Revisiting fusionism - revolutionary capitalism and conservative economics
Since the post-war period, there has been a tendency within the Right to unconditionally embrace expressions of capitalism, be that an extra 0.1 percentage growth in GDP, an increase in foreign investment or the development of a new microchip implant: as long as these were seen as manifestations of the free-market’s superiority over socialism, the former would remain immune to criticism.
Still to this day, the pre-eminent right-wing parties in the West, whether they call themselves Conservatives or Christian Democrats, seem to put the pursuit of economic growth above everything else, including the conservation of traditional societal values, while their militant counterparts are too busy fighting ‘cultural Marxism’ to dare question the essence of capitalism as a socio-economic system. But why is this so?
Why is it that one’s conservatism has become automatically linked to one’s support of the free market? Taking the very broad definition of conservatism as a “commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation”, it could be argued that there isn’t anything conservative about capitalism, quite the contrary.
First, from a technical point of view, a simple understanding of Schumpeter’s concept of creative destruction renders the revolutionary nature of capitalism obvious: an old technique of production is replaced by a new one, increasing productivity and standards of living. While technical innovations initially influence their immediate remit, they inevitably also have a far-reaching collateral impact. Capitalism’s relentless hunger for new markets means innovation infiltrates every aspect of human life, changing it profoundly. As Karl Marx put it:
“The bourgeoisie (…) has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, (..) it has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.”
In other words, where relations of affection, honour and respect remained prevalent between fathers and sons, priests and laymen or between fellow countrymen, capitalism has rendered those motives obsolete and transformed them into mere relations of self-interest, turning humans into elements of a function of production. The embrace of economic globalisation over national sovereignty, the erosion of the traditional family and the classification of worship as ‘non-essential’ are among many societal trends which would tend to support Marx’s analysis.
Could it then be that conservatives have always viewed the revolutionary tendencies of capitalism with distrust? In Conservatives against Capitalism, Peter Kolozi argues so. The American author describes the ambiguous relationship which has existed between conservatives and capitalism in the United States from the 19th century to modern day Trumpism. Kolozi argues that conservative movements in the USA have consistently expressed unease– if not disapproval– at the profound socio-economic changes brought about by capitalism. For example, Southern Agrarians, who were particularly attached to the value of work as a virtue, rejected capitalism for its tendency to dehumanise work, in addition to promoting materialism.
Kolozi goes on to explain how the belief in protecting the social order is deeply entrenched in conservatism: he identifies politicians such as Roosevelt and Adams who were worried that the civic spirit needed for good governance would be eroded by matters of self-interest prompted by laissez-faire economics.
Moreover, a consequence of the creative-destructive force of capitalism has always been to transform the relationship between workers and their environment. Technological change, particularly automation, has had a profound impact on traditional industries in the West, such as farming, mining and manufacturing, and on the working communities these industries were able to sustain.
The dislocation of workers from their place of work and the erosion of their professional status are two of the main reasons behind the general air of malaise amongst working class communities in the West. It is not that these industries are inherently better than the new ones brought about by innovation, it is rather their capacity to create a sense of belonging and solidarity which make them so much more valuable to the conservative eye. Not only has innovation transformed the way humans interact with work, it has also impacted the way humans interact with one another, and it is true it has not always been in a good way. French novelist Michel Houellebecq, far from seeing in the lockdown an opportunity for an economic reset, writes that:
“The main consequence of the coronavirus should be to accelerate current mutations. For a few years now, the consequence of technological evolutions, such as video on demand, (..) the ability to work from home, online shopping, social media, has been to lessen material, and most particularly, human contact. This pandemic offers a great excuse for this sinister tendency: that of the obsolescence of human relationships.”
Human relationships are now commodified, and those which cannot be, are simply cast aside as hurdles to economic growth. Houellebecq’s inherent pessimism may be singular, but his analysis of society will be shared by many who perceive in the ongoing dismantlement of social constructs a threat to the family’s “sentimental veil” and a step forward to its reduction “to a mere money relation”, as Marx had prophesised. Undoubtedly, herein, not only presenting a consequence of the pre-eminance of liberal contractualism and the market, but a danger to the latter itself.
US presidential candidate Jo Jorgensen recently defended her view on the legalisation of prostitution by claiming that the latter was “basically capitalism and sex”, and that she was (obviously) in favour of both. Jorgensen is a proud libertarian, but the fact that many conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic would be ready to espouse her view and support the commodification of sex is a reminder of the successful takeover of conservatism orchestrated by laissez-faire radicals.
Kolozi mentions traditionalists such as Russell Kirk who were adamant in regulating markets in order to protect human dignity, particularly by restricting the exchange of drugs and pornography. Government regulation of the economy is an obvious step in attenuating the damage brought about by an unchecked free-market economy; the next step would be to limit innovation in order to anticipate those changes. How that may be put into practice remains unclear (a cost-benefit analysis over the very long term?). However, what it implies is clear: an end to the dogma of economic growth and productivity at all costs and a repositioning of the economy around conservative principles.
Conservatives have been overly complacent with an economic system that was always bound to clash with their interests: their stubbornness to pursue economic prosperity at all costs has made them blind to its most pervasive excesses. In order to ensure conservatism is a credible political and economic alternative, its proponents will have to start reaching out to anti-capitalist voices on the Right and Left and be prepared to break free from the chains of free-market economics. In the very least, they must acknowledge that these two allegiances will, and do, contradict each other. For those who wish to conserve, the revolutionary market must be shown limits.
–
If you liked this article and want to help our organisation expand, please consider donating. Every little helps.
