What do you think?
Rate this book
Democracy and Capitalism: Property, Community, and the Contradictions of Modern Social Thought
Originally published in 1986, Bowles and Gintis present a critique of contemporary Marxian and liberal political theory. They show that 'capitalism' and 'democracy' - although widely held jointly to characterize Western society - are sharply contrasting systems regulating both the process of human development and the historical evolution of whole societies. They examine in detail the relationship between political theory and economics, and explore the multifaceted character of power in modern societies.
244 pages, Paperback
First published January 28, 1964
About the author
Samuel Bowles
89 books64 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads data base.
Samuel Bowles is Research Professor and Director of the Behavioral Sciences Program at the Santa Fe Institute and Professor of Economics at the University of Siena. He is coauthor of Notes and Problems in Microeconomic Theory (North Holland Texts in Mathematical Economics) and Schooling in Capitalist America (Basic Books), and has published articles, most recently, in the American Economic Review, Nature, the Quarterly Journal of Economics, the Economic Journal, and the Journal of Theoretical Biology.
Samuel Bowles is Research Professor and Director of the Behavioral Sciences Program at the Santa Fe Institute and Professor of Economics at the University of Siena. He is coauthor of Notes and Problems in Microeconomic Theory (North Holland Texts in Mathematical Economics) and Schooling in Capitalist America (Basic Books), and has published articles, most recently, in the American Economic Review, Nature, the Quarterly Journal of Economics, the Economic Journal, and the Journal of Theoretical Biology.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
Read
April 24, 2016This is an "academic" book in that it can be dense and readers may feel at times it's splitting hairs or juggling words. It isn't overburdened with footnotes in the text. I don't feel I absorbed enough to fully review it now.
Much of the book deals with identifying and discussing weaknesses in "liberal" socio-economic thought (that descended from such writers as Locke and Rousseau) and Marxism - as regards working toward a more egalitarian society. "Liberal" thought tends to have problems resulting from conflicts between "property rights" and political and/or personal rights. Marxism tended to be overconfident economic solutions would take care of all other matters. (And I'd add that at least early Marxism was developed before there was adequate science of fields such as anthropology and psychology, and when there was limited capitalism and less post-capitalism to study.)
I'm left with the impression that the book does not address a number of points which I believe need to be included in an understanding of a successful post-capitalist egalitarian society.
- - - - - -
I'd like to include some of the issues I feel need attention which were not in the book. Perhaps other readers can point me to other books or contribute their own thoughts.
Understanding human neuroscience and conscience can help us know what social relations resonate with human minds.
Hunter-gatherer bands have egalitarian norms. This seems to work better with smaller communities. At least part of this is the result of knowing individuals personally, and being able to make choices about cooperation and assistance based on that individual's past record in cooperation and reciprocity. How can we make egalitarian norms more successful in larger communities?
Experimental economics has shown that the mainstream economics premise that economic transactions are determined just by selfish motives for economic gain is false. However, more experiments in more cultures are needed to expand / deepen this understanding.
It's estimated that about 1% of the population lack a functioning conscience ("psychopaths"), but at more privileged levels in society it's about 4%. They tend to worm their way up by hook or by crook. Identifying and/or mechanisms to keep them out of positions where thay can corrupt egalitarian practices seems important. Psychopaths can be charming and manipulative - people often don't know which people pose this threat.
A better understanding of social form of nations such as the USSR. The common explanation for "the Fall of Communism" seems more self-congratulatory for capitalism than accurate. Yes, there were big protests before the Fall. But comparing the relatively brief, nonviolent protests in Communist countries to the long, hard and often violent struggles in history for colonial independence, against monarchies, for labor organizing, civil rights, etc. - it doesn't fit. Especially, considering the Fall of Communism involved greater institutional changes - government structure, party monopoly, economic ownership and control, international trade, the independence of the soviet republics, etc. By contrast, colonial independence changes the political power, but the companies of the old empire may still dominate the economy. It seems to me, a decisive part of the elite in the Communist nations must have decided they could benefit themselves from the change to capitalism, and therefore did not seriously fight the change..
Studies show that when Person A does something nice to Person B, B is more likely to do something for Person C (for instance, if A holds a door open for B, B will be more likely to hold the door for C.) Studies show that people are even more likely to pass along to others an act of greed than pass along a good deed. So, how much does the greedy behavior of employers, retailers and others with whom we have economic transactions lead to us passing along greedy behavior to others in today's society? Understanding the details could indicate how to organize an egalitarian society to avoid such consequences.
Much of the book deals with identifying and discussing weaknesses in "liberal" socio-economic thought (that descended from such writers as Locke and Rousseau) and Marxism - as regards working toward a more egalitarian society. "Liberal" thought tends to have problems resulting from conflicts between "property rights" and political and/or personal rights. Marxism tended to be overconfident economic solutions would take care of all other matters. (And I'd add that at least early Marxism was developed before there was adequate science of fields such as anthropology and psychology, and when there was limited capitalism and less post-capitalism to study.)
I'm left with the impression that the book does not address a number of points which I believe need to be included in an understanding of a successful post-capitalist egalitarian society.
- - - - - -
I'd like to include some of the issues I feel need attention which were not in the book. Perhaps other readers can point me to other books or contribute their own thoughts.
Understanding human neuroscience and conscience can help us know what social relations resonate with human minds.
Hunter-gatherer bands have egalitarian norms. This seems to work better with smaller communities. At least part of this is the result of knowing individuals personally, and being able to make choices about cooperation and assistance based on that individual's past record in cooperation and reciprocity. How can we make egalitarian norms more successful in larger communities?
Experimental economics has shown that the mainstream economics premise that economic transactions are determined just by selfish motives for economic gain is false. However, more experiments in more cultures are needed to expand / deepen this understanding.
It's estimated that about 1% of the population lack a functioning conscience ("psychopaths"), but at more privileged levels in society it's about 4%. They tend to worm their way up by hook or by crook. Identifying and/or mechanisms to keep them out of positions where thay can corrupt egalitarian practices seems important. Psychopaths can be charming and manipulative - people often don't know which people pose this threat.
A better understanding of social form of nations such as the USSR. The common explanation for "the Fall of Communism" seems more self-congratulatory for capitalism than accurate. Yes, there were big protests before the Fall. But comparing the relatively brief, nonviolent protests in Communist countries to the long, hard and often violent struggles in history for colonial independence, against monarchies, for labor organizing, civil rights, etc. - it doesn't fit. Especially, considering the Fall of Communism involved greater institutional changes - government structure, party monopoly, economic ownership and control, international trade, the independence of the soviet republics, etc. By contrast, colonial independence changes the political power, but the companies of the old empire may still dominate the economy. It seems to me, a decisive part of the elite in the Communist nations must have decided they could benefit themselves from the change to capitalism, and therefore did not seriously fight the change..
Studies show that when Person A does something nice to Person B, B is more likely to do something for Person C (for instance, if A holds a door open for B, B will be more likely to hold the door for C.) Studies show that people are even more likely to pass along to others an act of greed than pass along a good deed. So, how much does the greedy behavior of employers, retailers and others with whom we have economic transactions lead to us passing along greedy behavior to others in today's society? Understanding the details could indicate how to organize an egalitarian society to avoid such consequences.
Displaying 1 of 1 review