4 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
Two books instead of one, 2006-06-29
"TheInvention of Capitalism" by Michael Perelman is a little odd. It essentially attempts to combine two books into one: on the one hand, a book proving necessity of the process of primitive accumulation for capitalism to develop, and on the other hand, a book showing how the classical political economists were not consistent in there pretenses to laissez-faire, instead preferring to either support primitive accumulation or to ignore it entirely.
Both books are a great success in terms of proving their own case. The chapters on primitive accumulation itself, mainly at the beginning of the book, explain both the nature and the extent of this process exceedingly well and add significantly to a by now quite extensive literature on the subject. In any case it becomes clear once again that the origins of capitalism are in no way either "natural" or "voluntary". On the contrary, they involved severe collusion between manufacturers, landlords and the government, as shown in the case of Britain.
The case against the classical political economists is less clear. Perelman succeeds wonderfully in showing the hypocrisy of these early economists, in particular Adam Smith, regarding the nature of the capitalist system they intended to support as "natural" and self-propelling, and their wilful ignorance as to its origins. Nevertheless, Perelman's hatred for Adam Smith seems excessive and surely spending three chapters on a frontal assault on this thinker alone is a little bit too much in a book about primitive accumulation. There is also quite extensive use of vague references and circumstancial evidence (Robert Torrens is apparently extra evil for being a Colonel of the Royal Marines) in Perelman's accusations, which do not really strengthen these chapters' overall impression. Nevertheless, it can be considered useful as a counterweight to the often rather hagiographical neoclassical descriptions of the works of Smith, Ricardo, Malthus etc., and it also deservedly reestablishes the stature of Sir James Steuart.
Overall, Perelman's use of data and sources is very thorough and extensive, and can be considered commendable. His argumentation on primitive accumulation is fine, and even his case against the classical political economists is strong. Yet the book would have been better had it been split into two separate ones: one on the primitive accumulation itself and its extent, and the other about the 'collaboration' of Smith et al. to this. As it stands now, it is a little incoherent.
11 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
Disappointing, 2002-09-11
I came at this work with an open mind and an independent background in the history of economic thought. I was severely disappointed. Occasional inconsistencies of argument or a few personal correspondences noting the short comings of the markets do not turn the classical political economists into dyed-in-the-subsidized-wool interventionists.Far from being a "secret history" of primitive accumulation, this book is a work of theory plain and simple. I was really expecting more concrete evidence of the collusion of the classical political economists in the final phases of primitive accumulation in Great Britain, but this book does not present much compelling evidence to support its over-hyped premise. Primitive accumulation was all over but the shouting in Great Britain by the time the philosophers turned their attention to matters economic. The idea that intervention was required to move "self-provisioning farmers" (generously defined) into the factories as wage slaves is an appealing one. But the book simply does not cite enough historical evidence to prove the point.
The author is half way through the book before he addresses Adam Smith's supposedly interventionist tendencies to promote the "early" capitalists. Ricardo, Malthus, and Mill merit bare mentions. I did give the book two stars for introducing the reader to some of the neglected political economists of the early period. Overall, Marx receives the spotlight throughout the work.
21 of 29 people found the following review helpful:
Classical Economists: Liberty lovers or Control Freaks?, 2002-02-02
This is the first book I've read that goes into much detail about the subject of primitive accumulation, and I'm impressed. Having an American History perspective, when I think about the social engineering behind a capitalist economy, I think about protective tariffs, slavery, moving Indians off the land, subsidies to canals and railroads, etc. It's fascinating to see that coercion and government involvement goes back much farther than that. And it's good to learn about some of the more forgotten political economists like James Steuart.
One does not have to be particularly leftist appreciate this book. Whether means to capitalist economic development was wrong or a "necessary evil", it's still extremely useful to know that things just didn't evolve naturally out of free exchange. The system was consciously engineered so that the "right sort" of people would be successful, and there's nothing sinister when people, through democratic choice, re-engineer things to bring about a reduction in income inequality, environmental protection, etc.
While not all leaders and thinkers in the 18th century were economists, I have a slight problem with the portrayal of Adam Smith. Now perhaps I've been seduced by his charm, but it seems as though he has a more complex view of the common good. Of course he wasn't a modern leftist or a cultural relativist, but at the same time, he wasn't a William Graham Sumner-style Social Darwinist of the late 1800s either.
"Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters. "
The author doesn't use quotes like this from Smith, perhaps he assumes the "pro-worker" statements are well-known enough not to repeat. But how many ways can we interpret this?
"The capricious ambition of kings and ministers has not, during the present and the preceding century, been more fatal to the repose of Europe, than the impertinent jealousy of merchants and manufacturers. The violence and injustice of the rulers of mankind is an ancient evil, for which, I am afraid, the nature of human affairs can scarce admit of a remedy. But the mean rapacity, the monopolizing spirit of merchants and manufacturers, who neither are, nor ought to be, the rulers of mankind, though it cannot perhaps be corrected, may very easily be prevented from disturbing the tranquility of any body but themselves."
Pretty strong language. The author would say that he's talking only about a certain class of merchants, perhaps.
Some leftists like Noam Chomsky will talk favorably about Adam Smith, as part, I think, of a larger argument to show that market fundamentalism and Social Darwinist "class warfare" are a departure from Classic Liberalism. Maybe I'm being naïve but I'm more sympathetic to this view. I feel it unwise to throw away so much of classic liberalism when it seems that most 18th century liberals wouldn't support modern corporate capitalism. From reading this book, I partly get the sense that you should either be a supporter of "invisible hand" market economics, or a Marxist. But that isn't the case.
Benjamin Franklin, a friend of Adam Smith, wrote a lot of contradictory statements, it is true. But this quote, I think, shows the concept of civic virtue that many of America's "founding fathers" had:
"Private property is a Creature of Society, and is subject to the Calls of that Society, whenever its Necessities shall require it, even to its last Farthing, its contributors therefore to the public Exigencies are not to be considered a Benefit on the Public, entitling the Contributors to the Distinctions of Honor and Power, but as the Return of an Obligation previously received, or as payment for a just Debt."
This is a superb refutation of the warmed-over 1890s Social Darwinist mentality. Wealthy people aren't being punished when they pay higher taxes. Nor are they doing an act of benevolence. They are paying a "just debt" because in the long run, large-scale private-property is socially engineered, and the rich man depends on government more than the poor man.
Overall I have few disagreements with this book, and I highly recommend it.
12 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
Setting the Record Straight, 2002-01-12
You're self-employed, with many religious holidays, and while you're not rich, at least you're getting along. So why give this up to become a wage worker for somebody else, with little spare time, and a struggle for subsistence. Despite obvious simplifications, this is a core problem confronting capital at the dawn of the modern era, known also as primitive accumulation. How, that is, can self-sufficient peasants and others of similar status be converted into subservient factory hands, an obvious degradation. Yet without some such conversion, where would the labor for fields and factories come from if not the rural economy. To meet the need, New World colonies imported slaves and indentured servants. But Great Britain needed a new social division of labor, one that would stock emerging markets with commodities from a work force employed by a new social class. As conditions stood, the capitalist equation was only half complete--a wage labor class was needed.
Perelman examines the problem through the eyes of early political economists such as Adam Smith. What he finds is disturbing. Smith and followers generally suppress the real historical conflict, replacing actual coercive measures (game laws, etc.) with imaginary allusions to voluntary choice, as though worker autonomy was willingly swapped for a dependent wage rate. Nonetheless, voluntarism preserves the fiction of an immaculate conversion, and comports with market relations as an irresistable harmonizing force --the Smithian paradigm. However, other early thinkers primarily James Steuart are more candid than Smith, arguing that state intervention is necessary to separate working people from their subsistence, forcing them into the labor pool. As an analyst of the period, the obscure Steuart stands as a more accurate guide, in Perelman's view, than the celebrated author of The Wealth of Nations. Nevertheless, all the early economists, it appears, are eager to assist a nascent capitalist class in its quest for primitive accumulation. Yet, among them, Smith offers the most elegantly stated and publicly palatable version. Therefore, it is his version of a bloodless voluntarism that dominates an official record which even now continues to mislead. In short, orthodox opinion to the contrary, Smith and company operate as apologists of capital first, social scientists second.
This is an important and controversial contention. Perelman marshalls considerable evidence to support the thesis. Moreover, he argues that despite common impressions, primitive accumulation is not an historical relic, but continues in many parts of the globe. An important -- though unargued--theoretical point also emerges. Smithian thought characterizes market relations as a kind of natural necessity, like Law of Gravity; Marxian thought characterizes them as an historical necessity, a stage on the way to communism. According to both popular schools, there is something inevitable--beyond choice--about capitalist production relations . If I understand Perelman correctly, these same relations are understood as in no sense inevitable. Instead they are invented. History could have taken a non-capitalist course, and still can-- a key step in confronting the inequities of a post-Cold War world.
The author's style is accessible to the serious but non-professional. And except for a really murky last chapter on Smith and Lenin, the work stands as a solid and provocative piece of research. Recommended.
13 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
Flies in the Face of Received Wisdom, 2001-03-20
Perelman's painstaking analysis of 'Primitive Acculumation' is an absolute masterpiece. I've never seen a more trenchant and well researched piece on the birth of capitalism. One does not have to possess of leftist orientation to appreciate this powerful critique of the origins of capitalist system. It vividly demonstrates the 'ahistoricalness' of so much of the classical free market theology, and exposes the real ideological underpinnings of capitalism's brutal rise to eminence. Perelman analyzes not only the familiar texts, but also the private writings of several well-known and not so well-known political economists and other figures (fans of Adam Smith may be a little let down!). The other review was quite excellent so I needn't continue with the accalaides; but I seriously recommend to all those interested the history of capitalism and political economy to take a look at Perelman's well written and balanced perspective.