Full Context: The Centrist Corporate State Threatens Our Liberty


by Sheldon Richman
http://c4ss.org/content/22001
Full Context: The Centrist Corporate State Threatens Our Liberty

In The Wealth of Nations Adam Smith famously wrote, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” It may seem strange that history’s best-known advocate of the free market would cast such aspersions on business people. But there is nothing strange about it. A defense of the market, and of voluntarism in general, should never be mistaken for a defense of particular business interests.

Opponents of the free market love that quote from Smith. For obvious reasons they rarely add the sentences that follow: “It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary” (book I, chapter X, part II, paragraph 27; emphasis added).

As Smith well knew, government often facilitates such assemblies. Effective “conspiracy[ies] against the publick” would be impossible without state support. Absent political privilege, “contrivance[s] to raise prices” would crumble under the pressure of free competition. It takes a state to make a tariff, a price support, or a punitive tax or regulation on one’s competitors.

Smith’s book was a brief against mercantilism, the nationalistic system of business privilege. But we sometimes forget that the economic system that succeeded mercantilism was not free of all mercantilist features. Especially in the second half of the nineteenth century and at the hands of the Republican Party, mercantilism (in the form of Henry Clay’s old American System) had wide influence at the national level. (The states had their own modest versions earlier in the century.) Its program consisted of protective tariffs, taxpayer-financed infrastructure projects (“internal improvements”), regulation of private infrastructure, a national bank for credit manipulation, and other forms of government intervention intended to guide society’s development and in the process benefit the well-connected business class. A good deal of land was also parceled out to politically favored interests, such as most of the major railroads. Dominant business figures did not oppose this program; on the contrary, they championed it because they stood to gain from the above-market prices, lucrative government contracts, and burdens on smaller competitors.

Later, the Progressive Era “reforms” were not only supported, but were often proposed, by big business. Meat inspection, railroad regulation, drug-safety monitoring, and policing of competition were activities favored by the major players in the relevant industries. It is not widely appreciated how much big-business support the New Deal had (or how the New Deal actually began under Hoover). The industry codes enforced by the National Recovery Administration were a godsend to businessmen who for years had striven, unsuccessfully, to create stable cartels to assure long-run profits. Government economic planning during World War I had given many businessmen (and bureaucrats) a taste of what it was like to run an economy. They liked it enough to return to Washington during Franklin Roosevelt’s tenure in the White House.

What today is called rent-seeking, exploiting others through political means, was as common in earlier times as it is now. It was a rare business proprietor who favored laissez faire. Why risk your money in the unpredictable marketplace when you could have stable prices and profits with government intervention? Even an income tax might be a small price to pay for that safety. Most business people were uninterested in moral philosophy, economic theory, and ideology. The shortest route between them and a nice return on investment usually went through the statehouse or the Capitol.

No knowledgeable champion of free markets will be surprised by any of this. The problem is that we too often forget it in the heat of current controversies. By dropping the historical context we weaken our case and sound like defenders of the corporate state, the opposite of laissez faire.

This has been pointed out before. Kevin Carson, who calls himself a “free market anti-capitalist,” writes in Studies in Mutualist Political Economy that many libertarians “use the term ‘free market’ in an equivocal sense: they seem to have trouble remembering, from one moment to the next, whether they’re defending actually existing capitalism or free market principles.”

For example, several months ago opportunistic members of Congress proposed a windfall-profits tax on the oil companies because gasoline prices had jumped during the hurricane season and profits had risen dramatically. In arguing against the tax, many libertarians (and conservatives) explained why in a free market, prices and profits would rise under the current circumstances. Thus higher prices and profits warranted no government intervention.

Fine. The economic theory and conclusion were impeccable. But something was missing, and this gap gave credibility to the free market’s adversaries. What was missing? An acknowledgment of the contemporary effects of the long period of pro-business interventionism, what Carson calls “the subsidy of history.” For many years oil companies have benefited from a system of federal and state favoritism. Much U.S. foreign policy has the effect of forcing the taxpayers to pick up the huge tab for stabilizing the companies’ sources of crude oil. All of this has distorted investment, prices, and, therefore, consumer behavior, and it’s hard to know what the oil industry—or indeed the entire economy—would look like without the distortion. The rippling effects have been pervasive and substantial.

In sum, the companies are not creations of the free market. And if we defend them as though they are, we will sound naïve at best and like apologists for the corporate state at worst. That diminishes our efforts to win the public to our position. Let us never be guilty of supporting, even implicitly, the socialization of costs, for there is no surer way to undercut the case for the privatization of profits.

Labor Legislation

Another example: Free-market advocates frequently criticize unions and their supporting laws. Any government intervention deserves to be criticized, but once again the context is often dropped. The context includes the fact that the business elite historically supported labor laws, even if in the end they objected to the precise form of the National Labor Relations Act and other enactments. Business-backed social-reform organizations, such as the National Civic Federation and the American Association for Labor Legislation, long had proposed labor laws in the belief that they were the path to labor peace and the end of wildcat strikes. “Respectable” union leaders would be brought to the corporate-state table as responsible junior partners who would discipline their unruly elements. Moreover, industry-wide collective bargaining would have a cartelizing effect on American industry, reducing the “cutthroat competition” that was so unsettling and that worked to the advantage of upstart rivals.

While we should hit at government intervention in the labor market, as everywhere else, we must hold the context and never fail to point out that such intervention was integral to the system enacted largely at the behest of the dominant business interests. It is reasonable to believe that workers would have more bargaining power if all corporate privilege were abolished and competition were truly unfettered. If talk of the corporate state and exploitation sounds left-wing, it’s only because laissez fairists seldom talk about those things. But we should. They are our issues.

Context-holding is not just of academic interest; it has strategic implications. If we keep in mind that the current threat to liberty is the centrist corporate state, we will see that a top priority is the repeal of all corporate subsidies, even the most subtle kinds.

flattr this!

About these ads

3 responses to “Full Context: The Centrist Corporate State Threatens Our Liberty

  1. Sometimes it is amusing when people forget what “corporatism” really means.

    One person who seems to have forgotten that it means government control of business (not the other way round) it the pathetic Jamie Dimon of J.P. Morgan Chase.

    First he complained about the regulations of “Dodd Frank” (but we gave Congressman Frank, and Senators Chris Dodd and Barack Obama so much money, more than to any other politicians, how could they do this to us……… oh dear, how sad, never mind).

    Now he is complaining about the 13 billion Dollars J.P. Morgan Chase is going to have to pay (do not shed too many tears for them – the Federal Reserve will soften the blow a bit) – but the government promised us that if we bought Best Sternes (spelling alert) then we would not be hit with any legal action over Mortgage Backed securities……..

    “The government promised us” – just how stupid are you Mr Dimon? Government promises are worthless – and the 13 billion is only for civil liability, it does not cover criminal liability.

    Italian “Corporatism” was in fact (whatever it was supposed to be based upon in theory) based upon German War Socialism during the First World War – a system where it is the government (not the business enterprises) who was in charge

    Businessmen who make deals with this sort of government normally find things do not turn out as they expected. Even if they do not end up like Fritz T. (one of the few big businessmen who really did favour the Nazis before they came to power – most did NOT see Turner’s “German Big Business and the Rise of the Nazis”) – on the run and writing the book “I Paid Hitler” (they caught Fritz when they invaded France – and he ended up in a Concentration Camp).

    Things will (hopefully) not turn out so badly for Mr Dimon (and for the people at Bank of America and the rest) – but they have been greedy (and wicked) fools.

  2. Going back to the origins of “Progressive” government in the United States….

    Anyone who believes the (socialist) G. Kolko that the polices of T Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson were (on balance) of benefit to business (or even just to big business) is mistaken – on balance even most big business enterprises lost more than they gained by these polices (and that should be expected – given the attitudes of T. Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson and their mentor Richard Ely).

    Even the terrible effects of the “cheap money” (low interest rate) policy of the accused Federal Reserve and Bank of England (and so on) were not (primarily) motivated by a desire to subsidise certain enterprises over the last several decades (although they have done this) – they were motivated by the “monetary expansion” (“stimulus”) ideology of the universities – inspired by J.M. Keynes and co.

    Nor should talk of the “Corporate State” (even rightly understood – i.e. government control of business as explained in such works as Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” and “Omnipotent Government” by Mises) distract us from the primary threat from modern Western governments.

    And that threat is not Corporatism (horrible and disgusting though such things as bank bailouts are) – that threat is the Welfare State.

    The Welfare States were not established to “benefit the capitalists” – on the contrary they did (net) harm to business from day one. However, the real problem is how the Welfare States have grown – undermining both self help and mutual aid (indeed Civil Society in general) and leading to the growth of a dependent underclass

    Presently about half the entire population of the United States (and Britain and so on) is either dependent on government benefits or works for the government – this is not caused by “corporatism” and will not be rolled back by talking about “corporatism”.

  3. hello there and thank you on your information ? I’ve certainly picked up something new from proper here. I did then again experience a few technical issues using this site, since I experienced to reload the web site a lot of times prior to I may get it to load correctly. I had been puzzling over if your web host is OK? Not that I’m complaining, but sluggish loading circumstances instances will sometimes have an effect on your placement in google and can damage your high quality ranking if ads and marketing with Adwords. Well I’m including this RSS to my email and can glance out for a lot more of your respective interesting content. Make sure you replace this once more very soon..