ذهن و بازار: جایگاه سرمایه‌داری در تفکر اروپای مدرن

by Jerry Z. Muller, مهدی نصراله‌زاده (Translator)

درباره کتاب:

اندیشیدن و نوشتن درباره سرمایه‌داری (کاپیتالیسم) هیچ‌گاه منحصر به اقتصاددانان نبوده است. قرن‌های متمادی با فیلسوفان، سیاستمداران، شاعران و دانشمندان علوم اجتماعی درباره اثرات فرهنگی، اخلاقی و سیاسی سرمایه داری بحث کرده‌اند. و دعاوی آنان نیز فراوان و متفاوت بوده است.

کتاب ذهن و بازار، جایگاه سرمایه‌داری در تفکر اروپای مدرن تاریخچه‌ای است جالب توجه در این باره که ایده سرمایه‌دارای چگونه در اندیشه غربی تکوین و تکامل یافته است. در نگارش کتاب خود جری مولر، استاد تاریخ دانشگاه کاتولیک آمریکا واقع در واشنگتن دی.سی، به بررسی رشته‌ای گیرا از آرا و افکار درباره پیامدهای سرمایه‌داری و استلزامات آتی آن نشسته است و این کار را با پوشش دادن به طیف گسترده‌ای از نظرات و عقاید انجام داده که همزمان دربرگیرنده هابز، ولتر، آدام اسمیت، ادموند برک، هگل، مارکس، و متی یوآرنولد و نیز روشنفکران کمونیست، فاشیست، و نئولیبرال قرن بیستم است. کتاب حاضر نمونه‌ای است جذاب و دستیاب از تاریخ اندیشه‌ها، اندیشه‌هایی که در هرگوشه کنار زندگی روزمره‌مان طنین انداز هستند.

Genres: Economics, History, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics, Business, Sociology

739 pages, Paperback

First published November 12, 2002

About the author

Jerry Z. Muller is professor of history at the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC.

Reviews

[Amirsaman · Rating 3 out of 5]

موضع نویسنده در تمام کتاب، توجیه سرمایه‌داری و یهودیان است.

۱. از ارسطو تا کلیسا، همه مخالف رباخواری و حتا سود بردن از فروش کالای خریداری شده بودند. باید برده داشت که برای آدم کار کند و خود شهروند برود پی کسب فضیلت و سیاست. این شد که یهودیان چون غیرمسیحی بودند، وام‌دهنده و تاجر شدند. قرون وسطی به بعد بود که کشاورزی رونق پیدا کرد، و نیاز بود به وام. دیگر مسیحیت هم کم‌کم گفت حالا وام با «سود قانونی» اشکالی ندارد.
جنگ مذهبی زیاد بود در اروپا؛ بین کاتولیک و پروتستان و بقیه‌. هابز و دوستانش سعی کردند نشان دهند که سعادت در چسبیدن به آرامش همین دنیا است و دوره‌ی ایمان گذشته‌. لازم نیست حکومت همه را یک‌دینه بکند‌‌.

۲. ولتر عاشق بورس‌ انگلستان شده بود. در شعرهایش سعی می‌کرد نظام ارزشی را واژگون کند؛ فقر را (که تاکنون موجب حفظ اخلاق شمره می‌شد) تقبیح کند و تجمل را بستاید، چون خود باعث ایجاد کار برای فقرا می‌شود.

۳. آدام اسمیت گفت: «منفعت‌طلبیِ شخصی منجر به مبادله‌ی بازاری می‌شود؛ مبادله‌ی بازاری به تقسیم کارِ بیشتر می‌انجامد؛ تقسیم کارِ بیشتر به تخصصی شدن، تجربه، تبحر، ابداع و، در نتیجه، ثروتِ بیشتر منتهی می‌گردد.
اسمیت معتقد بود وقتی واردات یک محصول را ممنوع می‌کنیم که به تولید داخلی کمک کنیم، این انحصارطلبی به ضرر منفعت عمومی است. چون مانع از این می‌شود که سرمایه‌گذار پولش را جایی صرف کند که تقاضای واقعی وجود دارد.
نویسنده تاکید می‌کند که خود اسمیت واقف بود بر این‌که جامعه‌ی تجاری مورد بحثش، اکثریت کارگر را بی‌فکر می‌کند. پس دولت وظیفه‌ی آموزش و پرورش را هم باید بر دوش بکشد. حتا با چنین اتفاقی، باز هم اکثریت --به تعبیر اسمیت-- به فضیلت کوچک ارزش‌های بورژوایی می‌رسند؛ یعنی خواهان زندگی آرام و تلاش برای ثروت. اما یک عده‌ی معدودی هم باید فیلسوف شوند و --خلاف جهت جامعه‌ی تجاری-- اخلاق را پرورش دهند.

۴. یوستوس موزر، بازار را تهدیدی برای فرهنگ و جامعه‌ی خود می‌دانست. بازار نابودکننده‌ی فرهنگ‌های محلی و خاص بودگی آن‌ها است. بازار (با جهانی‌شدنی که از پی‌اش می‌آید) کثرت‌گرایی را نابود می‌کند‌.

۵. ادموند برک خواستار قطع دست دولت از بازار آزاد بود. مثلا می‌گفت تعیین حداقل حقوق از سوی دولت و تحمیل آن بر کارفرمایان، موجب کاهش شغل و بعد افزایش قیمت‌ها می‌شود که در طولانی مدت خود به ضرر فقرا است.
برک با کمپانی هند شرقی مخالف بود. ثروت بریتانیا به بهای بدبخت کردن هندی‌ها و درگیر کردن حاکمان هند به جنگ قدرت‌طلبی بدست می‌آمد.
برک از بین بردن ساختارهای سنتی (مثل انقلاب فرانسه) با استفاده از منطق و عقلانیت (که به باور برک ابزاری غیرقایل‌اتکا است) را روشنفکری انتزاعی و خطرناک می‌دانست؛ چراکه به زودی همه‌ی ساختارها از بین می‌رفت بی‌آنکه جایگزی برایشان موجود باشد. ابزار دیگر هم استفاده از زور است. در هر دو روش، تعهد به حکومت جدید کمتر می‌شد و نظم که ارزش زندگی است، از بین می‌رود؛ پس بد است‌.

۶. هگل می‌گفت مهم خاص بودگی است که با بازار و کالا خریدن اتفاقا تقویت می‌شود برخلاف نظر روشنفکران؛ فقط مبادا که کنترل از دست شخص خارج شود و نقشه‌ی زندگی‌اش را دیگریِ تولیدکننده مشخص کند.

۷. یکی از نقدهای مارکس به سرمایه‌داری این است که مردم مجبور به انجام شغل‌های تخصصی می‌شوند و دیگر برای اکثریت، امکان پرداختن به سایر توانایی‌ها و بروز خود در شغل مورد علاقه وجود ندارد؛ ولی در جامعه‌ی کمونیستی چنین نیست. مثال من این است که وقتی جامعه‌ای به برنج نیاز زیادی دارد، به همان تناسب کشاورز هم باید داشته باشیم، چه افراد کشاورزی را دوست داشته باشند چه نه. در غیر این‌صورت، قیمت برنج یا افزایش زیادی می‌یابد و غیرقابل‌استفاده برای عموم می‌شود، یا دولت باید دست به واردات گسترده بزند. سوال من این‌جاست که کمونیسم چطور می‌تواند چنین نیاز اساسی‌ای را حل کند؟ بنظرم، ممکن است در موارد ظاهرا غیرضروری‌تر، مثلا تولید موبایل را کم کنیم چون کارگرها کارشان را دوست ندارند. و این چنین، برحسب علاقه‌ی افراد، «نیاز» برای جامعه درست کنیم. که خب خود علاقه‌داشتن افراد هم، یک چیز خالص نیست؛ همان‌طور که تحت‌تاثیر تبلیغات سرمایه‌داری است، می‌تواند متاثر از سیاست‌های دولت کمونیستی هم باشد.
گفته می‌شود اگر به قول مارکس، همه‌ی سود حاصل از کالا، به جیب کارگر برود، پس تکلیف هزینه‌ی دستگاه‌ها و مواد خام سرمایه‌گذار چه می‌شود؟ پاسخ مارکس این است که این وسایل نتیجه کار گذشته است و به‌واسطه‌ی نپرداختن ارزش کامل کار کارگران به آنان، انباشته شده است.
یک نکته‌ی بسیار دقیق حتا در امروزه که مارکس به آن انگشت گذاشت، این بود که با ظهور تکنولوژی جدید مثلا در یک کارخانه، کارگری که مهارت روی دستگاه سابق داشت، ناگهان با کارگر بی‌مهارت یکی می‌شود.

۸. متی‌یو آرنولد با تاکید روی این‌که سرمایه‌داری می‌تواند نابودکننده‌ی فرهنگ باشد، اگر آموزش و پرورش، فکر کردن را یادِ مردم ندهد، می‌گفت «فرهنگ به معنای قرار گرفتن در معرض تجربه‌ی ازخودنارضایی بود، تجربه‌ای که خود آن از درک شکاف بین آنچه هست و آنچه باید باشد حاصل می‌شد، و آن نارضایی نیز نقطه‌ی آغاز بهبود شخصی و جمعی بود.»

۹. جری مولر ،نویسنده‌ی کتاب، می‌گوید وبر و زیمل لیبرالیسم مردد داشتند، یعنی هم سرمایه‌داری را قبول داشتند و هم اشکالاتش را می‌گفتند.
بنظر زیمل، زندگی انسان وقتی وابسته به بازار شد، پرسش چگونه زیستن به چه چیزی را خریدن منجر می‌شود‌؛ زندگیِ محاسبه‌گرانه‌ی عددی سرد و بی‌‌عاطفه می‌شود. لذت پول، لذت داشتن کالاست به اضافه‌ی لذت قدرت انتخاب.
زیمل جنبش فمینیستی را هم از برکات سرمایه‌داری می‌داند؛ وسایل جدید باعث شدند زنان وقت کمتری را برای امور خانه صرف کنند و وارد سایر عرصه‌ها شوند.
به گفته‌ی سومبارت، در دوره‌های صلح طولانی، نمی‌توان تمایزی بین امور غیرحیاتی و اهداف حیاتی زندگی قائل شد؛ ولی جنگ (جهانی اول) باعث می‌شود یک نیروی وحدت‌بخش و هدف والاتر (صیانت از نفس ملی) پیدا شود.

۱۰. بعد از جنگ جهانی اول، انقلاب‌های کمونیستی نافرجامی در برلین و مونیخ و بوداپست به وقوع پیوست. در چنین پیش‌زمینه‌ای، لوکاچ گفت کارگران کرخت‌تر از آن شده‌اند که بتوانند دست به انقلاب بزنند؛ چون سرمایه‌داری اساسا تصور امکان تغییر را در ذهن این «شیء‌شدگان» از بین می‌برد. به دلیل فرآیند تخصصی شدن، امکان دیدن تصویر یکپارچه از ارتباط بازار و ناخرسندی‌های فرهنگی، ناممکن می‌شود. در جهانی که همه‌چیز شیءواره شده است، جامعه باید بیاموزد که همه‌ی نیازهایش را با کالا برطرف کند.
فرِیِر چاره‌ی بی‌معنایی کاپیتالیست را، رو آوردن به ناسیونالیسم و هدف مشترک ملی بیان کرد؛ دولتی که با جنگ، قدرت عاطفی بدست آورد. نویسنده‌ی کتاب، عقاید او را نازیسم می‌خواند.

۱۱. شومپیتر می‌گفت باید با نظام کپیتالیستی کلی پول ذخیره کنیم، و بعد، سرمایه‌داری، آرام‌آرام «در آینده» خودش می‌شود سوسیالیسم. سوسیال شدن در زمان حاضر، فاجعه به بار می‌آورد، چون نخبگان بی‌انگیزه می‌شوند. در صورتی که مارکسیسم توجیهی است برای افراد غیرخلاق اقتصادی که از نابرابریِ حاصل از تلاش دیگران شکوه دارند.
بنا به ‌نظر شومپیتر، زوال سرمایه‌داری آن‌جاست که، از آن‌جا که سرمایه‌داری انسان‌ها را فایده‌باور و عقلانی می‌کند، افراد دیگر نمی‌خواهند مثلا بچه‌دار شوند، و در نتیجه انگیزه برای ادامه‌ی کار، وقتی نیاز مالی‌شان برطرف شد نخواهند داشت‌.
او می‌گفت وقتی خیل عظیمی را به دانشگاه بفرستیم، بعدا شغلی که آن‌ها در شان خود ببینند برای همه نیست یا حقوقی که فکر می‌کنند استحقاقش را دارند. نیز روشنفکران ضدبورژوایی بوجود می‌آیند که خودشان در عمل و تجربه‌ی اقتصادی نیستند و فقط بقیه‌ی ناراضیان را تحریک می‌کنند.

۱۲. در فصل کینز، نویسنده به جهش اقتصادی عظیمی که در آمریکا و اروپای غربی، بعد از جنگ جهانی دوم اتفاق افتاد اشاره می‌کند، و آن را تماما دست‌رنج سرمایه‌داری می‌داند. بدون آن‌که سیاست‌های خارجی و ویرانی‌هایی که به «دیگران» وارد شد تا این موفقیت اقتصادی رخ دهد، اشاره کند.
مارکوزه می‌خواست شغل از انجام وظیفه، به یک امر لذت‌بخش تبدیل شود که تا حدی رانه‌ی جنسی فرویدی را خنثا می‌کند. اما در زندگی سرمایه‌داری، تمرکز فقط بر ارگاسم آلتی است‌.
مارکوزه مشکل را این می‌دانست که سرمایه‌داری، نیاز کاذب ایجاد می‌کند و به آن‌ها پاسخ هم می‌دهد برای کارگران. در نتیجه آن‌ها انگیزه‌ی انقلاب کردن ندارند. با جنگ سرد و دشمن‌سازی خیالی، حواس مردم از خواستن نیازهای واقعی منحرف می‌شود. همچنین کثرت‌گرایی فرهنگی که با همه‌گیر شدن کتاب و موسیقی رخ می‌دهد، در مردم بی‌تفاوتی ایجاد می‌کند و مانع انقلاب می‌شود‌.

۱۳. از دیدگاه هایِک نئولیبرالیست، عدالت اجتماعی در جامعه‌ی لیبرالی سرمایه‌داری بی‌معنا و غیرضروری است؛ زیرا ارزش‌ها و اهداف افراد بسیار متفات است. تنها عدالت این است که دولت، آزادی برای شیوه‌ی دلخواهشان را فراهم کند.
دموکراسی مغایر با بازار است؛ مثلا صنف کارگران حقوق بیش‌تری طلب می‌کند، و چاره افزایش نقدینگی است، که باعث تورم می‌شود و خودْ ارزش پول کارگران را کاهش می‌دهد. بقیه هم خواستار افزایش حقوق می‌شوند و از پی‌ش تورم و این‌گونه اقتصاد می‌پُکد. به نظر هایک، چاره این است که اقتصاد از سیاست و حکومت جدا شود (کاری که واحد پول یورو کرد).
تحت‌تاثیر او، تاچر و ریگان مالیات بر درآمد را کم کردند، از بیکاری به عنوان عاملی برای کاهش دستمزدها استقبال کردند، و سیاست تزریق پول را ادامه ندادند.

[Jan Rice · Rating 5 out of 5]

Done!

In 2010 I read this New York Times review of another of Jerry Muller's books, Capitalism and the Jews. Intrigued, I looked up the author and his books, including The Mind and the Market, but at first I thought they were books about, I don't know, capitalism and finance, so I gave them to my nephew because he is a Republican, and I thought these would be books that were compatible with his views. I had offended him by something I wrote on Facebook, something he took to mean I thought Republicans (or maybe conservatives) were prone to being "spun," that is, that they belonged to a class of manipulable people--anyway, something that had come across as derogatory, for which I was sorry. So I thought these were books that might lend support to his political and economic views and--yes--reflect broadmindedness on my part.

Then, a year or so later, I came across the first book in a library and picked it up. And it wasn't at all what I had thought. It's history, not finance or whatever, and it knocked my socks off. I reviewed it here.

That first book was a lot shorter, though.

Not everybody is as excited about Muller as I am. One of my friends with a background in finance said Capitalism and the Jews was "boring." Another friend, a retired economist, took a look at my behest, and abruptly told me to stop reading it and get The Worldly Philosophers instead. He took umbrage at "all the philosophy," which he thought had no place in learning about economics and would only be confusing. And then there's my Goodreads friend who acts like I've stepped in something dirty by reading this particular book, which to him is unremitting promotion of the capitalist agenda. Yet I found a professional review, a read from the Left that lauded this book. More on reviews at the end.

I read this book because of what I was hearing people say about capitalism. Now in the past that may not have been something I would have even noticed, but now I did, and I wondered why they said the things they did. These weren't poor people but generally upper middle-class, educated people who had done okay--often more than okay. That made them sound hypocritical, as though applying their morals to others but not to themselves, and it occurred to me they didn't know what they were talking about. And neither did I.

This Facebook note is the first thing I ever wrote on this subject.

In what follows I will lay out some of what I've learned and what so impressed me. I found this book to be an objective exploration of modern thinking about capitalism, set in history so I could tie it in with other learning, and "telling it like it is"--always provocative. A Publishers Weekly review said he wrote clear but uninspiring prose. But for me the clarity and transparency are inspiring.

How to begin learning? What to read to learn about capitalism? Books about money and the economy, about who ruined what and who did what to whom, come out all the time. They are often tendentious, and the beginning learner would have try and ferret out where they're coming from and why they're saying what they're saying, a seemingly endless and unrewarding task. So I welcomed the author's introductory assurances that ideas about capitalism had been the subject of discussion for three hundred years already and that many new commentators are hitting familiar themes and not starting from scratch, even when they think they are.

The book, then: Muller starts by sketching historical ideas about commerce. For both the early church and in classical Greek thinking commerce was bad. According to such thinking there was only so much wealth in the world, and people who bought something somewhere and sold it for a higher amount elsewhere were stealing, being leeches on the system. For early Christianity, only what one made, or grew with one's hands was acceptable. But there the similarity between the church and Greek antiquity breaks down. For the church, money itself (not only commerce) was evil; and thus it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get God's kingdom. But for the Greeks, it was poverty that corrupts; one needed wealth, derived from war and pillage and also from slave labor that sounds like a permanent holocaust, to avoid corruption! The other major tradition of European antiquity, Rome, with its system of laws and its protection of private property, more nearly points forward.

The historical overview gets us up through Hobbes (Leviathan) and his precursors of 17th century vintage, who used argument and ridicule against religious claims to political power. They also saw the Greek civic tradition as pitting persons and nations against each other, instead of which, in their opinions, nations should establish secular sanctuaries for peaceful coexistence, intellectual advancement and the development of prosperity.

Hobbes' aim was no less than to turn the prior value system upside-down. Think the seven deadly sins. From the new perspective that was a view that had served to keep people in their place. The new paradigm was advancement via self-interest. Now greed and envy might be transmuted into motivation and desire and seeking, pride into self-esteem, and so on. It all worked something like this:

Thus Vice nursed Ingenuity,
Which join'd with Time; and Industry
Had carry'd Life's Conveniencies,
It's real Pleasures, Comforts, Ease,
To such a Height, the very Poor
Lived better than the Rich before
--From Mandeville's 1714 satirical poem The Grumbling Hive, also quoted in the book

Hobbes et al. were springboards to the 18th-20th century figures who are the book's main focus. First comes Voltaire, whom the author sees as more a transmitter than an originator of the new ideas. Voltaire was an early intellectual (philosophe) who operated in the marketplace of ideas and sought to influence that new entity "public opinion." People--still largely men--met in reading clubs and in lodges and gained understanding of government activities; intellectuals tried to influence them as well as monarchs. For Voltaire, peace, not wealth was the goal of the marketplace, with self-interest a lesser danger than religious zealotry that had fueled the devastating European civil wars of recent centuries. I've used my review of Candide as opportunity to talk about Voltaire, so won't say more here, except that Voltaire was not the last to pursue his self-interest improperly, using new knowledge to which governments hadn't yet caught up to manipulate and defraud others.

And that leads to the proper role of governments according to Adam Smith. His reputation notwithstanding, the invisible hand was just one part of his vision. The visible hand of government in one of its roles was to keep individuals from manipulating the market to their own advantage. Naturally workers would try to raise wages higher than the market could bear and manufacturers would try to keep wages artificially low. Governments should keep either from happening and keep the marketplace humming along. But since employers had more power more effort was needed to make them behave. (See my quote from p. 64 below, to the effect that wage earners are the majority of any country, and "their welfare was the prime concern of economic policy," according to Smith.)

Adam Smith was from Scotland, a crucible of intellectual advance in the 18th century. Before centralized government reached the Gaelic-speaking Highlands, the default system there consisted of clans, each with a chieftain who wielded absolute political and military power at the top (which sounds pretty much like warlords), and in Smith's day the clans were "pacified," along with the suppression of the Jacobite rebellion. The Scotland of his day also was comprised of cosmopolitan lowlands areas as well as rural areas where the feudal system still held sway and where landlords still held dominion over their tenants. Smith could compare and contrast the lives of relatively free people in the economically more advanced areas with those who were still subjugated.

Adam Smith was a liberal in both modern senses of the word. He wanted the market to work its transformation on people and society, and his goals were progressive, maybe radical--to free people from subjugation and abject poverty. But his rhetoric, which sought to overturn much conventional thought of his day, was such that he still holds iconic sway for many as a Milton Friedman-type conservative. That's changing, though. Here's a great 2010 New Yorker piece by Adam Gopnik that's in the same vein as Muller's exposition.

Justus Möser, a contemporary of Adam Smith, lived and wrote in a little country called Osnabrück, east of Holland and surrounded on its other three sides by Prussia. The author includes Möser, who is little-known, as a prototypical conservative--one who was rooted in his country and loved it and so didn't seek radical solutions to its plight. Although Möser could see that exports would increase local wealth, products coming in from abroad were in his eyes spreading the virus of the encroaching new economy, whether through mom-and-pop shops in town or peddlers in the countryside. He wanted to forestall his society's dissolution--power and wealth becoming divorced from land ownership, honor and pride of place, from guild membership. For example there was pressure to allow men of illegitimate birth into guilds, but for Möser letting bastards in would collapse the rungs on which honor and status rested and destroy the caste-like levels supporting society, feudal society being mostly static with no rung-climbing allowed and strictures on holding onto one's current rung. Another change was that the locals began migrating across the Dutch border in the summer to pick crops for the more advanced and wealthier economy next door. Having more money as a result, they married earlier instead of having to wait until they inherited cottage and subsistence farm from their fathers. So now the population shot up, and a new class of poor people arose who existed outside the institutions of the old society.

So change was scary as hell, as were the intellectuals, merchants of change who were plying reform-minded monarchs with justification for it. This chapter and the next one on Edmund Burke made sense for me of the way modern conservatives like Thomas Sowell, for instance, rail at "intellectuals" when, after all, so it seemed, that's what they themselves are! But change was coming.

Burke initially seems to cut across current conceptions of conservative and progressive.


Their historical circumstances can impact what it is conservatives want to conserve. Progressives (in America, "liberals"), in contrast, want change. Radicals, left or right--from the point of view of capitalism, of course--seek to upset the applecart.

Burke was brilliant as was Adam Smith, but the circumstances of his birth were different. Instead of being from up-and-coming Scotland, he was from Ireland, which had been exploited by England and kept down so as not to compete. To himself he was English but to everybody else he was an Irishman. He believed in the market economy--his words, in fact, often taking on a quasi-religious tone--but in his thinking he also relied on the existing institutions of society (including the aristocracy) to maintain order amidst the expanding freedom bestowed by the new economy. So he deplored the East India Company's ravaging of India, which today might sound "leftist." For Burke the issue was money men operating outside institutional control, eviscerating an ancient society for their own enrichment. (Here I learned the origin of the term "nabob"--remember that? These nouveau riche returned only to buy seats in parliament and spread corruption to the home nest.) Burke also was the first to predict the Terror that was to follow the French Revolution, on the basis that the intellectuals of the National Assembly had destroyed the societal institutions he thought were required to maintain order. Burke was less likely than Smith to approve of government intervention. He believed in "getting his hands dirty" by participation in government, and when taking on his political opponents he tended to employ drama and hyperbole that has stylistic echoes still audible today in conservative speech. ...And to balance Gopnik on Smith, here he is on Burke.

Despite their great faith in the benefits of ongoing economic change, the innovators from Adam Smith on realized education and guidance would be needed for the emerging industrial working class. But almost from the get-go there arose other intellectuals with Rousseau in the lead who saw the new system as making happiness impossible. Modern man was fragmented, reduced to a cog in the assembly line.

Alienation: cartoon of a man applying for a job. He's saying to the prospective employer, "I'm looking for a position where I can slowly lose sight of what I originally set out to do with my life, with benefits." (The New Yorker's economic cartoons in On the Money)

Enter Hegel, the great reconciler. At fifty, by which time he had read, digested, and to some extent synthesized the great writers of the day on political economy, he published The Philosophy of Right, which the author says has subsequently been expanded by his students' lecture notes. For him the market economy was the way to modernity. For Smith "commercial society" (to use his terminology) had been the progenitor of positive character traits such as kindness, self-control, thrift and working hard; Hegel anticipated later thinkers in seeing what he called civil society as a reflection of the Protestant ethic. He emphasized the role of institutions such as the family and law, and thought people could rationally understand and embrace their beneficial effects. Freedom wasn't doing whatever you felt like; doing the good required guidance--and, unlike for Kant but perhaps foreshadowing today's cognitive psychology--must become habitual. He did not think duties were limitations imposed on the true self.

In his day the German-speaking peoples lived in 300 separate polities. His Lutheran family, fleeing religious persecution, had arrived in Stuttgart, capital of the duchy of Württenberg, in the 16th century. He was a member of the bureaucratic class incorporating clergymen and professors who were laboring to help the central monarch modernize. For him it was a calling. Their role was to care for the good of the state as a whole at a time when only 5% of the populace was fully literate. In his work he stood up against the reactionary landed nobility ("Junkers") in whose interest it was to maintain the feudal system and those Romantic philosophers who were providing them with rhetorical cover, and under the pressure of Napoleonic victories progress toward a constitutional monarch was made.

Marx's father, too, was a bureaucrat and a respected member of the bourgeoisie. If not a religiously-tinged calling, his job may have been a life raft as he availed himself of society's new openness to leave traditional Jewish confines for civil society. But, after Waterloo, their city came under Prussian control with its laws excluding Jews from the civil service. The father appealed his case and was denied, so that's when he converted, eventually followed by the baptism of wife and children, including Karl. But, like Burke and his Irishness, the perception that Karl Marx was a Jew persisted. Reconciliation was not in the cards for Marx. After struggling with "dilettantism", always wanting to write about the last thing he'd read, he found his calling in the suffering of the working class. He coined the pejorative term "capitalism," the name that stuck. Marx went back to the concept of money as evil, and capitalism was the rule of money. When the status of workers changed, his views didn't. Playing on money-related anti-Jewish tropes present in Western thought since the church took the Jews off the land in the 13th century and made them the money-handlers that growing economies required, Marx portrayed the commercial society that he condemned as "Jewdom," according to which everyone had now become what he called Jews. But his rhetorical excesses made others react later by trying to "rescue" capitalism from Jewdom. And this underlying conflict about money--and about usury and Jews--does continue to resonate in society. More I must leave until I've read The Communist Manifesto. But let me just state Marx considered the unplanned aspect of capitalism irrational, so there's a continuing trope in economic thinking of the planned and unplanned aspect of the economy--one that also continues to resonate.

And now, running out of room, I can't go into the later thinkers in the detail I want to in the review proper: Arnold, "the critical but non-alienated intellectual," who saw the energizing potential of the religious "dissenters" in England and worked to allow them into university. And I saw how far back goes people's suspicion of what their children may be taught in school. See below the Arnold quote from p. 227 that I love, on what "living by ideas" means--quite Platonic I think in the regard for openness to new ideas. See also my last status update from p. 287 on a sense in which the Communist Lukáks and National Socialist Freyer paralleled each other. From the chapter on Schumpeter I gained a new perspective on FDR and on why efforts to address the great depression weren't working prior to WWII. I met Keynes. I got some understanding of his continuing impact. Anti-Jewish tropes came up again with him, as did the notion of elitism. Marcuse--maybe I'll say more below. It was stunning to realize that was the very air I breathed in my youth. I have something to say in connection with Hayek and will eventually put it in a comment. Also--he was a conservative liberal--is that Greek to Americans?

For links to other reviews see comment No. 6, below.

Now a summary statement about what I think about capitalism, now I've studied this book. It will have to be rounded out by later discussion. In Gilead a character says heaven is when old men and children can walk safely in the street. If so, this life is a little bit of heaven. I can't knock that or be unhappy if it's spreading.

[Mostafa Bushehri · Rating 5 out of 5]

کاپیتالیسم، سرمایه‌داری، اقتصاد بازار، نئولیبرالیسم، اقتصاد کلاسیک/نئوکلاسیک و... اینان همه عناوینی هستند که افراد به نظامی اقتصادی که بر پایه مکانیزم بازار و رقابت است نسبت میدهند. اینکه این عناوین هرکدام چه قدر درست و مناسب و در چه شرایط و زمانی میبایست به کار روند خود موضوعی مفصل است که جدای از این کتاب و بحث است اما همگی آنان بر سر کلمه ای به اسم "بازار" اشتراک دارند.

"ذهن و بازار" با عنوان فرعیِ "جایگاه نظام سرمایه‌داری در تفکر اروپای مدرن" به شکل گیری و تاریخ این نظام اقتصادی میپردازد.

پیش از قرن هجدهم در اروپای فئودالی مهم ترین مولفه تولید زمین بود و کنترل آن مبتنی بر قدرت سیاسی بود که خود این امر نیز تابعی از قدرت نظامی بود. اما رفته رفته در قرن هجدهم است که تولید برای مبادله ی کالاهای معیشتی و توزیع آن بر محور ساز و کار بازار نقش محوری پیدا میکند.

شاید بتوان پدر سرمایه داری را آدام اسمیت دانست. او با کتاب "ثروت ملل" نظام سرمایه داری که بر محور منفعت شخصی و گسترش جامعه تجاری در راستای سعادت و رفاه تمام بشر بود را بنیان نهاد.
جری مولر، نویسنده کتاب، اما به پیش از اسمیت مراجعه میکند و تلویحا ولتر را اولین منادی این نظام میداند.

کتاب در فصل اول به پیش زمینه و بستر نظام بازار رجوع میکند و سرنخ های آن را در قرون وسطی و حکومت کلیسا میداند. کلیسایی که در قرن 12 متوجه شد برای رشد و تولید نیاز به سرمایه و پول هست و از آنجایی که در الهیات مسیحی و در نظام قدسی مسیحیت پول و تجارت و ربا امری بس مذموم به شمار میرفت جدالی بر سر عینیات و ذهنیات در گرفت.

از آنجایی که تجارت در آن زمان از اصناف دون شان بود آنان چاره ای نداشتند که برای نفرت از یهودیان آنان را بر این کار بگمارند و این شروعی بود بر تجارت پیشگی یهودیان و ثروتمند شدن آنان. با این کار، کلیسا نهاد خود و مسیحیان را از کار تجارت دور نگاه میداشت و یهودیانی که از آنان متنفر بود را بر اینکار میگمارد تا در کنار آن بتواند از سود و سرمایه آنان در جهت بهبود اقتصاد اروپا استفاده برند. و این جا بود که عینیات بر ذهنیات غلبه کرد.

کتاب در فصل بعد ما را به پیش روشنفکر نام آشنای روشنگری، ولتر، میبرد. مردی روشنفکر که در کنار آن به کار تجارت نیز مشغول بود. ولتر از مدافعان نظام بازار به شمار میرفت و آن را بهترین وسیله برای جلوگیری از جنگ و ستیزهای مذهبی و ایدئولوژیک میدانست. او بازار بورس لندن را به مانند یک صلح کده به تصویر میکشد و نشان میدهد که انواع و اقسام افراد با ملیت و رنگ و نژاد و مذهب های مختلف دور هم جمع شده اند و به دور از جنگ به کار تجارت میپردازند و او آن را از برکت نظام سرمایه میدانست.

در فصل بعدی به سراغ آدام اسمیت میرود و به نظریات و آثار وی میپردازد.
کتاب دارای سیری تاریخی است که هر فصل آن اختصاص به یک برهه، یک یا چند فرد با نظریات هم راستا و یا متعارض دارد.
نویسنده به سراغ روشنفکران و فیلسوفانِ مدافع یا مخالف نظام سرمایه داری رفته و ما را با اندیشه ها و نظریات آن ها آشنا میسازد. روشنفکران و اندیشمندانی همچون ولتر، اسمیت، موزر، ادموند برک، هگل، مارکس و انگلس، آرنولد، وبر و زیمل و سومبارت، لوکاچ و شومپیتر، کینز و مارکوزه و در نهایت فون هایک.

هرکدام از این اشخاص بنابر دید و بینش خود مخالف یا مدافع نظام بازار بوده اند. عده ای همچون مارکس و انگلس و لوکاچ و مارکوزه از دشمنان سرسخت آن و عده ای نیز به مانند اسمیت و فون هایک و ولتر از مدافعان اصلی آن و همینطور عده ای نیز همچون کینز و وبر و هگل از طرفداران مشروط آن.

کتاب را شاید بشود یک تاریخ اندیشه اقتصادی دانست که به بررسی دیدگاه ها و استدلال ها و نگرانی های این اندیشمندان در باب سرمایه داری میپردازد. نویسنده هرچند یک لیبرال-محافظه کار است و کلیات و اصول بازار را قبول کرده اما در رسالت تاریخ نویسی خود کاملا خنثی و بی طرف بوده و شاید بشود او را نیز از مدافعان مشروط آن دانست. سرسخت ترین مخالفان این نظام نیز به برتری و ویژگی های کم نظیر آن اعتراف کرده اند اما نگرانی هایی نیز در باب آسیب های فرهنگی، مذهبی، اجتماعی، اقتصادی و سیاسی آن دارند.

نویسنده معتقد است نظام سرمایه داری نه به اندازه شر مطلقی است که مارکوزه میپندارد و نه به اندازه خیر مطلقی است که فون هایک میپندارد
.
سرمایه داری و اقتصاد بازار را با تمام انتقادهای وارد بر آن لااقل اگر به مثابه علم اقتصاد لحاظ نکنیم اما بنابر تجربه کمونیسم شوروی و دیگر کشورها آن را میتوان تنها راه عقلانی و موجود دانست. بدون شک نظامی که 300سال درحال حکمرانی در اقصی نقاط دنیا است و هرروز کشورهای بیشتری به سمت آن میروند و نیز نظامی که چنان منعطف و پویا بوده که بحران های بیشماری را پشت سر گذاشته و هنوز استوار و با صلابت است قطعا حرف هایی برای گفتن دارد.

هربار که پس از اتمام منابعِ تولید و انرژی صدای مخالفان آن درآمده و دیگر منبعی برای استفاده از آن در تولید وجود نداشته افراد با نگرش و خلاقیت و ابتکار خود که این را باید مرهون نظام سرمایه داری دانست با کشف و اختراعی جدید دوباره به تولید و رشد میپردازند. از زغال سنگ به نفت، از نفت به اتم، از اتم به ماسه و سنگ و سیلیکون و از سیلیکون به بیوتکنولوژی و... این راه ادامه دارد.

این نظام بارها و بارها پس از هربحران ناقوس و زمزمه پایان آن از جانب مخالفانش به صدا درآمده اما هربار به مانند سیمرغی از درون آتش برخاسته و بر بلندای جهان تکیه زده.

این کتاب با ترجمه ای روان دعوتی است برای درک و فهمِ شکل گیری نظام سرمایه داری در بستر تاریخ و اندیشه. کتابی مناسب و خواندنی و لذت بخش برای مدافعان و مخالفان آن.

[Shahab Samani · Rating 3 out of 5]

مطالعه‌ی مراحل تکوین سرمایه‌داری، اثرات فرهنگی، اخلاقی و سیاسی آن و همچنین شکل‌گیری جهان مدرن همواره در کانون توجه بسیاری از اندیشمندان و روشنفکران در حوزه‌های مختلف علوم انسانی بوده‌ است. نظام "سرمایه‌داری" به عنوان شکل غالب زندگی اقتصادی انسان امروز پدیده‌ای است چند وجهی و عظیم که به آسانی در یک چارچوب مطالعاتی جای نمی‌گیرد. به همین علت جامعه‌شناسان، تاریخ‌نویسان، اقتصاددانان، فیلسوفان و .. هر کدام از منظر خود به این پدیده‌ی بین رشته‌ای نگاه کرده‌اند و تلاش داشته‌اند که پدیده‌ای را بشناسند که زندگی بشر را به زعم آن‌ها دگرگون کرده و از جهان پیشا‌مدرن و بدوی جدا کرده است. علاوه بر مناقشه بین رشته‌های مختلف علوم انسانی، این موضوع همواره تحت تاثیر منازعه‌ی چپ‌گرایان و راست‌گرایان نیز بوده است و هر کدام تلاش کرده‌اند روایت خود را از این پدیده و سیر تاریخ ارائه دهند. با این حال یکی از پیش‌فرض‌های مشترک و اساسی چنین مطالعاتی این مسئله است که شیوه‌ی زیستن انسان امروز برایندی از نیروها و جریانات تاریخی پیش از خود است. از همین نظر شناخت گذشته، سیر تکوین و نظم حاکم بر تاریخ چراغ راه آینده و راه‌گشای قدرت‌ورزی در عرصه عمومی است. گرایش عمومی برای راست‌گرایان در شرح و توصیف این پدیده آزاد شدن نیروهای ذاتی و فطری انسان و بازار آزاد از بند سنت‌ها و قوانین دست و پا گیر پیشامدرن است و در مقابل چپ‌گرایان (گرایشات مختلف مارکسیستی) بر فروپاشی یک شیوه تولید (در اینجا فئودالیسم) و بیرون آمدن و حاکم شدن موقت شیوه تولید سازگارتر با نیروها و مناسبات تولیدی جدیدتر (در این‌جا سرمایه‌داری) تاکید دارند که خود نیز موقت و همواره در حال حرکت به سمت شیوه تولید کامل‌تری (در این جا سوسیالیسم) است.
در سال‌های اخیر در ایران نیز کتاب‌های ارزشمند بسیاری به طور خاص در حوزه تاریخ و جامعه‌شناسی با محوریت این موضوع ترجمه و به چاپ رسیده است. در این‌جا باید به این نکته اشاره کرد که اساسا کتاب‌های ترجمه شده در ایران که به این موضوع می‌پردازند اکثرا در حوزه مطالعات چپ و مارکسیسم قرار می‌گیرد. از این نظر فقدان منابعی با چشم‌اندازهای متفاوت در این حوزه کاملا حس می‌شود. خوشبختانه کتاب "ذهن و بازار"، حداقل در نسبت به منابع موجود در ایران، چشم‌انداز تازه‌ای را ارائه می‌دهد.
جری مولر استاد تاریخ در دانشگاه کاتولیک آمریکا است. <ذهن و بازار> نخستین کتابی است که از او در ایران ترجمه شده است. جری مولر در این کتاب معتقد است برای شناخت پویش‌های کنونی و آتی سرمایه‌داری، دانستن اندیشه‌هایی که در طول سالیان درباره‌ی این موضوع طرح شده است، ضروری و مفید است. کتاب بر این پیش‌فرض استوار است که نظام سرمایه‌داری موضوعی است پیچیده‌تر از آنکه تنها به اقتصاددانان واگذار شود. به این ترتیب این کتاب تاریخچه‌ای از افکار اقتصادی نیست بلکه تاریخچه‌ای است از آرا و افکار درباره‌ی اقتصاد سرمایه‌داری. به نوعی می‌توان گفت که نویسنده در این کتاب تلاش می‌کند تا اندیشه‌هایی که مهم‌ترین و هوشمندترین روشنفکران اروپایی با تعلقات ایدئولوژی متفاوت درباره‌ی پیامدهای اخلاقی، فرهنگی و سیاسی سرمایه‌داری طرح کرده بودند را یازیابی و احیا کند. نویسنده کتاب خود را از قرن دوازدهم میلادی آغاز می‌کند، جایی که کم‌کم جوانه‌های مناسبات مدرن اقتصادی از دل اقتصاد پیشامدرن، محلی و فئودالی بیرون می‌آیند. نویسنده رشد بازار و شکل‌گیری مناسبات اقتصادی جدید را فرایندی تکاملی، ناگزیر و رو به پیشرفت می‌داند. تعریف نویسنده از مناسبات اقتصادی جدید بر اساس رشد بازرگانی و تجارت، رشد مبادله‌ی کالا، شکل‌گیری بانک‌ها و بازار‌های جدید مالی است که در برابر اقتصاد محلی و متکی بر کشاورزی و مناسبات فئودالی است.
به این ترتیب نویسنده در پی آن است که نشان دهد اندیشمندان معاصر با هر کدام از این تغییرات، چگونه آن را درک و تفسیر می‌کنند. چگونه ارزش‌ها و هنجارهای حاکم بر مناسبات اقتصادی تغییر می‌کند و حقوق و اخلاق جدید و سازگار با جهان مدرن خلق می‌شود. نحوه‌ی اندیشیدن آن‌ها به این موضوعات (بازار، تجارت، ثرو��، کار و اخلاقیات سرمایه‌دارانه) چگونه بوده است. از مهم‌ترین مضامینی که نویسنده حول محور‌ آن‌ها اندیشه‌ی روشنفکران را بررسی می‌کند به مسائل زیر می‌توان اشاره کرد:
مسئله‌ی فقر و ثروت: آیا بازار مردم را ثروتمندتر می‌کند یا فقیرتر؟ اگر غالبا آنها را ثروتمندتر می‌کند آیا این لزوما چیز خوبی است؟
نسبت سرمایه‌داری با فرهنگ چگونه است؟ آیا جامعه‌ی بازار ساخته بیش از آنکه دغدغه آن‌جهانی داشته باشد، درگیر مسائل این جهانی است؟ و این امر نقطه‌ی قوت آن است یا نقطه‌ی ضعف؟
در خصوص رابطه‌ی بازار و کثرت‌گرایی فرهنگی چه می‌توان گفت؟ آیا سرمایه‌داری به سوی یکسان‌سازی فرهنگی و از بین بردن هویت‌های فرهنگی متفاوت پیش می‌رود؟
به جز فصل اول که نویسنده به شرح نقد سنت‌های فکری مرسوم (سنت یونانی، کلیسایی، جمهوری‌خواهی مدنی) در اروپای پیشامدرن در مورد تجارت و ثروت می‌پردازد، هر فصل کتاب شامل نظرات یک روشنفکر با محوریت مسائل بالا است. نویسنده تمام این موضوعات را به طرز ماهرانه‌ای در هم می‌آمیزد تا کلیتی جامع از تفکر یک اندیشمند ارائه دهد. مولر برای این بررسی گاه بر یک متن واحد از روشنفکر تکیه می‌کند و گاه مروری بر تمام آثار او دارد. او با قراردادن افکار و نوشته‌های اندیشمند مورد بررسی در زمینه تاریخی بین افکار و این زمینه تاریخی پل می‌زند که این مسئله به خواننده کمک می‌کند تا پیوستگی تغییرات فکری و اقتصادی در اروپا را مشاهده کند. این زمینه‌ی مفید که به بهتر شدن فهم خواننده کمک می‌کند می‌تواند رویدادی سیاسی، تغییرات اجتماعی و گاه سنت‌های فکری پیشین روشنفکر مورد بررسی در آن فصل باشد.
مولر شانزده اندیشمند را در سیزده فصل بررسی می‌کند، از این نظر پرداختن به هر فصل به صورت جداگانه در این یادداشت مفید به نظر نمی‌رسد. اما با نگاهی کلی‌تر می‌توان این اندیشمندان را در دو گروه مدافعان و مخالفان بازار آزاد از هم متمایز کرد. مدافعان بازار با گرایش لیبرال مشخص می‌شوند و مخالفان بازار در دو دسته‌ی متمایز محافظه‌کار و چپ جای ‌می‌گیرند. خب باید گفت نویسنده به وضوح با لیبرال‌های مدافع بازار همدل است و شما می‌توانید این همدلی را به صورت مشخص‌تری در فصل‌هایی که نویسنده به اندیشمندان لیبرال پرداخته است ببینید.
از اندیشمندان مدافع بازار که در این کتاب نویسنده به آنها پرداخته است می‌توان به روسو، اسمیت، هگل، شومپیتر، برک و هایک اشاره کرد. با این وجود برخی از این اندیشمندان نگاهی انتقادی به بازار داشته‌اند و در نوشته‌های خود، آن‌گونه که نویسنده نیز می‌گوید، تلاش کرده‌اند بر سویه‌های تاریک شرایط جدید نیز پرتوئی افکنند. همچنین نویسنده اندیشه‌های مارکس، مارکوزه، موزر و لوکاچ را به عنوان منتقدین بازار بررسی می‌کند. فصلی که به آدام اسمیت می‌پردازد از سایر فصل‌ها مفصل‌تر است چرا که به زعم نویسنده او علاوه بر این که اقتصاددان بود، یک فیلسوف اخلاق نیز بود و شرایط جدید را از هر دو سو می‌سنجید. متن کتاب جذاب است و به هیچ‌ عنوان یک تاریخ‌نگاری خشک اقتصادی و تخصصی نیست. بخش روسو و امورات اقتصادی شخصی او می‌تواند برای خواننده بسیار جذاب باشد. همان‌طور که پیش‌تر اشاره کردم، نویسنده پرداختن به هر اندیشمندی را با شرح زندگی و عملکرد او بررسی می‌کند. حتی این نقد را می‌توان به کتاب وارد دانست که گاها بخش زندگینامه‌ای و تاریخ‌نگاری بر بخش نظری و اقتصادی آن چیره می‌شود. خود نویسنده در مقدمه کتاب می‌گوید: "هزینه پرداختن به آرا و افکار بدون اشاره‌ی درخور به زمینه‌ی آنها مساوی است یا تخطی کردن از خود همان اندیشه‌ها. اما زمینه‌مندسازی بیش از حد نیز هزینه‌های خودش را دارد، زیرا تمرکز بیش از حد بر زمینه‌ی تاریخی، می‌تواند مربوطیت مستمر و قدرت متداوم آرا و افکار را فهم ناپذیر کند."

این مرور را برای سایت نقد و بررسی کتاب وینش نوشته ام.
www.vinesh.ir

[Negar · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5⭐

1️⃣ با خواندن نظرات متفاوتی از متفکران مختلف از آدام اسمیت و برک تا مورز و از آن سو تا هایک! درباره اقتصاد دریچه ای نو به رویم باز شد. شناخت متفکرانی که تابحال از آنها کتابی نخوانده ام و این کتاب شاید شروعی نیکو برای مطالعه آثار آنان باشد.

2️⃣ برای نسل ما گاهی سرمایه داری و تفکر بازار بدیهی و ازلی جلوه میکند، این کتاب شک ها و نگرانی های کسانی که پیش از ما بودند و دغدغه هایی را مطرح کرد که گذشتگان متفکر ما درباره خطرهای احتمالی آنچه ما در حال تجربه آن هستیم داشتند.

3️⃣ بعید است من که اقتصاد نخوانده ام و سررشته ای درآن ندارم روزی بدیلی برای سرمایه داری طراحی کنم بلکه به عنوان کسی که در این نظام زاده شده(هرچند با چاشنی رانت و خفقان) باید از زبان گذشتگان و به ویژه پایه گذاران سرمایه داری مثل آدام اسمیت و حتی مخالفان آن از آفات (ساید افکت) های سرمایه داری آگاه شوم تا با بهترین بهره و کمترین آسیب در نظام اقتصادی فعلی به افکار و حیات معنوی خود بپردازم.

4️⃣ نویسنده گاهی به ندرت در افکارش جهت دهی دارد که قابل ردیابی است و میتوانید آن قسمت ها را قلم بگیرید! با این حال برنامه شخصی ام برای این مسئله این است که کتاب های متفکرانی که در این کتاب از آنها یاد شده را مستقیما مطالعه کنم.

ممنون از توجهتون🤍

[Nima · Rating 3 out of 5]

کتاب تا به الان یکی از ده کتاب تاثیرگذار توی زندگی فکری من هستش. یک تابستان و ده روز به خوندنش گذشت. فکر می کنم این کتاب 717 صفحه ای طولانی ترین کتابی بود که تا به حال خوندم. کتاب اطلاعات خوب و کاملی از اندیشه ها درباره ی سرمایه داری ارائه داده و دید من رو خیلی درباره این نظام اقتصادی تغییر داد. اما چیزی آزارم می داد و همین باعث شد که به کتاب نمره 3 از 5 رو بدم و اون سودار بودن نویسنده نسبت به افراد مخالف سرمایه داری و اعتقاداتشون بود. کتاب واقعا حرفه ای نوشته شده تا جایی که کار به مخالفان مثل مارکس میرسه. اینجاس که کتاب یهو شبیه برنامه های خبری سودار از واژگان و مغلطه هایی برای توصیف موضوع استفاده می کرد که واقعا من رو متعجب و سرخورده می کرد. کتاب برای آشنایی با متفکران ستایشگر سرمایه داری، کتاب مناسبی هست اما برای عقاید مخالفان هنوز نیاز به کتاب یا کتاب های دیگه ای دارم. ترجمه عالی و کیفیت چاپ این کتاب از نشر بیدگل بی نظیر بودن که لذت خوانش کتاب رو دو چندان می کرد.

[Clif · Rating 5 out of 5]

Too bad more stars aren't available as this book would deserve them all. My only complaint is nit-picking: sometimes the author repeats himself. But, since this is a fairly deep topic, some repetition for the reader is not a bad thing and the writing style is quite easy to follow.

Other authors have written along the same lines, such as Robert Heilbroner's "The Worldly Philosophers" but the depth and coverage of Muller's book is greater.

Capitalism has been revolutionary and as with any revolution, there have been those who see it only as a danger to the stability of the institutions that preceded it. They were right to worry because capitalism has been very destructive; completely eliminating the feudal society that preceded it. Yet so much has been gained for human freedom, individuality and well-being. As we read here, there were those such as Smith and Hegel who saw the positives early on.

Humans are generally fearful of change while capitalism requires it. The writer/philosophers that Muller covers took a variety of positions from the left to the right in praising or decrying this change. Their positions have, for the most part, aged well; we can still see the relevance of their arguments today. Voltaire unsurprisingly supported the tendency of capitalism to bring people of all kinds together in trade, causing them to set aside such absolutist thoughts as spiritual redemption and the will of God. But, to my surprise, he was at the same time quite a wheeler dealer in the markets. Not only do readers gain an understanding of philosophical views, they can form an impression of the kind of person each philosopher was.

We have all heard of Karl Marx, but how many know the background from which he came? By drawing the reader into a rich historical account, Muller weaves a tapestry within which one sees the remarkable lives he documents. Running throughout the book are the position of and attitudes toward the Jews who, banned from other occupations, eagerly moved into finance where they succeeded - a success that caused others to target them as the cause of difficulties and threats inseparable from capitalism itself.

This innate threatening aspect of capitalism we see right up to the present day in attempts to prevent factory closings and layoffs. Long term success overall is always accompanied by short term losses for one locality or another. While an appreciation of the general wealth that capitalism can bring has greatly weakened the opposition to it that once brought rioting and violence, we will see in the current economic downturn if resentment will have a resurgence.

As Muller states in his conclusion, capitalism has been at the center of European thought for centuries. Most histories do not give it the central place that it deserves. The Mind and The Market gets a place on my bookshelf because I know that I'll refer back to it for the penetrating insights it offers into how both the psychological and physical worlds we live in came to be.

But the story is far from over. Capitalism is now facing its greatest challenge - can it be modified to a limited world where growth cannot continue forever? Muller mentions that such questions were asked during the Great Depression, with the implication that they were unfounded. But now we face them again on a warming planet with four times the population of 1925 that will not allow the question to be put off.

[Emma Sea · Rating 3 out of 5]

The content was 5-star, but the presentation could have been more engaging.

The format was strictly chronological, discussing each economist/economic concept in turn. This made it pretty dry going until the 19th century, when the disparate ideas started coming together to explain the basis of contemporary capitalism. All the sections on the 20th century were quite riveting.

It was fascinating to see how the economic theories of of Hegel, Marcuse, Lukacs etc fit within their broader writing on critical theory.

As the authors note:

Much of the story we have told falls outside the boundaries of modern academic disciplines and their respective histories. Contemporary economics focuses on issues of efficiency in allocation, political science on the institutions of governmental power, political theory on questions of justice, sociology on social groups as defined by interactions outside the market.

This makes the book a great read for sociologists/cultural theorists who lack a basic knowledge of economics. Like me. Who failed high school economics by one point and never bothered to try it at college.

I'm very glad I read it, and I'm quite inspired to try some more economic theory.

[Mahdi · Rating 5 out of 5]

یک کتاب اعجاب برانگیز در زمینه شناخت دنیای امروز

هر چیزی که فکر می کنید در این جهان به صورت ازلی و ابدی وجود داشته، ساخته ی دنیای مدرن است؛ نه جهان

خواندند این کتاب برای همه دانشجویان واجب است و ترجمه بسیار خوبی هم دارد

[Mohammad]

تا پایان فصل متیو آرنولد خوندم و توی یك فرصت مناسب بقیه كتاب رو میخونم. چند تا نكته تا همین جای كتاب به ذهنم می رسه.‏
اول اینكه فكر نمی كردم داستان شكل گیری بازار اینقدر جذاب باشه.‏
دوم اینكه این كتاب فقط و فقط تاریخ كپیتالیسم و نظرات متفكران رو میگه و نقدی بر له و علیه كپیتالیسم به طور مستقیم ارائه نمیده. خب حالا چرا گفتم به طور مستقیم؟ چون بعد از خواندن 100 صفحه از كتاب خواننده متوجه میشه كه نویسنده به طور غیرمستقیم در حال دفاع از كپیتالیسمه و فوایدش رو بیشتر از آثار مخربش میدونه
در مجموع برای فهم تاریخ نظام سرمایه داری كتاب كاملیست
‏

[Reed Schwartz · Rating 3 out of 5]

"'A brilliant and engaging book.' —National Review" —Reed Schwartz

[Bertrand · Rating 3 out of 5]

I feel that we are living through the nadir of Western conservatism: in the past five years, we have heard more from and about alleged consevative intellectuals than we ever did in my life-time, but most of those—from the increasingly shrill tone and mediocre content of the Salisbury or the Criterion, to the exotic non-sense of the alt-right, or the conspiracy rhetoric which permeates more and more of the critics of academic 'liberalism'—seems inchoate and opportunistic, bent on making the most of their new-found visibility, at the expense of precisely those virtues of precision and discipline on which conservatism has tended to rest its case.
I am sure there are many conservatives who find this landslide betrays their tradition's principled reflections on means and ends, but I am nowhere near knowledgeable (or patient) enough to go and unearth them from the repetitious morass of mainstream conservative discourse. Jerry Muller could act as a figurehead for those dissatisfied—if conservative leaders and followers had much interest in restoring their dignity: as it stands, it seems more likely that he will find his readership among the liberals, and the occasional leftist, seeking a nuanced understanding of the 'other side'.
Muller presents his project as a history of Western Thought about capitalism, understood in the broadest possible terms: less about the particulars or the varieties, than about the concept itself, its emergence and transformation. This would be very interesting, but Muller's book falls well short from providing it: it starts with XVIIIth century, and in fact look as much at the thought of economists themselves, as to that of modern critics of capitalism left and right.
The result is a highly selective picture, quite biased toward Muller's own brand of unorthodox conservatism (see his article 'Capitalism and Inequality' in Foreign Affairs of March 2013, for a primer.) After a short introduction, we discover the opinion of and interactions with the market of a list of famous and less famous thinkers: Voltaire, Adam Smith, Justus Möser, Edmund Burke, Hegel, Marx, Mathew Arnold, Weber, Simmel, Sombart, Lukács, Hans Freyer, Schumpeter, Keynes, Marcuse and Hayek.
Germans and Anglosaxons dominate the debate, but this focus allows a few less known names, like Freyer and Möser, to slip into the fold, and the books' main strength is probably to be sought in this insistence on including critics of the market from both the Left and the (far) right: the rightwing critique of capitalism is rarely examined in its own right, to the point that modern conservatism is so entrenched in free market fundamentalism that no-one (save a few Catholics) seems to remember this tradition. As a result, Muller emphasises the overlap between Left and Right critics of capitalism, not in pursuit of some oxy-moronic reduction (i.e. Jonah Goldberg), not to subsume both under the evasive umbrella of 'romanticism' (i.e. Isaiah Berlin), but rather to show that the critics of capitalism spring from the same source as capitalism itself – in other words, that the market's own constitutive contradictions make their emergence and re-emergence inevitable.
While most of Muller's leftists seem to practice a blanket rejection of capitalism, Muller's conservatism also acknowledge the necessity of State intervention to curb and manage the inbuilt excesses of the market economy, and might offer tradition as a suitable counterpower to unbounded individualism.
To the question of 'Why the Left?' which young conservatives (hopefully!) sometimes ask themselves, Muller offers little of the usual canards of resentment, conformism and middle-class opportunism, but rather emphasise that those thinkers have something to offer, even to conservatives. Muller wrote a book on 'Capitalism and the Jews', so that he offers in his introduction a nuanced and interesting genealogy of the Jew's centrality to the critique of capitalism, both as author and as scape-goat. Unfortunately, this also warrants some of Muller's more dishonest asides, on Marx's jewish self-hatred, or on Keynes' alleged antisemitism.
On the whole the book falls short of delivering a convincing history of the concept of market or capitalism—instead, it offers a mosaic thinkers, from disparate political orientation, whose ideas are in themselves quite fascinating. Muller's prose in clear and concise, and I think does a great job of introducing and illustrating complex concepts for the lay person. It is a book with an agenda but in its scope and balanced approach it might prove useful even to those who disagree.

[Tristan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Muller does for capitalism what Ferris did for cosmology (in “Coming of Age in the Milky Way”), showing how views around markets, commerce, trade, etc. have evolved throughout the ages. It helped me organize my own views around capitalism (but they still are—and will likely remain—a jumbled mess).

The book is dense (Muller provides in-depth histories of each character's background) but in case anyone is curious, here’s a summary:

Chapter 1 – History:

Way back, the church didn’t like trade, and most people figured that if someone gained wealth somewhere then someone must have lost wealth elsewhere. So basically, the accumulation of wealth was viewed as a bad thing (unless you were a nobleman and took it from others). However, as human wealth increased there came an economic need for money-lending and trade. So the Jews stepped in, and in return for being hated by all, they carried out the important function of lending money and acting as middlemen.

As time passed, Grotius, Hobbes, Locke, Spinoza (1600’s) and others tried to separate church and state, envisioning a state that protected the rights of citizens to do as they please (as opposed to a state that imposed morality on citizens from above). As the conception of the state changed, more people came to defend the market as a means to freedom.

Chapter 2 – Voltaire:

Voltaire (1700’s) defended the pursuit of wealth through markets, and morally legitimized the consumption of wealth. Before Voltaire, luxury had been frowned upon for blurring class lines and corrupting civic virtue. Voltaire didn’t think that market activity was the supreme goal of life, but he thought it was a good diversion from religious zealotry, which had caused so many deaths. Voltaire liked merchants and disliked the church. To Voltaire, self-interest was more likely to promote peace than fervent ideological commitment:

“Compared to the altruistic crusade of forcibly saving one’s neighbor’s soul, even if it leaves his body in ruins, the pursuit of wealth is a potentially more peaceable pursuit, and one that leaves one’s neighbor content.”

Voltaire got rich through England's growing financial industry, but did so through shady dealings that led people to hate him. He tried to save face by slandering the Jews:

“According to Voltaire, Abraham was so avaricious that he prostituted his wife for money; David slew Goliath not to protect his people but for economic gain; Herod did not complete the rebuilding of the temple because the Jews, though they loved their sanctuary, loved their money more.”

Chapter 3 – Adam Smith:

Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776, arguing that worldly happiness was a good thing, a free market economy (both nationally and internationally) is the best way to improve everyone’s standard of living, and that through markets, self-interest can be steered towards the common good. If you’re thinking of reading this book, I assume you already know all about Smith. He said some stuff about pins, some other stuff about emotions, and thought that specialization—though it wouldn’t make us happier on the job—would make us more prosperous. This was at a time when many people worried that rising wages and standards of living would lead to laziness, and expensive goods would make Britain uncompetitive in the international economy.

Smith was a nicer man than Voltaire. He gave most of his money to charity (in secret), and did not blame the Jews for the bad things in life. Contrary to what many believe, Smith was a big fan of altruism—he just didn’t think that it was sufficient to run our economy, given that it involves dealings with strangers who are unlikely to stir our empathy. Also, Smith saw a big role for the state, and figured that as economies grew, the state would grow as well, enforcing laws, providing for defence, maintaining infrastructure, and even offering schooling.

Chapter 4 – Justus Möser:

Möser (1700’s) saw that a market economy would erode his ideal traditional culture, by imposing universal laws (as opposed to local norms) and allowing for a more egalitarian society (as opposed to the more “virtuous” one, in which a hierarchy allows people to know their place). Where Smith saw that markets could liberate the poor from poverty, Möser thought that liberation from poverty was not desirable, as poverty produced virtue.

Möser was an anti-Enlightenment conservative, and made no bones about it—in his mind, intellectual rationalism could not provide knowledge of the “deeper rationality of local, historical experience”. Möser romanticized artisans and peasants, and demonized shopkeepers and peddlers (often Jews).

In his view, people needed government policy to protect them from the temptation of buying products that they really didn’t need. However, even to Möser, a limited market was desirable because a bit of competition would keep prices in check.

Chapter 5 – Edmund Burke:

Burke was the granddaddy of modern conservatism. He agreed with Smith on most things, but was more conservative and more opposed to government intervention.

Burke worried that we were coming to rely too heavily on rational thought to organize our affairs. He recognized that many human institutions grow organically, serving important purposes which may not be apparent to rationally-minded, hard-nosed inquiry. Therefore, we must use reason with humility and recognize that the wisdom in established institutions may be hidden to us (Thomas Sowell, anyone?). Where we reform society, we must do so cautiously.

Burke saw government intervention in the market, which was often blind to unintended consequences, as an example of the “overreaching of abstract reason.” In Burke’s view, the role of the intellectual was to convince politicians and the public of “the long-term beneficent effects of acquisitiveness channelled through the competitive market”. The people didn't understand how they benefit from a competitive market, so needed to be explicitly taught.

Chapter 6 – Hegel:

Hegel (early 1800’s) knew that unless his fellow citizens could understand the rationale behind society’s institutions, they would feel alienated and unhappy. Therefore, he tried to rationally justify why institutions, including the market, were good for society. By understanding the ethic of institutions, individuals could feel more at home within them.

Hegel thought that institutions don’t constrain humans, but instead liberate them from base drives so that they can pursue the drives of a higher, more rational, ethical self. The market is an ethical thing, because it causes us to bend our own wills to the requirement of others. Hegel thought that government should do everything Smith thought, but that it should also intervene to level out boom and bust cycles, and should inspect food/medicine/etc.

Chapter 7 – Marx:

Marx (1800’s) saw the poverty of the working class as an inevitable, irreversible outcome of the market. He felt that intellectuals had a duty to encourage the working class to revolt, and figured that the oppressive nature of capitalism would eventually lead to a communist revolution. However, he founded his ideas on faulty economic assumptions (which both he and Engels later contradicted), and neglected to note the improvements to working class life that took place as he was writing Das Kapital.

Marx viewed capitalism as exploitation and recast many of the old, Christian critiques of the market. As he saw it, “money is fundamentally unproductive, … only those who live by the sweat of their brow truly produce, and … therefore not only interest, but profit itself, is always ill-gotten.” In his view, competition isolated people from each-other, self-interested motives could not give rise to genuinely moral behaviour, and profits were essentially theft.

As the industrial revolution disrupted the economy, Marx looked around and interpreted the “agony of a declining preindustrial order as the birth pangs of a postcapitalist future”, which he hoped to usher in. Marx—and his comrade Engels—wanted to ditch the unplanned economy in favour of socialism, whereby everything would be rationally planned and centrally organized. However, Marx didn’t say much about how to actually organize this socialist economy. Marx capitalized on anti-Jewish sentiment, bashing the Jews as a way to drive home his demonization of capitalism (arguing that the negative characteristics of Jews—worshipping money, etc.—were actually characteristics of a market-oriented society).

Chapter 8 – Matthew Arnold:

Like Marx, Arnold (1800’s) saw problems with capitalism, but unlike Marx, Arnold didn’t seek to abolish it. Instead, he tried to convince politicians and the public that the virtues and gains of capitalism were not ends in themselves, but were simply means to a higher, more enriching existence. He thought that the education system was the place to get this message across.

Chapter 9 – Weber, Simmel, and Sombart (late 1800’s – 1900’s):

Max Weber was a nationalist and a social Darwinist, who thought that successful competition in the world economy required the government to encourage capitalism. Weber realized that workers will often resent the economically powerful, but counselled that capitalism was in their best interests. Although capitalism leads people to pursue money at the expense of happiness, it has no desirable alternative (especially not socialism). Weber criticized Marxism as fantasy.

Simmel figured that markets produced tolerance, because when people are focused on their own means they become less judgmental of the ways in which others lead their lives. Plus, the competition of the marketplace aligns suppliers’ minds with the desires of third-parties (to win their business), so encourages social integration. A quote: “…Simmel reminded his readers that money allowed for the cooperation of individuals who would otherwise have nothing to do with one another.”

Sombart thought that capitalism might produce a higher material standard of living, but felt that it robbed people of culture, quality of life, inner peace, and their relationship to nature. Sombart drew upon anti-Semitism in his critiques of capitalism.

Chapter 10 – Lukács and Freyer:

Lukács thought capitalism alienated people by loosening social ties, separating producers from consumers, and degrading community. Lukács wanted to show workers that capitalism is not inevitable, and men need not succumb to it. Communism could replace it.

Freyer was basically Lukács, but thought that Nazism (rather than Communism) should replace capitalism. However, Freyer wasn’t a racist—he simply thought that Nazism could provide the sense of shared morality lacking in capitalism. After WWII, Freyer turned away from Nazism; although he remained anti-capitalist, he thought that people should look to their families, religions, and professional identities to provide meaning.

Chapter 11 – Schumpeter:

Like Marx, Joseph Schumpeter (1940’s) thought capitalism would be superseded by socialism, but unlike Marx, Schumpeter thought this was a sad irony. According to Schumpeter, capitalism is a great economic arrangement, but inevitably breeds resentment because it is disruptive and produces inequality in society. Schumpeter feared that socialism “would be disastrous, alienating the most productive citizens, bringing about a decline in the standard of living, and leading to social conflict.” The only way that socialism could work would be to incentivize those of superior abilities by way of differential reward—in other words, Schumpeter thought that successful socialism would need to ditch its egalitarian aspirations.

Chapter 12 – Keynes and Marcuse:

John Maynard Keynes thought government should stimulate economic activity during recessions/depressions, which would put people to work, who would then spend, which would create a demand for goods, which would lead to investment, which would create employment. Keynes was very influential from the 1930’s through the 1970’s.

Herbert Marcuse got critical theory going. He thought that social analysis must be based in prior political commitment, thought that people who claimed to be satisfied with life needed to be schooled in all the ways they are actually dissatisfied (in the hopes of bringing on a revolution), and thought that capitalism repressed pleasure to unacceptable levels. Basically, Marcuse was me when I was in undergrad. Marcuse thought that the fact that men and women feel happy was a problem, because their professed happiness blinds them to the bondage of living under totalitarian liberal democracies. He thought that capitalism made people slaves to their desires. Centralized control of the economy should replace capitalism, but Marcuse was uninterested in the specifics of how this would be done.

Chapter 12 – Hayek:

Friedrich August von Hayek (died in 1992) thought that government should step back, because where it held great power it would often cater to vested interests. Hayek thought that the long-term, widespread benefits of capitalism came at the expense of some established social groups, who would try to regain power through force and politics. All in all, Hayek loved capitalism.

Hayek argued that a planned economy cannot work, because the government cannot coordinate the decentralized information of a market (conveyed by prices), and government should not tell people what to value. In other words, socialism would be both inefficient and totalitarian. Hayek thought that the fact that the market lacked a higher moral purpose was a good thing, because it allowed for people with differing values to cooperate.

Contrary to what today’s ideologues assert, Hayek saw a role for the welfare state and figured that it would grow as affluence increased. The government could play a role in social insurance, education, regulation of working conditions, buildings, etc.

Hayek criticized Keynesianism, arguing that it led to high inflation. And he didn’t like egalitarianism, arguing that it would require intrusive measures and would destroy incentives. Hayek had an interesting bit to say about democracy: its greatest benefit comes not because it gives the people a voice, but because it allows for peaceful transitions of power. If democracy had too much power, economic interest groups would dominate the playing-field. Therefore, liberal democracy should “put limits on the range of questions that could be decided through the political process.”

As he asked, “Is there really no other way for people to maintain a democratic government than by handing over unlimited power to a group of elected representatives whose decisions must be guided by the exigencies of a bargaining process in which they bribe a sufficient number of voters to support an organized group of themselves numerous enough to outvote the rest?” Well said, FA Hayek.

[Bahman Bahman · Rating 2 out of 5]

«این اسمیت آدم فوق‌العاده‌ای است!» این جمله را ولتر پس از ملاقات با فیلسوف اسکاتلندی نوشت و در ادامه افزود: «ما هیچ کسی را که قابل مقایسه با او باشد نداریم، و از این جهت من برای هم‌وطنان عزیزم متأسفم.» پژوهشی در ماهیت و علل ثروت ملل، که اسمیت آن را در سال 1776 منتشر کرد، مهم‌ترین کتابی است که تاکنون دربارۀ سرمایه‌داری و پیامدهای اخلاقی آن نوشته شده است. هرچند بخش زیادی از ثروت ملل به موضوع تجارت اختصاص یافته، این کتاب برای بازرگانان یا اهالی کسب و کار نوشته نشده است. ثروت ملل به‌عنوان کتابی که به‌نحوی متمرکز به تحلیل فرایندهای بازار، فرایندهایی که منفعت‌طلبی شخصی برانگیزندۀ آنهاست، می‌پردازد به قلم یکی از ستوده‌ترین فیلسوفان روشنگری، استاد سابق منطق، بلاغت (سخنوری)، حقوق‌شناسی و فلسفۀ اخلاق نوشته شده است، آن هم به این نیت که بر سیاستمداران تأثیر گذارد و آنان را به جستجوی خیر مشترک ترغیب کند. دغدغۀ اسمیت، در مقام فیلسوف اخلاق، ماهیت تعالی اخلاقی بود، اما مانند بسیاری از روشنفکران روشنگری، او نیز نقطۀ شروع کار خود را توصیف و تشریح انسانیت آن‌گونه که واقعاً هست قرار داد. طرح اسمیت شناخت انسان بود آن‌گونه که عملاً هست و شبیه‌تر کردن او بود به آنچه باید باشد، آن هم از طریق کشف نهادهایی که انسان‌ها را تا حد قابل قبولی برازنده کرده‌اند و چه بسا بتوانند آن‌ها را برازنده‌تر نیز بکنند. پشتیبان اسمیت در به انجام رساندن طرح خود یک منبع فکری بسیار غنی بود: بیش از یک قرن تأمل دربارۀ فواید اجتماعی ممکنِ گرایش افراد به خوددوستی، خودمداری، منفعت‌طلبی شخصی، غرور و تحسین‌طلبی، هنگامی که این گرایش‌ها به‌وسیلۀ نهادهای اجتماعی به‌نحوی شایسته هدایت شده باشند. جوسایا تاکر، متأله انگلیکن که پیش از آدام اسمیت برجسته‌ترین مدافع بریتانیایی تجارت آزاد بود، رویکرد مزبور را این‌طور خلاصه کرده است: «هدف اصلی‌ای که باید بدان اهتمام شود نه هدم و نه تضعیف حب نفس، بلکه هدایت شایستۀ آن است، طوری که فرد بتواند با پیگیری نفع شخصی خود نفع جمعی را تقویت کند.»

مهم‌ترین استدلال ثروت ملل آن است که اقتصاد بازار به بهترین نحو قادر به بهبود سطح زندگی اکثریت عظیمی از مردم است اینکه اقتصاد بازار می‌تواند به آنچه اسمیت «مکنت فراگیر» می‌نامید بینجامد. اساس ثروت ملل بر این فرض روشنگری استوار بود که خوشبختیِ زمینی چیز خوبی است، و در پی نشان دادن این مطلب بود که رفاه و بهزیستی مادّی لزوماً به آن «تجملاتی» محدود نمی‌شود که تنها در دسترس قشر نازکی در بالای جامعه است. کاری که اسمیت کرد آن بود که قدرت خرید مصرف‌کنندگان را به سنجۀ «ثروت ملت» تبدیل نمود. استدلال دیگر ثروت ملل آن بود که تحت شرایط نهادیِ صحیح، اشاعۀ «جامعۀ تجاری» به آزادی فردی بیشتر و روابط مسالمت‌آمیزتر در بین ملت‌ها خواهد انجامید.

[Bahare Ghanoon · Rating 2 out of 5]

کتاب کتابی‌ست در سطح بسیار معمولی و‌تحلیل‌های سطحی اما...نمیدونم درباره مترجم چی بگم!
حمله فرانسه به موریتیوس؟ در صفحه ۲۳۱ نوشته موریتیوس، یعنی مترجم نمیدونه تلفظ انگلیسی‌ش موریشس هست و تو فارسی به این کشور میگیم موریس.
این یک نمونه ست از موارد مختلفی که باعث میشه به کل ترجمه شک کنی.
متاسفانه از خیلی موردهای دیگه گذشتم ولی اینها رو یادم موند: در صفحه ۱۶۹ عبارت «جستجو از پی قانون هم‌شکل و استانده‌شده» چی واقعا؟
یا در ص ۵۱۹، «دو غالب‌ترین مضامین مجموعه آوار شومپیتر، خصیصه‌ای نیچه‌ای دارند».

آیا «مساهمت» یه کلمه‌ست؟ داریم؟ یا «مربوطیت»؟

ص ۶۰۰ : احساس تهیگی منتج از وقتی که کالاهای مصرفی صرفاً بر اساس خواسته‌های جدیداً القاشده به وسیله بازار انتخاب شوند. حدس میزنم منظور از تهیگی، تهی بودن است.
ص ۶۱۰: «سقوط معروفیت مارکوزه» که مثلا شهرت جایگزین بسیار مناسب‌تری برای معروفیت هست.
ص ۶۲۷: سه اصلی‌ترین گروه‌بندی‌های سیاسی. در صورتی که تو فارسی می‌گیم سه گروه‌بندی سیاسی اصلی.

[Eric · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was so good that I read it twice over a period of 5 years and the second time round I even took notes.

A must read for any student of economics, politics and history.

On a side note, I don't think I've ever read a book where I felt my vocabulary was sub par. This book shattered that notion. Here's just a few of the words that I learned while going through this gem of a book:
inimical, polemical, indivious, approbation, progenitor, pernicious, philistine, leitmotif, and the list goes on............

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

good for the intellectual tradition of capitalism, even if the author seemed a little bit right-wing (in an intelligent sort of way). Also, he spends too much time talking about marx's anti-judiasm, and seems to paint schumpeter as a celebrity. otherwise, good for background knowledge of the philosophical debates around the market and capitalism.

[Marc Gerstein · Rating 3 out of 5]

I stopped reading a bit more than halfway through. That usually translates to a one-star review. But I won’t do that here. As far as I can see, the book is OK at accomplishing its goals; not great (and not nearly what I expected after having been impressed with another of Muller’s works, The Tyranny of Metrics) but not awful either. The problem I have with The Mind of the Market: Capitalism in Western Thought, and I’m struggling to find an appropriate way to say this, is that I’m not sure the book was really worth writing; the topic not worth addressing — at least not in this day and age.

Wow, that sounds like an awful thing to say! Hear me out.

As far as I can see, Muller delivers exactly what he promises, a historical survey of capitalism as a topic in western thought, or put another way, in western philosophy, starting around the time of The Enlightenment and moving forward from there. Each topic starts with background information on a particular thinker, and moves on to discuss his (men only as far as I read) ideas. The problem, though, is that they are all philosophers opining on something about which they understand nothing. It’s not their fault that they don’t understand capitalism.

Capitalism is a topic in the field of economics and economics did not exist as a field of study per se until just recently. Imagine Voltaire expressing his views on the various tradeoffs to be made in piloting a plane toward the ground by reducing speed and/or adjusting pitch. It couldn’t make sense since Voltaire had no way to conceive of air travel and related issues. Maybe he could have assumed humans would need arm attachments to create the appearance of wings and then discuss speed of flapping or something like that. And perhaps other philosophers might have taken up the debate. But no matter how effectively they thought through their arguments, contemporary pilots would roll their eyes and laugh. That’s pretty much how anyone today who understands economics would react to the material in this book, assuming they were willing to openly admit to believing some of the great minds of western philosophy had no idea what they were talking about. (It really is hard to say this without sounding like a world-class asshole.)

For an idea of how botched up this whole topic is, consider the word capitalism. It, in and of itself, is a misnomer. Voltaire was a capitalist. Adam Smith was a capitalist. Karl Marx was a capitalist. Alan Greenspan was a capitalist. Mao Tse Tung was a capitalist. Jerome Powell is a capitalist. Etc. Capitalism is what it sounds like; generating economic activity by deploying capital. Everybody deploys capital. The differences are in the methodology through which one decides how capital should be deployed. A related issue is how to evaluate the success or failure of capital-deployment choices.

Economies today that are popularly referred to as capitalist deploy capital through decentralized market-based decision criteria. The polar opposite is to deploy capital based on centralized fiat. And there are many in-between economies. Pure market-based economies use profit-and-loss to evaluate the success or failure of deployment decisions, and forecasts of profit or loss to motivate future choices. Pure fiat-based economies use (hopefully) good intentions to guide future decisions and power to evaluate success or failure (or, rather, power to stay in business despite failure, or lack of power that causes one to go out of business despite success). And once again, we have all the in-between setups.

That pretty much sweeps aside much of the early material in the book. Markets are not an alternative to religion, or societal tradition. That was the way the philosophers covered thought of it because at the time, that’s all the economic understanding they had. But we know more now. Markets are an alternative to fiat.

Historically, there has also been a grave misunderstanding regarding what capital is, and again, this relates to the pace of societal development. Traditionally, humanity was bound up in that which was seen, which was physical. So capital had to be tangible; labor and/or materials (which, according to Marx, was brought to bear via labor so to him, it was labor only). It’s ironic that the church, whose existence and reason for being is dedicated to the unseen, messed up so badly here and failed to understand the critical role of intangible capital. Today, we get it. That’s why we have such huge concerns about “intellectual property” and why traditional stock market valuation, based historically on Book Value, has in recent decades come to wonder if Book Value should be examined at all (even accounting formulations of “Tangible Book Value”can be seen as incomplete). Along similar lines, the church and ethicists made a complete mess of the topics of “moneylending,” “usury,” and “trade” having failed to appreciate the critical role played by these phenomenon. And this leads us to the critical nature of movement of capital ("liquidity"). We saw this in the financial crisis of 2008. The reason why bailouts were absolutely positively needed was for the same reasons why physicians do what they do to treat a patient who has a stroke. They need to save the patient's life since, if blood does not circulate, death follows. With an economy, if capital does not circulate, the economy suffers a stroke and dies. Concerns about debating who is at fault and punishing wrongdoers can wit till later -- save the life first. (Just like the medical community focuses on saving the cardiac patient, and postponing till after the crisis discussion on what caused the problem, who shoved too much cholesterol into the patient or who discouraged exercise.)

Even the way economics and other disciplines relate to one another — in terms of individual and societal values — is misunderstood and ignored.

Although I didn’t finish the book, I at least searched via Kindle for references to Ayn Rand (she wasn’t in the table of Contents) and found nothing. Seriously? How could anybody who understands markets and capitalism attempt to treat the topic without discussing her! Whether one considers her to have been a genius or crank — and there are many vehement opinions on both sides of the argument — her impact is right up there with Adam Smith and Karl Marx, not so much because of her chops as an economist but because of the way her philosophy interacts with market economics and spotlights the boundaries of the latter. (So much of today’s debates about distribution of wealth and inequality relate not to capitalism per se but to the extent to which Rand’s philosophy has been allowed to seep into it.) Followers or Rand are indisputably correct when they point out how those opposed to Rand’s views advocate for a less-than-optimal economy, but miss the boat in failing to discuss the merits of an optimal economy at the expense of other values. Currently, Andrew Yang (see, e.g. The War on Normal People) is an important thinker in terms of balancing economic values and other values. (Although I voted for him, I’m glad he was defeated in the New York City Mayoral election because he and his ideas would have gone to waste in that role.) Folks like Rand or Yang . . . or Marx . . . are critical not so much to learn “about” market economics but to illuminate potential boundaries that might surround the field.

When it comes to understanding capitalism, or rather, market economics, we’re still in very early days. The nature of our understanding and the terms of debate will probably look very different a century from now, as we learn more about this relatively new discipline. But there is one thing I do know. The ideas discussed in The Mind of the Market are cute and quaint, much like the way a physician today might look at a treatise that describes healing via bloodletting and leeches. But for serious understanding of the topic — even as much an understanding as we can have at this point in time — this book is not it.

[Saeed Sarraf · Rating 5 out of 5]

بی‌نظیر! برای کسی که بخواد نگاه اقتصادی شو به اندیشه لیبرال نزدیک کنه پیشنهادی ارزنده. سیری در اندیشه‌های متفکرین اروپایی در له یا علیه سرمایه‌داری، به خصوص به نقش پررنگ یهودیان در شکل‌گیری اقتصاد تجاری اشاره داره. بیشترین هماهنگی رو نویسنده با هایک داره که در فصل آخر بهش پرداخته. همچنین نگاه‌های ولتر و اینکه در کنار روشنفکری آدم مال‌جمع‌کن و طماعی بوده جالبه. نویسنده فضای ظهور سرمایه‌داری رو در کشاکش زهد مسیحی و کنش‌های اقتصادی یهودیان به تصویر می‌کشه وقتی که حاشیه (یهودیان) به متن تبدیل می‌شن.
نگاه اسمیت، برک، ولتر، زیمل، وبر، هایک در سمت راست و در سمت چپ به خصوص به مارکوزه پرداخته شده. نویسنده نکته جالبی میگه؛ چپ در غالب نظریه‌انتقادی در آمریکای پس از جنگ‌جهانی به جای کمونیسم فراگیر شد، زیرا کمونیسم به شدت مورد سوء ظن بود اما نگاه‌های فرهنگی چپ از طریق دانشگاه به جامعه تسری پیدا کرد و کم‌کم فضای تجاری رو هم به تسخیر درآورد.

[Maxim · Rating 5 out of 5]

A thoughtful book at the cross-section between (political) philosophy and economics. Muller manages to give a good overview and introduction into the main currents of thought about markets and their ills and benefits since the enlightenment: from Voltaire, Smith, Burke, Hegel, Marx to Lukacs, Marcuse and Hayek. A valuable introduction with ample inspiration for further reading & thinking.

[محمد شفیعی · Rating 4 out of 5]

تمام شد، خیلی طول کشید، شاید یک سال، هر فصل را یک بار خواندم و علامت زدم و دوباره مرور کردم، یک مرور کوتاه هم انتهای کتاب بود که با دقت خواندم و مرور کردم چیزهایی که خوانده بودم
هر چند نیاز جدی نمیدیدم که بدانم دقیقا هر فرد چه گفته و اندیشه ها را با افراد متناظر با آن در ذهن بسپرم، اما سعی کردم سیر اندیشه در این حوزه و ایده های مختلف و بعضا متضاد ارائه شده رو بفهمم و این کمک زیادی میکنه و کرده که پدیده ها و رفتارها رو یه جور دیگه ببینم
نویسنده نگاه لیبرال و حمایتگرانه ای به سرمایه داری داره، اما نسبتا سعی کرده بی طرف باشه، هر چند بارها دم خروس بیرون زده
در کل مطالعه این کتاب رو برای دوست داران این حوزه توصیه میکنم، اما با حوصله ی بسیااااار زیاد

[pythag · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lucid but sometimes repetitive. Great read.

Some quotes:

While the Christian and civic traditions were intrinsically suspicious of commerce, the Roman civil law was not. Rediscovered in the revival of learning in the twelfth century, it became the basis of civil law on the European continent. (p. 15).

While the Christian and civic traditions were intrinsically suspicious of commerce, the Roman civil law was not. Rediscovered in the revival of learning in the twelfth century, it became the basis of civil law on the European continent. (p. 15).

Market activity was valued not because it made society wealthier, but because the pursuit of economic self-interest was less dangerous than the pursuit of other goals, above all religious zealotry.
(p. 23).

The civic tradition saw it as corrupting the virtuous citizen, who ought to be prepared to sacrifice his private concerns for the state, bringing himself glory by defending the commonwealth in war. The Christian tradition saw it as a temptation to sin, leading away from the imitation of God and the divine virtues of abstinence, humility, and love. (pp. 40-41).

A true sovereign understood that his own revenue depended upon the wealth of the nation, which he would try to promote through freer trade. But a company of merchants that had become the sovereign of a territory seemed incapable of grasping such considerations, and used its political power only to buy more cheaply in India in order to increase company profits. (p. 71).

Smith described slave traders and slave owners as “the refuse of the jails of Europe, . . . wretches who possess the virtues neither of the countries which they come from, nor of those which they go to, and whose levity, brutality, and baseness so justly expose them to the contempt of the vanquished.”
(p. 74).

Moser: Our ancestors did not tolerate these rural shopkeepers; they were spare in dispensing market freedoms; they banned the Jews from our diocese; why this severity? Certainly in order that the rural inhabitants not be daily stimulated, tempted, led astray and deceived. They stuck to the practical rule: that which one does not see will not lead one astray. (p. 97).

Burke: “[A]s money increases and circulates, and as the circulation of news, in politicks and letters, becomes more and more diffused, the persons who diffuse this money, and this intelligence, become more and more important, ” he observed.30 The circulation of newspapers was “infinitely more efficacious and extensive than ever they were. And they are a more important instrument than generally is imagined. They are a part of the reading of all, they are the whole of the reading of the far greater number. . . . Let us only suffer any person to tell us his story, morning and evening, but for one twelvemonth, and he will become our master.” (p. 111).

Burke: “He that goes out an insignificant boy, in a few years returns a great Nabob. . . . One of these gentlemen, suppose, returns hither, loaded with odium and with riches. . . . That man’s whole fortune, half a million perhaps, becomes an instrument of influence . . . and the influx of fortunes which stand in need of this protection is continual. It works both ways; it influences the delinquent, and it may corrupt the minister.” (pp. 122-123).

The French men of letters had delegitimated the monarchy, the aristocracy, and the taxing powers of the state in the eyes of the larger public.117 As a result, they were left with a government drained of authority and no longer capable of collecting taxes or conducting commerce. The result, he predicted, would be ongoing instability and the threat of anarchy, which would be controlled only by the massive use of force, and eventually, military rule.118 Burke made these predictions long before the execution of Louis XVI, the Terror, the massacre of thousands of civilians in the Vendée, or the rise of Napoleon.
(pp. 130-131).

Regarding humanity as a fit object for experiment in order to prove their a priori theories, they are willing to disregard the short-term suffering of their victims on the grounds that it will lead to long-term improvement. “Nothing can be conceived more hard than the heart of a thorough-bred metaphysician, ” Burke wrote. “These philosophers consider men in their experiments, no more than they do mice in an air pump.” (p. 136).

“Men without their choice derive benefits from that association; without their choice they are subjected to duties in consequence of these benefits; and without their choice they enter into a virtual obligation as binding as any that is actual.”(p. 137).

For Hegel, the great challenge of the modern world is not only to provide us with a sense of individuality and subjectivity, but also to link us to a series of institutions with which we identify and which give us the sense of belonging to a reliable world. (p. 141).

Everlastingly chained to a single little fragment of the Whole, man himself develops into nothing but a fragment; everlastingly in his ear the monotonous sound of the wheel that he turns, he never develops the harmony of his being, and instead of putting the stamp of humanity upon his own nature, he becomes nothing more than the imprint of his occupation, of his specialized knowledge.
(p. 143).

But there were two novel aspects of poverty: the systematic creation of groups in the population whose skills left them jobless, and the sense of grievance and resentment that those without work harbored against society as a whole. (p. 160).

Marx origin as a member of a minority, stigmatized for its religion, regarded as a separate nationality, and disdained for its economic role, led him to a posit a society in which religious and national differences would be obliterated and moneymaking abolished. His normative image of man is steeped in the Romantic ethos of the artist as a creator of reality, an image that Marx democratized and universalized. Behind his vision of the socialist future lay the new bourgeois cultural ideal of personal expression through creativity and all-roundedness. (p. 171).

Arnold: In spite of all that is said about the absorbing and brutalising influence of our passionate material progress, it seems to me indisputable that this progress is likely, though not certain, to lead in the end to an apparition [becoming visible] of intellectual life; and that man, after he has made himself perfectly comfortable and has not to determine what to do with himself next, may begin to remember that he has a mind, and that the mind may be made the source of great pleasure. (p. 215).

Arnold’s notion of the intellectual as disinterested critic distinguished him from both Marx and Hegel. For Marx, the proper function of the intellectual was to be a partisan on behalf of the proletariat, criticizing bourgeois society for its fundamental, structural oppression. For Hegel, the role of the intellectual was to stand above particular group interests, and to bring to consciousness the ethical basis of modern, capitalist society, in the process creating standards by which to guide politics and culture. Arnold’s conception of “aliens” has obvious affinities with this Hegelian image of the intellectual. But “disinterestedness” for Arnold had a rather different meaning. It implied the ability to free oneself from partisanship, to take a distanced enough view to be able to criticize the side of the issue to which one had been committed, as circumstances required. (p. 227).

The war experience was a watershed for the capitalist societies of central Europe, and for the interpretation of capitalism. Especially in Germany and Austria-Hungary, the Great War led to political polarization, as intellectuals abandoned the ambivalent liberalism of Weber and Simmel and moved toward political radicalisms of the left and right. The movement of the younger generation to the political extremes came in response not only to the war experience, but to the way in which leading intellectuals interpreted it. (p. 257).

Workers suffered from what Lukács called “thingafication” (Verdinglichung, often translated as “reification”), the inability to see that the human relations created by capitalism were the results of particular historical conditions that could be changed by human will, rather than permanent, inevitable laws of nature to which men had to succumb. (p. 271).

Two of the most pervasive themes of Schumpeter’s oeuvre are Nietzschean: the role of the superior few as a source of creativity, and the stultifying effects of the resentment of the many against the claims of the creative few. (p. 290).

Though commonly attributed to the crash of the New York Stock Exchange in October 1929, the Great Depression had deeper and more complex causes. A long-term decline in the prices of agricultural goods had radically reduced the buying power of farmers; disasters among central European banks had ramifications across the Atlantic; and an antiquated and unstable banking system in the United States led to bank failures, which in turn had a domino effect. (pp. 301-302).

Hayek’s weaknesses as a thinker come from his propensity to exaggerate the scope of his very real insights. His was the crystal-clear vision of the one-eyed man. (p. 386).

Hayek’s opposition to the use of government to enshrine any single culture led him to deny that there could be any shared cultural standards for the sake of which the market might be restrained. As a result, he had no way to evaluate the negative effects of the market or to suggest a principled reason to try to remedy them. Here he proved far more one-sided than his revered predecessor, Adam Smith. Burke’s admonition—“The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they please: We ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations”—never seems to have occurred to Hayek. The Arnoldian ideal of the disinterested intellectual willing to criticize one side and then the other in order to create balance and counteract the one-sidedness that led toward fanaticism: that too was as alien to Hayek as it had been to Marcuse. If it was partisanship that led Hayek to push forward intellectually to new insights, it was also partisanship that kept him from a balanced and rounded philosophy. (pp. 386-387).

[Hashem · Rating 5 out of 5]

کتاب ذهن و بازار در خصوص جایگاه نهاد بازار در ذهن انسان و تکامل سرمایه داری را در دوران مدرن دنبال می کند. نویسنده جایگاه سرمایه داری در روشنفکران اروپا دنبال می کند و سعی دارد که در تمام کتاب نهاد بازار را مدنظر قرار دهد و آرا دوستداران و دشمنانش را نقد و بررسی کند . به چگونگی شکل گیری نهاد بازار در آرا روشنفکران از ولتر شروع می کند و بعد در بخشی کامل به آدام اسمیت پرداخته و شرح میدهد که این معلم اخلاق چگونه اثر ثروت ملل خود را ارائه داد و نظراتش را نقد میکند. در ادامه با شرح آرا مخالفانش مانند مارکس و مارکوزه و ... می پردازد اما موافقانی مانند وبر، هایک ، هگل ، شومپیتر و کینز را فراموش نمیکند و نظرات ایشان را بطورکامل تحلیل می کند .
بطور کل کتابی جالب در خصوص فهم شکل گیری دوران مدرن می باشد و با خواندن آن بدون اغراق شکل گیری جنگ های جهانی ، رکودهای اقتصادی و ... در قرن بیستم را می توانید تصور کنید.
این کتاب رو به تمام کسانی که دوست دارند که دنیای مدرن را بهتر درک کنند توصیه میکنم .

[Bobbzy · Rating 5 out of 5]

یکی از بهترین کتاب‌هایی که در حوزه دانش عمومی خوندم. کتاب تاریخ تفکر راجع به سرمایه‌داری رو فارغ از مخالفت یا موافقتش با سرمایه‌داری در ۷۰۰ صفحه، خیلی موجز خلاصه کرده و نکته مهم اینجاست که این خلاصه نه برای دانشجویان یا فارغ‌التحصیلان رشته‌های اقتصاد که برای عموم مردم نوشته. از بخش‌های جالب کتاب، بررسی تاریخ روابط بین سرمایه‌داری و یهودیان بود که این رابطه پر و فراز نشیب و البته مهم رو با جزئیات خوبی در لا به لای بحث مربوط به متفکران مختلف گنجونده بود و ریشه‌های یهودی‌ستیزی رو در این بستر مورد بررسی قرار داده بود.

[Andrés · Rating 3 out of 5]

A decent but not great book. The recycling of quotes in different parts of the book was annoying. The descriptions of different intellectuals' ideas was usually good, though I think he foundered on Hegel and was not clear with some of the others. The plethora of footnotes made me think he was trying to find cover for his own opinions rather than give me facts about the various intellectuals profiled.

[Brian · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book on economic philosophy and thought that is accessible to the non-professional/layman. Very engaging 'historical' read that still provides good insight onto the whys and hows of thought on the market from a Western perspective.

[Boris · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is about the philosophical history of capitalism. It's interesting to see, for example, exactly how and why capitalism has come to be associated with liberal and also with conservative points of view. I recommend it very highly. In fact I think it's about time for me to re-read it.

[Mohammad The bookworm · Rating 5 out of 5]

A wonderful and thorough history of Capitalism throughout 3 centries. Highly recommended to anyone who wants to be in favour of or against Capitalism.
You would get familiarized with geniuses who have had studied the effects of free-market on different aspects of human life.
I will definitely get back to it several times, as I think it is worth it to deliberate on.

[Mohammadreza Divsalar · Rating 5 out of 5]

نویسنده به وضوع راستیه. فصل مارکسش دیگه واضح میشه. ولی ساختار مناسب پینگ پونگی کتاب خیلی به ذهن مخاطب کمک می کنه ذهنش رو در قبال مساله سرمایه در جای درستی ادجاست کنه. یک فصل چپ یک فصل راست از قدیم به جدید. ترجمه به نظرم خیلی روان و خوب بود. بدون داشتن پیش زمینه خاصی در حوزه اقتصاد و فلسفه میشه کتاب رو خوند و درک کرد.

[Alim faraji · Rating 4 out of 5]

Comprehensive book. Maybe somehow has some inclinations toward liberal ideas. for example, he gave lots of credits to Hayek, in contrast, some of the topics in chapters about Marx and Keynes (especially Marx) were simply wrong (i.e. there were lots of times when his conclusions were irrelevant).