A body of scholarship known as the New History of Capitalism presents the audacious claim that the prosperity of the Western world is fundamentally anchored in the exploitation of colonialism and slavery. However, this assertion has not been well-received among economists, who argue that the New Historians’ arguments often stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of crucial economic concepts, such as national income accounting. Critics have been vocal in their assessments, addressing the movement’s key texts in both blog posts and peer-reviewed journals.
In parallel exists a movement I term the New Intellectual History of Capitalism, which scrutinizes post-World War II neoliberalism and alleges a conspiracy that traces back to the inaugural gathering of the Mont Pelerin Society in April 1947. A notable example from this genre is Nancy MacLeanâs Democracy in Chains, which ignited discussions in public choice theory circles in 2017 by attempting to link James M. Buchanan to the segregationist policies of Virginia in the 1950sâa move that Michael Munger aptly labeled as âspeculative historical fiction.â Additionally, Quinn Slobodianâs work claims to uncover fascist leanings in the carefully selected rhetoric of Ludwig von Mises.
MacLeanâs portrayal of Buchanan is as striking as Naomi Kleinâs handling of Milton Friedman in The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, which I reviewed here. Other misinterpretations arise from Slobodianâs analysis of Ludwig von Mises across various platforms and his interpretation of W.H. Hutt in his book Globalists. Sandy Darity, MâBalou Camara, and MacLean build upon Slobodianâs portrayal of Hutt, misrepresenting arguments presented by Phil Magness, Ilia Murtazashvili, and myself (Magness and I have responded here; their published rebuttal is available here, and alongside Murtazashvili, we further address this issue in this paper).
The suggestion that Mises and F.A. Hayek were sympathizers of fascism deserves scrutiny. Mises, in a hyperbolic statement, suggested that proponents of liberty might thank the fascists for defeating communists, not because he held any admiration for fascism, but rather because he regarded communism as the greater evil. Itâs reminiscent of the moral complexities portrayed in Enemy at the Gatesâthere are no heroes, only varying degrees of villainy (the Soviets vs. the Nazis). Appreciating the Soviet victory over Hitler does not equate to endorsing communism.
Misesâs staunch opposition to both forms of totalitarian socialismâright-wing (Nazism) and left-wing (communism)âwas so profound that he became the unlikely focal point of a 1998 issue of The Batman Chronicles, featuring a story that imagines what if Bruce Wayne had been a Jewish artist named âBaruch Waneâ in 1930s Berlin. When Baruch learned that the Nazi officials had seized Mises’s books and library, he endeavored to thwart their actions (though perhaps with limited success). This narrative effectively illustrates Mises’s anti-Nazi stance and positions Human Action as a text fundamentally opposed to totalitarian ideologies and a celebration of liberty.
Is a comic book depiction sufficient proof? Probably not, but it certainly raises an eyebrow: if Misesâs anti-Nazi liberalism is so apparent that it inspired a Batman comic, perhaps the narrative doesnât require extensive interpretation.
[Editorâs note: For further exploration, readers might find interest in this Liberty Matters forum led by Phil Magness, Why We Donât Need a âNewâ History of Capitalism.)
Art Carden is Professor of Economics & Medical Properties Trust Fellow at Samford University.
