Das Kapital

Irving Kristol is an enormously attractive writer. His style is notable not only for its wit but for a certain rueful candor that admits ambiguities and what he calls “an occasional wavering of intellectual purpose.” In his pilgrimage from a modish leftism to the position he defines as “neo-conservative,” he has discovered what he is against. The socialism he once espoused for idealistic reasons has, in practice, resulted in societies that range from the hideous to the merely squalid. But the new company that Kristol keeps—i.e., the capitalists—seem to him a disconcerting lot. He finds he likes their system but he can’t quite bring himself to like them.

The virtue of capitalist society, as Mr. Kristol sees it, is that it does not want more than two cheers for itself. It does not pretend to absorb the full expression of the individual citizen’s energies. It leaves the pulpits to the parsons, the arts to the artists, and it is notorious for its obliviousness to what is being taught in academe. But if capitalism, as a system, is to be commended for its refusal to dominate the individual, Mr. Kristol can’t bring himself to excuse particular capitalists for their unwillingness to think politically.

JC

About the Author

John Chamberlain

John Chamberlain (1903–1995) was an American writer.

Featured Tags

Alexis de Tocqueville

Irving Kristol is an enormously attractive writer. His style is notable not only for its wit but for a certain rueful candor that admits ambiguities and what he calls “an occasional wavering of intellectual purpose.” In his pilgrimage from a modish leftism to the position he defines as “neo-conservative,” he has discovered what he is against. The socialism he once espoused for idealistic reasons has, in practice, resulted in societies that range from the hideous to the merely squalid. But the new company that Kristol keeps—i.e., the capitalists—seem to him a disconcerting lot. He finds he likes their system but he can’t quite bring himself to like them.

The virtue of capitalist society, as Mr. Kristol sees it, is that it does not want more than two cheers for itself. It does not pretend to absorb the full expression of the individual citizen’s energies. It leaves the pulpits to the parsons, the arts to the artists, and it is notorious for its obliviousness to what is being taught in academe. But if capitalism, as a system, is to be commended for its refusal to dominate the individual, Mr. Kristol can’t bring himself to excuse particular capitalists for their unwillingness to think politically.