The economic system based on private property, individual rights, and limited government — that is to say, capitalism — did not emerge by chance. It required a certain moral order, one in which most of the people believed in liberty, tolerance, and something like the Golden Rule. In those places where capitalism arose, the people enjoyed prosperity and progress that far exceeded that which humans had ever before known.

And yet, attacks on capitalism for its supposed immorality abound. Going back to the 18th century, critics complained that it was upsetting the traditional social order and causing misery among the people. They claimed that it had ushered out the era of happy peasants and ushered in the dark, satanic mills of the Industrial Revolution. Those “right-wing” critics were joined in the 19th century by leftist opponents like Karl Marx, who declared that the evils of capitalism could be remedied by the abolition of private property.

In the mid-20th century, Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter observed that the institutions and beliefs that had supported capitalism were eroding and predicted that once-capitalistic nations would descend into some sort of managerial socialism unless those supports could be strengthened. He doubted that would happen.

Also apprehensive about the future of capitalism is Donald Devine in his book The Enduring Tension. A scholar with The Fund for American Studies and former political science professor, Devine has penned a book that provides much food for thought. Just how thin is the ice beneath the feet of capitalism’s defenders and is there anything we could do to keep from plunging into the icy depths?

Devine writes, “The tension between freedom and order is fundamental to capitalist civilization and also the central challenge it faces today.” His book provides a historical account of the various strands of thought on the supposed need to “tame” or “rationalize” capitalism to render it morally tolerable through government intervention, if not to do away with it altogether.

Philosophical and religious views / John Locke was one of the first philosophers to argue that capitalism stood on a solid moral foundation. A religious man, Locke saw no Christian grounds to criticize the non-coercive acquisition of property. His views are not without detractors. Some of his contemporaries complained that his philosophy gave the green light to unbridled greed and some philosophers today scoff at his ideas’ simplicity and even “incoherence.” The 20th century political philosopher Eric Voegelin assailed Locke’s religious tolerance because it made religion “impotent,” thereby “inviting new secular creeds to fill the void in spiritual life.” Notre Dame political theorist Patrick Deneen contends that Lockean individualism “undermined the traditional institutions of family, community, and natural law, which are essential to a good social order.”

In the 19th century, two of the great thinkers, Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill, arrived at different conclusions on the morality of capitalism. De Tocqueville was comfortable with the liberal, pluralist society he observed during his tour of the United States, but Mill (from his British point of view) looked disdainfully on capitalist society, arguing that central government needed to intervene because he considered one result of capitalism — material inequality — to be morally unacceptable.

Marx, of course, excoriated capitalism for its inequality, blaming the institution of private property for the misery of the poor.

Private property has had some very able contemporary defenders, such as Armen Alchian and Hernando de Soto. Both have argued that it is the lack of secure property rights that holds the poor back from being able to capitalize on their work. Unfortunately, far more people are swayed by Marxist criticism of private property than the defenses for it.

No doubt the most famous current critic of the morality of capitalism is Pope Francis, who has written that capitalism entails “fundamental terrorism against all humanity.” The pope has declared that capitalism’s “trickle down” of wealth can never bring justice for the poor and must be replaced with a centrally planned world economic order. Devine points out that the pope’s view of capitalism is a highly distorted one, based on his life in Argentina. What he saw as “capitalism” was in fact a fascistic mutation nurtured by Juan Peron and his successors. Under it, Argentina has gone from one of the wealthiest countries in the Western Hemisphere to an inflation-wracked mediocrity. Nevertheless, the pope’s attacks on capitalism have persuaded many that it is not a moral system.

Government intervention / For several decades after World War II, a coalition of American anti-communists, free-market advocates, and traditional social conservatives advocated for capitalism among other values. Their unwritten pact is now coming apart, with the defection of the social conservatives being especially striking.

The unwritten pact between groups on the political right is now coming apart, with the defection of the social conservatives being especially striking.

Devine cites the work of Hillsdale College historian Allan Carlson, who decries the effects of capitalism on the family. He blames capitalist businessmen for wanting cheap labor, which eventually drew women into the labor force and away from their traditional household roles. So, Carlson argues, capitalists promoted feminist ideology as well as liberal immigration policies. Rather than allowing the market to determine compensation, he advocates a governmental “family wage” for fathers so that wives could have children and remain at home with them. He contends that the New Deal shows how such federal policies can work.

Throughout the book, Devine offers much evidence that government interventions meant to improve upon the alleged moral and economic failings of capitalism have been costly and often counterproductive. Those efforts don’t seem to have helped shore up support for capitalism. President Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty,” for example, has spent vast amounts and yet failed to accomplish its goal of enabling the poor to become self-supporting citizens.

Religious morality / How important is religion in the foundation of capitalism? That is a recurring question in the book. If people don’t believe in some “higher law,” will they embrace the limits on behavior that necessarily go with capitalism?

Devine cites several thinkers on the subject. Friedrich Hayek, while not a religious man himself, thought that a mere utilitarian outlook was insufficient in society. Hayek wrote that “the loss of what we regard as nonfactual beliefs would have deprived mankind of a powerful support in the long-run development of the extended order we now enjoy.” He saw “great difficulties” from the decline in religious belief. Similarly, British philosopher Kenneth Minogue, once president of the Mont Pelerin Society, maintained that the Christian moral order was what had allowed the openness and productivity of Western nations where capitalism took root.

But even if religion remains strong in America, as Devine contends, that doesn’t offer much reason for optimism. Religious belief is neither necessary nor sufficient for supporting capitalism against its foes. On the one hand, Devine notes that some of capitalism’s strongest defenders, including commentators George Will and the late Charles Krauthammer, are not religious. (Krauthammer once quipped when asked about God, “I don’t believe in him, but I’m afraid of him.”) On the other hand, a great many devout people, starting with Pope Francis, find capitalism to be morally questionable at best.

Music / Near the end of the book, Devine points out that it isn’t only with respect to economics that modern “rationalist” intellectuals have set their sights on a transformation. They have also targeted the fine arts, particularly music. Audiences were accustomed to the melodies, harmonies, and tonality of composers from Bach through Beethoven and Mahler. But in the early 20th century, avant-garde composers decided that traditional music had to be overthrown. Arnold Schoenberg devised the 12-tone system that was meant to disorient listeners. Thus began a musical fad that eventually led to John Cage’s compositions that amount to nothing more than “noise through chance operations.”

With music, at least, there has been a return to tradition. Devine happily writes that contemporary composers like Gian-Carlo Menotti, David Diamond, and George Rochberg have given up on avant-garde techniques in favor of listenable music and have done so because of their spiritual feelings. That seems to give Devine reason for optimism. If spiritual reawakening can rescue music, might it not do the same for capitalism?

As a lover of music who laments that so few uplifting compositions have been written since roughly 1950, that’s a pleasant thought, but I can’t see any such trend working in favor of capitalism. There was little to be gained in the undermining of classical music, but there’s much to be gained in the undermining of capitalism: money and power.

Conclusion / For most of human history, economic systems based on coercion have been the norm. Only in a relatively few nations in a relatively short span of time has the economic system based solely on voluntary interactions among people — i.e., capitalism — held sway. Its production of wealth makes it a target for those who prefer to live by appropriation rather than exchange. They attack capitalism from all angles, with the moral angle currently in vogue. This book leaves you wondering if we will be able to hold onto capitalism (or at least what’s left of it) in America.