More on Rothbard's Made-Up History
I blogged a bit recently about Murray Rothbard's essay, "Down With Primitivism: A Thorough Critique of Polanyi," that periodically veers off into the ridiculous. In reviewing a book (referenced below), I was just struck by another problem in the text. Rothbard writes:
"Moreover, the life of the savage, as Hobbes put it, is 'nasty, brutish, and short.' His life expectancy is very short, and his life is ravaged by all manner of disease, disease that he can do nothing about except give food to witch doctors to utter incantations."
Oops! It turns out that the life span of a "savage" was about the same as that of the average Englishman in 1800, and the "savage" was far healthier, as shown by his greater height, and worked far less to achieve about the same level of material well-being. (Source: A Farewell to Alms by Gregory Clark.) But why let facts get in the way of scoring polemical points? And note the invocation of a fake authority to back the point -- what in the world did Hobbes, without the benefit of the succeeding 300 years of advances in our historical knowledge, know about the condition of "savages"?
And, of course, it turns out that primitive people have extensive knowledge of healing herbs and so on, and can do a lot more than "utter incantations" to cure diseases.
And, although I analyzed the following statement a bit in the earlier post mentioned above, its arrogance continues to gall me:
"First, it is absolutely illegitimate to do, as Polanyi does, and infer the history of pre-Western civilization from analysis of existing primitive tribes. Let us never forget that the existing primitive tribes are precisely the ones that didn’t progress—that remained in their primitive state. To infer from observing them that this is the way our ancestors behaved is nonsense—and apt to be the reverse of the truth, for our ancestors presumably behaved in ways which quickly advanced them beyond the primitive stage thousands of years ago."
1) Homo sapiens sapiens emerged at least 100,000 years ago. Agriculture began about 8,000 years ago.That means, far from "quickly advancing" beyond "the primitive stage," everyone's ancestors remained in that stage for most of our species' history.
2) Most people who switched from nomadism to agriculture did so through no perspicuity of their own, but because they happened to live next to someone else who had learned agriculture. For instance, there is no evidence that the ancestors of Rothbard or me ever invented agriculture independently.
3) And for those people who did invent it independently -- as far as we know, Near Easterners, the Chinese, West Africans, Meso-Americans, and New Guineans, with the Ethiopeans and Asian Indians as question marks -- it seems likely they did so under environmental pressures. Remember, settled life was a very bad deal until 1800, making all but the very rich worse off than most hunter-gatherers. You'd only make that deal from necessity.
"Moreover, the life of the savage, as Hobbes put it, is 'nasty, brutish, and short.' His life expectancy is very short, and his life is ravaged by all manner of disease, disease that he can do nothing about except give food to witch doctors to utter incantations."
Oops! It turns out that the life span of a "savage" was about the same as that of the average Englishman in 1800, and the "savage" was far healthier, as shown by his greater height, and worked far less to achieve about the same level of material well-being. (Source: A Farewell to Alms by Gregory Clark.) But why let facts get in the way of scoring polemical points? And note the invocation of a fake authority to back the point -- what in the world did Hobbes, without the benefit of the succeeding 300 years of advances in our historical knowledge, know about the condition of "savages"?
And, of course, it turns out that primitive people have extensive knowledge of healing herbs and so on, and can do a lot more than "utter incantations" to cure diseases.
And, although I analyzed the following statement a bit in the earlier post mentioned above, its arrogance continues to gall me:
"First, it is absolutely illegitimate to do, as Polanyi does, and infer the history of pre-Western civilization from analysis of existing primitive tribes. Let us never forget that the existing primitive tribes are precisely the ones that didn’t progress—that remained in their primitive state. To infer from observing them that this is the way our ancestors behaved is nonsense—and apt to be the reverse of the truth, for our ancestors presumably behaved in ways which quickly advanced them beyond the primitive stage thousands of years ago."
1) Homo sapiens sapiens emerged at least 100,000 years ago. Agriculture began about 8,000 years ago.That means, far from "quickly advancing" beyond "the primitive stage," everyone's ancestors remained in that stage for most of our species' history.
2) Most people who switched from nomadism to agriculture did so through no perspicuity of their own, but because they happened to live next to someone else who had learned agriculture. For instance, there is no evidence that the ancestors of Rothbard or me ever invented agriculture independently.
3) And for those people who did invent it independently -- as far as we know, Near Easterners, the Chinese, West Africans, Meso-Americans, and New Guineans, with the Ethiopeans and Asian Indians as question marks -- it seems likely they did so under environmental pressures. Remember, settled life was a very bad deal until 1800, making all but the very rich worse off than most hunter-gatherers. You'd only make that deal from necessity.
Great stuff Gene.
ReplyDeleteOops! It turns out that the life span of a "savage" was about the same as that of the average Englishman in 1800, and the "savage" was far healthier, as shown by his greater height, and worked far less to achieve about the same level of material well-being.
ReplyDeleteOK here you just lost me. You sound like your buddy (ha ha) Jared Diamond in his recent NYT piece saying, "We Americans consume x% more oil than Europeans, and does anyone think our lifestyle is better?"
Actually, I think what you did is worse, since the answer to Diamond is that we are more spread out than Europeans.
Are you telling me that if you lived in 1800, you would rather be in Africa than London?
I'm sorry, but stating that primitive barbarians and tribesman lived longer than the average Englishman in 1800 and worked less is absurd. Maybe if one excludes savages who were eaten by lions, tigers, or other wildcats, or those who were killed by wild boars, and so-on and so-forth. As for working less, that's doubtful. Have you ever seen how much even "modern" primitive people (savages) have to work just to eat? And the women and children have to work too, so you can count that against women and children by and large not having to work in civilized societies (until recently, due to inflation).
ReplyDeleteBut ultimately I think you're just nitpicking. The overall thrust of Rothbard's essay is clearly correct, and the point he makes is simply an obvious smack-down on savage-worshipping nutjobs. If the life of savages is so great, stop writing about it and go join them.
PS: Much of the misery of people until the 1800s can be attributed to the State. Furthermore, regarding the argument that none of our ancestors evolved much until 8,000 years ago, but had between then and 100,000 years ago to do so, we should note that Rothbard isn't saying that primitives are like the cavemen of 100,000 years ago. They are, along with all ancient societies, much evolved beyond that. But existing primitives are tribes that didn't evolve beyond that point. Rothbard's point that it is invalid to infer the life of our ancestors from that of existing primitives today is completely valid.
Nope dh003i, you are wrong, per current knowledge, and I gave you the reference to look this up. I guess you, like Rothbard, can do history just by thinking what "must have" been the case.
ReplyDeleteAnd as far as your point about modern Third-Worlders, the fact is that many of them are much worse off than before European contact. (Same reference.)
Well, Bob, if you want to work about three hours a day for your living, be relatively healthy, and live about the same lifespan (35 years for both), then you would want to be a hunter-gatherer rather than a English factory worker. (Of course, it was better to be an English Lord or factory owner, but there weren't many of those.)
ReplyDeleteBy the way, the worsening of conditions under agriculture is a well known fact, not a oddball opinion of Clark's. Agriculture allowed a big population increase, but at the cost of a harsher lifestyle.
ReplyDeleteOh, but dh003i, I agree that the central thrust of Rothbard's essay is OK -- it's only ridiculous in passages. I have corrected my blog entry.
ReplyDeleteIf agriculture allowed a big population increase, that can only be because it is more productive in terms of food-production than hunter-gathering. Thus, any worsening of conditions cannot be causally attributed to agriculture; but must, I think, instead be attributed to population increasing beyond what advances in agriculture could compensate for. Btw, is it really established fact that people became agricultural because population increases necessitated that to survive; or did their population increase because it could, given the development of agriculture? I think there's a similar question regarding the population explosion and the industrial revolution, and the causation (did the pop explosion necessitate the industrial revolution for survival, or did the industrial revolution allow for the population explosion initially? certainly both are possible, and there may afterwards be some "cyclical causality").
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm doing is going through a little thought-experiment to see how much sense claims that primtives engaging in hunter-gathering could have a better standard of living. If you look at what modern primitives have to do from various documentaries on them, the amount of work is just ridiculous, and that to produce say a crappy hut which will easily blow down. They have engaged in no mastering of nature, and by and large merely take from it, rather than really productively homesteading much of anything. (e.g., they don't domesticate animals or plants). This seems to put them much more at the mercy of nature.
Btw, I don't see how, even if Clark is right that primitives worked less and lived longer than Europeans until the 1800s, that disproves Rothbard's criticisms of how wonderful and idylic life is as a primitive. The point still remains that the Europeans did, in fact, advance beyond that. Clark seems to think it's because the genetic increase of values that inclined people more towards savings, future-planning, as well as innovation. I think it also has to do with the reduction of mercantalism and protectionism.
--David J. Heinrich
PS: Steve Sailer has an excellent review of A Farewell to Alms, which much like Callahan's review of Guns, Germs, and Steel, was partially praising and partially critical.
vdare.com/Sailer/071008_farewell.htm
vdare.com/sailer/071014_farewell_part2.htm
Well, Bob, if you want to work about three hours a day for your living, be relatively healthy, and live about the same lifespan (35 years for both), then you would want to be a hunter-gatherer rather than a English factory worker.
ReplyDeleteBut would I have learned the Pythagorean theorem? And would I have to speak Swahili?
"What I'm doing is going through a little thought-experiment to see how much sense claims that primtives engaging in hunter-gathering could have a better standard of living."
ReplyDeleteHistory, David, is not done by thought experiment.
"If you look at what modern primitives have to do from various documentaries"
Ah, history by TV documentary! An advance on Rothbard.
"This seems to put them much more at the mercy of nature."
Farmers are much worse off if a drought hits than are hunter-gatherers -- they just move.
Gene,
ReplyDeleteNo, but thought experiments can tell us how likely various historical analysis or alleged facts are. If the things proposed are quite absurd and ridiculous (such as primitives living a wonderful idylic life), then that's absurd.
I would be curious as to exactly how differently you think primitives ae living than what is described in documentaries. And that is being optimistic, where they have some of the benefits of the modern civilized 1st world, due to trade. But hundreds of years ago, they had none of that; no motor-boats, for example.
As for your allegations of how Rothbard did history without doing any historical research, that's quite absurd; even a cursory look at _Conceived in Liberty_ or _The History of Economic Thought_ would disprove that allegation.
In which case, one would have to wonder why you made that sweeping generalization, instead of just criticizing this particular instance. Perhaps for polemic effect?
And I'd also agree with others who noted that you ought to do a comparison of how superior a mode of civilization is by considering how many people it has to support. Hunter-gathering could never support the populations obtained by the West. Farming could. The correct and relevant question of choice is, would those Europeans before the 1800s rather all switch to primitivism and hunter-gathering, which would necessitate the death of many of them?
" _The History of Economic Thought_ "
ReplyDeleteI once wanted to show my wife a parody of Machiavelli's real views. I thought for a second and said, "I know where I can find one!" I hadn't read that section of HOET, but I opened to it, and, lo and behold, found just the parody I expected.
Rothbard never wrote any history, David. He used the past to make political points.
"And that is being optimistic, where they have some of the benefits of the modern civilized 1st world, due to trade. "
The Third World is worse off after encountering the First, not better.
"The correct and relevant question of choice is, would those Europeans before the 1800s rather all switch to primitivism and hunter-gathering, which would necessitate the death of many of them?"
That point was not under dispute.
"Rothbard never wrote any history, David. He used the past to make political points."
ReplyDeleteThat's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. For one thing, there are those who don't agree with AE, but yet think MNR was a better historian than economist.
In any event, those who research and write about history cannot totally divorce it from their politics, so it's ridiculous to single out Rothbard for this. All history must be interpreted in analysis. Our underlying understanding, politics, ethics, even determines what we deem worthy to research and write about.
"The Third World is worse off after encountering the First, not better."
Even if true, which I doubt, is this supposed to somehow magically show that the third world is worse because it encountered the first world?
The 1st world has also gotten better overall (higher standards of living) -- although less free -- since the rise of Democracy. That hardly shows that the progress has been because of it.
"I once wanted to show my wife a parody of Machiavelli's real views. I thought for a second and said, "I know where I can find one!" I hadn't read that section of HOET, but I opened to it, and, lo and behold, found just the parody I expected."
ReplyDeleteHis description of the Prince, in historical context, is accurate. However, that's only if one takes the entire work at face value. I suspect Machiavelli's point more devious. It's been over ten years since I read it, so I'll read it again before I comment further, but I didn't know that he'd addressed the work to the people who'd gotten him fired. Taking that, yes, more devious indeed. Whatever Machiavelli's real intentions, historically (at least, this was Rothbard's argument) it came as the culmination of the synthesis of secularism and political absolutism.
That aside, Rothbard's commentary on the history of economic thought is generally excellent; its greatest flaw is that it's unfinished, and always will be. The problem with the field is that, as far as I know, there aren't any works that incorporate the entire breadth of Rothbard's survey; every history of economic thought begins with Smith as the first economist (itself an historically inaccurate point, as Rothbard demonstrates) proper.
An addendum to my previous comment:
ReplyDeleteMr. Callahan, are you aware of a book that was published in 1961 (or earlier) that advanced the point you cite in Farewell to Alms? Rothbard's point was not at all divergent from the mainstream of opinion in 1961, if I remember the bits of history of thought that still float around in my skull from high school.
Very nice, Gene. I guess you know the prelates at Mises.Org have anathematized you and consigned you to smoke a turd in Austrian Hell.
ReplyDeleteThe party line over there is that the Enclosures never happened, or if they did, they didn't make any difference, and that all those peasants in early modern times just left the land in droves because they thought the Dark Satanic Mills were the "best available alternative." Of course this is nonsense on stilts. The erudite P.M. Lawrence frequently gives them fits in the comment threads at Mises Blog by producing evidence that 1) subsistence farming generally required an average work week of 20 hours, when peasants were not driven off the most productive land or bled dry by taxes and feudal rents; and 2) peasants generally had to be pried off the land with a crowbar before they would willingly work in factories, or at least worked there only seasonally on their own terms when they had independent access to the means of subsistence.
Well, I'll just point out something Jerome F. Smith once pointed out about the supreme value of Austrian theory, which it seems most Austrians today only poorly recognize:
ReplyDelete"They have been able to analyze the nature of a free market, even though one has never existed." --Jerome F. Smith, The Coming Currency Collapse
In Man, Economy & State (surely, if Rothbard was lousy as historian, he was a most excellent theoretician) this analytical method is extended to government intervention systematically. They just don't go far enough, they fall into the same Hooverite/19th century fallacy that Rothbard so righteously condemned.
Gene: Well, Bob, if you want to work about three hours a day for your living, be relatively healthy, and live about the same lifespan (35 years for both), then you would want to be a hunter-gatherer rather than a English factory worker.
ReplyDeleteBob: But would I have learned the Pythagorean theorem?
Probably not. But what makes you think you would have learned the Pythagorean theorem as an illiterate English factory worker ca. 1800?
Bob: And would I have to speak Swahili?
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Modern Swahili is a literate language which serves as a lingua franca for trade, diplomacy, and education throughout much of East Africa. It developed as a direct result of extensive trade, cultural exchange, and colonization between the Arabian peninsula and East Africa, via the Indian Ocean. It has just about as much to do with a "primitive" or hunter-gatherer lifestyle as does modern English, French, Mandarin Chinese, or Hindi.
Gene: By the way, the worsening of conditions under agriculture is a well known fact, not a oddball opinion of Clark's. Agriculture allowed a big population increase, but at the cost of a harsher lifestyle.
ReplyDeleteSure. Of course, that still leaves open the further, and probably more interesting, question as to why the population increases enabled by agriculture outran the capacity to produce the necessities for comfortable living. I suspect that the answer to that question has little essentially to do with agriculture, and a lot to do with some of the species of vermin that were able to break in and feed off of the surplus grain and meat. Specifically, the professionalized military and theo-political classes.
"Mr. Callahan, are you aware of a book that was published in 1961 (or earlier) that advanced the point you cite in Farewell to Alms? Rothbard's point was not at all divergent from the mainstream of opinion in 1961, if I remember the bits of history of thought that still float around in my skull from high school."
ReplyDeleteI am criticizing Rothbard's first attacking the method of comparing modern and ancient primitives -- which obviously existed at the time he was criticizing it -- and then replacing it with nothing. You're suggesting he replaced it with "accept the common prejudices of your time." Hardly better. The works of Cassirer and Collingwood on myth had been in existence for decades -- there's no excuse for ignoring them in "critiquing" and existing method.
Oh, and every time I've seen the method Rothbard attacks being used, it has come with a caveat: "We must be very careful in using this method, but at times it's the best we have." Too bad they didn't know Rothbard's superior method of just making shit up.
"His description of the Prince, in historical context, is accurate."
ReplyDeleteWell, the fact that you share Rothbard's mistaken view of Machiavelli hardly supports it! Neither of you seem to be aware, for instance, that The Prince was not Machiavelli's major work, or that, far from being an absolutist, he was a staunch defender of republican liberty?
Read Pocock if you want to understand Machiavelli's real place in the history of political thought.
Gene,
ReplyDeleteGiven that you said earlier you agree by-and-large with the thrust of his essay on the moronicism of primitive-worshiping, this is just petty nitpicking. It is bullshit to say Rothbard's method was "just making shit up". Thus, you're full of BS. His books on the American colonies, the panic of 1819, the great depression, the HET, are well-respect by historians.
If you have criticism of anything in particular that Rothbard said, maybe you should write a specific paper on it, detailing exactly what you're critical of.
However, simply saying that Rothbard "just made shit up" without exception is bullshit. Furthermore, even if you think he was inaccurate in particular areas, it is a pretty ungenerous assumption to say he was "just making shit up", as opposed to say missing a larger context, or numerous other explanations for inaccuracy. At the very least, if you are to attack the guy's integrity, you ought to have evidence of him "making stuff up" as opposed to other explanations for any inaccuracy you think you find. The papers arguing that Adam Smith was a gross plagiarist have good evidence behind him for that attack on his character. You don't have any for your attack.
You could do that. Or you just could continue being an asshole and "just making shit up".
"Well, the fact that you share Rothbard's mistaken view of Machiavelli hardly supports it! Neither of you seem to be aware, for instance, that The Prince was not Machiavelli's major work, or that, far from being an absolutist, he was a staunch defender of republican liberty?"
ReplyDeleteYou have to understand two things about the HET; 1, it was frankly Austro-Libertarian in its perspective, Rothbard announced that from the first. 2, it evaluates the historical impact of ideas. In that context, Rothbard's on the money; when most people are referring to Machiavelli's political economy, or his apparent amorality, they refer not to the Discourses on the First ten Books of Titus Livius, but to the Prince. To a libertarian, the ethical disgust at the Prince isn't nullified by The Discourses, it's merely repeated.
On Machiavelli; it is necessary to distinguish between his kind of Greco-Roman republicanism which sounds similar to but is fundamentally different from modern Jeffersonian republicanism. Machiavelli, like Aristotle, starts with the Polis as an end in itself. A republican, yes, but no ancestor to libertarians. Republican totalitarianism is perfectly acceptable in his thought; he held a high post with the Florentine oligarchy.
"and then replacing it with nothing."
That's a rather foolish criticism. If I tell you you're driving off a cliff, do I have to tell you which way you should drive? If chewing arsenic powder to cure headaches is suicide, do I have to propose a headache medicine which won't kill you? There is worse in this world than ignorance; bad knowledge.
Last:
"You're suggesting he replaced it with "accept the common prejudices of your time.""
No, that's not what I suggested. Not for a second.
"You have to understand two things about the HET; 1, it was frankly Austro-Libertarian in its perspective, Rothbard announced that from the first."
ReplyDeleteI understand that quite well; that is what makes it, not a work of history, but a work of politics. Real intellectual history asks questions like, "What did Machiavelli really mean in context?" Rothbard asks questions like, "Should Austro-Libertarians consider Machiavelli a good guy or bad guy?" That is certainly not a historical question!
Well, there's the rub. I'm at once in agreement with you, and in disagreement. He evaluates the historical impact of Machiavelli, and his evaluation is correct. He actually dangles the truth in front of the reader, and I suspect he knew anyone bothering to check out books with such recondite titles would be able to figure it out. So Rothbard's purpose is the same as someone who condemns Marx for the bloodbaths that resulted from following his ideas. The Great Terror that Conquest, Solzhenitsyn and others documented is not to be found blueprinted in Marx, so I've been told.* But to leave out that evil in discussing Marx would be no less erroneous than to leave out the consciously amoral stances adopted by people perhaps unjustly referred to as 'Machiavellians' who model their thinking on the advice in The Prince. Once you write something like that, the effect it will have is basically out of your own hands. To use a 20th century example; there's nothing of the cult in Rand's Atlas Shrugged, but it became the Canonical scripture of one all the same.
ReplyDelete*I know Rothbard spends multiple chapters documenting the apocalyptic in Marx, including his devil-worship. I haven't read that far in to volume 2 yet.
"However, simply saying that Rothbard "just made shit up" without exception is bullshit."
ReplyDeleteGood God, man, I didn't say he did this "without exception." In fact, it's very clear in my original post what I'm saying he made up -- his view of primitive man. He rejects comparative anthropology -- which, if used cautiously, is a fine method of research -- and puts in its place -- his prejudices! He offers not a shred of evidence for his view of primitive man, other than that's what he thinks.
Now, maybe he had some extensive research behind what he wrote, but then, in rejecting the work of other academics, it's his responsibility to cite that work, not ours to guess what it might be.
BTW, the Rothbardians here have almost completely ignored my two complaints about the original piece with a lot of hand-waving about "MES was good, Rothbard is right in rejecting worship of primitives, etc."
ReplyDeleteMy points:
1) Rothbard completely disparages comparative anthropology. But his own views on what primitive man was like seem to be made up out of thin air -- at least he gives us no sources, no research method, no archaeological data, etc.
2) His reason for rejecting comparative anthropology is that "we're the smart ones who advanced and they're the dumb ones who didn't."
Actual research shows this to be nonsense. To cite just one instance: pre-Columbian North America saw a mix of hunter-gatherer and agricultural tribes. All these people were essentially identical genetically. The ones who adopted agriculture did so because conditions called for it, and those who didn't didn't because the hunter-gatherer life was working just fine. Rothbard is insinuating a racial explanation where one can't possibly fit the data.
My point about about MES was unrelated to the original topic. Second, I think Rothbard is wrong about Anthropology, you're wrong about Rothbard, and Polanyi was a total fruitcake. There. Now, no matter what happens, you can hate my guts.
ReplyDelete"Rothbard completely disparages comparative anthropology. But his own views on what primitive man was like seem to be made up out of thin air -- at least he gives us no sources, no research method, no archaeological data, etc."
This wasn't a scholarly paper; it was (until it got posted at Mises) an unpublished internal memo. So far as I know, Rothbard never discussed it (or Polanyi) in any of his published works. I have a few of his books handy, but not all of them. I don't see anything touching on this point directly, and only indirectly if one counts the idea that Rothbard believed Praxeology a universally valid science.
I have to add something; Mr. Callahan, I'd like to continue this conversation if you're interested, but this comments interface gives me a headache. If you'd prefer to continue by e-mail...
ReplyDeleteYou can reach me at oblivion437@hotmail.com or oblivion437@linuxmail.org
Gene,
ReplyDeleteAre there two books titled A Farewell to Alms?
You write:
"[That Rothbard writes]Moreover, the life of the savage, as Hobbes put it, is 'nasty, brutish, and short.' His life expectancy is very short, and his life is ravaged by all manner of disease, disease that he can do nothing about except give food to witch doctors to utter incantations.'
"Oops! It turns out that the life span of a "savage" was about the same as that of the average Englishman in 1800, and the "savage" was far healthier, as shown by his greater height, and worked far less to achieve about the same level of material well-being. (Source: A Farewell to Alms by Gregory Clark.) "
John Tammy http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/01/bill_gatess_kind_capitalism_is.html writes
"Far from kind, pre-capitalist living among the masses took the form of what [Gregory] Clark [in his new book A Farewell to Alms] terms “unrelenting drudgery,” with food in short supply, and early death a fact of life given the ravages of disease that capitalism hadn’t yet cured. Though humans today are capital themselves in the sense that a broad division of labor ensures greater work specialization and more plentiful output, death was a virtue in pre-capitalist societies thanks to the inability of its economic systems to produce much of anything for people very much in need."
Looks like I will have to read this book myself to find out what is really going on. Either, someone is quoting way out of context or there must be a second edition, with some outasight revisions.