Silence is Instructive: Distributism’s Follies

A friend of my posted an article from The Distributist Review on his Facebook page by David W. Cooney titled “Will The Real Capitalism Please Stand Up?”, presumably because he agreed with the content and thought it was a smashing piece. Articles like this, though, are one of the reasons I could no longer contribute to this publication or go out of my way to endorse Distributism (even though I do support the basic principle behind it). The problem isn’t so much with Cooney’s arguments; the problem is that to even explain why his, or any other contributor’s arguments might be wrong in a way that might suggest that capitalism isn’t the devil simply cannot be tolerated by this crowd.

Let’s take a look at some of his arguments. Right at the beginning, he states:

Capitalists wonder why we distributists oppose capitalism. Distributists, on the other hand, wonder why so many good people continue to support it. I think the problem lies in the fact that there is no consistently held definition of capitalism.

One might think, in the interests of fairness and accuracy, that the definition that people who say they support capitalism use for the word capitalism is relevant. Not so for Cooney, or for any other Distributist I have known for that matter. The links he offers up in attempting to explain it lead to traditionalist anti-capitalist polemics; the definition he offers is more or less guesswork. It’s “what he’s heard”, not even from Wikipedia or some other easily accessible source. One trip to the Mises website might even suffice. Having established what pro-capitalists think capitalism is, a fair and honest critique might ensue, instead of demolition derby in which poorly-constructed arguments supposedly representing the other side are crushed by a monster truck of specious logic and invective.

This isn’t even really the worst part of his opening arguments. Of course, as he says, “the problem” of any failure of two groups to understand one another is based upon a mixing up of definitions, or a lack of clear ones at any rate. We’ve already seen how Cooney himself is contributing to this very problem. It might further be said, however, that there is no consistently held definition of any socio-economic-political system. If you read The Federalist Papers, for instance, you might find a few different definitions of a republic. If you read Marxist literature, you will find different definitions of socialism and communism. And I guarantee you that there isn’t a consistently held definition of Distributism either.

I’m not sure if I am in a position to offer a definition of capitalism that will satisfy everyone. But I have read my share of libertarian-capitalist literature, and I would offer the following: capitalism is what exists when the natural, individual right to private property (recognized and defended by the Catholic Church, I might add) is fully respected by any number of people in a transaction or an arrangement. One might say that this is “the free market” as well; free in that no one is forced to participate against their will, and a market in that an exchange of values is taking place. If I trade my private property freely with you in exchange for something I find useful, then this is capitalism. Cooney and others might argue that his piece states as much. I would say it barely says it, as a sort of mumble, in passing.

The problem with Distributism is the deafening silence on the matter of freedom and coercion. I was amazed when I read Murray Rothbard’s reflections on left-wing syndicalism a while back; I had the same thoughts about Distributism, and you could replace his references to left-wing anarchists and syndicalists with “Distributists”:

The question of whether a future free society will be “co-op” or communal or capitalist brings up the most disturbing problem about the anarcho-syndicalists and communalists. This is the famous “question of Auban” – the question that “Auban,” the individualist anarchist hero of John Henry Mackay’s novel The Anarchists, put to the left-wing anarchists. In essence: would you, in your proposed anarchist society, permit those who so wished to have private property, to engage in free-market transactions, to hire workers in “capitalist” relations, etc.? The communist anarchists in Mackay’s book never answered the question clearly and lucidly, and neither do any left-wing anarchists that one may encounter today. Generally, the left-anarchists reply that, in their utopian society, no one will be so base as to want to indulge in private property or in capitalist social relations. But suppose they do? one persists. The answer is generally either a repeat of the utopian answer or an evasive silence.

I have pressed these questions myself many times, and I have met a similar silence from Distributists. Granted, Cooney’s piece does attempt to give the reader some idea of how much regulation is enough, and at what level it ought to occur – something I’d like to see more of from the Distributist camp. As we will see, though, the real problem becomes this: if the problems that you believe justify regulations are in fact not problems, or if their nature is misunderstood, or if it can be shown at any rate that regulation would not help in the least, will you support regulation in principle, for its own sake? Or will you, as I was forced to do by my own intellectual conscience, abandon this cure for a misdiagnosed illness?

In other words, is this really about the common good? Or is it about the establishment of an ideological regime that must be imposed, regardless of the consequences, because of some inherent goodness it possesses? That is the question I put to Distributists, and to everyone and anyone in fact, who promotes any sort of scheme that involves petitioning a body of armed men to dictate to others what they can and cannot do with their legitimately-acquired private property.

Let us get down to some specifics. Cooney says some things that any free market capitalist would find agreeable. For instance,

We would not have cases like the government setting up regulations that inhibit the ability of small businesses to effectively compete in the market, or actively working against one type of farming in favor of the interests of a big corporation.

So far so good – because such activity clearly benefits a special interest at the expense of the common good. But then he goes on to repeat what, I am sorry to say, is a canard that cannot be fully addressed here:

[T]he ability of corporate interests to use their economic power to manipulate government is bad for society in general. However, corporate interests cannot manipulate the government until they have already become a significant enough economic force to do so.

All libertarians agree with the first sentence. And that alone ought to be enough for both groups to sit down and have a rational discussion. Then we come to the second sentence, which always dashes such prospects; namely, the idea that if there were a purely free market, the winners of the economic competition then claim the once-impartial state as their ultimate prize. They then retain perpetual monopolies and keep everyone else down. So argued Karl Marx, so argue the syndicalists, and so argue the Distributists.

Is there any truth to this at all? Not only does there not appear to be any historical evidence to support this narrative – merely pointing to the confluence of big corporations and the state will not suffice to establish causality! – but in fact the opposite often happens. Case in point: Cooney’s own example that he holds up as some sort of indictment of free market capitalism, Microsoft’s alleged “monopoly.” Like everyone else, he simply takes for granted the government-media complex’s narrative: big bad Microsoft sought unfair advantages over its rivals, and the brave lads at the Justice Department had to step in and fight for economic justice. This of course is complete and total nonsense.

Cooney writes, “the case clearly illustrated how a business can grow to be a monopoly without relying on the government to help it along the way.”  But was Microsoft truly a “monopoly”? Did Microsoft prevent rivals from entering the market? No. Did Microsoft use force or fraud to coerce people into buying their products? No (though Cooney, like most Distributists and agitated leftists, sees in all marketing something illicit – a debate for another time, I suppose). Microsoft just happened to sell more of its product to more people, presumably because the people who bought it found it worthy. But then he writes,

“Any accusations claiming Microsoft uses its economic power to manipulate the government includes an implicit admission that it had to grow into an economic power before it could do so. How did it do this? “Free market” capitalism.”

Who made such accusations? What if such accusations are never made? Never mind that for now. The more pressing issue is this: It wasn’t Microsoft who manipulated the government – it was Microsfot’s rivals. It would take a lot of time to go into all the details of this case, but I strongly suggest reading Dominick Armentano’s Antitrust: The Case for Repeal, which covers this case in some detail. There is no good reason to blindly accept the official narrative of this case. At the very least, inform yourself with facts you may not be aware of, even if you don’t like the source, to form your opinion.

In short, what we really have here is a case in which the losers, and not the winners, of the economic competition lobby the government to take care of them. Has it not been this way throughout history? People who can make a profit meeting the needs of others don’t need government to make them powerful or keep their rivals down – this is the commonest of common sense. Rather those who have failed, for whatever reasons, to meet the needs of consumers as efficiently are the ones who rally for government interference in the economy. History amply demonstrates that.

Thus Cooney’s claim that the government regulators were protecting the interests of the consumer are simply and totally false. The consumer made Microsoft rich, without guns to their heads, and without any sort of fraud I am aware of. He seems to sort of admit that “the free market” made Microsoft rich, even as he accuses Microsoft of wrongdoing. But here he simply conflates “the average citizen”, who benefited by and large from Microsoft’s products, with Microsoft’s jealous, conspiratorial rivals, who were really the only losers in the entire game. Yes, the free market makes efficient producers rich, it makes rational consumers happy, and it ultimately forces the inefficient to adapt or to put their capital or their income somewhere else.

Cooney makes some other statements that I just find incredible. I cannot cover them all, but consider this:

Would all of the economic, industrial and trade problems truly go away simply by getting the government out of the picture? This seemed to be suggested by some commenting to Kevin O’Brien’s recent article, but I don’t believe this position can successfully be argued. After all, some who promote getting the government out of the picture also promote the continued issuing of patents, which effectively become government regulations controlling the use of a technology or idea.

Really? The position, which is held by most if not all libertarian capitalists, can’t be argued because “some” hold a position that most if not all libertarian capitalists reject? This isn’t even an argument. Who cares what “some” promote? Aside from the fact that most if not all actually reject the fraud of intellectual property, the fact that some people hold a view on something can’t possibly be proof that an economic idea would succeed or fail. Cooney goes on to argue and argue from this point as if it really mattered, distorting the entire issue beyond understanding.

Cooney’s real agenda becomes clear as the article draws to a close: the protection of small business. This again is conflated with “the average citizen”, even though there are far more non-business owners than there are business owners. There are far more poor or average-income consumers who benefit from Microsoft and other large producers than there are small business-owners who benefit from consumers being coerced, more or less, to buy their expensive goods. How can the common good be served by an economic agenda – Distributism – that is clearly meant to favor the small business owner at the expense of consumers?

I’m sure I didn’t convince anyone on the other side, but I would like to put it to them one more time: let’s say you were convinced that free market capitalism met the greatest amount of need for the greatest amount of people. Would you still insist that the government make possible a small-business, worker’s-guild utopia for its own sake? Or would you yield to that which would clearly work best for everyone, or at least the vast majority? Let there be silence no more on these questions.