A Conservative Case against Capitalism and Industrialism

A Conservative Case against Capitalism and Industrialism The purpose of this paper will be a critique of capitalism and industrialization which I would call capitalism’s natural offspring. The very nature of this critique will come from a profoundly Catholic and Conservative perspective. Most people who have criticized capitalism and industrialism have often done so from a left-liberal political perspective and outlook. This can be seen from the writings of individuals such as Marx and Engel, as well as from ideas such as Socialism, Communism, and various other modern liberal ideologies. However in presenting this conservative critique of capitalism and industrialism I will show that there are in fact various conservative and religious critiques against the effects which capitalism produced. Some of these critiques involve the effects of capitalism and industrialism in the development of crony capitalism and a more centralized government, the natural dispossession of property rights, its negative effect on the environment, the rise of Imperialism, and lastly on the breakdown of traditional morality and the nature of the family.

Before I go on to describe the negative effects of capitalism and industrialism I thought it would be beneficial to give a quick overview and summary of the historical and metaphysical atmosphere which gave rise to capitalism and industrialism in general. This historical understanding will help us to better understand some of the factors regarding the effects of capitalism and industrialism better. As we will see the main factor of laissez faire capitalism and industrialism is Enlightenment thought.

Laissez faire economics and later the overall Industrial Revolution played a large role in the transformation of modern society. The modern European roots of Laissez faire economics traces itself to the influences of Enlightenment thought during the 17^th- 18^th centuries, which were characterized by various revolutions in scientific, philosophical, theological, sociological and political thought. These revolutions and novelties “swept away the medieval world view and… in which the traditional hierarchical political and social orders (the French monarchy, the privileges of the French nobility, the political power and authority of the Catholic Church) were violently destroyed and replaced by a political and social order informed by the Enlightenment ideals of freedom and equality for all, founded, ostensibly, upon principles of human reason.”¹

This metaphysical understanding of the atmosphere around this period of the Enlightenment should help us see the product of capitalism and laissez faire economics, as well as the second byproduct of the overall Industrial Revolution that naturally came about through the entirely of the Enlightenment. Based on the many fundamentals of Enlightenment thought which naturally looked down on hierarchical authority, laissez faire capitalism naturally came about as a result. Key players in the development of capitalism were Vincent de Gournay, John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, and many other individuals which greatly influenced this understanding of economics based on individualism. “The pervading theory of the 19th century was that the individual, pursuing his own desired ends, would thereby achieve the best results for the society of which he was a part.”²

Similarly it could be argued that capitalism and laissez faire economics naturally lead to the Industrial Revolution which I would say was primarily the byproduct of laissez faire capitalism and Enlightenment thought. This Industrialization brought in production by the use of machines and characterized by technological change and economic growth. The Industrial Revolution lasted from about (1750-1850). This industrialization lead for example to the migration of large populations from rural self-sufficient regions to urban industrialized cities.

One of the unintended effects of capitalism is that it led to a larger and more centralized government with likewise more unintended control in both the public and private sector. This seems contradictory, especially since laissez-faire capitalism holds the view of a “hands off” approach to government. Shouldn’t a purely capitalist market naturally prevent big government? In principle this is held to be true but in practice quite the opposite occurs.

One of the problems with laissez-faire capitalism or “pure capitalism” is seen in what Chesterton once spoke of when he said that “the problem with capitalism is not that there are too many capitalists but two few.” Although adherents of pure capitalism state that capitalism naturally leads to competition, which in turn naturally keeps businesses small and checked by this power of competition, we see that in its historical practice, this is not the case. Think back to the Robber Barons of the 19^th century at the time of the Industrial Revolution. This shows that in practice capitalism had led to giant businesses and corporations.

This development of big business and corporatism, which was highly influenced by capitalism gave rise to what is known as crony-capitalism. Crony capitalism is the situation in which big business and big government have a close mutual relationship with each other. This is what Chesterton describes as the marriage of Hudge and Gudge in his book What’s Wrong with the World. This reality can easily be seen in the nature of various government regulations such as the Pure Food and Drug Act (1906), The Meat Inspection Act (1906), and various others. Surprisingly big business was for most part in favor of such regulations. The reason for this is that these regulations naturally work as barriers to market entry, which naturally cuts down competition. In the case of these meat laws mentioned, large meat packers wanted government involvement in the industry because it gave the big packers an advantage over the smaller meat producing companies. “Government inspections added a large fixed operating cost of producers due to administrative overhead, which effectively serves as a large barrier to market entry.”³

Another example of crony capitalism can be seen in the recent example of the bailouts during the 2008 economic recession. Because of the nature of how interwoven big business and big government are, it makes sense why the U.S government was quick in bailing out many of the companies like GM and many banking industries that had gone bankrupt. Government had relied too heavily on the success of these giant corporations and banking in regards to the success of the economy.

A more implicit example of the rise of government due to capitalism can also be seen in the natural reaction against capitalism which came about through socialism. Socialism was based not on the individual (individualism) but on collectivism (statism). This natural reaction against capitalism didn’t really solve the problem but just shifted the problem somewhere else, as we will see in the next section regarding capitalism and its effect of dispossession and restriction of property rights.

I could not think of a better suited title for this section than calling it anti proprietorship and an

economy of dispossession, since this is in fact the effect that capitalism had on society in various levels. This effect was namely in the process of disposing classes and individuals from the acquiring and owning of private property. In pre-Industrial society, various economic systems encouraged the wide-spread ownership of private property in a decentralized way. Capitalism and industrialism greatly changed this reality.

Capitalism, industrialism, and furthermore the effect of socialism which was a natural reaction against them, greatly limited the owning of private property. Capitalism was based on profit and the allocation of the means of production to private individuals. Since in such society the number of capitalists were limited such as in the case of the Industrial Revolution, this limited the ownership of private property. This is what G.K Chesterton meant when he talked about the problem of capitalism being that there were too few capitalists in practice. Similarly Socialism which worked as a natural reaction against this system also limited private property into the hands of the state.

In focusing back on capitalism and its effects, Hilaire Belloc in writing about the restoration of property, mentions how capitalism limited private property not only by the fact that there were naturally only a few capitalists, but also that the very nature of work found in capitalism also limited the widespread owning of private property. Hilaire Belloc states:

When men have become wage slaves they think in terms of income. When they are economically free they think in terms of property. Most modern men living under industrial conditions regard economic reform as essentially a redistribution of income; property is for them an illusion; the reality behind it is income... (Restoration of Property pg. 103)⁴What Hilaire Belloc is saying is that capitalism created a system of wage slavery in which employment did not mean freedom but only a means by which to get by. In such system workers would have little to no way of owning private property since their wages only served to get the workers and their families through the day. This can still be seen today in a variety of levels. Think about many workers in big corporations like Walmart for example. Many of the ordinary Walmart workers generally get paid just enough to get by in life, furthermore they could not possibly have enough to own their own capital or private property for that matter. As a matter of fact many workers might not even get paid enough to even get by. This is why the government often makes up for this reality by government assistant programs which we end up paying in taxes. This situation came about through capitalism and its effect of limiting private property.

Without touching upon the topic at length it should be pointed out that the Enclosure Movement in England was a historical aspect of the effect of dispossession that capitalism brought about. This movement legally stripped independent and self-sufficient peasants of their land and relocated them to urban factories in which they were turned to wage slaves in essence. Before this event occurred, peasants in the rural regions of England had been able to be self-sufficient and had more ownership of private property.

Laissez-Faire capitalism and the Industrial Revolution also negatively affected the environment, as well as to an unhealthy reliance of machinery and technology in society. This lead to the destruction of most agrarian rural communities, the environment itself, and a process of machinery and technology which created an inhumane situation. J.R.R Tolkien and Gandhi were two of the most outspoken critics of this effect of industrialism and capitalism.

Gandhi criticized this over reliance on technology and its effect on the environment, and the destruction of the traditional agricultural and local rural communities, which was a consequence of the industrial aspect of capitalism. Gandhi “feared that this overdependence on machinery may destroy the stable and long-established agrarian village communities which is environmental friendly and which for him constituted the core of the nation’s strength, not just material, but ethical and spiritual.”⁵

Similarly J.R.R Tolkien objected to capitalism’s influence of industrialism and modernization on similar grounds. Tolkien did not like what industrialism and modernization were doing to the English rural countryside and environment. “Tolkien lamented the triumph of the machine as he described the Industrial Revolution and all its pomps.”⁶ These criticisms of Tolkien on the effect of industrialism can be seen in his letters and in his literary writings such as The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit.

Perhaps one of the nastiest effects of capitalism and industrialism was in the rise of imperialism which was a natural effect of capitalism. Gandhi himself states that it was the industrial aspect of capitalism which lead to the rise of imperialism. He states that the very nature of industrial capitalism lead to a desire for mass profit and production, which in turn lead to a necessity of imperialistic objectives do to the scarcity of resources. Gandhi criticized industrialization and urbanization because he believes that “the distinguishing characteristic of modern civilization is an indefinite multiplication of wants… to satisfy these wants, one had to forage far and wide for raw materials and commodities.”⁷

This reality can be seen in the fact that many governments and supporters of capitalism “authorized some of them (capitalists) to explore, conquer, and colonize distant lands in search of commercial opportunities. Thus early capitalism developed in the context of imperialism… Indeed imperial expansion and colonial rule were crucial for the development of capitalism.”⁸ This reality can be seen in the Imperialism of the late 17^th and 18^th centuries such as the Scramble for Africa, The Opium War, and the various imperialistic attitudes of Western nations towards Japan.

This nature of industrial capitalism deviated away from the self-sufficiency of pre modern agrarian life as Gandhi states “our ancestors discouraged us from luxuries and pleasures, we had managed with the same kind of plough as existed for thousands of years ago, we had retained the same kind of cottages that we had in former times and our indigenous education remaining the same as before.”⁹ This self-sufficiency changed through the effects of industrialism. Not only did it change the nature of self-sufficient populations but it also forced them into modernization and urbanization just like the Enclosure Movement mentioned earlier on.

The last main effect that capitalism and industrialism caused was the breakdown of the family and traditional morality and ethics. Much of Enlightenment thought which influenced the overall development of capitalism and industrialism was at its root cause. This involves the Enlightenment’s revolutionary attack on the nature of a hierarchical mode of authority in which the family, the State, and religious institutions like the Catholic Church played in society.

In starting with the family it is not hard at all to see the many ways in which capitalism broke down the institution of the family. Pre-industrial and capitalist society naturally held the family as the organic unit of society. For this very reason, all economic life was situated around the importance of the family. This meant that society during this time had the specific role of helping the family to flourish and be taken care off. This was the economic reality of the medieval age. Capitalism and its industrial influence naturally destroyed this reality as it no longer looked to the family as the organic unit of society but rather to the individual.

As we look at the working conditions during the Industrial Revolution which was for most part influenced by laissez-faire capitalism, we see how these working conditions helped in breaking up the influence of the family as an institution. Think back to the drastically long hours in which parents would be off at work and consequently not being able to do their main role of child-bearing. This was a reality not only for fathers but for mothers as well. This reality compelled a Cardinal to once state “I do not understand how a woman can train her children in the hours after they come from school if she works all day in a factory.”¹⁰

Child labor can also be seen as a consequence of the breakdown in the authority and influence of the family. Many kids in order to help their families make a living had to be away from home and at work. This consequence undermined the authority and influence of parents, since they no longer had a major influence in raising their kids. It was no longer the family and parents who were raising their kids but the workforce. Many children picked up immoral customs and conducts which they had imitated from fellow workers.

We can see how this economic system based on capitalism also broke down traditional morality and ethics. The traditional view that prevailed from Aristotle and Aquinas to Smith was that all human relationships, including economic ones, were regulated by justice. This justice as held by individuals such as Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas was viewed as composing all of the order of virtue. In this view, the market and economic life was influenced by morality, ethics, and institutions like the family and the Church. “Western Civilization grew up emphasizing the importance of individual freedom within that order, and the need for individuals to be enlightened as to the character of nature and freedom through the guidance of authoritative societies like the family and the State.”¹¹ For this reason the influence of the Enlightenment on capitalism and laissez-faire economics, naturally caused these authoritative elements to be seen in suspicion.

These are the many ways in which capitalism and industrialism have negatively affected society. Although it is true that capitalism and industrialism gave rise to certain perceived benefits such as a greater productive outlook, an increase in economic growth, and lastly an increase in the efficiency of the allocation of resources, its negative effects on society far outweigh these relative benefits. 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.

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.

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.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.