I would say it is not "commercial world" but what he calls Americanism, acerbically adding "without the national qualities of Americans". Do you really think that interest in national and religious identity is nothing more than "trouble with the commercial world"? Do you think France or Germany prior to 1914 did not live in the "commercial world"?
We also know that any market power turns people into slaves and consumers of the goods, but these are truths to keep to ourselves. In the manner of a huge clear-cutting bulldozer, the system leaves Europe with empty shell of States having abdicated much of their sovereignty to the global power of financial predators.
Maybe he's not against all trade, but he's really got something against modern capitalism or hypercapitalism. I can understand the argument that speculators and predators have too much power in today's world, but when people go on about the evils of the market too much I do start to wonder or worry.
Venner's admiration for the old Middle European aristocracy is of a piece with his unease with markets. One of the big sellers of 1915 was Haendler und Helden, or Merchants and Heroes. The British and French were supposed to be mere tradesmen, and the noble Germans heroes who disdained mere commerce.
Heroism, duty, service, are admirable qualities, but one has to find a way to fit them into the world we live in -- commercial, democratic, or whatever you want to call it. Otherwise, people looking for glory can do real damage.
With respect to Venner, he doesn't quite get that aristocracy wasn't about duty or service alone. There were other qualities that distinguished the aristocracy or nobility from the dutiful servant or peasant classes, and those qualities -- the drive for distinction and glory, say -- didn't always have wholesome or constructive results.
This is what Francis Fukuyama, and before him, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, were going on about: the role of "thymos," that is, spiritedness or ambition, in a commercial, democratic order that expects such forces to be narrowly channeled into money-making activity and middle class life.
It's also the problem William James was getting it back then when he tried to find "the moral equivalent of war," something that could satisfy the desire for service and self-sacrifice apart from wars that might be senseless or destructive.
One can't blame all of what happened on the old nobility, of course -- the professional politicians and businessmen were pushing in the same direction -- but the nobility were the people who saw the greatest change in their fortunes in the era Venner is talking about and perhaps the people who were positioned to serve as a break on destructive tendencies that they didn't resist.