Nathan L. Robinson’s book Why You Should Be A Socialist might convince some socialists they are wrong. It’s that poorly argued.
His critique of capitalism is a harangue and hate speech. Chapter 3 is even titled ‘The Army of Psychopathic Androids: How Capitalism Works.’ He shows at best a superficial understanding of how capitalism works. He shows no understanding of how markets develop and change, the price system, entrepreneurs, division of labor, risk, or the role of knowledge and information in economic production and distribution (see F. Hayek's work). Capitalism (or free enterprise) does not ban ownership by other than stockholders -- worker-owned firms, nonprofits, coops, credit unions owned by depositors, mutual insurance companies owned by policyholders -- none of which Robinson acknowledges. Such firms can exist in capitalism because it’s a voluntary, live and let live system. And if a business were worker-owned like Robinson says all should be, wouldn’t the workers then be capitalists? Or would they somehow operate with no capital, not even borrowing from outside lenders?
He makes many contrasts between capitalism and socialism. One he doesn’t make is voluntary versus coercive. That’s probably because of the following. In capitalism, or a free market, entrepreneurs create goods and services for customers to satisfy the latter's particular needs. They deal with suppliers and employees voluntarily. The entire system is voluntary; coercion is banned. Entrepreneurs are not forced to create, and they don't force investors to give them money, employees to work, or customers to buy their products. Government is the opposite - a system based on coercion. A politician's ability to get something of value for themselves or others is the power to coerce certain people to provide it for them.
“If a corporation were a person, they might be the worst person you have ever met in your life. They might manipulate you into doing things you don’t want to do, take advantage of your weaknesses, lie to you if it benefited them, and show zero regard for basic standards of moral conduct” (78). Does this describe Robinson’s own corporation, Current Affairs, LLC? Anyway, Johnson & Johnson’s reaction to the 1982 Tylenol poisoning contradicts his very biased portrayal. If any business treats its customers and suppliers with zero moral regard, the business will soon fail.
On p. 79 he misrepresents Milton Friedman's position. Friedman did not say a corporation's sole responsibility is to its shareholders and shareholders' only concern is profit. He said a corporation's main responsibility is to its shareholders, and he recognized that shareholders’ desires may include some sort of social responsibility. They also have a means of expressing that, via voting their shares. Some corporations contribute to charities and do charitable gift-matching. Friedman also qualified corporate social responsible action to include the business staying within the rules of the game, i.e., engaging in open and free competition without deception or fraud. Robinson blatantly ignored it. Very likely Friedman made these remarks when others were advocating greater coercion and bullying of business by those in government on behalf of some political view of "social responsibility."
To be continued.
No comments:
Post a Comment