The Gothic horror of capitalism

John Ruskin (1819-1900) was a British art critic who later turned social critic. His most well-known work is probably "The Stones of Venice", a tribute to medieval Venetian architecture. His most interesting work, however, might be "Unto this last", published in book form in 1862. This modern edition from Penguin contains both "Unto this last" and some of Ruskin's other writings, including "The Two Boyhoods" and most of "The meaning of Gothic" (taken from his work on Venice). The point of the selection is to emphasize the connection between Ruskin's social criticism and his view of art.

Ruskin was an arch-conservative, called himself High Tory and idealized the Middle Ages, medieval Venice in particular. In art, he supported the Romantic movement, and became known for defending the Romantic landscape painter Turner. Later, he associated with the Pre-Raphaelites, an ostensibly "medievalist" art movement. He also admired Gothic architecture for it's "savageness, changefulness, naturalism, grotesqueness, rigidity and redundance", usually considered negative features. To Ruskin, the seemingly chaotic style of Gothic buildings was truthful to nature, and he believed that the medieval workmen were free and creative spirits who could manufacture Gothic sculptures and ornaments according to their own whims. In many ways, he seems to have projected the Romantic view of the world back onto the High Middle Ages.

Ruskin shocked his pampered middle-class audience in 1860, when "Cornhill Magazine" began to serialize "Unto this last". This was not a work of art criticism, but a rather violent attack on capitalism! The subscribers to the magazine demanded that Ruskin's articles should be stopped, which they also were. Although unfinished, Ruskin published them in book form two years later. Marx would probably have classified Ruskin as a "feudal socialist", but "Unto this last" sounds more "bourgeois socialist" by Marxist standards. Ruskin calls for compulsory public education and believes that the state should generate employment through a massive program of public works. He seems to accept the labor theory of value, arguing that the just price isn't decided upon according to supply and demand on a market, but is relatively stable, based on the costs of production. He also attacks the old canard that lower wages lead to lower unemployment, and calls for fixed wage rates.

Ruskin points out that many professions accept fixed salaries regardless of supply and demand: soldiers, lawyers, doctors and priests. A good doctor stays on his post even during a plague epidemic, a soldier is ready to die for his country, and lawyers are supposed to administer justice, regardless of renumeration. So why should businessmen be any different? To Ruskin, businessmen should serve the community, and heroically bring needed goods (food, for instance) to the population, regardless of how much they can expect in profit. When accused of being a socialist, Ruskin sarcastically asked whether his opponents wanted to introduce "supply and demand" as a principle within the military? Rather than egalitarianism, Ruskin wanted a hierarchical society, inspired by Plato and Carlyle. He called for a paternalist state, a society organized like a large family, and constantly emphasizes heroism. Soldiers are willing to die for a loved general, regardless of their pay cheques. Factories should be organized on the same lines: obviously, workers don't have to die for their employers, but if the employer is like a loving father, productivity will increase, regardless of pay. Mothers are willing to give their children food even if they risk starvation themselves, and tradesmen should have the same attitude towards their customers (their community).

If there is a contradiction in "Unto this last", it's between Ruskin's moralist perspective, and the claim that a paternalist state would actually organize production and distribution more efficiently than laissez faire capitalism. Ruskin claims that it would, but if the main argument against capitalism is the supposed efficiency of Ruskin's system, what need is there for the moral argument? I think it's obvious that Ruskin's real argument was the moral one. His attacks on the destruction of the environment certainly doesn't sound like the writings of a man who simply wants to make industry more effective!

Personally, I don't like John Ruskin's ultra-hierarchical perspective, and I don't like Carlyle either (who was a vicious racist and White supremacist), but "Unto this last" is nevertheless a powerful attack on a free market system gone mad.

John Ruskin loved the Gothic and despised the Gothic horror of capitalism.