What do you think?
Rate this book
丕賱乇兀爻賲丕賱賷丞 孬賵乇丞 賱丕 鬲賴丿兀
賷亘丿賵 丕賱賳馗丕賲 丕賱乇兀爻賲丕賱賷 鈥� 亘噩匕賵乇賴 丕賱毓賲賷賯丞 賵賳胤丕賯賴 丕賱卮丕賲賱 鈥� 毓丕賱賲賷賸賾丕 賵禺丕賱丿賸丕貨 睾賷乇 兀賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賳馗丕賲 丕賱匕賷 兀氐亘丨 丨賵賱賳丕 賮賷 賰賱 賲賰丕賳 丕賱丌賳 賱賲 賷賰賳 賰匕賱賰 毓賱賶 丕賱丿賵丕賲. 鬲賲丿賳丕 噩賵賷爻 兀亘賱亘賷 亘賲賯丿賲丞 乇丕卅毓丞 毓賳 匕賱賰 丕賱丕亘鬲賰丕乇 丕賱毓亘賯乇賷 賱賱噩賳爻 丕賱亘卮乇賷貙 賵匕賱賰 賲賳匕 亘丿丕賷鬲賴 賵丨鬲賶 賵賯鬲賳丕 丕賱丨丕賱賷 丕賱匕賷 賷賴賷賲賳 賮賷賴 毓賱賶 丕賱毓丕賱賲 兀噩賲毓貙 賵賴賷 賮賷 賴匕丕 鬲鬲毓丕賲賱 賲毓 丕賱乇兀爻賲丕賱賷丞 亘賵氐賮賴丕 孬賯丕賮丞貙 賵鬲胤賵乇賸丕 鬲丕乇賷禺賷賸賾丕 賱賲 賷賰賳 亘兀賷 丨丕賱 賲賳 丕賱兀丨賵丕賱 鬲胤賵乇賸丕 胤亘賷毓賷賸賾丕 兀賵 丨鬲賲賷賸賾丕.
Unknown Binding
First published December 22, 2009
92 people are currently reading
1,334 people want to read
About the author
Joyce Appleby
77听books45听followersJoyce Oldham Appleby, Ph.D. (Claremont Graduate School, 1966; B.A., Stanford University, 1950), is professor of history at University of California, Los Angeles. She previously taught at San Diego State University, 1967鈥�1981. She was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1993, and was president of the Organization of American Historians (1991) and the American Historical Association (1997).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews
August 29, 2011
This is an ambitious undertaking that charts the development and growth of capitalism around the world. The book begins by outlining three schools of thought on capitalism that are separately influenced by the writings of Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and Max Weber. Appleby states that while most economists adhere to the philosophy of Adam Smith, she finds Weber to be the most compelling. Examining the interplay between culture and economics, she counters Smith鈥檚 argument that people are hard-wired for capitalism because they carried a natural desire for bettering their condition from the womb to the grave. For centuries in Europe, the emphasis was on food security and social stability rather than on personal economic gain. With the exception of England, this held true in the Age of Discovery as European explorers reached across oceans to expand the reach of empire and commercial networks. Appleby argues that entrepreneurs and nobles in England successfully transitioned to a capitalist economy before any other European commonwealths because cultural factors (Protestant Reformation), political turmoil (English Civil War/Glorious Revolution), and technological innovation (agricultural revolution) fostered a social climate that proved more accepting of change. Still the economic ideas associated with capitalism had to be sold to the English people. Appleby effectively compares the situation in England with that in other areas of Europe to show the importance of culture and politics in economic development.
She continues to use this comparative approach as she explains changes in the capitalistic system through the present day. Appleby shows that capitalism is not a unified system. Rather, the capitalist 鈥渟ystem鈥� varies from place to place and changes over time because of social, cultural, political, and technological developments. One of the most interesting examples that she presents is in her discussion of the differences in economic behavior in the United States and Europe after World War II. Appleby makes other compelling claims. For example, she suggests: 鈥淐apitalism鈥檚 history suggests that democracy and capitalism might be decoupled because they generate values that are often in conflict鈥apitalism is amoral while democracy is suffused with moral concerns about the well-being of the whole and the rectitude of leaders鈥emocracy and capitalism go together nicely, but they often act like the couple that can neither live with nor live without each other.鈥� (433-434) She ends stating: 鈥淧eople do learn from their mistakes. There is no reason to think that societies won鈥檛 continue to modify and monitor their economies in pursuit of shared goals. A relentless revolution, yes, but not a mindless one."
The Relentless Revolution has many positive attributes, but it also has some distracting qualities. Appleby makes a convincing argument and writes about a very complex subject in an accessible manner. The scope of the book and the research that into went it are also impressive. The breadth, however, also poses a challenge to the reader. It is difficult to keep track of developments as they occur across the globe over time. The task is made more difficult because discussions sometimes lapse back in time unexpectedly as the reader progresses from one subsection to the next. Appleby could have aided the reader with the inclusion of chapter introductions or summaries that clearly lay out the themes in each section. Furthermore, it sometimes proved difficult to link different subsections to one another, which made me wonder if I had missed something in my reading. At times, Appleby wanders in her discussion with tangential anecdotes or factoids thrown into paragraphs at random. Perhaps what at times seems to be a cacophony of stories and events is purposeful and serves to back-up Appleby鈥檚 point that capitalism is a multivariate 鈥渟ystem鈥� with many different histories.
She continues to use this comparative approach as she explains changes in the capitalistic system through the present day. Appleby shows that capitalism is not a unified system. Rather, the capitalist 鈥渟ystem鈥� varies from place to place and changes over time because of social, cultural, political, and technological developments. One of the most interesting examples that she presents is in her discussion of the differences in economic behavior in the United States and Europe after World War II. Appleby makes other compelling claims. For example, she suggests: 鈥淐apitalism鈥檚 history suggests that democracy and capitalism might be decoupled because they generate values that are often in conflict鈥apitalism is amoral while democracy is suffused with moral concerns about the well-being of the whole and the rectitude of leaders鈥emocracy and capitalism go together nicely, but they often act like the couple that can neither live with nor live without each other.鈥� (433-434) She ends stating: 鈥淧eople do learn from their mistakes. There is no reason to think that societies won鈥檛 continue to modify and monitor their economies in pursuit of shared goals. A relentless revolution, yes, but not a mindless one."
The Relentless Revolution has many positive attributes, but it also has some distracting qualities. Appleby makes a convincing argument and writes about a very complex subject in an accessible manner. The scope of the book and the research that into went it are also impressive. The breadth, however, also poses a challenge to the reader. It is difficult to keep track of developments as they occur across the globe over time. The task is made more difficult because discussions sometimes lapse back in time unexpectedly as the reader progresses from one subsection to the next. Appleby could have aided the reader with the inclusion of chapter introductions or summaries that clearly lay out the themes in each section. Furthermore, it sometimes proved difficult to link different subsections to one another, which made me wonder if I had missed something in my reading. At times, Appleby wanders in her discussion with tangential anecdotes or factoids thrown into paragraphs at random. Perhaps what at times seems to be a cacophony of stories and events is purposeful and serves to back-up Appleby鈥檚 point that capitalism is a multivariate 鈥渟ystem鈥� with many different histories.
October 6, 2012
Taken for what it is, this is a book worth reading. What it is is a survey of the rise of capitalism from its beginnings in the 17th century to its current position as the dominant economic system in the global economy of the 21st century. This book is intended for the general reader. It is not a rigorous historical analysis, nor is it an economics text. For someone interested in getting a better understanding of what capitalism is, how it developed over the past 300 years or so, and why it has succeeded so well at driving our economic prosperity, this book is a good place to start. It will give you a complete story which may be all you need or want, and if you want a deeper understanding, it will give you a comprehensive perspective for more in-depth works.
The Relentless Revolution provides a balanced view. It is not an unquestioning homage to Capitalism nor a bashing of the evils it has created. Capitalism is seen, fairly in my mind, as simply a set of rules for regulating economic activity which have evolved over time, powered unprecedented economic growth and prosperity in some parts of the world, and which has always had some times very significant negative side effects. Special attention is paid in the final chapter to the problem of world wide poverty and the fact that even in developed countries with capitalist economies wide-spread poverty can persist indefinitely.
The Relentless Revolution provides a balanced view. It is not an unquestioning homage to Capitalism nor a bashing of the evils it has created. Capitalism is seen, fairly in my mind, as simply a set of rules for regulating economic activity which have evolved over time, powered unprecedented economic growth and prosperity in some parts of the world, and which has always had some times very significant negative side effects. Special attention is paid in the final chapter to the problem of world wide poverty and the fact that even in developed countries with capitalist economies wide-spread poverty can persist indefinitely.
March 3, 2015
Relentless suffices as a general introduction to the topic and makes some important points - primarily that capitalism rests upon cultural factors rather than natural or material laws. It also tries to take a balanced approach, noting the myriad problems associated with 'the market', in addition to detailing what Appleby believes to be its benefits. Appleby does advocate restraint through regulation, and, by arguing that capitalism is fluid and malleable, seeks to highlight that it can be shaped into more equitable and sustainable forms. This is a powerful and essential point and it's great to see it advanced within a work intended for a general readership.
However, there are several issues that stood out to me. While there are vital points to take from this history, it also tends to reinforce particular myths. Appleby seems to overstate the impact of prominent individuals (Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt...), downplays the role that governments have played in modern economies, and almost always attributes the profit motive as the driving force of innovation. The overall moral advanced here appears to be the libertarian notion that states should play police-officer rather than active participator. Contrary to this view, mixed economies have been and remain to be highly successful models. On top of this, commentary on current forms of imperialism (or at least economic hegemony) is omitted, class analysis is rather superficial, and key sources are missing, such as Bethany Moreton's 2009 monograph, To Serve God and Walmart - an odd exclusion, given that Appleby features an entire section on Walmart and makes an almost identical point to Moreton. The latter issue is, I guess, a scholarly technicality, but as this is a survey, there could have been better, or at least more comprehensive referencing to facilitate further reading.
Like I said, this is an okay introduction to the subject, and serves as a decent survey. Additionally, it is easy to read. Overall, it deserves to be read. However, it should not be read in isolation. For a more comprehensive survey history of capitalism, one should check out Louis Hyman's and Edward Baptist's MOOC podcasts, available via Cornell's ILR School site and iTunes.
*Note: Upon further reflection, I have revised my rating. As such, I have removed the line about the rating within this review. Otherwise it remains the same.
However, there are several issues that stood out to me. While there are vital points to take from this history, it also tends to reinforce particular myths. Appleby seems to overstate the impact of prominent individuals (Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt...), downplays the role that governments have played in modern economies, and almost always attributes the profit motive as the driving force of innovation. The overall moral advanced here appears to be the libertarian notion that states should play police-officer rather than active participator. Contrary to this view, mixed economies have been and remain to be highly successful models. On top of this, commentary on current forms of imperialism (or at least economic hegemony) is omitted, class analysis is rather superficial, and key sources are missing, such as Bethany Moreton's 2009 monograph, To Serve God and Walmart - an odd exclusion, given that Appleby features an entire section on Walmart and makes an almost identical point to Moreton. The latter issue is, I guess, a scholarly technicality, but as this is a survey, there could have been better, or at least more comprehensive referencing to facilitate further reading.
Like I said, this is an okay introduction to the subject, and serves as a decent survey. Additionally, it is easy to read. Overall, it deserves to be read. However, it should not be read in isolation. For a more comprehensive survey history of capitalism, one should check out Louis Hyman's and Edward Baptist's MOOC podcasts, available via Cornell's ILR School site and iTunes.
*Note: Upon further reflection, I have revised my rating. As such, I have removed the line about the rating within this review. Otherwise it remains the same.
June 2, 2023
Appleby attempts a modern Weberian history of capitalism in under 440 pages, and is successful in only proving the bankruptcy of Weberian theory. Advancing the thesis of English exceptionalism in the development of capitalism, she ignores the internationalist nature of the development of capitalism and the intense issues in the New World and settler-colonialism that caused the rise of capitalism, relying on the Brenner debate and thesis to attempt to discredit the Marxist analysis of the development of capitalism. Eurocentric to almost an absurd degree. Appleby makes interesting points countering Smithian understandings of capitalism as part of human nature, but this is totally overshadowing by her poor thesis everywhere else.
Denying the role of primitive accumulation and merchant capital in allowing for the British industrial capitalism, she is still forced to devote several chapters to the issues while pretending that this does not effect her thesis. These issues aside, Appleby then moves into discussing the rise of capitalism in the U.S. and Germany, and then the spread of capitalism globally, cramming nearly 200 years into 200 pages.
Wallerstein's Modern World-System, all four volumes, is an excellent rebuttal to the contentions of Appleby in this work, and should be read in its stead. Only read if you want a Weberian understanding of the rise of capitalism, and only then if you are able to critically dissect what is wrong with this work and the few good points within.
Denying the role of primitive accumulation and merchant capital in allowing for the British industrial capitalism, she is still forced to devote several chapters to the issues while pretending that this does not effect her thesis. These issues aside, Appleby then moves into discussing the rise of capitalism in the U.S. and Germany, and then the spread of capitalism globally, cramming nearly 200 years into 200 pages.
Wallerstein's Modern World-System, all four volumes, is an excellent rebuttal to the contentions of Appleby in this work, and should be read in its stead. Only read if you want a Weberian understanding of the rise of capitalism, and only then if you are able to critically dissect what is wrong with this work and the few good points within.
January 16, 2022
I wanted a history of capitalism, and that's what I got.
This book was occasionally frustrating, mainly because the author and I have different views on capitalism's morality and ability to self-correct the problems it has created. But overall, I learned a lot, especially about capitalism's origins in the 1400s and its fascinating development in the centuries leading up to Britain's 19th-century industrial revolution.
The most interesting part was the author's thesis that capitalism is not a scientific, inevitable system that progress was always going to bring about; instead, it is a result of countless cultural factors that could very easily have developed into something else. After reading this book, I'm convinced that this is true.
This book was occasionally frustrating, mainly because the author and I have different views on capitalism's morality and ability to self-correct the problems it has created. But overall, I learned a lot, especially about capitalism's origins in the 1400s and its fascinating development in the centuries leading up to Britain's 19th-century industrial revolution.
The most interesting part was the author's thesis that capitalism is not a scientific, inevitable system that progress was always going to bring about; instead, it is a result of countless cultural factors that could very easily have developed into something else. After reading this book, I'm convinced that this is true.
March 13, 2013
Not being an economist I knew this book would be a challenge for me but I felt compelled to read it because on one level I wanted to know how Americans, specifically, have come to culturally accept capitalism as the best option. On a more personal level I wanted to find a way to reconcile my opinion that smoking in bars should be legal with supporting social services with taxes. Libertarian Socialist?
But more importantly, I wanted to understand how we determine what services or needs are best met by a capitalistic market and which are not. So far Appleby is a great teacher and I am still making my way through the book.
But more importantly, I wanted to understand how we determine what services or needs are best met by a capitalistic market and which are not. So far Appleby is a great teacher and I am still making my way through the book.
April 7, 2021
This book really tells the story of the birth of global capitalism and the roots of capitalist system which firstly seen in England and Nedherland. And how it prevails in modern life as the leading force of everything. Amazingg ! Gripping !!!
April 10, 2023
Capitalism is, indeed, the most dominant ideology in the history of mankind, for the world moved, until now under its shadow. Trying to tie the progress of human with the development of capitalism, the author began her explanation with the economic puzzle on how to fulfill the needs of society against the looming scarcity. In the past, traditional societies always teetered towards widespread famine, however, as agricultural technology advanced and there were more food that can be eaten, so thus ancient form of capitalism, at least in its profit-seeking motive, was born.
As society became more advanced and advanced, power shifted from the feudalistic land-holding elites to the mercantilistic money-pocketing traders and businessmen, thus the discussion moves toward the development of modern capitalistic society, on how innovation bred so many innovations that ushered in Industrial Revolution, how countries raced against each others in accumulating wealth, then mobilized it in two deadly world wars. After the smoke cleared out, capitalism became locked in life and death struggle with one of its strongest opponents, communism, a Cold War of which capitalism emerged victorious, although not unscathed.
The new millennium brought new challenges to capitalism, for the relentless exploitations done under its name caused so many problems, such as environmental crisis, and also Global Recession caused by the greed of the Bankers, to name few examples. Despite those hiccups, it cannot be denied that capitalism as a motive brought so many good things for the betterment of humankind, and even the critics could not deny that as a fact. All that is needed is to soften its sharper edge, to minimize (although thoroughly impossible) the socio-economic inequality, causing greater justice for all.
As society became more advanced and advanced, power shifted from the feudalistic land-holding elites to the mercantilistic money-pocketing traders and businessmen, thus the discussion moves toward the development of modern capitalistic society, on how innovation bred so many innovations that ushered in Industrial Revolution, how countries raced against each others in accumulating wealth, then mobilized it in two deadly world wars. After the smoke cleared out, capitalism became locked in life and death struggle with one of its strongest opponents, communism, a Cold War of which capitalism emerged victorious, although not unscathed.
The new millennium brought new challenges to capitalism, for the relentless exploitations done under its name caused so many problems, such as environmental crisis, and also Global Recession caused by the greed of the Bankers, to name few examples. Despite those hiccups, it cannot be denied that capitalism as a motive brought so many good things for the betterment of humankind, and even the critics could not deny that as a fact. All that is needed is to soften its sharper edge, to minimize (although thoroughly impossible) the socio-economic inequality, causing greater justice for all.
February 10, 2015
While several insightful observations were made especially early, I was largely disappointed with Appleby's work. She takes on too large of a task for a 400 page book: the history of capatalism from 15th century to present times. But then to make matters worse, she often strays into unrelated digressions. On several issues of key import she skims the surface in a largely superficial analysis. For example, she digresses into the causes of World War I, making no attempt to relate it to capitalism. Her work often reads like a high school world history text. One issue she raised, I found profoundly interesting. Namely, the cultural changes needed in the transition from traditional village customs to the more individualistic norms of a modern capitalist society. Sadly, she only devotes a couple paragraphs to this highly complex, multi-faceted issue deserving probably a whole fully developed chapter. This issue raises so many ramifications: legal, domestic, religious, and more. Aside from superficiality, my second complaint concerns Appleby's addressing the 2007 - 2008 financial crisis polemically rather than historically. And her book was written in 2010 barely two years out. First, for an historian to plunge into such a complex issue, which is still so fresh that it remains politically controversial, is fraught with hazard for the careful objective historian. Furthermore, so much hard research remains to be done, and many of the questions still require the perspective of time to fully assess why things went so wrong. Appleby takes as a given that the crisis was caused by too little regulation of the finance industry. She fails to even acknowledge the existence of other views. And yet now significant research is pointing not to too little regulation, but ill conceived government intrusions especially Fanny and Freddie's over promotion of marginal home buyers with little or no down payments and questionable credit histories. See for example, Peter Wallison鈥檚 鈥楬idden In Plain Sight."
In sum, while Professor Appleby made some interesting observations, her work was too broad, superficial, and sometimes more polemical than historical.
In sum, while Professor Appleby made some interesting observations, her work was too broad, superficial, and sometimes more polemical than historical.
July 23, 2020
Ugh. I'm not sure what these slog is about honestly. Its so rambling and semi coherent that is hard to figure out what's she's trying to say most of the time. There are some good bits about early capitalism, but these are more than overcome by the schizophrenic organization with CONSTANT digressions that make little to no sense. I read it to try to gain some economic knowledge and learned a little bit, but I'm not sure who the audience is.
It can't be the general reader, because her prose is extremely clunky (and that's being kind) and borders on the unreadable. Mixed in is unprofessional snark that misses the mark anyway. Basically think the worst textbook you've ever read.
It can't be the economics reader, as the analysis(when it is present) is not very sophisticated, and her thesis is weak at best.
Finally it cannot be the historian, who knows most of the facts presented here and it baffled by her inane and (in my opinion) often wrong opinions. For example when she says Thomas Edison nurtured others, then listed Tesla as an example. Edison did may things to Tesla, but nurtured isn't one of them. Her praising of Mao for several paragraphs, only to put in a small condemnation is another. How she won a history writing award is beyond me.
The only thing that makes sense is for a scam to have her students buy this tripe. Because this poorly edited book reads like the stream of consciousness ramblings of someone who might know what they are talking about, but displays no evidence on the page. Avoid at all costs.
It can't be the general reader, because her prose is extremely clunky (and that's being kind) and borders on the unreadable. Mixed in is unprofessional snark that misses the mark anyway. Basically think the worst textbook you've ever read.
It can't be the economics reader, as the analysis(when it is present) is not very sophisticated, and her thesis is weak at best.
Finally it cannot be the historian, who knows most of the facts presented here and it baffled by her inane and (in my opinion) often wrong opinions. For example when she says Thomas Edison nurtured others, then listed Tesla as an example. Edison did may things to Tesla, but nurtured isn't one of them. Her praising of Mao for several paragraphs, only to put in a small condemnation is another. How she won a history writing award is beyond me.
The only thing that makes sense is for a scam to have her students buy this tripe. Because this poorly edited book reads like the stream of consciousness ramblings of someone who might know what they are talking about, but displays no evidence on the page. Avoid at all costs.
December 18, 2023
Recently gave this book a second read - interested to see if my initial distaste and worry about the underlying thesis was just a product of my unfamiliarity with source material and capitalist histories.
Stunningly, my engagement with the literature showed me that this work was actually even worse than I first gathered during my read in undergraduate school. The very first chapter is a large window into the tone for the rest of the book - Joyce Appleby assumes tradition was the primary barrier to the imposition of the capitalist mode of production, misunderstands global opposition to U.S. imperialist actions, recreates and sanitizes the concept of primitive accumulation in an interestingly offensive way, and assumes innovation was the driving force behind the modern mode of production - and not a shift in the global productive relationship.
She utilized a schema criticised by Alexander Anievas and Kerem Nisancioglu: 鈥淸i]n this schema 鈥榯he West鈥� is once again presented as 鈥榯he pioneering creator of modernity,鈥� and 鈥榯he East鈥� as a 鈥榬egressive and unexceptional entity that is incapable of capitalist self-generation鈥�, an undifferentiated, passive transmitter of surplus to the core.鈥� (17) And while the criticism above was directed toward world systems theory - Appleby鈥檚 vulgar economic history is a bit like a chauvinistic WST in the vein of classical internalist economic theories and histories (like those of Smith).
Stunningly, my engagement with the literature showed me that this work was actually even worse than I first gathered during my read in undergraduate school. The very first chapter is a large window into the tone for the rest of the book - Joyce Appleby assumes tradition was the primary barrier to the imposition of the capitalist mode of production, misunderstands global opposition to U.S. imperialist actions, recreates and sanitizes the concept of primitive accumulation in an interestingly offensive way, and assumes innovation was the driving force behind the modern mode of production - and not a shift in the global productive relationship.
She utilized a schema criticised by Alexander Anievas and Kerem Nisancioglu: 鈥淸i]n this schema 鈥榯he West鈥� is once again presented as 鈥榯he pioneering creator of modernity,鈥� and 鈥榯he East鈥� as a 鈥榬egressive and unexceptional entity that is incapable of capitalist self-generation鈥�, an undifferentiated, passive transmitter of surplus to the core.鈥� (17) And while the criticism above was directed toward world systems theory - Appleby鈥檚 vulgar economic history is a bit like a chauvinistic WST in the vein of classical internalist economic theories and histories (like those of Smith).
November 25, 2014
Joyce Appleby brings a truly-dispassionate, scholarly tone to that most contentious of edifices: Capitalism itself. With steely-eyed patience, no small of amount of dry humor, and neither a blind eye to the innovations Capitalism drove/made possible or the almost-inconceivable cruelties its advent made conceivable, this essential mini-tome will "reset" whatever you think, Right or Left, about how we got ourselves, Western Civ. in particular, where we are today.
A grounds-leveler, to be sure! Should be taught in every High School. (Give the Elders a real reason to resent the Youth 鈥� they would truly "know better"!)
A grounds-leveler, to be sure! Should be taught in every High School. (Give the Elders a real reason to resent the Youth 鈥� they would truly "know better"!)
February 7, 2010
Appleby has written a compelling, thoroughly engaging explication of capitalism in America, why it was not an inevitability, what factors converged to bring it to the fore, and those dynamic and often ruthless individuals who drove it forward. With a few typos and factual errors here and there (there were no B-29s in the European theatre), but overall wholly readable and succinct, Appleby's book presents a strong case, and a generally optimistic view of where American capitalism is headed.
May 10, 2010
I have never read a history book with so many exclamation points. Even if the content were accurate, the explosive punctuation makes me uneasy with the professionalism of the author.
Otherwise it was highly informative.
Otherwise it was highly informative.
July 11, 2015
賰鬲丕亘 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱丕賳馗賲賴 丕賱丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷賴 賱賱丕賳馗賲賴 丕賱丿賵賱賷賴 賰賲丿禺賱 孬賲 賷丨孬 賮賶 丕賱乇兀爻賲丕賱賷賴 賰 賰賱 亘匕賰乇 鬲噩丕乇亘 丨賷賴 孬賲 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 胤丕亘毓賴丕 丕賱孬賵乇賶 賵毓賳 鬲囟禺賲賴丕 賵丕賳賰賲丕卮賴丕 .. 賰鬲丕亘 噩賷丿 賱賱賳丕卮卅賷賳
February 14, 2019
Perfect ... Very big effort from the great author
Read
August 28, 2020Mrs. Appleby is relentless in her use of exclamation points. I don't think I've read that many exclamation marks since the last time I read a bat man comic!
Many of my friends conflate capitalism with greed, but as the book explains greed is much older than capitalism! The history shows that capitalism is just an excellent vehicle for greed, but that vehicle did was not invented until modernity! For Mrs. Appleby, capitalism is an ethos, a way of life and outlook that didn't emerge until 17th century when people began seeing pursing their own self interest had spill over effects for benefiting all of society! I did not know that the medieval peasant normally worked two hundred days a year, we have capitalism to thank for not having those one hundred and sixty five days off! While early capitalism did make people work constantly, it also brought food security through the agricultural revolution in England the Netherlands! Although, as Bob Allen's book on the Industrial Revolution (which was used as a source in chapter 4) states that many of the experiments of agricultural improvement happened in the medieval open field system while bringing those efficient practices to a large scale happened with enclosure during modernity! This idea is not fully covered in Mrs. Appleby's book!
The section on trans-Atlantic slavery was interesting that it was associated with capitalism, as the author showing it's imperfections, but the trans-Atlantic slave trade began before capitalism got up and running the in the 17th century! I don't recall there being a distinction between mercantile or medieval trans-Atlantic slave trading and capitalistic slave trading in this book! Though, from other sources, I recall that when the Royal African Company's monopoly was lifted and private investors could fund the slave trade, the industry went into overdrive.
The 19th century is less familiar to me, so I learned a lot about German industrialization and how consumerism replaced aristocracy as a cultural leader in the early twentieth century! The book casts a large enough net that there are lots of interesting ideas. The idea of dependency theory, that showed how decolonization was not leading to economic development, needed the perquisite of land reforms as Asian tiger economies had done to get off on the right footing! That's something I'd like to learn more about.
In many ways Mrs. Appleby doesn't address some of the deeper issues of capitalism, like how the value of capital can outpace the value of labor! She addresses problems like environmental damage and poverty but not the problems of when capitalism turns on the middle class, it's not a deep critique like Capital by Thomas Picketty!
Overall, I thought it was easy to grasp, which can't be said for all books on economics! It touched upon a wide range of topics! If you're interested in a broad overview and relatively fair assessment the history of capitalism, it's worth the investment and you'll likely get a return in knowledge! With the book acknowledging many of the problems of capitalism, is showed through a historical approached, why it has been so successful and makes the world relentlessly spin!
Many of my friends conflate capitalism with greed, but as the book explains greed is much older than capitalism! The history shows that capitalism is just an excellent vehicle for greed, but that vehicle did was not invented until modernity! For Mrs. Appleby, capitalism is an ethos, a way of life and outlook that didn't emerge until 17th century when people began seeing pursing their own self interest had spill over effects for benefiting all of society! I did not know that the medieval peasant normally worked two hundred days a year, we have capitalism to thank for not having those one hundred and sixty five days off! While early capitalism did make people work constantly, it also brought food security through the agricultural revolution in England the Netherlands! Although, as Bob Allen's book on the Industrial Revolution (which was used as a source in chapter 4) states that many of the experiments of agricultural improvement happened in the medieval open field system while bringing those efficient practices to a large scale happened with enclosure during modernity! This idea is not fully covered in Mrs. Appleby's book!
The section on trans-Atlantic slavery was interesting that it was associated with capitalism, as the author showing it's imperfections, but the trans-Atlantic slave trade began before capitalism got up and running the in the 17th century! I don't recall there being a distinction between mercantile or medieval trans-Atlantic slave trading and capitalistic slave trading in this book! Though, from other sources, I recall that when the Royal African Company's monopoly was lifted and private investors could fund the slave trade, the industry went into overdrive.
The 19th century is less familiar to me, so I learned a lot about German industrialization and how consumerism replaced aristocracy as a cultural leader in the early twentieth century! The book casts a large enough net that there are lots of interesting ideas. The idea of dependency theory, that showed how decolonization was not leading to economic development, needed the perquisite of land reforms as Asian tiger economies had done to get off on the right footing! That's something I'd like to learn more about.
In many ways Mrs. Appleby doesn't address some of the deeper issues of capitalism, like how the value of capital can outpace the value of labor! She addresses problems like environmental damage and poverty but not the problems of when capitalism turns on the middle class, it's not a deep critique like Capital by Thomas Picketty!
Overall, I thought it was easy to grasp, which can't be said for all books on economics! It touched upon a wide range of topics! If you're interested in a broad overview and relatively fair assessment the history of capitalism, it's worth the investment and you'll likely get a return in knowledge! With the book acknowledging many of the problems of capitalism, is showed through a historical approached, why it has been so successful and makes the world relentlessly spin!
June 14, 2022
A high level history of the rise of consumer capitalism in the modern era. The author's key thesis is covered in this quote from the introduction: "Capitalism is a historical development and not a discovery of universal principles." The idea that humans are rational actors seeking to optimize outcomes and that this drives economic change was introduced to modern philosophy after the fact, to explain the evident growing prosperity of the 18th century. It was not the dominant view of human nature for most of recorded time. The rise of capitalism, which Appleby defines as the state where private investment drives the econonomy and entrepreneurs have political power, depended on other cultural changes. Appleby describes this development, beginning with changes in agricultural practices and then in ways of thinking about money, and importantly the relationship of people with money, and with the consumption and production of goods. This began in England because that country had the political predisposition for these changes, but then spread to continental Europe and its colonies. Improvements in labor productivity, including the adoption of slavery in the New World as well as the technological developments of the industrial revolution, created a snowball effect leading to an everwidening sphere of commerce and consumerism. In the industrial age Germany and the United States were the most successful adopters of capitalist ways, and in our time Japan and the so-called "Asian tigers" have been the success stories. China and India have had qualified success with capitalism, but a significant subset of humanity in the impoverished Third World has not benefited from it all, underscoring that it is not a system so much as a set of practices. This book was finished in the late 2000s, just after the Great Finanical Crisis unfolded. Some thoughts on the flaws of capitalism vis-脿-vis these events, as well as the question of whether capitalism either depends on or promotes democracy, conclude the book. The author covers a lot of historical events and developments, and sometimes the narrative seems simplistic and rushed, even clich茅d, as the author simply repeats what amounts to a textbook understanding of modern history. But she cites ample sources, so you could always read more books to follow up on her basic premise or to fill in any gaps in the narrative. I did feel when reading this book that while Appleby introduces a wonderful thesis, she doesn't quite follow through with it to explain all of the history that she covers. What about the rise of nationalism and the use of capitalism to promote national interest and international competition, culminating in the orgy of destruction of the World Wars? These events are covered, but not quite how they fit into a narrative of capitalism as culturally driven. The complete picture just isn't there in this book, but as an introductory work and source of references this is a fine treatment of the history of capitalism.
April 26, 2020
Overall, a pleasant and balanced book on the subject, at least for someone like me who is not particularly invested in history. I was shocked by her implication that Edison "nurtured" Tesla (pg 256, "He also nurtured the talent of others. From Edison's lab came Nikola Tesla...") considering that Edison revoked a promise of payment for one of Tesla's inventions and did his best to make Tesla's innovation of AC current seem dangerous. Although I trust that Appleby had done good research on matters more pertinent to the main theme of the book, that one comment made me trust the material a little less.
Tesla/Edison Source:
Tesla/Edison Source:
June 22, 2021
I read this a year and a half ago for a history course I took. I completely forgot about it but I saw it on my bookshelf today and I remembered how much I absolutely hated it. The book is very long, very dense, and very hard to read. To be honest, I've learned more about the history of capitalism on Wikipedia pages than I have through this book. It could very easily be condensed and be written in more simplified and accessible ways. If you like feeling like a genius after reading big & difficult words to understand pretty simple concepts, this book is for you!
November 12, 2021
賰鬲丕亘 丿爻賲 賵 賲賱卅 亘丕賱賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 毓賳 亘丿丕賷丞 丕賱乇兀爻賲丕賱賷丞 賲賳匕 亘丿丕賷丞 丕賱丨囟丕乇丞 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 賵乇睾賲 鬲胤賵乇 丕賱乇兀爻賲丕賱賷丞 丕賱丕 丕賳賴丕 禺丕囟鬲 賲氐丕毓亘 賮賷 鬲胤賵乇賴丕 .
賵賯丿 卮賳鬲 丿賵賱 丕賱丕丨鬲賱丕賱 毓賱賶 丕賱賲丿賶 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 亘丕丨鬲賱丕賱 丕賱丿賵賱 賵賲賲丕乇爻丞 乇兀爻賲丕賱賷丞 丕賳丨賷丕夭賷丞 賱氐丕賱丨賴丕.
丕賱乇兀爻賲丕賱賷丞 鬲賯賵賲 毓賱賶 鬲胤賵賷乇 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 賱賰賳 丕賱鬲胤亘賷賯 賴賵 丕賱賮乇賯 .
賲丕 賯丕賲鬲 亘賴 丕賱丿賵賱( 丕賱毓丕賱賲 丕賱兀賵賱 ). 賲賳 丕賱丕丨鬲賷丕賱 亘兀爻賲 丕賱乇兀爻賲丕賱賷丞 賵 爻賱亘 丕賱囟毓賮丕亍 爻賵丕亍 丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丕賸 丕賵 丕賳爻丕賳賷丕賸 亘賳賶 爻賲毓丞 爻賷卅丞 賴匕賴 丕賱丿賵賱 禺丕氐丞 賮賷 亘丿丕賷丕鬲 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱孬丕賲賳 毓卮乇 .
鬲胤乇賯 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 廿賱賶 丿賵賱 賵丨囟丕乇丕鬲 賲鬲毓丿丿丞 賮賷 兀夭賲丞 賲禺鬲賱賮丞 .
丕爻鬲賲鬲毓鬲 亘丕賱賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 丕賱賰孬賷乇丞 乇睾賲 賰孬乇鬲賴丕.
賵賯丿 卮賳鬲 丿賵賱 丕賱丕丨鬲賱丕賱 毓賱賶 丕賱賲丿賶 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 亘丕丨鬲賱丕賱 丕賱丿賵賱 賵賲賲丕乇爻丞 乇兀爻賲丕賱賷丞 丕賳丨賷丕夭賷丞 賱氐丕賱丨賴丕.
丕賱乇兀爻賲丕賱賷丞 鬲賯賵賲 毓賱賶 鬲胤賵賷乇 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 賱賰賳 丕賱鬲胤亘賷賯 賴賵 丕賱賮乇賯 .
賲丕 賯丕賲鬲 亘賴 丕賱丿賵賱( 丕賱毓丕賱賲 丕賱兀賵賱 ). 賲賳 丕賱丕丨鬲賷丕賱 亘兀爻賲 丕賱乇兀爻賲丕賱賷丞 賵 爻賱亘 丕賱囟毓賮丕亍 爻賵丕亍 丕賯鬲氐丕丿賷丕賸 丕賵 丕賳爻丕賳賷丕賸 亘賳賶 爻賲毓丞 爻賷卅丞 賴匕賴 丕賱丿賵賱 禺丕氐丞 賮賷 亘丿丕賷丕鬲 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱孬丕賲賳 毓卮乇 .
鬲胤乇賯 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 廿賱賶 丿賵賱 賵丨囟丕乇丕鬲 賲鬲毓丿丿丞 賮賷 兀夭賲丞 賲禺鬲賱賮丞 .
丕爻鬲賲鬲毓鬲 亘丕賱賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲 丕賱賰孬賷乇丞 乇睾賲 賰孬乇鬲賴丕.
November 28, 2019
As good as Bill Bryson's "A Brief History of Nearly Everything" but just from a different angle (commercial).
June 12, 2021
Covers pretty much everything, though necessarily very briefly, with great accompanying commentary.
March 20, 2025
I just do not like a jump everywhere type of book. Also, it has strange opinions from the author: Africans were accustomed to the disciplined work of mining and farming. Really?
June 10, 2015
Torn between 2 stars and 3. I was pretty disappointed by this book in the end. It promises far more than it delivers. The initial chapters push the argument that capitalism is a cultural phenomenon rather than a monolithic system governed by natural laws. There are some intriguing (albeit brief) discussions of the emergence of the modern idea of progress, and of ways in which notions of human nature changed during the early development of capitalism. All of this was fascinating and suggested the book would explore the history of the idea of capitalism and how our social and economic relationships have shaped each other over the centuries. Which it does; a little, and rather superficially.
Instead, much of the book is a chronology of technological change and an account of historical events and trends that influenced the spread and evolution of capitalism, rarely going deeper than an introductory text for beginners. You'll come away from it knowing something about who Rockefeller, Edison and Ford were, but with no real insight into what they reveal about the cultural, social or intellectual history of capitalism (beyond the most superficial clich茅s).
The second half of the book is its weakest, launching into a fairly predictable catalogue of historical landmarks of the 20th century (the world wars, the Depression, post-war prosperity, the oil shock, the rise of India and China, an endless list of new inventions), with brief and unsurprising nods to how each event impacted on the economy (who'd have thought the wars led to a period of increased government investment in the economy and a burst of technological innovation?). There are virtually no insights in here beyond the obvious things everyone already takes for granted and for much of these chapters I felt like I was sitting through a long and tedious recitation of a dull high school text book.
So: disappointing. I would *love* to read the book this promised to be, but I can't really recommend the book it actually is. In a word: superficial.
Instead, much of the book is a chronology of technological change and an account of historical events and trends that influenced the spread and evolution of capitalism, rarely going deeper than an introductory text for beginners. You'll come away from it knowing something about who Rockefeller, Edison and Ford were, but with no real insight into what they reveal about the cultural, social or intellectual history of capitalism (beyond the most superficial clich茅s).
The second half of the book is its weakest, launching into a fairly predictable catalogue of historical landmarks of the 20th century (the world wars, the Depression, post-war prosperity, the oil shock, the rise of India and China, an endless list of new inventions), with brief and unsurprising nods to how each event impacted on the economy (who'd have thought the wars led to a period of increased government investment in the economy and a burst of technological innovation?). There are virtually no insights in here beyond the obvious things everyone already takes for granted and for much of these chapters I felt like I was sitting through a long and tedious recitation of a dull high school text book.
So: disappointing. I would *love* to read the book this promised to be, but I can't really recommend the book it actually is. In a word: superficial.
December 15, 2017
There seems to be a consensus on '3 stars' reviews on that one, and I can see why - it does the job, namely condensing in 400 pages the history of capitalism from the 16th century to the 21st. For a philistine of my ilk, it stands out for being written by someone who -on the whole- finds capitalism quite agreeable (in its regulated forms), as opposed to either the root of all evil, or the inescapable law of nature. She is, she tells us, a weberian, claiming said system is a cultural form first and foremost, although a highly unstable one, continuously undermining itself through Schumpeter's 'creative destruction' (I have the feeling institutional economics is at least as much of an influence on her as Weber). That's an interesting angle, but would have deserved to be argued more, well, relentlessly: the cultural aspects of capitalism, in the end, receive relatively little attention once we are past the 17th century, which I believe is the author's academic realm: the scope of the book means we are at best skimming issues, like conceptions of the subject, or notions of property, which I suspect to be very much central to capitalism's history. For a Weberian, I also found that Appleby did not give religion its due, and I was hoping for more on Protestantism, which is only surveyed from far above.
With this said, as a light and general overview of economic history it is quite enjoyable and, unlike most reviewers below, I actually found the 'middle bit' (19th c.) quite good. The author has to be selective, and we end up seeing, for example, that particular century through a comparison between German and US economies, which happens to fit right in with my personal interests. The same necessarily narrow focus, however, also make the book profoundly eurocentric until we reach the 21st c., which I found a little strange, although more qualified readers might find it justifiable.
With this said, as a light and general overview of economic history it is quite enjoyable and, unlike most reviewers below, I actually found the 'middle bit' (19th c.) quite good. The author has to be selective, and we end up seeing, for example, that particular century through a comparison between German and US economies, which happens to fit right in with my personal interests. The same necessarily narrow focus, however, also make the book profoundly eurocentric until we reach the 21st c., which I found a little strange, although more qualified readers might find it justifiable.
April 15, 2016
No cares to read long-winded reviews which twist symphonically through a text. Therefore, I intend to keep this short and sweet.
This is a competent narrative history of Capitalism. The author is, mostly, well read in the topic but does drop the ball a few times (in this reviewers opinion).
Here are some of the areas I would disagree with (there are others)
The location of the Industrial Revolution does not belong, really, in the 18th century but in the Renaissance (where the intellectual tools were manufactured). There is an artificial nature to her discussion of Britain and she seems to be confused about when to refer to England and when to Great Britain (she a Yank...no surprise there). She tends to conflate the Scottish and English Enlightenments. Then there is the issue of Korea. The numbers are correct, when speaking of the Korean Miracle, but her analysis of women in Korea (today) is based on a New York Times article which I would disagree with (I've lived in Korea for nearly 8 years).
On the whole, however, this was a very competent history but one that was more a history of the world (mostly the West) since the 18th Century rather than a history of Capitalism...the author used Capitalism to interpret modern history and not vice-versa.
If the reader is looking for a competent history of Capitalism that eschews deep analysis (if you are looking for Herodotus rather than Thucydides) then this is the history for you. All in all, a good entry level text for understanding the contextual forces of Capitalism.
A little biased on the Keynesian side for my tastes. I'm more Austrian School and a Free-marketeer that is prepared to accept the bumpy ride than have the Nanny State tell me how to live my life. Still an adequate investigation of the issue.
This is a competent narrative history of Capitalism. The author is, mostly, well read in the topic but does drop the ball a few times (in this reviewers opinion).
Here are some of the areas I would disagree with (there are others)
The location of the Industrial Revolution does not belong, really, in the 18th century but in the Renaissance (where the intellectual tools were manufactured). There is an artificial nature to her discussion of Britain and she seems to be confused about when to refer to England and when to Great Britain (she a Yank...no surprise there). She tends to conflate the Scottish and English Enlightenments. Then there is the issue of Korea. The numbers are correct, when speaking of the Korean Miracle, but her analysis of women in Korea (today) is based on a New York Times article which I would disagree with (I've lived in Korea for nearly 8 years).
On the whole, however, this was a very competent history but one that was more a history of the world (mostly the West) since the 18th Century rather than a history of Capitalism...the author used Capitalism to interpret modern history and not vice-versa.
If the reader is looking for a competent history of Capitalism that eschews deep analysis (if you are looking for Herodotus rather than Thucydides) then this is the history for you. All in all, a good entry level text for understanding the contextual forces of Capitalism.
A little biased on the Keynesian side for my tastes. I'm more Austrian School and a Free-marketeer that is prepared to accept the bumpy ride than have the Nanny State tell me how to live my life. Still an adequate investigation of the issue.
August 9, 2014
This book started out fantastic, and finished strong, but the bulk in the middle was a real struggle to get through. Appleby begins with a clever, and for me at least, fresh take on the origins of capitalism. She argues that the industrial revolution flowed naturally from the beginnings of capitalism, inverting a relationship that many thinks works the other way. Furthermore, she very clearly proves that when people argue about "capitalism" as some abstract system existing separate from political and cultural institutions, they are simply wrong. As an economic system, capitalism has never existed except within the framework defined by politics and culture and people arguing otherwise are generally pushing an agenda that has more to do with politics and culture than anything about pure economics.
The book finishes strong too, with a critical look at the institutions of capitalism in the modern world, and how we can think about the surrounding framework of politics and culture to fashion an economic system that benefits all and protects the planet. It is thoughtful and concise. But the middle two-thirds of the book is simply a rapid narrative of events with little analysis - just a long string of happenings and dates in paragraph form. If you are truly ignorant of the happenings of the 19th and 20th century, it might have some value, but devoid of meaningful commentary and analysis, it is a pretty dry presentation.
Still, despite the flaws in the middle, the opening and closing are strong enough to make this a worthwhile read for people seeking to understand the world. But don't feel bad about skipping to the last chapter when it goes into the long slog mode in the middle.
The book finishes strong too, with a critical look at the institutions of capitalism in the modern world, and how we can think about the surrounding framework of politics and culture to fashion an economic system that benefits all and protects the planet. It is thoughtful and concise. But the middle two-thirds of the book is simply a rapid narrative of events with little analysis - just a long string of happenings and dates in paragraph form. If you are truly ignorant of the happenings of the 19th and 20th century, it might have some value, but devoid of meaningful commentary and analysis, it is a pretty dry presentation.
Still, despite the flaws in the middle, the opening and closing are strong enough to make this a worthwhile read for people seeking to understand the world. But don't feel bad about skipping to the last chapter when it goes into the long slog mode in the middle.
May 18, 2013
Calling this book ambitious is like calling an encyclopedia informative--it's just something that's obvious in the scope of the subject material. Joyce Appleby, by her own admission, is a left-leaning historian; in this books she begins with the 17th Century and works her way to the present, and a little beyond explaining the origins and developments of capitalism as she understands it.
There's nothing particularly challenging about this book. It's history as you've heard it a thousand times before; she's almost doctrinaire in how studiously she sticks with the crowd in terms of historical consensus. No earth-shattering insights or entertaining heresies at all in this book. Which, sadly, makes it a little more boring than what it could have been.
If history is your gig, you'd probably appreciate this book. On the other hand, I'm sure there's plenty of people whose concept of hell is having to read a 400+ page book on the history of capitalism.
There's nothing particularly challenging about this book. It's history as you've heard it a thousand times before; she's almost doctrinaire in how studiously she sticks with the crowd in terms of historical consensus. No earth-shattering insights or entertaining heresies at all in this book. Which, sadly, makes it a little more boring than what it could have been.
If history is your gig, you'd probably appreciate this book. On the other hand, I'm sure there's plenty of people whose concept of hell is having to read a 400+ page book on the history of capitalism.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.