A Conservative Case against Capitalism and Industrialism

I think the main point is just plain crony capitalism.

When Government (like ours) becomes monster sized - and corporations become enmeshed with it. This kills a free market.

I used to defend big corporations, until I worked with a few and realized they were almost purely socialist organizations.

Also, with neocon globalism, they have no loyalty to the United States.

Thank you for all of these comments. I new that this article would cause a big discussion and that is precisely what I wanted.

This article that I wrote is a first series of articles that I am planning on writing on the topic of Distributism. Before I can address Distributism I think we need to see whether capitalism is in fact the most ideal form of government or whether there are certain inherent problems within it that can be objectively criticized.

I am not an enemy of capitalism per se but most specifically unfettered capitalism or laissez faire capitalism. I believe that we should have free markets, but I think that a laissez faire form of capitalism or “unrestrained capitalism” does not lead to that.

I believe that bigness is a bad thing whether in government or in business and for that reason I tend to look down on both crony capitalism, as well as corporatism and even events such as the Industrial Revolution. I believe that Distributism is one of the most practical economic systems. I will write about Distributism later, but I think that I should point out that it is based on certain pillars which actually lead to a truly free market in my humble opinion.

Distributism is first based on the family and sees the family as the organic unit of society. This means that if any economic event or action will hurt the family in anyway, then it is better that such event does not occur. This form of economic system is thus both in contrast to individualism as well as to collectivism, since they both tend to take place of the family.

Distributism is also based on the fact that property rights are inherently a good think and that humans should be allowed and have the resources to acquire them. For this reason Distributism is based on the wide spreading of property rights. One of the problems with capitalism is that it can lead to a small number of “capitalists” who own the means of production “private property”. Socialism which was a reaction against capitalism by certain individuals didn’t fixed this problem, but only switched it to somewhere else. Socialism ended up with the State limiting property rights as well. Distributism on the other hand believes that individuals should be encouraged to have property rights by the use of small business and the ability to possess their own capital.

Distributism is lastly based on decentralization. Distributism basis itself on the need for subsidiarity and localism which means that those things which can be solved more efficiently at the local level, should be solved at such level. This economic system states that local commerce as well as smaller companies which are based on the local community are generally better.

Here are some videos that can help in explaining the purpose of my article. These videos also help in explaining some of the later articles that I am planning on writing on.

https://youtu.be/OggeWbVE4hA

https://youtu.be/foxcGp_ECdM

Industrial Society and Its Future

The Industrial Revolution and its consequences
have been a disaster for the human race. They have
greatly increased the Iife-expectancy of those of us who
live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized
society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human
beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological
suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering
as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural
world. The continued development of technology will
worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human being
to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the
natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption
and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased
physical suffering even in “advanced” countries

snip

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM

Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply
troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations
of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion
of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction
to the discussion of the problems of modern society
in general.

snip

The two psychological tendencies that underlie
modern leftism we call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization”.Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.

snip

Words like “self-confidence”, “self-reliance”,“initiative”, “enterprise”, “optimism”, etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is antiindividualistic,pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve every one’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagohistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

snip

Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason,
science, objective reality and to insist that everything
is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious
questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge
and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality
can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and
reality.

snip

The degree of crowding that exists today
and the isolation of man from nature are consequences
of technological progress. All pre-industrial societies were
predominantly rural. The Industrial Revolution vastly increased the size of cities and the proportion of the population that lives in them, and modern agricultural technology has made it possible for the Earth to support a far denser population than it ever did before.

snip

The conservatives are fools: They whine about
the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically
support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid,drastic changes in the technology and the economy
of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes
inevitably break down traditional values.

snip

RESTRICTION OF FREEDOM IS UNAVOIDABLE IN
INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY

As explained in paragraphs 65-67, 70-73, modern
man is strapped down by a network of rules and regulations,
and his fate depends on the actions of persons remote from him whose decisions he cannot influence.This is not accidental or a result of the arbitrariness of
arrogant bureaucrats. It is necessary and inevitable in any
technologically advanced society. The system HAS TO regulate
human behavior closely in order to function. At
work people have to do what they are told to do, otherwise
production would be thrown into chaos. Bureaucracies
HAVE TO be run according to rigid rules. To allow any
substantial personal discretion to lower-level bureaucrats
would disrupt the system and lead to charges of unfairness
due to differences in the way individual bureaucrats exercised their discretion. It is true that some restrictions on our freedom could be eliminated, but GENERALLY SPEAKING the regulation of our lives by large organizations is necessary for the functioning of industrial-technological society. The result is a sense of powerlessness on the part of the average person. It may be, however, that formal regulations will tend increasingly to be replaced by psychological tools that make us want to do what the system requires of us. (Propaganda [14], educational techniques, “mental health” programs, etc.)

The system HAS TO force people to behave in
ways that are increasingly remote from the natural pattern
of human behavior.

snip

The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing
to do with the political or social ideology that may
pretend to guide the technological system. It is the fault
of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology
but by technical necessity. [18] Of course the system
does satisfy many human needs, but generally speaking it
does this only to the extend that it is to the advantage of
the system to do it. It is the needs of the system that are
paramount, not those of the human being.

snip

There’s soo much more.

Ohh, the Author,

Ted Kaczynski

AKA the “unabomber”

You two may find a number of areas that you can agree on.

Let’s not forget that it was also individuals like J.R.R Tolkien who were against Industrialism. I am pretty sure that many insane individuals were against industrialism, just as I can easily say that many insane individuals were for capitalism.

For what it’s worth.

I think there some very valid points you bring up in your post. While I disagree with Kaczynski’s actions, I agree with a number of his observations.

This is a very difficult issue for anybody to address.

I don’t know that it’s been done before. Not on the level that I suspect that you are on.

You seem to be testing out a book concept that you are working on, and that’s cool. It’s not something that can be worked out on a blog site. It’s going to take 700 plus pages and a boat load of footnotes.

If I were writing this book, I would feel compelled to incorporate “human nature”, the good, bad and ugly into the narrative. More than what I’ve read so far.

In my opinion, true free market capitalism is the purist expression of human nature ever devised.