I'll start of with Slate's Jamelle Bouie's The Enlightenment’s Dark Side

The Enlightenment is having a renaissance, of sorts. A handful of centrist and conservative writers have reclaimed the 17th- and 18th-century intellectual movement as a response to nationalism and ethnic prejudice on the right and relativism and “identity politics” on the left. Among them are Jordan Peterson, the Canadian psychologist who sees himself as a bulwark against the forces of “chaos” and “postmodernism”; Steven Pinker, the Harvard cognitive psychologist who argues, in Enlightenment Now, for optimism and human progress against those “who despise the Enlightenment ideals of reason, science, humanism, and progress”; and conservative pundit Jonah Goldberg, who, in Suicide of the West, argues in defense of capitalism and Enlightenment liberalism, twin forces he calls “the Miracle” for creating Western prosperity.

In their telling, the Enlightenment is a straightforward story of progress, with major currents like race and colonialism cast aside, if they are acknowledged at all. Divorced from its cultural and historical context, this “Enlightenment” acts as an ideological talisman, less to do with contesting ideas or understanding history, and more to do with identity. It’s a standard, meant to distinguish its holders for their commitment to “rationalism” and “classical liberalism.”

But even as they venerate the Enlightenment, these writers actually underestimate its influence on the modern world. At its heart, the movement contained a paradox: Ideas of human freedom and individual rights took root in nations that held other human beings in bondage and were then in the process of exterminating native populations. Colonial domination and expropriation marched hand in hand with the spread of “liberty,” and liberalism arose alongside our modern notions of race and racism.

It took the scientific thought of the Enlightenment to create an enduring racial taxonomy and the “color-coded, white-over-black” ideology with which we are familiar.
These weren’t incidental developments or the mere remnants of earlier prejudice. Race as we understand it—a biological taxonomy that turns physical difference into relations of domination—is a product of the Enlightenment....
Problem with that is the Englightenment wasn't a singular thing. Hayek in various place discusses the distinction between the individualist version of the Scottish/English Enlightenment and collectivist French version. Thus one must immediately ask whether racism is an individualist notion or a collectivist one. The answer is, I think, obvious.

Jonah Goldberg reactions to Jamelle Bouie's article in Was the Enlightenment Racist?, and draws a similar distinction:

Jamelle Bouie, the chief political correspondent for Slate, recently penned an essay suggesting that the Enlightenment was racist — though the real point seemed to be that liking the Enlightenment too much is kind of racist. Regardless, the essay set off quite a hullabaloo.... A wide array of writers took sides, either condemning the essay or defending it. The battle lines mostly tracked the Left–Right divide, but not entirely. For instance, Ross Douthat of the New York Times and National Review sided with Bouie, tweeting “That the Enlightenment was and remains a mixed bag whose intellectual-political-economic matrix made racism worse for a while (and may again, who knows?) is neither a radical nor an ignorant opinion.”

...In Pinker’s immensely useful book, the Enlightenment was — and is — a singular thing. It is a rebellion against all superstition and an affirmation of the glory of science and reason above all else.... “If there’s anything the Enlightenment thinkers had in common,” Pinker writes, “it was an insistence that we energetically apply the standard of reason to understanding our world, and not fall back on generators of delusion like faith, dogma, revelation, authority, charisma, mysticism, divination, visions, gut feelings, or the hermeneutic parsing of sacred texts.”

...The simple fact is that, however useful it may be as a shorthand term, there was no single thing called “the Enlightenment.” Many intellectual historians divide the Enlightenment into the French Enlightenment and the Scottish Enlightenment. Others identify an “English Enlightenment” and a “German Enlightenment” as well. And within all of the countries that enjoyed an Enlightenment, there were fierce internecine disputes about what it was and what it required. In France, some disciples of the Enlightenment cut off the heads of other disciples of the Enlightenment.

Bouie writes that “in [Goldberg and Pinker’s] telling, the Enlightenment is a straightforward story of progress, with major currents like race and colonialism cast aside, if they are acknowledged at all. Divorced from its cultural and historical context, this ‘Enlightenment’ acts as an ideological talisman, less to do with contesting ideas or understanding history, and more to do with identity.” ...

...While I certainly discuss the Enlightenment, I rely more on the term “the Miracle” (borrowing from Ernest Gellner and Robin Fox). In my telling, the Miracle is a decidedly cultural phenomenon, deeply informed by the sorts of faith, dogma, and sacred texts that Pinker banishes from the Enlightenment. Indeed, echoing Joseph Schumpeter, I argue that many of the forces unleashed by the Enlightenment — rationalism, the market, hyper-individualism — are in fact threats to sustaining the Miracle....

...What is required to prevent reason from becoming tyrannical is not the dethroning of the Enlightenment championed by today’s postmodern Left but the understanding that the best ideals of the Miracle — natural rights, the sovereignty of the individual, innate human dignity, and equality before God and government alike — serve as the true North of our moral compass regardless of what direction science or reason seem to be pointing us in at any given moment.
Setting aside the collectivst nature of racism, let's turn to the coolectivst view of capitalism, a product of the Enlightenment, as greed. This, too, is necessarily a collectivist, even Marxist view, one that identifies capitalists as an oppressive group oppressing the working class.

Hugh C. Whelchel's Imagining a Virtuous Capitalism reviews Kenneth J. Barnes's Redeeming Capitalism which offers a solution--one the collectivist has already worked hard to reject and undermine.

He begins by distinguishing two views of capitalism:

Economic freedom is important because it affects nearly every aspect of an individual’s life. Living in a society with high levels of economic freedom leads to higher incomes, less poverty, less unemployment, longer life expectancies, lower infant mortality, higher literacy, cleaner environments, and a host of other benefits. More economic freedom equals improved well-being and a better quality of life. Economic freedom, then, is one measure of what the Bible calls “flourishing.”

Yet, today, free-market economics has come under fire. Social activist Michael Moore’s critique of capitalism is embraced by many:

Capitalism is an organized system to guarantee that greed becomes the primary force of our economic system and allows the few at the top to get very wealthy and has the rest of us riding around thinking we can be that way, too—if we just work hard enough, sell enough Tupperware and Amway products, we can get a pink Cadillac.

Almost everywhere we turn, we can see examples of greed and abuse, which has many asking, “Are the evils of capitalism worth the benefits?”
And the solution:

Enter Kenneth J. Barnes, who dives headlong into this contentious debate in his new book, Redeeming Capitalism. He does not insist on unfettered capitalism, as many free-market supporters do; nor does he want to scrap capitalism for an “alternative economic utopia.” Instead, Barnes proposes “that capitalism, once rooted in a particular religious ethic, long since lost to the moral relativism of the modern era, need not be replaced, but needs instead to be redeemed.”

Barnes comes to this topic from an unusual but helpful perspective. Along with over 20 years’ experience in the business world, he holds numerous advanced degrees in theology and was recently appointed director of the Mockler Center for Faith & Ethics in the Workplace at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. While he doesn’t wish to dismiss the positive contributions capitalism has made to Western civilization, he agrees that we cannot ignore the evils and abuses that commonly plague the current system. He asks the reader to imagine a different type of capitalism, a “virtuous capitalism,” that he defines like this:

[A]n economic system with all of the wealth-generating possibilities of the capitalism we have, with the social benefits of the capitalism we desire; a system that consciously embraces and enthusiastically employs common grace for the common good.

To demonstrate that it is not capitalism itself but its practitioners who are at fault, Barnes uses the first third of the book to explain the historical uncoupling of capitalism and morals. Our system, he writes, “has evolved over the centuries from the traditional capitalism observed by Adam Smith in the eighteenth century to the modern capitalism seen by Max Weber in the early twentieth century, to our current postmodern form of capitalism.” Having broken free of previous moral constraints, this postmodern capitalism, says Barnes, has led to serious corruption and abuse.

...
Barnes goes on in his book to discuss the foundations of capitalism in common grace, wisdom, and virtue, including the “theological virtues” of faith, hope, and love.

All of which are rejected by Enlightened collectivists.

I will add that Barne's ideas are not new but can be found in John Mackey's ideas on Conscious Capitalism:

“We believe that business is good because it creates value, it is ethical because it is based on voluntary exchange, it is noble because it can elevate our existence and it is heroic because it lifts people out of poverty and creates prosperity. Free enterprise capitalism is the most powerful system for social cooperation and human progress ever conceived. It is one of the most compelling ideas we humans have ever had. But we can aspire to even more.”
~ From the Conscious Capitalist Credo

...In the words of University of Virginia Darden School of Business professor and Conscious Capitalism, Inc. trustee R. Edward Freeman,

“We need red blood cells to live (the same way a business needs profits to live), but the purpose of life is more than to make red blood cells (the same way the purpose of business is more than simply to generate profits).”

While making money is essential for the vitality and sustainability of a business, it is not the only or even the most important reason a business exists. Conscious businesses focus on their purpose beyond profit.

We all need meaning and purpose in our lives. It is one of the things that separates us from other animals. Purpose activates us and motivates us. It moves us to get up in the morning, sustains us when times get tough and serves as a guiding star when we stray off course. Conscious Businesses provide us with this sense of meaning and purpose.

By focusing on its deeper Purpose, a conscious business inspires, engages and energizes its stakeholders. Employees, customers and others trust and even love companies that have an inspiring purpose.

...