The True “Spread the Wealth Philosophy”

By David D’Amato

In a feature on issues in the 2012 campaign for CBS News, Brian Montopoli asks, “Who’s to blame for the wealth divide?” Citing the fact that, according to a Harvard/Duke study last year, “the top 20 percent controlled about 84 percent of the wealth,” Montopoli contends that political “decisions tend to follow the desires of the affluent.”

Montopoli couldn’t be more right that Washington and public policy itself are fundamentally to blame. Even Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois) hinted at the truth in stating that the current situation is “not an accident or a force of nature, it’s clearly the result of public policy.”

On what is supposedly the “other side” of the spectrum or debate, the American Enterprise Institute’s Kevin A. Hassett pillories what he calls the “spread the wealth philosophy” of Democrats like Schakowsky.

On a very basic level, both of these camps misunderstand the other while also distorting the public view of this thing called the “free market” system. The likes of Hassett preach the many advantages of “free markets” but seem to embrace a version of corporate capitalism very much at odds with them; they turn people away from a genuine and thoroughgoing freedom philosophy by shunning the unwashed masses with their rhetoric.

Likewise, “progressives” like Schakowsky rightly notice the plutocratic slough that is American politics, but somehow fail to see the fact that the greedy capitalists they claim to find intolerable buy politicians precisely to destroy competition and sabotage real free markets. Both halves of the mainstream discourse are — not coincidentally — seeing about half of the whole picture.

Just as statists assign themselves to a wide range of beliefs about what the arbitrary violence of government ought specifically to do, so too do anarchists hold an array of views on what statelessness means. Even if the area of consensus among anarchists is small, leaving the details in dispute, it is nevertheless important.

If all people are equal in their rights and freedoms, then, anarchists contend, no group ought to be allowed rule over others, to be granted the authority to wield force at their own discretion. While most anarchists accept that employing force in the defense of self is quite a different matter, the state is defined by aggression – or at least the constant threat of it.

“And this,” wrote the American anarchist Benjamin Tucker, “is the Anarchistic definition of the State: the embodiment of the principal of invasion in an individual, or a band of individuals, assuming to act as representatives or masters of the entire people within a given area.”

Addressing invasion against the peaceful individual, then, is arguably philosophical anarchism’s raison d’être; anarchism condemns the state for the distinct reason that its very definition requires the violation of individual sovereignty. The state is therefore unique among institutions in society, not necessary for what it does, but for how it does, for the means it uses.

Anarchists are thus not at all opposed to, for example, a social safety net or universal healthcare in and of themselves — that is, in principle — but are rather averse to the state’s role in effecting these goals. Furthermore, anarchists generally conclude that because the state is an elite establishment characterized by elite interests, its institutional biases are in fact incompatible with objectives related to social and economic justice.

Power serves not the weak and indigent, those it purports to aid, but the powerful, those who sit at the controls. For that reason, the growth of the total state in the twentieth century did not tally with the promised development of social equality or improved living and working conditions for the poor.

The freed markets advocated by market anarchists, freed, that is, from arbitrary legal impediment to trade and cooperative organization, are the true incarnation of the “spread the wealth philosophy.” They preclude coercive monopolization by the rich and remove the hindrances that today prevent workers from transforming their skills and labor into wealth.

Politics and the state won’t change. To win the real class war and evaporate the power of elites over our lives, we have to withdraw from the political charade.

2 responses to “The True “Spread the Wealth Philosophy”

  1. This article seems to contain a lot of assumptions which are common to, er, this wing of political thought. In particular, the assumption that in a postulated true free market, or “freed” market, wealth[1] will not accumulate in the hands of some more than in the hands of others. This seems to me to be contrary to how markets- free, stateless markets- should work according to basic economic laws we all understand.

    Simply put; some products are considered, subjectively, to be “better” than others. For isntance, at the moment, it seems many millions of people prefer Apple products, such as the iPad, to competitors’ products which perform similar functions (other tablet computers). Since this is surely going to be the case in any free market, I am mystified as to what market force will prevent the sellers of the popular products, such as iPads, earning a greater income and accumulating more wealth than the producers of the less popular products.

    There seems to be a genuine leap of logic from (a) noting that states have awarded advantages to some businesses (but also disadvantages, e.g. the tobacco industry) to (b) presuming that the only reason for any market success is due to state-awarded advantages. The resulting conclusion seems to be that a genuinely level playing field in the marketplace will lead to some kind of genuine equality of products, and thus no business will for instance rise to market dominance simply due to great popularity, as with the fashion for iProducts. There appears to be a genuine discontinuity in the chain of reasoning.

    [1] Wealth is arguably not what matters, but income, but I will not digress.

  2. The company that produces the best product at the best price will always dominate – and why shouldn’t they? In a libertarian society if people don’t like it they’ll abstain from that brand – and without government support that brand would dwindle. People would be empowered to affect real change as opposed to waiting for false promises from the state.