“Missing the importance of The Free Market.”
Until the 21st century, the Democrat Party was content to slowly edge the country towards the socialist model. Starting with the Obama Administration the Democrat Party went mainstream into the socialist/communist movement while pretending to support free market principles. Over time the left has cleverly hijacked and clothed themselves in positive terminology with the aid of left wing media that has afforded them cover as they proceed to dismantle the free market bit by bit. The wolf appears to be a sheep, and at first glance looks like a sheep, but make no mistake the wolf is a wolf. Two terms that the Democrat Party has adopted, modified and used in a “smoke and mirrors” manner are liberal and progressive. The original classical definition of liberal (or liberalism) at the time of the American Revolution and the industrial revolution focused on the freedom of individuals, free markets, civil liberty, free trade and small government that supported not hindered these freedoms. The classical definition of progressive centered around the concept that advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition. Note the intuitively positive uplifting meaning and feeling associated with both of these terms.
During the presidential term of Franklin Roosevelt the left leaning Democrat Party massaged the definition of classical liberalism to include many aspects of their socialist agenda, relabeling it Neo-liberalism or modern liberalism and cloaked their move to the left in the light of liberalism’s positive history. Many of Roosevelt’s administrative actions, supported by Keynesian economic “theology” (which theorizes that efficient growth will occur when federal stimulus singularly targets demand and not supply) mimicked Woodrow Wilson style regulatory control of prices and output levels. This effectively constrained the free market, stifled the small entrepreneur and created cartels. The overall effect of these actions was increased central control of much of the use of scarce resources and the distribution of goods and services. The basic concept of the socialist/communist model is the central control of the use of scarce resources and the distribution of goods and services. This is clearly the direction in the 20th century that the Democrats started taking the country, while hiding under the deceiving banner of redefined liberalism.
Simultaneous with the redefining of liberal the left leaning Democrat Party performed similar surgery on the definition of progressive. The attributes of progressivism, unlike the characteristics of classical liberalism, unfortunately, have always been ambiguous, with attributes generously added to its overall scope over time, often with little resemblance to the original definition of progressive. Although many of the positive institutions that evolved in the 20th century, during what is often referred to as the “Progressive Era”, added to the viability of the free market. The more recent goals of self proclaimed progressives clearly target the free market and the basic underpinnings of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The creation and activities of labor unions, trade groups, and associations (professional, civic and religious) fit well within the scope of the classical definition of progressive.
The corrosive activities of twenty first century self proclaimed progressives, such as “The 1619 Project” and “Critical Race Theory”, are Marxist agenda driven endeavors designed to divisively undermine American history and the classical liberal underpinnings of our nation. These two projects are the creation of journalists who have sought to rewrite history to fit their ideology. Sad, when we understood a journalist as one whose role was to chronicle history, not to distort it. Equality has morphed into equity and racial differences are accentuated rather than the goal of total racial equality being elevated (IE. when race becomes irrelevant). Racial division fits into the playbook of the radical left and major elements of the socialist/communist model as they are being massaged into the messaging of many 21st century self proclaimed progressives.
Conservatives get a failing grade in “Introduction to Marketing 101” when it comes to managing the terminology that identifies them, especially in reference to the acceptance and/or defense of the term capitalism. Let’s begin by establishing an historical timeline to understand the evolution of the free market and emergence of the socialist/communist model. Adam Smith, in the 1700’s, the father of modern economics, identified profit coupled with individual freedom (“the invisible hand”) as the driver of efficiency and innovation. His analysis of the division of tasks in the production process, and technological innovation, was the harbinger of the industrial revolution and the massive success of the free market that has generated virtually all of the modern technology that we enjoy today. A century later Karl Marx and Frederich Engels in the “Communist Manifesto” and “Das Kapital” re-characterized profit (and the associated rights of individuals to gain from their efforts) as greed and disputed that the owners of the means of production should benefit from the surplus (profit). The working class is viewed as the oppressed and the owners of the means of production are viewed as the oppressors. Marx envisioned a world where the oppressed working class would rise up and overthrow the oppressors. The ultimate goal of the socialist/communist movement was and will always be to replace the free market system with a socialist system which holds or controls the means of production in behalf of a classless society. In effect, the exact economic system in a socialist (Marxist) world is poorly defined in theory (basically a form of central decision making) and is massively inefficient and oppressive in practice. Any means of replacing the free market with a socialist/communist system, including violence, is deemed acceptable. Keep in mind that the communist movement is, in effect, a socially oriented revolution without an effective economic plan that can even come close to matching the overall success of the free market in any manner.
Unfortunately, economists have accepted the capitalist moniker that was foisted upon the free market system by 19th century socialists/anarchists and accepted by Marx and Engels. For some unknown reason, over time, conservatives and the Republican Party have accepted the easily demonized term, capitalism, and allowed the basic overall conception of conservatism to be singularly associated with capital and not its true roots, the free market and individual freedoms (which includes but is not restricted to capital formation). In reality, both labor and capital, along with raw materials, are inputs in any production process and are not adequate identifiers of the socioeconomic structures they have come to represent. The relevant distinction between socioeconomic systems should be between the conservative’s proper identifier, the free market and socialism/communism (or central decision making in behalf a classless society). Conservatives should become committed to keeping capital identified as an input and utilize the term free market to identify their socioeconomic philosophy that focuses on individual freedom (which includes the freedom of the individual to innovate, develop and own the means of production as part of a truly free and open society).
A greater effort must be made to emphasize the important role of entrepreneurial success in the growth of America and our economic future. In the 1800’s ownership of capital was not readily available to workers as it is today. Thanks to the stock market all people have access to ownership. It is a testament to real progress in the functioning of the free market that business owners freely provide programs that include stock grants and stock options to their employees.
Another example of poor messaging and the loss of an opportunity to attach a negative term to the socialist/communist movement relates to the actual facets and outcomes of fascism. As the case with progressivism, the meaning of fascism is not singularly accepted by most self appointed gurus and scholars. It is more useful, therefore, to examine the primary economic and governmental structures and realities that evolve under a fascist regime. Under fascism big government and big business thrive while entrepreneurs and individuals suffer. Government, acting in an autocratic manner, links with big business and big media to control the individual and any opposition. Given that autocratic government and big capital are the major players in a fascist state, word manipulators on the left have found it easy to negatively associate fascism with “capitalism.” It is only by examining the results of fascism that it becomes obvious that fascism is the direct antithesis of a properly functioning free market. In a properly functioning free market the government acts as a neutral referee and not a player. In a fascist or socialist/communist socioeconomic state government is the dominant player that abuses its market power via a myriad of legislative and regulatory mechanisms.
The socialist/communist movement has found it easy to create a visual, but dubious, tie between free market and fascism. They have be able to do so because conservative free market advocates have accepted the term “capitalism” as the identifier of their socioeconomic philosophy. The attributes of fascism actually more closely resemble the socialist/communist model. That is the message conservatives need to embrace. Left wing politicians, pundits and journalists are experts at messaging and have very effectively created an illusion. What looks like a duck (the obvious connection between fascism and the socialist/communist model), sounds like a duck, and smells like a duck, somehow isn’t a duck, and has been deceivingly associated with the free market through the term capitalism. The key to American economic success, the entrepreneur, the champion of the free market and the one proven driver of sustained economic growth, is the primary economic growth element that is stifled and ultimately crushed by fascist and socialist/communist systems over time. There is an old Texas expression that is totally on point regarding things and systems that work, “you should dance with the one that brought you”, which in the case of the American economy, is equivalent to, “if it isn’t broken don’t fix it”. Remember, any modified version of term socialism, such as democratic socialism, is still socialism, adjusted to sound better. We need to promote the free market and everything it truly means. It is time to expose the collectivist socioeconomic system that will ultimately crush the golden goose, the entrepreneur.