At the time, in 1869 (I wrote 1969 incorrectly before.) the distinctions were not clear in the way that they subsequently became. At the same time, one of the tasks of the trade-union and socialist movements was to discipline the rebellious impulses of workers and form them into a conscious class. What Arnold viewed with distaste was not a developed working class movement. In fact, his cultural critique of capitalism was at least as trenchant as his concern with disorder. I think he did have a sense that the riots he decried were an inchoate response to oppression, but thought that there was less excuse for what he called "philistinism," or the allied "hebraism" (really meaning evangelical protestantism) because it was a characteristic of the well-to-do. His day job, for many years, was as an inspector of schools, and thus, he was an functionary in the early formation of the modern welfare state.
In fact, that critique of capitalism is part of what is interesting about him today, and it has the most relevance. Arnold is not, as I said, a leftist, and, in some ways you are right about the conserving, if not conservative, consequences of his kind of position. But that is a critique from the left, of reformist liberal/Fabian politics. I mostly agree with that critique, but still think there is a lot to learn from its analyses of reality. Just think, Hobson, a clear-cut reformist, was much of the source for Lenin's analysis of imperialism.
Also, at a time like the present, when many distinctions that used to seem clear are blurring, it's helpful to go back over old ground like this. Arnold is a clear thinker and writer from the other side of the twentieth century.
Christopher Rhoades Dÿkema
Gordon Fitch wrote:
> Christopher Rhoades Dÿkema:
> > Carrol,
> > Please go back and reread CULTURE AND ANARCHY. What you describe is there, but
> > you will also find a strong critique of the values of unfettered capitalism, of
> > what we would now call the religious right, and a defense of an activist
> > government that works to improve the lives of the working classes. Also, part of
> > what he decried was the disorganized upheaval of the fairly recently
> > proletarianized. He has friendly things to say about other aspects of working
> > class life, including some that culturally formed the base of a stable and
> > well-organized English trade-union movement.
> >
> > In some ways, Arnold, in 1969, was a kind of proto-Fabian, more than a
> > reactionary. The conservatives know him no better than you seem to. Not to
> > glorify him, but his discussions of issues are interesting and more useful to us
> > than you think.
> >
> > Christopher Rhoades Dÿkema
>
> I haven't read _Culture_and_Anarchy_[1], but by me what you're
> describing above as MA's position is classical conservatism.
> In his day it would have been a sort of reactionary position
> against the advance of Whiggery (untrammeled liberal, progressive
> capitalism). Subsequently a portion of the ruling class picked
> up on some of its ideas, ran around to the other side of the
> Whigs, and gave us the Welfare State. There are people who
> confuse such maneuvers with leftist politics.
>
> [1]www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/nonfiction_u/arnoldm_ca/ca_all.html