On Tuesday, I was supposed to devote a couple hours reading the totally unreasonably amount of Thucydides that I assigned my Greek History class. Instead, I got sucked into Daniel Immerwahr’s brilliant article in Past & Present titled: “All That Is Solid Bursts into Flame: Capitalism and Fire in the Nineteenth-Century United States.” I blame Kostis Kourelis who has been for the last decade (at least) the source for almost all my distraction in my life).
Immerwahr argues that the shift from wood to concrete and steel in the US occurred later than in Europe owing in large part to the large amount of wood available on the American continent. This meant that the US continued to be susceptible to massive fires even as Europe had mandated more “pyrophobic” regulations. Moreover, accumulations of capital tended to attract these fires creating intense volatility as investments particularly in urban real estate, extractive industries, and other expressions of fast capitalism (19th century style!) including banks and other financial institutions where “paper” was currency. This is part of a larger conversation — played out in part in the pages of Past & Present — that seeks to understand the distinct character (which is not say “exceptionalism”) of America’s economic growth in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
1. Hot and Cold Capitalism. One of the key things that Immerwahr clarified in my mind is the difference between hot and cold capitalism. Immerwahr introduced me to the idea of “Cold Capitalism” which described as the rationalization of the market over the course of the 20th century (including various protections put in place not only through state regulation, but also through the development of new institutions designed to mitigate risk [e.g. insurance and presumably collusion or monopolistic practices, for example]). In contrast, “Hot Capitalism” involves practices and markets characterized by a high degree of volatility. For Immerwahr “hot capitalism” offers a delightfully literal way to describe the volatility that came from the US’s dependence on wood at the turn of the 20th century. In “hot capitalism,” market volatility creates conditions which allow for the rapid accumulation and dispersion of wealth. In general, hot capitalism is more democratic in that volatility prevented the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few or, at very least, ensured that anyone who did accumulate wealth might also at risk of losing it.
2. Progressivism and Catastrophism (feat. Ignatius Donnelly). One of the more interesting observations made in this article is the role that fire played in progressive fiction. In particular, Immerwahr notes that conflagrations were seen as a fitting way reset the market by destroying accumulated wealth, lowering the bar for entry into the market, and reinforcing economic and social equality. In volatile markets Lauren Berlant’s “cruel optimism,” gave way to a puncher’s chance. For progressives like Donnelly, fire was an ally.
This is interesting for me because Donnelly’s two most famous works, Atlantis: The Antediluvian World (1882) and Ragnarok: The Age of Fire and Gravel (1883), present arguments for the cataclysmic destruction of an advanced civilization by flood and, then, by fire. The scene of catastrophic destruction forms the finally of his dystopian novel Caesar’s Column (1890) where a conflagration destroys the remains of New York at the conclusion of a violent revolt. In many ways, this destruction marks both the end of an oligarchic regime and the promise for a new future (both for the narrator and for the society whose end he witnesses).
In other words, writing in the late 19th century Donnelly sees moments of catastrophic destruction as moments of abrupt leveling in society and in keeping with his larger progressive efforts to undermine the power of entrenched institutions and their collusion with capital.
3. Disaster Capitalism and Breaking the System. Of course, the prospects and potential of “hot capitalism” is relevant in the 21st century world as we confront potentially unprecedented volatility brought about by climate change. It is clear, for example, that hurricanes in Florida and fires in Los Angeles have already tested the limits of “cold capitalist” institutions from federal relief agencies resources to insurance companies. In other words, just as the use of wood produced an environment of particular volatility surrounding (literally!) capital, today’s climate uncertainty might be doing the same.
One of the statements on our climate-change inflected future that has stuck with me the longest has been Amativ Ghosh’s quip that in the 21st century, the poor experience the future first. Ghosh’s observation seems to suggest that with the reemergence of hot capitalism there will be the kind of leveling that much like the conflagration at the end of Donnelly’s Caesar’s Column reduces the world to a common poverty.
In this view, Immerwahr gently challenges the view of “disaster capitalism” introduced most famously by Naomi Klein. For Klein, the wealthy and powerful promoted the shocks and catastrophes of disaster capitalism to undermine the social relationships among the working classes. This reduced their ability for collective resistance and make it easier for the wealthy to produce dependency. Immerwahr, however, noted that it was progressives (like Donnelly) and often the working class itself who saw fire as a way radically level the playing field. In other words, disasters — whether fires at the turn of the 20th century or climate induced disasters in the 21st — may well have benefited the poor. As evidence for this, Immerwahr shows how the wealthy sought to mitigate the destructive potential of fire both materially, by building in steel and concrete, and institutionally, by developing close ties with the state and financial apparatus designed to protect their investments (e.g. fire insurance). Indeed for the wealthy sought stability about all else and the poor embraced the radical contingency of wood (and perhaps even climate change) to afford them a puncher’s chance to escape their conditions.


