What do you think?
Rate this book
Plutocratic Socialism: The Future of Private Property and the Fate of the Middle Class
A proletarianized citizenry ruled by a class of insolent plutocrats is incompatible with the republican form of government established by the US Constitution. Without an effective majority of citizens who own property and whose character has been shaped by property ownership—a vibrant middle class—the Founders’ Constitution will not survive. Our current age of Plutocratic Socialism is a specific manifestation of a pathology the Founders feared. Recovery must begin with a simple, yet profound, axiom: private property and political freedom stand or fall together.
- GenresEconomics
180 pages, Paperback
Published May 19, 2022
About the author
Mark T. Mitchell
11 books21 followersDr. Mark Mitchell holds a Ph.D. in Government from Georgetown University, an M.A. in Philosophy from Gonzaga University, an M.A. in Government from Georgetown University, and a B.A. in History, Crown College.
His research interests include modern and contemporary political theory, conservative political thought, and political themes in literature. Lest he be thought all bookish scholar, let it be known that he also cultivates a small vineyard--a pursuit very dear to his heart.
He is currently a professor of government at Patrick Henry College and editor-in-chief of the weblog, Front Porch Republic, a gathering place of scholars interested in such subjects as people, community, culture, liberty, and limits.
His research interests include modern and contemporary political theory, conservative political thought, and political themes in literature. Lest he be thought all bookish scholar, let it be known that he also cultivates a small vineyard--a pursuit very dear to his heart.
He is currently a professor of government at Patrick Henry College and editor-in-chief of the weblog, Front Porch Republic, a gathering place of scholars interested in such subjects as people, community, culture, liberty, and limits.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
December 15, 2022
I had a lot of disagreements which this book, predictably enough; it's written from a conservative perspective that I don't share. And there were parts of the book that I found plain distasteful or frustratingly undeveloped. In sum, to the degree that I agree with his thesis that a certain variety of progressives (who he calls "woke socialists" and other silly names) are implicitly, and perhaps only partly intentionally, but nonetheless thoroughly aligned with plutocratic forces, he's simply saying essentially the same thing that Thomas Frank said nearly 20 years ago in What's The Matter with Kansas?; do the degree I disagree with him, it's because he really doesn't have, I think, a theoretically defensible grasp of "socialism" as a whole. Still, for all that, the book forced me to think about the relationship between the sort of decentralized socialism I hold out hope for and the sort of local economies or "distributism" that Mitchell obviously holds out his own hopes for, and I appreciate that.
January 29, 2023
In Plutocratic Socialism, Mark T. Mitchell suggests that the problems faced by America can be tied to the decline in property ownership, and the rise on the one hand of a plutocratic class who own increasing quantities of the nation's property (not wealth, merely), and on the other of what he calls the Woke Socialists, whose program of welfare statism mixed with grievance mongering is crafted to appeal to the propertyless proletariat.
Mitchell's book might have been served well by a better title, since it's not a screed against these two groups. Rather, he make the case - convincingly, in my view - that absent the civilizing effects of property, people turn to the state as provider, to revolution as a solution, or to some mixture of the two. He takes the reader through the thought of several historical figures to show how it has long been understood that extreme inequalities in wealth lead to volatility in a society, not least because wealth inequalities often come with inequalities of power. This is why, according to Mitchell, the Founders of the United States believed that the republic could best survive with a broad middle class of "middling" property owners - people who owned property, but not too much of it. Of course inequalities will be a feature of a property-based society, and any other one for that matter, and it's not clear that government can do much to prevent extreme inequalities absent setting consistent rules and preventing the development of monopolies. But widespread, modest property ownership was the ideal, an ideal that we have fallen far from, and our fall is not yet over.
Mitchell covers a lot of related issues in the book - faith, stewardship, community, family, issues related to modern conceptions of social justice - which are all worth considering. But it's his afterword that really drives the point home: the solution to the two bad choices of rule by a corrupt plutocracy, or rule by an idiotic ideology, is to build a "multiracial middle class coalition." And though the challenges to this task are many (though not what the woke left fantasizes them to be), the idea of rebuilding order, citizenship, and neighborliness through a broader distribution of property (again, not merely wealth or income) would have some serious advantages. Whether such a program is possible - whether we have leaders with the wisdom and prudence to pull it off, or a populace capable of pulling itself out of its spiral of dependence and degeneracy - remains to be seen. But kudos to Mitchell for laying out the issue in such clear terms.
Mitchell's book might have been served well by a better title, since it's not a screed against these two groups. Rather, he make the case - convincingly, in my view - that absent the civilizing effects of property, people turn to the state as provider, to revolution as a solution, or to some mixture of the two. He takes the reader through the thought of several historical figures to show how it has long been understood that extreme inequalities in wealth lead to volatility in a society, not least because wealth inequalities often come with inequalities of power. This is why, according to Mitchell, the Founders of the United States believed that the republic could best survive with a broad middle class of "middling" property owners - people who owned property, but not too much of it. Of course inequalities will be a feature of a property-based society, and any other one for that matter, and it's not clear that government can do much to prevent extreme inequalities absent setting consistent rules and preventing the development of monopolies. But widespread, modest property ownership was the ideal, an ideal that we have fallen far from, and our fall is not yet over.
Mitchell covers a lot of related issues in the book - faith, stewardship, community, family, issues related to modern conceptions of social justice - which are all worth considering. But it's his afterword that really drives the point home: the solution to the two bad choices of rule by a corrupt plutocracy, or rule by an idiotic ideology, is to build a "multiracial middle class coalition." And though the challenges to this task are many (though not what the woke left fantasizes them to be), the idea of rebuilding order, citizenship, and neighborliness through a broader distribution of property (again, not merely wealth or income) would have some serious advantages. Whether such a program is possible - whether we have leaders with the wisdom and prudence to pull it off, or a populace capable of pulling itself out of its spiral of dependence and degeneracy - remains to be seen. But kudos to Mitchell for laying out the issue in such clear terms.
June 1, 2023
Plutocratic Socialism: The Future of Private Property and the Fate of the Middle Class is a strong read in some ways but disappointed me in others.
Mitchell does a wonderful job bringing distributist principles to bear on modern politics and presents a convincing argument for the expansion of private property to more Americans. I agree with the mechanism he identifies; inequality and cronyism lead to demands for state intervention, so the central state grows alongside the plutocracy. This argument was made long ago by Hilaire Belloc and holds true today; all around us, we see a growing state and growing business enterprises. With it comes frustration and demands for change, demands that are often coopted by corporate interests. Mitchell's exploration of the history of linkages between property and freedom was fascinating too, and I would love to read a more extended work with his take on it. And surely many American politicians on both sides of the aisle have abandoned the notion of expanding productive property ownership. To this extent, this book is a good read.
The big downside is that it's too one-sided. Mitchell spends too much time lambasting the left (I say this as a heterodox left-conservative with a lot of criticism for the left these days) and not enough time proposing actual solutions building on a nuanced understanding of politics. For instance, he praises cooperatives for example but dismisses Bernie Sanders and his ilk as "woke socialists" without acknowledging that they're the only ones proposing legislation to make cooperative formation easier. Here in Pennsylvania, a recent law giving grants to low-income homeowners and small landlords to repair their property (a good distributist policy if there ever was one) was introduced by two far-left members of the State House, members who I don't love but who I gladly praise for this idea. Mitchell doesn't have the same level of disdain for the right, which is fine, but doesn't do an awful lot of explaining how their heavily laissez-faire policies have substantively changed to address inequality.
Mitchell also dips his toes into some conspiracy-filled waters, discussing the "Great Reset" and hitting a number of surface-level talking points while doing so. I agree that the Davoisie is out of touch and unhelpful, but I don't believe it's correct to ascribe so much power to the World Economic Forum. It comes off as unnecessarily paranoid.
Mitchell does a wonderful job bringing distributist principles to bear on modern politics and presents a convincing argument for the expansion of private property to more Americans. I agree with the mechanism he identifies; inequality and cronyism lead to demands for state intervention, so the central state grows alongside the plutocracy. This argument was made long ago by Hilaire Belloc and holds true today; all around us, we see a growing state and growing business enterprises. With it comes frustration and demands for change, demands that are often coopted by corporate interests. Mitchell's exploration of the history of linkages between property and freedom was fascinating too, and I would love to read a more extended work with his take on it. And surely many American politicians on both sides of the aisle have abandoned the notion of expanding productive property ownership. To this extent, this book is a good read.
The big downside is that it's too one-sided. Mitchell spends too much time lambasting the left (I say this as a heterodox left-conservative with a lot of criticism for the left these days) and not enough time proposing actual solutions building on a nuanced understanding of politics. For instance, he praises cooperatives for example but dismisses Bernie Sanders and his ilk as "woke socialists" without acknowledging that they're the only ones proposing legislation to make cooperative formation easier. Here in Pennsylvania, a recent law giving grants to low-income homeowners and small landlords to repair their property (a good distributist policy if there ever was one) was introduced by two far-left members of the State House, members who I don't love but who I gladly praise for this idea. Mitchell doesn't have the same level of disdain for the right, which is fine, but doesn't do an awful lot of explaining how their heavily laissez-faire policies have substantively changed to address inequality.
Mitchell also dips his toes into some conspiracy-filled waters, discussing the "Great Reset" and hitting a number of surface-level talking points while doing so. I agree that the Davoisie is out of touch and unhelpful, but I don't believe it's correct to ascribe so much power to the World Economic Forum. It comes off as unnecessarily paranoid.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews