A Conservative Case against Capitalism and Industrialism

Walking In The Desert ^ | Arturo

[IronJack]

I'm not sure how industrialism, which replaced agrarian feudalism in most of Western Europe, had an adverse effect on private property rights. Under a feudal system, peasants could own NOTHING. One of the fruits of industrial capitalism was the power of the individual to earn wages, which could then be used to purchase goods and services, including property.

It also gave rise to a new industrial aristocracy, which diluted the power of the landed nobles and hereditary nobility. While few peasants managed to rise to those levels, at least some of the class lines were blurred, if not erased entirely. Look at someone like Andrew Carnegie.

America was lucky in that she emerged from British rule just as industrialization was setting in, so she had few of the feudal artifacts to shake off.

[cripplecreek]

Look at someone like Andrew Carnegie.

Good example. He came from crushing poverty to become the wealthiest man on the planet and he did big things. Granted you didn't want to get in his way but on balance much greater good was done due to his big things. He was also one of America's great philanthropists.

[Nuc 1.1]

Capitalism has been the greatest benifit to mankind in the known history of the world.

[gingerbread]

I don’t see anything wrong with capitalism. What I have problem with is “CRONY CAPITALISM”, that has permeated our country. All you really need to do is donate enough money to a politician, and if and when he wins the race, you are rewarded with handsome government contracts or the government gives you money outright to start a business. That’s not CAPITALISM. That is what Nazi Germany did in Germany in the 30’s.

[tanknetter]

I don’t see anything wrong with capitalism. What I have problem with is “CRONY CAPITALISM”, that has permeated our country. All you really need to do is donate enough money to a politician, and if and when he wins the race, you are rewarded with handsome government contracts or the government gives you money outright to start a business. That’s not CAPITALISM. That is what Nazi Germany did in Germany in the 30’s.

Also known as Third Position Economics and/or Corporatism. It's still a command economy, but the Government only provides direction where the actual work is done by "private" corporations that are limited by oppressive regulations and restrictions. Innovation gets stiffled, possible new entrants to the market are kept out and the big companies that ARE in the market are encouraged ("nudged") into consolidation via acquisition and merger to cement the system in place (everyone else is following what's happening right now with Humana, right?)

Democrats have been THE Corporatist Party in the US since Clinton came into office, elected in part by swinging a lot of Wall Street backing his way by convincing them that he wasn't a threat and was prepared to trade their support for Government favors.

ObamaCare is the penultimate example of this. Government regulates the industry, sets standards, etc ... but the big HealthCos are still the ones making it all happen. For their cut of the action of course (the mandates and the guaranteed government bailout of any losses). This allows the Progressives to get what they want, but still (falsely) claim that since its "private industry based" and not single-payer that its a "Conservative" solution.

In reality what we really yearn for, and what the country needs to get its economy moving again, is a return to FREE MARKET Capitalism. Which we don't have right now, except at the lowest of levels.

[Billthedrill]

Nice essay, and thanks for posting. I would have to quibble about the definition of imperialism - the phenomenon predates "capitalism" (that term itself not used until 1850 or so) by several millennia. You might arguably move the latter term to 1776 or so through Adam Smith, who described the process but not the term. Gandhi was a wonderful fellow but imprecise on the issue at best.

"Crony" capitalism is simply another term for corruption - capitalism itself is simply the use of the surplus from one economic operation to fund another. That it has come to involve bankers, swindlers (but there I repeat myself), lobbyists, and members of both bureaucracy and elected government peddling influence is neither an essential feature of capitalism nor a necessary one. It is, after all, precisely the same corruption seen under non-capitalist systems.

Hope to see more of your posts on FR!

[Wallace T.]

Interesting viewpoint. The Industrial Revolution in England employed millions of dispossessed rural tenant farmers who lost their historic lands through eliminating common lands, clearances of farmers to convert farm land into sheep and cattle pasture, and in Ireland, stealing the land of Catholics. Better a factory job in London, Glasgow, or Belfast than starve in rural England, Scotland, or Ireland. Better yet, try your luck in New York, Sydney, or Toronto, if you could afford the fare overseas.

One of my forbears was a tenant farmer in Northern Ireland. In 1811, he migrated with his wife and infant son to Philadelphia, soon after moving to eastern Ohio, where he could actually own his own land.

Were it not for the effects of rural depopulation, whether in the British Isles, Italy, Scandinavia, and Central Europe, our country may never have been heavily settled by Europeans.

[Alberta's Child]

Bump for tomorrow. I expect to see some very interesting discussion on this!

[muir_redwoods]

Any system other than capitalism requires government coercion to exist.

[mrsmith]

There are bad things,
There is capitalism,
Ergo: capitalism caused the bad things!

Seriously you make only the most specious of a connections.

[Teacher317]

A Conservative Case against Capitalism and Industrialism

A RELIGIOUS Case against Capitalism and Industrialism... and a weak one, at that.

Most social conservatives have no problem whatsoever with using the power of government to enforce their personal preferences, just like any Socialist Liberal. I am a limited-government conservative, and have very little in common with them.

[Georgia Girl 2]

“These negative effects include the degrading of traditional morality and the role of the family, the restriction of private property, crony capitalism, the rise of imperialism, and lastly its effects on agrarianism and the environment.”

These are all symptoms of Socialism/Communism not Capitalism.

[jonno]

One of the unintended effects of capitalism is that it led to a larger and more centralized government...
Ridiculous, unsubstantiated statement.

This development of big business and corporatism, which was highly influenced by capitalism gave rise to what is known as crony-capitalism.
Do I really have to say it? Crony-capitalism is the result of leftist politicians hoping to get a slice of the pie.

If I didn't know better, I'd think I was reading this is DU.

[jonno]

in DU, on Du - you know what I mean...

[Nifster]

Not only are you a blog pump you are also so under educated in economics it is ridiculous.

Most obvious error in your thinking is that you do not even approach capitalism as a natural outgrowth of liberty and freedom.

[cornfedcowboy]

I think it is a fair statement that capitalism is a function of economic liberty. If so, capitalism is probably a pillar of conservatism.

[gingerbread]

Exactly what I’m talking about. Let’s just look at these “ELECTRIC AUTOMOBILES”. The federal government is giving them over 5 billion dollars. When the automobile industry started, neither FORD nor OLDS, nor any of these companies got any federal dollars. They got their money from “PRIVATE” investors. The same goes for the SOLAR INDUSTRY. It’s been my observation that these companies getting federal money today got that federal money because they first “DONATED” to one political party or the other.

[tanknetter]

Absolutely.

And keep in mind that Ford only got his start by winning a Federal lawsuit against an exclusionary cartel of existing automobile manufacturers, who claimed to hold the patent for the “automobile” and were actively keeping new entrants out of “their” market.

And, somewhat related, also keep in mind that copyright law is incredibly distorted due to Disney using it’s deep pockets, media domination and resulting political influence to keep the mouse out of the public domain.

[Alberta's Child]

I think the writer's point is that a fascist/socialist economic model is the inevitable result of unfettered capitalism. I'm not sure I agree with that, but there are some undeniable historical economic developments over time that help make that case.

One of the major economic trends that doesn't get a lot of attention in these discussions is the ongoing improvement of conditions tied to economies of scale. What this means is that the cost of something inevitably declines when it is purchased and sold in larger quantities. A car costs less when it is one of 400,000 produced than when it is custom-built for one buyer, for example.

This trend isn't a problem in and of itself, but it does present inevitable challenges over time that ultimately fly in the face of true free-market economics and personal liberty. As the world gets more complex and technology advances over time, these economies of scale grow considerably and often threaten the existence of people, families, and even government jurisdictions. Think of the U.S. in the middle of the 1800s, for example. There was always a conflict between those who espoused a strong Federal government and those who favored states' rights, but what tipped the balance in favor of the big-government model was the establishment and growth of the railroad industry. State borders simply became less meaningful once a person or a product could be transported across multiple states in a very short time.

This trend explains why governments always grow out of control in modern, advanced economies. Eventually, the most efficient economies of scale exceed even the scale of state governments and major corporations, and only a centralized government with unlimited authority can effectively ensure the availability of a product or service at an "affordable costs."

Eventually, even a basic understanding of what a person or a family is becomes lost in the whole process.