Lies, Damn Lies, and the History of Capitalismby Wanjiru NjoyaMark Twain popularised the phrase, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.” It could equally well be adapted to depict the role of socialist narratives taught as “history”—narratives that wreak even more economic havoc than outright lies. Lies can be debunked with facts, but socialist narratives appeal to political and moral ideologies that are less easily dislodged once they take root.
The socialist view of economic history teaches that capitalism is based on exploiting the poor. It alleges that Western nations are rich due to colonising the Third World. As the economist Peter Bauer
observed:
The principal assumption behind the idea of Western responsibility for Third World poverty is that the prosperity of individuals and societies generally reflects the exploitation of others.
The industrial revolution is said to have been powered by theft from poor countries, with white nations acquiring wealth by subjugating other races. Bauer details the essential facts proving these beliefs to be false. He also identifies some of the reasons why these types of anti-capitalist narratives are so influential, arguing that “acceptance of emphatic routine allegations that the West is responsible for Third World poverty reflects and reinforces Western feelings of guilt.”
These guilt narratives, which masquerade as “historical facts,” are more pernicious and more difficult to defeat than blatant lies because, much like statistics, they are assumed to be objective and factual—even when they bear no relationship to the truth. Bauer describes them as “not only untrue, but more nearly the opposite of the truth.”
These myths have fed the prevailing tendency to view “capitalism” as a catch-all phrase denoting cruelty to the less fortunate. In his book
Capitalism and the Historians, Hayek
explains that this hostile view of capitalism is based on false history:
Who has not heard of the “horrors of early capitalism” and gained the impression that the advent of this system brought untold new suffering to large classes who before were tolerably content and comfortable? We might justly hold in disrepute a system to which the blame attached that even for a time it worsened the position of the poorest and most numerous class of the population. The widespread emotional aversion to “capitalism” is closely connected with this belief that the undeniable growth of wealth which the competitive order has produced was purchased at the price of depressing the standard of life of the weakest elements of society.
That this was the case was at one time indeed widely taught by economic historians.
Hayek
argued that despite the “thorough refutation of this belief,” it has not lost its influence—“Yet, a generation after the controversy has been decided, popular opinion still continues as though the older belief had been true.” He
warned that this “socialist interpretation of history,” and in particular economic history, had “governed political thinking for the last two or three generations.” Like Bauer, he
emphasised that it has no basis in truth:
Most people would be greatly surprised to learn that most of what they believe about these subjects are not safely established facts but myths, launched from political motifs and then spread by people of good will into whose general beliefs they fitted. . . most of what is commonly believed on these questions, not merely by radicals but also by many conservatives, is not history but political legend.
These political legends are depicted as merely descriptive of historical reality. Hayek
attributed this in part to the claim of some historians to be objective:
One reason for this probably is the pretension of many modern historians to be purely scientific and completely free from all political prejudice. . . . There is indeed no legitimate reason why, in answering questions of fact, historians of different political opinions should not be able to agree. But at the very beginning, in deciding which questions are worth asking, individual value judgments are bound to come in.
Lacking a huge amount of time for independent study, many people rely on historians for factual analysis. When professional historians push their ideology over as “history” their readers are often none the wiser. Hayek
saw this as a major reason why socialist ideology had become entrenched:
The remarkable thing about this [socialist] 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.
Why are false claims that have “long been proved not to have been facts at all” still taught as historical reality? It is not necessarily because socialist historians deliberately try to promote their own ideology—although that is sometimes the case. The more serious issue is failure to appreciate that interpretation of history requires selection and interpretation. As Hayek
put it, value judgments necessarily influence historical interpretation:
And it is more than doubtful whether a connected history of a period or a set of events could be written without interpreting these in the light, not only of theories about the interconnection of social processes, but also of definite values—or at least whether such a history would be worth reading.
Further, the dissemination of historical narratives is not confined to formal study. When a historical narrative is dominant, in the manner
described by Hayek, it is embedded as part of the general culture and generally accepted as being “obviously true.”
. . . it is via the novel and the newspaper, the cinema and political speeches, and ultimately the school and common talk that the ordinary person acquires his conceptions of history. But in the end even those who never read a book and probably have never heard of the names of the historians whose views have influenced them come to see the past through their spectacles.
Hayek
emphasised the importance of getting the facts right, as “we can hardly hope to profit from past experience unless the facts from which we draw our conclusions are correct.” And one could certainly provide the detractors of capitalism with the facts about productivity and economic progress. Bauer’s work on economic development is a great resource for that purpose.
But it is not a simple matter of presenting the facts. Given people’s prior understanding of what they assume to be meant by “capitalism,” which reflects the commonly accepted narratives, any defense of capitalism merely reinforces their moral and ideological objection. Such defenses seem to be saying “yes, the rich brutally exploit the poor, but it’s worth it.”
To illustrate this point, take the example of Bauer’s observation that colonialism in fact introduced economic progress. He explained:
In the early 1890s there were in the Gold Coast no railways or roads, but only a few jungle paths. Transport of goods was by human porterage or canoe. By the 1930s there were railways and good roads; journeys by road required fewer hours than they had required days in 1890. In British West Africa public security and health improved out of all recognition over the period. Peaceful travel became possible; slavery, slave trading and famine were practically eliminated, and the incidence of the worst diseases greatly reduced.
You would expect that to settle the matter for anyone who is genuinely concerned with the facts. But, on the contrary, socialists respond with yet more mockery —“just because you built railroads does not mean colonial brutality was acceptable.” They miss the point entirely, because they cling to their erroneous view of what capitalism is in the first place. Propaganda is based on false ideology and cannot be displaced by highlighting the facts. The underlying ideology itself must be countered: pointing out that capitalism itself is the only system allowing wealth and riches to be attained
without exploitation, that the trader principle of capitalism allows each party a win-win, and that it is the only political system protecting an individual's rights.
Log in
