What do you think?
Rate this book
Капитализм и историки: Мифы о промышленной революции
В книге подробно разбирается, как возник миф о том, что промышленная революция в Англии в конце XVIII -- начале XIX в. привела к резкому ухудшению условий жизни рабочих. В статьях Т. С. Эштона и У. И. Хатта исследуются вопросы экономической истории этого периода -- статистика уровня жизни городских фабричных рабочих (в т.ч. в сравнении с другими); в статьях Ф. Хайека, Л. Хэкера, Б. де Жувенеля, Т. С. Эштона изучается роль интеллектуалов в создании общего идеологического климата в обществе и в частности роль историков в формировании общего негативного отношения к капитализму. Русское издание дополнено статьей Хайека "Интеллектуалы и социализм", статьей Л. фон Мизеса "Капитализм" и его же очерком "Антикапиталистическая ментальность".
410 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1954
29 people are currently reading
1089 people want to read
About the author
Friedrich A. Hayek
259 books1,737 followersFriedrich August von Hayek CH was an Austrian and British economist and philosopher known for his defense of classical liberalism and free-market capitalism against socialist and collectivist thought. He is considered by some to be one of the most important economists and political philosophers of the twentieth century. Hayek's account of how changing prices communicate signals which enable individuals to coordinate their plans is widely regarded as an important achievement in economics. Hayek also wrote on the topics of jurisprudence, neuroscience and the history of ideas.
Hayek is one of the most influential members of the Austrian School of economics, and in 1974 shared the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics with Gunnar Myrdal "for their pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and for their penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena." He also received the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1991 from president George H. W. Bush.
Hayek lived in Austria, Great Britain, the United States and Germany, and became a British subject in 1938.
Hayek is one of the most influential members of the Austrian School of economics, and in 1974 shared the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics with Gunnar Myrdal "for their pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and for their penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena." He also received the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1991 from president George H. W. Bush.
Hayek lived in Austria, Great Britain, the United States and Germany, and became a British subject in 1938.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
September 20, 2023
Tema de bază este "De ce sunt intelectualii așa răi și critică paradisul capitalist?"
Ca să vedem de ce este capitalismul neapreciat de "elite" mergem la rădăcina lui si anume Revoluția Industrială din Anglia de la începutul secolului XIX.
Carte are argumente valide. De exemplu, viața muncitorilor din fabrici era mizeră în bună parte din cauza războiul cu Franța, politicilor proaste asupra taxelor dar și slaba calitate a materialelor de construcție care ducea la crearea locuințelor insalubre.
Este corect să privim și economic situație dar bucuria omului nu stă în PIB.
Revoluția Industrială a dus la "eliminarea" sclaviei este un alt arument.
DAR în același timp carte conține o puzderie de aberații doar dacă le auzi titlul.
Mai are rost să discutăm dacă munca copiilor in fabrici este benefica sau nu?! Hayek și prietenii săi dezbat și legiferează despre libertate în alte cărți , în schimb aici nu se mai întreabă cât de liber este un copil într-o fabrică.
Aberații:
a) Malformațile copiilor nu au nici o legătură cu muncă extenuantă 18 ore în fabrică ci totul este doar din cauza geneticii proaste a timpului.
b) Rapoartele doctorilor privind sănătatea copiilor care este în deteriorare sunt total greșit datorită incapacității lor din aceea vreme. Chimicale fac bine așa zice domnul HUTT.
c) Munca în fabrică ajută la antrenarea mai bine a copiilor, dacă nu muncest de tineri se lenevesc la adolescență.
Plus altele...
Cartea a apărut în 1954...
Ca să vedem de ce este capitalismul neapreciat de "elite" mergem la rădăcina lui si anume Revoluția Industrială din Anglia de la începutul secolului XIX.
Carte are argumente valide. De exemplu, viața muncitorilor din fabrici era mizeră în bună parte din cauza războiul cu Franța, politicilor proaste asupra taxelor dar și slaba calitate a materialelor de construcție care ducea la crearea locuințelor insalubre.
Este corect să privim și economic situație dar bucuria omului nu stă în PIB.
Revoluția Industrială a dus la "eliminarea" sclaviei este un alt arument.
DAR în același timp carte conține o puzderie de aberații doar dacă le auzi titlul.
Mai are rost să discutăm dacă munca copiilor in fabrici este benefica sau nu?! Hayek și prietenii săi dezbat și legiferează despre libertate în alte cărți , în schimb aici nu se mai întreabă cât de liber este un copil într-o fabrică.
Aberații:
a) Malformațile copiilor nu au nici o legătură cu muncă extenuantă 18 ore în fabrică ci totul este doar din cauza geneticii proaste a timpului.
b) Rapoartele doctorilor privind sănătatea copiilor care este în deteriorare sunt total greșit datorită incapacității lor din aceea vreme. Chimicale fac bine așa zice domnul HUTT.
c) Munca în fabrică ajută la antrenarea mai bine a copiilor, dacă nu muncest de tineri se lenevesc la adolescență.
Plus altele...
Cartea a apărut în 1954...
Read
August 3, 2011Hayek edited this nice little read. Gives one a different perspective of capitalism. One you won't read in any classroom. Beautiful essays by Ashton, Hacker, Jouvenel, Hayek, and Hutt. If you have a sneaking suspicion that capitalism serves the wants of the customer, then well, you may be justified.
October 5, 2017
3.6/5
A valuable compilation of essays on the conditions of the working people during the Industrial Revolution and the historical/intelectual treatment received by that period.
Hayek correctly and expectedly cautions about the pretense of impartiality of modern scholars, TS Ashton provides interesting historical facts about the period, de Jouvenel ask if we shouldn't question and study the position of intelectuals in modern society instead.
WH Hutt's article is just brilliant.
All in all, a nice little book, which perhaps could be of some use to the activist youth of today.
A valuable compilation of essays on the conditions of the working people during the Industrial Revolution and the historical/intelectual treatment received by that period.
Hayek correctly and expectedly cautions about the pretense of impartiality of modern scholars, TS Ashton provides interesting historical facts about the period, de Jouvenel ask if we shouldn't question and study the position of intelectuals in modern society instead.
WH Hutt's article is just brilliant.
All in all, a nice little book, which perhaps could be of some use to the activist youth of today.
August 8, 2022
Interesting essays demonstrating faulty views of the early factory system and the level of living standard among the new factory working class compared to other relevant labor classes (like in agriculture).
December 4, 2025
The book contains essays by T. S. Ashton, L.M. Hacker, W. H. Hutt and B. De Jouvenel, with an introduction by F.A. Hayek.
The main theme that connects the articles, besides defending capitalism, is that historians were biased when presenting historical facts, either because of their formal education, their ethical beliefs or because of an ingraned frustration or inferiority complex towards other proffesions.
Hayek explains in the introduction that "It is probably justifiable to speak of a socialist interpretation of history which has governed political thinking for the last two or three generations and which consists mainly of a particular view of economic history. The remarkable thing about this view is that most of the assertions to which it has given the status of “facts which everybody knows” have long been proved not to have been facts at all; yet they still continue, outside the circle of professional economic historians, to be almost universally accepted as the basis for the estimate of the existing economic order."
I especially liked his version of the idea that correlation does not equal causation: "The idea that one can trace the causal connections of any events without employing a theory, or that such a theory will emerge automatically from the accumulation of a sufficient amount of facts, is of course sheer illusion."
T.S. Ashton, in his articles, protests against the efforts to romanticize the preindustrial world (his takes on Engels are superb and on point). He also points out the erroneous way in which economic history has been taught, by breaking it up into stages or epochs: "A thousand years is an unmanageably long period, and so capitalism had to be presented as a series of stages—the epochs, respectively, of early, full, and late capitalism, or of mercantile capitalism, industrial capitalism, finance capitalism, and state capitalism. It is admitted, of course, by those who make use of these categories that there is overlapping: that the late stage of one epoch is the early (or, as they say, the emergent) stage of the next. But to teach economic history in this way—to suggest that commerce, industry, finance, and state control are successive dominant forces—is to hide from the student, I suggest, the interaction and interdependence of all these at every period of time. It is bad economics."
Bertrand de Jouvenel takes on economic historians on their biases: "The historian is no aimless fact-finder. His attention is drawn to certain problems under the influence of his own or other current preoccupations related to the present day. These induce him to seek certain data, which may have been rejected as negligible by former generations of historians; these he reads, using patterns of thought and value judgments which he shares with at least some contemporary thinkers. The study of the past thus always bears the imprint of present views."
And then he makes a very good point on the way in which intellectuals feel about economic processes and progress: "The intellectual is really of two minds about the general economic process. On the one side, he takes pride in the achievement of technique and rejoices that men get more of the things which they want. On the other hand, he feels that the conquering army of industry destroys values and that the discipline reigning there is a harsh one. These two views are conveniently reconciled by attributing to the “force” of “progress” everything one likes about the process and to the “force” of “capitalism” everything one dislikes."
The main theme that connects the articles, besides defending capitalism, is that historians were biased when presenting historical facts, either because of their formal education, their ethical beliefs or because of an ingraned frustration or inferiority complex towards other proffesions.
Hayek explains in the introduction that "It is probably justifiable to speak of a socialist interpretation of history which has governed political thinking for the last two or three generations and which consists mainly of a particular view of economic history. The remarkable thing about this view is that most of the assertions to which it has given the status of “facts which everybody knows” have long been proved not to have been facts at all; yet they still continue, outside the circle of professional economic historians, to be almost universally accepted as the basis for the estimate of the existing economic order."
I especially liked his version of the idea that correlation does not equal causation: "The idea that one can trace the causal connections of any events without employing a theory, or that such a theory will emerge automatically from the accumulation of a sufficient amount of facts, is of course sheer illusion."
T.S. Ashton, in his articles, protests against the efforts to romanticize the preindustrial world (his takes on Engels are superb and on point). He also points out the erroneous way in which economic history has been taught, by breaking it up into stages or epochs: "A thousand years is an unmanageably long period, and so capitalism had to be presented as a series of stages—the epochs, respectively, of early, full, and late capitalism, or of mercantile capitalism, industrial capitalism, finance capitalism, and state capitalism. It is admitted, of course, by those who make use of these categories that there is overlapping: that the late stage of one epoch is the early (or, as they say, the emergent) stage of the next. But to teach economic history in this way—to suggest that commerce, industry, finance, and state control are successive dominant forces—is to hide from the student, I suggest, the interaction and interdependence of all these at every period of time. It is bad economics."
Bertrand de Jouvenel takes on economic historians on their biases: "The historian is no aimless fact-finder. His attention is drawn to certain problems under the influence of his own or other current preoccupations related to the present day. These induce him to seek certain data, which may have been rejected as negligible by former generations of historians; these he reads, using patterns of thought and value judgments which he shares with at least some contemporary thinkers. The study of the past thus always bears the imprint of present views."
And then he makes a very good point on the way in which intellectuals feel about economic processes and progress: "The intellectual is really of two minds about the general economic process. On the one side, he takes pride in the achievement of technique and rejoices that men get more of the things which they want. On the other hand, he feels that the conquering army of industry destroys values and that the discipline reigning there is a harsh one. These two views are conveniently reconciled by attributing to the “force” of “progress” everything one likes about the process and to the “force” of “capitalism” everything one dislikes."
February 18, 2025
The capitalism of 19th century seems to be attacked by both progressives and reactionaries. A bit of healthy revisionism is genuinely needed. However, this particular collection of essays displays some kind of intellectual laziness of pro-capitalism historians. Despite a number of apt positive claims and valid criticisms of their opponents' misunderstanding of economic theory, Hayek's main thesis remains not so indisputable. I wonder, what are the up-to-date books by right-libertarian historians on this very topic.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews