“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 endeavors 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 defense 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 radio show 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.

Georg Menz
(University of London)

Dr. Bernstein's Response

To the Editors:

Georg Menz’s review of my book, The Capitalist Manifesto: The Historic, Economic and Philosophic Case for Laissez-Faire, is puzzling for its endemic errors regarding issues of both detail and essential principle.

The Capitalist Manifesto stresses throughout that capitalism is the system of individual rights. In countless passages, in virtually every chapter the book emphasizes that the principle of individual rights, embodied in the political-economic freedom of the capitalist system, liberated the individual to employ his most conscientious rational thinking in pursuit of his own personal happiness—and thereby led to the explosion of technological advances, rising living standards, and increasing life expectancies witnessed in the Western world. The theme of the book—that capitalism is the system of liberated human mind power—explains the prodigious progress and wealth achieved by the modern capitalist nations, and only by them.

But Mr. Menz does not even mention the principle of individual rights. Neither does he identify nor discuss the book’s theme. Individuals, their inalienable rights, the causal role of liberated human mind power in creating the historically unprecedented wealth and progress of the capitalist countries—in short, the overwhelmingly important issues raised by The Capitalist Manifesto—are ignored. These are puzzling omissions in an intellectual review. Related, Mr. Menz repeatedly refers to the book as an “angry” polemic against Marxism or socialism. One error is that he treats anger as a self-evident failing requiring no further explanation or validation; overlooking the fact that anger in response to injustice is a rational and virtuous reaction. (Ironically, his cherished Marx is one of the angriest authors to ever publish a book.) But above all: in fact, Mr. Menz is profoundly mistaken in describing the basic approach of The Capitalist Manifesto as polemical and its tone as angry. Rather, the book overwhelmingly is written in praise of individual rights, political-economic freedom, limited Constitutional government, and liberal capitalism. Indeed, it is not a stretch to interpret The Capitalist Manifesto as a love poem devoted to the free men and free minds that have carried us forward to whatever degree of cultural advance we have achieved. Its very title (and subtitle) accurately indicates a book written in support of capitalism—not an attack on socialism.

Almost as disconcerting are his factual errors regarding the historical details on which he focuses. For example, he declares inaccurate some part of the book’s claim that Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini were dictators—that they were on the same side during World War II—and that they were the aggressors. Which aspect does Mr. Menz regard as inaccurate? That such individuals were dictators? That they were allies? That their aggression precipitated the war? He does not say. If one were to guess, his dispute regards the claim of Stalin’s alliance with the National Socialists. If so, does Mr. Menz deny the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939? Is he unaware of the pact’s secret protocol giving the Soviets a free hand to conquer Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and eastern Poland? Does he simply ignore that, on September 17, 1939, the Communist regime invaded Poland, thereby concluding the partition of that country agreed to with their Nazi allies?

But the part most disturbing in an intellectual review is that in lieu of a careful analysis of the book’s theme and/or a scrupulous devotion to historical accuracy, Mr. Menz substitutes an emotionalist tone expressing scorn that, at times, crosses the boundary into the ad hominem fallacy of personal attack. For example, he says such things as: “Written in an aggressive yet rambling style reminiscent of US talk radio hosts…” –“Nuance, subtlety and accuracy are unfortunately not the author’s forte”—“In characteristic disregard for historical facts…”—“No serious scholar of politics would conflate Nazism with Stalinism…”—“But a grasp of basic historical facts is not the only thing out of reach for this author…” –and finally “…relying on a mediocre first year student’s grasp of neoclassical assumptions about supply and demand.”

This succinct response endeavors to point out, in all respectfulness to Mr. Menz, that substituting emotionalist disdain and ad hominem fallacies for analysis of a book’s fundamental principles does not constitute an intellectual book review. It is hoped that he might do better next time.

Andrew Bernstein, Ph.D.
Dept. of Philosophy
Marist College