were fair, he would note the environmental destruction on a grand scale that took place in Soviet Russia and Communist China. Indeed, most of the progress in ridding the world of racism, sexism, and environmental destruction has taken place under capitalist auspices.

What really bothers me is his use of the Marxist term, “commodification.” He uses it over and over to denounce the growing role of markets in our daily lives. He doesn’t like dating apps. Along a similar vein, he cites such leftist economists as Polanyi, Piketty, Sraffa, Braudel, Hobsbawm, and Gramsci, for example, while spending far less time on Chandler, Friedman, Schumpeter, and Mokyr. His sympathy for socialism is obvious.

While he lives comfortably off the benefits of capitalism in Harvard Square, he just doesn’t get that capitalism involves huge risk-taking and somehow misses the spirit of enterprise that invigorates the process of capitalist accumulation that drives our society forward.

My Amazon Review of Christopher Clark's "Revolutionary Spring: Europe Aflame......"

 Revolution was in the Air

 

Contrary to the “Communist Manifesto” the specter haunting Europe in 1848 was not communism, but rather nationalism.  In this way too long 891-page book the distinguished historian Cambridge’s Christopher Clark recounts the revolutions that swept through Europe in 1848.  Starting in Palermo in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies and then spreading to Paris, Germany, Vienna, Romania, Hungary, and Poland. Europe was aflame with liberals and radicals demanding fundamental reforms. The liberal goals were limited to formal constitutions, political rights, and suffrage for the property-owning classes while the radicals were demanding full manhood suffrage and a right to a job. In the end the liberals would win out.

 

Clark starts his history with the 1815 Vienna settlement’s reaction to the French Revolution and then goes on to discuss the growing immiseration of the working class as the industrial revolution moves into high gear. The problems of the working class were defined as “the social question” by many of the intellectuals of the day. Falling real wages and periodic draughts characterized the milieu according to Clark.

 

Here is where I believe, as an amateur, Clark goes astray. It seems to me that Clark ignores Marx’s paean to the bourgeoisie in his manifesto. To quote “…has created massive and colossal productive forces…chemistry, agriculture, steam navigation, electric telegraphs and canals.” Again, in Marx’s words, “all that is solid melts into air.” In my opinion Clark should have spent much more time on the technological disruption that created the material basis for the revolutions. Indeed, the improved technology enabled the news of the Paris revolt to spread quickly throughout Europe.

 

The revolutions failed because of the radical-liberal split, the failure to bring the military on board, and the near complete lack of understanding of rural Europe by the urban intellectuals. Doesn’t that sound familiar? Remember Marx himself called it “the idiocy of rural life.”

 

However, the revolutions were in no way a long-term failure. Post-1850 new constitutions were written, Germany and Italy would be unified within twenty years, Jews were largely emancipated, and there were massive public investment programs in railroads, health, roads, and canals. The economy was about to boom and with it the ideas of social democracy and women’s rights took hold. Moreover, the pattern of radical movements centering around cafes and newspapers was firmly established and that would last up to the late 20^th century.

 

This is a massive book and there is much to be learned, but as I noted in the beginning it is far too long for the educated lay reader.

For the full Amazon URL see: Revolution was in the Air (amazon.com)