Prosperity: The Engine of the Left

Ever since the French Revolution, the political landscape of the world has been split into two opposing camps: the Left and the Right. For over two centuries these two camps have been locked in perpetual intellectual and political warfare with eachother, and, at times, this conflict has broken out into open violence and war. Over the course of this struggle, the Left consistently gained ground at the expense of the Right; one by one, the trenches that the Right had hastily built up for itself had to be abandoned forever. When the Right did win, it was only in fits and starts, and sooner or later the Left was sure to erase and reverse those gains (think Bismarckian Germany or Francoist Spain). The Left, accustomed to its easy victories, began to see its goals and ideals as inevitable and belonging to the future, while seeing the goals and ideals of their enemies on the Right as anachronistic and belonging to the past. The Right, in denial of its embarrassingly long string of defeats, became increasingly intellectually provincial: no longer was it interested in defending profound and sweeping ideals like transcendence, beauty, or the natural order. Instead, it became preoccupied with reacting to liberal attacks on the vestiges of the pre-revolutionary world. This dichotomy is so pervasive that an individual born in the modern world could be forgiven for assuming that it had always existed. In fact, prior to the French Revolution, the “Left” was not so much an established political force as much as a rebellious undercurrent against the established “Rightist” order — an undercurrent that, over the centuries, steadily eroded the traditional pillars of Western civilization (the Church and the Monarchy), to the point that they finally buckled and began to collapse at the end of the 18th century. We see this undercurrent with Jan Hus and the Bohemian Reformation, with the Humanism of the Italian Renaissance, with Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation, with the English Civil War and the subsequent establishment of a Parliamentary Monarchy in England, with the Copernican Revolution and with the Scientific Revolution more broadly, and culminating finally with the Age of Enlightenment and with the American Revolution, which led to the establishment of the first democracy in the modern Western world. The most obvious common theme linking all of these events and movements was a rejection of established authority, whether on moral, philosophical, or scientific grounds. The less obvious connection between them is that they were all predicated on increasing levels of material prosperity.

Take, for instance, the Age of Enlightenment. In the 1600s and 1700s, as the wealth of many Western European nations gradually increased both due to technological innovation and increased revenue from their colonial ventures, the number of people living in cities and towns gradually increased (on average). This “freed” an increasing number of people from heavy labor, who could now pursue a more intellectually engaging line of work. Many of those jobs required the ability to read and write, which caused an increase in the literacy rate. This increase in the literacy rate caused an increase in the number of books written and sold in Western Europe, which allowed scientific and philosophical treatises to reach an ever-growing audience. This, in turn, led to even greater technological innovation and thus to even more economic and colonial growth, closing the “vicious cycle.” And the Age of Enlightenment was precisely a product of this cycle. The number of relatively wealthy, urbane, literate, and well-educated people was steadily increasing, and at the same time the tolerance these people had for suffering and hardship was steadily decreasing. This 1751 quote from the Scottish philosopher David Hume, a man who perfectly fit that description, is a perfect example of the nascent attitude of “hedonism as a virtue” that the “enlightened masses” of his time so thoroughly embraced:

Celibacy, fasting, penance, mortification, self-denial, humility, silence, solitude, and the whole train of monkish virtues; for what reason are they everywhere rejected by men of sense, but because they serve to no manner of purpose; neither advance a man’s fortune in the world, nor render him a more valuable member of society; neither qualify him for the entertainment of company, nor increase his power of self-enjoyment? We observe, on the contrary, that they cross all these desirable ends; stupify the understanding and harden the heart, obscure the fancy and sour the temper. We justly, therefore, transfer them to the opposite column, and place them in the catalogue of vices…

Gradually, the enlightened masses began to look with increasing suspicion on the traditional power structures such as the Church and the Monarchy, because these were seen (correctly) as obstacles in the way to the pursuit of pleasure by society at large. They developed both scientific, philosophical, and moral arguments which sought to deconstruct the reasons those two institutions gave to justify the power they had over the people. But mere arguments weren’t enough. Eventually, having transferred mortification and self-denial to the “catalogue of vices,” the urbane masses went into full revolt against these pleasure-denying institutions. This led directly to the so-called “Age of Revolutions,” the most famous of which was, of course, the French Revolution. In a similar way, all the other events and movements that prefigured the French Revolution in the West can be linked to increasing levels of material prosperity and the resultant increases and improvements in education, literacy, and communication technologies. Both Jan Hus and Martin Luther were extremely well educated for their time. The Italian Renaissance occurred when Northern Italy (and Florence in particular) became the wealthiest region in all of Europe. During the English Civil War the literacy rate in Great Britain exceeded 50%, a rate matched only by the Netherlands at the time. The Scientific Revolution would not have been possible without the printing press, which enabled the rapid dissemination of scientific treatises. When the Thirteen Colonies declared their independence from Great Britain in 1776 they had the highest per capita income in the entire world.

When the Industrial Revolution commenced at the close of the 18th century, all of these trends began increasing geometrically. Material prosperity — as quantified by metrics such as national gross domestic product, or by life expectancy data — began a sustained increase for the first time in human history. The revolution began in the Anglosphere at first, but quickly spread across the entire West and, eventually, across the entire globe. If we accept the thesis that Leftism thrives in societies with a high level of material prosperity (and that, conversely, Rightism thrives in societies with a low level of material prosperity) then it should not come as a shock to us that this was also the first time in history when the Left began to permanently supplant the Right as the dominant political force in society. Today, countries that are more developed also tend to subscribe to more liberal values (ceteris paribus), and, for the same reason, the inhabitants of cities tend to be more Left-leaning in their political outlook than the inhabitants of towns and villages. Conversely, communities like the Amish, which shun modern technologies, are by far the most conservative and traditionalist in their lebensphilosophie (for instance, the Amish living in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania have a birthrate on par with Sub-Saharan Africa, despite being an hour’s drive away from Philadelphia).

So far we have managed to establish a clear correlation between material prosperity and impulses in society that are Leftist in spirit, but we have yet to establish a causative mechanism. A complete and thorough explication of such a mechanism would comfortable fill up the pages of more than just one hefty tome, but the most important aspect of it is not difficult to grasp, and in fact I have already hinted at it when I wrote of David Hume. The essence of this mechanism can be found in the following quote from C.S. Lewis’ 1943 book, The Abolition of Man:

There is something which unites magic and applied science (technology) while separating them from the “wisdom” of earlier ages. For the wise men of old, the cardinal problem of human life was how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution was wisdom, self-discipline, and virtue. For the modern, the cardinal problem is how to conform reality to the wishes of man, and the solution is a technique.

A man wishing to survive the hardships of an impoverished society humbles and submits himself because he must, in the process gaining wisdom, self-discipline, and virtue. A man pursuing his self-interest in a prosperous society satisfies his every desire because he can, in the process losing all wisdom, self-discipline, and virtue. And why blame him? Technology renders the pursuit of virtue obsolete, since in a world in which machines do most of the heavy lifting for us, and the state is more than capable of paying us for doing absolutely nothing, a man bereft of virtue — however corrupt his soul may be — might hardly be in any worse shape materially than even the most virtuous of men. David Hume was pointing out an obvious truth of our age: virtue belongs in the cloister, and the modern world has no use for either.

Let’s not pretend that we weren’t warned about this sorry state of affairs. “And again I say unto you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God,” said Jesus to his disciples in one of his most memorable teachings. The British economist Angus Maddison has estimated that the gross domestic product at purchasing power parity of the entire world in the year 1 A.D. (around the time when Jesus spoke those words) was around 105 billion 1990 International Dollars. In the year 2003 that figure had risen to around $40.9 trillion, an increase by a factor of 390. If we look at the UK specifically we see a massive rise of the gross domestic product from around $320 million in 1 A.D. to around $1.2 trillion in 2003, an increase by a factor of 3125 times. The conclusion we should draw from Maddison’s data is as obvious as it is disturbing: in Jesus’ time we would all be rich men, and our spiritual prognosis would be very grim indeed. If a traditionalist or a reactionary truly desires a world in which virtue rather than pleasure is the highest goal of man, then he must recognize the spiritual damage that comes from living in a prosperous society. If he fails to do so he is simply wasting his time.

I will conclude with a quote from a rather infamous individual, a social outcast and murderer, who nevertheless came to very much the same conclusion by virtue of his isolation from society in the backwoods of Montana. The man’s name is Ted Kaczynski, and this is what he had to say in his 1995 manifesto Industrial Society and its Future:

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.

Advertisements
John Doe

Polish Reactionary, Enemy of The Right Side of History, Roman Catholic.

11 thoughts on “Prosperity: The Engine of the Left

  1. Great article. I have thought the same for a long time but this is beautifully put. The problem is: what is to be done? If you share your ideas about that, I will be grateful.

  2. “A man wishing to survive the hardships of an impoverished society humbles and submits himself because he must, in the process gaining wisdom, self-discipline, and virtue. A man pursuing his self-interest in a prosperous society satisfies his every desire because he can.”

    In surviving the hardships of an impoverished society a man may choose to use the pittance he has to buy alcohol, he may sell his children into prostitution, or gamble away the coppers in his purse. You have a romantic view of the poor in general, and the undomesticated poor throughout history. It was only in the last century that the poor reached the dizzying heights of basic civility.

    The single largest problem with this is that there are many impoverished societies today across the globe, the inhabitants of which are not mostly wise, disciplined, or virtuous. Indeed, within our own society, the poor gamble, whore, drink, smoke, and gorge on fast food much more than the middle and upper classes. You must then admit to another force that encourages these virtues besides scarcity. Once you do this, you must surely abandon the notion that a prosperous society is guaranteed to abandon morality, and accept that modern society can be retaken and reshaped in our image.

    “…the ‘Left’ was not so much an established political force as much as a rebellious undercurrent against the established ‘Rightist’ order — an undercurrent that, over the centuries, steadily eroded the traditional pillars of Western civilization.”

    Specious. The first industrial revolution was not caused by anarchist agitators, and they did not alone “cause” the French Revolution or the Enlightenment. This “undercurrent” that toppled feudalism was capitalism, which is why the examples that are always given for the “decline” in spiritual values is always between ~1300-1800. Was there a notable decline for “the West” after the Saxons converted to Christianity, or after the Norman Conquest? Only some pagans will argue that Augustine of Canterbury and Charlemagne were agents of decline, and some romantics that will argue that William I was an agent of decline. Pagans, Christians, and even those without faith will mark the beginning of the decline to WWII, others will say WWI, the most common belief in NRx is the French Revolution. There are those that look beyond even the French Revolution (Evolians will often determine the decline to begin at the Renaissance), but to really understand, you ought to begin in the 13th century. The future collapse of feudalism can be found in that century. It was not an army of saboteurs, chipping away at the pillars that caused the decline. The revolution in thought and attitudes from the high medieval period which reverberated down the centuries, shook and loosened those great stone pillars of Western civilisation. These proto-Leftist agitators you describe could not simply be swept away to prevent the breakdown of feudalism. Do you want to classify trade, commodification, and capitalism as Leftist?


    We seem to be of a similar mind, however, you did not emphasise the underlying cause of the break down of feudalism and the birth of the industrial world: capitalism. The three “industrial revolutions” of steam, electricity, and computation were all born from capitalism. You correctly identify that Venice and Genoa were wealthier than the rest of Europe, but Venice was not feudal, and so (unintentionally?) you are accepting the economic inferiority of the feudal system at that time. So too with the ancien regime, which limped on until the revolution. The problems really started in the 13th century. Industrialisation was not some exogeneity that dropped out of the sky. The first industrial revolution did not begin the geometric progression, it is a part of that progression. The commodification of home into “land,” vassal into “labourer,” lord into “employer,” and so on is the significant change, and this would leave feudalism ruined almost 250 years before industrialisation and the enlightenment. I broadly agree with your article and “material prosperity” is close, you seem very close to a clear understanding.

    The only significant divergence is at the coda. What we call “traditional values” can be buried or displaced, but they will always reappear if they are summoned. I can see no convincing reason to assume that modernity cannot be reforged in the image of the Right. Yes, perhaps these stone pillars of Western civilisation are crumbling, but they can can be smashed down and reformed from iron. The material of the pillar changes but the form of the pillar remains. This is what we must do in the West, and it is certainly possible in my view. I understand that this view is unpopular, Nietzschean, modern, etc.

    Good article, I enjoyed reading it.

    1. “In surviving the hardships of an impoverished society a man may choose to use the pittance he has to buy alcohol, he may sell his children into prostitution, or gamble away the coppers in his purse. You have a romantic view of the poor in general, and the undomesticated poor throughout history. It was only in the last century that the poor reached the dizzying heights of basic civility.”

      Undoubtedly many impoverished people simply gave up in the face of hardship. But the point is that the cost of abandoning virtue was usually much greater in such societies than in prosperous ones (just one reason for that being the complete absence of a welfare state). There is also something to be said about the role of the Church in curbing such immorality in impoverished societies. After the collapse of the Soviet Union the homicide rate and alcohol consumption rate skyrocketed in Godless Russia, but only moderately increased in Catholic Poland, despite the fact that Russia was richer than Poland before the collapse. Also the difference in abortion rates between Poland and Russia are like night and day, and once again the Church and the values and taboos it instills in Polish society has to be thanked for that:

      “The single largest problem with this is that there are many impoverished societies today across the globe, the inhabitants of which are not mostly wise, disciplined, or virtuous. Indeed, within our own society, the poor gamble, whore, drink, smoke, and gorge on fast food much more than the middle and upper classes.”

      Indeed, but that’s precisely because the economic and moral constraints on such behavior have now been lifted for the poor. When the middle and upper classes refrain from such behavior it is often for selfish reasons (like staying healthy and fit), and if not, then it is because their middle to upper class professions still demand from them a certain level of decorum (or at least a pretense thereof).

      “You must then admit to another force that encourages these virtues besides scarcity. Once you do this, you must surely abandon the notion that a prosperous society is guaranteed to abandon morality, and accept that modern society can be retaken and reshaped in our image.”

      Yes, like selfishness and capitalism. Modern society retains only those aspects of morality that are conducive to hedonism and unbridled individual freedom. Virtuous behavior not conducive to pleasure is mocked and rejected.

      “Specious. The first industrial revolution was not caused by anarchist agitators, and they did not alone “cause” the French Revolution or the Enlightenment.”

      My central claim is that all of these things were caused by increasing level of material prosperity. “Anarchist agitators” are a symptom of prosperity, not a cause.

      “but to really understand, you ought to begin in the 13th century. The future collapse of feudalism can be found in that century.”

      There were a number of bottom-up peasant rebellions around that time caused by the Black Death and increasing levels of inequality that undermined feudalism. However, feudalism ultimately collapsed because of increasing levels of prosperity which allowed serfs to buy their freedom. “Capitalism” was just a manifestation of that increase in wealth.

      “The commodification of home into “land,” vassal into “labourer,” lord into “employer,” and so on is the significant change, and this would leave feudalism ruined almost 250 years before industrialisation and the enlightenment.”

      It should not be surprising that as the wealth of a society increases its culture becomes increasingly centered around the material instead of the divine.

      “The only significant divergence is at the coda. What we call “traditional values” can be buried or displaced, but they will always reappear if they are summoned. I can see no convincing reason to assume that modernity cannot be reforged in the image of the Right.”

      This appears to be the core of our disagreement. Traditional values came about because they were compatible with agrarian societies, and were supplanted by liberal values more compatible with industrial societies. Now I believe, and most people in our neck of the woods would probably concur, that traditional values are objectively superior to liberal values. The problem is that they are rendered obsolete in modern societies; that is to say, there are no overarching incentives and disincentives that would make modern societies gravitate towards traditional values. Instead, modern society inexorably gravitates towards liberal values. My hope is that eventually people will rebel against modernity and replace it with a technological and economic foundation on which traditional values will once again flourish. On that note let me end with a quote from the end of Francis Fukuyama’s essay “The End of History” (and pardon me for using “end” thrice in a row):

      “The end of history will be a very sad time. The struggle for recognition, the willingness to risk one’s life
      for a purely abstract goal, the worldwide ideological struggle that called forth daring, courage,
      imagination, and idealism, will be replaced by economic calculation, the endless solving of technical
      problems, environmental concerns, and the satisfaction of sophisticated consumer demands. In the post
      historical period there will be neither art nor philosophy, just the perpetual care taking of he museum of
      human history. I can feel in myself, and see in others around me, a powerful nostalgia for the time when
      history existed. Such nostalgia, in fact, will continue to fuel competition and conflict even in the post
      historical world for some time to come. Even though I recognize its inevitability, I have the most
      ambivalent feelings for the civilization that has been created in Europe since 1945, with its north
      Atlantic and Asian offshoots.

      Perhaps this very prospect of centuries of boredom at the end of history
      will serve to get history started once again. ”

  3. Good, well-written article, but the reader, progressing through your sentences, is compelled to ask “what should be be done?” And he is never given any solutions. I see this a lot on this website: descriptions of how the modern world has degenerated without prescriptions for reforming it. Understanding the modern world and how it came to be is important, but it doesn’t benefit reactionaries for them to be seen as ineffectual.

    1. In short, the solution consists of altering the economic and technological underpinnings of society in such a way that traditional values (or a close approximation thereof) become the default. The Amish have already accomplished this, albeit in a very clumsy way (not progressing past 19th century technology). To that end I would put forward three basic requirements for such a society:

      (1) Most families should have their own plot of land.

      (2) Most men should engage in purposeful physical labor.

      (3) Most people should not be staring at screens for hours on end.

        1. I don’t think this will be a society-wide transformation; rather, it will probably happen at a local level with independent communities and autonomous enclaves. If moderns see that there is a fulfilling and realistic alternative to their unfulfilling and decadent lifestyles then the hope is that at least a small fraction of them will take the leap. Right now plenty of people (including those in the Reactosphere, and even just plain old Conservatives) want an exit, except there’s nowhere to go. Our job going forwards will be to give people that exit.

    2. “What is to be done” — This question isn’t going to be adequately answered today, next week, or next year and can’t be. Arriving at a truly adequate answer is going to be one of the biggest cognitive challenges the human species has ever faced. The intellectual effort on WCR and other sites isn’t some sort of effete pastime. One need only look at the past century to see what happens when people think they can just wing their way through the process of radically re-structuring the social order.

  4. r/K evolutionary psychology explains some of this, for lots of detail from an author excessively focused on it and a brain mechanism he thinks is behind it, check out the Anonymous Conservative, http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/home-page/ (well, actually, he’s got about three of those

    The tl;dr outline is that in times of plenty, r selection is the advantageous strategy, they’re often called rabbits. They use tactics like outgrouping to compete, low investment in offspring, there’s a whole list. When times get tough, it’s the K or “wolf” strategy that has the advantage.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s