Critique of Political Economy

Unto this Last was comprised of four essays first published in serial form in 1860, in the Cornhill Magazine . These essays generated such hostility that the editor, Thackeray, informed Ruskin that publication would have to cease after the fourth instalment. Ruskin, however, never lost faith in the ‘rightness’ of his convictions, and remained hostile to the social implications of laissez-faire economics for the rest of his life. The central ideas of Unto this Last were further developed in Munera Pulveris (1862–3, published in book form in 1872), The Crown of Wild Olive (1866), Time and Tide (1867) and Fors Clavigera (1871–84).

The initial hostile reception of Unto this Last merits comment. Some critics viewed it as an affirmation of Ruskin’s ‘socialism’, but it was more likely his implicit attack on liberalism that caused offence, if not fear, among middle-class entrepreneurs. For the greater part of the nineteenth century ‘economics’ meant laissez-faire: the liberal interpretation of the classical system established in the previous century by Adam Smith, and subsequently amended by DAVID RICARDO. This system was condemned by many reformers as promoting a self-seeking ‘economic man’, devoid of human sentiment and unencumbered by state interference. Ruskin considered the laissez-faire system to be totally immoral as it enshrined a very negative form of liberty, which exploited the labour force, wrongly divorced economics from everyday life and, in fact, left people ‘free’ to starve. In response, he wrote Unto this Last in which he stressed an abundance of

Entries A-Z 567

resources, opposed competition with co-operation and advocated a consumer ethic summed up in his now famous aphorism: THERE IS NO WEALTH BUT LIFE. In this small book, Ruskin attacked the whole language of the ‘soi-disant’ science of economics as obscure, and, in effect, dismissed the a priori notions of MALTHUS, Ricardo and MILL as irrelevant.

The effect of Ruskin’s attack on a hitherto sacrosanct system was further exacerbated by his practical suggestions for reform. These conditions transgressed all the rules of the non-interventionist British economic system: fixed wages, Government-subsidized industries, state care for the poor, elderly and infirm, quality control of goods and state education were all recommendations that went against dogmatic utilitarian presumptions and earned him both derision and allegations of socialism. There was obviously some justification for these allegations in terms of economic reform, but in fact there were no socialistic ideals of equality in Ruskin’s utopia (see UTOPIANISM). He thought equality not only undesirable but also unobtainable, because leaders would always be required to initiate democratic programmes of action. Neither did he advocate the nationalization of land, insisting instead that landlords should retain ownership but should be induced to use their land wisely in the interest of a better quality of communal welfare. Despite these anti-democratic trends, however, Ruskin, and in particular, Unto this Last, was to become the inspiration of many socialist leaders.

In 1878 Ruskin reinforced the communitarian message of Unto this Last with the foundation of the Guild of St George, a scheme to which he gave a great deal in terms of both energy and finance. He set out the details in Fors Clavigera, a series of letters addressed to ‘The Workmen and Labourers of Great Britain’. The society he envisaged was to have Ruskin as its master, presiding over a small community, which, in return for spiritually rewarding labour, would enjoy fixed rents and favourable working conditions. This scheme, like most of Ruskin’s practical experiments, was doomed to failure, but its philanthropic legacy persists today.

Critique of Political Economy