Happy slaves and servile minds

Hilaire Belloc was a controversial Catholic intellectual, born in France but mostly active in Britain, where he even served as an MP for a short period. Together with G.K. Chesterton, Belloc advocated a "third way" between capitalism and socialism, known as Distributism. By present standards, he was a very conservative Catholic, and expressed support for Franco during the Spanish Civil War.

"The Servile State" is Belloc's most famous work. First published in 1913, it has been reprinted several times, often by libertarians. It's unclear why since Belloc, of course, wasn't one.

The main thesis in "The Servile State" can be summarized as follows. Capitalism is by its very nature unstable. It promotes the interests of a tiny minority of property-holders at the expense of the large majority of propertyless proletarians. Capitalism is therefore only a transitional stage in human history. There are only two alternatives to the capitalist state of affairs: distributism, in which everyone becomes a property owner, or the servile state, in which the proletarians are turned into slaves, but in return get their basic needs met by the capitalists. Belloc didn't think revolutionary socialism was an option (the book was written four years before the Russian revolution). As for reform socialism, Belloc believed that it too was utopian, since it's impossible to "buy out" capitalism. Reform socialism is nevertheless dangerous since it leads, consciously or not, to the establishment of a servile state. Belloc also fears that the workers themselves might accept the servile state: their condition in 1913 was so dismal, that they would readily accept legalized slavery, provided the state compelled the employers to meet their basic needs in terms of clothes, shelter, food, etc.

Belloc then analyzes European history. Initially, slavery was accepted everywhere. During the Middle Ages, slavery began to gradually wither away, being replaced by a distributive system of guilds, village communes and feudal obligations. Property rights became more and more diffused. This process came to an abrupt end during the Reformation, especially in England, where Henry VIII confiscated the lands of the church (which owned a substantial portion of all English land) for the benefit of a new class of wealthy, aristocratic landowners, who dispossessed the peasants and artisans. This eventually created the instability and class conflict characteristic of industrial capitalism.

Finally, Belloc points to various 20th century legislative measures he believes foreshadow the servile state. Among them are the minimum wage, compulsory arbitration, unemployment benefits, regulations of the right to strike and lockout, and employer liability laws. Belloc also attacks compulsory education. He is somewhat pessimistic about the future prospects. The traditions of widely diffused ownership were near-dead in 1913, while socialist measures seemed more realistic. And socialist policies, as already pointed out, were in Belloc's mind really precursors to the servile state.

I can't say "The Servile State" convinced me. For starters, the book is actually an attack on the incipient Western European welfare state. This is probably what commends the book to libertarians. However, only an extremist could suggest that conditions in post-war Western Europe and Scandinavia are "servile". The libertarians also tend to forget that Belloc wasn't against a powerful state (something he makes clear in his discussion about Henry VIII). And while Belloc does call for diffusion of property rights, and presumably wants to end welfare as we know it, he nevertheless envisions a system in which the guilds restrict competition, and where some of the land is held in common. Uncharitably put, the author is closer to fascism than to libertarianism!

The historical analysis, while not a necessary part of Belloc's thesis, isn't convincing either. In fact, its contradictory. On the one hand, Belloc claims that Christianity had something to do with the gradual dissolution of slavery during the Middle Ages. On the other hand, he admits that the causes were economic and political. Further, he writes that the spread of distributism was spontaneous and unplanned, while the development of capitalism was a conscious conspiracy. He also seems to think that an industrial revolution is possible in a system of small property-owners. In reality, big industry out-competes the artisans and peasants.

Belloc's contrast between servile antiquity and the free Middle Ages is unconvincing for other reasons as well. While slavery, for unknown reasons, was indeed abolished in North and Central Europe during the High Middle Ages, it was never abolished in southern Europe, which was equally Christian. Nor was it abolished in the crusader state of the Teutonic Knights, and conditions in Eastern Europe seemed to have remained pretty servile as well. For some reason, Belloc never mentions the later connection between slavery and capitalism either. But slavery wasn't abolished in the United States or the British colonies until the 19th century! Perhaps he can be excused for not predicting the Bolshevik revolution - after all, even Lenin despaired around 1913, sitting exiled in Switzerland.

Can something of Belloc's thesis nevertheless be saved? Maybe, but only in a very revised form. Belloc was, of course, right when he pointed out that classical capitalism was unviable and somehow needed to be stabilized. He is also right that this stabilization requires state regulations of the economy. This is one of the points of the welfare state. Even the United States has de facto federal regulations of its economy. Socialism was another attempt to solve the problems of classical capitalism (it ultimately failed). The closest analogy to a *real* servile state in the modern era seems to have been Nazi Germany. Workers from the territories occupied by Germany during the war were indeed turned into slaves, being forced to work for the German capitalists, but, of course, without getting their basic needs met. However, *German* workers certainly got a slice of the Nazi war pie, in return for not rocking the boat. Thus, Nazi Germany both had a class of nominally free but in effect regimented German workers (who were happy), and a class of enslaved workers (who were less so), both working for the German industrialists.

Thankfully, this servile state was defeated by the Allies during World War Two, making it a moot solution to the problems of the modern world.

"The Servile State" is interesting and a relatively easy read, but at least this happy slave remains unconvinced by its main thesis...