Tuesday, September 13, 2022

Milton Friedman and the Back Road to Socialism

By Marc Sidwell

Tuesday, September 13, 2022

 

Fifty-two years ago today, the economist Milton Friedman issued a prophetic warning. Writing for the New York Times, he identified a growing threat to the free society: corporate executives who, instead of staying focused on turning a profit, spent other people’s money on “social responsibility.” Friedman was emphatic: Companies that went down this road were not just well-meaning and misguided. They were bankrolling an insidious attack on capitalism itself. Soft-hearted managers were dragging the economy down a road that could end only in socialism.

 

Friedman’s full-throated attack on the social responsibility of business was shocking even at the time, but he was no lightweight commentator peddling synthetic outrage. Within six years, he would be awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics. Five decades later, it is hard to deny that Friedman was on to something. Stakeholder capitalism has gone from niche concern to the dominant fashion. It is trumpeted by both the Business Roundtable and the world’s biggest investment managers, including Larry Fink of BlackRock. ESG rent-seekers are raking in cash faster than a gold-rush whorehouse, while ambitious Republicans make hay over the excesses of “woke capital.” But many don’t see the larger threat.

 

It may be easier to appreciate today how corporate social responsibility risks making companies less efficient while funneling resources to unpopular, left-wing causes, but Friedman saw a much larger problem. He saw in stakeholder capitalism a “fundamentally subversive doctrine” that could lead the free society over a cliff. This was the nightmare he staked his reputational capital to warn against.

 

To appreciate his alarm, it helps to turn to Friedman’s book Capitalism and Freedom, which he cites in the article. The book had been published eight years earlier and was itself based on a series of lectures given at Wabash College in Indiana in 1956. It shows that this topic wasn’t a passing concern for Friedman, but an issue he had worried about deeply for 14 years before he wrote in the Times. And, as he notes in both his article and at more length in the book, his skepticism was shared by Adam Smith, who wrote in The Wealth of Nations of the self-interested businessman who, “by pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectively than when he really intends to promote it.”

 

The heart of Friedman’s objection is simple: In our society, “individuals are the ultimate owners of property.” The doctrine of social responsibility overrides that ownership in favor of collective goals. Making corporations, not the state, the arm of a collective “social good” gives the impression of avoiding political collectivism. But this is an illusion. Corporate social responsibility is a sharp turn off the main highway of capitalism. It leads onto a corporatist back road that may be picturesque but winds its way toward socialism.

 

The journey begins by turning business into a kind of slush fund for activists too radical to get their way via political campaigning. As Friedman put it, corporate social responsibility is a sort of taxation without representation. “[T]hose who favor the taxes and expenditures in question have failed to persuade a majority of their fellow citizens to be of like mind and . . . they are seeking to attain by undemocratic procedures what they cannot attain by democratic procedures.”

 

Half a century after Friedman’s article, we have started to wake up to this illiberal state of affairs. Indeed, Andrew Stuttaford recently wrote for Capital Matters pointing out how businesses and investment managers are “using other people’s money to push for societal changes that, in a democracy, are more properly decided upon by an elected legislature.”

 

Politicians such as Ron DeSantis are seizing the opportunity to denounce the agenda of corporations from Disney to Ben & Jerry’s and to seek to shift firms in a direction more palatable to their voters. But this is no panacea. If anything, it just marks an acceleration down the road to political collectivism.

 

It doesn’t matter which side your politics fall on if you keep heading in the wrong direction. Demanding that businesses reflect the values of your constituents rather than focus on making money is to fail to escape the trap that corporate social responsibility sets.

 

The lie at the heart of this doctrine, as Friedman understood, is that such decisions are uncontroversial. Its advocates rely on the vague public instinct that big business knows the decent thing to do and chooses another course out of pure greed — or woke indoctrination. But as Friedman pointed out, and our polarized times confirm, “one man’s good is another’s evil.” He asks in Capitalism and Freedom, “Can self-selected individuals decide what the social interest is?” Of course, our entire democratic enterprise cries “no” at the top of its voice. This, at least, is one thing both red and blue states can agree on; it’s what politics is for. But politically run businesses, however democratic, are in no one’s interest.

 

Stakeholder capitalism professes, Friedman says, “that collectivist ends can be attained without collectivist means.” That is its fatal conceit. Once people notice how much corporate power has been taken by political activists, they will inevitably demand the right to the sort of political oversight expected elsewhere and throw out capitalism in the process. “If businessmen are civil servants rather than the employees of their stockholders then in a democracy they will, sooner or later, be chosen by the public techniques of election and appointment.” And so our charming back road — which seemed far more pleasant than the aggressive, profit-driven freeway of capitalism ­— reaches its destination.

 

Profit-driven business and a free society of property-owning individuals go together. Republicans at least need to understand this and lead their constituents back toward the main road of capitalist individualism. We are already headed in the wrong direction. Pursuing the politicization of business from the right will only floor the accelerator.

No comments: