Idols of Nations: Biblical Myth at the Origins of Capitalism

by Roland Boer, Christina Petterson

Roland Boer and Christina Petterson here produce a critical survey showing that the rise of capitalist theory was shaped by the way different economic philosophers—Smith, Hobbes, Grotius, Malthus, Locke––read the Bible. Invoking Jeremiah (14:22) and Adam Smith—who took the title of his Wealth of Nations from Isaiah (61:6, 66:12)—they show that early theories of capitalism were shaped by particular assumptions that these theorists brought to their readings of the story of Eden in particular. They examine those assumptions and evaluate what has changed in subsequent centuries. Idols of Nations shows that the Bible was central to the theorization and economic thought of these key thinkers as it explores the distinct problems each sought to overcome.

Genres: Religion, History, Theology, Philosophy, Economics

219 pages, Kindle Edition

First published May 1, 2014

About the author

Roland Theodore Boer is a Marxist philosopher based in China. His research concerns the many dimensions of the construction of socialism, especially in China but also elsewhere.

Reviews

[Andrew Marr · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a short book zeroing in on the myth-making propensities in early capitalism. The first three chapters look at Grotius, Locke & Adam Smith. Mainly, the authors are interested in how these writers (mis)used the Bible to spin their theories & myths. Actually, these writers don't seem to have used the Bible much & what they did use was in the first three chapters of Genesis and mostly to turn the biblical book on its head. These brief analyses are helpful for seeing the theological and moral problems in capitalism. I was particularly struck by how Grotius and Locke write about men seizing goods that had been common and that somehow this is a good thing. Grotius especially inadvertently shows slavery to be at the root of private property and the authors point out that the earliest known legal treatise on property, dating from Roman times, is about slaves. A further weakness of Grotius and Locke not addressed in this book is that it seems that it is not grabbing property that is primal but the seizure of people, which is what the rise of monarchy is about. Adam Smith is lampooned mercilessly as a naive spinner of feeble yarns. The trouble is, many people believe them to this day and will not accept any reality checks upon them. The naivety of the notion that collective self-interest works out for the public good is exposed quite well. More important, the myth of the invisible hand is demonstrated to be equivocal as both sacred and secular, but this equivocation inevitably lead to a secularized outlook, a secularizing of the Bible and divine providence that leaves God out of the picture. Thomas Malthus, the fourth figure of the book is a dose of fresh cold water in his jaundiced view of human nature which puts paid to rosy-eyed notions of self-interest being a good thing. But if Malthus had any helpful suggestions for humanity's redemption in Christ, these authors didn't find it. (Yes, Malthus was a preacher and he preached redemption but it doesn't seem to connect with economic issues. The last paragraph of the conclusion commends Karl Marx as a better alternative. My basic agreement of the assessments of Smith et. al. doesn't attract me much to this recommendation as a government seizing property doesn't seem better than capitalists doing it. A helpful book for getting a sense of direction gaining a Christian critique of capitalism's difficulties but not helpful for where we go from there.

[Tyler Jarvis · Rating 2 out of 5]

I agreed with some of the points and conclusions made by the authors, but ultimately found this book to be disappointing.

The book winds up reading more like propaganda than thoughtful analysis. Not because all of the analysis is invalid, but because the authors make no attempt to deal charitably with the 4 philosophers/economists whose works they are debunking.

I will admit to not being particularly familiar with all the work of the 4 authors being discussed (Grotius, Locke, Adam Smith, and Malthus) but I have an extremely difficult time believing that this book represents an accurate and holistic view of their respective works. The authors of this book have an axe to grind, and it isn’t subtle.

Which is unfortunate, because I believe that some of their insights would be extremely helpful if they were paired with a charitable and holistic view of their opponents views. A thoughtful Christian/Biblical critique of the evolution of capitalism and Western economic thought would be an extremely valuable work.

But this book just isn’t that.

[Perry · Rating 5 out of 5]

Boer meticulously follows the threads of early capitalist apologetics backwards in time to key misreadings of the Hebrew Bible, especially the Book of Genesis. The assumptions driving these misreadings resulted in the numerous fables and narratives which formed capitalism’s foundation myths – myths originally evangelized by Grotius, Locke, Smith, and Malthus, as quasi-religious arguments, but which today are masked as ‘economic laws’. Boer's work is an invitation to rethink the religious assumptions underlying both the economic theory of "free" markets as well as more fundamental ideas regarding the Judeo-Christian moral imagination.

[Tommy · Rating 2 out of 5]

With such a title you'd expect a lot more substantial writing on the link between theology and capitalism and less polemical whining about ethnocentrism and how civilized the Chinese were.

[Neil White · Rating 2 out of 5]

The authors freely admit that the sources they are working with in classical economics and the secondary literature trying to deal with the relation of economics and religion quite dreadful. Their basic point, that Grotius, Locke, Smith and Malthus in various ways rewrite the narrative of the fall to make space for the assumptions of the basic goodness of humanity (with the exception of Malthus) which evolves out of an Armenian approach (free will) to human capability (or in Smith's case it becomes detached from the biblical narrative), is a good one. The book itself becomes a slow and uninteresting read which may reflect the sources they are working with.