How Capitalism Saved America : The Untold History of Our Country, from the Pilgrims to the Present

Rating:
Summary: When The Saints Go Marching In
Review: "There is no document of civilization which is not at the same time a document of barbarism" said cultural historian Walter Benjamin in "Theses on the Philosophy of History." Benjamin knew something of barbarism -- fleeing Germany in World War II, trapped at the border, he preferred to end his life himself rather than allow the Nazis the opportunity of taking it.

The National Socialism project promised a prosperous society based on the American model. The promise shrewdly spoke to two groups necessary to the party's success: 1) the money power of German and other capitalists (such as Prescott Bush and Herbert Walker) who would stand to profit from the contracts for the manufacture of Volkswagens, dive bombers and gas pellets, and 2) the German Volk, who would prosper not only materially but also spiritually, ensconced at the center of a nationalist mythology proclaiming their imminent resurrection within a pure and virtuous community retrieved from an heroic past.

The mythic materialist paradise, although alluring, was not sufficient to motivate the invasion of Europe and the destruction of the fascists' internal enemies. So, in addition, this ideology promised an end to the humiliations suffered in the defeat of the First World War, presented a checklist of villains responsible for the current national calamity, and an action plan for dealing with various evil-doers. The first bullet point on the plan was the formation into paramilitary units murderers who would mercilessly terminate those vermin who would dare to smother the realm of revelation that was struggling to be born into world. It was from this demonic underside that the ideology derived its true power.

The same revanchist program is everywhere evident in HOW CAPITALISM SAVED AMERICA. Fueled by a resentment of anyone who might question the omnibenevolent energies of capitalism [...], DiLorenzo offers a vision of a coming consumer society blessed with do-gooder capitalists -- economic angels -- who, once hellish government restraints are removed, will give birth to a similar materialist heaven on earth. Yea, once those regulating liberals stand aside and allow the eternal laws of supply and demand to properly engage -- under the gentle but irresistible pressure of Mr. Smith's Invisible Hand -- the mystical machine will inexorably and (inexplicably) guide capital in such ways as to bring forth, well, the millenium. (It's not surprising that a free marketeer like DiLorenzo cavils about the interference of the state in capitalism but that he is insensible to the interference of his free market religion into what he believes is a work about capitalism.)

Capitalism, in its popular neo-liberal form, employs a somewhat subtler ideology than did National Socialism. Its barbarity is submerged beneath the slick surface of a state which offers a checklist of individual rights, e.g., the freedom of speech, religion, the right to a jury trial, etc. Of course, these rights have never been well defended in the public sphere, and in the private sphere, contested at every turn. Mr. DiLorenzo would probably be unwilling or unable given his prejudices to admit that the liberal state in actual fact identifies its interests as congruent with the money power and that both work strenuously to suppress or discredit alternative views or organizations. The suppression of such views in Germany was violent; in the neo-liberal state where the press is "free," opposing views are typically not treated at all, or treated with incredulity, disdain or mockery. (Think of the many neo-con shills, who, in their interchangeability, belie their Darwinist defense of capitalism that it raises up rugged individualists -- never was a party line so slavishly followed as by these appparatchiks).

There is one good thing about this tendentious tissue of half-truths and outright lies, however. In one volume is distilled the pandering creed of the so-called Austrian School and their Chicago School followers. Like his idols, DiLorenzo fails to respond to the fundamental observation about how neo-liberal capitalism really functions: that the state and business work as partners in plunder. Instead, like his idols he believes that because there is a word for "business" and another word for the "state" that these are separate entities with separate endpoints. He clearly believes that if so-called free market capitalism could be granted its infantile wish of a night watchman state that the cabalistic prophecies of consumption everlasting will finally be made flesh.

Here's an example of such wishful thinking: DiLorenzo makes much of a false distinction between "entrepreneurs" who use their political connections to generate wealth versus those who follow what are apparently the "moral" rules of free-market capitalism. He cites James Hill as an avatar of the moral capitalist. Founder of the Great Northern Railroad, Hill did not receive government land grants as did political fixers like Jay Gould. Hill, we are told, purchased land from those individuals who held title to the land, actual property owners. Unlike Gould's meandering railroads which cheated its customers who paid based on distance, Hill's track was laid straight and true. And Hill's straight and true railroad, always showed a profit. (Amen) An industrial version of The Pilgrim's Progress.

But who actually "owned" the land that Hill purchased? Could it have been those aboriginals Americans who through the offices of state representatives backed by government soldiers were cheated out of their lands, driven onto reservations, starved and murdered? Mr. Hill may have run his railroad more profitably than Gould, but his railroad were no more morally immaculate than Gould's. The "property rights" Hill so scrupulously purchased were in fact just another set of documents in the long bloody trail of conquest and barbarism in the Americas.

Readers will have to make up their own minds about whether America has been truly saved, and whether this book is yet another brutal document of barbarism.


Rating:
Summary: Capitalism has shown not to be the answer
Review: 25,000 children die every day around the world from hunger. 1 in 4 American children go starving every day. And this is the proud economic system that the author talks about? Capitalism has shown to be nothing but a smoke screen to make the rich richer. Unfortunately, the rest of the world hasn't figured out the trick just yet.

They're too busy working all their lives just to put food on the table to realize the capitalistic system would collapse if more than 1% of the people owned wealth. They don't realize the Federal Reserve, the World Bank, IMF, et al, does the dirty work of the wealthy by making sure recessions take place about once every 10 years and all poor countries are taken advantage of. To fight inflation, or a better word is "to fight more people trying to make a living."

I await the future when people sit back and figure out it's better to work together and make sure everybody has a great life, rather than this constant competition where you grab what you can and don't think twice about that poor person over there.

Rating:
Summary: capitalism is the answer
Review: Epstein should consider how the children die in those nations that are impoverished. The elite have all the wealth and force others to have nothing. They do not live under capitalism, but under a system of control by one or an elite few. If Epstein hates capitalism so, why doesn't he/she move to a non capitalist country. Nobody here is stopping her. Probably because Epstien and other anticapitalists know the truth, but spew there hatred of capitalism just to be heard or are wholly incapable of earning an honest dollar doing an honest dollars' worth of work.

I challenge the anticapitalists to consider China, why do so many businesses seem eager to enter (to sell) the Chinese market, it is because they are going to a more capitalist style society. Why would the rulers want to do this? Perhaps it is because that is the best way to help the economy grow, which, without raising taxes, will bring in more tax revenue. As the Chinese go to more of a market economy, the poor have become wealthier not poorer.

This book is excellent overview of the history of capitalism in America. I found it to be easy and fun to read, while learning a many things I had either forgotten or did not know. It has many notes to do a more in depth study of any or all the areas touched on in the book.

Rating:
Summary: Preaching to the choir
Review: I consider myself to be rather Libertarian so I am sympathetic to this book. Having JUST completed Chernow's biography of Alexander Hamilton I was eager to continue down my current interest in American history. As one of the other reviewers has pointed out this thin book is very long on polemics and thin on details. Ideological books of this ilk tend to bore me because I buy into much of the argument already. There's not much here that is new (so far - I am halfway through).

He does take vicious aim at Hamilton and Lincoln. As one might expect, Chernow's bio is rather sympathetic to Hamilton and glosses over some of the specifics of his big-government inclinations. I suppose there is some value to immediately getting a contrary opinion.

I have John Steele Gordon's "Empire of Wealth" on my nightstand to be read next. I suspect it will be an interesting alternative view to this book. I hope it is more historical and less polemical.

I give this book a 4 star because I am sympathetic to its underlying thesis. Otherwise, I would probably give it a 3 star rating. I have referred it to my libertarian and objectivist friends.

Rating:
Summary: Exploit yourself. Buy this book.
Review: Nothing in-depth in this review, just a hearty reco' thrown on the pile. I also suggest Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy, Revised and Expanded"[ISBN: 0465081452] & Thomas E. Woods' "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History"[ISBN: 0895260476]. Thomas Sowell's got a ton of essays(weekly/archived) on www.townhall.com if you'd like to avail yourself of a Whitman Sampler of his wisdom.

Rating:
Summary: I pity his students
Review: Professor DiLorenzo's defense of capitalism rests on a weak foundation - strong property rights via Locke.
As anyone who has read Locke in general and Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" in particular can attest, strong property rights is based on the theory that the property was acquired justly (`original acquisition') and not though any type of trickery, coercion, etc.
For property to be legitimate it must have been originally acquired by legal means and not by theft, trickery, coercion, etc. So that if property was originally obtained by illegal means, the heirs cannot legally and justly call the property their own.
The Professor conveniently ignores this crucial fact because he knows he cannot justify how the Europeans acquired the Americas.
For those who are seriously interested in our shameful past and how our `forefathers' acquired `property, and began US Capitalism, I would recommend reading "The American Indian in Western Legal Thought" by Robert Williams, "The Great Father" (Vols. 1 & 2) by Francis Paul Prucha, and "Red Man's Land/White Man's Law" by Wilcomb E. Washburn.


Rating:
Summary: Reasoned answers to rambling anecdotes
Review: Provides theory and statistics to counter the constant barrage of baseless attacks from the left against property rights and the value of business to all of us. Shoots class envy between the eyes by showing it as simple selfishness.

Rating:
Summary: Capitalism conquers greed
Review: There is one silly argument being made among these reviews that conservatism and capitalism are unrelated. Actually, DiLorenzo, a superb colleague of mine, is more of a libertarian and true free-market thinker than a Tory conservative of the George Will mode. Understand this, and you will have a better appreciation for DiLorenzo's approach to capitalism and its cleansing powers.

People and markets proposer because we act in our own self-interest. Adam Smith was right and some label him 'liberal'. 'Liberal' means something quite different outside the United States. Those who equate Oliver Stone's "greed is good" mantra for capitalism are missing the point. "Greed" is "reprehensible acquisitiveness" and the beauty of capitalism is that the market speaks louder than government dictates or "greedy capitalists". When the government says, "I'm here to help you," it's time to hold onto your wallets. With capitalism, it's your choice. Greed doesn't work; markets do.

DiLorenzo writes with a clear, accessible style. While he is an accomplished researcher and academic, he discovers and disseminates knowledge for a much larger public than other academics. And he is brave enough to take on well-entrenched conventional wisdom, be it the nanny state or worshipful devotees of Abraham Lincoln.

We have a problem with unchallenged soft-headed, bleeding heart, liberal thought on many college campuses. DiLorenzo is part of the solution to the excessive political correctness rampant on many college campuses. Read this and open your eyes and mind. This is a nice companion piece to David Landes' "The wealth and poverty of nations: Why some nations are so rich and others so poor." And it fits with the recent studies of the differences between English and French law, and the impact of their respective legal systems on economic success.

Rating:
Summary: Eyeopening and interesting
Review: This book is an exciting read. Dr. DiLorenzo bring together facts that you probably never heard in school. It is well-researched and well-written. I encourage everyone to get a copy to read.

Rating:
Summary: An excellent, myth-busting book
Review: Tom DiLorenzo is that rare combination: a scholar who makes original contributions to his field (in the form of a great many pathbreaking articles for professional journals) and a popularizer who can speak to the masses. How Capitalism Saved America is DiLorenzo at his best.

I happen to know, from sad personal experience, that A. Epstein, below, has a habit of posting one-star reviews of books he obviously hasn't read. I wonder how many of the 25,000 starvation victims live in capitalist societies. Next to zero, I imagine.

Likewise, it is clear he hasn't read the book when he goes on to criticize the Federal Reserve, the World Bank, and the IMF -- as if these are "capitalist" institutions that DiLorenzo defends! Congratulations: you've attributed to DiLorenzo a position that is just about the opposite of the one he advances in this book.

This is the same sort of mentality that makes Alexander Hamilton out to be a "capitalist," when in fact what Hamilton favored, as DiLorenzo reminds us, was a series of government interventions: a national bank, protective tariffs, excise taxes, and the like. Yet historian after historian, in a drearily predictable routine, describes Hamilton's success as a triumph for "capitalism." No wonder students are confused.

Chapter 1 of DiLorenzo's book makes all of these important distinctions. Capitalism does not mean government support for business; it means no government support for any particular enterprise. It means the free and voluntary interaction of free people and their property. Period.

From the Pilgrims to the present, just as the title promises, DiLorenzo shows how the free market, condemned and caricatured in the typical textbook, has been the source of American prosperity. Many of the great businessmen of the nineteenth century, absurdly treated in the standard text, are finally given their due. Franklin Roosevelt, who supposedly "saved" capitalism, is also given his due -- but in quite a different sense.

In short, this is an excellent overview of crucial episodes in American economic history from the beginnings of America through the attack on Microsoft. Not to be missed.