On The Incompatibility Of Free Markets And Conservative Philosophy

British Conservatives widely promote an economic vision of unfettered free markets and “small government” as the necessary pre-conditions that underpin any free, happy and above all wealthy society. They promote “business” as being both morally and instrumentally superior to government in distributing goods and services and maximising individual liberty.

It is true that many Conservatives do not promote the acquisition of wealth for its own sake (although many do), they simply regard economic growth and a dominant private sector as the only efficient way to provide the resources needed to provide universal employment, technological progress and the limited common goods they are prepared to acknowledge must be provided by government through general taxation.

However, it seems to me that Conservative beliefs about how “society” should be ordered are incompatible with their promotion of free markets and that this contradiction leads to a profound logical incoherence that almost entirely discredits the traditional Conservative loyalty to free-markets as the primary method of organising human society.

What I mean by “Conservative beliefs about how “society” should be ordered” might include the following:

•      Conservatives (of the economic liberal persuasion) are generally suspicious of official state systems of regulation of both public and private behaviour, regarding them as coercive, bureaucratic and ineffective.

•      Conservatives tend to profess a high regard for bourgeois values such as good manners, hard work, responsibility, self-reliance and playing by the rules.

•      Conservatives traditionally have a very highly developed sense of patriotism and a belief in a traditional, hierarchical social order based upon the Monarchy.

•      Conservatives tend to believe in a punitive legal regime in which harsh punishments and “short, sharp, shocks” are used to “deter” criminals from committing crime.

•      Conservatives tend to express a vociferous loyalty to the coercive forces of state power such as the police and armed forces.

•      Conservatives, and rural Conservatives in particular, have a highly developed sense of a historical community, which is again based in a traditional aristocratic social order, and in order to maintain that social status quo promote many forms of deferential, conformist and socially enforced, normative codes of behaviour.

Today many Conservatives live in a world in which they believe their treasured values have been undermined by Liberals and Lefties because they perceive that the do-gooders and apparatchiks have undermined the traditional hierarchical social order, have no respect for bourgeois values and have fostered a dependency culture where the hard-working middle-class (the squeezed middle) pay for the leisured lifestyles of the feckless working class.

But I think Conservatives are entirely failing to recognise the cause of their frustrations and the breakdown in the social order they seek to promote. It is not the Left who have undermined Conservative values – it is global free-market capitalism and the logical inconsistency of their own belief system.

Some of the contradictions at the heart of Conservative thought are:

•      The desire for stability versus the brutal transformative force that is free-market capitalism.

•      The distrust of “big government” versus a vigorous patriotism and a support for the police and armed forces.

•      A belief in commercial self-reliance, autonomy & entrepreneurialism versus a love of an elitist aristocratic social system based in the monarchy.

•      A belief in competition as the fundamental driving force of human psychology versus a belief in “playing by the rules”.

•      A belief in the importance of family as the basic social unit versus a belief in a flexible work force.

But I would argue that the central contradiction in Conservative thought is illustrated when we draw a distinction between traditional supporters of the UK Conservative Party and those economic liberals who follow the theories of Milton Friedman, Robert Nozik et al.

I would suggest that there is in fact nothing Conservative at all about the theories of these free-marketeers, and that their theories when implemented (as they have been to varying degrees almost universally in The West since the end of the ‘70’s), inevitably lead to dramatic, rapid and perpetual social and economic change that undermine all traditional value systems – including, if not especially, Conservative ones. The free-marketeers are closer to anarchists than they are to Conservatives and it is the failure of traditional Conservatives to recognise that it is their own economic policies that are undermining their worldview – and it is this that is at the heart of their baffled fury.

Margaret Thatcher was uncompromisingly proud of her Greengrocer father, Alfred Roberts, who rose to be Conservative Mayor of the small Lincolnshire town of Grantham. By all accounts he was an honourable man who worked hard, played by the rules and was as a result rewarded by the system. But the unfettered, free market capitalism that was introduced under his daughter’s government has meant that out-of-town supermarkets have almost universally replaced independent small town greengrocers across the country. There are many advantages to consumers of out-of-town supermarkets (cost, convenience, product range) but they do clearly undermine community cohesion. Town centre shopping in numerous small stores is a significantly more social process than zooming round a supermarket. Yet many conservatives fail (or refuse) to see the connection between the Thatcher/Reagan version of Friedmanite economics that has so disrupted their world.

The same story is repeated across the range of Conservative values. Patriotism as traditionally defined by Conservatives is surely undermined by the globalisation of capital and the dominance of the multi-national company. Even if the UK were to withdraw from the EU as many Conservatives advocate the ability of the UK government to act autonomously to defend UK interests would be severely limited by the global currency and stock markets. Increasingly, UK domestic policy is determined not by the UK electorate but by the few thousand hugely wealthy gamblers known collectively as, The City. For some reason many Conservatives seem to regard the imposition of policy by The City as legitimate while imposition by the EU or the UN as illegitimate. However, the ability of even the EU to act on behalf of European Citizens is also largely determined by The City and/or multi-national corporations who can, and often do, simply pack up and move from one country to another if they don’t like the economic policies of the country they are in [Incidentally they very rarely move because a government is totalitarian or oppressive of ordinary citizens].

It is hard to see how the interference in UK domestic policy by non-elected commercial organisations is morally or politically more legitimate than interference by the EU or Un? In either case the ability of a legitimately elected UK government to act in the best interests of our citizens is usurped.

Where is the place for Patriotism in all this? Theoretically multi-nationals have no loyalty to any country, city or region; there only concern is with maximising profits for global capital investors. [I say theoretically because in reality many multi-nationals retain a sustained and direct connection with the country in which the controlling company was first established.] How is it patriotic for a US based multi-national manufacturer to move tens of thousands of jobs from the US to the Far East in order to save money?

To be wary of the coercive powers of the state but also unquestioning supporters of a hierarchical, pre-democratic, aristocratic and monarchist social order seems strange to say the least? To be such vigorous supporters of a punitive prison system and of the police and army does not seem to correspond with a supposed abhorrence of “big government”. One can be certain of one thing – that Conservatives would no longer be supporters of the police and army if an elected government used them to enforce a communist regime

I would suggest that Conservative support for the coercive forces of state power come about because in the UK almost always those forces are used to bring about outcomes Conservatives would support, i.e. controlling demonstrations, breaking strikes and protecting property. I would also suggest that this Conservative support for the hierarchical monarchist social order and for the police & army indicates that most UK Conservatives are not actually opposed to “big government” at all; that they are actually opposed to a particular type of “big government” i.e. they are partisan.

Similarly, any concept of community, tradition and social stability is undermined by flexible capital and the flexible labour market. Conservatives are very fond of suggesting that workers “get on their bikes” or “get on a bus” to find work. But simultaneously they bemoan the breakdown in community values!? Over a third of the UK work force has now been casualised, reducing costs to employers and undermining employment protection for workers. This “freelance” work force is now working all over the country on short-term contracts, often staying away from home during the working week. Can Conservatives not see the inevitable negative impact all this has on any sense of community people may have?

But the most important social impact of the casualisation of the work force and the geographical instability of contemporary working lives has been on that great Tory shibboleth – the family. Since 1979, under both Tory and Labour government’s, wages and real-life spending power have decreased to the extent that in order to maintain anything like even a lower middle-class standard of living, both partners in a marriage have to work. This has always been the case for the industrial working class but it is now the case for almost everyone. This situation is a direct result of the Conservative policy of deregulating business and limiting trade-union power. Again Conservatives seem to be unable to understand that if both partners have to work family life will be affected and that if you destabilise the work force you destabilise communities, families and society in general and that this is the cause of much that Conservatives find so abhorrent in contemporary society.

The free-marketeers value innovation and entrepreneurialism almost above all. Yet by definition innovation is the antithesis of tradition. Innovation by definition requires a continual overthrowing of the established technical, social and normative rules. Conservatives seem to think that technical and commercial change can be achieved without social change; that business can develop innovative and revolutionary products while the social order remains static. Yet even the most cursory examination of the history of the last 2 hundred years shows us that revolutionary technical innovation can, and almost always does, revolutionise social relations. Factory-based mass production destroyed the vestiges of the rural feudal social order of the 18th Century, the steam engine and the internal combustion engine revolutionised our ability to travel (to work) and led to the development of the suburb – the heartland of UK Conservatism. The Internet is in the earliest stages of revolutionising both working and social relationships in ways we cannot yet determine.

The free-marketeers emphasise competition above all other human psychological attributes. Logically this inevitably leads to the celebration of “winning” – at all costs? This fetishisation of aggressive competition and success above all other considerations undermine traditional Conservative values of playing by the rules, hard work, honesty and responsibility. If “winning” is the only objective then why work hard if you can win by cheating?

The type of radical free-market capitalism proposed by Milton Friedman et al, has nothing at all to do with Conservative values; indeed it fundamentally undermines them. No wonder so many British Conservatives are so furious all the time; their own theories and policies are destroying the things they value the most. They just haven’t recognised it yet.

I Am Not A Number

Political and Philosophical Dispatches From An Individual Living In A Society

corporate democracy economics freedom left-wing libertarian managerialism moral philosophy politics radical socialist society


About I Am Not A Number

I Am Not A Number is written by Chris Jury. For 30 years Chris Jury was a TV actor, director and writer best known for playing Eric Catchpole in over 60 episodes of the BBC’s antique classic, Lovejoy, and for directing over 50 episodes of Eastenders. In 2008 he was appointed as the Senior Lecturer in Recorded Media in the School Of Music & Performing Arts at Bath Spa University. He currently presents, Agitpop, a pop & politics radio discussion programme on North Cotswold Community Radio http://www.agitpopradio.org.uk He is currently the Communications Officer for UCU at Bath Spa University and a UCU SW Regional Rep at SWTUC.
This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to On The Incompatibility Of Free Markets And Conservative Philosophy

  1. Xanavi23 says:

    Another well-constructed and thought-provoking post. However, we must not loose sight of the fact that socialism, and by wider implication communism, are failed social, economic and political models. I was in South Korea last year and the peninsula’s recent history is a stark illustration of where the world is going as we stumble forward into the 21st Century. Although I cannot rely on the personal experience of having set foot within North Korea, I would argue that the contrast between the divided Korean nation’s development post 1953 acts as a touchstone for social and economic order. What we see in the UK is obviously more personally relevant, but let us not be fooled into believing that socialism offers any real model upon which we can rely. Korea is the example which the whole World should have regard for.

    • Hi Xanavi23

      Thanks again for engaging.

      Well, I’m certainly not defending the Soviet style totalitarianism of N. Korea or for that matter of Soviet Russia itself. I abhor totalitarianism of the left wing or right wing variety. I don’t think N. korea today has anymore to do with communism than Pinochet’s Chile had to do with capitalism.

      You claim that “socialism…… is a failed social, economic and political model” and you equate socialism with communism. I would challenge both these notions. Firstly, to be a socialist is not the same as being a communist. Communism is essentially a Marxist construct, the concept of socialism pre-dates Marx by decades. Secondly, I think it would be fair to say that we have actually never seen a truly socialist state. Cuba is perhaps today the best example but after 60 years of an economic blockade it is difficult to assess the success or failure of the still popular regime.

      I am actually arguing for an Old Labour mixed economy with a strong Welfare State, progressive re-distributive tax system and a regulated form of capitalism that moderates the worst excesses of the current model of rampant globalised free market capitalism. These type of views represented the post WWII UK political consensus and were hugely successful and uncontroversial for 40 odd years. The failure of the Labour Party to back Barbara Castle’s attempts to reign in the Unions in 1969 leading to the farago of the ’70’s industrial strife and allowing Thatcher’s free-marketeers to peddle the lie ‘that there is no alternative”.

      I think we should also consider the fact that at least twice in the last 100 years the capitalist economic system has through it’s own structures and internal logic brought itself close to worldwide collapse. Between 1929 and 2008 there were also numerous booms and busts all over the world with Argentina and Japan representing the extremes of the more localised failures of capitalism. As a result of the latest crisis governments throughout the world have had to use hundreds and hundreds of billions of tax payers money to prop up a system that has no loyalty to sovereign states or the tax payers who provided the money! In the most successful and powerful example of a capitalist state, the USA, over 40 million citizens have no access to health care and 46.3 million officially living in poverty. In addition, throughout the third world as countries embrace capitalism the horrors of Dickensian London are reproduced in slums and shanties of epic proportions as workers flock from rural communities to the cities, seduced by the delights of consumerism. To what extent can this be regarded as a successful social, economic and political model?

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s