One of my favorite readings recently has been Albert Hirschman’s “The Passions and the Interests: The Political Arguments for Capitalism before its Triumph.” In this short (180 pages) and immensely readable work, Hirschman reveals that the earliest argument in favor of capitalism was not economic–the invisible hand a la Adam Smith–but the idea that giving a free reign to commerce might improve the political order.
Social thinkers in the 16th and 17th century were anxious to come up ways to tame the “passions” of kings and aristocrats that had wrecked havoc over Europe during the middle ages. Writers such as Bacon (1561-1626) and Spinoza (1632-1677) speculated that that the expansion of commerce might just do the trick. Commerce, they observed, tends to pit people’s greed (or “interests”) against their “passions” (such as lust, jeaously, pride, religiosity, bravado). A social order that gave maximum scope for people to pursue their interests would also subdue their destructive passions. Doux-Commerce (“Commerce Sweetens”) as the French writer Montesquieu (1689-1755) put it. The hope was held out for a more peaceful world.
Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, with its breathtaking economic arguments, came later in 1776. By then the political desirability of a society infused with the ”spirit of commerce” was well accepted.
The events of the 20th century have discredited the Doux-Commerce idea, Hirschman believes. The two world wars came at the heels of unprecetented expansion of global trade. But the idea survives, he laments. Keynes opined that “It is better for a man to tyrannize over his bank account than his fellow men.” One also gets to hear from advocates of free trade that “When goods cross borders, soldiers won’t.”
It is ironical, Hirschman notes, that the current social critics denigrate capitalism for promoting people’s money-making proclivities at the cost of other impulses such as loyalty, religiosity, love, or in other words–their “passions.” It was exactly this aspect of capitalism that held attraction for the social thinkers three centuries ago. A fully developed human personality with its attendant passions was dangerous, they believed. They had rather people busy themselves making money.
Hirschman, professor Emiritus of Economics at Harvard, writes with great clarity and lucidity. I recommend this book for all social scientists and anyone interested in intellectual history of capitalism.
- Nimish Adhia
Nimish, is Hirschman a Rothbardian?
I don’t know if he is a Rothbardian. He is in fact a little left-of-centre.
Hirschman has written a book documenting the rhetorical tactics used by the anti-government right, I believe in order to help the “left-of-centre” defend themselves against such rhetoric.