Beckert is misusing “capital” but that this misuse undermines the entire scaffolding of his argument. If you fail to define your central concept with precision you’re essentially building on sand. Economists treat capital in a functional sense tools assets infrastructure because that definition maintains explanatory power over time and across contexts. In contrast Beckert seems to lean on a fuzzy amalgam of Marxian power structures historical anecdotes and rhetorical flourish. That can make for engaging prose but it doesn’t hold up under analytical pressure.
The notion that capital “multiplies itself” without human agency or strategic deployment is where his argument collapses most visibly. Capital goods do not act. People act. The merchant’s ships or silos or machinery are inert without intentional use and risk-taking. Economic history is full of examples where capital went to zero because the ideas markets or locations were wrong. The key variable has always been the ability to anticipate demand and position resources accordingly.
If Beckert’s purpose is to critique capitalism then conflating physical productive assets with abstract social power relations without acknowledging their operational differences dilutes his point. The reality is that capital can aid exploitation but it can also elevate productivity and living standards. A historian who ignores that duality risks producing a narrative that’s more ideological than analytical.
And in the end the durability of any critique depends on how well it engages with the mechanics of the process it criticizes. Without a precise definition of capital there is little chance of explaining either its historical role or its modern implications in a way that will convince anyone outside the echo chamber.
Beckert is misusing “capital” but that this misuse undermines the entire scaffolding of his argument. If you fail to define your central concept with precision you’re essentially building on sand. Economists treat capital in a functional sense tools assets infrastructure because that definition maintains explanatory power over time and across contexts. In contrast Beckert seems to lean on a fuzzy amalgam of Marxian power structures historical anecdotes and rhetorical flourish. That can make for engaging prose but it doesn’t hold up under analytical pressure.
The notion that capital “multiplies itself” without human agency or strategic deployment is where his argument collapses most visibly. Capital goods do not act. People act. The merchant’s ships or silos or machinery are inert without intentional use and risk-taking. Economic history is full of examples where capital went to zero because the ideas markets or locations were wrong. The key variable has always been the ability to anticipate demand and position resources accordingly.
If Beckert’s purpose is to critique capitalism then conflating physical productive assets with abstract social power relations without acknowledging their operational differences dilutes his point. The reality is that capital can aid exploitation but it can also elevate productivity and living standards. A historian who ignores that duality risks producing a narrative that’s more ideological than analytical.
And in the end the durability of any critique depends on how well it engages with the mechanics of the process it criticizes. Without a precise definition of capital there is little chance of explaining either its historical role or its modern implications in a way that will convince anyone outside the echo chamber.