American ideology, socialism and financial accounting theory : a counter view

This paper is a response to part three of Rob Bryer’s (RB) analysis of the development of capitalism in the U.S., which focuses on the ideology underlying accounting practice rather than the practices themselves. We argue that RB has misread the independent producer ideology for a wider and more nuanced attachment to individual liberty that has colored American history from independence to the present day. We dispute his analysis of the decline of socialism as being the outcome of ideological struggle, and in particular Irving Fisher’s contribution to its demise. The paper also challenges RB’s views on Adam Smith’s legacy and Irving Fisher’s influence over FASB’s CF. Finally, it examines the historiographical implications of RB’s study and our counter non-Marxist narrative

What is (accounting) history?

I am grateful for the invitation to present this paper to you today. I have had a long association with Victoria University and as an undergraduate here I was introduced to the fathers of history - Herodotus and Thucydides. Unfortunately, although I had to read their main works, at the time I remained oblivious to their full significance, namely, that they represent two extremes of historiography that have remained throughout the history of history - two approaches to how history is created and written. These themes are the background for this paper. However, before I go any further I want to make a clarification - Philip was keen that my presentation remain consistent with the theme of the conference - history and the state. This is not difficult as the great majority of written history has been about the state . Both Herodotus and Thucydides were, of course, writing histories of the state , namely Athens. And, of course, if we are considering theories of history we can recall that Plato pointed out, any theory of man (sic), implicit or explicit, will be reflected in a theory of the state (cf Rist, 2002, pp 228 - 229)