Marx Corrected

From each according to his freely undertaken contribution to the creation of wealth. To each according to the same.

TGIF: Socialism with a Fig Leaf

What work does democratic perform in the phrase democratic socialism? It's a fig leaf intended to conceal what would presumably be repugnant to most people: the coercive regimentation inherent in socialism, whether international (Marxist) or national (fascist).

Socialism has a nasty record dating back to 1917, so socialists have felt compelled to clean up its image. Democracy is supposed to do the cleaning up. But does it? Could it?

Before we get to that, we should remind ourselves that no single conception of socialism exists. In one version, socialism denotes central economic planning, the top-down command economy. However, other socialists envision a collection of operations governed locally and democratically by workers, perhaps with input from other so-called stakeholders. That used to be called syndicalism.

These visions do not blend readily. If each firm, factory, and farm is run by its workers, who have seized it from the creator/owner, whence the central plan?

In the market, individual productive entities do not exist in a vacuum. They buy and sell along a vertical structure of production ranging from extraction to retail. For example, a steel processor buys iron ore from a mining company and sells its products to manufacturers of producer and consumer goods. Global supply chains are so complex that no one could grasp the whole. Conditions and prices often change, requiring flexibility, foresight, intuition, improvisation—in a word, entrepreneurship. And don't get me started on transportation. Raw materials and semifinished products must move expeditiously from one place to another, often over long distances, in bad weather as well as good. Business is the original worldwide web. (See Leonard E. Read's "I, Pencil.")

Thus, coordination is indispensable if billions of people with diverse needs and tastes are to have access to the most goods at the lowest possible expenditure. The more that scarce resources are economized, the more stuff we can have. How can the coordination of diverse plans be achieved? Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek, along with other sound economists, long ago demonstrated that what permits coordination is the market—that is, the price system and its institutional requirements. Prices are constantly updated guides to producer and consumer action, carrying critical, dispersed, and often unarticulated information about supply and demand. Prices are not magic. They require 1) private property in the factors of production and consumer goods, 2) markets, in which unencumbered trade of private property can take place, and 3) money, a medium of exchange, the less subject to political manipulation the better. Without these things, economic calculation, coordination (mostly with strangers), and general prosperity cannot take place.

That's how it works in a market economy, even a government-hampered one such as ours. How could this seeming miracle be accomplished under socialism, which is hostile to the market and its requirements?

A central planning board, nominally acting on behalf of society, would presumably have the power to issue orders to its personnel; everyone would be a state employee. Well, it could try, but the results would be a disaster, as history shows, because of the aforementioned coordination and knowledge problem (and incentive problem) long documented by economists and economic historians. Getting to vote for the members of the planning board, which wouldn't last long even if it began that way, could not save the system.

What about an "economy" of autonomous democratic plants, offices, and farms? We can imagine an answer. First, at the lowest level, the workers (and perhaps other stakeholders) would vote not only for their managers, but also for representatives to a council of firms at the next level up. In turn, the members of that council would vote for delegates to an ever-higher council, and so on until the pinnacle is reached, where a comprehensive plan would be promulgated and then imposed.

How could it work otherwise? If it sounds rigidly hierarchical, that's because it is. But things could hardly be expected to go smoothly. Where does the information that market prices convey come from under socialism? Moreover, even if everyone in society wants some kind of central plan, the odds of everyone wanting the same plan are precisely zero. And if everything is to be decided by majority rule—we're talking about democracy, right?—there will be no avoiding election campaigns for people and plans, campaign promises, and dubious efforts to convince voters to a point of view. In other words, there will be no escaping "the manufacture of consent," the essence of the democratic procedure, which self-styled dissidents condemn today. Ironic.

Such an arrangement has no prospect of creating or sustaining a modern industrial economy that could properly cater to billions of people worldwide.

That's the economics of the matter. The descriptor democratic before socialism, remember, is to give state regimentation a smiling face. Being able to vote within a socialist system is supposed to make all the difference. But having a mere one vote—when (at best) your whole life is to be subordinated to majority rule—is nothing compared to the sovereignty one has in the unhampered competitive market, or even in today's sea of government intervention. Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's signature theme of dignity through pervasive democracy is exposed as so much snake oil.

The idea that the key to dignity and liberty is voting on everything was stripped of its romance by the 19th-century Swiss/French classical liberal Benjamin Constant (1767-1830) in his must-read essay, "The Liberty of Ancients Compared with that of Moderns (1819)." His title is self-explanatory. Here's how Constant described the modern notion of liberty:

For each [person] it is the right to be subjected only to the laws, and to be neither arrested, detained, put to death or maltreated in any way by the arbitrary will of one or more individuals. It is the right of everyone to express their opinion, choose a profession and practice it, to dispose of property, and even to abuse it; to come and go without permission, and without having to account for their motives or undertakings. It is everyone’s right to associate with other individuals, either to discuss their interests, or to profess the religion which they and their associates prefer, or even simply to occupy their days or hours in a way which is most compatible with their inclinations or whims. Finally it is everyone’s right to exercise some influence on the administration of the government, either by electing all or particular officials, or through representations, petitions, demands to which the authorities are more or less compelled to pay heed.

Yes, Constant included democratic participation in his description. But note that he put it last. The rights that he lists first, if respected, would limit what the voting public, acting as the state, could do to the individual. (Keeping the system limited is the problem that has proved insurmountable. That's why the state must go.) Democratic socialism could not be expected to observe limits. How could it? It's touted as rational social engineering.

What about the ancient idea of liberty?

[It] consisted in exercising collectively, but directly, several parts of the complete sovereignty; in deliberating, in the public square, over war and peace; in forming alliances with foreign governments; in voting laws, in pronouncing judgments; in examining the accounts, the acts, the stewardship of the magistrates; in calling them to appear in front of the assembled people, in accusing, condemning or absolving them.

Constant emphasized the narrowness of the ancients’ notion of liberty: “[T]hey admitted as compatible with this collective freedom the complete subjection of the individual to the authority of the community.... All private actions were submitted to a severe surveillance. No importance was given to individual independence, neither in relation to opinions, nor to labor, nor, above all, to religion.” (Emphasis added.)

Isn't having one vote real power? Constant said no. "Lost in the multitude, the individual can almost never perceive the influence he exercises," he wrote. Can you think of one election whose outcome would have changed had you done something different on election day?

We can see that Zohran Mamdani and his fellow democratic socialists, like the conservative populists, reject liberal modernity and the individual freedom it delivered. They may style themselves "postmodernists," but in fact they are reactionaries.

(For a full discussion of democratic socialism, see Stephen Hicks's Open College podcast, episode 36, "Democratic Socialism for Beginners.")

TGIF: The Capitalist-Socialist Asymmetry

Free-marketeers have long pointed out a particular asymmetry between capitalism and socialism (whether of the international or national variety). While anyone in a capitalist society would have a right to engage in socialism (as anyone can do now in our hampered market economy), the reverse would not hold: under socialism—that is, a centrally planned economy, democratic or not—no one would be free to engage in "capitalist acts between consenting adults" (to use Robert Nozick's phrase from Anarchy, State, and Utopia). It would upset the plan.

In other words, in a fully free society, no legal barriers would prevent people from setting up communes, worker and consumer co-ops, etc., but in a socialist society, money exchanges of land, producer goods, and labor services (and perhaps even consumer goods) would be outlawed. Goodbye, entrepreneurship, free private enterprise, and economic calculation via trade-generated market prices.

That asymmetry speaks volumes, does it not? It ought to end the debate between the proponents and opponents of capitalism. Do you wish to live as a socialist with a clear conscience? Embrace the free market.

But socialists will have none of that. For them, individual choice is unimportant, if not destructive. In their view, voluntary capitalist relations are exploitative regardless of how the participants see them. So they must be forbidden. Socialist planners and their court intellectuals know better. Thus, for their own good, mere people must be controlled.

That is the height of presumptuous and arrogant elitism. The appropriate question for the socialist is that quintessential American retort: "Who asked you?"

How do the socialists know that transactions are exploitative? We can be sure that at the time of the transaction, the parties demonstrably prefer what they give up to what they receive. "No, no!" cry the socialists. One party is weaker because he must eat, work, obtain shelter, etc. What socialists refuse to acknowledge is that market relations are how we cope with a world of natural scarcity, a world in which resources—that is, natural stuff for which human ingenuity has found uses—are finite, costly to obtain, and usable in a variety of ways. (By all means, see this video from Stephen Davies and the Institute of Economic Affairs.) Scarcity is not a capitalist plot. On the contrary, the combination of the division of labor, technology, and trade is the only way to push back the constraints of scarcity. Most of today's eight billion people live much better now than one billion did in 1800.

How do the socialists know that employees are exploited? Apparently, they just do. It has something to do with the market return on goods sold being greater than the wages employees are paid. The "surplus" collected by employers is seen as stolen. That actual employees value their wages more than the effort they expend to earn them is irrelevant as far as the socialists are concerned. But again, who asked them?

Those with only a scant acquaintance with economics often find Marx's exploitation theory plausible. However, they overlook a critical factor: time. When something happens matters to us as much as what happens. Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, the second-generation Austrian economist who delved into this matter, put the point rather nicely:

The completely just proposition that the worker is to receive the entire value of his product can be reasonably interpreted to mean either that he is to receive the full present value of his product now or that he is to get the entire future value in the future. But … the socialists interpret it to mean that the worker is to receive the entire future value of his product now.

People value present and future goods differently. Other things equal, we prefer the results of our actions sooner rather than later. Asked if you'd want a dollar today or a dollar in a month, you'll take it today. But asked if you'd want a dollar today or two dollars next month, you may choose to wait if the extra dollar will make the wait worthwhile. If two dollars won't do it, maybe three dollars will. The time element is what explains interest. I'll let you use my money for a period if you promise to compensate me later. It's perfectly legitimate. (For more, see this.)

The employment relationship involves time too. Employees typically don't want to wait until the consumer or producer goods they work on have been sold. Most prefer to be paid regularly, predictably. Nothing wrong with that. But in that case employers who advance (lend) their employees wages out of previous savings will have to wait for the sales—which may not take place if no buyers are interested. Why shouldn't employers be compensated for doing what their employees are unwilling to do: namely, assume the risk and uncertainty of waiting? If socialists don't like it, let them start businesses. (Gene Epstein points out that unions are flush with money from their members' dues. Why don't they start worker-owned firms? Why don't the union members demand it?)

In market-oriented but not fully free economies, we see few if any worker-owned businesses. Why? Probably because most people don't want the risk and responsibility of ownership. So they forgo some money in return for the relative security of employment. That's their right. But employees should not begrudge employers because the latter earn profits (which comprise both interest on the loans to employees and entrepreneurial rewards for spotting price discrepancies that others overlooked).

Socialists who dislike conventional enterprise should stop complaining and set up worker-owned firms. On the other hand, it's easier and less risky to complain about capitalism. Admittedly, in one respect, socialists would not be free to engage in socialism. They could not force anyone to go along.

Orwell on Socialists

"The truth is that, to many people calling themselves Socialists, revolution does not mean a movement of the masses with which they hope to associate themselves; it means a set of reforms which ’we’, the clever ones, are going to impose upon ’them’, the Lower Orders." —George Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier, 1937

TGIF: Envy, Ignorance, Barbarism Triumph in New York

Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani's mayoral victory in New York City is a triumph of moral barbarism, economic illiteracy, illogic, and just plain envy. Mamdani's campaign had a double pitch: billionaires should not exist, and "the people" deserve free stuff.

At first I thought his supporters did not understand the old free-market meme, TANSTAAFL: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Nature provides only raw materials, which are useless in their original state. Ingenuity turns them into resources. But then I realized that while Mamdani used the word free, he also said he would get the money for the free stuff by further taxing the rich. The people who voted for him heard that, so they couldn't have thought that bus rides, daycare, and whatever else he has plans for would really be free—just free to them.

The demand that other people should pay—whether they want to or not, under threat of imprisonment—for what you want is monstrous on many levels. The economic harm from the variants of this demand has been documented theoretically and empirically many times over many years. You can look it up. Begin with Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. Then read up on the Soviet Union, pre-1979 China, pre-1991 India, Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela.

Like the laws of physics, the laws of human action (economics) cannot be repealed; if they are ignored, the consequences are catastrophic, especially for the most vulnerable, who are the ostensibly intended beneficiaries of giveaways. When bus rides are free, how long will it be before civilized people find them unusable? When rents are frozen, which Mamdani's supporters robotically demand, how long before apartments deteriorate even further or are taken off the market?

When the state forces other people to pay for what you want, that's slavery. Mamdani and his ilk insist on the right to medical care, housing, education, "affordable" groceries, etc. But how can such rights exist? Each of those services must be provided by individuals. Don't they have the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness? If A has a right to B's labor or the fruits thereof, then B must be A's slave. I thought good people were against slavery. Did I miss the memo?

Ayn Rand taught us that people's extraordinary achievements and resulting financial success do not justify declaring open season on them. They have the same rights as those who achieve less or nothing at all. Treating them as sacrificial animals is unjust (and self-defeating). Great producers of wealth have no duty to serve those who produce little or nothing, just as no one has a duty to serve the great producers. Each life is an end in itself requiring no justification. Respecting all people's rights, that is, living by reason not force, is constitutive of the self-interested life. (Selfishness, as most people use that word, is actually myopia, that is, under-concern, not over-concern, with self.) The code of self-sacrifice, as Rand pointed out, is incoherent because if applied universally, no one would be entitled to receive the booty. In practice, when someone preaches self-sacrifice, she said, someone is planning on collecting the sacrifices..

The oppressive bigotry against the "rich" is unseemly because it is a resentment of achievement in itself. The exploitation claim is long-demolished nonsense. (Making a fortune off the taxpayers is another kettle of fish.) Moreover, it ought to be obvious that punishing people for their success will discourage the thought and effort that make success possible. Incentives matter. Considering that innovators earn only a small fraction of the value that they make possible for others, how does punishing success help the people Mamdani says he cares about? Thanks to innovators—in the technological and management senses—the "poorest" Americans are actually among the richest people who ever walked the earth. Extreme poverty has been plummeting for decades. The rest of the world has been catching up with the bourgeois West thanks to technology, increasing liberty, and global trade. What has Mamdani and the Democratic Socialists of America done to benefit anyone?

A final word about that qualifier democratic in "democratic socialism." It is meant to dupe the naive; that is, it is intended to dissociate socialism from the Marx-inspired tyrannies that produced a hundred million corpses beginning in 1917. Communist East Germany was officially the German Democratic Republic, just as communist North Korea is the Democratic Republic of Korea.

That this PR trick fools anyone anymore is hard to believe. Even if elections were held under socialism, how would that change it into something benign? Democratic or not, socialism is government planning of people's lives, in contrast to capitalism—the competitive market economy in which people make their own plans and peacefully coordinate with others through the price system and mutually beneficial free exchange. Periodically casting one vote among many for those who will formulate and carry out the plan would not fix what's wrong with socialism. Even under majority rule, the minority must obey or starve, as the nice Bolshevik Trotsky so charmingly put it. Any individual is a potential threat to the plan and therefore must not be tolerated. Central planning and social cooperation through individual freedom cannot coexist.

Either Mamdani does not know this or he won't acknowledge it. That destroys his claim to care about people. For him, the people are mere stage props (as are the Palestinians). His ideology would oppress them. Despite the democratic sales pitch, this child of the elite aspires to implement the most elitist of oppressive systems. Fanatic or grifter? You decide.

 

TGIF: What Is Capitalism?

So, what is capitalism? The answer will depend on who's being asked. Language, like markets, basic law, and customs, is a spontaneous order. No one plans it. Words drift in their meaning in ways that probably can’t be fully explained. Language is a tool that people use to think and communicate, so it’s adapted according to needs, changing circumstances, and even confusion.

That doesn’t mean we can say nothing about words like capitalism. My views on that word have changed over the years; I once contributed to a book called Markets, Not Capitalism. The book was meant to show that the free market differs from capitalism. Is it right? Again, that depends on how one defines capitalism. As far as I can tell, most people who dislike capitalism also dislike the idea of a market-based society. Some prominent pro-market thinkers, Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek among them, disliked the word for a variety of reasons. 

At any rate, the word is not going away. Since no one controls the language, we should put communication before personal preferences. Let's define our terms clearly and then talk about reality.

Despite variation in the definition of capitalism, most people would agree that market orientation is at its heart. They evaluate the market differently, but it is the market that they are evaluating. So we have some common ground, even as we disagree over whether capitalism is a good or bad social arrangement or whether it conceptually includes or excludes a given practice.

I, along with many others, consider capitalism to be the social arrangement in which people are free to engage in the production and exchange of goods and services, typically for money. Left unmolested, that is what people do. Those activities generate prices, which reflect supply and demand and guide further action. To live is to act, which is to aim at ends by deploying means, which is to value. The root of this never-ending process is the wish to sustain life and to live in a particular way. (See the work of Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, and Ayn Rand for details.)

The institution of interpersonal exchange logically has presuppositions. It stands on a foundation. It presupposes that persons own themselves and the things they nonaggressively obtain; it also presupposes the security of contracts. These things can be violated in practice, but they are departures from the logic of the system. Historical capitalism developed over a thousand years as persons, their property (including their bodies), their contracts, and their enterprises came to be more and more respected—that is, as political power decentralized and, consequently, diminished, thanks in part to jurisdictional competition, that is, the power to vote with one's feet. (People disliked paying taxes for war and having their trade and investments disrupted.) Growing religious toleration played an important role in this process of individual liberation and spreading cooperation.

Where property and contracts became more secure, per capita wealth dramatically increased, setting an example for others. As Adam Smith put it, “Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.”

This is not to say that injustice and aggression disappeared abruptly and completely. Of course, it did not. Who could have expected that? It would take time. Another way of saying this is that capitalism—to be clear, that means laissez-faire or free-market capitalism—was not fully achieved anywhere. It still hasn't been. But it would be wrong to attribute the great wealth generated by capitalism to injustice such as slavery and conquest. Advanced civilizations of the past conquered, plundered, and enslaved, but they did not produce astonishing, sustained, and widespread wealth. Capitalism and classical liberalism in Western Europe and America did something different, something special.

Societies can be judged by how close they came to achieving capitalism. We can distinguish particular practices and institutions as either capitalist or anticapitalist. It follows that crony capitalism, state capitalism, and political capitalism, etc., are not capitalist variations but moves away from capitalism (that is, from self-ownership, property rights, contract, and free exchange). Those labels are contradictions in terms because they entail limits on peaceful, productive market interaction. The predatory, which supposedly acts in the name of the collective, in effect makes itself the senior part-owner of what was or should have been private property. The system is no longer a fully market system, even if people who own capital ask for the intervention. Thus free-market capitalism is a redundancy.

For example, a political arrangement in which slavery and slave markets exist does not qualify as capitalism. Why not? Because in that basic respect, the arrangement does not fully embody self-ownership, property rights (which flow from self-ownership), and free exchange. Southern slave holders claimed that "their" slaves were property, but that was a category error because persons can be property owners, not property. Good Lockeans, the abolitionists called the slave holders "man stealers." 

Similarly, a political system in which politicians and bureaucrats may interfere with people’s property and free exchange through taxation, regulation, trade barriers, subsidies, government ownership, etc., should not be called capitalist. It would be a mixture of capitalism and interventionism or socialism.

We can sum up by saying that only laissez-faire capitalism—the consistent separation of state and economy—qualifies as real capitalism. Anything less than laissez faire is less than capitalism. The government cannot regulate an economy, which is an abstraction. What it can do is restrict real individuals in their peaceful, productive market interactions. Restriction requires the use or threat of aggressive force and violence. In contrast, a capitalist society is a humane society.

Call it what you will, the system that respects our freedom to engage in mutually beneficial market relations—and its prerequisites—is worth defending against its Classic Marxist and Marxist Lite detractors, who have to distort categories like “exploitation” to make their spurious case. Capitalism, despite not being fully embraced, ushered in an era of unprecedented personal freedom and sustained, widespread wealth. Capitalism is anti-exploitationism.

(I have not reinvented the wheel. Thus related reading: “The European Miracle” by Ralph Raico, “Reconsidering Gabriel Kolko: A Half-Century Perspective” by Robert L. Bradley Jr. and Roger Donway, "Capitalism, Socialism, and 'The Middle Way': A Taxonomy" by Bradley and Donway, "Beyond 'The Money-Making Personality': Notes toward a Theory of Capitalist Orthopraxy" by Roger Donway (Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 21:1 July 2021) and The Libertarian Mind by David Boaz (especially chapter 2: "The Roots of Libertarianism.")

TGIF: The Worst Are Already on Top

After Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem made a fool of herself by defining habeas corpus as "a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country," Justin Amash, the libertarian former congressman, posted an apt quotation on X:

Since it is the supreme leader who alone determines the ends, his instruments [staff] must have no moral convictions of their own. They must, above all, be unreservedly committed to the person of the leader; but next to this the most important thing is that they should be completely unprincipled and literally capable of everything. They must have no ideals of their own which they want to realise, no ideas about right or wrong which might interfere with the intentions of the leader.

The quote comes from Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek, one of the most important social scientists of the 20th century. You can find the quote in Chapter 10 of Hayek's invaluable 1943 classic, The Road to Serfdom. Hayek called that chapter “Why the Worst Get on Top.”

That chapter is worth paying close attention to. Let's start by acknowledging the purpose of Hayek's book. During World War II, Hayek, who lived and taught in England, sought to counter an argument made by prominent intellectuals, namely, that if central planning works well in war, it ought to work well in peacetime. Postwar economic planning seemed inevitable.

Hayek dissented. For him, the economic case for socialism had already been demolished by Ludwig von Mises's 1922 book, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis. That book had expanded on Mises's stunning 1920 paper, "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth," which showed that since socialist planners would not have access to market prices—markets after all were to be abolished—they could not rationally plan a great industrial economy that would efficiently serve consumers.

Why couldn't the planners have access to prices? Because information-rich prices can emerge only through market exchanges. Markets must exist not only for consumer goods, but for the means of production, which for socialists was a no-no: that is, labor, land, raw materials, tools, equipment, machines, and buildings. But trade presupposes private property in the means of production, another no-no for the socialists. You cannot trade what you do not own.

In short: no private property = no trade. No trade = no prices. No prices = no rational planning. Market prices (a redundancy) reflect supply and demand; they also permit disparate things to be expressed in a common unit of account, for example, the dollar. This makes cost comparisons possible. If the planners could not engage in economic calculation through money prices, they could not devise the most efficient production strategies for the countless goods that consumers want.

Why does that matter? It matters because resources and labor are scarce. At any time, our large and varied demand exceeds supply. Many methods could be chosen to produce any particular good, but waste is contrary to our interests. We want the most efficient methods used because the fewer the inputs employed, the more outputs for consumers. Without prices, there would be no way to determine which method is most efficient and least wasteful. The planners would be like blind pilots flying in the dark with no instruments. As Mises said, socialism is impossible.

Before pointing to the late Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Venezuela, or North Korea as proof that Mises was wrong, remember that these systems existed in a world of semi-free-market prices. Worldwide socialism would be a nightmare.

In The Road to Serfdom, Hayek's critique of central planning went beyond the calculation problem. He demonstrated that if politicians took central social planning seriously, the people would have to be turned into serfs. Contrary to popular misunderstanding, he did not argue that if a society takes the first step toward the welfare state, serfdom would inevitably follow. As objectionable as it is, the welfare state is not socialism. It does not abolish private property, markets, and money.

One of Hayek's points—these were not predictions because he observed them in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and fascist Italy—was that central planning required the concentration of all power in a few hands, perhaps one set of hands. It cannot be imagined otherwise. (We're not talking about syndicalism, which has its own problems.)

For example, imagine a society that embarks sincerely on democratic socialism. (Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez take heed.) Hayek pointed out that the people and their legislature might agree 100 percent that the economy should be planned. It does not follow, however, that they will agree 100 percent on the contents of the plan. How much steel should be produced next year? How much plastic? How many refrigerators? How many cars? How many smartphones? How many dolls? Etc., etc., etc. Socialism could not repeal scarcity. Making more of X requires making less of Y. Making more producer goods requires making fewer consumer goods now. You have a problem with that? Sue God.

The chance of substantial agreement over the details of The Plan is near zero. Because of the disagreement, the legislature would be locked in endless debate with no prospect of finalizing The Plan. An unfinished plan cannot be implemented. The deadlock would be fertile ground for the emergence of a strongman. That would appeal to the people who favored action over talk. "Give us a plan!" Democratic socialism would be exposed as a chimera.

In our context, see what Donald Trump said when the U.S. Court of International Trade said that only Congress can impose tariffs: "The horrific decision stated I would have to get the approval of Congress for these Tariffs. In other words, hundreds of politicians would sit around D.C. for weeks, and even months, trying to come to a conclusion as to what to charge other Countries that are treating us unfairly.” (Emphasis added.)

Hayek would not be surprised:

We must here return for a moment to the position which precedes the suppression of democratic institutions and the creation of a totalitarian regime. In this stage it is the general demand for quick and determined government action that is the dominating element in the situation, dissatisfaction with the slow and cumbersome course of democratic procedure which makes action for action's sake the goal. It is then the man or the party who seems strong and resolute enough "to get things done" who exercises the greatest appeal.

Hayek noted that the strongman would need loyal, unquestioning lieutenants to faithfully carry out his decrees.

The chance of imposing a totalitarian regime on a whole people depends on the leader first collecting round him a group which is prepared voluntarily to submit to that totalitarian discipline which they are to impose by force upon the rest.

[The preempted socialist legislators] had, without knowing it, set themselves a task which only the ruthless, ready to disregard the barriers of accepted morals, can execute.... [Emphasis added.]

[A] numerous and strong group with fairly homogeneous views is not likely to be
formed by the best but rather by the worst elements of any society. [Emphasis added.]

The man and party best suited to impose the collectivist project will not be friendly to individual liberty or the free, spontaneous social process that liberalism calls for. Indeed, the "old" values would block their path and would have to be eliminated. In other words, a brutal program will be carried out by a brutal leader and brutal officers of the state, cheered on by worshipful followers.

As I've noted, Hayek's subject was totalitarian central planning. But I (among others) submit that similar dangers loom with any big-government interventionist system. The current U.S. regime claims the autocratic authority to do all sorts of things that violate individual liberty. It does not seek congressional authorization, and it damns the courts for obstruction.

The potential for such concentrated power has existed in the U.S. political system for a long time. Congress has repeatedly and illegally delegated broad "emergency" powers to the executive. What makes the current regime different from its predecessors is that it invokes those powers flagrantly, arbitrarily, and often. While it does not seek to impose a comprehensive plan (yet), it nevertheless has substantial plans on a variety of matters, such as international trade, domestic industry, and labor (immigration). That makes Hayek's analysis relevant.

Hayek opened the chapter with Lord Acton's famous aphorism: "All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." But Hayek went beyond Acton to suggest that power attracts the corrupt or corruptible.

A key Hayekian point is that to the extent the regime carries out its plan, which will need public support, its attitude toward common-sense morality will be lax, to say the least, if not outright disdainful.

The principle that the end justifies the means is in individualist ethics regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule; there is literally nothing which the consistent collectivist must not be prepared to do if it serves "the good of the whole", because the "good of the whole" is to him the only criterion of what ought to be done. The raison d'etat, in which collectivist ethics has found its most explicit formulation, knows no other limit than that set by expediency—the suitability of the particular act for the end in view. And what the raison d'etat affirms with respect to the relations between different countries applies equally to the relations between different individuals within the collectivist state. There can be no limit to what its citizen must not be prepared to do, no act which his conscience must prevent him from committing, if it is necessary for an end which the community has set itself or which his superiors order him to achieve.

Who would relish the chance to round up masses of peaceful "illegal" border-crossers without due process and force them onto planes bound for prisons in El Salvador, South Sudan, or Djibouti? The current U.S. regime will reward people who would enjoy that sort of work.

There is thus in the positions of power little to attract those who hold moral beliefs of the kind which in the past have guided the European peoples.... The only tastes which are satisfied are the taste for power as such, the pleasure of being obeyed and of being part of a well-functioning and immensely powerful machine to which everything else must give way.

Yet while there is little that is likely to induce men who are good by our standards to aspire to leading positions in the totalitarian machine, and much to deter them, there will be special opportunities for the ruthless and unscrupulous.... [T]he readiness to do bad things becomes a path to promotion and power. The positions in a totalitarian society in which it is necessary to practice cruelty and intimidation, deliberate deception and spying, are numerous. Neither the Gestapo nor the administration of a concentration camp, neither the Ministry of Propaganda nor the SA or SS (or their Italian or Russian counterparts) are suitable places for the exercise of humanitarian feelings. Yet it is through positions like these that the road to the highest positions in the totalitarian state leads.

It's too late to worry that the worst will get on top. He and they are already there.

 

Crucial Economic Calculation

"The advocates of totalitarianism consider 'capitalism' a ghastly evil, an awful illness that came upon mankind. In the eyes of Marx it was an inevitable stage of mankind’s evolution, but for all that the worst of evils; fortunately salvation is imminent and will free man forever from this disaster. In the opinion of other people it would have been possible to avoid capitalism if only men had been more moral or more skillful in the choice of economic policies. All such lucubrations have one feature in common. They look upon capitalism as if it were an accidental phenomenon which could be eliminated without altering conditions that are essential in civilized man’s acting and thinking. As they neglect to bother about the problem of economic calculation, they are not aware of the consequences which the abolition of the monetary calculus is bound to bring about. They do not realize that socialist men for whom arithmetic will be of no use in planning action, will differ entirely in their mentality and in their mode of thinking from our contemporaries. In dealing with socialism, we must not overlook this mental transformation, even if we were ready to pass over in silence the disastrous consequences which would result for man’s material well-being."

—Ludwig von Mises, Human Action

TGIF: "You Didn't Build That"

Remember Barack Obama's profound 2012 campaign speech about success? Here's part of what he said:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed [!] you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together.... We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President—because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.

Obama was no outlier. Plenty of people would be willing to give that speech today, maybe even Donald Trump.

Where to start? Obama said that he knows wealthy people who want to "give something back." Why? Presumably because of their wealth and success. That makes no sense. If these people made their wealth by producing attractive goods for consumers (which is how most wealthy people get wealthy), then what's to give back? We consumers did not give them money as a favor. We engaged in voluntary exchange. We gave up $X to get product Y because we prefer what we got to what we gave up. They benefitted and we benefitted. Double profit, double "thank you," as John Stossel says. That's how trade works when it's uncoerced. No debt; nothing to give back. End of.

Second, superstar entrepreneurs likely are smarter and more perceptive about the future state of the market than most other people. I doubt they go around bragging about it or minimizing the role of "good breaks." They surely know that things other than sheer intelligence figure into success. But let's not be unrealistically egalitarian about it. Some people are better suited to be entrepreneurs than others. Many of the outside factors that Obama named were also available to others. Why didn't those others succeed?

Next, what's this buncombe about all of us rising or falling together? When a business fails to satisfy us, it falls. Its owners, managers, and employees have to find other work. Its investors lose out. But the rest of us have not fallen. The failed businesses's material factors are now available to produce things we want. The discharged employees are now available to make other things we want. Where's the general failure? Obama spoke collectivist nonsense. Something does—or should—unite people, but it's not what Obama had in mind. They have a stake in a free society, that is, a society in which the government does not try to manage their lives and market relations.

The rest of the passage is Obama's elaboration of this thesis: "If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own." Was he so ignorant of the case for laissez faire that he thought this was news for defenders of the unmolested market economy? Was he having a laugh? Ludwig von Mises, one of the 20th century's premier champions of individual freedom considered calling his economic treatise "Social Cooperation." That is the second most common phrase in Human Action, right behind "division of labor," which Mises sometimes called the "social division of labor."

So Obama was tackling the scrawniest of strawmen. He was being a demagogue. No market advocate ever suggested that lucrative businesses were built in isolated shacks in rural Montana. Businesses were always described as embedded in the complex network we call the market economy.

I modestly suggest that Obama and every one of his ilk read I, Pencil. That's Leonard E. Read's 1958 essay explaining why no one person can make something as commonplace as a pencil. On the contrary, it takes incredibly complex worldwide cooperation, and it happens without a central authority. The price system, rooted in private property in the factors of production and in trade, directs the myriad self-interested activities that entrepreneurs, under no one's orders, combine to produce the pencil. No kidding. I. Pencil was written three years before Obama was born. Read, founder of the Foundation for Economic Education, had a different lesson in mind from Obama's ignorant message. The former president had a collectivist, interventionist message. Read's was an individualist, free-market message. Read for the win.

Obama named particular things, such as the internet, which got started or built under government auspices. But, as usual, he overlooks what is not seen. (Also see "I, Website.") Obama thinks that if the government does not do something, it does not get done. But if the government did not build roads, bridges, airports, ports, schools, and the internet, would those things never have come into being? That's beggars belief. We know it's not true. People privately built public infrastructure before the government did. It didn't happen "on its own." Profit-seeking individuals and their free associations made it happen.

Businesses that relied on the infrastructure paid for its services. "Take what you want, said God, and pay for it," the Spanish proverb says. That's the market; no need for coercion. Why the mystery? Obama ignored all of the amazing things that free and private enterprise has created over the centuries, not without any assistance, but without government assistance. If he knows better, he's a demagogue.

Here's how Ludwig von Mises addressed the issue in Human Action in 1949, long before Obama  was born (but the year I was born):

The interventionists and the socialists contend that all commodities are turned out by a social process of production. When this process comes to an end and its fruits ripen, a second social process, that of distribution of the yield, follows and allots a share to each. The characteristic feature of the capitalist order is that the shares allotted are unequal. Some people—the entrepreneurs, the capitalists, and the landowners—appropriate to themselves more than they should. Accordingly, the portions of other people are curtailed. Government should by rights expropriate the surplus of the privileged and distribute it among the underprivileged.

Now in the market economy this alleged dualism of two independent processes, that of production and that of distribution, does not exist. There is only one process going on. Goods are not first produced and then distributed. There is no such thing as an appropriation of portions out of a stock of ownerless goods. The products come into existence as somebody’s property. If one wants to distribute them, one must first confiscate them. It is certainly very easy for the governmental apparatus of compulsion and coercion to embark upon confiscation and expropriation. But this does not prove that a durable system of economic affairs can be built upon such confiscation and expropriation.

Before the interventionists dispense more advice, they might learn some economics.

 

Shame on You, Socialists

American socialists not only pit workers against entrepreneurs; they also pit rich American workers against the poor workers of the rest of the world. Shame on you, socialists!

The Soul of a Socialist

 From the pen of H. G. Wells (1908), socialist:

War is a collective concern; to turn one’s back upon it, to refuse to consider it as a possibility, is to leave it entirely to those who are least prepared to deal with it in a broad spirit. 

In many ways war is the most socialistic of all forces. In many ways military organization is the most peaceful of activities. When the contemporary man steps from the street, of clamorous insincere advertisement, push, adulteration, underselling and intermittent employment into the barrack-yard, he steps on to a higher social plane, into an atmosphere of service and cooperation and of infinitely more honorable emulations. Here at least men are not flung out of employment to degenerate because there is no immediate work for them to do. They are fed and drilled and trained for better services. Here at least a man is supposed to win promotion by self forgetfulness and not by self-seeking. And beside the feeble and irregular endowment of research by commercialism, its little shortsighted snatches at profit by innovation and scientific economy, see how remarkable is the steady and rapid development of method and appliances in naval and military affairs! Nothing is more striking than to compare the progress of civil conveniences which has been left almost entirely to the trader, to the progress in military apparatus during the last few decades. The house-appliances of to-day for example, are little better than they were fifty years ago. A house of to-day is still almost as ill-ventilated, badly heated by wasteful fires, clumsily arranged and furnished as the house of 1858. Houses a couple of hundred years old are still satisfactory places of residence, so little have our standards risen. But the rifle or battleship of fifty years ago was beyond all comparison inferior to those we possess; in power, in speed, in convenience alike. No one has a use now for such superannuated things.

TGIF: The Nonsense of Statist Political Economy

In the video "How Capitalism Makes You Less Free," self-described Marxist Grace Blakeley, author of Vulture Capitalism: Corporate Crimes, Backdoor Bailouts and the Death of Freedom, boldly asserts that all societies must have some kind of economic planning. That's hardly news in 2024. Free-market liberals, or libertarians, have long taught that the issue is not planning versus no planning but who plans: free profit-motivated, consumer-oriented individuals independent of the state and other coercion or force-wielding centralized bureaucrats and their cronies, with or without democratic window-dressing. 

Blakeley rejects independent planning in favor of democratic planning. But that means coercion must be in the picture. For all her concern about freedom, she doesn't use the word as everyone else does.

Blakeley, a 30-year-old commentator on political economy with two books now under her belt, seems confused. She's worth discussing because her views would be well-received on American college campuses.

Her answer to the great social question is a complex system of multi-layered purportedly democratic planning and accountability. Worker-managed entities and other democratic bodies would check one another to keep them in line. Any other form of planning, ranging from business owners running their own firms in competitive markets to the centralized "fusion between public and private power" would be forbidden. Her argument heavily relies on horror stories involving profit-seeking businesses. Of course, democratic people's republics have never committed atrocities. The collectives she envisions would always serve the public interest because of "democratic oversight."

Need I point out that this is oversimplified and that some distinctions are required? Fully private profit-and-loss decision-making -- independent of the state -- is what authentic liberalism, or libertarianism, calls for. It requires no state whatsoever because entrepreneurs can produce law and rights protection. On the other hand, the "fusion between public and private power" is fascism, the negation of free private consensual enterprise. Like all fascism, Nazism was socialism with a thin veneer of private ownership.

Blakeley would have us believe that a bonafide free market is not an option. (She doesn't regret that. But why not?) So let's stop talking about it. We must choose between coercive planning for the rich and coercive planning for all.

"Capitalism requires a certain amount of centralized planning to function," she says. It is a "central part of the way the capitalist system works":

In the [pre-World War II] laissez-faire period [Henry] Ford does whatever he wants; the state does what he says. In the postwar period Ford has to manage his relationship with workers and he has to manage his relationship with the state and all three of these parties had to come together and try to decide what happens next. What changes in the neoliberal period [beginning in the 1980s] ... the decision-making power is basically returned solely to capitalists and their allies within the state.

Now hang on. What laissez-faire period? She told us laissez faire was impossible. So how did the impossible exist?

She has more problems. If the state did what Ford told it to do, why does she call that laissez faire? This is basic stuff that she can't get right.

After the war we got a sort of fascism, but Blakeley won't call it that. The federal government (gun in hand) tried to orchestrate cooperation between business and labor. (Ayn Rand properly labeled John Kennedy's New Frontier "the new fascism.") But then when Reagan (and Thatcher) came to power, we returned to the impossible laissez faire that can't exist. Confused? So am I, and apparently so is she.

Here's another gem. "Individualism is hampering any kind of change because it's hampering our ability to organize collectively." Never mind that for centuries, individuals have voluntarily joined together in formal and informal markets to accomplish what one could not do alone. Blakeley poses as a champion of workers, but she's an elitist. She knows better: what we need are coercively organized "democratic" collectives for everything. She condemns the "gig economy" because it does not have real employment. It's elitism in populist clothing.

And here's another doozy:

I harken back to this Marxist socialist idea of freedom, which looks at -- yes, individual freedom and autonomy, but also your freedom as a member of a group to shape the conditions that affect your life and your existence.

Where is room left for individual freedom and autonomy?

Even in this mixed economy, people -- thanks to the coordination that market exchange and prices make possible -- substantially shape their lives. Of course, they would have even more control if the government would get out of the way by abolishing housing and land-use restrictions, occupational licensing, business-permit requirements, central bank fiat money (that causes inflation and recessions), theft-by-taxation, immigration barriers, victimless crimes, intellectual "property," surveillance, and other impositions. To the extent workers are unfree, it's because politicians and bureaucrats have the power to privilege themselves and their cronies at everyone else's expense.

Democracy, of course, is majority rule. What's so great about forcing everyone, Rousseau-style, to obey the majority? Should the majority prevail on everything? If not, what's beyond its reach? How is that line drawn, by vote? What keeps the majority from crossing the line it establishes? What happens to the individual, the smallest minority?

Democracy settles nothing. It simply shifts problems from the realm of consent, where problems are manageable thanks to the profit incentive and price coordination, to the realm of coercion, one-size-fits-all answers, perverse incentives, one-vote impotence, and the mirage of accountability. (Compare a consumer who, without notice, switches products to a citizen who wants to switch democratic rulers.) 

Blakeley should read Benjamin Constant's classic essay, "The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns." She is an ancient -- and in this context, that's no compliment.

Even with hampered markets, general living standards in the West and other places have been dramatically rising for hundreds of years because of the Industrial Revolution and global liberalization. Consumption inequality has fallen. The labor-time price of all goods has dropped. The division of labor and trade have created broad-based wealth. Global poverty has plummeted. Despite government interference, rich and poor get richer. We need more freedom, not less.

Finally, though much more could be said, Blakeley and her fellow socialists must come to terms with Ludwig von Mises's proof that socialism, democratic or otherwise, cannot produce high living standards for a modern society. For that, we need real prices, exchange ratios, for producer and consumer goods; otherwise no one can rationally calculate the best way to produce what we want in a world of scarcity and uncertainty. But you can't have real communicative prices without markets, and you can't have markets without free trade in labor services and goods and resources. That requires self-ownership and private property. Abolishing private property, Marx's chief hope, would destroy our ability to increase prosperity for all.

That is the century-old Mises-Hayek argument against socialism. The socialists lost. Someone should do Grace Blakeley a favor: send her a copy of one-time British Marxist David Ramsay Steele's From Marx to Mises: Post-Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Economic Calculation.

The Logic of It All

This is how some people think: Business has long used the government to gain benefits it could not get in the marketplace. I have the cure for that: Abolish the market and expand the government to encompass all of society.

TGIF: Which Way -- Capitalism or Socialism or Something Else?

Big questions are being thrashed out these days. One of the biggest is this: do we want capitalism or socialism? Unfortunately, the online discussions I've witnessed have been, to put it as politely as I can, terrible. (For an example, see this one between Reason senior editor Robby Soave and political commentator Briahna Joy Gray, cohosts of The Hill's online show "Rising.")

Let's start with the words themselves. We're in a linguistic mess. It's only a slight exaggeration to say that nearly everyone has his own definition of capitalism and socialism. So when people get together to hash things out, they ought to begin by saying what they -- the discussants, not the words -- mean. That doesn't seem to be an unreasonable demand.

It's pointless to debate what words "really mean." There are no platonic definitions. Language is usage, which is what dictionaries have traditionally reported on. and word usage changes. So we should dispense with that conversation or else time will be wasted.

As I say, we're in a linguistic mess. Bernie Sanders is the country's best-known "democratic socialist." Asked during one of his campaigns what democratic socialism is, Sanders said something like, "It's an economy that works for everyone." Real informative, Bern. Thank you very much.

The fact is that most younger Americans today seem to think that socialism is just a bigger welfare state. For example, they would probably say socialism would include Medicare for all, a program in which the government would pay everyone's medical bills through taxation. But that's not what socialist ideologues have traditionally had in mind. For Marx and his socialist predecessors, socialism meant the abolition of private property, money, and hence the market: the state would own the factories, hospitals, and other means of production. I don't think most people who call themselves socialists today favor that.

How about capitalism? As I wrote some years ago, as the word is used, capitalism

designates a system in which the means of production are de jure privately owned. Left open is the question of government intervention. Thus the phrases “free-market capitalism” and “laissez-faire capitalism” are typically not seen as redundant and the phrases “state capitalism” or “crony capitalism” are not seen as contradictions. If without controversy “capitalism” can take the qualifiers “free-market” and “state,” that tells us something. [I discuss the many problems with the word capitalism here.]

It tells us that the word itself is a muddle. The word capitalism has been called an "anti-concept," a term I associate with Ayn Rand, who wrote:

An anti-concept is an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept. The use of anti-concepts gives the listeners a sense of approximate understanding. But in the realm of cognition, nothing is as bad as the approximate....

But the word capitalism is worse than an anti-concept because it's not merely approximate; it contains contradictory elements. As philosopher Roderick Long writes:

Now I think the word “capitalism,” if used with the meaning most people give it, is a package-deal term. By “capitalism” most people mean neither the free market simpliciter nor the prevailing neomercantilist system simpliciter. Rather, what most people mean by “capitalism” is this free-market system that currently prevails in the western world. In short, the term “capitalism” as generally used conceals an assumption that the prevailing system is a free market. And since the prevailing system is in fact one of government favoritism toward business, the ordinary use of the term carries with it the assumption that the free market is government favoritism toward business.

And similar considerations apply to the term “socialism.”...

Ironically Rand, like Ludwig von Mises but unlike F. A. Hayek, favored the name capitalism for her "unknown ideal." But Rand, again like Mises, left no doubt about what she meant. The other day I caught a YouTube short of Rand talking about capitalism in which she said she meant "real, free, uncontrolled, unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism, not the mongrel mixed economy we have today." (I prefer self-controlling and self-regulating to uncontrolled and unregulated, but let that go. See my "Regulation Red Herring.")

If people define their terms before plunging into the debate, the time will likely be more fruitfully spent. If I were in such a discussion, I would insist that the issue is not whether we really have capitalism, but whether we, individually, are fully free, politically and legally, to produce, consume, invest, and exchange in unmolested self-regulating markets.

And I would ask the self-described socialist if he favors the abolition of property, money, and markets. If he says no but favors Medicare for all, housing subsidies, and regulatory agencies, I would say he sounds like an advocate of a mixed economy in which markets exist but are routinely manipulated by state personnel aiming to effect outcomes they believe that voluntary exchange will not achieve.

As for the actual socialist, I'd start by saying what H. L. Mencken said:

The chief difference between free capitalism and State socialism seems to be this: that under the former a man pursues his own advantage openly, frankly and honestly, whereas under the latter he does so hypocritically and under false pretenses.

People with an overwrought sense of romance love the phrase, which Marx did not originate, "From each according to his ability, to each according to  his need." But how does that not describe a nightmare world? Under socialism, would each individual freely decide what he thinks his abilities and needs are? (What is a need?) If so, central planning is out of the question. So some presumptuous person or bureaucracy with dictatorial powers would make those decisions. Oh happy days! The promised withering away of the state is about as likely as an honest politician.

I can't see that socialism has anything at all to be said in its favor. Even Benjamin Tucker, the prominent American free-market anarchist, who was seduced by the valueless labor theory of value, said, "[State] Capitalism is at least tolerable, which cannot be said of Socialism or Communism."

What the free-market advocate must not do is let his interlocutor get away with claiming that "our capitalist system" is the free market. When, for example, Briahna Joy Gray says, as she did in the discussion I linked to above, that homelessness or (undefined) inequality is capitalism, she must be called to account with a question: "But are people free in the market?" Considering how thoroughly government bureaucracies at every level encumber necessarily win-win voluntary exchange, it can't be the free-market order that's causing homelessness. Coercive corporate power, which Gray and her ilk see as the prime culprit in so many ills, derives from coercive political power and cannot exist without it -- thus, it's what I call the most dangerous derivative.

Influencing the language is like herding cats. Nevertheless, I'd love to come up with a single word ending in ism for what free-market champions favor. We could simply say, "the free market," "laissez-faire capitalism," or Adam Smith's marvelous term "the system of natural liberty," but they seem clunky in some sentences. "Individualism" has its virtues, but it's not quite on point in this context because markets are founded on social cooperation and the division of labor. "Enterpriseism" is contrived, although it makes the point. I'll keep working on it.

For Further Study

Sheldon Richman, "Capitalism versus the Free Market" (video), Future of Freedom Foundation, 2010.

Sheldon Richman, "Capitalism and the Free Market, Part 1 and Part 2, Future of Freedom Foundation, 2010.

Sheldon Richman, "Is Capitalism Something Good?" Foundation for Economic Education, 2010.

Sheldon Richman, "Wall Street Couldn't Have Done It Alone," Counterpunch, 2011.

Roderick T. Long, "Corporations Versus the Free Market, Or Whip Conflation Now," Cato Institute.

Roderick T. Long, "Rothbard's 'Left and Right': Forty Years Later," 2006.

How Not to Defend "Capitalism" Against" Socialism"

I challenge you to show me a lamer "debate" over "capitalism" and "socialism." (Don't worry; it's not about Bill Maher.)

 

TGIF: Where the Socialists Go Wrong

Since socialism is "in" today -- even though many people who say they favor it have no idea what it is -- F. A. Hayek's last book, The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism (1988), is worth checking out. Hayek, the late great Nobel-laureate economist of the Austrian school, begins this way:

This book argues that our civilisation depends, not only for its origin but also for its preservation, on what can be precisely described only as the extended order of human cooperation, an order more commonly, if somewhat misleadingly, known as capitalism. To understand our civilisation, one must appreciate that the extended order resulted not from human design or intention but spontaneously: it arose from unintentionally conforming to certain traditional and largely moral practices, many of which men tend to dislike, whose significance they usually fail to understand, whose validity they cannot prove, and which have nonetheless fairly rapidly spread by means of an evolutionary selection -- the comparative increase of population and wealth -- of those groups that happened to follow them. The unwitting, reluctant, even painful adoption of these practices kept these groups together, increased their access to valuable information of all sorts, and enabled them to be 'fruitful, and multiply...' This process is perhaps the least appreciated facet of human evolution.

Socialists take a different view of these matters.

Well, that last sentence is quite an understatement. By socialism Hayek didn't mean the welfare state or continuing government efforts to manipulate market outcomes according to some notion of equity. That would be interventionism or the mixed economy. No, socialism is the abolition of the market order and its necessary condition, private property: the replacement of free private enterprise with centralized bureaucracy. Let's cut to the chase:

The main point of my argument is, then, that the conflict between, on one hand, advocates of the spontaneous extended human order created by a competitive market, and on the other hand those who demand a deliberate arrangement of human interaction by central authority based on collective command over available resources is due to a factual error by the latter about how knowledge of these resources is and can be generated and utilised. As a question of fact, this conflict must be settled by scientific study. Such study shows that, by following the spontaneously generated moral traditions underlying the competitive market order (traditions which do not satisfy the canons or norms of rationality embraced by most socialists), we generate and garner greater knowledge and wealth than could ever be obtained or utilised in a centrally-directed economy whose adherents claim to proceed strictly in accordance with 'reason'. Thus socialist aims and programmes are factually impossible to achieve or execute; and they also happen, into the bargain as it were, to be logically impossible.

Hayek is saying that once we understand how information about resources is produced and transmitted, we realize that central planners can't deliver the goods. Socialism can't keep its (earlier) promises of plenty. (Nor of justice, but that's for another time.)

Here Hayek extended Ludwig von Mises's fatal critique of socialism; namely, that

1. without tradeable private property in the means of production, markets for resources and producers' goods don't exist;
2. without such markets, true prices can't exist; and
3. without prices, rational economic calculation is impossible;
4. therefore, socialism is impossible; it's "planned chaos."

By impossible Mises meant that without genuine money prices resulting from free exchanges, the millions of disparate resources and goods could not be accorded a common unit of account, and therefore rational decision-making about what ought to be produced, how much should be produced, and the best methods of production is foreclosed. In a world of scarcity with a growing population, that is bad news indeed.

When the socialists responded to Mises that planners could simulate market prices with computers and bureaucratic trial and error, Hayek said, No, they can't because what makes true and informative prices happen -- producer and consumer free choice in an environment with widely dispersed and ever-changing local and often tacit knowledge about resources and preferences -- is beyond any central planner's reach. In what Hayek called "the great society" -- which is marked by extended cooperation with countless strangers rather than the earlier, primitive face-to-face tribal relations -- spontaneous coordination via the price system is the name of the game, literally a matter of life and death.

Thus Mises identified the "calculation problem," and Hayek the complementary "knowledge problem." The Mises-Hayek tag team was triumphant. When the Soviet Union dismantled itself, the American socialist economist Robert Heilbroner declared, "Mises was right."

As a result, newer generations of socialists gave up their goal of outproducing the market in favor of the "era of limits." In effect they said: "It's good that socialism can't outproduce the market. Affluence is bad for the planet, so the last thing we should want is for the people of the developing world to achieve our sinfully high living standards. Better that we should produce far less according to the instructions of trusted, saintly, and omniscient bureaucrats, who will distribute the output more caringly than profit-driven impersonal and spontaneous market forces could ever do."

And would you like to buy a bridge cheap? Back to Hayek.

The demands of socialism are not moral conclusions derived from the traditions that formed the extended order that made civilisation possible. Rather, they endeavour to overthrow these traditions by a rationally designed moral system whose appeal depends on the instinctual appeal of its promised consequences. They assume that, since people had been able to generate some system of rules coordinating their efforts, they must also be able to design an even better and more gratifying system. But if humankind owes its very existence to one particular rule-guided form of conduct of proven effectiveness, it simply does not have the option of choosing another merely for the sake of the apparent pleasantness of its immediately visible effects. The dispute between the market order and socialism is no less than a matter of survival. To follow socialist morality would destroy much of present humankind and impoverish much of the rest.

Many people with whom I share a deep loathing of war and surveillance apparently get a warm cozy feeling from the word socialism. I suspect it's because they've never encountered Hayek's point, much less examined it. That's a shame. They have nothing to lose but their self-forged chains.

TGIF: True Liberals Are Not Conservatives

The relevance of F. A. Hayek's essay "Why I Am Not a Conservative," the postscript to his important 1960 book, The Constitution of Liberty, is demonstrated at once by the opening quote from Lord Acton:

At all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities, that have prevailed by associating themselves with auxiliaries whose objects often differed from their own; and this association, which is always dangerous, has sometimes been disastrous, by giving to opponents just grounds of opposition. [Emphasis added.]

Who among true liberal advocates of individual liberty and free social evolution -- aka libertarians -- would deny the truth of that observation?

Hayek had European conservatism in mind when he wrote his essay, and for years, American conservatives, who still had affection for true liberalism, hastened to point this out. As Hayek wrote:

Conservatism proper is a legitimate, probably necessary, and certainly widespread attitude of opposition to drastic change. It has, since the French Revolution, for a century and a half played an important role in European politics. Until the rise of socialism its opposite was liberalism. There is nothing corresponding to this conflict in the history of the United States, because what in Europe was called "liberalism" was here the common tradition on which the American polity had been built: thus the defender of the American tradition was a liberal in the European sense.

Later in his essay, he elaborated that "in the United States it is still possible to defend individual liberty by defending long-established institutions. To the liberal they are valuable not mainly because they are long established or because they are American but because they correspond to the ideals which he cherishes."

But he noted that "This already existing confusion [over labels] was made worse by the recent attempt to transplant to America the European type of conservatism, which, being alien to the American tradition, has acquired a somewhat odd character." The confusion was compounded, Hayek wrote, when socialists began to call themselves liberals.

Many still suffer from this confusion today. But change has been afoot because the illiberals of the left and right increasingly want no part of true liberalism or the label -- and in a way, that's good. Those on the left who call themselves progressives or socialists don't like the label liberal (or neo-liberal) because they associate it with the current permanent bipartisan prowar regime beholden to special corporate interests (so we liberals still have work to do), and virtually all conservatives eschew the label because they don't want to be mistaken for libertarians. That's also good.

So Hayek's essay has new relevance for America. Would Hayek have been surprised? He would have distinguished national conservatism from neoconservatism because of the latter's cosmopolitanism. But how could he embrace as bonafide allies people who view imperialist war as a way to create "national greatness" and social solidarity, as the neocons do? Hayek would have agreed with Abraham Bishop who said in 1800 that "a nation which makes greatness its polestar can never be free; beneath national greatness sink individual greatness, honor, wealth and freedom."

So let's look at Hayek's problem with conservatism. For him, the "decisive objection" is that "by its nature," conservatism can do no more than slow down the change that progressives have initiated. That's not good enough: "What the liberal must ask, first of all, is not how fast or how far we should move, but where we should move." He acknowledged that although the liberal's differences with the "collectivist radical" are greater than his differences with the conservative, the latter "generally holds merely a mild and moderate version of the prejudices of his time." Thus "the liberal today must more positively oppose some of the basic conceptions which most conservatives share with the socialists."

Explicitly illiberal American conservatives would take issue with Hayek here, but I think Hayek was right. To the extent that conservatives want to use the state to impose their values -- through censorship, immigration and trade restrictions, vice prohibitions, antitrust law, cultural protectionism, and the like -- they indeed share conceptions with their enemies on the left. The ends may differ, but the means bear an uneasy resemblance. (The late Leonard Liggio used to say that the original socialism arose as a middle way that promised to use conservative means, that is, the state, to achieve liberal ends, that is, industrial progress and widespread wealth. Later a "new left" turned against industrial progress and disparaged the goal of material abundance for all.)

"The main point about liberalism," Hayek wrote, "is that it wants to go elsewhere, not to stand still." My sense is that in the last few years, elements of the right have come to appreciate Hayek's point. They became fed up with mere holding actions and have resolved to push a "positive" program. Unfortunately, it's a state-saturated program that ought to make genuine liberals sick.

The exception appears to be foreign policy. Right-wing nonintervention seems to have two justifications: first, that the U.S. government is wrong to think it can design the cultures of other nation-states, and second, that the trillions of dollars the government spends on the military and foreign populations could be better used for domestic matters, including "border security." So even in foreign policy the liberal and conservative bedfellows ought to be uncomfortable.

The liberal's wish not to stand still is the crux of the matter.

There has never been a time when liberal ideals were fully realized and when liberalism did not look forward to further improvement of institutions. Liberalism is not averse to evolution and change; and where spontaneous change has been smothered by government control, it wants a great deal of change of policy. So far as much of current governmental action is concerned, there is in the present world very little reason for the liberal to wish to preserve things as they are. It would seem to the liberal, indeed, that what is most urgently needed in most parts of the world is a thorough sweeping away of the obstacles to free growth. [Emphasis added.]

Hayek's embrace of a social order that guarantees change may seem to conflict with other things Hayek wrote that seem more conservative. But I think that may be mistaken. I take him to say that although the new is not necessarily the good, people must be free to try new ways to flourish. It is one thing to personally default to tried and true until something new proves itself worthy (because a tradition's value may not be immediately apparent), but quite another to empower the state to impede innovation and entrepreneurship, which is disruptive insofar as it is constructive. (Hence I would change Schumpeter's creative destruction to creative disruption.)

Hayek proceeded to enumerate several differences between liberal and conservative attitudes. The first, as already suggested, is that "one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead." This for Hayek explained the liberal enthusiasm for the free market's generation of spontaneous if unpredictable order, and the conservative lack of enthusiasm for such.

Relatedly, unlike liberalism, conservatism displays "its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles, it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy." For Hayek, the conservative's "complacency ... toward ... established authority ... is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty."

Hayek could have been describing Sen. Josh Hawley and the thinkers behind national conservatism when he wrote: "In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules."

Hayek faulted the conservative for lacking -- indeed, for disparaging -- abstract political principles, which are the key to peaceful coexistence among people within a society who have different moral visions:

What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force.

And this point of Hayek's is especially pertinent:

Connected with the conservative distrust of the new and the strange is its hostility to internationalism and its proneness to a strident nationalism. Here is another source of its weakness in the struggle of ideas. It cannot alter the fact that the ideas which are changing our civilization respect no boundaries.... It is no real argument to say that an idea is un-American, or un-German, nor is a mistaken or vicious ideal better for having been conceived by one of our compatriots.

Hayek continued that "it is this nationalistic bias which frequently provides the bridge from conservatism to collectivism: to think in terms of 'our' industry or resource is only a short step away from demanding that these national assets be directed in the national interest...."

As he closed his essay Hayek confessed that since the word liberal had been corrupted, thanks to the French Revolution and other forces, by "overrationalis[m], nationalis[m]" and socialis[m]," it had ceased to a good label for his political outlook, which he shared with Tocqueville and Acton: "What I should want is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution. But I have racked my brain unsuccessfully to find a descriptive term which commends itself." (He found libertarian "singularly unattractive" and "manufactured.")

I could go on quoting Hayek's essay -- which is not to say I agree with all of it -- but I fear that would unduly impose on the reader. So I recommend that the entire essay by the self-described "unrepentant Old Whig" be devoured forthwith.

TGIF: Is Socialism Good in Theory?

This is an expanded version of something I wrote for The Freeman, October 2003, during my tenure as the editor.

Socialism has been mortally discredited on economic grounds, thanks to Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, and history. But for many people it has not been discredited on moral grounds. You can tell this by how often people say that while socialism doesn’t work in practice, it is good, even beautiful, in theory. (Even Thomas Sowell has said that.)

Strange notion—that a theory which doesn’t work in the world can somehow still be good. Where else is it to be judged? William Graham Sumner, I believe, pointed out the contradiction: there must be a good theory that explains the system that does work in practice, but that theory would conflict with the other theory also held to be good. So we end up with two good but conflicting theories. Something is wrong.

Unpleasant Times

If Ludwig von Mises were alive today he would be viewing our current predicament with alarm but not surprise. He lived through something similar about a century ago.

In response to inexcusable police brutality, some outraged people who've taken to the streets have crossed the sacred line between peaceful protest and violence. Recent months have brought vandalism, arson, and injury in Kenosha, WI, and Portland, OR, and now intimidation of innocent bystanders in Portland and Washington, D.C. Now comes the ominous response.

This escalation by people who pose as friends of social justice (I don't doubt the sincerity of the nonviolent others in the streets) is both immoral and dangerous, both in its own right and also because it feeds those, like Trump, who might like nothing better than to bash a few heads before election day. Those among the protesters who perpetrate street violence are playing with fire, and they well know it, hoping that the state's reaction will serve their cause. But they are wrong. Whatever their cause, unless it's violence for its own sake, the result will be a strengthening of the worst aspects of the state--with the support of most people in the country.

Mises would have recognized what is going on because he'd seen it before. Have a look at chapter 10 of his book Liberalism, "The Argument of Fascism," for his observations in 1927 on what had taken place in Italy from about 1919 to 1922, when Mussolini took power and established a one-party dictatorship. That something even remotely similar to those events is now happening in America would have horrified and saddened him.

In that chapter Mises discussed the extended violent confrontation between communists/socialists and fascists in the streets of Italy. As the foremost champion of peace, freedom, and social cooperation (including economic exchange) of his day, Mises was horrified by the events. He noted that previously the antiliberal Italian right-wing nevertheless had reluctantly paid some slight homage to liberalism and its restraints on power, which it despised, because it was so central to Western civilization. But when the Italian Socialist Party began to achieve political success and make Bolshevik-type demands for fundamental social change, and when communists and socialist--emboldened by the state terror and mass murder in Russia--violently clashed in the streets with the right-wing "black shirts," Mussolini's budding fascist movement found their excuse to do what they had wanted to do all along: abandon token deference to liberalism, which it condemned as pacifist and weak, and embrace the so-called glory of violence without restraint. Mises wrote:

One must not fail to recognize that the conversion of the Rightist parties to the tactics of Fascism shows that the battle against liberalism has resulted in successes that, only a short time ago, would have been considered completely unthinkable. Many people approve of the methods of Fascism, even though its economic program is altogether antiliberal and its policy completely interventionist, because it is far from practicing the senseless and unrestrained destructionism that has stamped the Communists as the arch-enemies of civilization. Still others, in full knowledge of the evil that Fascist economic policy brings with it, view Fascism, in comparison with Bolshevism and Sovietism, as at least the lesser evil. [Emphasis added.]

Then Mises added, just so there would be no mistaking his meaning: "For the majority of its public and secret supporters and admirers, however, [Fascism's] appeal consists precisely in the violence of its methods." Fascism was antiliberal in every respect, Mises noted, including its nationalist and militarist foreign policy, which "cannot fail to give rise to an endless series of wars that must destroy all of modern civilization."

Mises pointed out that liberalism was not opposed to the use of violence when it was necessary to thwart violence. But again, to make sure he was understood, he quickly added:

What distinguishes liberal from Fascist political tactics is not a difference of opinion in regard to the necessity of using armed force to resist armed attackers, but a difference in the fundamental estimation of the role of violence in a struggle for power. The great danger threatening domestic policy from the side of Fascism lies in its complete faith in the decisive power of violence.

For Mises, the use of violence for the propagation of ideas was both wrong and counterproductive. Stifling the ideas of opponents gives them a credibility they might not otherwise earn: "Resort to naked force—that is, without justification in terms of intellectual arguments accepted by public opinion—merely gains new friends for those whom one is thereby trying to combat. In a battle between force and an idea, the latter always prevails."

He continued:

Fascism can triumph today because universal indignation at the infamies committed by the socialists and communists has obtained for it the sympathies of wide circles. But when the fresh impression of the crimes of the Bolsheviks has paled, the socialist program will once again exercise its power of attraction on the masses. For Fascism does nothing to combat it except to suppress socialist ideas and to persecute the people who spread them. If it wanted really to combat socialism, it would have to oppose it with ideas. There is, however, only one idea that can be effectively opposed to socialism, viz., that of liberalism.

I will next reproduce the controversial conclusion to Mises's chapter; if I don't, someone else will:

It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.

No liberal--libertarian, that is to say--can read this with joy, but it would be unfair to interpret Mises, as some have tried, as harboring even a speck of illiberal sentiment. (See his 1944 book Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War for his view of, among others, Nazi Germany. Mises, whose heritage was Jewish, had to flee Austria and then Europe altogether because of Hitler.) Look at things from Mises's vantage point: he saw horrendous violent clashes in the streets and the looming threat of a Bolshevik state in western Europe draped in the garb of universalism and egalitarianism. (In contrast, militant Italian nationalism hardly had universal appeal.) Liberalism, unfortunately, was not on the agenda. So he had to decide which was the greater threat to Western civilization--which side if triumphant would have a smaller chance of surviving beyond the short run. Let's not forget who was on the socialist side: people who were inspired by Lenin and Trotsky, architects of the 20th century's first one-party terror state. So who can say Mises was wrong? I can't.

Of course we're not living in analogous circumstances. Notwithstanding increasing hyperbole from both wings of the establishment, we don't face a choice between Bolshevism and fascism, although I am aware of Trump's authoritarian disposition and Biden's devotion to the all-service state. Still, it's too close for comfort. We now are now seeing violent street confrontations--and the potential for bystander casualties--between two sides each with a predilection for violence, even if neither one has a fleshed-out program. (Apparently, the clashes are an all-white affair.) If things get further out of hand, the public will likely and reasonably demand a restoration of order, and many in power will be only too happy to comply--and then some. What will come next?

I don't want to exaggerate--the worst incidents have been confined to a few cities--but I fear for the future.