Capitalism Makes Society Less Racist
In the Jim Crow South, businesses fought racism—because the rules denied them customers.

Capitalism and racism go together?
I hear it all the time.
"Racism is intricately linked to capitalism," says famous Marxist Angela Davis. "It's a mistake to assume that we can combat racism by leaving capitalism in place."
"Anti-racist" activist Ibram X. Kendi says, "In order to truly be anti-racist, you also have to truly be anti-capitalist."
This is just silly.
In my new video, Swedish historian Johan Norberg explains how free markets discourage racism.
Capitalists make a profit by serving their customers. The more customers they please, the more money they might make. It hurts the bottom line to exclude any groups.
"Look around the world," says Norberg. "The least racist societies with the fewest expressions of racist attitudes are the most capitalist countries."
Norberg's new book The Capitalist Manifesto highlights a Journal of Institutional Economics study that found a correlation between economic freedom and "tolerance of ethnic groups."
"Capitalism," he says, "is the first economic system where you only get rich by opening up opportunities for others. It pays to be colorblind. It pays to be open to willing customers and workers who could enrich your company no matter what religion or race….It doesn't mean that every person will be colorblind. There will always be idiots. But in capitalism, it's costly to be an idiot."
He reminds us that in the Jim Crow South, businesses fought racism, because the rules denied them customers.
"It's often forgotten that owners of buses, railways, streetcars in the American South didn't really segregate systematically until the late 19th century," says Norberg. "It was probably not because they were less racist than others in the South, but they were capitalists. They wanted money, they wanted clients, and they didn't want to engage in some sort of costly and brutal policing business in segregating buses."
Even when segregation was mandated, some streetcar companies refused to comply. For several years after Jim Crow laws passed, black customers sat wherever they wanted.
Norberg adds, "Those owners of public transport, they fought those discriminatory laws because they imposed a terrible cost….They tried to bypass them secretly and fight them in courts. They were often fined. Some were threatened with imprisonment."
The streetcar company in Mobile, Alabama, only obeyed Jim Crow laws after their conductors began to get arrested and fined.
Those business owners may have been racist—I can't know—but they fought segregation.
"We got Jim Crow laws," says Norberg, "because free markets weren't willing to discriminate."
Capitalists cared about green—not black or white.
Free markets all over the world coordinate and cooperate. Many don't know of each other's existence, and if they did meet, they might not get along. But they work together in search of profit.
It's odd that socialists now call capitalism racist, when the opposite is more often true.
The Soviet Union invited African students to study science in major cities. But "Soviet citizens often treated the Africans in their midst with disdain and hostility," New Lines magazine describes. Russian children's books portrayed blacks in animalistic ways. Name-calling was common.
Today, China and Cuba claim to have "zero tolerance" for racism, but during the Covid pandemic, authorities forcibly tested blacks and ordered strict isolation. Landlords evicted African tenants. Businesses often refused to serve them.
In Cuba, Castro insisted he would eliminate racism. But "racism persists," reports France 24, saying it's "banned by law," but "alive on the streets….In local jargon, a white woman with a black boyfriend is…'holding back the race.'" Cuba's government is still instituting programs to "combat racism."
It's capitalism that makes people less racist.
COPYRIGHT 2024 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Yes! Plessey, in which the Supreme Court ushered in mandated segregation, was a case brought by a railroad company which did not want segregated rail coaches, and their customers did not either. But government knew best!
In Japan they have women only train cars because men there tend to harass and molest women.
I'm sure if voted on, a lot of men would be against this. Train companies could probably make more money charging more money for men so they could molest women.
The women aren’t forced to ride those cars.
Mexico too.
Businesses don't always seek to maximize profit or the number of customers. Country clubs, for instance.
And then there are products that are inherently race (or cultural) based. In some cases, being anti-racist (or woke in general) can hurt.
It's hard to sell alcohol to Muslims, since they are forbidden to drink it. They also tend to hate dogs, since Mo didn't like them. Yet the big alcohol companies push for immigration from the Middle East.
Blacks and many Mexicans don't really need sun tan lotion. Yet I've seen them in advertisements for it. That makes no sense.
Another great example is Toys R Us supporting abortion through Planned Parenthood. Their literal business revolved around children, yet they paid to kill their own customers. While probably not a factor in their bankruptcy, abortion is a factor in why there are fewer children.
Although it's true that some "capitalists" can make a profit catering to small niche markets satisfying the demands of racists, your amazingly ignorant and transparently false examples make you look feeble and dumb. The somewhat free markets tend to punish corporations and chains that try to take sides publicly on complex or controversial social issues. Making them less profitable by losing them more customers than they gain in the process discourages most of them from doing so and causes the ones who inadvertently fall into the trap to reconsider and reshuffle their Boards of Directors and management teams. And, by the way, anyone who doesn't know that people of color can suffer from sunburns too doesn't deserve serious consideration on a serious discussion forum.
Blacks and many Mexicans don’t really need sun tan lotion. Yet I’ve seen them in advertisements for it. That makes no sense.
What the actual fuck, lmao? Have you ever actually even spoken to a black or hispanic person in your entire life, like to the extent that you learned their name? This is so preposterously ignorant. Please expand your horizons ever so slightly.
Blacks and many Mexicans don’t really need sun tan lotion. Yet I’ve seen them in advertisements for it. That makes no sense.
Ever heard of UV protection and skin cancer?
Apparently not.
I had a neighbor from Africa once a while back. Dude was the blackest black man I’ve ever met. Like no ‘white disease (what the black guys in cooking school called blacks with whites in their family tree)’ black. We talked about the sun’s effect on the skin, and he couldn’t comprehend what a sunburn was. For him laying in the sun made his skin soft. He’d do it on purpose if he was going to see a lady. Meanwhile I got a sunburn while having the conversation.
Another fine "sarc-ecdote."
A term which I coined. LOL
Like an an anecdote, but told in a drunken stupor? And likely complete bullshit?
Businesses don’t always seek to maximize profit or the number of customers. Country clubs, for instance.
Said they guy who has obviously never had to pay country club initiation fees or dues.
Wow, that's a hodgepodge of logical fallacies and non sequiturs.
re: "Business don't always..." The article above already addresses that issue. See the part about "There will always be idiots. But in capitalism, it's costly to be an idiot."
"Sun tan lotion"? What is this the 80s?
Are private clubs usually for profit businesses? I thought they were usually more member owned coop kind of thing.
No no no no noooooo! That doesn't fit the anti-capitalist narrative so it cannot be troof!
My wife was born in Mexico. She has very fair skin and sunburns easily.
"It's odd that socialists now call capitalism racist, when the opposite is more often true."
I assume this was veiled sarcasm, John. It's not odd that socialists cynically promote narratives that cover up their real intentions for the useful idiots. The real goal for socialists is power. They cannot gain control of every aspect of the lives of entire populations when individuals have rights and each person is mostly free to pursue their own happiness. Socialists pounce on every case of real or imagined racism, genderism and cultural marginalization to attack the free market system and the wealthy, while ignoring or heaping scorn upon the much greater good that capitalism has successfully promoted for generations. Every government program pretending to help "marginalized" groups creates another dependency that believes that it cannot survive without the help and protection of the collectivists. It's intentional, John - not odd at all.
Similarly...."Anti-racist" activist Ibram X. Kendi says, "In order to truly be anti-racist, you also have to truly be anti-capitalist."
This is just silly.
It's not silly at all. It's intentional and evil. As long as we label the racists in our midst merely "silly," they can go on doing what they do. We need to identify them and stop them.
Each of us should identify the racists in our midst and shun them. They can go on thinking and saying what they think and say. The only thing racists cannot do is harm other people. That's against the law already, regardless of why. They can go on doing what they do whether you label them "silly" or an "existential threat to Our Democracy (T)" as long as you do not try to stop them from thinking or speaking their opinions. That system has marginalized racists and racism and partially stopped racists in the capitalist sphere. No one can stop people of color or women or visibly religious people from having their feelings hurt occasionally, and any attempt "we" might make to try to "stop" it will do more harm than good, just as capitalism itself has done far more good than harm. No one said that racism is "merely" silly, so your straw man is identified and canceled.
Stossell called Kendi silly. Kendi isn't silly at all. He's dangerous.
John Stossel makes good points but capitalism often find itself under public pressure. Bud Light recently saw an opportunity to promote its product through a transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney. We did not celebrate capitalism here, but rather had people freak out. Another case is Disney World Gay Days where Disney is trying to expand its market to gay families. Did we celebrate this as an expansion to new customers? The point here is that companies see younger socially liberal customers in their future, but are getting push back from older conservatives who don't like change.
Should Disney also have black people days? Would we celebrate that?
Or for that matter, white people days?
Maybe days targeting specific demographics are stupid period?
If tone isn't clear because text based, I'm agreeing with you.
Does Disney have any problem getting white families or keeping white families coming to its parks or buying its other products?
Why does Disney care what color (or sexual orientation) the families "coming to its parks or buying its other products" are?
What if Disney launched an advertising campaign geared towards black families. Ran ads in magazines and journals that have larger black audiences. Disney could do the same for other groups that they see becoming a larger part of their customer base.
Because understanding your customer is an important element of capitalism
""The point here is that companies see younger socially liberal customers in their future, ""
You have to pay the bills now. Growth is important, but you don't lose today's customers in hopes of tomorrow's customers.
We are not talking growth we are talking we are talking changing demographics and social mores. Companies balance offending todays customer against offending tomorrows customer.
Companies balance offending today's customer against offending tomorrows customer.
Marketing 101: Virtue signalling or profit--pick one.
What Stossel doesn't understand is that for racists, profit isn't the main purpose of a business.
So then, what is the main purpose for you democrats to open businesses?
If that is your point here then it is a real dud. Getting push back is quite literally what the entire article is about. Disney can do whatever it wants to try to get more customers but Disney shouldn't. Disney should make sure that as many people feel comfortable buying their product as they can of course. What this article is about is that Disney (i.e. capitalism) learned the hard way that that particular way to do it loses more customers than it gains them. I'm not a marketing expert and I couldn't care less how much profit Disney makes, but my uneducated opinion here is that corporations should avoid as much as possible identifying with or being seen to promote controversial social positions.
Kendi's stance on capitalism is as hypocritical as they come. He's never passed on the opportunity for a money grab. How many times has he republished the same drivel under a new title? What does he charge for a public speaking engagement? He is Big Grievance's brand ambassador.
There should be no such thing as a rich socialist. Yet there are so many.
There's a kind of "no true Scotsman" fallacy at work here. For example, if a landlord - a capitalist almost by definition - would rather accept a lower rent than rent out to Jews or blacks, then he's not a true capitalist, so the argument is preserved.
I think it generally likely that in the long run capitalism is opposed to discrimination on simple financial grounds, as argued, but generations of Wall Street firms declined to hire well-qualified black applicants, female applicants, Jewish applicants, etc. because profit maximisation was not the goal. When you're making more than enough money, you can afford to discriminate for your own subjective utility - a measure ignored by classical capitalism.
You're missing the point. Stossel is not arguing that every company is purely motivated by profit. He is saying that capitalism generally pushes companies away from racism over time (and while he doesn't say so, does so better than any other system or belief structure we've found so far).
Your "it [is] generally likely ..." is the entire premise of the article and the fact that for a few generations, some firms could ignore it is the anomaly, not the rule.
Not just a few generations. More like a few hundred years. The subjective utility of both business owners and customers was We Don't Want Any (substitute the N word here). A few progressive business owners hated this but there weren't enough of them to be able to fight back until the 1960s.
Progressives are the most racist people of all.
Although Stossel usually has very strong inciteful arguments, he may want to read “Medical Apartheid” by Mary Washington. This book covers from pre-Civil War to the Cold War era.
The American Civil War was largely about “Capitalism Without Constitutional Rights” and free labor.
The 1960’s Civil Rights Act’s “public accommodations” laws was about small business owners - aided by local police and local government - turning away African-American customers or only allowing them to use separate inferior public services. During Jim Crow many businesses turned away non-white business.
The Jim Crow era “Green Book” was a result. Since African-Americans making long road trips were denied services at hotels, motels, restaurants and even public bathrooms - a private network of non-racist public services developed to counter Jim Crow capitalism called the “Green Book”.
From the above referenced book “Medical Apartheid” - some hospitals, doctors and federal agencies actually intentionally disabled African-Americans for life that did obtain good paying jobs. Violating doctors Hippocratic oath, Black Americans were used as human Guinea pigs without their consent or knowledge.
Stossel probably means well but needs some more qualifiers to add to the article to match actual American history.
Stossel probably means well but needs some more qualifiers to add to the article to match actual American history.
Might brush up on the Guatemalan Syphilis experiments yourself before casting such aspersions.
Maybe some Hayek or Bastiat as well considering that, the people who refused "public accommodations" and who wrote the Green Book were all voluntary actors. While every last taxpayer was involved in conducting the syphilis, and other similar experiments, whether they wanted to or not.
Moron.
"The 1960’s Civil Rights Act’s “public accommodations” laws was about small business owners – aided by local police and local government – turning away African-American customers or only allowing them to use separate inferior public services. During Jim Crow many businesses turned away non-white business. "
Business owners who were not racist faced the issue of loosing racist white customers who would not patronize a business who served non-whites.
Correct. See my other comment about the racist business owners.
Right, democrat business owners.
Cointelpro: The article just whooshed right over your head. Jim Crow wasn't discrimination by "small business owners – aided by local police and local government, it was small and large business owners required by law to discriminate. In Plessy v. Ferguson the railroad joined with Plessy in opposing segregated railroad cars. If you were running a restaurant in Atlanta, GA, in 1920 and a black man sat down at your lunch counter, you refused to serve him a sandwich and called the police to eject him because if you served him, some racist would call the police to arrest _you_.
Now, after three generations of southerners had grown up in this system of apartheid, it took more than just the Supreme Court overturning those laws to change things. It could take US Marshalls arresting local cops and prosecutions to send them to jail to force them to stop enforcing those overturned laws. And it would take the weight of the 1964 Civil Rights Act for business owners to ignore what most of their customers wanted and serve blacks the same as whites. But that law should have come with an expiration date, because once middle class whites became accustomed to eating lunch with blacks eating in the same room as well as serving, it doesn't make sense to turn away a well-behaved customer with money.
As-if the German [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism] case didn't close that case.
Will people ever LEARN from historical-genocide????
The US Constitution is EXACTLY what ended slavery and held that Liberty and Justice for all was the US definition. Yet the left continues to flip-everything upside-down; Entirely a party of complete contradiction. They literally want/push/make-happen everything they pretend they don't want. The only thing they sell publicly is self-projection as most criminal-minds do (i.e. [WE] identity gangs doing 'armed-theft' for the win).
I wonder what John Stossel's view on black capitalism in the Jim Crow South? We have evidence that to be a successful black capitalist could be injurious to the person's health, family, and property. Was Anglia Davis's contempt for capitalism any different than those who burn down the Greenwood District of Tulsa, Oklahoma?
You keep bringing up restrictive government laws and blatant violation of individual and private property rights. This is not the smear against capitalism you think it is.
He’s pretty stupid.
In theory, Stossel would be correct. Except that lots of capitalists are racists. W. E. B. DuBois noted a century ago that capitalists routinely would hire unskilled European immigrants over skilled better qualified Black candidates for jobs. That would lead eventually to DuBois rejecting capitalism completely and leaving the United States permanently. Such supposedly non rational conduct by business owners results in less revenue for their businesses and a poorer economy. But to the racist it is perfectly rational. Stossel falsely assumes that the purpose of businesses are to make money. That isn't necessarily so.
Stossel assumes no such thing. Your only talent seems to be erecting straw men so you can feel good about knocking them down. Stossel claims that capitalism promotes progress and that government interventions – whether well-intended or not – tend to slow that progress down. We can argue all day long about whether anti-discrimination law for housing and private entities doing business with the public helped or hurt on balance, but there is no possible argument you can make that mostly capitalist regions have not made more progress more rapidly against racism, genderism and religious bigotry than mostly statists regions. Straw man identified and canceled.
Which makes it easier for his non-racist competitors to hire the better workers, produce more for less, and drive the racist out of business more quickly.
In theory; insisting one is ‘entitled’ to a job against the ‘owners’ property rights of a company just because they are Black *is* being racist.
The left never did stop being racist. Republicans ended racism (i.e. slavery) by civil war against Democrats and passed the Civil Rights act of 1866 giving all men equal Liberty and Justice.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave *entitlement* to anyone of color. Literally another racist civil rights act. Just because the Black population was dealing with racist business owners doesn’t ‘entitle’ them to that property just for being Black. They had every right under the sun just like everyone else to START their own business and keep undesirables out if they chose to also be racist. Which they do all the time. Not only by private industry but also by 'Government' legislation. All those 'Black' only college grants. All those 'Black' only television shows, etc, etc, etc....
Course Self-Projection is the #1 character trait of racist, sexist leftards isn't it. So long as they can shovel truck loads of blame onto everyone else then they themselves can DO exactly what they're trying to blame on everyone else under the radar.
"Republicans buy sneakers, too"
Michael Jordon
Who's Michael Jordon?