A Discussion of Bourgeois Equality Chapter 50 “On the Whole, However, the Bourgeoisies and their Bettering Projects Have Been Precarious”
Dr. McCloskey is wrapping up part VII (!) of her book (still 3 more parts to go) in which she has been making the point that the Great Enrichment that started in England around 1800 happened because of a change in ideas. Specifically, the idea that the common man deserves dignity.
The Great Enrichment after 1800 came from human creativity unleashed by liberty and dignity for ordinary people, through trade-tested betterment resting on a new equality in the eyes of others, and spread by the overturning of monopoly in competition. (p. 40)
It is this idea of dignity for the common man seen in a change in rhetoric over time that unleased the dramatic increase in the standard of living, first in England, but later in other places that would adopt this idea. It allowed the trade tested system of betterment to thrive.
She wraps up this part of the book with a walk through time to see how close other places and times got to adopting this idea before turning away.
When It Almost Happened
She mentions other places and times in Europe where it almost happened (Florence, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal) but they turned from esteem for the bourgeoisie merchant class for one reason or another. (p. 477)
In some cases, the newly rich bourgeois hungered after aristocratic status and got lost in classism. In other cases, the successful bourgeois class put up road blocks for anyone else to succeed and protected themselves with monopoly power.
The most anti-bourgeois examples are powerful states such as Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s China, or Castro’s Cuba, but McCloskey is noting that states did not have to go that far to thwart the Great Enrichment.
The reversal from bourgeois prosperity need not even be tyrannical. Populist sentiment against traders or corporations or careers in business, if skillfully aroused, can return us to the material and spiritual conditions of 1800 and $2 or $3 a day. (p. 478)
That is the key — if our success came from an idea, it can be lost if we lose the idea.
That is why I am writing about this book. In our society today, particularly those in the high school/college years, many casually toss out phrases like, “late stage capitalism” or “exploitation.”
If we stop believing in the idea that got us this wealth, then we will lose it.
It comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of the trade-tested system of betterment McCloskey is writing about, probably because those who are causing the problems want you to put the blame elsewhere.
It is the increase in monopolization and centralization of power (and maybe an encouragement to focus on getting rich and joining the elite) that is the root of our problems in society.
These are the exact things that prevented the Great Enrichment happening in other places at other times.
And these are the exact things that can undo our progress today.
We would come closer to fixing our problems if we would restore antitrust and increase competition. Prices may not be as cheap, but it would be a better balance of our dual roles as consumers and producers as the original antitrust was designed to support.
Conclusion
She gives other examples of countries only finding success when embracing the idea of dignity for the common man, and then losing it all when they turned away from it.
In the eighteenth century Japan looked rather similar to England in literacy, city life, bourgeois intellectual traditions, widespread craftsman ship, a lively internal trade. (p. 481)
That is, before either place adopted the ideas that would lead to the Great Enrichment. And this was despite the heavy hand of government in the Tokugawa period that even outlawed wheels!
But it was in the Meiji Restoration of 1868 when Japan began to “honor and protect entrepreneurs, albeit with a heavy hand,” that growth accelerated for Japan. (p. 482)
McCloskey points out that while their growth was initially converging to others enjoying the Great Enrichment, Japan turned their attention to wars and conquering in an attempt to secure resources. This change in focus moved resources into the military and slowed their growth. (p. 482)
Likewise we see growth in China only after a change in ideas.
Until China began seriously to honor and protect entrepreneurs — namely, under the neo-pseudo-Communists of the 1980s, at any rate in the coastal provinces — China’s growth was modest indeed. (p. 481)
This puts a new cast on today’s attacks on success, business, and competition. If they can convince enough of us that we should despise the successful businessmen and can only succeed with government planning and income redistribution, then we will kill our own golden goose.
Reference: McCloskey, Deirdre Nansen, 2016. “On the Whole, However, the Bourgeoisies and their Bettering Projects Have Been Precarious,” Chapter 50 of Bourgeois Equality, The University of Chicago Press.
