Customer Reviews

Robber Barons: The Great American Capitalists

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This account of a critical aspect of American history is a classic, as shown by the fact that it is still being released in new editions 60 years after it was first written. Josephson has a very broad conception of how this phase began and developed, and communicates in a compelling way the social and political circumstances explaining the rise of the 19th c. monopolists.

Incidentally, I would call Josephson neither a "Marxist" nor an "Opportunist," as did a previous reviewer. The book never advocated socialist revolution or indeed any policy alternative, and therefore seems not particularly Marxist. Anyway, if Josephson harbored doubts about capitalism, he was hardly alone in his generation. Many Americans of his time shared such doubts, as seems understandable under the circumstances--the book was written during the 1930s, in the midst of one of the worst economic crises in world history, and before Keynes refuted a fear widely held amongst prominent economists that capitalism would inexorably produce more and more depressions as time went on.

He also seems not particularly "Opportunist"; rather, he was a serious historian, who wrote a number of other historical works that were widely revered in his time and since (one of which, "The Politicos," is every bit a classic of American history, as is "The Robber Barrons"). I'm not sure where the "Opportunism" comes in.

A word of caution is that the book is written in a somewhat archaic style that to modern eyes might seem ostentatious and sometimes melodramatic, and might at times seem a tedious read. Still, if you want a good introduction to a classic account of this important phase of American history, the Robber Barons is an excellent resource.

I disagree entirely with John G. Pitts' review.

The great trusts of the turn of the twentieth century were not the result of successful competition. Indeed, as Gabriel Kolko demonstrated in The Triumph of Conservatism, the trusts were getting their butts kicked by smaller and more competitive firms. It was only the anti-competitive regulations of the so-called "Progressive" Era that enabled most industries to stabilize on an oligopoly pattern.

But the trusts, unsuccessful as they were, would not have been feasible even to attempt, without the massive state capitalist intervention of the Gilded Age. Without railroad subsidies and other "internal improvements" of the nineteenth century, which enabled the largest producers to externalize their distribution costs on the public, production on a national scale would not have even been cost-effective. According to Borsodi's law, productive economies of scale (which themselves peak at relatively modest levels) are offset by increased distribution costs at relatively low levels of output. And these national-scale firms could not have themselves formed trusts without the cartelizing effects of patents and tariffs (the mother of trusts). The fact that the combined effects of railroads, tariffs and patents were still insufficient to stabilize oligopoly markets without further regulatory intervention speaks volumes on the massive scale of government intervention that is necessary for big business as we know it to exist.

As Mr. Pitts acknowledges, with a tip of the hat, a central theme of Josephson's account is the role of the state in the formation of the trusts. But having thus tipped his hat, he attempts to contrast the concentrated industry of today, as "good guys," with its counterparts in the Gilded Age.

But is this a valid contrast? Let's take Microsoft as a case study. First of all, consider the essential role of patent control in the consolidation of the Bell systems into AT&T, and of government collusion in AT&T's growth, in creating a centralized telecommunications system. Second, consider the role of government subsidized electronic R&D during the Cold War (including government's role as the main early purchaser of large computer mainframes, without which the industry might never have been able to lower its costs sufficient to produce for the private sector). Third, consider the role of DARPA in creating the infrastructure for the worldwide web. And finally, consider the role of the government's "intellectual property" monopolies in the success of Windows. Without the ability to piggyback on all these things, it is doubtful Bill Gates would have had a fortune approaching even $100 million, let alone $100 billion.

This should have been required reading for advanced high schoolers and college undergrads. This near-objective view of our capitalist leaders thru the "gilded age" gives us the good and the bad. The book presents more facts and tales, and has less opinion and political rambling.

It's treatment of politicians as more villainous than the worst of the "Robber Barons" is entirely believable. Josephson worked hard to recount a coherent tale of industrial struggle.

The book helped popularize the phrase "Robber Barons" But in today's treatment of "monopolies" such as Microsoft and Intel and ATandT, it's informative to see what a REAL trust was. The trust may be put in negative light in this book, but study of America's incredible progress in this era, above all other countries in the world at this time, teaches us that trusts really don't hinder progress at all-- they actually result from the most intense of all competition and can only last until it is superceded by new technology-- just as AtandT would have met eventual ruinous competition from wireless, cable, and internet companies had the gov't not screwed the American people by breaking it into 7 regional "GOVERNMENT-AUTHORIZED MOnopolies". No need for gov't interference in business-- period! Only when gov't gets its hands dirty in business is the monopoly harmful. See today's railroads (which are now getting their asses kicked by the trucking industry which is also gov't subsidized via gov't built and maintained roads) for details.

The writer was a stock broker who had lost his fortune in 1929. This personal failure had made him lose faith in himself - and mankind to pursue its own happiness.