The book of Hirschman attempts to challenge the prevailing notions regarding capitalism, especially in its development, as expounded in the writings of Marx and Weber. In Marxs study of capitalism, alienation, exploitation, class struggle, and the tremendous social impacts of the shift from pre-capitalist economic formations to the development of the capitalism was emphasized. Meanwhile, Weber emphasized the role of the protestant ethics as the basis for greed and self interest which were vital to the development of capitalism. These interpretations are what Hirschman challenges in his book. In the first part of the book, Hirschman actually challenged the Weberian concept on the development of the protestant ethic, arguing that it developed in a gradual process through time. Hirschman argues that the capitalist ethic was resulted by the search of a medium that would secure social order. According to Hirschman, moralizing philosophy and religious precept could no longer be trusted with restraining the destructive of men, and that major solutions to the problem of the nature of men at that time involved the repressive sovereign of Hobbes social contract, the civilizing medium that was envisioned by Vico, and the thesis of countervailing passion (Hirschman 15). The work of Hirschman discussed the idea presented by Hobbes, in which a powerful sovereign who has the power to repress and restrict people was established as a social contract, especially to avoid chaos and maintain social order. He also discussed Vicos idea in which it is necessary for the state to become a civilizing medium to which civilized manner and conduct will be embedded to the people to ensure social order in society.
However, Hirschman emphasized on the third solution to social order, that is, the idea of the countervailing thesis. What was this all about Hirschman argues that the ethic of capitalism, especially in the values related to the pursuit of self interest and an emphasis on individual material gain, played an essential part in countervailing the destructive nature and potential of humans, which includes lust, envy, pride, and most especially, the ambition of great power. In this case, Hirschman noted the sovereigns in the medieval time who were involved in the lust of power, which led to abuse of the state. In this case Hirschman also expounded why the ethics of capitalism served to check this situation and ensure social order, visiting the ideas of the philosophers Bacon, Spinoza and Hume. According to Hirschman, these different philosophers actually argued that these destructive passions of men can actually be counter veiled into self interest, into the love of gain. It is through this idea that the ethics of capitalism naturally came out as a result of the clamour to address problems of social order and the abuse of the state, for it is through the pursuit of personal gain and self interest that men can go away with their destructive tendencies, which will surely result to a more orderly society. Such idea, argued Hirschman, was contrary to the often destructive and exploitative nature of the development of capitalism. This is in contrast to the views of Weber in the development of the capitalist ethic.
This argument followed up in the second main part of the book, wherein the political benefits from the development of this capitalist ethic was expounded by Hirschman. Hirschman focused on the point that in fact, the development of capitalism, including the development of commerce which harboured the peoples interest to seek for individual material gain, was instrumental in establishing a more stable and orderly society, as well as in being able to serve as an institutional check to the powerful sovereign state. Aside from citing the democratic political developments that was present in the shift from the medieval times to the development of capitalism, Hirschman also tries to follow the ideas of the philosophers Hume, Hobbes, Montesquieu, Mill and Stuart, in which the development of commerce, which characterized capitalism, was grounded not mainly in an economic rationale as expounded by Marx, but in a political rationale. He noted that Montesquieu believed in the role of commerce to develop institutions which will act as a check to the power of the state (arbitrage), while also noting Smiths argument that the pursuit of material gain will eventually harmonize society and its individual members (the laissez faire market). According to Hirschman, Smiths idea of men pursuing their own self-interest and harmonizing mens actions in society actually undercut the idea that passion can be cut against passion, or the interest against the passion, and that this situation leads to a narrowing of the field of inquiry (Hirschman 110, 112). In the final parts of the book, Hirschman actually argues that such political ideas which were essential in the eventual triumph of the capitalist system was not properly focused upon and given appropriate attention, and that passages in their writing that have not received much attention or scrutiny must in fact be paid attention to (Hirschman 70).
In my opinion, I think that the points being forwarded in the book of Hirschman is important, especially in bringing into light the possible political motivations which have contributed to the development of capitalism. This book has also made a great job in being able to put into light the political passages of the said philosophers arguing for capitalism. However, I also think that the downside of this book included the overall dejection of the important economic motives of capitalism, in as if its economic motives where just second to the political motivations for the development of capitalism. I think that certain sectors in society always has economic underpinnings in ensuring social order, and that the very basis of social order might even involve the protection of economic wealth, and the pursuit of it. I also think that in fact, political power is also motivated by maintaining and further acquiring material wealth, which is downplayed significantly in his work.