Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
A Cultural Case for Capitalism: Part 7 of 12 — What have the capitalists ever done for Wendell Berry!
A Cultural Case for Capitalism: Part 7 of 12 — What have the capitalists ever done for Wendell Berry!
Jan 14, 2026 1:46 AM

[Part 1 is here].

In Monty Python’s Life of Brian, the ring leader of a little band of first-century Jewish rebels asks, “What have the Romans ever done for us?” He’s sure the answer is absolutely nothing, but one of the rebels meekly pipes up with “The Aqueduct.” A moment later another rebel squeaks, “And the sanitation.” Then another, “The Roads.”

The ringleader grudgingly grants all of this and then tries to wrench the meeting back on track. “But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct and the roads—” Before he can even finish the sentence, others–warming to the brainstorming challenge–begin chiming in: “Irrigation?” “Medicine?” “Education?”

The list could work just as well, and in some instances, more easily, for the British Empire. The scene also works as a metaphor for neo-agrarian essayist Wendell Berry and his relationship to capitalism and the U.S. Tobacco Trust that dominated the cigarette industry at the turn of the previous century.

Picture Berry gathering together a little knot of agrarian Distributist rebels on the back stoop of his Kentucky farm and rousing them with the purely rhetorical question, “What have the capitalists and big tobacco ever done for us?!”

The answer, I would suggest, is quite a bit.

Here’s Berry painting the picture, as he sees it, in a 2012 lecture for the National Endowment for the Humanities. The farmer in the story is Berry’s grandfather; the time, 1907:

He came home that evening, as my father later would put it, “without a dime.” After the crop had paid its transportation to market and mission on its sale, there was nothing left. Thus began my father’s lifelong advocacy, later my brother’s and my own, and now my daughter’s and my son’s, for small farmers and for land-conserving economies.

The economic hardship of my family and of many others, a century ago, was caused by a monopoly, the American Tobacco Company, which had eliminated petitors and thus was able to reduce as it pleased the prices it paid to farmers. The American Tobacco Company was the work of James B. Duke of Durham, North Carolina, and New York City, who, disregarding any other consideration, followed a capitalist logic to absolute control of his industry and, incidentally, of the economic fate of thousands of families such as my own.

Thus does Berry take plex economic story and reduce it to melodramatic caricature, with the Tobacco Trust in the role of the cartoon villain. (Keep in mind, Berry isn’t vilifying the Tobacco Trust for selling health-injuring cigarettes to people. Berry’s family was part of that industry. He’s vilifying it for following a profit-driven “capitalist logic” that supposedly brutalized Kentucky farmers.) One could write an entire book on the important things Berry’s description ignores, but we can consider a few key elements briefly.

First, entrepreneur James B. Duke was instrumental in expanding and popularizing the use of the cigarette rolling machine, invented by James Bonsack and first used in the 1880s. Thanks to Duke aggressively expanding this new technology in his pursuit of an affordable smoking product for mon man, tobacco use in the United States increased rapidly in the 1880s and 1890s, allowing for the rapid expansion of U.S. tobacco farming.

Those family farms in Kentucky and elsewhere that jumped into tobacco to take advantage of the boom did so of their own choosing, attracted by the market opportunities generated by the growing national demand for tobacco. But as with many booms, the rush into the industry soon caught up with rising demand.

Then, in the early years of the new century, the federal and state governments began clamping down on cigarette production and sales, encouraged in their efforts by cigar manufacturers threatened by the rise of inexpensive cigarettes.

So, first farmers flooded into tobacco farming to take advantage of the boom, and then the government clamped down on the cigarette industry.

What role did bination play in the tobacco supply abruptly outstripping demand and lowering the market price? Berry doesn’t appear to consider these factors. He simply blames the Tobacco Trust, ignoring these factors as well the reality that it was precisely Duke, the Tobacco Trust, and their “capitalist logic” of lowering costs to expand markets that raised the demand for tobacco crops in the first place.

Berry might have used his NEH lecture to point out plex set of factors for the poor price his grandfather got for his tobacco crop in 1907. He might even have mentioned the words “progressivism” and “cronyism,” asking his listeners to consider what role cigar makers played in lobbying Progressive era politicians to protect the cigar market from the upstart and more economical machine-rolled cigarette? But pointing up the negative roles of Progressivism, cronyism and the leviathan state in an NEH lecture funded by the leviathan federal government isn’t something you see very often.

At the time Berry’s grandfather came home empty-handed, he and other Kentucky tobacco farmers might have taken the poor price for their tobacco crop as a signal that there was an oversupply of tobacco in the U.S. market, that the tobacco boom was on hold, and that it was time to focus more of their farming efforts elsewhere.

They might also have reasonably concluded that the dip in demand had been caused by government efforts to ban cigarette sales. Perhaps some did, but the Berry family was among those who responded by blaming the Tobacco Trust and joining efforts to demand “fair” prices for their tobacco.

The result was a Kentucky tobacco farming cartel, the Dark Tobacco District Planter’s Protective Association (DTDPPA). These Kentucky “Night Riders” started by pressuring farmers outside the cartel not to sell to the Tobacco Trust, and eventually resorted to violence. Keep in mind, too, that this violent activism was in defense of the right to be paid an above-market price for a product already suspected of being bad for one’s health.

[Note: This is part of a serialized presentation of my chapter from a ing collection of essays exploring various Christian critiques of capitalism, published by the Institute for Faith, Work & Economics.]

[Part 8 is here.]

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Immigration Policy and the Future of Free Market
I have been quite concerned for some time about the shrill debate over illegal immigration and its potential fallout for free trade. I have argued, at Acton events and elsewhere, that no long-term solution to the flow of illegal immigration from Mexico is possible, without significant economic growth in Mexico. U.S. per capita GDP is 6.5 times greater than the Mexican per capita GDP. The public service infrastructure in the US is far superior to that in Mexico. Taken together,...
Bonhoeffer on Church and State, Part 2
The following is the text of a paper presented on November 15, 2006 at the Evangelical Theological Society 58th Annual Meeting in Washington, DC, which was themed, “Christians in the Public Square.” Part 2 of 3 follows below (series index). Relationship between Church and State It must first be noted that Bonhoeffer’s conception of mandates was a statement about the ontological ordering of God’s rule in the world, not a particular statement about the precise form that rule would or...
Bonhoeffer on Church and State, Part 3
The following is the text of a paper presented on November 15, 2006 at the Evangelical Theological Society 58th Annual Meeting in Washington, DC, which was themed, “Christians in the Public Square.” Part 3 of 3 follows below (series index). War and Peace I will conclude with a brief word about Bonhoeffer and pacifism, given the ongoing claims about Bonhoeffer’s mitment to the practice of nonviolence.[i] First, it should be noted, with Clifford J. Green, that it is invalid to...
The State Which Would Provide Everything
is the title of an insightful article by Fr. James Schall over at the Ignatius site. An analysis of the political contribution of Deus Caritas Est, Benedict XVI’s first encyclical, ments: The Second half of the encyclical is a brilliant treatise on the nature and limits of the State and what lies beyond it. "We do not need a state which regulates and controls everything," Benedict writes, "but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges...
Wait – You Mean Taxpayers DON’T Have to Pay for Stadiums?
Refreshing news from Major League Baseball: In the interest of full disclosure, I have to say, I have loved the Oakland Athletics for a long time now. I love how they are the anti-Yankees, consistently fielding winning teams despite having one of the lower payrolls in the game, and losing superstar after superstar to richer teams. I love their plucky spirit and their annual belief-defying August winning streaks. I love Billy Beane’s flair for the dramatic. I love that they...
A Thanksgiving Prayer
Almighty God, Father of all mercies, we thine unworthy servants do give thee most humble and hearty thanks for all thy goodness and loving-kindness to us and to all men. We bless thee for our creation, preservation, and all the blessings of this life; but above all for thine inestimable love in the redemption of the world by our Lord Jesus Christ; for the means of grace, and for the hope of glory. And, we beseech thee, give us that...
The Parenting Class
Along the same lines as my earlier post, The Weekly Standard argues that putting the needs of parents first, can form a more stable foundation for an alliance between fiscal and social conservatives. Both fiscal and social conservatives should put themselves in the shoes of the parenting class and focus on petition and choice while also encouraging the growth and strength of the two-parent family. In health care, for instance, conservatives have consistently failed to approach things from that point...
Natural Law and Christian Social Thought
Two new and intriguing books from Cambridge University Press have crossed my editorial desk recently. Anticipate reviews to appear in the Journal of Markets & Morality sometime next year; but in the meantime I wanted to give them each a plug. Both draw on the philosophical tradition of the natural law to address contemporary debates in social/political thought. The argument of Christopher Wolfe’s Natural Law Liberalism is summed up in a blurb by Notre Dame law professor Gerard Bradley: “No...
Generous Conservatives
Desperate Philanthropist? In a recent column in the National Post, David Frum looks at an “astonishing” new book on charitable giving due out this month from Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks. In “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth of Compassionate Conservatism,” Brooks contends that conservatives are really “more generous, more honest and more public-spirited” than liberals. Frum starts his column with a quote from Desperate Housewives actress Eva Longoria, who asserts: “Everyone on Wisteria Lane has the money of...
Good News for the Moralists
Here’s some good news for those who prefer bat cultural evil through the edification and cultivation of moral sensibilities: In “Repugnance as a Constraint on Markets,” Alvin E. Roth finds that “distaste for certain kinds of transactions is a real constraint, every bit as real as the constraints imposed by technology or by the requirements of incentives and efficiency.” He also finds that “while repugnance can change over time, change can be quite slow.” This presumably applies to the decrease...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved