Skip to list of Journals

Political ReviewNet
First for Politics and International Relations Book Reviews

Review of:

The Capitalist Manifesto: The Historic, Economic and Philosophic Case for Laissez-Faire by Andrew Bernstein
University Press of America, Lanham MD, 2005
Pages: 500. £24.99

Reviewed By: Georg Menz
Reviewed in: Political Studies Review
Date accepted online: 02/04/2007
Published in print: Volume 5, Issue 1, Pages 76-159
See all reviews for this journal

Book Reviews: Political Theory

'Without property rights, no other rights are possible' (p. 34), the author boldly claims, thus laying out both his main proposition and already hinting at the persistent confusion between capitalism as an economic system and liberal democracy as a political system, which mars this book. The volume endeavours to demonstrate the virtues of capitalism in promoting economic growth, technological advances and thus, albeit indirectly, rising standards of living for wide segments of the population. It also provides a very selective and synthetic historical account of technological advances in the late nineteenth century, a somewhat confused defence of capitalism as the sole system fostering intellectual freedom and a polemical list of the humanitarian shortcomings real existing socialism engendered. In doing so, the author attempts to convince the reader of the superiority of capitalism and point to the shortcomings of what he calls 'statism', a category wide enough to encompass Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union and current Sweden. His motivation stems from the conviction that there is a 'disconnect' (p. 13ff.) between capitalism's alleged accomplishments and the persistence of left-wing critics.Written in an aggressive yet rambling style reminiscent of US talk show radio hosts, the book is clearly not aimed at a scholarly audience, but seems to expect a wider audience.

Nuance, subtlety and accuracy are unfortunately not the author's forte. In characteristic disregard for historical facts, he states that 'Adolf Hitler [...] was the German dictator. Joseph Stalin was his counterpart in the Soviet Union, and Benito Mussolini in Italy. It is important to recognize that the dictatorships were all on the same side, and were the aggressors (p. 229, emphasis in the original). Similarly, the author confuses the political ramifications of the Enlightenment with the economic results of the Industrial Revolution. But a grasp of basic historical facts is not the only thing out of reach for this author who, despite setting out viciously to attack Marxism, is incapable of distinguishing between Marxism as a theoretical approach and real existing socialism. His virulent polemics are further undermined by surprising knowledge gaps of even basic tenets of Marxist ideology. Thus, the historical materialist understanding of capitalism as a historic epoch necessary to overcome feudalism is completely ignored. No serious scholar of politics would conflate Nazism with Stalinism as being two feathers of the same 'statist' bird. Regrettably, the economic arguments are merely pedestrian, relying on a mediocre first-year student's grasp of neoclassical assumptions about supply and demand. From a trained philosopher, one might have expected an original philosophical argument. But again, Bernstein disappoints, by merely rehashing some of the tenets of the obscure libertarian right-wing philosopher Ayn Rand.

In sum, this book needs to be approached, not as a scholarly treatise of political economy, offering original insight, compelling arguments and innovative methodology, for it offers none of these things, but rather as an angry overtly right-wing polemic. Yet the numerous analytical deficiencies render its message far from compelling: it reads like an angry and often confused diatribe, but without the bite and the wit good polemicists are capable of.