I have a short follow-up to this post you can find here.
White people have the luxury of not thinking about race if they don’t want to. Marginalized people, on the other hand, are forced to think about their own oppression all the time if they want to get by in the world. One way to think about this luxury is what philosopher Charles Mills calls “white ignorance.” In scholarship, one way the white ignorance is displayed is by white scholars, whom Critical Race Theorist Richard Delgado called “imperial scholars,” who ignore the scholarship of people of color. The poster child for white ignorance may well be Milton Friedman.
Milton Friedman was one of the most famous economists of the twentieth century. The leading light of the “Chicago School of Economics,” the most influential economics department in the world, Nobel prize-winner in Economics in 1976. If there were an All-Star team of economists, Friedman would be in the starting line-up. My view of him was nicely summarized by Murray Rothbard in 1964: “I am getting pretty p.o.’ed at the influence of that little bastard anyway; he is the No.1 respectable right-wing economist in Newsweek and Business Week, and Goldwater’s chief economic theoretician.” (Rothbard to James Martin, Martin Papers, University of Wyoming).
My focus is on Friedman’s chapter on “Capitalism and Discrimination” in his 1962 book, Capitalism and Freedom a book that has gone through several editions and is still in print. (How much would you pay for the first edition? Wrong! It is way more than that!). Friedman’s views on racial discrimination reflect a profound ignorance of how race operates in the world. This ignorance was inexcusable in 1962 and the fact that Friedman did not revise these views in the 1982 or 2002 editions show the pernicious power of his ideology which blinded him to the racial reality of the world.
Friedman’s description of race relations rests on two assumptions. The first is that racial animosity is simply a “taste,” not unlike my love of pizza topped with Canadian bacon and sauerkraut (it is awesome, try it!). Here he states his position:
It is just a matter of taste, not that Friedman was a racist, since he disavowed any noxious views in that last sentence. Lest we forget, here is how the white people of Little Rock expressed their “taste” that the Little Rock Nine not attend Central High school a few years before Friedman wrote his book:
Second, Friedman argued the only thing we had to do to combat racial discrimination was……nothing. That’s right, if we just got rid of governmental interference with the marketplace, this whole “race discrimination” hoo-hah would fade away. Why, race prejudice would be as hard to find as Canadian bacon and sauerkraut pizza! You see, race discrimination doesn’t make economic sense and the market would soon punish racists if only we would do nothing save perhaps cluck our tongues and express our displeasure at a racist’s taste preferences:
It is when Friedman attempts to support these views with empirical evidence that his essay goes completely off the rails. If Phil Magness would still like to know the difference between an interpretation of evidence he finds in error and “making stuff up” I invite him to read Friedman’s essay. He made stuff up—making historical claims without any citation of supporting evidence, and leaving out evidence that clearly disproves the claim he asserted.
Capitalism, Racism, and Slavery
We don’t have to wait long. Here are Friedman’s opening sentences on how capitalism diminished discrimination:
He gives us a list of capitalism’s triumphs in these matters. Unsurprisingly, he doesn’t mention slavery. While slavery had existed in all times and places in human history the racialized slave trade that linked Europe, Africa, and the Americas was unique in human history because it was the direct result of colonialism and capitalism. “Racism” as an ideology was an outgrowth of the necessity of justifying the social relationships that capitalism had brought into existence. One of the first scholars who put forth this relationship was Trinidad-born Oliver Cromwell Cox who got a degree in economics from (set your irony meters to maximum) the University of Chicago in 1932 and his PhD in sociology from Chicago in 1938. Why sociology? As he wrote: “I felt that if the economists did not explain what I wanted to know; if economists did not explain the coming of the Depression and did not help me to understand the great economic change, then I felt I did not need it.” In 1948, Cox published Caste, Class, and Race: A Study in Social Dynamics. Cox correctly recognized that racism was a relatively recent phenomenon historically speaking (a view I show here in a different context). It was the direct result of colonial expansion under capitalism:
Sometimes, probably because of its very obviousness, it is not realized that the slave trade was simply a way of recruiting labor for the purpose of exploiting the great natural resources of America. ^^ This trade did not develop because Indians and Negroes were red and black, or because their cranial capacity averaged a certain number of cubic centimeters; but simply because they were the best workers to be found for the heavy labor in the mines and plantations across the Atlantic. …. This, then, is the beginning of modern race relations. It was not an abstract, natural, immemorial feeling of mutual antipathy between groups, but rather a practical exploitative relationship with its socio-attitudinal facilitation — at that time only nascent race prejudice. Although this peculiar kind of exploitation was then in its incipiency, it had already achieved its significant characteristics. As it developed and took definite capitalistic form, we could follow the white man around the world and see him repeat the process among practically every people of color. (332-3)
Perhaps because he was a person of color and thus relegated to low-status institutions, or perhaps because he was a (shhhhh!) Marxist, Friedman showed no knowledge of Cox’s powerful arguments in 1962. Friedman’s ignorance only becomes more pronounced with each subsequent edition of Capitalism and Freedom, as the capitalist origins of the slavery/racism nexus got more and more support from historians and sociologists. Anthropologist Peter Wade in a recent book on the subject notes:
Many more scholars see race as a concept and racism as a practice as having emerged in the West, and specifically in conjunction with European colonialism and domination: the conquest of the Americas, the African slave trade, the abolition of slavery, imperialism in Africa and Asia, Anglo-Saxon expansionism across the United States, the global expansion of capitalism and so on (Eze 1997; Hall 1992; Hannaford 1996; Smedley). (pp. 15-6)
Friedman’s original claim in 1962 might be forgivable—but his continued endorsement of it in 2002 is a demonstration of a deeply studied and purposeful ignorance of the literature on race and slavery.
Property Rights and Reconstruction
From worse to worse. Here is Friedman on the immediate post-Civil War United States, the period of Reconstruction, when the white south was trying to keep African-Americans enslaved in all but name:
Oh, yes, that “basic belief in private property.” Friedman does not mention that same basic belief in private property was the white south’s chief argument justifying slavery as in the Dred Scott decision:
The Constitution of the United States recognises slaves as property, and pledges the Federal Government to protect it. And Congress cannot exercise any more authority over property of that description than it may constitutionally exercise over property of any other kind.
After the Civil War, the idea of property rights was an effective tool used against African Americans. Again, this was documented well before 1962 when Friedman was writing. W.E.B. Du Bois, the pioneering African-American scholar and activist who published Black Reconstruction: An Essay Toward a History of the Part which Black Folk Played in the Attempt to Reconstruct Democracy in America in 1935. Du Bois recounted how notions of property were used as tools of oppression:
[Emancipation] would not go as far as economic emancipation for which…the freedmen clamored, because the industrial North instinctively recoiled from this and the Northern white working man himself had not achieved such economic emancipation. The politically enfranchised slave was accused, as every laboring class has been, of ignorance and bad manners, of poverty and crime. And when he tried to go to school and tried to imitate the manners of his brothers, and demanded real economic emancipation through ownership of land and right to use capital, there arose the bitter shriek of property, and the charge of corruption and theft was added to that of ignorance and poverty.
Not only did the United States never deliver on the promised “forty acres and a mule,” preferring to respect the property rights of white traitors to their country rather than the new black citizens who had actually labored the land, but the white south also refused to protect any of the property rights of African Americans that Friedman claimed was “so strong” that “it overrode the desire to discriminate against Negroes.” Du Bois reported testimony from the 1860s that:
Men who are honorable in their dealings with their white neighbors, will cheat a Negro without feeling a single twinge of their honor. To kill a Negro, they do not deem murder; to debauch a Negro woman, they do not think fornication; to take the property away from a Negro, they do not consider robbery.
Du Bois concluded:
The Negro’s access to the land was hindered and limited; his right to work was curtailed; his right of self-defense was taken away, when his right to bear arms was stopped; and his employment was virtually reduced to contract labor with penal servitude as a punishment for leaving his job. And in all cases, the judges of the Negro’s guilt or innocence, rights and obligations were men who believed firmly, for the most part, that he had “no rights which a white man was bound to respect.”
Du Bois pioneering work of 1935 has been reaffirmed again and again since his first published it. Friedman shows no knowledge of how historical scholarship completely undermined his central claims about Reconstruction.
Chicago’s Segregated Schools
Nancy MacLean in Democracy in Chains notes how Friedman supported James M. Buchanan’s plan for privatizing Virginia’s public schools, thus giving aid and comfort to the segregationist cause there. In 1962, the African-American students of Prince Edward County, Virginia, were without a school at all and the white students there were firmly ensconced in what was called their “segregation academy.” Friedman showed no concern for—indeed, he showed no knowledge of—this situation and assured his readers that privatization of schools was the key to desegregation:
The first sentence perfectly echoed the claims of the segregationists of the time who held that Jim Crow reflected public attitudes, thereby ignoring how the law inculcates attitudes as well. (I wrote a whole book on the integrationists’ answer to this argument). The last sentence was mere wishful thinking in the face of every bit of evidence supplied by Virginia in 1962. Let’s look at the middle sentences. Friedman seemed to imply, without quite saying so, that Chicago schools are segregated because Chicago has laws requiring integration and, as every libertarian claims, laws dictating behavior always result in the opposite behavior. But, perhaps that is over-reading what Friedman claimed. If that is the case then the cause of Chicago’s segregated schools is completely unexplained. Friedman just throws up his hands; it’s a mystery! The reason Friedman did not explain segregation of Chicago is the same reason that slavery went completely unmentioned in his book: it is because the cause of both Chicago’s segregation and American slavery was respect for property rights.
Chicago’s schools were racially segregated because they were neighborhood schools and the neighborhoods were racially segregated. Why were Chicago’s neighborhoods racially segregated? The answer was not government intrusion in the marketplace: city ordinances requiring racial segregation were declared unconstitutional in Buchanan v. Warley in 1917. This date coincided with the beginning of the Great Migration of African Americans from the rural south to the rural north. White northerners restricted African American neighborhoods with racially restrictive covenants.
Here’s how those covenants worked: A condition on a white person’s purchase of a house was predicated on the condition that, upon reselling the purchaser would never sell to “any person other than the Caucasian race.” Often, it was also agreed that the local homeowner’s association had the right to enforce this contract—the same kind of HOAs that currently regulate the colors you can paint your front door. All this was reinforced by real estate agents who knew that such properties guaranteed them higher prices:
By the 1940s, 80% of Chicago neighborhoods were controlled by racially restrictive covenants. Thus, all-white neighborhoods were virtually guaranteed by private contracts and property rights: the same rights that Friedman told us were the key to everyone’s freedom. This whole story was laid out in 1959 in an excellent book by historian Clement Vose entitled Caucasians Only, a book Friedman could have read if he wasn’t convinced that he knew all the answers because of his blind faith in the free market.
The NAACP actually spent more time and money fighting restrictive covenants than they did school segregation. They were victorious in 1948 when the Supreme Court held that such covenants were unenforceable in Shelley V. Kraemer. Seventy years later libertarians are still arguing over whether or not Shelley was rightly decided or not.
In a previous post I argued that so-called constitutional originalists were engaged in a project that attempted to rewrite the past by trying to explain how the Brown decision could have been decided on originalist grounds and ignoring the fact that originalist doctrines were used for two decades to attempt to reject Brown. Some libertarians are engaged in similar projects: trying desperately to rewrite the past by arguing that those who supported racially restrictive covenants weren’t “really libertarians” or that slavery had nothing to do with 19th century versions of sacred property rights. Friedman’s 1962 book is an example of selective memory, evidence-free claims about the past (literally “making it up”), and letting his libertarian ideology decide the empirical question about how the world works. In 1962, he accomplished this by ignoring the scholarship of people of color like Cox and Du Bois. Forty years later, when he wrote that he was “enormously gratified by how well the book has withstood time and how pertinent it remains to today’s problems” the only explanation for his crowing (rather than an abject apology) was a studied, willful ignorance of the historical record. Since World War II, libertarians have resolutely stood on the wrong side of racial justice, I see no reason to believe they have a grasp of it now.
I have a short follow-up to this post you can find here.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Friedman’s analysis reminds me of what Naomi Klein wrote in Disaster Capitalism, that Friedman’s theorizing was done on a table top. Her analysis suggests to me a form of phenomenological economics. As a thought experiment, you bracket out any disturbance or variable that would disturb the highly unrealistic assumptions of the model.
Perhaps in a thought experiment, racial preferences would operate the way Friedman argues they would. I don’t know. But, libertarians cannot handle the real world. Reconstruction was overthrown through white terrorism. Jim Crow was enforced through laws and state-protected white terrorism, as well as state-sponsored terrorism through law enforcement. Chicago’s race covenants were enforced through the local courts. Libertarians love to argue that they oppose force in social relations. Don’t we all. But the question is always, what is to be done when social relations carry the force of law and terror? Since libertarians have no answer for state-sponsored terrorism and state-protected terrorism, they must ignore it and reduce racism simply to individual preferences.
And, as you are more aware than I, the emphasis in the 1950s on individual-level prejudice and racism–including the official line by the US government during the height of the Cold War–let many practices off the hook.
Perhaps, had libertarians been consistent, and I’m hazarding a guess here, they could have sided with the federal government and the federal courts in overturning segregation on the grounds that while they opposed the use of force in social relations, the federal government’s actions were less objectionable. But, as you pointed out in a previous essay or two, libertarians are completely indifferent, at best, to the plight of the oppressed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Arguing With Libertarians | Fardels Bear
Pingback: Are Libertarian Principles Incompatible with White Supremacy? First Thoughts. | Fardels Bear
“He made stuff up—making historical claims without any citation of supporting evidence, and leaving out evidence that clearly disproves the claim he asserted.”
That’s an extremely odd claim for you to make, John. In fact, Friedman’s citation appears in the cut-off footnote to the passage you screencaped immediately before this sentence. It’s actually cited to Gary Becker’s 1955 book “The Economics of Racial Discrimination” – a highly empirical work that was a major reason for Becker’s own Nobel prize. There’s a reason for this too, as Friedman’s chapter in “Capitalism and Freedom” was basically a non-technical explanation of Becker’s findings for a popular audience.
Hi Phil! Thanks for stopping by.
This will make an interesting case study for me. You go through MacLean’s book with a fine-toothed comb, offer a different interpretation of her evidence and then declare that she “made it up!” So, let’s compare your treatment of Maclean with your treatment of Milton Friedman (MF)! Because you are only interested in the truth and not in furthering any political agenda, we should expect you to examine his sources with the same care and sharp critical eye. Let’s find out if you do that! Or do you give MF a pass for crappy scholarship just because you agree with his politics? Oh, the suspense.
So, yeah, I didn’t mention that MF cites one (1) source in his essay. I did so because that source did not support the specific charges I was bringing against MF which have to do with the historical claims he made. Here’s the footnote on page 110 of MF:
“In a brilliant and penetrating analysis of some economic issues involved in discrimination, Gary Becker demonstrates that the problem of discrimination is almost identical in its logical structure with that of foreign trade and tariffs. See G. S. Becker, The Economics of Discrimination (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957).”
See, to me that merely calls attention to the parallel between discrimination and tariffs and hence irrelevant to the capitalism and slavery, Reconstruction and property rights, restrictive covenants, and private schools. Silly me! You explain that MF’s ENTIRE CHAPTER “was basically a non-technical explanation of Becker’s findings for a popular audience.” So, even though that is not what MF wrote, you claim that is the case. In other words, what you are telling me is that all of MF’s claims are supported by Becker’s “highly empirical work.” You want evidence, Jackson? It’s in Becker!
Here’s the problem though. None of the claims I quote from MF are in Becker. None. We’ll examine each in turn:
1. MF claims that capitalism, historically, “has been accompanied by a major reduction” in discrimination. You say, look in Becker. Becker has nothing to say on this subject. MF claims that freedom has increased since the middle ages, Becker is almost exclusively discussing 20th century US. Neither MF or Becker discuss how capitalism was responsible for the racialized slavery of the western hemisphere. So, you are simply wrong to claim that Becker supports MF on this point. I cite Cox’s work which has been reaffirmed again and again and again that disproves MF’s claims. MF made it up. And repeated it in 2002 during the last reprint of his awful book.
2. MF claims, after the Civil War, the white south protected the private property of African Americans. Becker is silent on this issue, again he is studying 20th century US. MF made it up. I cite Du Bois which shows the opposite. MF has whatever he decided MUST have been the case because his economic theories told him so. Presumably that is also the reason you think MF is relying on Becker for his nonsense.
3. Restrictive Covenants. Hey! At last, at long last, we have at topic that Becker discusses. But, as I point out, unfortunately MF does not discuss! MF offers zero explanation for why Chicago schools were segregated. So, once again, you are wrong about the link between Becker and MF’s essay.
As an aside, Becker claims “Residential segregation is often confused with residential discrimination, although the latter is clearly a separate phenomenon, occurring when some people pay more than others for a dwelling of given quality” (p. 78). So, prohibiting minorities from owning property in certain areas is not, in and of itself, discrimination according to Becker. That seems like a problem for his account of discrimination, but then I’m no Nobel prize winner.
This, Phil, is what it looks like when a someone just “makes it up.” No sources, no evidence, nothing. Your claim that these claims are supported by Becker is false. Interesting how you give MF a complete and utter pass on this while claiming a poorly-chosen word in MacLean (“Lodestar!”) falsifies her entire book. To me, this is evidence that you are willing to believe anything that fits into your political worldview and deny anything that does not. It is not really about evidence for you since you believe accounts that contain none. It is simply about what you agree with and what you do not.
In the end, my conclusion on the original post is affirmed by our little discussion here: libertarians wallow in a”studied, willful ignorance of the historical record. Since World War II, libertarians have resolutely stood on the wrong side of racial justice, I see no reason to believe they have a grasp of it now.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pingback: Gary Becker and the Economics of Discrimination | Fardels Bear
Pingback: Milton Friedman and Harvey Weinstein | Fardels Bear
Pingback: Ayn Rand on Racism | Fardels Bear
Pingback: Objectified Inegalitarian Objectivism | Head Space
Pingback: Koch and the Neo-Confederate | Fardels Bear
Pingback: The Return of Libertarians in the Civil Rights Era | Fardels Bear
Pingback: Answering the Twittertarians | Fardels Bear
Way to quote mine Friedman you big liar. Here’s the part of the chapter you wouldn’t include in your article.
“On the contrary, I believe strongly that the color of a man’s skin or the
religion of his parents is, by itself, no reason to treat him differently; that a man
should be judged by what he is and what he does and not by these external
characteristics. I deplore what seem to me the prejudice and narrowness of
outlook of those whose tastes differ from mine in this respect and I think the less
of them for it. But in a society based on free discussion, the appropriate recourse
is for me to seek to persuade them that their tastes are bad and that they should
change their views and their behavior, not to use coercive power to enforce my
tastes and my attitudes on others.” – Milton Friedman
You know that I wrote these exact things about MF in the post. To quote: “It is just a matter of taste, not that Friedman was a racist, since he disavowed any noxious views in that last sentence. ” So explicitly say the MF said he held no racist views. Quote again: “Friedman argued the only thing we had to do to combat racial discrimination was……nothing. That’s right, if we just got rid of governmental interference with the marketplace, this whole “race discrimination” hoo-hah would fade away. Why, race prejudice would be as hard to find as Canadian bacon and sauerkraut pizza! You see, race discrimination doesn’t make economic sense and the market would soon punish racists if only we would do nothing save perhaps cluck our tongues and express our displeasure at a racist’s taste preferences”
So, I wrote the exact thing you said I didn’t write. The point is, these sentences you quote do not have any impact on the argument I made which is MF was a terrible scholar telling his readers nonsense about the history of capitalism and racism. Whether or not he was a racist in his heart is utterly irrelevant to that history.
I don’t think MF was a racist in his heart. But here’s the thing: every racist of the time disavowed racism. Those sentence you quote were basically uttered by every segregationist of the time. Should we historians just take their word for it? Or should be look at their actions which could very well show that they were racists despite their disavowels of racism” If you believe MF simply because he wrote that, so you also believe every segregationist who spouted the same line?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is interesting to read things like this as I am a frequent guest of African think tanks (headed there in week) hosted by Africans who direct me to lecture on free markets and how they work and how they create prosperity and they themselves assign readings which include Hayek and Friedman. No one is perfect and we all see what we want to see but for blacks living under socialist and command systems with extensive corruption for the last 60 years they see the free market teachings of Friedman and Hayek as a path to prosperity not some mask for racial animosity or maybe my African friends are blind to how race works in this world too.
So to be clear your argument is that because people in Africa are black, and segregation and racism in America is against people of African descent, the fact that African’s studying economics don’t throw out Friedman and Hayek from the curriculum is proof that Friedman’s pseudo-history of American slavery, racism, and it’s relationship to capitalism is accurate.
Quick argument pro-tip, arguing “Friedman can’t have written things that supported racism and segregation in America because he has black friends in Africa” is not a good defense at all. In fact, that argument is a huge red flag that kinda does the opposite of what you want it to do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“for blacks living under socialist and command systems with extensive corruption for the last 60 years they see the free market teachings of Friedman and Hayek as a path to prosperity”
please would you tell me the list of African countries led to “prosperity” following the “path” of Friedman, or the path of capitalism “in the last 60 years” ?
I am very curious to know those countries that thanks to not having “socialist” regimes and following capitalism achieved some prosperity….and also did not have “extensive corruption” (for not being socialist, obviously)
Pingback: Milton Friedman and the Case of the Missing Sentence | Fardels Bear
Pingback: Milton Friedman’s Economic Racism - Evonomics