For an interesting alternative understanding of the modern world and its condition see Julius Evola's _Revolt Against the Modern World_.
His outline is this. Unrestrained capitalism is unstable as it puts property in the hands of the few and the many are left propertyless. This instability can only be resolved in three ways: 1)all property becomes collectively owned through the state (socialism), 2)The return of the 'servile state,' where the propertyless few are forced to labor for bare subsistance provided by those that own the property, and 3)distributive state, where property is distributed equally, but each owner has individual property rights thereto. Melloc's theory is that any attempt at socialism will lead to an equally undesirable servile state, leaving the only real option of distributivism.
In theory this sounds great and to Melloc's credit, he states his goals right off. He then defines his key terms- something that political scientists should ALWAYS do. It's a good thing he does this, because the definitions he gives are completely WRONG!!!
Property, he defines strictly as means of production. Property rights, then, refer only to that with the ability to aide in production. No wonder so many people, as Melloc sees it, are propertyless!! Next he defines capitalism not as a system of contractual economics that recognizes individual property rights (as it's usually defined) but as any situation where the few as opposed to the many, own the means of production. Under any conventional definition that also describes fascism, socialism, and feudalism, but Melloc fails to see the connection (especially with feudalism, which he applauds)!
The next big problem is Melloc's black-and-white approach to what does and does not constitute servitude. Early on, he is clear that one is only a slave if either one is absolutely forced to work (for moderate or little return) or was moderately compelled to work for life (again for moderate or little return). Later on in the book though, we notice Melloc's inability to see any middle ground. He groans at minimum wage, and 'pro-labor' quality control measures simply because he assumes that anyone in an employee/employer position must be there by unwilling servitude. There does exist grey area between the upper-crust and the slave.
The last major problem is his solution of the 'distributive state' where citizens have private ownership of property. Although Melloc never addresses how, when, how often, and what apportionment will be used, the infeasability of the 'distributive state' is not hard to see. Even if we suppose that property will be distributed equally (having been snatched from the former capitalist owners) there still exist two problems. First, by the act of snatching, you've already violated property rights. If property can be taken without just compensation, than the term is meaningless. Second, this equality of property will only last so long. As some have a natural talent for business (or any other trade, for that matter) some owners will outshine others, and the really adroit ones will gradually put the other owners under. Right back where we started; What then?!
So why two stars? Melloc, though politically feeble-brained, is a good writer and if one can keep his definitions straight, his can be rather insightful. His critiques on what would soon be the FDR welfare-state are pretty accurate and in depth. Also, like I said, this book did keep my attention, which for mish-mash like this, is an outstanding feat.
What today is called the welfare state Belloc was calling the servile state. He defined it as a group of people working, through force of law and taxation, not for themselves or their families but for other people.
Belloc traced this type of slavery to the Reformation, when the Tudor kings of England confiscated the wealth of the monasteries and of tens of thousands of small farmers. This takeover created the propertyless masses, whose economic insecurity compelled them to turn to the state for help. Therefore capitalism prepared the way for ever increasing forms of collectivism and socialism, which further eroded individual liberty. By acting as the Provider, the state also became the Master.
In his lucid introduction, Robert Nisbet notes the similarities between Belloc's views and those of Burke and Jefferson. All three professed a devotion to tradition and continuity while remaining suspicious of large, centralized, bureaucratic organizations, such as the big cities and industries of the time.
Against the Reformation and the sort of capitalism it created, Belloc juxtaposed the Middle Ages, with its abolition of slavery and its wide distribution of property, thus its greater emphasis on individual liberty. With Chesterton he proposed an economic system called distributivism.
Unfortunately, Belloc never said how his scheme could be accomplished, and it never gained many followers. His meager optimism declined throughout his life, as he gradually conceded, like Burke and Jefferson, that he was on the losing side in a world increasingly governed by the managerial state.
No major political party in the world today is working toward anything like Belloc's system of free, self-sufficient property owners, nor is there evidence that this kind of independence is sought by many people. My recommendation for the book is therefore qualified by its futility.