Though I'm semi-Marxist, I would not say that all the criticism of capitalism on the left is Marxist. Communist ideas predated Marx, and some strains of communism were socialist without aligning with Marx.
The original communists were largely sectarian Christians, and were trying to contend with the enclosure of the commons, followed by the rise of feudalism and then capitalism and the Industrial Revolution. They were also called communitarians - and that appelation has held into the present, but back then they were also called communists.
This tendency to try and form communities leaked over into secular forms of communism. These were largely pushed by capitalist/industrialist idealists who were unhappy with the system that made them rich. (This is a persistent feature in many forms of socialism - the ideas come from the middle class.)
The main strain of what I consider conservative anti-capitalism is Catholic Distributism. It's similar in spirit to the Progressive movement of the late 1800s, in that it doesn't seek to eliminate or reduce private property, but only to try and widen ownership, so there are fewer dispossessed people.
That's the strategy that was employed by both left and right wing capitalists in the mid 20th century to reduce support for socialism: make a middle class, and sell them homes via government backed mortgages.
It's also been used to erode the growth of public universities. Instead of a push for state supported education, we have student loans, and growth of private vocational schools.
Another form of anti-capitalism is private property NGOs like The Nature Conservancy. They buys up land to take it off the market and prevent it from being used by other capitalists, and let it lie fallow.
I read that linked article at TAC, and, I found it pretty horrific, but accurate.
I appreciate your reply.
I did a four-part series recently where I covered, Distributism, Georgism, and the original Social Credit (part-4 was my assessment on Miles Mathis). It’s hard from my vantage point to say that they were an organic dismal failure when it comes to praxis. Much more likely that they were systemically targeted and irradicated by the international money-lenders. And for the record, it’s a very bad idea to let those folks solve the question of how Christians should live--especially the economic aspect of Christendom's lives.
It’s clear that they’ve backwashed the idea of community! What a disgusting terrible idea it is to the money-lenders! I know, let’s replace community with international usury! See how genius we are!
At any rate, I wasn’t arguing for the virtue of some of the actors in that article. I can testify that 35-years of labor in Canada is equivalent to ‘soft slavery’...So, within that context, the southern gentleman did have a point.
If one were to look at my writings it would be abundantly clear that I’m not anti-capitalist. And in these musings I’ll attempt to suss out the conservative perspectives along these lines. On aggregate, though, most of them just want to conserve their power base. In some sense I’m sympathetic to it if the top of the pyramid would function with integrity, honour, and a sense of fairness. And compared to the corporate mafia gong-show of government today I don’t think they were terribly far off. But we’d need good Philosopher Kings...