lpetrich
Contributor
Some Conservatives Have Been Against Capitalism for Centuries | The American Conservative "They just haven’t been that effective."
A review of the book Conservatives Against Capitalism: From the Industrial Revolution to Globalization by Peter Kolozi, Columbia University Press, 254 pages.
It mainly discusses American conservatism, but some of what it describes may fit in other parts of the world.
He argues that ever since the Industrial Revolution, capitalism has critics on the Right, critics who have argued "that laissez-faire capitalism has undermined an established social hierarchy governed by the virtuous or excellent." Capitalism apologists may respond that capitalism itself automatically rewards virtue and excellence, but they look the other way at crooked business tactics and rewarding of only a limited set of skills.
Kolozi started with defenders of slavery in the antebellum US, like James Henry Hammond. JHH argued for the mudsill theory of society, where a degraded lower class is necessary to support an upper class that then creates higher civilization.
Those defenders agreed with critics of early industrialism on the Left about how bad it was. But they argued that slaveowners had a moral and economic incentives to take care of their slaves, while factory owners did not have such incentives to take care of their workers. They also argued that slaveowners' discipline of their slaves kept left-wing radicalism from getting started in the lower classes.
Kolozi also noted the inconsistencies and hypocrisies in that position. Some of them are rather obvious. Slaves were bought and sold like farm animals, and the plantations themselves mainly produced cash crops like cotton and tobacco. So antebellum plantation slavery was very capitalistic in some ways.
Also, when the Confederate Army requisitioned foodstuffs for feeding its troops in the Civil War, JHH protested that it was like "branding on my forehead 'SLAVE'".
Slaveowners might have responded by saying that such capitalism was part of the mudsill of their society, something demeaning but necessary for their way of life, just like slavery was. They might have continued by saying that the highest calling is to live leisurely lives as gentlemen and ladies, living off the labors of others, and doing only as much capitalism as is necessary for their lifestyles.
A review of the book Conservatives Against Capitalism: From the Industrial Revolution to Globalization by Peter Kolozi, Columbia University Press, 254 pages.
It mainly discusses American conservatism, but some of what it describes may fit in other parts of the world.
Avoiding conservatives' self-congratulatory definitions of the political spectrum, "Kolozi relied on Norberto Bobbio’s expansive definition of right and left, dividing the two camps according to their preference for equality or hierarchy." Left = equality, Right = hierarchy
He argues that ever since the Industrial Revolution, capitalism has critics on the Right, critics who have argued "that laissez-faire capitalism has undermined an established social hierarchy governed by the virtuous or excellent." Capitalism apologists may respond that capitalism itself automatically rewards virtue and excellence, but they look the other way at crooked business tactics and rewarding of only a limited set of skills.
Kolozi started with defenders of slavery in the antebellum US, like James Henry Hammond. JHH argued for the mudsill theory of society, where a degraded lower class is necessary to support an upper class that then creates higher civilization.
Those defenders agreed with critics of early industrialism on the Left about how bad it was. But they argued that slaveowners had a moral and economic incentives to take care of their slaves, while factory owners did not have such incentives to take care of their workers. They also argued that slaveowners' discipline of their slaves kept left-wing radicalism from getting started in the lower classes.
Kolozi also noted the inconsistencies and hypocrisies in that position. Some of them are rather obvious. Slaves were bought and sold like farm animals, and the plantations themselves mainly produced cash crops like cotton and tobacco. So antebellum plantation slavery was very capitalistic in some ways.
Also, when the Confederate Army requisitioned foodstuffs for feeding its troops in the Civil War, JHH protested that it was like "branding on my forehead 'SLAVE'".
Slaveowners might have responded by saying that such capitalism was part of the mudsill of their society, something demeaning but necessary for their way of life, just like slavery was. They might have continued by saying that the highest calling is to live leisurely lives as gentlemen and ladies, living off the labors of others, and doing only as much capitalism as is necessary for their lifestyles.
