“It’s really corporatism you’re against” has become quite a cliché talking point. The problem is, “corporatism” being the problem is always a wind-up for a pitch for “laissez-faire” being the solution, whether that means “separation of economy and state” or a “subsidy-free society” or a society free of “rent extraction.” The underlying theory behind “it’s really corporatism you’re against” seems to be that when private actors do bad things, there’s INVARIABLY a public actor subsidizing them, or otherwise shielding them from what otherwise (according to the theory) would be the consequences of their actions.
I simply don’t buy that theory.
I’m quite certain that wealth would tend toward power in the absence of subsidy; in fact that the problem would be even worse. I’m OK with calling out rent seekers as long as I’m “punching up” when doing so, and even then, I can almost always (and prefer to) frame my objection to their conduct as something other than rent seeking. That’s why I’m always suspicious of people using the “corporatism” frame, they’re invariably libertarians whose rhetorical gambit (toward a left audience) is to bait our “anti-corporate” attitudes and switch us to what is nevertheless a pro-business position. I’m anti-business.
Leave a Reply