Attendees of last week’s World Economic Forum in Davos experienced something not typically witnessed at the elitist conclave — full-throated critiques of the group and its aspirations.
The recently elected president of Argentina, Javier Milei, in an electric speech condemning collectivism and the failure of Western elites to defend the economic model that lifted approximately 90 percent of the world’s population out of poverty in a little over 200 years, called business leaders “heroes” while imploring them not to be intimated by a “political class … [desiring only] to stay in power and retain its privileges.” Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts sounded similar themes on a panel discussing what to expect from a prospective U.S. Republican administration, pointedly describing those at Davos as “part of the problem.”
Neither the Rentiers nor the Marks are worthy stewards of the enormous benefits free enterprise has bestowed upon the world.
While political leaders, international NGOs, academics, and other public figures comprise a significant number of Davos attendees, CEOs and other business leaders may be the largest group in attendance. As such, the proceedings garner significant interest from CNBC, Bloomberg TV, and other business media, focusing on the “capitalists” present at a conference otherwise given over to myriad collectivist objectives. Who are — or rather, what are — these “capitalists”?
One might think business leaders have chosen their careers out of free-market convictions (as suggested by Milei’s characterization of them as “heroes”). Similarly, one might also expect those engaged in any given profession or career (particularly those having ascended to leadership roles due to their success) to believe in the merit of their work. In truth, many likely see such efforts as simply making a living, and subscribe to other beliefs. (READ MORE from Richard Shinder: The End of Financial Innovation?)
Accordingly, what are thought of as “capitalists” sit along an ideological spectrum which generally adheres to traditional notions of economic “left” and “right.” Along this continuum are clustered three general groupings of business professionals.
The easiest to characterize sit at the left end of the spectrum: the “Rent Extractors” or “Rentiers.” These are mostly corporatists, viewing the commercial realm as but one societal group or faction among several, and who individually see commerce as a means to a straightforward personal end — making money. They are sometimes derisively called “crony capitalists” and are not known to be fans of competition, individual merit, or the tenets of classical liberalism more generally. They typically inhabit larger enterprises, and now, sitting at the controls of these sprawling institutions, support policies having the effect of pulling up the opportunity drawbridge behind them. This group animates the business wing and donor class of the modern Democratic Party.
Next are those businesspeople who play their part in a protection racket writ large — let’s call them the “Marks,” as in victims. These are capitalists of little conviction or philosophical introspection — while perhaps less hypocritical than the Rentiers, their primary professional objective is to be left alone to go about the business of enriching themselves.
The Marks will feint in the direction of whatever fad holds corporate America’s attention at the moment — be it DEI, stakeholder capitalism, the “energy transition,” or ESG — in order to advance their careers, and happily direct corporate and individual philanthropy to causes set on the Marks’ own destruction, failing to comprehend that the logical endpoint of these policies is anathema to their very existence. As with other prey species, they manifest a herd mentality and seek safety in numbers. While they’d be loath to articulate their goals as such, in practice their desire is to earn enough money to hopefully insulate themselves from a degraded culture and the consequences of the policies supported by their professional cohort. It is the Marks that Lenin had in mind when he said “the capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”
Last are the actual capitalists, or “Old Believers.” They not only believe in the economic advantages of free enterprise, but more importantly (as highlighted by President Milei in his WEF speech) its moral superiority. This group is largely comprised of men and women running small businesses, along with a fair number of entrepreneurs. They are accustomed to having to compete in order to succeed, and consider government’s impact on their business more burdensome than helpful. (READ MORE: The New Collectivism of Big Government Elites)
The Old Believers are less visible as public figures and traditionally less politically active — likely ensuing from a distaste for politics and the demands of their professional lives. This low profile in comparison with the Rentiers and Marks has contributed to the belief in our contemporary politics that businesspeople are largely leftists, leading to rising anti-business sentiment on the populist right.
What many observers fail to appreciate is that the critique of “Davos Man” made by Milei, Roberts and others comes from the Old Believers, and is directed as much at the Rentiers and Marks masquerading as Milei’s “heroes” as it is at the NGOs and outright collectivists in attendance, who make no pretense of their opposition to economic freedom and individual liberty.
Those who enjoy the fruits of free markets while failing to protect them from predation either don’t understand the damage of the philosophies they promote (or at least tolerate), or cynically believe they can remain a step ahead of the executioner by playing both sides, as with the businessman Viktor Komarovsky in “Dr. Zhivago.” Neither the Rentiers nor the Marks are worthy stewards of the enormous benefits free enterprise has bestowed upon the world.
In the U.S., the institutional left’s contempt for commerce and embrace of collectivism make clear it will never again be a vehicle for promoting the classical liberalism embodied by the Old Believers. But it is not too late for the political right — in the U.S. and globally — to fully embrace the message of Milei and Roberts, and not seek to outdo the left in a counterproductive populist rage directed at free enterprise that only bites the hand that feeds us.
Richard Shinder is the managing partner of Theatine Partners, a financial consultancy.
