Mr. Lively is admirably precise in his description of the posture involved. But Mr. Romney is not alone in it. A number of intellectually more reputable men (including some distinguished free-enterprise economists) have adopted the same stance and the same line for the same psychological reasons.
There are the economists who proclaim that the essence (and the moral justification) of capitalism is “service to others—to the consumers,” that the consumers’ wishes are the absolute edicts ruling the free market, etc. (This is an example of what a definition by non-essentials accomplishes, and of why a half-truth is worse than a lie: what all such theorists fail to mention is the fact that capitalism grants economic recognition to only one kind of consumer: the producer—that only traders, i.e., producers who have something to offer, are recognized on a free market, not “consumers” as such—that, in a capitalist economy, as in reason, in justice, and in reality, production is the pre-condition of consumption.)
There are the businessmen who spend fortunes on ideological ads, allegedly in defense of capitalism, which assure the public that all but a tiny fraction of an industry’s income goes to labor (wages), to government (taxes), etc., with these shares represented as big chunks in full-color process, and, lost among them, an apologetic little sliver is marked “2Vi percent” and labeled “profits.”
There is the display of charts and models, in a hallway of the New York Stock Exchange, presenting the achievements of free enterprise and captioned: “The People’s Capitalism.”
Since none of these attempts can succeed in disguising the nature of capitalism nor in degrading it to the level of an altruistic stockyard, their sole result is to convince the public that capitalism hides some evil secret which imbues its alleged defenders with such an aura of abject guilt and hypocrisy. But, in fact, the secret they are struggling to hide is capitalism’s essence and greatest virtue: that it is a system based on the recognition of individual rights—on man’s right to exist (and to work) for his own sake—not on the altruistic view of man as a sacrificial animal. Thus it is capitalism’s virtue that the public is urged—by such defenders—to Tegard as evil, and it is altruism that all their efforts help to reinforce and reaffirm as the standard of the good.
What they dare not allow into their minds is the fact that capitalism and altruism are incompatible; so they wonder
why the more they propagandize, the more unpopular capitalism becomes. They blame it on people’s stupidity (because people refuse to believe that a successful industrialist is an exponent of altruistic self-sacrifice)—and on people’s greed for the unearned (because, after being battered with assurances that the industrialist’s wealth is “morally” theirs, people do come to believe it).
No “anti-concept” launched by the “liberals” goes so far so crudely as the tag “consumerism.” It implies loudly and clearly that the status of “consumer” is separate from and superior to the status of “producer”; it suggests a social system dedicated to the service of a new aristocracy which is distinguished by the ability to “consume” and vested with a special claim on the caste of serfs marked by the ability to produce. If taken seriously, such a tag would lead to the ultimate absurdity of the communists proclaiming: “Who does not toil, shall not eat”—and the alleged representatives of capitalism replying: “Oh yes, he shall!” And if the Ad Hoc Committee on the Triple Revolution propounds such a moral obscenity as “the right to consume”—who inspired it, Karl Marx or Governor Romney?
It is true that we are not a capitalist system any longer: we are a mixed economy, i.e., a mixture of capitalism and statism, of freedom and controls. A mixed economy is a country in the process of disintegration, a civil war of pressure-groups looting and devouring one another. In this sense, “consumerism” might be the appropriate name for it.
Now to whom is it that the friends, the semi-friends, and even the acquaintances of capitalism are so anxiously apologizing?
As the clearest illustration of the psychological motives, the moral meaning and the intellectual technique involved in the manufacture of “anti-concepts,” I offer you a column by C. L. Sulzberger, entitled “Should the Old Labels Be Changed,” in the July 1964 issue of The New York Times.
A research report of the United States Information Agency [writes Mr. Sulzberger] has ruefully discovered that the more our propaganda advertises the virtues of “capitalism” and attacks “Socialism,” the less the world likes us. … Confused semantics make bad public relations. . . . Having analyzed conclusions of its poll-takers in both hemispheres, the U.S.I.A. study observes: “Capitalism is evil. The United States is the leading capitalist country. Therefore, the United States is evil.” It would be difficult to exaggerate the harm that this line of thinking has done. In the Soviet Union and
Communist China it sustains attitudes and actions that greatly increase the danger of thermonuclear war.
What is meant here by such a foggy expression as “sustains attitudes and actions”? The smear of capitalism as evil was originated and is constantly reiterated by the communists. Does the above mean that their own smear sustains their attitudes? And does it mean that the way to avoid thermonuclear war is for us to agree that the smear is true?
The report does not say. It merely goes on:
“In the non-Communist world it tends to poison the atmosphere in which we are trying to carry on our aid programs and other international cooperation.”
This means that the harm, to us, lies in the danger that the recipients of our charity might refuse to take our money— and that in order to gain their “cooperation,” we must spit in our own face and join in smearing the system which produced the wealth which is saving their lives.
“Capitalism” is a dirty word to millions of non-Marxists who see “Socialism” as vaguely benevolent. When the U.S.I.A. sampled foreign opinion it found that to the majority “Socialism” did not mean government ownership and was not necessarily related to communism. Rather it seemed to imply a system favoring welfare of common people.
If you have doubted that the philosophy of Pragmatism actually teaches that truth is to be established by public polls—here is a sample of it, in pure and naked form. Volumes of theory, a century of history, and the bloody practice of five continents to the contrary notwithstanding, “socialism” does not mean government ownership and is not related to communism—because a sampling of majority opinion said so. And what is meant by “a system favoring welfare of common people”? How does one “favor” the “common people”? At the expense of the uncommon? A “favor” means the unearned—since the earned is a right, not a favor. Whose rights and earnings are to be abrogated and expropriated— for whose benefit? The only variant of socialism that can distribute “favors” without government ownership, is fascism. Draw your own conclusions about the political inclinations of the moral cannibals involved in that poll.
descriptive of an efficient economy or a safeguard of individual rights. To them it means little concern for the poor, unfair distribution of wealth, and undue influence of the rich.
How does one combine the safeguard of individual rights with a government-enforced “concern for the poor” and a government-distributed wealth and “influence”? No answer.
U.S.I.A. found an impressive percentage of British, West Germans, Italians, Japanese, Mexicans and Brazilians have a favorable opinion of “Socialism” and a strongly unfavorable opinion of “capitalism.”
Consider the philosophical trends, the intellectual commitments, the moral records of these countries—and their political results. Germany, Italy, and Japan were fascist dictatorships; their claims to political wisdom consist of giving the world a demonstration of horror equaled only by their ideological brothers in Soviet Russia and Red China. Britain, Mexico, and Brazil are mixed economies which have long since gone over the borderline state of mixture into the category—and the economic bankruptcy—of socialistic countries. And these are the nations whose opinions we are asked to value, whose favor we are asked to court—these are the moral authorities to whom we must apologize for the noblest political system in history: ours—these are the judges whom we must placate by denying our system, dishonoring its record, and obliterating its name.
Is there any conceivable motive that could prompt a nation to so base a betrayal? Conceivable—no, if one refers to the realm of rational concepts. But—
“Capitalism” abroad is frequently a pejorative word. Efforts to purge it of negative connotations by phrases like “people’s capitalism” have failed. . . . But “Socialism” is chic. [Yes, chic] Even in Britain and West Germany, where private ownership is the mode, the majority expressed itself sympathetic to “Socialism,” while abhorring Communism.
If the term “social metaphysics” occurs to you at this point, you would be right—except that even that term seems too clean, almost too innocent, to explain the following:
Leaders of underdeveloped nations, spurning “capitalism,” boast of special brands of “Socialism.” Leopold