Andrew Stuttaford is the editor of National Review’s Capital Matters. This is from his review of John Cassidy’s Capitalism and Its Critics in the May 17-18 Review section of the Wall Street Journal, which appeared under the headline “Enemies of the Market Mindset.” Stuttaford writes toward the end of his review:
* * * * *
Mr. Cassidy observes that choosing his cast of critics “was greatly helped by the fact that, over the centuries, the central indictment of capitalism has remained remarkably consistent: that it is soulless, exploitative, inequitable, unstable, and destructive, yet also all-conquering and overwhelming.”
Given the astonishing transformation wrought by the symbiosis between capitalism and technology since the Industrial Revolution, that consistency says less about capitalism’s wickedness than about the dogmatism of many of its critics, particularly as the fruits of that partnership became ever more apparent. After millennia in which global gross domestic production did not grow, it started taking off in the early 1800s, “slowly at first,” writes Mr. Cassidy, “then more steeply, eventually almost vertically. As output and productivity rose … Earth was able to support many more people,” to more than eight billion today from around 790 million in 1750. That’s a lot of souls for a supposedly soulless system.
This consistency suggests that some of these perennial objections may be less rational than those making them may think. The British economist Joan Robinson (1903-83) liked to sleep in an unheated hut in her garden, an eccentricity Mr. Cassidy does not mention. Evangelists of degrowth, a form of eco-zealotry pioneered by Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (1906-94, and someone else who merits a chapter in this book), are not known for their approval of creature comforts. Such asceticism—or its milder variant, distaste for “wasteful” extravagance reinforced by self-righteousness—is far from rare among capitalism’s critics. That may be one reason why the prosperity created by capitalism counts for so little to them—and inequality for so much.
Robinson moved leftward throughout her career. She was for many years an admirer of Mao, of Stalin and (although Mr. Cassidy does not allude to it) of North Korea. He merely relates that Robinson “held her views passionately, sometimes to the point of blindness.” She was, said one of her colleagues, “always looking for Utopia.” Mr. Cassidy notes Robinson’s belief that “state-led industrialization” was the best way for underdeveloped countries to shake off the legacy of colonialism. This was a not uncommon view at the time. Then again, at one point, she had advocated something very close to central planning in Britain.
Capitalism’s critics are almost always predisposed toward a stronger state: It is the corollary of the policies they favor, and they, of course, believe they will be in charge. But when state economic intervention goes above a certain level—as, for example, some environmentalists would maintain is needed to save the planet—how compatible is that with liberal democracy? This is not a question that would worry some of those profiled by Mr. Cassidy, who were drawn to authoritarianism by politics, personality or both.
