Jerry Muller
View on Amazon
I confess I was attracted to this book by the title: Capitalism and the Jews (Princeton, 2010). Capitalism is a touchy subject; Jews are a touchy subject. But capitalism and the Jews, that’s a disaster waiting to happen. I don’t suggest you try this, but just imagine what would happen if you started a water-cooler chat with “Hey, what do you think of capitalism and the Jews?” Not pretty. So, being a bit curious, I wanted to know who would write a book with said title and what they could possibly say that wouldn’t get people calling for their head. Well, here’s what I found out. The book was written by Jerry Muller who, I can tell you with all earnestness, is a very bright fellow, an excellent (and witty) writer, and someone with a load of interesting things to say about capitalism and Jews. Don’t worry, it’s not what you think. Muller’s book is no spittle-encrusted diatribe against greedy, hook-nosed, money-lenders. But neither is it the kind of book that ignores the (too often considered embarrassing or offensive) facts, the central one here being that Jews are, as Muller well puts it, good at capitalism. There is no Judeophobia or Judeophilia to be found in these pages. Rather, there is a fascinating, meditative, and enlightening account of the historical relationship of capitalism and the Jews, predominately in Europe over the last thousand or so years. This book is full of cool-headed, convincing arguments about controversial, oft-asked historical questions: Why are Jews good at capitalism? What made European Jews different from other diaspora communities? What role did the Jews play in the evolution of capitalism? What attracted some Jews to socialism? Why do we think–wrongly as it turns out–that there was an affinity between Jews and communism? How did Jews themselves react to the strong association between capitalism and their faith? How did Christians react to the same association?
If you read this book, and I hope you do, you will be able to sensibly answer all these question. And really, you have no reason not to read it because it is a model of brevity. It’s rare that you find so much packed into so few pages. But that’s what you’d expect, I suppose, out of a very bright fellow, excellent writer, and someone with a load of interesting things to say…
Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I recently discovered this podcast and have been listening to a lot of the older ‘episodes.’ I have learned that no matter what the topic of the book is, I probably will enjoy the discussion in spite of any preconceived notions that I might have held on the topic. This was one of those topics that I probably wouldn’t have listened to if I hadn’t already learned that lesson. I’m lucky that I’ve learned that lesson already, for this was a very interesting discussion.
One thing though. May I suggest, since it is pretty apparent that you do a pre-interview, you discuss the weather and the author’s health then? I’d rather hear about the author and his topic.
Very interesting interview on a sensitive topic.
Naturally, I shall restrict my comment to an area where I disagree so take it as read that I found much of interest in it.
I would question somewhat your joint take on the labour theory of value and its potential connexion with anti-capitalist prejudice.
While it’s likely that a crude and fuzzy understanding informed many people’s primitive dislike of 19th century capitalism, I think it’s worth emphasising that socialism developed a more sophisticated critique that is perhaps lumped in with in it in the interview.
As is well known, the labour theory of value was held by the likes of Adam Smith and David Ricardo as well as socialists like William Thompson and Karl Marx so, while I would agree that once one follows the thread of logic of that theory, it tends to flow in an anti-capitalist direction, it was nevertheless held by intellectuals who were themselves pro-capitalist, albeit of a quite different hue than their latter day.
And intellectual labour was by no means dishonoured by socialism; indeed socialists encouraged a mix of manual and mental labour for everybody. Kropotkin is particularly clear on this point and I think the point is so obvious that socialists never bothered to labour it.
I think you get a little confused between intellectual labour (e.g. architecture, banking) and restricted *ownership*.
Socialists are highly in favour of the former and highly critical of the latter. It can be argued that deciding investment via private control of capital is a form of intellectual labour and while this is certainly true, they are not the same thing. One can exercise the very same intellectual muscles making the same decisions under public ownership.
Private monopoly of large swathes of capital raises problems. Firstly it is of questionable democratic status: a tiny group of investors make decisions with huge ramifications for society as a whole on the basis of what will lead to them receiving the greatest of profit. Secondly, why should those investors receive multiples of income (understood as returns on capital) than others?
Here, it should be emphasised, there is a difference in degree between earning $50,000 and $250,000. Sure, life will be more pleasant on the latter, but you’re still in the same ball park. The most someone on a quarter of million can do is make very minor investment decisions (that second apartment!).
But there is a qualitative difference between $250,000 and $250,000,000. When you get to the latter, we’re talking serious investment decisions. It’s been an amazing triumph of modern capitalism that the western intelligentsia, particularly the American section, identify so strongly with the right of billionaires to effectively decide high level social policy despite inhabiting such a different social stratum. The pre-communist socialist movement in Europe certainly won a greater share of the intelligentsia over to its side in its day.
So the question from a left point of view isn’t so much whether the merchant or banker should be entitled to something, but whether they should be entitled to *so much*. Their control of the bottle neck of information and resources sets in a motion a positive feedback of capital accumulation that can lead to them coming to wield great power.
The socialist critique isn’t so much that intellectual labour is unproductive; it’s that all production is a *collective* endeavour: it’s a mix of manual and intellectual labour that depends on the existence of a collective organisation (not only a specific business, but also society as a whole) to even exist. Everybody’s contribution is valuable. Seen in this light, the domination of social decision making by bond markets, hedge funds, oil cartels etc is of questionable democratic value.
Of course, proponents of neo-classical economics have a different take on issue of value and rewarding investment and therefore disagree with the above consequences, but the issue is that socialists – today the main defenders of the labour theory of value – do not consider productive labour to be solely physical labour, nor do we think as your esteemed Congressmen do that investment bankers sit around all day twiddling their thumbs.
After all, we would like to see investment bankers receive high level democratic mandates (e.g. focus investment on public transport, green technology, and healthcare) and work their wizardry from there. We just are more skeptical of them acting for and becoming capitalists, i.e. the owners of capital.
————————————-
The subject of the rise of ethnic-nationalism and its relationship to capitalism and the Jews is a fascinating one. Living in Ireland, a nationalist mythos still prevails and frankly for many decades after independence led to a dreary, monolithic culture.
Seen from our shores, one of the attractive features of European Jewish culture in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was one that Hitler notably loathed the most, namely its cosmopolitanism. It was antithetical to his virulent ethnic-nationalism.
Given the lack of even a potential nation state perhaps this cosmopolitanism was inevitable. I think that was another factor in the attraction of socialism to many Jewish intellectuals and workers: socialism was avowedly internationalist.
And I would venture to suggest that this very cosmopolitanism provided a fertile ecology for Jewish intellectual achievements. The barbarous Nazi genocide reduced this vibrant and brilliant culture to mere remnants and, furthermore, rather discredited the very idea of a cosmopolitan Jewish culture. Even so ardent an internationalist as Trotsky hinted at despair at the onward march of fascism in the late 1930s.
After this, the creation of a defensible nation state came to the fore as the only viable option. Whether that cosmopolitan culture can survive the creation of the Israeli nation-state and its concomitant need to regiment the best minds in the service of the state is a poignant question. Israel’s increasing isolation hardly helps in this regard and it seems to me that it is in gradual decline.