What Socialists Mean by Capitalism

I'm currently reading Le Grand and Estrin's book Market Socialism.

I have often complained that socialists misunderstand the market. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they understand it better than most conventional economists. Sometimes the most hard core Marxist will come so close to understanding the libertarian view - like Bukharin for instance.

Le Grand and Estrin did seem to understand markets in the introduction - at least as well as many "mainstream" economists.

Then an amazing passage occurred.

In this passage, these proponents of Market Socialism revealed that they distinguished "capitalism" from "liberalism" -- their use of "capitalism" was not synonymous with markets, but was distinguished from laissez-faire free market libertarianism. They still preferred market socialism to liberalism, but the complaints against capitalism are not complaints against free markets per se, but against a certain form of market system, which they call capitalism, but which arguably is really corporatism or crony capitalism.

Capitalism places the economic power in the hands of capital and its owners. Traditional socialism gives power exclusively to labour: the dictatorship of the proletariat, preferably exercised through a centralized authority. And the "New Right"--actually better characterized as traditional liberalism-- claims to locate power in the hands of the individual--particularly the individual citizen and consumer.

This is very interesting. Of course, I have argued this and heard whiff of this in socialist literature before, when they argue that the "ideal" of free markets is not possible, that concentration is delivering power into a few hands (a la Bukharin & Lenin, based on Marx), and so on, implying that it would be different if free markets did exist. Similarly, Lange's market socialist model was based on the use of state power to create a perfect market-- implying that if markets were less monopolized then they would be OK. But this is still a unique passage. Given this characterization,

In the following, replace "capitalism" with "corporatism" in your mind. It continues a bit below:

Full blooded capitalism is unattractive because it exploits labour through its monopoly of employment and because it exploits consumers through monopolizing goods markets. Traditional socialism expropriates capital and subordinates the interests of consumers to the interests of the workers. Indeed, with its penchant for centralization, it is far from clear that even the workers are properly taken care of. Liberalism puts people's livelihoods and their savings at the mercy of consumer taste and fashion; its emphasis on the narrow rights of individuals jeopardizes the collective activities of the community and hence the community itself.

What is needed is a model of society where power is more evenly distributed between these groups; where the interests of owners of capital, of workers, and of consumers are all taken into account with none taking automatic priority.

This struck me as fascinating. Now, I don't personally see how the group which liberalism represents - everyone - needs to be supplemented with the groups favored in corporatism and in socialism, which are partial. Nor that the interests of some "community" of individuals must be represented. In a free market (liberalism) such a group can form and defend itself, since all the individuals are protected by the system. But, the authors seem to believe that protection of each person, without protection of groups, leads to a loss of community-ness. Perhaps.

The fact that socialists have directed their main fight against corporatism this whole time and not against the free market is a critical point that we would do well to remember - and to make clear the distinction as often as possible. We have hardly tasted true liberalism, and socialists have tended not to start with models. In general, they, being people sympathetic to socialism and hence a softer sort of person, saw injustices in the world and began there. Seeing injustices, and seeing the market used by those with power and money, they blamed capitalists and they blamed the market. They did analyze different kinds of market societies, but they threaded them together in a dialectical historical account.

Market socialists are able to distinguish corporatism from liberalism. Starting there, the arguments are much easier to defeat. As above, sometimes it just boils down to "with liberalism, you lose the sense of community." There are some good books on how that isn't the case - that the opposite is true. When the state encroaches, as through welfare programs, it replaces community. In fact, the authors themselves cite "protection from the family" as a key feature of the welfare state (p. 21).

I'll post more on this book, maybe later today even.

update: I forgot to mention: Marxists describe the "crises" of centralizing capitalism, the movement from more to less competition, and consolidation into fewer hands. If capitalism is seen as rent-seeking driven corporatism, this makes sense. As rent-seeking drives policy, it necessarily does concentrate power into fewer hands, and also creates recurring crises (business cycles). As an example, consider how fixhousingfirst.com is calling for new increased low-income housing policies for its constituency, despite the fact that it was likely these policies which drove the housing bubble and caused the current crisis.

Update 2: I will also post more on this another time-- I would like to consider Marx and Bukharin's arguments in particular against "capitalism" as they may be estimated from a public choice perspective, as against corporatism (or mercantilism). It is possible that some Austrians have already done this - as it seems many Austrians see that Marx was really arguing against crony capitalism and not free markets - but probably not enough.

Then this can be tied together with the later market socialism literature and analysis. Marx was wrong with his labor theory of value, but perhaps right with his concentration, crises and ultimate end in planning (if he was studying the rent-seeking society); market socialists like Lange were wrong with their perfect competition models, but right in some of their understandings of the benefit of prices and competition. Very recent market socialists (like those above, and like Stiglitz) have greater understanding of many of the Austrian points than conventional economists. Perhaps bringing together all the good understandings of these various socialists could be useful in contributing to new, better models, and to a greater understanding of interventionism.