While I agree with most of Tomasky's points, one thing he's missing is that the Republican Party (in collusion with Fox News) normalized the term "Socialist" by applying it over and over again to Barack Obama.
While Barack Obama is certainly not a socialist, the hard right's insistence that he was can only have left a good association in the minds of many millennials. "If that was "socialism", and this now is "capitalism", I'll take socialism any day".
This generation did not grow up with the Cold War and the connection of that term to Russian agression. For them, their nearest associations are Barack Obama and the countries of Northern Europe, you know, the ones that give us Ikea and Volvo.
The Republicans can only blame themselves for giving up their stranglehold on this term. It's time that progressives take it back.
19
Two thoughts:
• To reach its putatively intended audience, Mr. Tomasky's article should have gone to the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, or some such. Typical readers in The Times probably nodded agreement so much that they felt like bobbleheads.
• Since 1980, important (and unfortunate, in my opinion) changes have warped American capitalism:
* The rise of short-term financialism in American corporations. Long-term investments in people, research, etc., were sidelined in favor of quarterly profitability statements.
* Employees became "human resources," not human beings.
* The increasing fraction of American GDP accounted for by banks and other financial institutions. This financial domination is defended by claims that additional liquidity is valuable However, at what point does the US economy become liquid rather than solid? An economy that produces things (goods & economically productive services), as opposed to shuffling money around and, in effect, gambling?
22
This piece hits the nail on the head. If the Democrats don’t lead with real solutions to the problem of stagnant wages for the masses why vote for them? Obama and Clinton weren’t focused on regular folks’ problems, but rather on their capitalistic donors. Of course, socialism.
12
They don't call it Vulture Capitalism for nothing. It used to be an exception, now--with rare exceptions--it's the rule. Trump (along with his Trumpublican cronies is the exemplar case.
9
Which is why the plutocrat Republican Party can't really pitch it's economic policies, which remain based on the myth of "Trickle-Down." So they turn to bigotry and fear-mongering, gerrymandering and voter suppression, ID laws and voter-roll purges, misinformation and lies. The very people who should be calling to have them strung up by their heels are cheering Trump & Co. on because he bashes the people they hate: black and brown people, Muslims, lesbians and gays, the transgendered, academics, scientists, journalists, feminists, coastal urbanites, and people who say "Happy Holidays."
As long as Republicans panders to hate and low-mindedness, the low-mined haters will love them, no matter how much damage is done to their own economic status and quality-of-life. Deplorable.
20
To paraphrase Churchill, capitalism is the worst economic system ever created - except for all the others. "So if you were a person of modest or even middle-class means, how would you feel about capitalism?" Lousy. But socialism would probably be way worse.
"The kind of capitalism this country has been practicing for all these years has failed most people." But socialism arguably failed everybody. Young people today don't wish they lived in Venezuela, North Korea or China, or Cuba or Russia for that matter, which are still rebuilding from the devastation socialism wrought. Even the European countries which dabble in socialism are falling behind, as their rigid labor markets and autocratic control systems keep unemployment high while impeding adaptation and reducing freedom in the economy. Anyone advocating socialism needs to show how and why it will work in America, how the economy will grow, how jobs will be created, where incentives to work harder and innovate will come from, how debt will be paid off. Bemonaing the ugly side effects of American capitalism is important, but is not in itself a compelling case to leap into the abyss of socialism.
18
@prahni and @tsk
Capitalism worked 1768 - 1945 because this country was being built up -- a society in expansion with a large influx of immigration -- mainly European who brought in many cases skills acquired in their birth countries, cheap land, and also the belief that they were favored by the Almighty in having escaped their poverty and were willing to work, live a "measured" life, and let their children prosper (similar attitude to many of today's immigrants). Also the belief that the destiny of those coming here was to prosper (the American Dream).
By the way many of the ideas brought up in these commentaries are exactly those professed in Europe by the here so called socialists (who are like here also is said social democrats).
4
The nitty gritty of Capitalism? Climate change. The ever-growing need for profit drives the destruction of the planet. I believe that to be the chief driver of socialism. We need a system based on human needs over profits. No amount of talk about "brands of capitalism" or compassionate capitalism will ever change the root of it. It's destructive and it kills. The type of socialism needed hasn't been created yet. It's scary to venture into the unknown. But given the fact that the system we have is destroying our planet and will cause more and more death and destruction, what choice do we have but to boldly step forward/
27
Wasn't it said that the New Deal saved Capitalism during the Depression?
22
Capitalists are always thinking "I want more money. I want more money."
21
There is nothing capitalist about bailing out too-big-to-fail banks.
There is nothing capitalist about allowing airlines to create an oligopoly.
There is nothing capitalist about supporting a market-based healthcare system where our cultural mores do not allow a market to efficiently exist.
There is nothing capitalist about government-protected industries where barriers-to-entry are too great and inefficient, outsized profits exist without little competition.
There is nothing capitalist about taxing income but not passive wealth creation.
There is nothing capitalist about rampant rent-seeking in our financial industry.
There is nothing capitalist about stunting entrepreneurism by tying healthcare to corporate employment.
There is nothing capitalist about illegal, unfair labor practices.
Socialism, democratic or otherwise, is not the answer. True capitalist systems recognize where markets fail, where externalities (both positive and negative) exist and adjust their systems accordingly.
The problem is not capitalism, the problem is understanding its limitations and mending its shortcomings with sound economic policy that can help create a healthier, more prosperous system for those willing to work and create value.
31
You wouldn't be asking your headline question if you had listened to to people like me twenty years ago. But no, you couldn't abide the crazy bias, the ugly name calling, the disrespect for the most respected Americans: businessmen.
But here, though you won't couch it in the same tewrms, you have all the evidence you need.
These people are so venal, so greedy, they will literally destroy any hope for their future, for the future of their country, for the future of their families, to get another dollar.
Its not that they don't care, its that they don't see.
When your identity, your ego, your God, and your career are all and only about getting max dollars, that's all there is in your vision.
Remember Indiana Jones, or some classier cinema experience, where the hero or the villain or somebody they made you care about was inches away from whatever Grail they had been chasing?
And the clear choice was strain that last inch and die, or give it up and go home. And they always strain fall into the crevice, the lava, thew rushing torrent, the band-saw?
That is businessmen. Not all businessmen: American businessmen.
They would rather die, and take us all with them, than back off a single dollar.
Utter the phrase "Maybe you should share some of that" and their heads explode like Mars Attacks on a loop.
What are capitalists thinking? Easy: "Give us more..."
19
Excellent article.
6
As communist socialist states collapsed a curious thing happened, a rather dishonest conversation began about how only pure capitalism without any mitigating efforts to address inequities of wealth and political power nor any efforts to address distortions of markets like booms and busts or competitive pressures against really useful innovations began to take over. Suddenly, the only acceptable view was that government distorted markets which if left alone would resolve all inequities and assure a perfect distribution of all material goods and services. The roots of socialism in the inequities of wealth and political power during the rise of industrial capitalism were totally forgotten, as were the collapse of the order that allowed it to happen, along with the remedies to assure nobody suffered from impoverishment and the ability to improve of all to improve themselves without a lot of personal wealth, socialism in the form of unions, public education for all, pensions, health insurance, and labor laws. Capitalism rewards the owners of capital, not labor and not even management and never society as a whole. To get a share of the productivity which is owned in it's entirety by capitalists there need to be taxes. The taxes create a civilized society in which capitalists may live in peace and enjoy their wealth without fear of the masses rising up and taking their wealth and maybe their lives. All of that was denigrated by our political leaders who praised capitalism unleashed.
11
"The kind of capitalism this country has been practicing for all these years has failed most people."
We do have problems, healthcare being a huge one. But saying capitalism has "failed most people" is quite a stretch.
College education being affordable or not has nothing to do with capitalism and a lot to do with the federal student loan program, which has led to massive hyperinflation in education costs.
7
What we have in the US is not capitalism, it is libertarianism with a thin veneer of democracy. The corporate libertarians of the Virgina school of economics, aided and abetted by the money of the Kochs, Mercers, Scaifes, etc. have succeeded wildly in deregulating numerous industries, slanting tax laws in their favor, and defunding public services from infrastructure to education. All of that was very well planned and orchestrated to maximize the "liberty" of corporate overlords while disenfranchising the working class serfs. When most of those of us advocate "socialism" we do not mean the Soviet Union, we mean the democratic socialism of Scandinavia, which allows private business to flourish while ensuring all of the public has a decent standard of living.
22
Americans are raised on dichotomies, and so when capitalists behave with antisocial abandon, it makes the social responsibility all the more appealing, particularly to those with kids to raise and an investment in their future, like...women.
4
Look at actual polls done of people who live in formerly Communist Eastern Europe and you might be surprised. most of them miss communism and feel they lived better under a centrally planned economy. Maybe people like Mr. Tomasky and the NYT have just been feeding us Liberal propaganda for the last 100 years?
3
"What are capitalists thinking?"
The answer is they are not, and that is the problem.
Well, to be fair, capitalists these days do think, but largely only about themselves, and about money, market share, their investors, and power. Very little about the well being of the people, the country, the planet, and truth.
And so, we ended up in a serious state of imbalance that completely favored the market sector, at the expense of civil society, and the need for good government that could serve as a check on the excesses of capitalism.
Nothing is inherently wrong with capitalism per se. It worked quite well in the days of the guild system. Adam Smith championed capitalism in his book "The Wealth of Nations" in 1776. Only Smith said the whole system only works if capitalists behave "responsibly."
And I would argue, that is how our "free-market" capitalist system ran amuck--in particular, during the Reagan years when the conservatives created their fake ideology of trickle-down economics, deregulation, and told capitalists to worry about pleasing investors not customers or employees.
So no wonder the younger generation, who really has borne the brunt of capitalism's greed and exploitation, figures anything is better than this highly inequitable and unfair mess. Let's try democratic socialism, like all those Scandinavian countries that rank higher on the Quality of Life Index than the U.S.
14
The deepest questions to address are those relating to the purpose of human civilisation.
In historical times, the near presence of death and suffering through natural hazards, disease, famine, barbarity and lawlessness provided clarity.
That all human beings can enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a fine goal and it depends on many things.
Even today natural hazards, disease, famine, barbarity and lawlessness are major issues for many and climate change and sustainability issues challenge our ability to maintain modern lifestyles.
Furthermore, many of the fundamental elements of the fabric of advanced societies are under pressure such as income sufficiency, cost of housing, education and health care as globalisation has opened markets and exposed people to labour market competition and the threat of substitution.
The capitalist drive for low cost production has shifted manufacturing to low cost countries and is driving the enormous advances in artificial intelligence and robotic automation.
We do need to plan for social structures that reflect the fact that the productive economic worth of a typical human being will be substantially reduced in future according to all current metrics of skill, experience and hours worked.
A world based on love, respect, compassion and the recognition of human rights and the fundamental equality of all human beings would be remarkably different from an out of balance world driven by greed and the corporate balance sheet.
6
I’m not sure socialism, per se, is what we young people are looking for, but there is a pervasive sense that American capitalism is not working out. Most of my friends (even the conservatives) just want a system similar to Western Europe, where you get universal healthcare, assistance with college tuition, safety nets, and a taxation scheme that keeps the rich from owning everything. In other words, a government that promotes upward mobility, education, and a basic standard of health/living conditions for all citizens.
13
@Mr. Adams That is democratic socialism "per se".
7
If you’re wondering about this kind of thing, you’ve not had the experience of working with these people. I grew up lower middle class but spent 30 years on or around Wall Street and I can share my two cents worth...
Firstly, many of these people (particularly by the time they get near the top) are true sociopaths. They lack conscience, and they are willing to do anything to just protect and improve their position. Most normal individuals in a position of power would understand that systematically marginalizing one’s stakeholders (ie-customers and employees) doesn’t work in the long term. But most of these people are in it to survive till 55, then retreat to some combination of the Hamptons, Saint Bart’s and/or an occasional consulting gig or a bit of rah-rah commentary on CNBC.
Secondly (and financially), they are all-in on protecting what they retire with so it can be passed tax free to their next generation. Notwithstanding backbreaking deficits that will fall upon and cripple the broader next generation, who (mainly) are dramatically less privileged. This is how you get a repeal of the estate tax and a push for indexation of capital gains.
Thirdly, you need to understand that these people truly think that their success is true proof of their intellectual superiority, and of God’s blessing of their behavior. This despite the fact that most of them were truly born on third base and are deeply convinced that their success is fully a home run.
17
When the capitalists had overreached in the early part of the 20th century, they were bailed out by FDR and the New Deal. They may have balked at and resisted every social welfare program that came down the pike in the 1930's, but they knew that for their own survival they should not stand in the way of their implementation. Better to allow the programs go forward and let the working stiffs feel they've won the battle and had some level of control over the political process. In the end, the capitalists still controlled the money and the levers of power. If the stiffs were happy with crumbs, let them have them.
Capitalists now are no more dogmatic than they were then, but they are less pragmatic. They've drunk their own Kool-Aid and take as articles of faith all the bromides about work ethic, opportunity, and reward.
And that faith - that lack of pragmatism - is blinding them to the smoldering discontent of the millions who are again reaching the end of their collective ropes.
Will another FDR step in to save the capitalists? Only if the capitalists allow themselves to be saved.
10
I also think that there's a very good argument to be made that capitalism is the source of America's moral decay. Crime committed in the act of making more money is acceptable - even encouraged. It's just the way it's done.
9
I am not sure about world war III......but I can tell you this....world war IV will be fought with sticks and stones.....
2
I'd like to inject another component into this discussion: the normalization of consumer debt.
It has become socially acceptable and "normal" for Americans to fund their current needs through revolving debt (credit cards). This makes absolutely zero sense. Consumers are partially at fault for taking the bait. The banks and consumer credit industry are at fault for pushing an irresponsible (but profitable) business model.
There is good debt and bad debt. Good debt includes a mortgage to buy a home. (Most people could never afford to pay cash upfront for this lifetime expense.) Good debt includes investment in a business (provided it has a viable plan toward profitability).
Good debt can include student debt - but not at the prices and return on investment (through wages) for many people with many college majors that can never recoup the prices paid. Unless you plan to enter a lucrative field of employment, you are much better off choosing a state university or technical school, working while in school, and taking on debt of no more than, say $20.000 at most, for higher education.
There is absolutely no good scenario where it makes sense to use debt (revolving credit) to pay for current expenses - such as groceries, clothing, and so forth.
Over half of American households have less than $500 in savings, and are one missed paycheck or one emergency expense away from destitution.
Consumer credit is a crutch to mask how poor a large number of Americans actually are today.
13
Capitalism is like fire. Fire can be an extremely useful tool, which in primitive times, thousands of years ago, allowed the caveman to cook food and keep his shelter warm. In modern times, fire is important in manufacturing, industries like steel have to melt metal etc. But as good a thing as fire can be, it can also destroy, by burning down your house, if not properly controlled on your stovetop. The problem with the Republican/Conservative view of capitalism today is that they are totally against any financial regulations, what so ever, no matter how small. They want a Darwinism type of economic system, survival of the fittest, the weak just die off, no social safety net for the poor, unemployed, elderly, retired or middle class (the vast majority of people). The GOP claims there is no money for infrastructure spending to repair and maintain or roads, bridges and tunnels and power grids, etc, but they just passed a $1.5 Trillion dollar tax cut where 80% of the benefits go to corporations and the richest 1%. Capitalism as a socio-economic system would work much better if it is reasonably regulated and controlled, a more fair and progressive tax system, laws that protect consumers, a strong labor/union movement to counter management and the owners of capital. Forced arbitration clauses, upheld by courts, is the newest thing that is stacking the deck against average people and favors corporations and the rich. Capitalism, like uncontrolled fire, is burning everything down now
10
Capitalism and socialism are just narrow, politicized corruptions of the two most basic social engines for human progress: competition and cooperation.
Both work.
Even the most radical socialist would admit that competition can improve performance: individuals will clearly exert more effort to claim a scarce reward, whether it's a gold medal, a high SAT score, or a highly desirable spouse. By the same token, even the most ardent capitalist knows that cooperation can improve performance: an army is more effective than a mob, synchronization moves faster than chaos.
Each approach has its advantages and pitfalls, but, happily, they are not mutually exclusive. We can choose a society where each is used to achieve the outcomes we desire. If we can shed our narrow partisan identities, we might find that it's possible to structure our healthcare and national defense largely through cooperation, while our banking and telecommunications can advance through transparent competition.
Just skip the -isms. They aren't helping anymore.
10
By and large, this is a civilized and useful conversation to be having. Congratulations. May I inject another point? I do not think the real issue is capitalism v. socialism. History may have already settled that issue. Currently the issue which is either inadvertently or intentionally being obscured is CORPORATISM - the disproportionate influence of corporations on government. It further benefits giant corporations not to discuss corporatism so they are very pleased to have the conversation about socialism continue in order to obscure what a vigorously pro-business president, Congress and Supreme Court have done to the middle- and working-class.
14
@Paul Lippe History has settled the issue?
Today's democratic socialist countries of Europe are a booming success, while fascist communist countries have proven to be abject failures.
The problem with corporatism is that is concentrates too much power in the hands of a few. Our current trajectory in the US is a kind of fascist capitalism by way of corporatism left unchecked by the government.
Of course socialist Denmark looks sweet from this side of the Atlantic.
4
Paul Lippe, I could not agree with you more. The issue isn’t The socialist boogie man Or woman, at least not the type practiced in the former Soviet union or under Mao. Both of those systems were authoritarian, not socialism.
On April 16, 2014 this was published in Business Insider:
“The U.S. government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern universities has concluded.”
What puzzles me about Tomasky’s argument is his complete disregard for any mention of what FDR was able to achieve in his administration. Roosevelt, if alive today, and in power, would certainly have been labeled, and vilified as a democratic socialist.
For the most part corporations rule The world economy for the benefit of a few. We in Western Societies has allowed this to happen, because of the brilliant propaganda used By corporate oligarchs To destroy the efforts of unionization and collective-bargaining, by distracting those who embraced culture war ideologies instead of the practical needs for day-to-day aspirational Survival and the pursuit of happiness.
3
Finally. A cursory reading of history clearly shows that the only time the wealthy have made concessions to the masses is when their own interests depended on it. Until then they will use every tool to protect those interests. Sadly, the transition usually involves a massive loss of lives.
8
So, first off, Capitalism works in opposition to Democracy. That’s the real struggle for us all, We the People must not allow Capitalism to jeopardize our freedom to pursue life, liberty, and a decent economic life.
Lastly, I don’t want to give Hitler even an iota of cause for his insane methodology.
Please remember the Franco-Prussian War and how badly that ended in 1871.
France lost territory and had to pay reparations to a newly united Germany, setting the stage for Versailles.
3
As attributed to Benito Mussolini, who knew a bit about fascism:
“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.”
13
Author believes capitalism created the Bolsheviks? That the Russian tsars were capitalist? Author is ignorant of history and facts.
During my sentient life, I watched as the previous Socialist POTUS created more crony capitalists, doling out tax dollars taken from hardworking honest earners to bosom buddies who did nothing to earn them. This is closer to socialism than capitalism.
Alexandria Free-Stuff believes that handing out free stuff is good - the Robin Hood Syndrome - yet she refuses to acknowledge that for someone to get Free Stuff, someone else must get robbed. The author should fret about this theft, and instead rails about "capitalists creating socialists".
Socialism demands Free Stuff, and therefore demands that someone get robbed. Capitalism demands Freedom, something that Socialists cannot abide - because if a citizen refuses to get robbed, the Socialist must force him, at the point of a gun, to see his wealth taken away. Socialism requires the use of physical force, because Socialists cannot let anyone refuse Socialist goals.
Crony capitalism is what the author believes is Capitalism. He should read "Crapitalism" to see why he's wrong. Or Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson". Except he doesn't dare. Because he loves the central tenet of the Communist Manifesto: Hate (or kill) everyone with more than you.
8
@KarlosTJ
Well said.
1
@KarlosTJ writes "she refuses to acknowledge that for someone to get Free Stuff, someone else must get robbed."
This, of course is arrant nonsense. It assumes the amount of money in the economy is fixed, that there is no more money in the economy in 2018 than there was in 1918 or 1818.
Karlos, my friend, learn about fiat money. You will discover that the federal gov, thru the FED can create as much money as it needs out of thin air, that it will run out of money the day after the NFL runs out of points.
Argh!!! you say. Inflation! Weimar! "
What about inflation? Well while prices are proportional to the amount of money in the economy they are INVERSELY proportional to the amount of stuff we can produce. For example,money spent on infrastructure will not only facilitate production, the money paid to construction workers will spur investment to produce yet more stuff to soak up the new money.
6
Indeed, capitalism run amok has revealed the tender underbelly of the once great United States of America. Actually, it’s the greedy Republican variant of capitalism that has us on the ropes. Republicans simply don’t give a whit about country if country gets in the way of their tax cut. Republicans live by a mantra that is the reverse of JFK’s famous quote: “Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for YOU!!!!!”
7
In his book, Piketty defines a quantity, ß, which is the length of time it would take the entire income of a country to purchase the capital of that country. It is a measure of the relative importance of capital and labor, and roughly correlates with inequality. He shows with vast amounts of historical data that before WWI, ß was about 8 years in capitalistic countries.
WWI & II destroyed huge amounts of capital and ß declined, to about 4 years. After WWII an increase in government ownership and regulation, especially in the US, kept ß from rising to its historic levels. At the time, this lower value of ß was thought to represent a maturity of capitalism that would persist.
Piketty shows, again with enormous quantities of data, that this has NOT been the case. ß is trending inexorably back to 8 years.
He also shows that if r, the rate of return on capital is > g, the growth rate of the country, then ß will rise. His solution is straightforward and probably impossible. Simply lower r by a world wide tax on wealth.
Other economists such as Joe Stiglitz have proposed that instead we simply copy what worked after WWII to hold ß in check. Here are some of those policies:
Much higher tax rates on the Rich and real tax rates on corporations.
More federal spending on worthwhile projects like the interstate highways.
Strong regulations on financial speculation like derivatives.
Strengthen unions like requiring workers to pay for the union benefits they receive.
12
When CEOs insist that raising the minimum wage will reduce the number of jobs in the country, they indirectly admit that capitalism cannot sustain livable wages.
7
@Paul Minimum wage is not a living wage nor is it designed to be. That’s why only around 2 to 3 percent of workers make minimum wage. Minimum wage is a transition wage for inexperienced workers. The vast majority of employees gradually increase their wage through experience and promotions.
1
@John. Maybe that was the case in 1985, but that's certainly less true today. Half of all workers earn less than $30,000 a year. A quarter of all workers earn $10 an hour or less. That's pretty "minimum wage" to me and most people.
4
@JohnWhen the minimum wage was first designed it was enough for a single person to live a modest, but independent life. Someone earning twice the minimum wage could support a non-working wife and two children in a modest fashion. It was also indexed to inflation, but later on that was then away. If the minimum wage had stayed indexed to inflation, it would be a living wage today.
3
What are they thinking?
That they no longer need to invest in American workers because they can always move operations abroad.
That they can always avoid onerous tax laws by moving their money/businesses to another state/country/tax haven.
That the kinds of jobs that assured middle class Americans of financial security - and warded off the threat of "socialized medicine" - jobs with good lifetime medical benefits, and guaranteed pensions was unsustainable for the private sector and is too big a burden on taxpayers for public sector employees and so the key to the future is reducing excpectations.
That the American population is aging and that investing in the elderly is not a winning business strategy and that not being able to afford to retire is a boon for productivity.
That we are entering a time of increasing global uncertainty, with shortages of water, a shifting climate, possible shortages of key resources, and that it is more important now, than ever, to look after ones own, which is why they want to make sure that when it comes to their wealth, unlike their guns, nobody will be able to pry it out of their cold, dead hands.
7
Err., capitalism is not perfect and its proponents don't sell it well, so instead, we'll sell the utopian ideals, instead of the proven failure of socialism, or redefine the word to include capitalist countries in Scandinavia because we've spent 50 years whitewashing the term for you, so you can safely look past the corpses, and, um, yeah.
Why do progressives look back 100 years for their new ideas?
6
Do conservatives offer something new? After all, socialism is much newer idea than capitalism.
4
@Tsk
1. So the Scandanavian countries are capitalist? Then you should have no problem if the United States adopted some of their best practices.
2. What new ideas have any conservatives had since - well, the beginning of time? The only answer the Republican Party has for any issue is . . . more tax cuts. When you are a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
6
@yulia
Socialism isn't an idea it's an ideology of dispossession and redistribution... Race to the bottom poorest...
Once ran out of funds it must enslave the population to sustain it's distribution without anything left to rob...
It doesn't create jobs or values only misery and suffocation for masses by the ruling class of Supreme Socialists...:))
i am always disheartened when someone writing about capitalism shows no real understanding of what capitalism is. as is often the case they equate our current mixed economy with capitalism and attribute what are clearly fraudulent actions to market failure. such is the case in this article. the financial crisis of 2008 was the result of fraudulent actions that went unpunished. in a true capitalist economy there is no room for fraud and the governments greatest purpose is in its prevention and punishment when it occurs. another example of an economic activity improperly attributed to capitalism is the health care market. the health care market is in no way shape or form an example of free market capitalism. instead its an example of a government sanctioned and protected monopoly. as long as we continue to confuse fascism, fraud, and government sanctioned monopoly with capitalism we will continue down the road to socialist or fascist totalitarianism.
4
@allen But that's just it, isn't it? Everything gets messed up when imperfect human beings become involved. Any human endeavor can be pure until individuals figure out how to game it and turn it into an out-of-control, self-serving version of itself. Even the brand new American Democracy was understood to need checks and balances. Any system run by human beings needs built-in restraints and monitors. What modern, western socialist democracy would do is supply the reins on the capitalist beast, because apparently it can't be trusted on its own.
2
I would argue that pure capitalist system is prone to fraud and monopoly. In true capitalism the free market is not sustainable and require the Government involvement (socialist component) to prevent fraud, monopolies, to ensure that companies hurt economy, environment and society.
2
@yulia Government and regulation exist in all economic models. Government does not equal socialism and capitalism does not equal anarchy. The US has a substantial regulatory system. We are not the most business and corporate economy in the world despite what some may believe.
Capitalism or Socialism, when taken to the extreme, are evil ! It happened in the 1920's with unrestricted free market resulting in the Great Depression. Republicans were in control then. When the national leaders are both power hungry and with greed as their goal, both socialism or capitalism will only cause misery on the majority of the working class. A mixed economy is the most appropriate form of government for the "good of most people". If medicare, social security, medicaid and government run military, and Veteran's Administration were not there, one can only imagine the catastrophic disaster that would have happened in 2008, after two terms of a Republican Presidency!
5
Instead of talking about "real capitalism" in the U.S., you should be writing about "real socialism" in countries and educate these young people on how it has and is failing.
4
Why? weren't failures of socialism described before several times Shouldn't we also know of failures of capitalism?
2
See the book: “Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few” by Robert Reich. The problem with “capitalism” today is that it has little to do with it. Instead it is about lining the pockets of the 1/4%.
10
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is clearly a winner in the American capitalist economy. Her message might as well be that if I can do it, so can anyone.
2
My millennial children openly disparage capitalism and tout social democracy. Not only do they see clearly what has been expressed here, they also have seen the ultra-rich destroy our planet in their greed to get even more money and power, and they have seen our Supreme Court hand over control of our government to the ultra-rich via Citizens United. American capitalism is drowning them in student debt. They are bitter at the way the Democrats shut down their enthusiastic support for socialist Bernie Sanders. And now there's Trump. I support them in their activism and hope they succeed in remaking our country along their more humane and inclusive vision.
9
There is a great deal missing in most people’s definition of wealth. People become rich by offering goods and services that people value at a rate that consumers deem with their wallets to be fair. That product or service has value to the people who pay for them. I don’t have to farm my own food, make my own furniture, diagnose my own illness, entertain myself, etc. In most people’s estimation, when I buy things, I become poorer while the seller becomes richer. Monetarily, this is true. It doesn’t however, show the value and benefit that I experience fr my purchase.
1
@John
"People become rich by offering goods and services that people value at a rate that consumers deem with their wallets to be fair."
This is true.
But families remain rich - for generations - by sitting on their prior wealth and collecting passive income. It is the closest thing that exists to a perpetual motion machine.
Why does the U.S. tax code favor passive income (cap gains, dividends, interest) and penalized earned income (wages, self-employment income)?
I have no problem with policies that allow entrepreneurship and upward economic mobility, due to merit. I have no problem with the original creation of wealth, through hard work, good ideas, and a little bit of good luck.
I have a huge problem with policies that perpetuate and accelerate inter-generational dynasties of wealth. That is what we have in the United States today.
To be fair, at the very least, we should tax passive income at the same rate as earned income from wages.
5
@MidtownATL "Why does the U.S. tax code favor passive income (cap gains, dividends, interest) and penalized earned income (wages, self-employment income)?"
Cap gains tax is an impediment to investing and innovation. This tax rate is part of the equation people must use when deciding whether or not to invest in an idea or product. If these taxes are too high, money for innovation will dry up.
Dividends ? I pay myself dividends to collect profits from my company. It is taxed the same as my income.
Interest ? really ?
im self employed so I pay myself a reasonable salary, fica (which is 12 percent as a self employed person), income tax and workers comp..
I think you swung and missed on all of those.
@MidtownATL"Why does the U.S. tax code favor passive income (cap gains, dividends, interest) and penalized earned income (wages, self-employment income)?"
Cap gains tax is an impediment to investing and innovation. This tax rate is part of the equation people must use when deciding whether or not to invest in an idea or product. If these taxes are too high, money for innovation will dry up.
Dividends ? I pay myself dividends to collect profits from my company. It is taxed the same as my income.
Interest ? really ?
im self employed so I pay myself a reasonable salary, fica (which is 12 percent as a self employed person), income tax and workers comp..
I think you swung and missed on all of those.
It's depressing to hear the low quality of a discussion about socialism vs. capitalism. It's clear that the competitive capitalist system works very well for the discretionary financial choices everyone has to make every day. Cars, clothes, appliances, etc. etc., - all have many competing providers in our national and global economies, and no sane person would want to replace all those competitors with government entities trying to do the same things.
BUT BUT BUT - some things need to be done on a governmental level. Call them socialized if you must. But isn't our military socialized? Call if efficient or not, but it's the best in the world - possibly too good. As Bernie Sanders and others have pointed out, everybody who has Medicare loves it. Health care, IMO, is one area that should be - already is in many respects, including employer-provided health care.
Fact is, and I wish we would her much more of it, that our current "capitalist" economy includes government participation in many areas, via regulation, requirements, etc. Would you really want to privatize medical drug safety and effectiveness testing?
So please let's not talk about "socialism" vs. "capitalism". Let's look a bit more closely.
6
@C. Richard I don’t think many people believe that there is no roll for government. That would be anarchy. Capitalism is merely the economic system of a given nation. The military is not socialism. All nations with any form of economy have militaries. The military, police, fire fighters, etc are not functions of the economy. Government spending doesn’t equal socialism. It’s a lesson that neither Republicans or Democrats seem to get.
1
@John
Erik Prince and Blackwater provide private for-profit military services.
His sister (and Education Secretary) Betsy DeVos favors for-profit colleges.
Mr. Trump's infrastructure plan involves leveraging $200 billion to generate $1 trillion in total investment, by privatizing our infrastructure.
Similarly, Interior Secretary Zinke wants to sell off public land and resources to the private sector.
I'm not so sure that there are only a few people who see no role for government. In fact, that philosophy is front and center in the Trump administration. It is happening today.
2
@MidtownATL While I may be pro capitalism, I am not a Trump supporter. Trump is a product of poorly thought out populism.
For years I have been saying what is needed is a balance between capitalism and socialism. As many here are pointing out capitalism has far beyond reason. It is about generating revenue for shareholders on a quarter to quarter basis. There are many aspects of socialism in our society today though most don't care to point that out. The areas where capitalism has no place - healthcare, education and the penal system to name a few. Under the Trump administration we are moving further into an unbridled capitalist system which only serves the already wealthy. This is not government for (all) the people.
5
@Ralph S I know... UNBRIDLED such that the US spends a far greater share of the economy than in 1950, including a trillion+ a year on poverty. We haven't seen "unbridled" since the 1870s.
The appeal of socialism is that it pretends Darwinism doesn't exist. But, remember: you only need one person practicing capitalism for capitalism to survive and thrive. For socialism to survive, you need to have one person in control of everything...who doles out the promise that "I'll take care of you. I promise!" LOL
5
@Beeper812
"For socialism to survive, you need to have one person in control of everything"
You mean like how Mr. Trump decided to protect Nucor and US Steel - at the expense of all the other U.S. companies who use steel as an input for their products?
Talk about picking winners and losers.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/05/us/politics/nucor-us-steel-tariff-exe...
4
Aren't monopolies, natural consequence of capitalism, clear example that the goal of capitalism is one to dominate (control) everything else? By the way, one person could not practice any system. System requires several people.
3
The measure of median income is not a good way to measure well being over the long term. For example, many people in this country are receiving subsidized health insurance and other compensation from their employers. 401K matching? Social Security? Medicare and Medicaid? Technology?
Democratic Socialists take pains to disassociate themselves from the Soviet failure. The Young Democratic Socialists of America website devotes a whole section to why the Soviet Union’s collapse doesn’t discredit their economic model. Yet their ideas just aren’t much different from those that formed the basis for that failed state: “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.”
The YDSA website even admits that some industries will have to come under government control: “While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.”
I happen to know a little something about the transfer of private industry to government control. My grandmother’s father had his bakery seized in the Soviet city of Gomel. He was sent to a gulag, where he then died.
Oh, that’s crazy, Democratic Socialists would respond. No one is planning to seize bakeries. And no one will be sent to prison for owning a business.
No? What if those who own companies in industries that “necessitate some form of state ownership” don’t want to give them up willingly? What happens when the state runs out of money from the industries seized and needs more?
Remember, here we have subsidies, tax credits, transfers, welfare and bailouts for companies we consider too big to fail. Somehow, our imperfect capitalism defeats all versions of socialism every time.
5
Isn't Norwegian petroleum industry mostly state-owned? How many gulags do they have? I guess your knowledge about socialism from farther of your grandmother could be little bit outdated. it is like to claim that capitalism requires slavery because there were slave under capitalist system
3
Few people define capitalism and/or socialism alike. I doubt many writers have the same thing in mind when they use those words. Because the definitions of capitalism and socialism are so disparate, an author writing about either ought to define what they mean if they want to be understood.
Capitalism to me means an economic system wherein people are free to engage in exchange without interference. Freedom is the critical component. The only role can government play is ensuring the sanctity of the market by preventing and punishing the use of force or fraud against market participants.
Through a regimen of complete freedom, competition for the consumers' $$$ serves as a most efficient regulator in the consumers' interest. Consumers rule the market by buying or not buying..
Private property is also a critical component of free markets. Market freedom has the benevolent effect of maximizing the accumulation of capital, which in turn maximizes the output of labor and the wages of laborers.
Socialism means productive resources (viz., capital assets) are owned by the state. Under socialism market regulation is accomplished by fiat, with all the flaws and abuses entailed therein. Instead of consumers being in charge of the economy, central planners and bureaucrats determine what is produced and who prospers.
While no nation is wholly capitalist or socialist, those with the greatest market freedom always produce the greatest prosperity for all of their citizens.
5
We've always been fighting for where to draw the middle line in the politics of our economy. And the line seems far to the right currently. A swing back toward the left withmore power and economic benefits held in the hands of workers would seem inevitable, but it's not. The same degree of greed and self-dealing that characterized the inequities of the early 20th century is present, but today it is accompanied by a sophistication that allows those in power to consolidate and extend their grab for what's on the left side of that historic line. An economic gerrymander, if you will. If a backlash of socialist murmurings in response was inevitable, so was its shadow version: Trumpian populism. It's the perfect version of "socialism" to sell to a public whom you've already impoverished, deprived of education and stirred toward racial jealousies, to fill a hunger for economic justice with the empty calories of nationalism, protectionism and blind faith in Dear Leader's promises to make it all better.
6
The capitalists are thinking about what they were always thinking, which is about making money. In doing that they have managed to practically eliminate famine and epidemics, Drastically increase living standards in most of the world and double life expectancy in the last few centuries. Socialism, that grew out of the social upheavals of the early stages of capitalism, has managed to create stagnation at best, and untold human suffering at worst.
3
OMG!
Those terrible socialist want to give us universal healthcare like all the other first world industrial countries.
Shades of Carl Marx!
Except the other first world countries pay between $4,500 and $5,500 per capita for health care while we pay $10,000 per capita for health care.
And we have parts of the US with infant mortality rates the same as Botswana.
14
@Independent. I stopped reading when you misspelled Karl.
1
Tomasky has missed the worst of it. American capitalism is literally wiping out life on Earth—by lying about global warming to protect its profits. (It followed the model of the tobacco industry: publicly, systematically, relentlessly slander and defame science.) If I were a young person, I'd think twice about having children. See yesterday's Times Magazine.
3
@Dale Mead A company doesn't even have to be all the way to the "evil" end of the morality continuum to be part of this. It's just the inevitable outcome of the corporate mandate to survive. Of course they operate for their own benefit. Supposedly objective "business decisions" provide convenient cover for the individuals inside them, who stand to directly benefit from those decisions. It's a hive mind, and resistance is futile.
@Dale Mead. Oy! world's biggest polluter: communist China. US's biggest polluter: a US gov agency. Please, please, do some reading before believing propaganda.
I don’t think our problem in the US is socialism vs capitalism. American capitalism or rather business is doing extremely well under the circumstances with the lowest unemployment. Discontent between socialists and business is that the socialists never created a job or risked their assets, met payroll or created any value… repossession and re-distribution is the only MO socialists are claiming. In the extreme socialists are deadly. Capitalism’s shortcoming is always a reluctance to share more broadly but value creation had been a more efficient distribution network than any socialist model. America doesn’t have a problem beyond just envy socialism… there are so many opportunities and freedoms to earn like in no other society in the world so far. Our problem is polarization & gap between the identity politics of the Left & retro socio-religious values of the Right. And the one that binds both at polarizing ends is the healthcare. The more the Right resists the Universal model the more it energizes the Left with its Gov’t supplied version. The two could be breached as Universal model regulated but privately administered and supported by a tax on corporations as well as citizenry. Get all that cash into Universal healthcare fund cut employer’s share by 20-25% & untie their hands, add a fixed % on payroll. Just a thought that would calm the fires of socialist dragon and tame the capitalists thirst & may take away another reason for socialists to complain of exploitation… :))
3
@Jack
"Get all that cash into Universal healthcare fund cut employer’s share by 20-25% & untie their hands, add a fixed % on payroll."
No argument from me. That would be better for both citizens and for businesses (especially small businesses and the self-employed).
I don't care if universal healthcare is run by the government or by regulated non-profit private insurance organizations. Either way would be superior to the unsustainable, rent-seeking, for-profit insurance system we have today, which is nearly twice as expensive as that of other developed nations, and a drain on the finances of families, businesses, and the economy as a whole.
7
Jack,
Hmmm....maybe rethink your comment.
These "socialist" are simply We The People.
The economy works when The People have money to spend. The People, socialists, create the market for jobs. Their buying power is the payroll, value and asset.
The socialist model is proving to provide MORE opportunities, freedom and outcomes.
The People are the driving force for capitalism. They are the Labour and the monetary function. Without them capitalism is dead. When the top 1% holds all wealth and captures all profits then capitalism is not working for The People. As now business and Corp. are hoarding and not re-investing or rewarding labour, The People, for hard earned endeavors.
Democratic Socialism is simply The People asking/demanding a share in the market. Without, America fails. As it is now. In the extreme capitalist are deadly.
Capitalism is Monopoly. When all the wealth is hoarded, then the game is over.
Socialism keeps EVERYONE in the game. Both capitalism and The People get to keep playing. On this we both seem to agree.
By the by, Democratic Socialist country's are consistently rated better for business, investments, entrepreneurship, start-ups, happiness, health outcomes and equality. America could use a little more of that.
www.bbcnewshub.com/top-10-best-countries-for-business-in-the-world-2018/
https://www.forbes.com/best-countries-for-business/list/#tab:overall
3
The United States once had a president who invested massive taxpayer money in the world's largest public works project, at a time when we had 90% marginal income tax rates for those with the highest incomes. Many states offered free tuition to public universities, and the Federal government paid for the education of many other Americans. The United States also invested a fortune in advanced research. The United States economy thrived in this period.
That president was Dwight Eisenhower.
Today, Eisenhower would be considered a left-of-center Democrat. And today's Republicans would label Eisenhower a socialist, if not a pinko Commie.
8
@MidtownATL, yeah, yeah.
I: The 90% rate was after all sorts of deductions and only applied to incomes worth over $4mn today. net result: about the same total tax collected vs personal income. Do some research.
II: we have no money to spend on infrastructure now because we spend it all on transfer payments from some citizens to others. Welfare and social spending was nothing in the 50s, Now it's 1/3 of our budget. Do you want to slash welfare/poverty spending for new bridges?
III: Your comment about Ike is silly. The feds took in 15% of the economy back then, now its close to 20% excluding state and local spending. On the other hand, JFK and his anticommunist (ie, mainstream) views would not have been elected dog catcher of the Democratic party today. Don't believe me? Why did Hillary run so far to the left of Bill's positions? Even BILL couldn't be a Dem today.
2
The glorious times of Keynesianism from 1945-1975 - basically the New Deal era - were a response to the armed threat of insurrection from Communists across the world.
Armed left-wing insurrections have always played this role in forcing capitalism to moderate and perpetuate itself (another example in the realm of race is the legislative response to Martin Luther King Jr's non-violenct movement, which was also a retreat in the face of Malcolm X and the Black Panthers.)
As the threat of the militant Left wanes, capital goes back to its internal logic of surplus extraction, utilizingand oppressing the reserve army of labor, etc. And as the extraction worsens - as it has in the last thirty years of neo-liberalism - so does the threat of insurrection grow. This time, without a dominant Communist power in the world, the threat of insurrection is Scandinavian-style welfarism - a benign thing the capitalist class would do well to adjust itself to.
There's no space for morality here - just a series of structural responses.
3
All my Conservative / Libertarian friends take their tax credits for mortgage interest and children.
Government subsidized housing and childcare.
Plus government schools.
It is only big government and the nanny state when it is someone else.
10
It was a Russian journalist in this paper who said there are actually three economic systems Capitalism, Socialism and Criminalism, and that the amount of criminalism allowed pretty much determines the success or failure of most societies. Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill et al, a body of universal moral rules and plain common sense indicate allowing banks to give large home loans to millions who could not pay them, allowing businesses to pay 1/3 to 1/2 of a living wage to 50% of a nation's workers and then have the government tax common people to get enough social services $$$ to keep that lower 1/2 just barely alive are simply large scale organized crimes that do not disprove the worth of a merit based capitalistic economic system. One of the reasons I intentionally read articles by Brits and Russians and papers like The Economist is that other "Europeans" do not know what is taboo to say in PC America, and they also often have unique perspectives or ways of explaining complicated social mechanisms that make what's going on understandable.
5
So, what happened to the cost of a college education? When I went to college, a state school was totally affordable and easily paid for by either your parents, grandparents or Summer and school-based jobs. I knew many students who worked 10-15 hours a week in the school cafeteria or in the bursars office and made enough to pay tuition and meals. Even the private college I attended was affordable in the 1970's. It cost $3400/year, tuition, room and board per year. The public schools were more like $2000/yr tuition, room and board.
Now, it's not uncommon for private college to cost $45,000 for tuition alone. What student can make $45,000/yr working in the bursar's office 15 hours a week? Then, room and board is another $15,000/yr!!! It's all a big scam!!
2
Good luck getting any capitalist living high off the hog to read this article much less do anything about it. They have insulated themselves in so many ways that a socialist revolution will barely phase them. The only thing that might wake them from their glutted slumber is an Eisenhower tax increase to 90 percent, but even in those days the tax shelters cushioned them.
If you watch any gilded age films featuring these guys you will notice that the guys with the fancy houses and silver ware barely noticed the help. Of course there was Marie Antoinette. . .
8
Sometimes the crooked greedy capitalists make me so mad that I want Pol Pot to come along and teach them some lessons, ...well maybe not that harsh, so how about a Fidel or a Chairman Mao for a decade or two to show the super rich how important it is to share more with us common people so we don't rebel.
2
@Hector Chairman Mao was responsible for tens of millions of deaths.
@Hector, The first honest poster in these comments. "Give us stuff we didn't work for or we'll come for you." Succinctly captures the essence of Socialism right there. Thank you.
It is telling that the NYTimes editors who pick the NYT Picks, have a rosy view of socialism, that betrays their absolute ignorance of the bloody 20th century history where the types of governments you are advocating killed almost 100 million of their own citizens. There is nothing rosy about socialism, it has never worked under infinite different conditions. Capitalism on the other hand yanks the majority out of poverty regardless of conditions. There is much talk of "unfettered" capitalism being the problem. I don't see it as a fault that people are free to choose whom to work for, and people and employers are free to decide what they would be willing to pay for goods and services. If that is "unfettered"/"unrestrained" capitalism, sign me up! Anyone who saying capitalism is broken (just read any other comment on this article) doesn't know what capitalism or freedom is, and has never experienced the true depravity and destitution of ALL centrally planned socialist economies. I honestly don't know why people on the left claim to be smarter and more compassionate. These ideas don't work, and the harm more than they help, if they ever helped at all. I expect to get maybe one "like" on this now far-left, almost extremist website. If you are going to say hard working people who don't have time to defend the fair economic system they utilize to get often only slightly ahead, to be the cause of the rise of western socialism. Then, no, it's articles like these.
4
We capitalists are thinking about the mass unhinged meltdown the radical extreme Democrats are going to suffer after this November’s Red Wave
2
I've grew up in the same era/generation as Cortez and we're both minorities, but (while I'm happy she's getting a shot at government leadership) I don't necessarily come to the same conclusions the author implies.
Unlike some other societal models (fascism, authoritarianism, theocracy, oligarchy, etc.), capitalist, socialist and communist theories do not necessarily require unconscionable acts or oppression of others. At least in theory, any one of them could work.
What I've learned from watching my elders run the world is that CORRUPTION is the existential threat and allowing it to fester as we have is suicidal. Capitalism prefers private markets to government controls. Fine. But that's not what we have. Corruption has introduced all manner of government interventions in the supposedly private marketplace that are designed to transfer market risks to the average consumer and market benefits to the tiniest sliver of society.
With that in mind, the modern GOP is going to have a very tough time reaching me and mine. I'm from the Capital Region, so let's just say... I've seen Democratic corruption. But the GOP is on another level. There's just no EXCUSE for the level of bad faith and corruption the GOP has embraced and their apparent mission to destroy every institutional safeguard against it makes them my natural political enemy (well, that and the racism and bigotry). No amount of flag-waving, fear-mongering or laughable piety is going to make me overlook it.
11
You are absolutely right. I am 64, not 28, and a former CEO and 1% person. I was a devout capitalist but became a socialist when the capitalists stopped believing in capitalism and embraced outright greed. The tides will turn. They always do. Asymmetry has never survived for long. Thank you for this revealing article.
12
@Gary Moreau You turned socialist after you made your money. How about you send a check to the government for 75% of your net worth!??!
1
Making a good living should be part of the American fabric. However, it has become rare among the Middle Class to find families enjoying the benefits we had in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. I am talking about the Average Family of 4 being able to send their 2 kids to college, buy a new car every 3-4 years, maybe have 2 cars, go on a 10 day vacation and save for retirement thru company pension plans, profit sharing and a few other benefits, like good quality health care that did not bankrupt us. What happened to this affordable America?
6
@Bubba Lew you have no entitlement to a good income. If you want a good income you must provide some skill that commands a good salary
1
@Bubba Lew, Simple. During the 50-70s the rest of the industrialized world was recovering from WWII and the US had no competition. Now we do. Playtime is over.
Those who do not read Thomas Piketty are condemned to repeat the errors of thinking regurgitated in this article. The only reason capitalism "worked" between 1945-75 were the near total destruction of Europe's infrastructure along with the bankrupting of its capitalist class, which allowed for mass employment to rebuild and a leveling of the playing field. Meanwhile, American workers, highly unionized, were able to command high wages and good benefits, in large part due to American factories being the only functional means of production on the planet. Both before and after this time, capitalism has functioned only to widen income inequality, with more and more going to the capitalist class and less and less going to everyone else. Since the conditions of the Golden Era are unlikely to be repeated, we must do more than just nibble around the edges of the capitalist system. Young people seem unafraid to face this, and that makes this old socialist happy.
7
@prahni, Why did capitalism "work" from 1768 to 1945? Why did socialism fail everywhere it was tried?
Capitalism did not exist until the mid-19th century. Before that it was mercantilism. Boom and bust capitalism of the 19th century cannot be said to have "worked " for anyone but a few capitalists: huge income inequality, child labor, 70 hour work weeks at miserable wages, etc.,all ending in The Great Depression. Depression only ended by WWII, after which the conditions cited in my post above prevailed. 20th Century attempts at implementing socialism were largely sabotaged by hostility of stronger non-socialist nations, along with a set of internal problems too complex to discuss here. I will say that just because an experiment has not yet worked doesn't mean that it never will.
2
Capitalism isn't the problem--nor is the description of economic conditions experienced since 2000-ish actually accurate. Which seems to be a pretty big problem in this piece.
1) The Bolsheviks didn't overthrow the Tsars, they overthrew the provisional government led by Alexander Kerensky which replaced the Tsars in Feb 1917.
2) Wages are up over this span as are business investment, employment and R&D. Buybacks and these things aren't mutually exclusive.
3) Income and wealth inequality are higher in China, which is a communist nation last I checked (consult the GINI coefficient ranking from the World Bank). They also aren't actually real problems because the world economy isn't a fixed pie, but that is a different debate. So why would anyone assume socialism reduces this?
Crony capitalism is an issue that government itself creates and could fix. Socialism won't fix any of that and would fail at the principal purpose of any economy: overcoming scarcity. See Venezuela with questions on that.
5
There are some correction Bolsheviks were part of the group that overthrown of Tsar. The wages may be up but the standards of living are not, showing that real wages are stagnated at best. And although inequality in China is big, the inequality is much smaller in many European countries that adapted socialistic values, showing that socialism could fix problems.
3
My parents lived through a civil war. It was progressivism and intellectualism and democratic socialism vs capitalism and religious fanatism (Catholicism).
I have heard that at the time household help was treated worst than the pets in the house.
I know real capitalists here---immigrant people from Europe--who were "very poor in their birth countries" and who are now millionaires. These people will not give a cent to any poor person, if they hire someone want to pay less than the minimum wage. Do not go out eating because they do not want to pay workers in restaurants. Do not pay people who do house maintenance work (just like Trump). These are real capitalists. They behave similarly to those capitalists in Spain just before the civil war.
I think if there is here a civil war it will be a long way away. Immigrants who are newly arrived are happy to be here (Capitalism in the 21st Century mentions this fact). And they are not about to revolt.
Rural people (with little education --much less historical perspective are just too distanced from the events happening at the national level---they will not participate in any revolution---and just drug themselves into oblivion (opiodic crisis).
This country due to its territorial immensity and population diversity will take a while to revolutionize--
I am a senior -- So I will miss the revolution and if I am alive I will move to Europe. My parents already went through one.
3
What complete and utter distortion and subterfuge! Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried. All it succeeds in doing is subjugating the majority of people into mediocrity while the leftist elites in government and the Media live in oppulence at the expense of the masses. It is a system of government that is only about power for those at the top and nothing else. The reason Socialism has any appeal or approval is because those that espouse it are completely ignorant of what it requires. They have been fed lie after lie through the propagandist Marxist media including the New York Times and the public schools and universities filled brim to brim with avout academic Socialists/Communists. Controlling the media and education is the first rule in the Marxist playbook. Thankfully, many people grow up and see reality when they have to begin supporting their own families. If so many in the Democrat Party believe in Socialism (and they do), why not shed all pretense once and for all and rename themselves the Socialist Party!? We all know the answer to that.
2
It is difficult to believe that socialism failed in such countries as Sweden, Norway, Germany and many other.
5
Capitalism failed everywhere where it was tried. It created banana republics In Latin America. In order capitalism to work it requires socialist measures, such as anti-monopoly laws and many other laws that prevent the companies to wreck environment and society. It requires the collection of taxes that goes on public education and projects for good of society.
4
@yulia. You're right. It hasn't because those countries aren't socialist.
Fascism is what they're thinking as well as Repubicans. They no longer need liberal democracy as a facade to exploite the worlds populations.
If you think that what Lenin created was socialism, you know precisely zip about Russian history and socialism.
What happened was that those clowns tried to shove history forward faster than it could go, ran into trouble, dealt with trouble by becoming more and more authoritarian, and by the 1930s got well on the way to creating about the most hideous bureaucracy the world has ever seen.
There's a reason that the Situationist message to Washington, Moscow and Peking in 1968 was, "Shake in your shoes, enemies of the people! The world won't be happy till the last bureaucrat is hung with the guts of the last capitalist."
Oh, and if you think capitalism works great as is, just needs more of Ayn Rand's special sauce dumped on it--well, you people have got to start sharing your drugs. Pretty much the same for the Left's own latest versions of the Maccabee Suicide Squad, which have once again rooted around and found that old, moldy potato: "Secretly, everybody agrees with me! And if they don't, I'll make them!!"
Gimme Situationists and Hillary over THAT guff, any day.
1
The simple fact is that capitalism, in its pure and unfettered form, has some very sharp, rusty and jagged edges. The New Deal addressed those obstacles. The role of government is to insure that an economy serves both the common public interest while respecting the individual’s right to pursue their own economic self-interest.
The reality is that the United States has always had some form of a “mixed” economy – part capitalism, part socialism. That is true of every other advanced economy in the world today.
This current economic era should be rightly described as the “revenge of the capitalist. “ The great pushback began with Reagan and continues today. Capitalists have reclaimed what they believe is their rightful returns at the expense of the middle and lower classes. They have commandeered the reins of state to accomplish their objectives.
To suggest that these capitalist efforts are shortsighted, as the author suggests, is a gross understatement. The US economy is consumer-driven to the tune of 70%. As consumer incomes have stagnated, or fallen, over the last 30 years the economic pie has grown at a sub-optimum rate. Capitalists seem content to have a bigger piece of this smaller pie. What they can’t seem to comprehend is that when an economy grows at an optimum rate, driven by rising disposable income for that 70%, their piece of the pie may be smaller but would be more than offset by a much bigger pie.
7
It isn’t an either/or proposition. Some things are best done through an open market, sometime thing are best done through government and many things are best done through a private/public partnership. Wisdom is knowing when to use the right policy tool. The Scandinavian countries seem to have it pretty well figured out.
6
Marxism failed. To organize, implement, and ensure the lasting effect of socialist revolutions, leaderships are generally autocratic, alienation throughout society with all the brutal dictatorial phenomena.
Capitalist liberal democracy represents a disguised dictatorship. Multi Party system the real decision-making is alienating. Population no influence on the forming of the rules for joint action.
Piketty writing Capital in the Twenty-First Century says more inequality is distributed since the 1970s, in the US and Europe, believes this trend toward greater wealth inequality is very likely to continue, because the returns from capital are likely to grow faster than the economy itself, and faster than the owners of that wealth are likely to be able to spend it.
"This is the central contradiction of capitalism… entrepreneur inevitably tends to become a renter, more and more dominant over those who own nothing but their labor".
Piketty emphatically points out that the market forces and capitalism by themselves aren't sufficient to ensure the common good and to limit the concentration of wealth at levels that are compatible with democratic ideals.
"The main force pushing toward reduction in inequality has always been the diffusion of knowledge and the diffusion of education".
Possibly, Digital technologies can help in expanding and democratizing knowledge by evenly spreading it between the developed core and the developing peripheries helping to expand knowledge.
2
"You want fewer socialists? Easy. Stop creating them."
As so many commenters have pointed out, we are talking FDR "socialism." Starting with the Russian Revolution, socialism became increasingly popular across Europe. Of course, it crossed the Atlantic. When the Depression hit, Americans became antsy and increasingly angry. FDR's policies, in part, were a way to stave off a complete disaster, i.e., revolution. Similar concessions began to be made in Europe after WWI and continued. About 40% of Germans identified as "socialist" or "communist" in the 30s. Why do you think Hitler included "socialist" in his party title? He needed to destroy them or co-opt them. Governments were staving off full-blown communism and socialism in different ways. Governments feared revolution.
What's missing in this article is what happens if socialist democratic policies are rejected. As can be seen even in Tomasky's examples, the result is violent revolution. What are uber capitalists thinking? I ask myself that often. Did they pay attention in history class? Do they know who goes first if revolution begins? Do they think they are going to get on an interstellar ship and go to Mars? Why do they think they are so insulated? They aren't. Recall a few years ago when Jamie Dimon's home was visited by some Occupy Wall Street activists. He found that threatening enough to install more massive security at his home.
But what did he learn? What have any of the oligarchs learned?
4
I totally concur with Michael Tomasky's assessment of the current state of our political leanings and the rise, once again, of the socialism stance...and why it has risen. I also concur with his assessment of our despicable predatory capitalist profiteering...and what has become a totally self-centered, elitist plundering of our nation's wealth - along with our elitist "aristocracy's" blatant disregard for the condition of our nation's physical assets (our roads, our waterways, our parklands, our seasides, and our living legacies - our horitculture, our farmlands, and importantly, our animal life. We have a dying nation, and a dying people because of their greed and heartless uncaring belief that they can sit atop this mountain of trash that has become our United States - this STINKING mountain of trash that is pouring into our oceans, killing our whales and our fish, and destroying the atmosphere that rises from them. The only right and proper solution to this is to institute a form of government that is radically different from the one we have now - a government with NEW political alignments, and NEW commitments to the preservation of our peoples, our national assets and our seas. If we do not develop this commitment essentially immediately, not only will our Democracy die, but the world we live in. We cannot count on the arrogant, self-centered, and foolish disregard of our wealthy elites to do this for us. We must do it for ourselves!
3
I read a report by one Mr. Olsen, in todays' Times, discussing the unknown outcome of the midterms, and it struck me how unaware many "book learned" individuals with the wallpaper, purchased at great expense, via higher education, fail dramatically to see that their schooling cannot, does not, and will never replace the education the masses acquire through dint of hardwork, underpaid and ill-used, with no recourse, while their self-appointed book learned masters, deny them opportunity to climb out of the trenches dug by these increasingly discontented masses at the behest of their masters.
Great change is afoot, on the march, gathering former acolytes of faux liberalism, by the 10's of millions, people who know that the Republican Democratic principles, the foundation of our current predatory capitalist system was a sham, a cruel rapacious sham, designed by the Masters of Mankind, to increasingly beggar the poor and the middle-class, with the goal being economic slavery, and penury, in a fascist nation/world, forever subjugated.
History teaches, and no one should doubt such, that deliberate planned exploitation, will always be the petard which the overly-confident build for themselves, climb onto, and regardless the abundance of clear unequivocal evidence, these incredibly obtuse willfully blind Masters of Mankind, even attach a slow burning fuse which they light, before climbing aboard.
Pitchforks are being readied, and when we the torches lighted, it will be too late.
3
"The terms imposed at Versailles fueled Hitler’s ascent. "
-----------------------------------
In 1919, at the end of WW1, John Maynard Keynes published his prescient book, "The Economic Consequences of the Peace".
The book argued that saddling a defeated Germany with war reparations and debt was a mistake. The world needed a strong German economy to reignite a moribund European economy after WW1. Keynes explained that war reparations would merely stifle the continents stability and a slow-recovery of the European economy would result.
Europe, especially the pre-WW1 German national economy (~70 Million pop.), imported goods and services from each other. European leaders would jeopardize renewed growth in a war-torn European economy and leave a gapping economic wound among Allies and Axis powers as former combatants; a resumption of hostilities were a distinct possibility.
Hitler's Reichstag speech of Mar. 23-1933, raised the Treaty of Versailles; a regular complaint of the Nazi:
"For the overcoming of the economic catastrophe three things are necessary:
...
The final victory of the principles of common sense in the organization and conduct of business, and
also, a general release from reparations and impossible liabilities for debts and interest.
..."
https://archive.org/stream/TheSpeechesOfAdolfHitler19211941/hitler-speec...
Had the Allies followed J.M. Keynes argument in his 1919 book, we may have avoided Hitler’s rise to power and WW2.
2
"What Are Capitalists Thinking?" -- Only of how to make more money.
3
Socialism in the United States is a proposed solution for a problem that doesn't exist. The fact that billionaires wear $1000 shoes doesn't negate the fact that the "poor" in the US do not go barefoot. The fact that billionaires have multiple homes costing tens of millions dollars doesn't negate the fact that the "homeless problem" is not mostly economic, it is mainly a result of mental illness and drug addiction. The "poor" in the USA generally live in larger quarters than the middle class in Europe, have enough food to become obese in many cases , and are well supplied with comfort and electronic gadgets .
The "poor" in the USA are in a large part poorly educated and under served by health care which they mainly receive from poorly run state organizations at great expense to the taxpayers. Socialism, which is based on the belief that government can do a better job of providing for all citizens, is a hoax. The "equality "it will bring will not lead to better lives for the "masses" It leads to Venezuela.
3
Sure, to live next to billionaires has it perks- you can always fish out his discarded $1000 shoes from dumpster. And maybe, quarters in Europe are smaller, but housing crisis is real in the US, when people drive from their big quarters to much smaller and way to far from their work place, and there is no public transportation to help them out as in Europe. Maybe, poor have more gadgets and food in the US, but they are also dying younger then in Europe. And if the homeless is mental problem, why this problem is bigger in the US than in Europe. Are Europeans more caring about their sick? and why is this problem growing during economic crisis? More people going mad in the bad time? But if you think everything is fine, disregard the article and continue your life as it was before. At the end of the day, we will see what view reflects the truth.
3
@Bob israel You are likely quite correct. Before I retired to Florida I lived in Delaware OH, one of the richest cities and easily one of the richest counties in Ohio. On my way to work every morning I would get a coffee at a convenience store, which was located in the city's poorest neighborhood, which was mostly subsidized housing. the store's manager told me that his store led the state in sales of cigarettes, lottery tickets and alcohol. No other store even came close though many were twice it's size in terms of footprint.
Appeal of socialism? How many people have been killed in the name of socialism in the last 100 years? That is an inconvenient fact.
1
How many people were killed and enslaved in the name of free trade?
1
David,
Capitalism is killing our planet.
That is an inconvenient fact.
3
Q) What did Socialists use for light prior to Candles?
A) Electricity
6
It isn't socialism you are writing about. The word is "social". Capitalism still would exist but in a more human, means social, way. People still would have private property. In socialism private property and especially private means of production wouldn't be allowed.
1
Either economic system works for human beings only as well as those in charge are of genuine good will, and have a keen sense of fairness. This is currently not the case in the USA, nor in Russia, nor was it in the USSR.
2
Judging by the comments, might have been as well for Tomasky to begin by explaining what socialism is. But then, he probably also needed to explain that:
1. To explain a thing is not to approve of it.
2. He's not arguing that there's some Mr. Burns back there behind the scenes, pull, pull, pulling ze strings.
3. The world's economy is at bottom capitalist.
4. Marx thought that economy determines society, "in the last instance," whatever the heck that means.
5. There's an ongoing debate over whether the American Rev was simply the ascendency of the bourgeoisie.
6. It's classic to argue that many of Roosevelt's moves in the 1930s were there to salvage capitalism.
By the way, if you think this country would welcome serious socialism, you're trippin'. Same goes for single-payer. Good way to blow the next two elections, though.
2
The 28 year old referred to has shown us exactly why America is looking at Socialism. Her interviews have proven that she has no insight or ability to deal with complex sociopath-economic systems. She is far more likely to cause harm than good.
3
Or maybe it’s just LATE capitalism, a feature not a bug of capitalism itself. Our children are quite unfortunate to be living in this era. But I guess we got the good parts of the system under which we live. Sad!
1
Capitalism, as practiced here in America, is a blood sport. Why people like the Koch brothers would work to quash the working class is totally beyond reason. It's time we label such psychopathy for what it is.
And capitalism has not ignored the drug problem--it's fueled it. Purdue Pharmaceutical promoted Oxycontin despite knowing it's addictive qualities.
3
In reply to Sunny's comments about American Socialists don't know what it's really like under (European) Socialism.
This is true but I'd argue that any if these political labels - socialism, democracy, communism don't exist in any/many places in the world & these are grey labels not black or white so of course let's stick to what we are talking about here - Sosialism, Social Democracy , etc from the American Experience.
I would argue that we are in the midst of great political upheaval & social change where we are just beginning to struggle AGAIN to define what it is our country should stand for.
I & many others would argue that the Republican party haa lost its moral compass by embracing Trumpism.
Our Founding Fathers we're were rebels, capitalists, socialists, independents that would cringe at what we have today.
The idea if American Socialism is not a bad thing if it can play a part removing the political capitalist cancer that has corrupted our society.
Maybe money is the root of all evil today.
2
Readers of such a tiresome recitation of anecdotal horror stories could benefit from a dose of Steven Pinker's statistically robust counter-factuals. To which I will only add a paraphrase of Churchill's comment on democracy: Capitalism is the worst form of economic organization, except for all the others.
Greed is good, right? Hasn't that been the mantra of MBA programs for the last 30 years. Predatory capitalism has been the be all and end all of American companies for decades. People are just tools to be used and thrown away. Share price above everything else. And when you tie bonuses to share prices rather than performance you get what we have now. Maybe we need the ghosts of Teddy Roosevelt and FDR to come back and start fighting for the people.
4
@markd, How many strawmen does it take to induce catatonic stupor?
I angled to turn the argument: ** Democratic socialism: I understand it as analogues to Liberal socialism, in which the government offers more, while the same government does no rule over the people’s freedom. ** Democratic communism: no existent by its name when Communism is conventionally understood. ** Local communism; It is dangerous, in my view, because of the high possibility of its self-imposed ruling, which would defy the centralized regulations and universal human rights. ** Local socialism; It sounds no good for me for the same reason. But, Ls can gain support from the D party more than Lc for its “s” part. ** Christian socialism; It very likely considers the distribution of fortunes in the terms of both material and non-material, which, thus, contradicts the freedom of people and the individuality. **** Capitalism vs Socialism; The opinion piece mainly discusses the latter as reactionary. It is true when major revolutions in the history are reviewed. However, Kingdoms differ from Democratic capitalism. So, the writer points out the power of money and that of the corporate system as capital, and implies those powers can be, or have been, despotic enough to harm people even to an unconditional degree. To me, the desirable alternative is Ds, which, though, will be mingled into the current economic system easily on a practical level. Otherwise, how the fund can be produced when the economy shrinks? All others - Lc, Ls, Cs - are not desirable for me.
None of the ism’s will soon matter. Normal is dissolving right before your eyes. The world’s climate is destabilizing and with it is coming food shortages, starvation and global chaos. The heat waves, droughts, wild fires, floods and rising seas will be the new normal. The impact on the various countries around the world will be profound. Inhabitable areas with the ability to produce food will be fought over. Civilization will be about survival, not ism’s. Too bad our capitalist system was too cheap/stingy/greedy to want to fix the problem.
5
Dems would do well to read through some of the most popular Reader Picks of these Comments for some spot-on wording on how to hit Republicans where it hurts for the mid-terms, should any of them accuse a Dem opponent of proposing a 'socialist' idea. E.g. Steve's "Socialism for the Rich, Capitalism for the Poor is what the wealthy are for" might quickly disarm such a Republican and show voters who he/she REALLY represents.
4
As one who grew up in America and lived in Europe, I can tell you the main difference is that in America, what you want is cheap and what you need is expensive. In Europe, it’s the other way around.
6
Michael Moore conducted a series of interviews across Europe last year with a diverse group of people in a number. In an interview with the children and grandchildren of the founders who run the company. es of Ducati, the Italian maker of high-performance motorcycles sold worldwide. Moore began the interview by presenting a list of the major company benefits provided to all workers and ending with the question, why would the company provide all of these benefits when it meant lowering their profits and the amount of money they would earn.
The apparent CEO looked at Moore with a very quizzical look and then answered in a slow deliberate voice, "because we have enough money."
The Prime Directive of American capitalism remains "maximization" of profit. This maxim leads directly to the exclusion of the welfare of the people who make the profit possible and the welfare of the society that provides the enabling infrastructure. American capitalists cannot seem to ever horde enough money - there is no "enough"
4
We can see how well socialism is working in Venezuela! I mean, who wouldn't want that here!? The Nordic model of social democracy always gets trotted out as if those countries were at all comparable to us. They're not. They are (until very recently) ethnically homogeneous with a long tradition of noblesse oblige [the bigwigs support their underlings -- think Lord Grantham paying for Mrs. Patmore's eye surgery]. We are not ethnically homogeneous and we have a very different tradition vis-a-vis authority, i.e., I'll look after myself thank you. The socialism temptation will probably always be with us even if it has been an abject failure everywhere it has been tried. It works great in the seminar room just not in the real world. Capitalists don't need to worry about it - it doesn't work. Social democracy is the more dangerous temptation as it does sort of work in some places but there's no reason to think it will work here.
3
Yeah, because capitalism always works great. Pay no attention to, say, Enron or oil spills or Wells Fargo's latest or Trump.
Wait, I forgot The Excuse.
"If capitalism ever fails, it's really just because too much of it was socialism. Just lard on More Capitalism, and..."
2
Try reading the details of Venezuela’s history for the last 50 years or so before you tar socialism with one uninformed brush.
2
@Robert It's not that capitalism is perfect -- we can always dream of a better world -- but rather that it's the only serious economic option [our dreams notwithstanding]. The hidden premise of much of this discussion is that if we don't like this capitalist system, well, we can just choose a socialist system instead. That premise is a fiction. There is no workable alternative to capitalism [assuming we want reasonably high standards of living and a reasonably open political process]. We can argue about how capitalist we want our capitalist system to be, but we're well past arguing whether we're going to have capitalism or not. We are.
Socialism at least recognizes community responsibility for taking care of everyone. Capitalism at one level recognizes that supply and demand will select the best or most efficient. Unrestricted capitalism, on the other hand, ignores greed and the fallible nature of humans, and eventually gives all the advantages to the wealthy, who as often as not use those advantages to further their own goals. The question we must ask is "which is the more just system?" - in other words, which delivers the greatest good for the greatest number? And which recognizes that unrestricted individual greed does neither?
5
@Nathaniel Brown Without capitalism there would be very little for society to share in. That’s why Scandinavian countries are capitalist countries. You have to create wealth in order to have something to distribute in the first place. That’s why capitalism reigns supreme.
1
@John The Scandinavian countries are socialist capitalist societies, who have managed to encourage capitalist energy with socialist benefits; in other words, a largely successful, happy melding of the best of both systems.
Unlike the rampant, and increasingly uncontrolled capitalism as we currently labor under.
3
@Nathaniel Brown - The inherent vice of capitalism is the uneven division of blessings, while the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal division of misery. - Winston Churchill
1
Socialism remains a fringe political position. What has become trendy is the brand “socialism.”
The pseudo-debate between the faux-positions “socialism” and “capitalism” is a huge distraction from actual policy debates. What should universal, affordable healthcare actually look like? How can the federal government raise not just minimum wages but median incomes? What kinds of investments in education will best prepare the next generation for decent jobs in a globalized world? How can we finally get funding for our crumbling roads and mass transit systems? Etc.
These are important policy debates taking place in the Democratic party. (The Republican party stopped debating policy altogether.) It’s easier to see how we can reach agreement on viable solutions to our problems if we focus on the actual policy rather than calling the participating in these debates “socialists” or “capitalists.“
9
One key thing to remember is that during the 1950s, when America was supposedly "great," the marginal income tax rate was 91 percent (an effective tax of about 70 percent on high incomes). That's when so much infrastructure was built. The best and brightest went into government and the professions. Executives made about 20 times the average worker's earnings. Etc. It wasn't called "socialism" -- heaven forbid! -- but it sure provided a lot of social benefits.
12
Comparison: USA – Ex Yugoslavia
In year 2005 I have visited a family in USA, Phoenix. I made a good supper and there were ten people. I have told them I have dreamed for nearly 45 years to come to USA to work and live there. With 50 it was possible to come from Germany, to be a chief of development laboratory. And I have said no, because the operating environment in USA is worse than in Germany. They couldn’t understand: so an attractive position and I have said No. And then I told them the difference between capitalism and socialism.
1974 I gave to the bank about $300 monthly. In 5 years it was $20.000. From the bank I have received a loan from $40.000. With this money was possible to buy construction material and then with a lot of organization and own work and help from friends, it was possible to build a house with two flats. 1980 was one flat ready to go in. 1990 I have paid the bank the last piece of loan.
So, there was a young 30 years old physician. She bought a house with two flats for $350.000. She has to pay near all her life about $3.500 monthly to the bank. (Some years later it was worth about $200.000 but the loan from the bank didn’t change). When is she longer without a job or she is ill, so she has to sell the house.
To feel free from loan, to feel free even I am longer ill and it will be never necessary to sell the house is a very good feeling: Yes, Socialism is the better answer in which system I prefer to live.
5
Many comments to this essay are based on flawed points: They posit a zero-sum analysis, where workers sliding into poverty in the US is simply inevitable (and acceptable), if workers in other countries are to rise out of poverty. This perspective utterly dismisses the key criticism of capitalism here and now: the race to the bottom (eliminating labor costs and invalidating labor contribution) that has profits for top are soaring. Capitalism is functioning exactly as intended, consolidating wealth in the hands of a ruthless few, to the catastrophic detriment of workers, families, communities, small businesses, natural resources, and global relationships that benefit the many. Using a communist poster to accompany this poster is deliberately misleading. Democratic socialism and Bolshevism are not even similar. Democratic socialism supports what is best about democratic principles and systems, and reigns in the unbridled greed that is central to capitalism as we know it.
14
The poster tells it all. The man with the hammer - presumably fighting for socialism - smashes a heavy chain that binds something to something else. Socialism proved to be good at using brute, unthinking force to destroy things. Claiming to know and represent the interests of the common man (whether the common man agreed or not), the socialist state damaged rather than repaired society. None of the countries that used this kind iconography were even remotely desirable places to live. Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a dictatorship foremost and inherently inimical to democracy. It would probably feel satisfying to watch the fat cats suffer, but they will be alright. Corporate CEOs would make excellent Party officials; and instead of the latest management mumbo-jumbo, they would talk convincingly about scientific socialism as invented by Lenin.
2
@George
"proved to be good at using brute, unthinking force to destroy things. Claiming to know and represent the interests of the common man"
Sounds like Mr. Trump
2
Russian state socialism is just an old bogeyman. Let's compare modern Europe-- say Germany or France to the good ol USA. European countries win in just about ALL social and economic measures-- lifespan, educational attainment, social mobility to rise up from the bottom to the top. In the US, we have a new oligarchical structure since the Supremely Corporate Court's 2010 decision greenlighting unlimited corporate funding of elections and lackey politicians in Citizen's United Not Timid (a purposely obscene reference to Hillary Clinton by making and airing a propaganda hit piece against her right before the 2008 primary election). All of our social supports-- Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Housing assistance for severely disabled and working poor people-- are under attack from the Russian Mafia Don and obscenely rich, born rich Libertarians led by the Koch brothers. They don't care if American citizens die in the streets. Do you?
3
@UARollnGuy
There are worthy ideas in socialism if we are talking about evolutionary - rather than revolutionary - aims. I grew up in a decaying Eastern Europe and exposed to lurid revolutionary iconography; therefore, I mistrust any argument for change that invokes the Socialist Revolution of 1917.
So, who is the head hog at the global trough? Zuckerberg, Putin, Bezos, Buffett, Gates, Slim, Ma, or some lesser known but fatter cat famous in Davos circles? The practice of cornering the salaries of millions of people and giving back the salaries of thousands as charity seems destined to end, in decades at most. How, we can't see, but fabulous wealth in the age of heat and no snow seems destined to be not quite the comfort it is in the present. The billions of people who today have neither clean water or decent educations may not know to applaud, but then again they might. Look to the pyramids for inspiration.
6
Socialism, as defined by one of its most thoughtful supporters in America, Michael Harrington is about democratizing the economy. Harrington, not only appreciated the difference between those who used the term socialism to mask naked authoritarianism and totalitarian regimes, and the real deal and went to great pains to point that out. Would that Mr. Tomasky and those of his ilk had the wherewithal to do the same.
6
If Republicans keep the House this fall, this kind of smuggery will be a major reason why.
THE UNFREE "FREE" Market philosophy is the cause of many of our current inequities, because in the "free" market universe, what happens is that winners take all and losers lose all, reflecting the polarization politically and socioeconomically in the US. What has trickled down has been a runoff from industrial lakes of hog manure. If that is wealth, then we, the 99% People, are fed up with being exploited by "we the 1% People." The Founders observed presciently that a society where a very few hold most of the wealth will not long survive. After all, A house divided against self cannot stand. Now we've got a triple whammy: The House, Senate, White House and imminently the Supreme Court will all be divided against themselves. Meanwhile the socialist democracies in the EU continue to thrive. Germany continues to be the economic powerhouse, its social programs and high taxes notwithstanding. In the EU they tend to manage their social commitments better than we do in the US. Then there's Walmart, whose underpaid workers constitute the largest dollar amount granted from welfare, food stamp and medicaid funds paid for by We the 99%, with little or nothing paid by They the 1%.
6
@John Jones -- And fed up with two parties whose major difference is which group of donors is most privileged to do it to us.
5
"And if you’re a capitalist, you’d better try to understand it, too — and do something to address the very legitimate grievances that propelled it."
At least one capitalist - a plutocrat in fact - who credits his success in part from 'having a good intuition about what will happen in the future' does understand the problem and has issued a warning to his fellow plutocrats. It's titled "Beware fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming" https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_beware_fellow_plutocrats_the_pitc...
4
Michael T. provides a good snapshot of the current state of capitalism v. socialism in the U.S. If you understand the recent history of American capitalism (1980-2018) you would actually call it "vulture capitalism". Tomasky's piece is somewhat misleading with the "Soviet Style Graphic". The type of socialism being proposed by many is similar to political systems in Scandinavia, Germany and France. They have functioning multi-party systems (unlike the U.S. with only one governing party - the Republican Party is NOT a governing party). All of these systems are a combination of capitalism and socialism and they are all different. Obviously, the U.S. could develop its own system. A must read is George Lakey's "Viking Economics" which describes socialism for countries that have found an economic-political-social system that has worked for more than 50 years. It is really difficult to understand why the U.S. is incapable of learning from other countries' experiences, particularly during this time of political-social disintegration ?
8
You want socialism? Go to the South and West Sides of Chicago, where government has been taking care of people since the 1960s, and where since the death of Martin Luther King in 1968 there have been more than 35,000 murders, mostly young black teens killing other black teens, and no real incentive to do anything about, because Chicago is the most politically corrupt city in the country, and socialism and political corruption go hand in hand. Or go to Bolivia, an acknowledged socialist country, and feel the energy sapped from wonderful people. That's socialism, too. If you want more government regulation and control, it applies as well to the creative energy of the people.
@Joe Cheek -- So the only thing unusual about the South and West sides of Chicago is "socialism?" Not poverty, nor racism, nor lack of educational opportunity, nor jobs with a living wage? Just socialism?
6
@Joe Cheek wow - someone in Denver evaluating Chicago politics - where I live BTW. I'm a little confused about the jump from Chicago political corruption to "socialism and political corruption go hand in hand." Are you saying Chicago has a socialist government? That's laughable.
See - you don't have to demonstrate how the Right is stupid, they do it on their own.
5
Very typical American mythology about socialism.
5
Maybe it is cynical but my guess is that most 28 year olds in this country are ignorant of history and politics.
I was a "socialist" at heart while in college--it sounds so simple and fair. But I smile at myself now.
I lived in London in the late 1980's when the powers there were attempting to lift the Brits out of their grey, socialist slog.
When my late (generous American) capitalist husband offered his English employees private health coverage , they all lined up the next morning to get off The National Health.
I take the point that the concentration of wealth should be addressed . But when I hear young people boasting their socialist ideals I cannot help but remember my college days when we plastered the poster of Che Guevara on our walls. (We didn't know much about him
but he looked very cool in his beret.)
I look forward to hearing Ms. Ocasio-Cortez make her case in a debate with a young capitalist and/or student of world history.
Also, we are already a largely "socialist" nation with our public institutions and we have a word for the ongoing "distribution of wealth" that hits the successful, the job creators and the holders of our "safety nets"--it is called "taxation."
3
@Marcia Stephens -- "my guess is that most 28 year olds in this country are ignorant of history and politics"
My guess is that your own age group is displaying that ignorance.
7
@Mark Thomason
Pls know that I qualified my statement by saying "Most" 28 year olds...I don't think my generation is ignorant. Apart from experiencing the Kennedy assassination, Vietnam, the Watergate debacle, stock market crashes,deadly racial unrest, and now the cultural rot thrown at our kids from tv and movie screens every day--with all its faults and tragedy, America was once a good-hearted country-( its tone far from that now) and many in my age group are wistful--and wishful--for that tone again. (exemplified in Martin Luther King's "I have a dream speech" which was revolutionary in that it touched everyone.
Those sentiments are unlikely to return- or even to be experienced. Left wing "socialists"--and a president with toxic personality problems--will see to that.
1
All of those market failures can be traced back to left wing socialist policies. Typical ploy of the left: screw up the free market with left wing interventions then blame the free market for subsequent failures. Capitalism was not the source of failures.
2
Please list them then
3
"An affordable college education...….is an essential for a well-ordered society". Really? In the golden era you write about - 1945 - 1975 - the average high school grad did not go running off to college (and they were much more affordable in those days and in many cases nearly free). Except for relatively rarified disciplines - medicine, law, accountancy, etc. - people didn't saddle themselves with two decades of debt to get, as they do today, a college degree that often signifies no greater learning than a high school diploma did 50 orr 60 years back. But it is near holy writ today that they must have one, because today's employers want to see that piece of paper in the same way that employers of 60 years ago wanted to see the diploma. I remember an ancient truth (well, 60 years ancient, anyway) to the effect that the only employer you will ever have who gives a damn about how you did in college is your first one. Afterwards, employers will only care about what you did at your previous job(s) and how well you did it. The last thing a young person who is intent on repairing cars or air-conditioners needs is a college degree with 60k to 200k of debt attached to it.
2
I want to live in a country where I am allowed to succeed, not a country that punishes me in the name of others once I get there. This great Capitalistic country gives you amply opportunities to find a way to make your way in this world. That level of success is dependent on your drive and willingness to do everything in your power to get there. I was homeless when I graduated from high school, but I was determined to end that and I did. With very little education and sheer determination I made it in this world and I’ll be damned if I am going to blame rich people, CEO’s or corporations for holding me back. I am more than happy to help those who CANNOT help themselves, but I will not support those that have not worked as hard as me. Let people who made tons of money keep it, I’ll make it on my own, thank you very much!
3
The Reagan revolution was really an illusion. Once he was elected nothing really got better. It was all smoke and mirrors and the only ones that’s came out ahead are one percent. That’s the republican mantra; the hell with everyone else as long as we get richer.
11
First, I don’t think the average American or the people who throw it around know what the term means. They also struggle with the definition of fascism.
The socialism that has existed in America in past few decades on a large scale has benefited capitalists. The banks gambled privately, reaped major profits, failed to the point of recession levels and the American people were left to bail them out. The losses were socialized and the entire country paid the price. The average American wasn’t able to take any equity in heir home and walk away with no consequence like the bankers.
We’re getting screwed by insurance companies on our healthcare. Period. National healthcare should, at least, be discussed. The numbers are not getting better. So all the emerigency room trips are paid by we (socialized cost of medicine).
Welfare. Everyone hates direct welfare and yet it is a minuscule part of the budget. Walmart has been allowed for decades to hire people just under full time hours and the government (we) subsidized their employees with food stamps and other government services. These are families working hard who cannot live on what sometimes is the only game in town. So we subsidize a billion dollar company (corporate) welfare a we the people pay for it (socialism).
But when it comes to the American people with their stagnant pay and constant threat of packing their job and moving it to another country is dictator led socialism. We pay the price for that too.
7
Capitalism and Socialism, both are good systems if they're practiced as prescribed. But they never are. Both systems eventually decay into cronyism. Crony Capitalism and Crony Socialism are two sides of the same coin. US practices crony capitalism in private sector to the detriment of private sector workers (off-shoring, illegal immigration) and crony socialism in public sector (unions help elect legislators and constantly push for higher wages/benefits for their members) to the detriment of public sector institutions (wild fires, schools which graduate students who cannot read/write/add). Unfortunately, rise of internet has weakened major newspapers so much, that they now have to provide fig-leaf for cronyism, to survive.
2
Genuine socialism implies public ownership of means of production, which quite clearly will remain in the realm of fantasy in the US in a foreseeable future. A good start would be an introduction of public alternatives in essential services, i.e. Medicare for All in healthcare. That is an obvious example of public non-profit entities proven to be far more efficient than private for-profit alternatives. But it does not have to be the only example. I believe, almost everywhere an efficiently run public service will beat the capitalists and will drive them out eventually, if allowed to compete on fair terms. Why would not government establish a public not-for-profit bank as an alternative to private banks? That bank would not screw their customers, would not pay tens of millions of dollars to its executives, would not conspire with other banks to maximise its profits – because there will be no profits, any economic surplus it might accidentally produce will go back into the budget. Same goes for insurance companies, utilities, airlines, pharmaceuticals, phone companies, railways. Anything really. The only reason the government is not allowed to compete is that the government itself is privatised – it is owned by the capitalists who are protecting their profits. The capitalists and their apologists wouldn't shut up about how more efficient private enterprise is over anything government does. So they shouldn't be afraid of such competition, should they?
4
Enough blaming capitalists and making them scapegoats. How about blaming the liberals for their deadening elitist politics that prevents the rise of new ideas? It is a shame that the NYTimes finds it worthy to publish such utter nonsense.
3
@Gennady
An absurd statement. Should we conclude that the Christian 'Taliban' in the Trump regime -- Pence and De Vos -- incarnate the highest form of social progress ? Their 'solution' for remedying social injustice would probably centre on sending women back to the homestead to fulfill their biological function as breeding mares whilst leaving the entire job market to men...
2
@Gennady
"blaming the liberals for their deadening elitist politics that prevents the rise of new ideas"
Examples, please?
3
@MidtownATL
Take last elections. Did the Democrats offer anything new, except rehashing some aspects of the New Deal? Take their approach to race. They offer privileges to African Americans but they do not include them. They want them in exchange to subscribe to their principles. That's why there are some profound policy disagreements between the African American community and the liberal establishment. American blacks, for example, bring religion into the public sphere. Liberals thing that the place of religion is in the private sphere. American blacks are generally pro-life and against abortions. The liberal agenda does not incorporate these values and attitudes. This does not appear to me as empowerment. The attitudes of the black community are simply ignored.
Irrational capitalism is waning. Thank rational Socialist thought for the demise of stupid.
1
I'm 28, born the same year as Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and I find myself a mere three steps from the "Socialist" door. Capitalism in any form does not seem to work- why is it communism to give all people, from birth until death frankly tax-payer funded education? Government funded single-payer healthcare? Tax-payer funded guaranteed housing? Notice I do not use the word "free" because everything must logically be paid for- these are not astronomically ridiculous things citizens are asking for, we're not asking to live in mansions and drive Benzs. These are BASICS that humams need to thrive. Besides, America already has Socialism: for the RICH. Free bailouts, billions in tax cuts, its a shameless bacchanal of greed.
10
This important paragraph in this piece is what democrats need to focus on--here it is paraphrased:
"Why is it no longer true that middle class gets share of productivity gains like our grandparents did"
Why is that ?
Reagan and GOP dismantled FDR's New Deal policies that created middle class from 'mid 40s to early '80s.
Democrats need to stop pointing to western Europe. Europe copied FDR's New Deal policies. Americanize your policies. Just point to successes from New Deal era ( golden age of middle class) and return to it. Just label yourself "An FDR democrat". It will force media to discuss and educate Americans on FDR and New Deal legacy and force FOX Noise to attack America's greatest President in 20th century. ( only president elected 4 times) You know, that democrat who rescued America from last Republican Great Depression and defeated right wing fascism.
Yes, Social democracy is working well in Australia,Canada,Norway ,Sweden,Germany, France etc.etc.... and in America it worked well under FDR New Deal policies. That's why cons call FDR a socialist. Most historians rank FDR next to Lincoln and Washington. Dems just need to invoke FDR legacy and not try to convince 1/2 of america that the word socialism is good .
C'mon people, messaging !!! Get rid of term "socialist". No need to wear this misunderstood term. Just invoke FDR legacy is all you need to do..... Americanize it !!!!
8
They won't answer. People still know what a guillotine is.
More moronic columns from the NYT. Socialism has zero support from the general population. My 17 year old could write a better column.
2
There appear to be three possibilities:
1. Socialize voluntarily - from within
2. Be socialized by decree
3. Suffer the inevitability of war and revolution (with our present ability to destroy, it is unlikely we will survive another round).
3
During the 30's Great Depression, communism was making inroads (gasp!)in America. FDR with his New Deal, WPA, and other socially oriented goverment programs pulled America back from the brink. Remember The Red Scare of the late 40's and early 50's? Yet, for a while after that, it looked like the average Joe could earn a decent wage, live decently, educate his kids, put away for retirement, pay his medical insurance. Trump is playing to that discontent, fear, frustration, of skilled and semiskilled labor, that was left behind through outsourcing, robots, etc. But he doesn't really care about them, otherwise he would have kicked off a vast á la Marshall Plan retraining program soon as he took office.The Robber Barons are back in full force. Profits rocket, wages fall, jobs disappear. Capitalists are thinking of money, money, money. Human beings, institutions, country...be damned. Trump's a spell-binder on stage. Hitler didn't have TV, or nukes. That's why Trump is much more dangerous! Quo Vadis AmeriKa? Wake up! #MRGA!
1)in the U.S.
2
Capitalists were clearly banking on controlling the message that labor unions are bad, that tax cuts for the wealthy trickled don, etc.. Well, now they have to crawl back into their holes and pretend that greed is not good.
5
You could also mention one of the biggest socialist acts of all time: the GI Bill. An entire generation rose thanks to the massive investment by the government in people. Housing, education - government money fueled a huge rise in the middle class.
Investing in rich people just makes them richer - and everyone else poorer. That's what our economy has been rigged to do since the early 80s. It has become a wealth transfer/wealth concentration machine sucking the life out of the economy for most of us.
It's analogous to the Big Box store on the edge of town that drove all the smaller locally-owned businesses under, pays minimum wage, and sucks all the profits out of the community to send off to distant shareholders.
It's the 'anti-trust' policies that have allowed massive consolidation of companies into giant monopolies on the mistaken idea that lower consumer prices are all that matter. It ignores the loss of jobs, of opportunity, of labor power, of innovation and all the rest of the ills that it creates.
The German economy is one of the strongest in Europe - but workers sit on corporate boards and higher education is a right. Canadians don't like awake at night over medical bills. Norway uses state oil profits to transform their economy away from carbon.
Socialism looks better all the time.
7
They’ll look in the mirror and vote for still more tax cuts for those with unimaginable wealth. Wealth is a choice, right? God rewards the wealthy, right? People must be punished for being poor, work more, you lazy.... funny how people who inherit money aren’t called lazy, when tthe ruth is that they are leaches.
We all suffer that so many people failed and continue to fail to use their brains.
Fox’s rank and file are probably all one or two paychecks from disaster. Why do they allow the continued lies/brainwashing? Like the kapo?
6
Thanks to the NYTimes for approving this op-ed for publication. Perhaps in looking back at The NYTimes’ history....all those obituaries you....let pass....all the other trends you came to late- somebody said ‘maybe this Bernie thing has legs’. Who/whom ever that person was, give ‘em a raise.
And since there was no comment section on the bottom story today about Saudi Arabia expelling the Canadian ambassador- let me comment here; you go, Canada!! I wish we had your...backbone!
5
There were hell of a lot of reasons for the rise of Reaganism, but the "failure of Keynesianism in the 1970s" wasn't one of them.
7
Excerpt: "As that happened, you’ve seen the rich get richer, and you’ve perhaps noticed that the government’s main response to this has been to keep cutting their taxes..."
Personally, I am not in a contest with the rich nor do I envy their material wealth.
Taxation as a tool to punish and take away financial success from others is a disincentive to even succeed in society.
3
Capitalism didn’t ignore a national drug crisis in which 115 people die every day.
It has cold heartedly monetized the iteratively looped process of addiction, recovery and punishment.
Perhaps this grassroots socialist flood coming will hold an accounting. History certainly will.
5
Well, I'll tell you what this capitalist is thinking. I think that if the Democrat party continues to expand its embrace of socialism, the Republican party will stand a good chance of full recovery from its bout with the Trumpian flu. So, please, keep it up.
1
"Capitalism is man exploiting man, communism is just the reverse". -Russian joke
2
"So, back now to our 28-year-old..."
Could you possibly sound more condescending?
4
Two words: Marie Antoinette.
4
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said yesterday that anyone over the age of 70 should be required to go to a Euthanasia center to be put to sleep. She said that is the only way to reduce the excess population making room for open borders, prevent green house gas build up, lower medical cost so everyone can have health care and reduce the Federal budget cost for Medicare and the Social Security by reducing the retiree population. She stated those savings would pay for free college and health care for everyone, even the millions of illegals. To take care of the homeless, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants the Federal Government to cease controll of all private homes, lands and housing in America so the government can redistribute it equally to everyone even illegal immigrants. Don’t you love socialism and who cares if your government kills you at 70 you are worthless anyway according to Ocasio-Cortez. So what you see is only the start of the forth Reich.
1
@Bocephus Thibodaux -- She did not. That is ugly, a Big Lie tactic.
4
@Bocephus Thibodaux Said to whom? Said where? You present ZERO facts! Where is your evidence? This sounds like so much balderdash from those who simply hate anything not republican.
1
If you want a guaranteed loosing electoral strategy, keep right on with all the talk of socialism. Socialism simply does not work. Ask any immigrant who moved here from Europe, just take a look at Venezuela. Now stop being idiotic.
The Democratic party needs a real shake-up and make-up from the ground up, but if you think socialism is the answer, you are deluded.
1
Just look at who socialism is popular with and it will tell you everything you need to know. It is the pipe dream of virtue signalling idiots who live in a society that has benefited form the success of capitalism to the point that they do not have to work for a living.
1
Hear, hear!
absolutely on target
1
“I want my fair share — and that’s all of it.”
—Charles Koch
7
This may be the most stupid piece published by the NYT is a long time, and that is really saying something.
Where to start? How about the assertion re the banks and the Great Recession. Well. The truth is it was caused by bad housing policies put forward by the Demos, starting under Clinton. They encouraged subprime loans, which caused it all. Sure the banks sliced and diced the lakns, but without the loans them, it never would have happened. Read the work of Peter Wallison and learn the truth.
Meanwhile, look at the whole world. Who is doing the best? The answer is clear. The closer you get to free markets and captalism, the better off you are. Can You say Cuba, and Venezuela.
Hello.
2
Apparently the folks at the liberal institution known as Harvard would disagree with you:
https://hbr.org/2018/03/are-buybacks-really-shortchanging-investment
Why has the New York Times chosen to illustrate an essay on democratic socialism in the USA in 2018 with a Bolshevik poster?
Has the Times forgotten that one of the first acts of the Bolsheviks upon assuming power via an undemocratic coup was to suppress by brute violence the democratic socialist and liberal parties of Russia?
Why the false equivalence?
12
@Henry Edward Hardy"why the false equivalence?" Because our vulture capitalistic society has a vested interest in demonizing true socialism, and one of the most effective ways to do this is to conflate it with communism.
4
Clear-eyed piece.
2
To borrow the phrase, "It's the economy, stupid."
How the author can say with a straight face that from 1945-75 socialism's appeal "waned" is simply stunning. Truly baffling. Did you just forget the 60s ever happened? But I guess that fact is inconvenient for the sake of your argument, huh?
The Capitalists are thinking Fascism will increase profits. Hence, their support for Donald Trump and his Republican party.
6
Every problem we have was against the law by rule regulation and the astuteness of our Civil Service until reagan and the criminal cabal he brought to DC with him.
Wages did not go up under reagan except for a very few people and people in places he spent our money (trebling the debt he complained about for twelve years of campaigning to get elected from 68 forward and promised to end) to buy their votes.
The man was the worst and most traitorous president this nation has ever had including the current traitor in the WH. Republicans in general have been traitors all since Nixon committed treason in 67 to win the WH and did not get held to account for it even though Johnson and apparently a lot of other people knew.
4
"Corporations horde profits"! That's why the socialists will never take over - - they can't spell!
And to the guy who referred to capitalism dying out: How can capitalism die out when nowhere in the world is there anything else? Except maybe in North Korea, that must be this columnist's dream.
1
Mr Tomasky
Judging by the phoney patriotism of two capitalists linked to politics -- Donald Trump in the USA and Jacob Rees-Mogg in the UK-- I cannot see how the struggling classes in both countries can ignore the blatant opportunism of these globalist hypocrites. Both of these unsavoury individuals will wrap themselves up in the star spangled banner and the Union Jack whilst seeking various tax shelters overseas or in hedge funds.
Dreams of revolution will remain just that until the day the strugglers realise that they have been shafted by self-entitled members of a monied caste who feel no obligation to resist various forms of transgression unthinkable for the rest of us.....
1
Democratic Socialism. not Socialism. look it up New York times
2
Yay! Make America Venezuela!
1
The solution is a German one. It is called Rhenish Capitalism. It is capitalism with (social) Christian ethics. It creates a healthy combination of free market economy with a welfare system. It is not socialism as it does not encourage state control in the economy. The Germans have learned a long time ago that to prevent extreme socialist policies, you come up with a social safety net for your people. The first one to learn was Bismarck who decided to beat the Socialists at their own game with the passage of Krankenversicherungsgesetz-the health insurance act of 1883. Workers and employers had to contribute and fines were given to those who failed to do so. Wake up Amerika!
4
Capitalism is not the problem. Rather it is psychopathic behavior that is one of causes of problems we face.
Donald Trump is a psychopath. And he is not alone.
Stock buybacks are a major problem.
The lack of bonuses and lack of wage growth are major problems.
2
It is amazing to me that Bernie, a Democratic rock star who filled stadiums across the country and the only Dem who polled beating Trump, was hardly covered by this paper. (When you did cover him; the article began with "crotchety" or "disheveled" or "old"). All that breathless Tea Party coverage (a movement literally BOUGHT by the oligarch Koch Bros) and nobody at the grey lady could be bothered to cover the fact that millions of people were discussing Socialism for the first time in decades. This piece is a good start, but your smart Commenters already bested it. Please NYTs; get a Dem Socialist opinion writer and start covering the topic. Other countries have well-run subways, low cost college, good roads and affordable healthcare...start explaining how.
9
I am a New Deal Democrat. I hate the word socialism. And I associate it with Bernie Sanders who helped Trump become president, along with Trump -Russia collusion, Comey, NYT Clinton Hatred, and the notorious Jill Stein.
Most of this is on the mark. it's the excesses of capitalism that are doing the most harm.
To take one small example from the piece: There is nothing intrinsically wrong with stock buybacks. Giving money back to shareholders when a company cannot deliver the returns the investors expects may actually be laudable. But taking bailout money to fatten executives and directors' pockets through buybacks rather than investing in the business is abusive.
One other point: Teddy Roosevelt busted trusts when they became too dominant. The near monopolies in tech and the wave of mergers is now reducing competition, which means higher prices and lower wages; no one wins but the 1%.
Ensuring competition is fair is the job of the government and the regulators - they are failing to do it.
3
Its fascinating to read the comments from people confusing Communism...in the Soviet and older Chinese forms - and Socialism as its being used by these Democratic socialists on a few campaign trails.
Its eye-opening how so few people can see the obvious differences, and/or the nuances between the old (and failed) Soviet and Maoist Communism - and the socialist ideas being touted by only a few Democratic candidates.
I beg those who knee-jerk their antipathy to the very utterance of the word socialism...to do what they clearly are not doing; Read more. Explore the POV's of these candidates, etc. Look at how each one has similar but also differing POV's, as to what the term means to them. And how it would effect their policy agendas.
Explore how Socialism is NOT equal to Soviet-Maoist Communism. Or even Cuban-Castro Communism. How these candidates are not touting The State takeover of businesses and their assets.
Just go do some reading...some research and maybe lessen your confirmation biases over a term and its very broad meanings. Look into the Why and How its manifesting (this article!) in this current economic environment.
3
We've taken a few tours in Europe. Every time there is a chance to casually question a tour guide about their country, some American raises the high European taxes. The guides uniformly agree that taxes are high, and then point out that they have no or very low health care costs--no one ever has a medical bankruptcy, and that their mass transit and roads are top notch. They also talk about their educational systems which don't saddle the students with debt equivalent to the price of a house without providing them with a place to live.
In short, Europeans seem to have figured out that they get a good deal for their tax money--health care, education, infrastructure Americans can only dream about. And they don't grouse endlessly about the price of gasoline, despite it's being multiples higher than U.S. gasoline. They know that the taxes that raise the price support mass transit, and pay for clean air measures to support public health. And if they mostly drive smaller cars to economize on fuel costs, that's okay--many of their roads were built before there were cars and a Ford F-150 wouldn't fit through many town gates and narrow streets, even if one could afford to fill the tank. Their systems work and are not a constant cause for whining about the tax "burden".
4
Karl Marx said at least one thing that makes sense. He called these fascist capitalists "Useful Idiots." The best method of having a truly humane society and a peaceful revolution, is to let these fanatics on the right to just keep shoving your insane policies down enough people`s throats and extreme capitalism will die a very well deserved death. Can`t. come soon enough for me.
2
They’re not gonna give up one stinkin penny.
We’re gonna have to TAKE back what we need to live on.
Civil disobedience is around the corner.
And yes, I know the NYT does not like to publish these inflammatory comments, but look where we are ?
2
Socialism "waned" during the cold war period. That's funny. Apparently it had nothing to do with massive infiltration of left groups by the FBI. It had nothing to do with McCarthyism. It just waned because conditions were so good. Right.
Consider the possibility that there are multiple reasons people like the idea of a more cooperative, just and democratic society today. It's not just capitalism getting a little out of hand. We are facing humanity's greatest challenge in climate change, largely driven by the profit motive. Trump and his supporters are catalysts, sure, but this is not going away when Trump goes away. You can count on it. I'm socialist. My friends are socialist. My daughter thinks socialists are too mainstream. Get used to it.
4
Tomasky is less than enthusiastic about socialism here as he pats capitalism on the back.
To say that socialism “has yet to prove itself politically viable in general elections” is misleading. It’s true today not because of any flaw in socialism, but because the 2 mainstream parties – both in thrall to capitalism - have a stranglehold on our election system and have gone to great lengths to lockout any competition. But Americans are hardly strangers to socialism. From 1900 to the end of WWII socialism was an accepted reality in American politics. It’s ironic now, but Wisconsin had a strong socialist presence including several socialist mayors in Milwaukee and elsewhere.
However, the political right, capitalism’s puppet, has gone to great lengths to make a pejorative out of socialism and to sow misinformation about it. But socialism is not communism, and it is not anti-capitalism. It just wants capitalism to play fair.
Back in the day when America was ”a place where life got better for every succeeding generation,” there was an implied “social contract” between corporations and their employees. Note the “social” in the term. That’s what socialism is about.
Capitalism has abandoned any notion of the social contract and has moved to a position of naked Darwinism where financial profit and greed rule rather than social profit. “Friendly advice for the capitalist class” will have zero effect on them. It will take a force like democratic socialism to make a real impact.
3
Socialism, and promoting Socialism, is a lose-lose game in America - and has been since my grandfather's time. FDR would have been appalled to have his social welfare net 'branded' with the label - as his detractors DID.
Liberalism - as in 'liberal' (generous) is more to the point here.
The terms Socialism has been linked with the terms Anarchy and Communism since the days of the 'Robber Barons', and portrayed as such the nation's Media - which is still owned by today's Robber Barons, the rich. We, the People, have been schooled to reject it and to fear it.
Even this article is 'branded' with the bogeyman... Lenin with his hammer, smashing the State.
Give us a Social Conscience, not Socialism.
2
There is no self adjusting mechanism in capitalism to distribute income or wealth besides revolution.
2
In typical American style we think that socialism is a “thing” we can do or not do. Socialism is a culture, an agreement, an attitude — one that the U.S. sadly does not have. Americans do truly believe that greed is good. Conversely, they believe that wanting to play fair is for sissies. I live in a “socialist” country — one that in recent years has had to bow to more capitalist pressures than I would have liked. But there are still labor complaints, and tardiness complaints — yet there is a natural understanding among everyone despite it all — and I am grateful for being able to live in the middle of it. What I experience here will never happen in the U.S.
Quel dommage.
2
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell." Edward Abbey
Capitalism's fundamental problem is that Capitalists (regardless of who they claim to worship) adore Money as the one true God.
This is especially important because Money is a completely amoral god. Thus, any behavior that produces profits can be justified. There is really no difference, e.g., between the legal sellers of opioids and the illegal sellers of heroin. It's all about serving Money.
3
Current-day Venezuela sure does make socialism more appealing than capitalism--let's all move there and enjoy it!
Face it, people---the only admirers of socialism are those people who don't have to experience it.
4
@Tom F You have either missed or willfully ignored the central thesis of the opinion piece. That is that capital as practiced here and now has FAILED vast numbers of Americans and has left them with few alternatives. The author prods capitalists to rethink their greed and return to the capitalism of the post WW II era. Where corporations invested their profits in their employees paychecks, benefits and, work conditions.
3
OK, let's go socialist. 'Cause there are so many examples where that has worked so well.......
4
@Steve Struck - Well, actually there are a number of examples in Europe and Scandinavia. These countries are flourishing, and the quality of life for all citizens is among the highest in the world.
5
I love how the editors of The Times have exclusively recommended comments sympathetic to the premise of the article.
Socialism is misery. Capitalism has not failed most people, evident by the fact that most people is the freest economies actually have prosperous lives (https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking) (yes, including the US). Eventually, however, people must learn to be responsible with money and not spend it, for example, on $150,000 journalism BAs. Drowning oneself in debt is the surest way to redistribute money upward. "College is a necessity for a well ordered society," at least in the American format, is not backed by any evidence.
It would be a major service to the world if outlets like the NYT stopped villanizing entrepreneurs and basically encouraging bolsheviks. The country need more entrepreneurs, not more political scientists. That is how income is actually redistributed.
2
This lies on the heads of the Democratic party leaders and their "shift to the center"economic nonsense. Those who promoted Clinton and Obama were just after the same golden parachutes as Countrywide. Those two administrations did not deserve the name Democratic, and sadly it appeared Hillary was just another one. So look what we got instead.
We don't have people starving in capitalist countries, the same cannot be said about countries that have embraced socialism.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/17/world/americas/venezuela-...
1
@jaco WOW, you seriously think in America we don’t have people starving ? We have people in America who go bankrupt because of needed medical care, especially, for something like cancer. We have thousands/millions of people in America that can’t find affordable housing where they work. We have made college unaffordable to most working families and American students are now indentured slaves to those outrageous loans. Other countries like Canada, Germany, Finland, and the Scandinavian countries who are social democratic nations don’t starve their citizens by trying to pay for their healthcare. Plus, their kids get their college education without being heavily in debt. They are healthier and happier than most Americans...a dog eat dog world in our predatory capitalistic country is destroying our country and it’s citizens.
1
But socialism is another shiny object that has no substance behind it. You should spend more time reading the front page on the economic crisis in Venezuela.
3
@David shulman you need to travel more ... even to Canada, Germany, Finland, or how about the Scandinavian countries. Their people are happy and not going bankrupt because they have cancer ... too many Americans can’t say the same. Travel more and talk to other people in these countries.
1
Again... they're just gonna keep pushing us, and pushing us, and pushing us... until we start pushing back. And I'm talking; in the streets of Washington; at the White House; in th neighborhoods where th 1% live; at th restaurants where th corporate elite meet up; Wall Street...
It's time.
2
Why would I be concerned?
If I were a capitalist who practices the 'kind of capitalism' practiced here, why would I be concerned? I've got mine, my children already have theirs and so do my grandchildren. After that, I am dead and the world no longer exists.
And should I fail before I die, the 'kind of socialism' practiced here will bail me out.
So why would I be concerned?
2
Interesting how the author focuses on the last 28 years but never mentions the word "Venezuela." Very convenient.
2
Useless chatter.
Name one country in the world with something called “socialism” in opposition to “capitalism”
It is all blah blah blah.
A classic what if asks, how would humans know if they were in A tank circling Alpha Centauri? Best excuse possible for this columnist is he is in that tank, not on Earth among the embodied humans.
So how is Venezuela doing these days?
5
I've got an idea:
"Capitalism with a Human Face" ®
Problem solved.
2
@WOID
We have that already. Just turn on any television and watch the advertisements.
1
I'm so glad I left.
2
Those who fail to learn from history, repeat it.
In 2018 there is a creeping fascism on the right, which will turn ugly.
2
Memo to Deomcrats:
Please endorse socialism.
Signed,
Every Republican Everywhere
3
There is a singular failure...a Monumental Failure....amoung America's intellectuals to recognize the weakness in their lockstep thinking about socialism and capitalism. Neither concept, not socialism, not capitalism....is designed to address the political/economic/social issues of the Modern Age. Capitalism, the more ancient and obsolete of the two, came to fruition during the Industrial Age, when new ideas were being tested for mass production and investment was needed.....Its peak came only after the Civil War....the Gilded Age....Laissez Faire...etc..etc. Socialism, ran tandem to that....focusing less on investment and more on distribution of the production of the Industrial Age....but Socialism is equally obsolete.....many of the leaders we think of as "capitalist".....also embraced various forms of "socialism".....Ever since the Great Depression, all advanced nations have constructed various models of Socialist States.....in the USA, the New Deal and its Mighty Federal Bureaucracies......are the American Socialist State.......and its all obsolete and failing.....just as assuredly as the Soviet Union failed, Nazi Germany failed, socialist Britain failed, Socialist Europe is currently failing, Socialist South America is currently failing, .... leaving only China(?)
1
Woodrow Wilson wrote a great essay for The Atlantic in 1920: The Road Away From Revolution. It is very relevant in these troubled times.
1
This is a great piece which is very germane to today's situation. While I agree with the notion that there has been shift in the law towards rewarding asset holder's (those who have equity in companies) over workers, it should be noted this is only part of the problem. Certainly after WW II, American Middle class flourished not only because our economy was the envy of the world as Europe was recovering and what we now call the developing world had still yet to develop economically, it cannot be forgotten that labor unions had power during that period to keep wages and benefits higher. The attacks on unions and the very recent refusal of the GOP to raise the minimum wage federally (something that was commonplace thru Bush Jr.) has pushed down wages and compensation for workers at the same time our economy has become fully enmeshed in a system where companies can make billions of dollars without the kind of investment in labor that steel companies in the late 19th century, car companies in the 20th century and manufacturers after WW II had to make. We now have an economy which has far fewer labor-intensive companies because of automation and the fact companies can pay workers far less overseas. Trade deals have less impact and have been used as scapegoats by Trump and others when the real problems are anti-union judges and legislation, automation and the fact multinational companies can pay workers less overseas.
3
One can easily enumerate weak spots of our society that are associated with the left, such as the welfare system or state of public schools. However, simply listing problems that we have and allocating blame to the right or left, to capitalists or socialists, is missing the point. The bottom line is that socialism kills the human spirit. It destroys individualism and freedom. Socialism is for mindless twits, fixated on a smartphone while standing in endless lines for free stuff.
2
In most of western Europe, US "socialism" would simply be considered centrist politics, the US is so far to the right that what other wealthy countries expect,, universal health coverage, paid child leave, free education, are considered unrealistic in the US
5
@Rickibobbi We have essentially the same system as every modern Western European nation. They just choose to have higher levels of government safety nets. That’s not socialism.
1
@John The same way some people choose to breath? Give me a break, those European countries realize those things are NECESSITIES and therefore know they must pay for it.
1
Labels aside (pun intended), I recently bought a pair of blue jeans, and the inside pockets have a label that read: Men in jeans built this country; men in suits destroyed it.
I don't know if it is entirely true, but I do know what has been happening in this country since the Reagan administration: Men in jeans have made the money that sustains our economy; men in suits have stolen it.
If socialism is synonym to restoring a balance between who makes the money and who ends up keeping it, count me in. I am a socialist.
5
Expecting to make a wage that allows one to pay the rent, have transportation, eat well, have health care, clothing and a few of life's extras is not socialism.
5
Forget the misleading, misunderstood labels! A government should be focused on finding new solutions to provide whatever the private sector does not, because the overall health and wealth of the population determines the quality of life for the country's future generations. Healthcare for all, infrastructure maintenance and improvement, quality education for all, a fair legal system, compassion and assistance for the most marginalized among us. These are the values of a great democracy, now and forever.
6
I find it interesting in that the chosen method of leveling the playing field is to ensure the government gets more money. It isn't the working middle class or the working poor who will benefit from a higher tax for the 1% - but it will be to swell government coffers. Why don't we have proposals the balance the ledger in favor of the working poor and the middle class? Perceptions of middle class benefits from the rich not being as rich via the tax code are simply preposterous.
1
FDR became a hero to the American middle class and a savior of capitalism by adopting a certain planks right out of Eugene Debs' Socialist Party of America's and other socialist parties' platforms. In doing so, he undercut the popularity of socialism, built modern safety nets and reinforced the notion that we have a responsibility to each other.
He did it by talking about economic fairness, and calling it a New Deal, not "socialism." That's a lesson for today's Democrats.
7
"During this time and into the Reagan era, the broader American left — defined not by party but by belief — played a constructive role in supporting civil rights, opposing the Vietnam War and doing what it could to fight the new concentration of wealth. But, with the Cold War raging, its numbers were small and its influence negligible."
The civil rights movement was lead entirely by socialists: This was not a case of 'a constructive role', and certainly wasn't 'negligible'. Nothing would have been accomplished without a militant and ideologically committed left acting as the vanguard, often in opposition to moderates and liberals.
"the failures of Keynesianism in the 1970s smoothed the path for supply-side economics"
The precise opposite of this is true: Supply side economics were a backlash by the capitalist class in response to the gains made by the working class from strong unions and Keynesian economics.
"It has yet to prove itself politically viable in general elections outside a handful of areas, and by 2021 we could wake up and see that it’s been a disaster for Democrats"
Sanders would have won in 2016, and there has been an explosion in labor militancy (socialist politics) in traditionally red states. I know the Times generally requires this kind of centrist hand wringing, but the most popular politicians nationwide are socialists, and attempting to fight that energy got us Trump, and will lead to four more years of Trump.
5
@Derek
"The precise opposite of this is true: Supply side economics were a backlash by the capitalist class in response to the gains made by the working class from strong unions and Keynesian economics. " ABSOLUTELY!
2
I have no idea how to begin explaining reality to "leftists," who justify the fantasy that Americans adore socialism with the fantasy that the Civil Rights movement was led by socialists.
I wish these things were true, but they are not. And politics built in phony history is exactly the GOP's game.
1
@Robert MLK, Malcolm X, James Baldwin, and Cesar Chavez were all socialists, and that's just off the top of my head. Your argument is a complete non-starter.
1
This is where the democratic party establishment fails. They fight for a status quo when most Americans don't feel that the status quo is acceptable. They are for the elite and the rich, while everyone else has to live not on policies but on hope.
The one thing that even Trump realizes that today's America is not viewed as great and going in the right direction like Americans did when Bill Clinton was elected. That most Americans don't feel like we need to stay the course with minor corrections anymore, and that this is not a message that is going to win votes. In 2000 the complaint often was that the parties were too similar, and it was because they were still in a 90's mindset. The world has changed and to most Americans, and in fact most people in the first world, not for the better since then. Yet, the aging Democratic establishment still fight like its 1992.
Trump is a con, but he recognizes that there is a problem that people want a solution for. The Democratic Establishment can't even see that problem that there is no coalition for the status quo, and that there shouldn't be.
1
We should stop referring to "corporations" as the enemy. Corporations have owners, people, who own them: stockholders and the Wall Street manipulators who trade them, borrow against them, divert earnings away from legitimate shareholders, and away from the public fisc by avoiding taxes or enriching those who lower their taxes. These are all people, individuals and groups of individuals who produce the effects Tomasky describes. The law creates fictitious persons for valid, important purposes, but these fictitious "persons," the corporations do not act on their own. They are vehicle for channeling the acts of people who can often hide behind them. A corporation never floated to earth on a golden parachute. Only individuals, directors and executives, divert corporate earnings to these escape devices.
2
Capitalism from the start was never going to be sustainable because it has always been predatory. Predatory in terms of relying on the exploitation of human labor, theft of lands and resources, economic oppression of some groups over others, genocide, conflicts and wars, and its firm commitment to the investor class deserving more return on investment (as in a pyramid scheme) rather than an investment in the people, country, sustainability of the planet, global peace, justice, equity and equal opportunity to achieve shared progress.
3
While denigrating capitalism as "giving us lots of shiny objects" is a a pretty glib analysis (and the point about outlawing stock buybacks is ridiculous), I agree with one point made: college is unaffordable.
The problem is the market for colleges is warped seemingly beyond repair--where thousands of applicants compete for that golden ticket to a expensive, prestigious private university. And when they get there, the students learn the exact same material as at a lower ranked public university. It's just a huge waste of resources.
The higher education system needs to be torn down and rebuilt.
2
Asking capitalists to "do something" about the increasing inequality assumes a higher sense of social obligation than most of them have. Capitalists look for opportunities to make money. One of those opportunities is controlling the political system which creates the rules under which they have to operate. This is what they, to a large degree, achieved. Citizens United helped as well as myriads of less significant laws that benefit capital but are costly for the society (many of those passed with the support of the democrats). The Trump administration is doing what it can to skew the balance further by lowering taxes for capital and protecting those who have political leverage such as the big steel. This policy is supported by the old republican myth that this will benefit everyone. Just like Lenin managed to dupe the masses into thinking that pure socialism was the answer, they are promoting pure "dog eat dog" capitalism. So what's the solution - a progressive!!! democratic party willing to wrestle the political system out of their control. I don't care whether progressive democrats call themselves socialists. To me it signals that they want to do just that, that they want to work on behalf of the society and have some guts. Let them give this word a new meaning.
6
The one thing your article fails to address is that there was a systematic, concerted effort to achieve this. It may sound conspiratorial but wealth inequality speaks volumes. People don't realize this disparity doesn't just happen, it requires planning and manipulation. The killing of the fairness doctrine by Ronald Reagan opened the door to narratives that spoke directly to people's fears and prejudices. In this way they were able to sell the ideas that greed is good, the liberal elite look down upon you and are in control of your lives, that people on welfare and immigrants are destroying the system, that government is the problem, that Obama was both a dictator and a wimp, and that democrats take your money and give it to the undeserving. The manipulation has gotten so bad that the hypocrisy that leave many apoplectic is ignored and discounted. They can even sell the ideas of QAnon and the Deep State and their audience believes it.
There was a time when an agreed upon morality guided our decisions and the government was an extension of these morays. It was understood that there are individuals and institutions who are ruthless in achieving their goals, damaging others in their desires, and it required an institutions strong enough to be able to stand up to them. Before the government and now the press became enemies they sought to achieve fairness which was rewritten to be equality which meant taking away the things you had earned. We are in a very bad place.
2
I'm no economist but this era that the Magans long for (basically the 50's & 60's), where many in the 'middle class' could suddenly aford a suburban house with 2.5 cars & 2.5 kids & TV's in dark-paneled dens & grills & refrigerators full of steaks & whatnot---
Wasn't this mostly a function of the obscenity of the 2nd World War, where European manufacturing was basically destroyed while American manufacturing had ramped up for this war & had cornered production?
This notion that each generation should expect vastly more wealth then the prior, simply by working a factory production job as these Magans are so nostalgic for, was that not a bubble destined to deflate?
Can we ever stop pursuing 'economic growth'? The only thing that grows without end is cancer.
It seems the USA makes more than enough money. We should focus on homeostasis, feeding the whole body for proper health.
Capitalists just want to grow the nations nose while forcing its body to wither.
Cutthroat capitalist extremism is not serving the nations body or mind well.
2
I expected better from Tomasky than this tired rehash of progressive slogans.
The silliest thing is the fantasy on the left that "capitalists" run our country -- and the world. As Keynes once said when someone told him the bankers were conspiring. "A Bankers’ Conspiracy! The idea is absurd! I only wish there were one!" Bankers and other business "leaders" have enough trouble managing themselves. Even if they had the time and inclination, business leaders would be clueless when it comes to running an economy -- or a country.
Tomasky also relies on fiction rather than the facts in his evocation of an American golden age. There have always been ups and downs, booms and busts, shanty towns (the Depression anyone?), homeless, financial scandals and oversized rewards for a lucky few. The richest one percent had a larger share of the national income around 1900 than today. So why didn't the US go socialist then?
The idea that golden parachutes or share buybacks have doomed the American Dream is absurd.
Economies do what economies do. They are bipolar. All you can do is try to get the right institutions -- preserve economic opportunity and competitive markets -- and hope for the best. Over the long-run, that has worked reasonably well compared to other countries with different systems.
I know. I grew up under under socialism. I have seen the past, and it doesn't work.
6
Perhaps you could, then:
Name a member of Trump's cabinet who isn't wealthy.
Explain what the G8 does.
Tell us what Wall Street does.
Discuss China's economic structure.
Stuff like that. No, there's no Mr. Burns. But to argue that capitalists and capitalism don't rule the world is just plain silly.
2
@Robert
In 2010, one of our largest companies, Google ("Don't be evil") went toe-to-toe with China's government over its censorship of Google's search engine and its hacking of the accounts of human rights activists.
Google suffered a humiliating defeat. Today Google wants back into China -- on China's terms. Google is kowtowing to China's leaders.
Don't believe a word of it when Occupy Wall Street activists -- or the NYT -- tell you that companies run America. Governments rule.
Socialism is appealing to the ignorant and underachieving. The declining quality of education in his country has done more to fuel the appeal of socialism than the supposed excesses of capitalism.
The diminished prospects attendant with an impractical education, coupled with a finely honed sense of entitlement, will cause many young people to grasp at any solution that promises to elevate them to a position they couldn't reach on their own.
If society is unwilling to invest in the necessary educational and cultural ethics needed to sustain free market capitalism, then the demise of capitalism becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
3
It is always fun to see the Ayn Randies try to pass th selves off as hard-workin' geniuses.
3
The salacious details from Paul Manafort’s trial only serve to heighten the appeal of socialism. The question most of us would ask is “Why?” Why would anyone need so many material goodies that he or she would have to commit fraud to wring every dollar from a system that can’t keep up with all the white-collar criminals? In the meantime, we arrest poor people for things like shoplifting groceries.
The bottom line is that the uber wealthy have used every advantage and opportunity to game the system in their favor. They want to pay less in taxes… done, change the tax code. They want ways around the laws… done, regulations crippled. They don’t want to have to worry about poor people… done, pass laws to make sure you don’t have to interact with them. (I hope Paul Manafort meets up with a few of them in his next home!)
Capitalism is great until it turns into Monopoly… which is what happens when you wring all the rules, regulations and fairness out of the system. In Monopoly, there’s only one winner at the end, and everyone else is out of the game. Is that the goal of the 1%-ers? Why do they think that’s going to turn out well for them in the end. When the 99% have nothing to lose, socialism might be the least painful idea on offer.
5
To answer the question of the column title, they are not thinking. They are focused only on their own greed and self interest. It won't last forever.
@pork chops It is indeed in the interests of any proponent of capitalism (and I count myself in that crowd) to make sure it works fairly for all. That means protecting Social Security and Medicare, the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively for fair wages and benefits, and to make sure that our business leaders, through their talents and willingness to take risks, can get rich without bankrupting or shifting their risks to others or to the government that should be here to protect us all.
Allow me to paraphrase John Adams: Capitalism is suited only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
5
"Trente Glorieuses" were characterized by the corrupting tendencies of capitalism being tempered in a cold war battle for ideological prominence with soviet communism. Without the balance between the tendencies of greed to pervert self interest and altruism both Capitalism and Socialism degenerate to their inevitable polar corruption. Adam Smith did not promote the greed we see today, he promoted the tempering of that greed by market forces. If the market has failed to bring balance to those forces it is the role of "good" government to do so.
2
There was more to it than that for Smith. In the companion volume to The Wealth of Nations entitled A Theory of Moral Sentiments he is very clear about the need for moral actors in business, government, and industry to temper blind market forces.
1
Capitalism has caused to global warming. It is an existential threat that it cannot solve. Socialism is our only hope. The question is: are humans smarter than yeast?
1
Socialist countries are among the most successful on earth. Scandinavian countries, all socialist, have the highest standards of living in the world, much higher than America. Trump wondered why more Norwegians didn't emigrate to the US. Why would they!? It would be taking a step down, not up.
5
@Independent Voter Actually, Scandinavian countries are capitalist and don’t consider themselves socialist.
1
One of the main reasons Americans were supposed to be so scared of Socialists in the 50s and beyond was that they might secretly be working on behalf of a hostile foreign government... Why are we supposed to fear being more like Scandinavia now?
5
It's so simple, I don't know why half of the 99.9$ don't get it. In capitalism, by definition, money makes money. The more money you have the more easily you will make more until, when you are a billionaire, you make another million like falling off a log.
BUT, nobody makes money - that is illegal. Nor does money grow on trees. Money is NOT made, but only transferred. Therefore, the less money you have, the more likely you will lose the little that you have.
Unfettered capitalism naturally leads to run-away inequality. You have to balance it with taxation. And then you have two choices: give the tax collection back to the poor directly, or use it to do stuff that the free market won't do - like save the world from human caused climate change. You give it back to the poor through useful employment.
Why, Christian Republican, is that so hard for you to understand? You want another Christian war against the infidels? Tax the rich for it!
2
@Tracy Rupp so please explain to me how a Fortune 100 CEO making millions negatively affects a plumber who makes a good wage and has a nice living? Or an Electician? Or an assembly worker at a manufacturer? There will ALWAYS be income inequality!
1
@Tracy Rupp
"Money is NOT made, but only transferred."
Ah, the economic fallacy of "zero sum." Tell that to the guys who started a computer company in a garage with only a few thousand dollars, a company that is now worth about $1 trillion. That money was made, not stolen or transferred. That company produces things that people want and are willing, voluntarily, to exchange their money for. Nobody forced anyone to buy a Mac or an iPhone.
Ah, the myth of an “infinite supply of capital.”
There may be multiple factors causing economic unhappiness in some sectors of the population, but I'm seeing the most active and vocal unrest in the 20-35 year olds. Obama's administration left them standing at the EXIT door of the very expensive university with a diploma that couldn't get them an interview. Now 5-15 years with an inability to repay their enormous student loans, and they see an economy taking off while the education they received is now stale and outdated.
Socialism suddenly becomes attractive, and the educators in the Ivy covered halls are the peers of Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers. There are thousands of these Socialist/Communists with tenure preaching the lure of Lenin. There is going to be a generation that can't tell you how Capitalism grew the greatest Republic in the history of man but will assure you that "this time" Socialism will work because "they"will make it so....as they discount the millions upon millions that have died under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Magube, Hugo Chavez, and now Maduro. May he also rest in peace soon.
1
@Charliehorse8 This one thousand times.
I’ve never considered myself a socialist, but after reading tonight that the Trump administration is letting US steel manufacturers decide what companies can get tariff exemptions for their products, Socialism is looking pretty good. At the very least, it beats the oligarchy that Trump and his billionaire buddies have created for themselves in this country. No wonder Trump is so fond of Putin, Russia is his model!
Republicans have destroyed this country. They have sided with the racists and used that as a distraction to turn over its wealth to a small group of oligarchs.
It is time to man the barricades!!
4
The only reason that people are considering socialism is because they are utterly ignorant of history. All the implementations of it have failed miserably, the most recent example being Venezuela.
It is a terrible misfortune to be alive in a country which tries it; often its negative effects span generations. I hope to God I'm not still alive if it's ever tried here. And no need to comment by saying "we hope you're not either," as I understand that will be a natural response.
I despair of those who conduct government with no knowledge of history. It's both terrifying and maddening.
1
Themselves, of course.
1
GREED. And a 'leader' of the US who is the absolute face of insatiable greed.
Young people want out. They don't want either extremely rich or extremely poor people. It's no way to live.
2
Tomasky: "The conditions under which the czars forced Russians to live gave rise to Bolshevism."
Imperial Russia did not have a capitalist economy -- it had an agrarian economy with an "enormous peasant population"*. So that example is irrelevant to Tomasky's thesis.
Tomasky: "But an affordable college education ... is a necessity for a well-ordered society."
The slave-holding American South was "a well-ordered society", so that is plainly false.
* "The End of Imperial Russia, 1855–1917" by Peter Waldron.
1
The socialist democrats will ruin this country in the next decade. Socialism has not worked anywhere in the world. Just because some people do not understand nor invest in the stock market is no reason to not let it remain as it has been operational for a long time. Democrats have bankrupted this nations cities and states with unions. I think I make better financial choices than big gov't. I worked too hard all of my life to let socialist democrats take it away. And that is why I will never vote democrat; I did not drink the Kool Aid.
growing appeal of socialism?
hardly.
Russian moved away from socialism,
ditto China, Cuba, UK, etc.
GOP, the less socialist party, has had growing strength in the USA.
On my first trip to Paris on the steps of Sacre Coeur, I was hailed by a very black African guy to buy a piece of handmade silver jewelry. I said no thanks & began to move on, but he said loudly in his heavily accented English " Come on Capitalist, buy something." This was at a time when I was working six days a week at a low paying job & saved up all year for my one week vacation in Paris. I asked the guy if he made the jewelry he was selling. A little surprised by the question he said that he bought it from a maker in his home country in Africa. I told him that I was just a worker while he was exploiting another persons labor by using his capital to buy products that he resold at a profit. I then told him in the same tone he had used "YOU are the CAPITALIST. I am a working member of the proletariat." He shook his head, then smiled & gave me one of his bracelets. That is real Capitalism. What we have now is Government favoring big business at the expense of the people. By definition that's Fascism & at his rallys Trump is looking more & more like Benito Mussolini: smug, arrogant, but charismatic. Look at old film of Il Duce & see what I'm talking about. We better wise up fast.
2
Just as markets could not exist and develop without vigorous government support, capitalism has always been a creature of the state, a sophisticated and somewhat pluralistic way of accumulating wealth, driving workers, and creating more wealth. But concentrated wealth used irresponsibly is a danger to democracy, our species, and the planet.
Ayn Randyish fantasies about heroic ubermenschen are only one toxic component of an outlandish mythology that has outlived its usefulness. To some extent, the rich (and therefore the poor) will always be with us, but by now we have overlearned the peril of allowing this dynamic to develop to extremes. We have also (through experiences like the Great Depression and The New Deal) begun to learn what we can do to prevent the abuses and pathologies of deslusional crisis capitalism.
Our established political fronts (and fall guys) for capitalist abuse are crumbling - with one party unable to contain its racists, fascists, NAZIs - and dark Q enchantments. An alternative (involving a major restructuring of our economic, energy, transportation, education, and healthcare infrastructures) hardly looks extreme.
If people don’t like the term “socialism” just call it what it really is: ‘Jobs, Freedom, and Economic Democracy’!
3
Regardless of the term, the Democrats need to go back to the left. Focus on jobs, infrastructure, research, more income and wealth equality, stronger social programs, the environment and the economy as a whole. It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time. republican lite is a loser.
4
It's almost beyond belief that we are even having a conversation about socialism. It is one of the most thoroughly vetted economic systems in history and it is an abject failure. You can dress it up and come out with cute phrases like "medicare for all" or whatever free stuff Bernie wants to give away. The bottom line is that the only system that lifts the poor and helps the nation is capitalism. The best social program is a job (Ronald Reagan).
2
@dan
"[Socialism] is one of the most thoroughly vetted economic systems in history and it is an abject failure."
So you are saying that the U.K., Canada, Australia, Germany, Sweden, Norway, and the rest of the nations in the developed world are all abject failures?
2
Mr. Tomasky, you wrote that you could write 20 paragraphs detailing shenanigans, schemes, policies that have jaded Americans and their love affair with "capitalism".
There is clearly something very wrong with America's current system of capitalism. Write that list so Americans will realize that their disenchantment is justified. Write that list so Americans might see that what has been sold as capitalism in America over the last generation is really fascism in capitalists clothes. Write that list to expose a system that lets the powerful keep their gains and pass their losses onto taxpayers. Eisenhower warned about it. Reagan legitimized it. And both political parties since Reagan have embraced it and spread its life sucking tentacles.
Media is serving the interests of the powerful by branding opposition to today's fascism as "socialism" when it is little more than a restoration of historical goals. Great American presidents like Eisenhower, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt advanced and embraced these goals. In a nutshell the goals included a limited military, constraints of corporate power; keeping banks in check; advancing fairness in the workplace; having compassion for the sick, poor, and defenseless; seeking retirement security; ensuring education; and taking care of the environment. Those policies aren't radical; but implementing them would require the powerful economic elite to relinquish some of the wealth, power, and control that they have appropriated.
5
As a first generation bi-racial American whose parents both immigrated from Communist/Socialist/Fascist regimes (Hitler/Tito/Mao), I am struck by the way that my fellow Americans have given up. The advent of a variety of social support structures, government programs to spur opportunities including student loans, SBA, Obamacare, etc, have resulted in more fatalism, less engagement, and an "Eat the Rich" mentality. It is in vogue to suggest that racism, gender restriction, religious intolerance, ageism, and other barriers are simply too high and not worth even trying to breach the wall. Instead, we must outsource our personal success to government which must start a program, pass a law or tax the rich for use to achieve. For 8 years under President Obama, this drumbeat was deafening but aimed at white privilege and institutional barriers. Under Trump, it's flipped and whites have their moment of blame. Growing up, the world was far less friendly to those of a different background but in the horizon was unlimited. Today, I see fewer barriers for women, minorities, access to education yet the pall that lays heavy is palpable. Socialism (a completely failed experiment) grows when darkness is substituted for light. Trump wont help but neither will the Warren/Bernie/Harris crowd. We need leadership that is centrist, prob business and anti-failure
2
@Chris Lazy people think that making money is bad. Socialists aims of economic prosperity for all are far more achievable when people actually work to boost their own standard of living. Universities have convinced people that there is a conspiracy against the 99%. It is just not true.
I just sneaked through with the old rules-graduate from college with little debt and spend your entire career at the same company (36 years!) and retire with savings, a pension, and social security. That system no longer applies. New rules are under construction but they don't work for most people yet and may never work for the majority of people. There will be two classes in our society-those, a small group, that the rules do not apply to and the majority that the rules don't work for. Vote Blue in November. This situation must be reversed. You can call it socialism if you want.
4
My father would've referred to this phenomenan as "taxation without representation."
If memory serves that did once start a revolution somewhere...
3
The wealthy and corporations in America HATED the government telling them what to do with their money (and still do). So how did they deal with that hatred? They structured things to make working for them as least profitable as possible for the workers. Then convinced everyone that they were still poor. That taxes were killing them. That they simply could not do business in America anymore. Well now they have gotten just about everything they wanted. And then some. Profits and executive pay are soaring. And for everyone else flat or declining. And the government programs aimed at mitigating that situation? About to be cut. So let me ask the wealthy and corporations. When working class people in America have nothing else to lose, what do you think they are going to do? Do you think their anger will be alleviated forever blaming the Clintons, minorities, and immigrants? In the past they unionized and demanded a piece of the pie. Now, you simply give their jobs to workers elsewhere willing to accept whatever they can get for their sweat. Just sticking your middle finger in the faces of American labor. Because life for you is so horrible and you aren't making enough money and it's all the workers' fault. Eventually yelling lock her up and shooting up the sign marking the spot where Emmett Till's body was found, just won't cut it. Especially when you are hungry, sick, and very poor. And have nowhere to turn.
3
This is what happens when history and economics are barely taught in school - a nation of snowflakes wanting free stuff...
4
@Justin Bilyj
Ever read about the Gilded Age and the Robber Barons?
3
Or a nation of retrogrades happy to be worked to death for their corporate masters
2
Socialists are a bigger threat to the Democratic Party than to capitalists. A Socialist revolution caused by Greed is as likely as the Apocalypse brought on by Sin.
1
Excellent article.
1
Darlington Hoopes might have received more votes if his name weren’t Darlington Hoopes.
Pulling out the old bogey man of you're a "commie" just doesn't have the traction it once did. The new generation has seen their parents and grandparents suffer from the "socialism for the rich" MLK talked about. It's a whole me world.
4
Michael-You are not serious are you? American Oligarchs and CEO's have discovered they can steal, cheat, commit fraud, and corrupt our political process with impunity. No one is ever arrested, no one goes to jail, there are no consequences other than unimaginable wealth which further insulates these gangsters and crooks from justice. You are seriously asking this question?
4
Michael, you have mixed feelings about socialism?
1
This is an evxelldnt column. Thank you for writingit mr. Tonasky.
How ironic people are fretting about young democrats leading us down a road to socialism when we’re actually well on our way to being modern day Russia; an oligarchy where 6 super-billionaires run the economy and all of the elections are a sham
7
@Lou
Read "Red Notice" and you will astonished at the similarities.
1
The alternative to well-managed social programs is not lower taxes for the rich, it is revolution.
3
The idea that socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive, and that one must win and the other lose, is totally false. Libraries, police and fire departments, public schools, parks and infrastructure -- all are examples of socialism. Socialism is nothing more than the leveraging of our wealth for universally desirable ends. It makes a lot of sense for some goods and services, and no sense at all for others.
After centuries of economic experimentation, it's pretty clear that a mixed economy -- leveraged for goods and services needed for basic survival and general welfare, and free market (within constraints) for everything else -- works better than any other system to promote wellbeing and satisfaction.
Stop being terrified by the word, and look at the thing itself.
5
@Luke Police, Fire Departments, military, etc are not examples of socialism. Government has a role to play under every system, including capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system, not a system of government. Not all activities in a society are economic activities.
While compensation is the personal motive behind bank and corporate executives, the drive for maximum profit to please investors is systemic. Corporate stock-buybacks and bank speculation in the market yield immediate returns, while investing in production is long-term. Nothing within neoliberal capitalism is going to change this movement of money out of production and wages to the top 0.1%. The Republican and Democratic establishments have voted repeatedly to block regulations. The Republicans are weakening voting rights and unions that could enable us to fight back. Hence socialism.
1
I thought there was a chance for Democrats to push for certain things as part of the tax cut passed by the GOP -- things like a $15 per hour minimum wage, limits on total CEO compensation, minimal stock buybacks, etc. I recognize these are small steps and would have had economic consequences, but I think there were specific initiatives that could have been tied to the cut that would have helped more Americans.
I am deathly concerned about the future, for a number of reasons. I'm not entirely sure what the top 1% or the top 5% expect to happen over the next few decades. Dystopia will affect them as much as the rest of us.
2
Missing in this discussion is the cost of these “social democratic” programs and how we would pay for them. Are we really ok with the more than doubling of our tax burden that would be required?
Also missing is the competency with which government performs functions generally. I for one do not feel comfortable with government controlling more aspects of our economy. They are bureaucrats and cannot be trusted to run an efficient operation.
And then there is the incremental power and authority our government would have over our lives. Not very appealing to me.
Let’s have targeted government programs to handle specific issues, not complete takeovers of large segments of the economy.
For the vast majority, if you work hard, you will be successful. This has worked in our country for over two hundred years.
1
@Jesse Jones
"Also missing is the competency with which government performs functions generally."
And you think the private sector is universally competent and efficient?
On a small scale, my wife found $10s of thousands of waste in her small company's budget of several million last year.
On a large scale, look at the large banks in 2008. Or TYCO, Worldcom, and Enron prior to that. Some corporate leaders are highly competent and move their firms forward. Others are just highly-compensated ham sandwiches, or are outright corrupt skimmers into their personal pockets.
Government is certainly not the answer to all our problems. But neither is the private sector.
5
Language is slippery, particularly in politics where demagogues thrive. Republicans will try to hit the progressives over the head with the word "Socialism." A good old red scare might lure a few of the rational Republicans back into the fold. But in fact Bernie Sanders is indistinguishable from FDR or the older liberals like Hubert Humphrey or Ted Kennedy. Highly regulated free enterprise is what today's "left" is talking about. And it's what's needed.
3
@John Mullen That’s interesting considering that the American left uses Scandinavian nations as a model and their free market capitalism is now considered to be less regulated than America’s.
@John Virginia, Thanks for the comment. I appreciate it. I'd like to see that analysis to be sure we agree on "regulated". Example, free market lightly regulated medical insurance industry compared to a national single payer system. Ditto for unemployment assistance, paid medical leave, paid vacation, graduated taxation on income, etc.
2
It seems obvious that no "perfect" economic system exists. Perhaps an amalgamation of them would serve the interests of all people. The reality is the GOP has worked diligently since the 60s to devalue human labor by demonizing unions, using "right to work suppression tactics" and suppressing wages for common labor. Even in the seventies wages were so low for "unskilled" labor that one could not afford to be self sufficient.
At the other end of the spectrum, CEOs can make millions annually and no one seems to question the morality and efficacy of the disparity.
As Mr. Buffet replied when asked how he became so successful, "I was born white in America." Also at the right time and place. Until the value of "common human labor" is upheld, the unskilled worker rarely has opportunity to improve ability and develop skills to evolve in an ever changing world.
Unfortunately, because of climate change and our destruction of our biosphere, it won't matter in a few decades as we will have succeeded in destroying our species and most others as our hubris blinds us to our deleterious effect.
2
After the 2008 crisis, the economist Roubini was joined by others by asking "Was Marx right after all? Unrestrained capitalism will self destruct because of the uncontrollable greed of its upper class. Capitalism worked as long as it was restrained by the collapse of 1929 which brought about the safety net and some redistribution of wealth . The rich got scared (there was a Soviet Union and a Communist China), listened to the smarter among them and accepted high tax rates.
But as soon the Red Menace faded; they began asking for tax cuts and we all granted them without rancor. They funded think tanks like the AEI to justify more cuts, less spending for the poor. They funded rabble rousers on the air waves to tell the nation; they deserved their wealth and owed nothing to the rest of us. They funded a party that gave them one huge tax cut and relief from regulations. The more greedy among them made Wall street a casino and crashed the system. We bailed out the system but Obama did not punish them.
To thank him they created the Tea Party and restrained him from governing effectively by cutting budgets in the name of saving our grandchildren from debt. They didn't like Trump at first but the man gave them more tax cuts and less regulation. And the grandchildren? And his tearing the social fabric everyday? who cares, they're getting richer. "Apres moi le deluge" said Louis XV. Oh yes Marx was right.
1
In the words of many a sage parent, anything (when taken to an extreme) can be a bad thing. This is as true for 'isms' (Capitalism, Socialism,...) as for any other thing in life. In particular, we need to be weary of situations in which an ism is exploited by a select few.
1
Is it a disingenuous thesis that socialism is entirely a middle-class affair? If one is never able to see Capitalism as a system and continue with the intemperate fury of the left with all the intent of a Navy Seal, one is indulging one's self in some naive early Dickensian fantasy that it is simply the work of wicked individuals (those Satanic Factories) then you are a kosher socialist thereby displaying unswerving moral integrity and independence of spirit, further if you avoid on the campaign trail the louche, rakish, endorsement of the Hollywood set then hats off to you for being an uber kosher socialist. George Orwell tells us that the sight of a man pilfering food on a ship ‘taught me more than I could have learned from half-a-dozen socialist pamphlets’. Apply that comment to the education of today and he is spot on. However, seeing a man pilfering food will tell you nothing about the causes of poverty, just as Brecht remarked, 'putting a factory on stage will tell you nothing about Capitalism.' There is a view that the fascists of yesterday have morphed into the 'do gooders' of today and some would argue the socialists of today, so says Dr Alice Weidel who heads up the Alternative for Germany political party. Before one knee jerks, to the standard 'deplorable', or the Jim Acosta low brow smirk 'these people elevators don't reach all floors' Dr Weidel has a Doctorate in Chemistry and her interviews are interspersed by her references to Bach Cantatas.
Look in a mirror ?
The capitalists aren't the ones who need to be educated. They need a little balanced regulation, that's all.
It's the pre-socialists who remain almost entirely ignorant of the facts.
And will the N Y Times help with that ?
Absolutely not.
Criticize capitalism?
Certainly, every day, somewhere in this paper - even though capitalism is what moves the money into the coffers of then N Y Times, it is expedient to ignore this.
A balanced approach, that actually helps people make informed decisions, would have to include a comparative analysis of the financial successes of the socialist nations.
But there are no examples of financial success in socialist nations.
There are examples from capitalist nations (Denmark, etc.) with a strong tendency toward socialist policy - but - those socialist policies rely on the success of capitalism to fund the socialist policies - which would otherwise be bankrupt.
It's easy to place blame on a philosophy that has put the western nations centuries ahead of the rest of the world.
But it's not so easy to say - with a straight face - that it would have been preferable to end up like Romania. Or Venezuela. Or Russia.
4
@Objectivist
But no one - at least not this author, is saying anything about tossing out the whole of capitalism. Few people want to toss the whole out, but instead are seeking, and demanding for real fixes. Fixes that don't always focus on funneling the profits to the very top.
Which is the typical answer of mostly Conservatives/Repubs. While the Dems mask theirs in Globalism and Free trade. But the Repubs are just blatant about it. Give more to those who already have enough. Who have made huge profits decade after decade, even with good and some questionable regulations...so lets just toss them all out...give 'em more...
The issue is how this philosophy - capitalism - has become a ridiculous Political agenda, that demands to be ruthlessly served at all times, at all costs to the citizenry of the US, and other nations. All serve the GDP, be damned affordable healthcare!
The author critiqued the Capitalists, not the philosophy. He's putting the blame on the appropriate parties, and its well made. Its the ones wielding the philosophy (turned Religion) and its high-priests, who are being criticized. And they should be. In their pursuit of short term gains, and its always short term gains, to fill their pockets now, they are undermining the overall health of the US and world economies. All for short term gains. Push the numbers up every day, set new trading records everyday. More now, and be damned the consequences...
2
So not one speck of data proving this "growing appeal?"
I submit that the number of actual Socialists in the US has remained flat since the Bernie was a Yoot.
2
Or, maybe like people in The UK where the problem is much worse, people are lazier and want more stuff for free. Islington, the home of the socialist/communist Shadow PM, Jeremy Corbyn, has the highest percentage of council housing ( we here are much too polite to use the term subsidized housing). Islington also has the highest percentage of mobile phone theft in London. Teens on stolen scooters have the attitude that rich people can just get another one. The worst performing educational demographic is white males. There are many jobs unfilled because of Brexit, which was marketed as “foreigners” stealing our jobs. The jobs are there now, but people would rather have free stuff than work. That is why socialism is on the rise.
2
We now live in the era of “Super Capitalism” whose Achilles Heel is greed.
3
Would be really nice if socialists discuss how much their dreams are going to cost and how much taxes will go up.
1
@liberty
They do, but its a tricky discussion, very nuanced and doesnt play well on the current news formats, where everything is out of context, and dominated by soundbites.
So would you want pay say 5% more in payroll taxes, but not have to pay for health insurance (in multiples, Dental, general, life, catastrophic, etc) each check, and when the time comes go bankrupt because your employer didn't negotiate a better deal, or simply bought the lesser plan, and now you're under-insured, and cant afford treatments....?
And the math indicates that the 5% bump will cost you less over 5 years, factoring in deductibles, out of pocket expenses, or you not using it, because you cant afford those costs, but now a simple health issue 5 years ago, is much worse....and you're strapped for cash...??
How do you suppose these candidates can explain these nuances when they are rarely given much time on the media outlets? Or their words are taken out of context by the other candidates who are being funded by the Kochs, etc...?
They do explain the costs, but you need to dig and be interested in learning them...not have them handed to you. Or swallow dopey tag-lines, like MAGA...as being meaningful...
2
Well mIchael congrats. I see you made to the NYT. Been following you since the Guardian UK days.
Don’t blame capitalism for thelittle but loud group of commies. This is result of change in demographics and culture. Americans of past decades were raised to believe that others becoming rich didn’t make them poor. This generation believes they are owed.
Capitalist like to keep more of their money. Socialist want to keep more of others peoples money. Older generations were “ can do “ generations. This one is “you owe me” generation. Previous generations would built from nothing, whether it was car repair shop or a computer in a garage. This one is more concerned with the bees and their feelings therefore expect government to supply all their basic needs.
The day USA becomes socialist is the day America, as country, idea and ideal will end.
1
Having always thought of myself as a moderate/independent, I have about as much love for Socialism as I do laissez-faire Capitalism. But there is nothing at all which indicates that the two concepts cannot exist in a reasonably symbiotic form.
If the wealth disparity in the United States perpetuates socio-economic stratification to such an extreme degree that an individual like Donald Trump could be perceived as someone to be envied, then it's probably time to address the wealth disparity.
"If you think money can buy anything and everything, you've never had money."
3
Want to REALLY Make America Great Again?:
- bring back unions, and pensions
- strengthen & expand Obamacare
- invest in education, and infrastructure
- VOTE in November!
9
Pretty much throughout my 60 years on the planet every right wing fascist government was followed by a left wing dictatorship and vice versa, it seems to me a functioning democracy is not the rule but most certainly the exception.
This fact alone should be enough to scare the living daylights out of all Americans in the age of Trump.
1
Lenin was spirited into Russia by the Kaiser to undermine the czar. Kerensky tried to form a liberal democratic government. Lenin operated by his own Marxist rules. He was an upper class elitist. The czars were on their way to extinction. Read Dostoyes Fsky. The bolsheviks destroyed the agricultural infrastructure of Russia. Party hacks ran agriculture and infrastructure with disasterous effects.
Yo, mike. It’s me, lefty from the guardian. Pretty good but Versailles wasn’t as bad as portrayed. The Germans let inflation devalue the mark and repaid with nearly valueless money. What paved the way for ww2 is that the germans did not accept that they had been defeated because their army was still in France. That’s why Ike insisted on rolling thru Germany. This time they had to know that they had lost.
As for the main point, the Commies weren’t wrong about everything.
2
@Lefthalfbach
Yo Lefty. No, the Commies weren't. Good luck with that here.
That young person blaming "big banks" for the crisis? How foolish. "Little banks" fed the bubble too. So did the kid's parents, who were flipping homes. The kid's aunt, who lied about her income to buy a bigger house than she could afford. Their neighbor, an appraiser who was selling his judgement to the highest bidder.
Socialism relies on demagogues, and this article did nothing but promote that. The housing crisis was like all bubbles, a crisis of greed. We're all guilty. Put down your blame finger.
1
"From 1945 to 1975 when everything largely worked in Western economies — socialism’s appeal in America waned. "
Guess you forgot McCarthyism and how it suppressed the New Deal liberal radical coalition based on socialist-thinking.
1
One does not have to be a right-wing fanatic to notice the glaring, though perhaps incidental, irony in this morning's NYT. The report of a people driven to violence against their socialist rulers, in the absence of any other recourse to improve their lives, draws no discussion at all, while an opinion piece bashing capitalism attracts 300 comments and growing.
1
Excellent article and commentary,except they don't reflect the real world.We have a large percentage of our population that lack basic critical thinking,and some,sadly,basic reading and comprehension skills.This is the result of unbridled consumerism fostered by an advertising onslaught of all sorts.
TV could have been the tool to change the world for the better.
Except in too rare cases,we know how that turned out.
2
Thank you to Michael Tomasky from a 77-year-old who had to leave the Republican Party in 1988 when “liberal Republicans” in favor of the taxation and regulation of capital had just about vanished. Been voting democratic socialist since protesting the Vietnam War. Hope I can survive the planetary incineration until the new Progressives can end this new Gilded Age with a new Wilsonian progressive income tax and a rediscovered TRooseveltian wealth tax. I guess, like so many social democrats, I’m a reactionary.
2
Hoard profits, not horde profits.
"You’ve watched corporations horde profits, ..."
You forgot to mention the wars. 5,000 killed in Iraq. No final tally on Afghanistan because no one knows when it or how it ends. Capitalists like Eric Prince, founder of mercenary firm Blackwater and brother to Ed Secretary Betsy DeVos wishes that war to go on forever as do shareholders of defense firms. You know, its "good for business". Ditto for Congress and other "elected representatives". Vote for Bernie.
2
Sadly, it seems inescapable that the basic empathy for the suffering of others that is something of a moral precondition for democratic socialism is probably largely lacking in American culture. Generally, it seems that the American people are disinclined to help others, especially where those others are black, brown, Asian, of a different religion, or gay. If American voters were to vote based on their common good, socialists would win every election. As long as American value their own divisions more than their common needs, capitalism will divide and conquer.
The German welfare state was designed by Bismarck to undercut socialism and save German capitalism. It has worked well for modern Germany.
2
Mr. Tomasky is perhaps too polite to these predators, though to be fair to the wolves, they only score a caribou about 4 or 5 times per hundred chases; ask a vernture capitalst how he or she feels about investing in a 25 to 1 horse.
While we are at it, the wolves also do not get to tell the herd how fast they may sprint, where they may hide, or on which patch of tundra they may graze.
Nor do they poison their water or foul their air.
Our capitalist opressors don't rise to the level of predator and they would never make it as wolves. They've become too fat, slow, and lazy, what with right-wing governments as enablers, greasing the skids with tax breaks, cuts, and kickbacks; ecological carnage masquerading as regulatory reform; gaming the rules with shameless gerrymandering and voter supression. We must however, credit them with laser focus on what they and wolves do best: kill the weakest, slowest, sickest, and most vulnerable first.
4
You gotta love Gore Vidal's summation,
"What we have achieved in this country is socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor."
And who is largely in control of the conditions in which
"free enterprise" functions in our "free society"?
It was experienced first hand in Venezuela after Chavez won the support of an impoverished and semi-excluded majority, that had found themselves almost enslaved by a rich plutocratic minority in a wealthy oil-rich state.
The tragedy, after his election, neither side was willing to negotiate with the other and create a shared prosperous future.
Now look what they all have to live with.
Just basic fairness for all of the citizens in a wealthy country- which mandates appropriate proportionate taxation for all- is not radical redistribution.
One would like to think that we all have learned something over the years, both the wealthy and the middle-class.
But as we have heard so often of late,
"you can't fix stupid" which goes arm in arm with greed.
4
@Bruce Thanks. Gore Vidal is always on point about American culture.
1
Is it not true that the Republicans (Fox News) for years have been selling a line that goes something like, “the reason you don’t have money or a job is because of them (immigrants, people of color)”? Americans are brainwashed. Trump’s dog and pony show rallies stir that up more and more. Meanwhile, The Times’ top trending articles are about people at retirement age going bankrupt and tech companies using tax loopholes. Jeff Bezos is the wealthiest man in the world but doesn’t pay his workers a living wage (he doesn’t pay them even close to a DECENT! wage). Apple is the wealthiest corporation and yet pays no taxes and manufacturers its must-have items overseas.
Republicans and corporations are pillaging via tax cuts, deregulation, and all the rest that you outline here, Mr. Tomasky. Socialism sounds like a solid idea.
3
I don't see the "under class" moving to Socialism, but rather more the idle kids of rich Capitialists that are attending college on their parents dime.
If you read about the economic history, that has pretty much always been where the "passion" of Socialism has been. They then try to stir up the "under class" into thinking that their lives are bad because somebody else's lives are good.
Capitalism's had to deal with massive a massive influx of immigrants since the 90's. The influx helped with gdp but significantly increased the competition for low skilled positions. Coupled with outsourced production, the common worker has very little bargaining power and has to compete with a population that can severely undercut them in wages. The one's that have reaped the benefits are the big corporations, who, shockingly, pay significantly less for labor and are also the ones making significant donations to both parties. This is like 1984. You can keep saying boot production's up, but common sense says the opposite. Denying clear statistical connections is just stupidity. There's a reason why wage growth significantly declined after the eighties when migration increased to the highest levels since the end of the 19th century.
What is so sad is to see Trump’s rabid base, hurting from capitalism gone evil, misidentifying so badly the cause of their pain.
3
Capitalism has failed us. Our oceans are filled with plastics, we experience more frequent and hotter heat waves, more wildfires, more intense hurricanes, and more species go extinct and more refugees are created due to climate change with every passing year. Whoever values temporary monetary profit over the long term viability of human life on our only home - Planet Earth - is incredibly shortsighted and foolish. Time to do away with what isn’t working. Capitalism just isn’t working for our biosphere. We either change course or we perish.
1
Why No Socialism?
1919 - Industrial Workers of the World violently repressed
1948 - Communist Party USA violently repressed
2012 - Occupy Movement violently repressed
In the US, anti-capitalist movements are crushed by state violence.
That is why there is no Socialism in the USA.
2
@Red Allover
"2012 - Occupy Movement violently repressed"
Huh?
On October 25, 2011, a nation wide police attack involving the FBI, the Department of Homeland security, local police and private corporate security charged and cleared with clubs, boots, sonic bombs, helicopters etc. the Occupy sites. The sites of the protesters were levelled & their possessions destroyed. American citizens exercising their constitutional right to assemble were arrested & imprisoned en masse with great brutality.
What part of "violent repression" do you not understand?
Many conservatives are outright dismissive of socialism, despite its near universal application everywhere BUT the united states, in first world countries.
To conservatives it is as if their economies do not exist....yet they are a power house internationally.
A combination of both, some capitalism and some socialism is the best route to follow. Always remembering it is the people stupid, not corporations that should be the focus of a governments efforts.
In the US, people are often lost in the shuffle of capitalism, as if people are a raw commodity, to be traded and moved around. It is time we got back to valuing people, not money and corporations.
One major the problem the US has that could be solve by a socialist policy, a universal (single payer) healthcare system, is the fact that almost every American, who is not in the upper 1%, is one major healthcare crisis away from bankruptcy; losing everything they spent a lifetime working for, wiped away in an instant.
That is the dirty little secret of Capitalism, it is not designed to work for everybody, just those who win.
2
I suspect that this friendly advice to capitalists, like most advice to that particular segment of society, will fall on deaf ears.
Capitalism is akin to a virus. One that actually produces benefits, but if left uncontrolled will eventually completely consume its host, leading to the host's - and the virus' - demise. Unregulated capitalism isn't even capable of sustaining it's own long term survival, much less society's as a whole.
The idea of America was built upon self government, by the people and for the people, and the nexus of this idea is the ballot box. Unfortunately, capitalists have been able to influence access to the ballot box, and in the age of electronic voting, perhaps can even subvert the will of the people.
At the start of the 20th century, socialism, unionization and political change were accompanied by a fair amount of violence, bloodshed, and yes, death. Historians like to sweep that fact under the rug because it flies in the face of the idea of peaceful change via the ballot box. Hopefully everything old won't become new again.
For decades, the public has been brainwashed that government is the problem and should be so whittled down as to drown in a bathtub- Reagan started this and has been the mantra of the GOP ever since.
Reagan also vilified anyone on welfare citing the "welfare queen" example of someone who abused the system.
This was so highly effective since it got the GOP rank and file to believe the Republicans were the only fiscally responsible party that would clamp down on the so called welfare freeloaders and Dems as the tax and spend bleeding hearts that will waste your tax dollars on lazy poor people.
This brainwashing along with Citizens United allowed the rich to control the political narrative to the point where the GOP voters continue to vote against their own self interest.
This is entrenched in the GOP voter mindset to this day.
This will only change when they lose Medicare and Social Security- which is where we are heading thanks to the Trump tax cuts putting the final nails on the coffin.
Reform capitalism is the better slogan than Socialism for the Dems.
Reform capitalism will include progressive higher taxes.
In exchange for that, you get universal healthcare, free post high school training for a well paying trade or college education in exchange for 2 years of service like military or Peace Corp, decent working conditions including a livable minimum wage and a solvent Social Security system.
Most people would agree with this reform of capitalism.
2
Almost a cliche by now, but it's true: "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
The USA is not a democracy but an oligarchy. Corporations own legislators on both sides of the aisle. Their lobbyists write legislation, as they did the so-called Affordable Care Act. See Paul Street's important column in today's Truthdig. https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-american-sea-of-deception/
1
I am dismayed to see sensible liberals embrace the label "socialist". There is no dirtier word in American politics. Once you are labeled socialist in this country, except in certain small communities, your chances of election are cooked. The word cannot be rehabilitated. I know that those who accept that label simply mean public money for public goods, more equal distribution of wealth, etc., as in the European use of the word. However, the public cannot be educated as to this nuance. To the vast majority of Americans socialism = bolshevism, and that's all there is to it.
They have vilified “liberal” and “progressive.” That’s what they do. Are we supposed to keep one word ahead of them? It’s time we faced the lying bullies.
2
Hits the nail on the head. So many in this country are so afraid of helping the greater good, paying it forward, being a little in debt for a greater cause, feeding and educating children, stewarding our planet and resources, or allowing talented gardeners and maids to join us in a thriving economy that we're (with the help of blond tantrum boy and the greedy billionaires who run us like marionettes) flushing our kids' future right down the toilet. Rich people taking more is not what makes us great. Capitalism creating its Putin-like kings without a drop of noblesse oblige is not what we need.
1
It appears capitalism will not survive the death of communism-and for reasons that are intrinsic to the driving theory behind the success of capitalism itself. Simply put, capitalism has atrophied and no longer adapts because it no longer has any competition in the marketplace of ideas.
1
What Are Capitalists Thinking? Uh, we are thinking about maintaining and improving the MODERN WORLD!
Very well said. You can't yank a pendulum over to one side permanently. It's going to come back. And often violently.
The oddest thing about the right today is their utter indignation about the protestations of the Democrats.
2
People before Profits, Americans before Business, Country before Corporations, Society before Selfishness,The Greater Good before Greedy, Happiness before Have more, Empathy before Imperious, Social before Sycophant, Civility before Silliness, Reconciliation before Racism, Justice before Just Them,Equality before Equities, Sustainability before Success (at all costs), Charity before Churliness, Relationships before Religion and Cooperation before Co Option, Respect before Reject.
But for any of the above preferences, ways and means to be first before the other and be agreed upon, taken, made,chosen or followed ...what comes first and foremost BEFORE anything else, must be...
...UNITY.
That which brings closer together and makes more possible, the crossing of any Great Divide.
1
Capitalism has always been a system of winners and losers, but in the years when capitalism flourished, from the end of World War II to the start of the Reagan era, we had safety nets and cushions for those who were capitalism's losers. Reagan destroyed that with his "greed is good" era, and his assault on unions and the destruction of the pension system. It's been a slow and steady grind since them. With the hollowing out of the middle class came all of the things they once supported. For capitalism, and, I would argue, our nation to survive, we need to focus on restoring the middle class. This will come at the expense of the upper class but really, how many yachts, homes, and cars does one need? To the upper class who feels targeted, good. Be part of the solution. Pulling up the ladder and letting the masses fight it out has never worked out well. One need look no further than the French Revolution.
3
Especially since socialism has worked so well for Venezuela, Cuba and managed to distribute poverty equally in those countries for those not in the ruling elite. A long documented failure of economics.
Reductive 'isms & schisms' miss the point of what these so-called 'socialists' are advocating.
They're not trying to remake the USA as a communist country.
They're advocating for a few very specific, practical & proven policies that have made the other developed democracies much better societies than the USA.
The USA has fallen behind its peers, with terrible consequences for vast segments of its citizens.
These few so-called 'democratic socialists' are simply striving to catch us up to basics of healthcare, education & some semblance of minimum requirements that we've long pilloried as some slippery slope to Stalinism, when in fact these basics are fundamental to a properly functioning society.
2
Interesting that the author didn't bring up the fact that virtually every 'Red' state besides TX and OH receive far more money from the federal govt than they pay to the federal govt. Creating socialists is being done right under our noses in the states that supposedly want less govt. Unwinding this mess of taxing the 'Blue' states more (by eliminating SALT Deductions) and sending that money to Trump Land will be hard to do, if not impossible. Using math that a 4th grader can comprehend shows that the socialism and wealth transfer is going TO Trumplandia and not vice versa.
3
Yes to all of this. A bull's-eye. The left needs to stop whining that the economy is a disaster. It is not, and if anything is about as booming as it is safe to see. To keep saying otherwise casts liberals as out-of-touch, economically ignorant, and failing to grasp what produces the great bounty in the first place.
BUT, the grotesquely inappropriate distribution of that great bounty is an existential threat to our future. It never, never, never, never works to have the vast majorities laboring endlessly for no personal upside, while the very few become unfathomably wealthy.
All of this can addressed with relatively few policy changes. The tax cuts, obscenely disproportionate in favor of the rich, can be fixed. Investment in the social systems that enable working class Americans to prosper can be properly funded—education, transportation, early childhood services, healthcare. Those two things alone, accomplished in a booming economy, would make a sweeping difference in the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans.
Just stop saying the economy is bad. If you go carryin' pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow.
1
"The failures of Keynesianism in the 1970s smoothed the path for supply-side economics."
------------------------------------------
What failures? Keynes is the greatest economist ever. The 1960-70s were mired in the Vietnam War, inflation and OPEC's Oil embargo. The 1973-74 Oil cartel's increase in Oil prices - from $3 to $12 per barrel, rattled the western world's economies that were dependent on oil. High inflation engulfed the world.
Arthur Laffer, supply-side economist, provided the voodoo narrative that suited President Reagan's (1981-89) low tax (high debt) approach to recovery: Reaganomics.
Inflation policy reduction was engineered by FED Chair Paul Volker (1979-87), who later (2009-2011) became chair under Obama of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board - following the Financial Crisis (2007-08).
Secular economic patterns were disrupted, stagnant "real" growth and high inflation resulted. Jimmy Carter was blamed and denied 2nd term..
Keynes provided two key policy solutions that resolved the Great Depression by leveraging fiscal policy to spur growth and employment, that inspired FDR's New Deal.
The second contribution that JMK engineered was global consensus at the 1944 conference of world financial leaders - at Bretton Woods, NH. He was instrumental in developing the rationale for a new currency/gold exchange rates that survived until 1971.
Keyes died 1946. He is hardly responsible for events that occurred 25 years since the Bretton Woods Conference.
1
The best way to describe America today is feudalism. Forget capitalism vs socialism - neither system actually exists in its pure form and ever has. While the forces are global, the USA's big flaw is that the system is utterly corrupted and thus gets worse with each new generation, where the vast majority is fighting over an ever-smaller slice of the pie. And the more education and science deteriorates, the easier it will be to conceal this fact.
1
I just returned from a week in Russia where Putin enjoys a legimate 70% approval rating. When it comes to goverance and crony capitalism (Oligarchs), we are moving closer to them every day.
2
Who said there is a growing appeal for socialism? That usually happens when there's high unemployment and a lack of basic services. Unemployment is near record lows, minority unemployment is at record lows, and the economy is humming. So one socialist wins a primary, and the country is turning? Not surprising, but you're pushing a fictional narrative.
When it comes to politics, labels are necessary, so we need terms like socialism and capitalism. However the world does not operate in binary fashion, nature is not black and white, nature is statistical and thus so must be our politics, accordingly our labels need adjusting. The mission of socialism is to provide the basics of life to all, and in so doing, to give people a chance to be happy. The UN's Happiness Report for 2018, shows the nations at the top of the list are Finland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the usual bunch, while the U.S. has slipped from 14th to 18th. Socialism clearly wins out when it comes to happiness. On the other hand it does take money to provide roads, schools, hospitals, those necessities for happiness, and capitalism has shown some success as a money generator. These days to generate money it is necessary to develop one's technology and one's corporate structures. So it is my conclusion that we need a little of each, socialism and capitalism, and so we need labels which quantify our degrees of isms. By my unscientific calculations I would say the mixture in the U.S. today is capitalism90%, socialism10%, but I would like to see it more like capitalism10%, socialism90%.
Capitalism vs Socialism" is not a religious war.
Yes--religions are ideologies too, even political ones--they all aim at theocracy.
Yes--Socialism (even Communism) was LIKE the religion of the USSR. Religions market blind brand loyalty--called FAITH--also fear and hatred for the competition--aiming at totalitarianism. Thus USSRism, omitting the "Democratic" in "Democratic Socialism" (DS).
But DS is not the enemy of "Americanism". On the contrary it respects the Constitution's hierarchy, procedures, separation of powers and diffused authority-- as well as honest elections. It aims at government FOR common people.
Capitalism is not Americanism. That's hyperbole, exaggerated by contrast to USSRism.
The USA has ALWAYS been a mixed economy--Louisiana Purchase and "Seward's Folly"(Alaska) are a small part of public ownership of "means of production".
What isn't a "means of production"? Obviously all public utilities and services are--civil engineering and civil service.
Capitalism emphasizes private ownership and control, spinning government as an evil. But the "free market" is free-from law and logic--allowing fake news to be sold as reality. Capitalism was ALWAYS a creation of law--property tax and labor law.
Democratic Socialism emphasizes public utilities and infrastructure--civil engineering and service--seeking upgrades to health care, education pollution control. And the best mix of private and public.
Ask what America (not Capitalists) can do for you!
Let's see the economy is doing great, more people working with unemployment near all time lows. Wages increasing and anyone willing to work sees their prospects over time improving. I guess capitalists are thinking these are good times, as do the folk working for us. We are also thinking the socialists are desperate to make any argument, no matter how silly, to make it appear as if the times are not as good as they are.
Conservatives want unbridled capitalism, and they mean to have it. So you rip up the social net so people are looking at starvation and poverty, tamp down wages for everyone else, take away their health care, disenfranchise voters through voter suppression laws and rigged elections, set up an aristocracy based on inherited wealth, and then give the peasants all the guns they want.
What could go wrong?
2
Julie R that was brilliant.
What the 1% and the Republicans have forgotten is that Capitalism needs consumers. Both are doing all they can to kill the consumers with the burden of the tax breaks for the rich falling on the rest, not creating new jobs and destroying our education system. Throw in no real wage increases for decades and they are creating a disaster.
Remember Henry Ford wanted everyone in his factory to own a Model T. He knew that without demand for his cars he would go broke. This group doesn’t know this or more importantly doesn’t care. Grab it while you can is there philosophy.
Maybe not now but soon there will be a confluence of ideas and circumstances and heads will roll.
2
Most Scandinavian nations actually have a more free private sector than the US. Even the Denmark Prime Minister wants American socialists to stop calling his nation Socialist. Government safety net doesn’t make a nation a socialist one. Even a nation with government spending of 50% gdp gets that.
2
This article is spot on!! The present New Gilded Age I like to refer to as ‘Capitalism Gone Wild!’ One main problem has been this turn against workers by big corporations. There was a time when a person could work 30 years for a company and retire on a fairly nice income, often even with health benefits! Imagine that!! If you want health benefits in retirement today then you better work for the US government. There is also this nefarious turn towards greed and corporate profits as epitomized by the infamous Gordon Gecko phrase: “Greed is good.” Since when is greed really good? The Uber Rich seem to think it’s just fine to flaunt 5 houses and six yachts. Wouldn’t three houses and even one yacht be plenty for most people? Like beyond their wildest dreams? Yet if you do the math, there is plenty of money so that every American could have such a life. Imagine that! What irks even fairly well off Americans is this ridiculous chasm in wealth between the 1% and everyone else. It is exactly the same problem that brought down the Old Gilded Age: when is enough money enough?!
1
From the article: "The kind of capitalism this country has been practicing for all these years has failed most people."
That's the central fact of the matter. Many middle class Americans have realized that the economic system is rigged against them. With globalization leading to the exportation of American jobs and industries to low wage countries and the related decline of labor unions combined with exorbitant and rising costs of virtually everything a family needs, from housing to health care to education, many working Americans are under extreme economic duress even as the economy, we are told, is booming. Meanwhile we see the rich get richer as the republicans bless them with new tax cuts for no particular reason other than to make their privileged lives a little easier. After all, they and their passive incomes are the "job creators" and we, the workers, are the "takers". It's infuriating, but it shouldn't be a surprise. Our country is becoming the kind of country the republicans have always wanted it to be: one in which the wealthy can buy politicians to set policy so that the government and the economy serves them first and last.
1
Capitalism per se is not really the problem. It's the way we practice capitalism. I believe "predatory capitalism" is the more apt "brand" of capitalism we are being crushed by today, starting with Reagan and adopted by essentially every President and congress since. The average CEO of one of the largest 1000 companies made about 25 times the wages of their average employee. Today that same number is about 400 times. The system today is so rigged as to give the corporate world the ability to pick every penny from your pocket, pay little to no taxes and then make them look good when they buy back stock in order to raise stock value and make shareholders and themselves financially happy while doing nothing for employees, their communities, customers or even the true long term value for all stakeholders, including shareholders.
Predatory capitalism is destroying communities and the well being of all life and the natural world. Trump and his corrupt cronies are a perfect example of this kind of thinking - "it's all for me, scre everyone else."
Michael T. is right on, the money. This kind of dog-eat-dog capitalism will be its downfall. Free market fundamentalism and predatory capitalism is a dead end road - literally.
318
@EWH How much does the average pro athlete make compared to the guy taking tickets at the gate? And how much does a Hollywood star earn relative to a set dresser? How come its always the CEOs you liberals choose to pick on?
@EWH - Good points, thanks. Maybe in the bigger picture, this predatory capitalism is just the latest cover under which the Greediest and Neediest among us plot to get more, more, and more? Those with insatiable Black Holes of desire have appeared throughout history and amassed enormous money-pits to the detriment of Others. They've done so via monarchy, predatory capitalism, dictatorship, theocracy, communism. History is rife with communities that have imploded when the top got too heavy with filthy lucre - the Incas, Egyptians, Romans, French, Brits. And now, apparently, the Land of The Free?
Sadly, nothing new here. Lessons will be repeated till learned.
2
@EWH
Preditory capitalism is, essentially, capitalism without sane, reasonable regulations. In other words, unfettered capitalism is pure hell for the majority of a country's citizens. Unfettered capitalism is a giant game of Monopoly. The Predators are well advised to look into their own mirrors; no country's citizens have ever tolerated Predators forever.
3
The author has a point, but from a foreigner's point of view, American socialists have no idea what socialism is really about. Despite the economic discrepancy between the rich and the poor, the absolute economic status of most Americans is much higher than that of the rest of the world. I have met some Amercian socialists who live in nice rent-controlled apartments of the Upper West of Manhattan. I know some American socilaists who cannot bear even the tiny government interruption with their freedom. Many American socialists do not know what it is to lose freedom under a socialist system. Many American socialists talk about socialism or even communism while they drink beer in nice restaurants listening to jazz music. Many American socialists like Chomsky are affiliated with private universities the average tuition of which is above $50,000 per year.
I agree with the author that many money-avaricious capitalists helped the emergence of socialism in the U.S. these days. But it is also the only-talking, ignorant American socialists who contributed to the present mess. The Trump presidency is made possible both by avaricious capitalists and ignorant socialists of the U.S. I do not trust either of them. They are all behind the world standard.
92
@Sunny-Sunny, socialism and communism are not the same thing. I've lived in Canada and Denmark which are both socialist countries and there you indeed are free to drink wine in restaurants while listening to jazz if you want to.
The people who vilify socialism are typically people who want to hoard the wealth and resourced to themselves.
2
@Sunny When doing something, there's always the opportunity to do it wrong. Here in the 'States, we're supposed to be governed by democracy, but it's being done wrong because it's largely controlled by wealthy lobbying efforts, wealthy people donating to elect the politicians they want, a la citizens united, and gerrymandering. Our so-called ignorant socialists don't want the spoiled socialism you speak of in your examples of how socialism goes wrong. They also don't want the democracy we have now, I would imagine. When something is executed wrong, that doesn't make what they try to do wrong. It's their execution that has failed.
@Sunny The fact that you refer to socialists as "ignorant" tells us all we need to know about your political viewpoint, which is fast becoming recognised as counterproductive and outdated.
Didn't Solzhenitsyn chronicle the final chapters to this story? Not sure why it remains so appealing to our cultural Marxists--collective farms and tractor factories pretty much tell the tale. I guess the collective heart will remain forever in love with the fantasy-cum-dystopia.
2
With all due respect to the author- I’m unsure if your thesis has merit or the items you use to support it- really have parallels. You named named other governments, Russian and French, which were not capitalist and then drew a parallel to current times. You made a sweeping statement that says younger Americans don’t have reason to be optimistic of the future- despite historically low unemployment. You made a claim that a college education is necessary for success; it is not. I’d make the argument- good training is. I know this is an opinion piece, but golly, the NYT should be chastized for allowing such malarkey to be published. I’m ok with a heated debate but not when false equivalencies are dished out as if they are well-reasoned and referenced opinion.
''Democratic socialism'' is why Russia took the last century off and is now worse off economically & socially than any of the other principals in either World Wars One or Two.
You can never be at peace in a country without an ironclad justice system, and you can never have that when the central government is a one-man operation.
Yet today, we already see Democrats working queitly toard a day when we don't ''need'' elections here. That's the ultimate solution when nobody buys your story any more.
The ultimate burn for the Dems is the Walk Away that young black and Latino Americans are doing as they realize how recklessly their loyalties were abused by Democrat leaders.
1
Mr. Tomasky writes, "if you’re a capitalist, you’d better try to understand it, too — and do something to address the very legitimate grievances that propelled it” as a warning to the monied class.
Hmmm. Not gonna happen.
Not when you can have average CEO pay at 271 times that of the average worker. Not when you can pass your wealth to your offspring without taxes. Not when you can buy elections as readily as you buy companies. Not when you can rely on foreign help in subverting democracy. Not when you can have an orange-hued pitchman keep the brown-hued people away from the ballot box. Not when you can profit from a corporate-induced drug epidemic that kills thousands each year. Not when you can still make money, a lot of money, by manipulating money and exploiting college students and poor people. Not when the ethos is you can grab all you can, then head for your private island.
As you say, "I could go on like this for 20 paragraphs.” Make that 200 for the rest of us.
The system is rigged to perpetuate itself. Until it isn’t.
1
Socialism was viable in the early 20th century because there didn't seem to be any alternative to capitalism, predatory as it was, back then. But with the Soviet Union's conquest of Nazi Germany it was no longer possible to ignore the fact that socialism had taken a backward, impoverished monarchical country and turned it into an industrial powerhouse while at the same time providing universal education and health care, equal rights for women, and a rising standard of living for industrial workers.
Capitalism had to compete with all that and it did so by creating strong welfare states in Europe and by at least tempering its rapacity in the US.
But the the USSR collapsed, and we went right back to "sauve qui peut."
It's a dog eat dogfood world. And it will remain one as long as the Davosians have the power.
Our capitalist system is working very well. We invest in things that can make money and discard those that don't. That's why we abandon the old, sick, dumb, children ect. People like Trump and pals ate trying to bring back the early 1900s where the top made money on the backs of workers and then threw them away when they wore out.
1
This piece speaks to the core problem facing the West right now: Greed. The wealthy are no longer willing to share any portion of the money they create, depriving society of the benefits of expanding financial wealth. Having lots of money in a society where roads, bridges, dams, and other infrastructure is crumbling is not the same as enjoying wealth when the trains run on time, schools are successful in teaching reading and writing, and people have access to health care.
The refusal to recognize the importance of people in making society work results in society breaking down. We are a community, we have to live together, get along with each other, and share. Hoarding wealth makes it worthless, just numbers in a computer. Sharing wealth creates more wealth, as people invest in their lives. Denying people access to wealth means removing hope, loyalty, and pride from our lives.
Capitalism is destroying the people it needs in order for consumerism to work, forcing them to spend all their money on survival, with nothing left for leisure and luxury. Debt has strangled the future for many, denying them the chance to enjoy the things their parents took for granted.
We claim to be creating enormous wealth, yet there are few signs of it. None of that wealth is being invested in making people's lives better, so why struggle when it brings no reward?
1
It's hardly only 28 year olds. Those of us who grew up in the Fifties and Sixties were generally still privy to a form of small-business capitalism that entrained successful businesses to the satisfaction of their customers. But expecting corporate Capitalists to look in the mirror and truly perceive something meaningful would require, in addition, a sense of ethics (justice, if you like), in order to recognize that fair value given for hard-earned dollars spent is no longer a particularly relevant parameter in their worldview. That ethos has been supplanted by product mediocrity and advertising-driven obsolescence in pursuit of that holy-of-holies, the quarterly profit report.
2
Those of us who've spent a lot of time in Scandinavia and are familiar with Nordic culture are not afraid of fettered capitalism or strong social programs. We know how vibrant an environment for business a city like Copenhagen can be.
But we also know that countries like Denmark, even with their strong tax base, have a stock market; people own businesses; government isn't controlling all aspect of industry. So when the Nordic model is held up, it's important to remember that it's a non-Darwinian version of capitalism, one which tries to create a more egalitarian state, but still capitalism.
Blindly embracing "socialism" as a panacea is a losing proposition - but look to the Nordic model for the hybrid that will stop profits from simply going only to the wealthy and stop the distribution of all wealth upward. Look to it as a template for taking care of your citizens with progressive taxes.
4
Keynesianism did fail in the ‘70s. That’s a myth. A pesky thing called fossil fuel from the Middle East caused the main problem — one we should have solved way back then by getting off fossil fuel altogether.
3
When ANY of America’s new generation of democratic socialists acknowledges that all the things they are proposing will require massive tax increases on not just the rich but the middle class, they will have my attention and respect.
Middle class people in Scandinavia enjoy a lot of benefits, but they pay for them via taxes that dwarf those of their American counterparts. Is it a good deal? I don’t know. But one thing is certain, it is not all paid for by a magical cohort of “millionaires and billionaires.”
Henry Ford realized that by paying his workers more they would be able to buy more (including his cars). Modern capitalism has moved in exactly the opposite direction. Levels of pay and benefits have deteriorated so much over the years that the most basic level of living is all most people can afford. The only thing that matters to modern capitalists is maximizing profit and creating ever greater levels of profit each quarter. This can't go on forever, it's just a giant squeeze play with very few winners. The back lash is obvious and Mr. Trump capitalized on that to win the presidency (ugh!).
2
There's plenty to dislike about the way capitalism works in this, and other countries but that doesn't make imposing a socialist system the answer. Notably, today's 28 year old was born just as the Soviet Union was collapsing and eastern European countries were being freed from its dominance. She may have seen negative developments in our economy over the last 3 decades (as well as positive ones not mentioned in the article) but is too young to have witnessed the tyranny of self-described democratic socialist governments, that is, if current examples like Venezuela are ignored. The term is an oxymoron. Government control of economic like is inevitably opposed by productive and entrepreneurial segments of the population, which leads to a reactive cycle of escalation of controls by the ruling circle. Democracy is not possible under such a system - only criminalization of dissent. If the current system is less than satisfactory, we can try fixing it through regulation, as has been done in the past, or come up with really new ideas. Let's not repeat the mistakes that have been so amply demonstrated by history.
What is not even mentioned is stress. The capitalist message is always the same: if you work hard, you'll get ahead -- and if you're not getting ahead, clearly you're not working hard. That is a stress inducing message! Most 28 year olds live a life that is infused with expectation, disappointment and, ultimately, stress. Their degrees, if they have them, only add to their monthly debt load. They fear any event that might deliver them to a hospital -- especially in a bankrupting ambulance. If they live in any major American city, they fear being one paycheck from destitution and joining the rows and rows of homeless, camping on concrete, in any enclave they can find. This overload of anxiety leads to addiction. Alcohol, opiates and yes -- anti-depressants. Americans eat them like Tic Tacs. The Democratic Socialist is only trying to point out: life doesn't have to be so hard. As a society, we have the means to provide more support. Government can be useful and deliver services that make life more manageable and that are more sensibly organized collectively: health care, child care, education. The only thing American Capitalists want to provide is the Right to Make Money. And if you can get into that club, you might have money, but along the edges, there's a lot of carnage.
2
i agree. during our times of greatest prosperity, our country's model has been "policed free markets", not purely private enterprise.
among the causes of the growing antipathy toward "capitalism" has been the steep decline in antitrust enforcement, which has been bi-partisan, but reinforced by narrowly focused economics.
antitrust, popularized by republicans sen. sherman and teddy roosevelt, is not just about "economics"--it plainly has a political and social underpinning, which has been demeaned and forgotten. allowing more and more mega-mergers has promoted the wealth of dealmakers and others while widening the wealth and income gaps in this country.
a wise presidential candidate in 2020 would create a vibrant "return to antitrust enforcement" plank, in support of all of our "stakeholders".
2
So it's the fault of capitalists that Democrats have left-turn marched off a cliff in a mass suicide pact?
Maybe not "fault". Seems more like a sinister plan coming to fruition.
@Tourbillon
Not sure how "maybe people shouldn't die or go bankrupt when they get sick" strikes you as a "mass suicide pact."
And why would you want a one-sided system in the first place?
Do what most successful western socialist states do. Take the best of both worlds.
3
You ask what the newest political It-Girl socialist has seen in her 28 years. In my 56 years, 25 of which is as an employer, I’ve seen increasing laziness, sense of entitlement, delayed adulthood, ridiculous conflagration of work and bliss, drug abuse, and mental illness in every successive generation. But, I do agree that if you’re afflicted with the above, socialism is a pretty good deal. Right up until there’s no one left to pull the wagon anyway.
2
@LHP
Love it when the beneficiaries of government programs pull the ladder up after themselves and blame the folks who can't reach the bottom rung for not being taller.
2
@LHP
Drug abuse was much worse in the 1970s.
Your comment reeks of, "These kids today. When I was a kid, I walked to school in the freezing rain. And it was uphill both ways."
2
@LHP. I am 63 and I too have been an employer the last 25 years. You are hiring the wrong people. Work a little harder to find better candidates. Maybe pay a little more. Train a little better. Listen a little closer. The writer is on target.
5
Keynesian economics didn't fail. Turning to the rich, it was replaced by trickle-down (supply-side) economics which has failed.
5
Worried? They are not worried.
Not surprisingly, those who freak out about Democratic Socialism and draw comparisons to the Soviet Union, need to keep this in mind: there was no capitalism in Russia when it fell to the Soviets in 1917. No capitalism; I repeat - none; only some peasants and some nomads.
Read Armand Hammer's biography, "Hammer". Hammer (who later became CEO of Occidental Petroleum), was in the early 20's a young medical school graduate. An American citizen, born of Russian Jewish heritage Hammer, with $100,000 of medical equipment in tow, traveled to Russia in hopes of treating the Russians who were starving in the Urals.
As fate would have it, months later he is face to face with Lenin. Lenin thanks him for coming to assist, but readily assures the young Hammer that he does not really need his expertise as a doctor from America. Hammer is floored.
Lenin then goes on to talk excitedly about Thomas Edison and Henry Ford and what they had accomplished. Lenin needed American capital and - more importantly - American capitalism and what it could bring to Russia.
What does Hammer do? He goes back to Dearborn, Michigan and signs up as the first Ford dealership in the Soviet Union. Even Lenin knew that his version of a socialist state was of no use without capitalism, and American capital.
Dividing Americans into “socialist” and “capitalist” camps only empowers Trump by polarizing broad social priorities which have never been mutually exclusive in practice.
What American wants to see the US Postal Service disappear, to see emergency patients without a valid credit card tossed onto the street, to see public infrastructure under the control (and repair) of private business? Those must be the “capitalists”.
And in this corner - what American wants to see all able-bodied Americans guaranteed a source of income (whether they choose to work or not), to tax all businesses at a rate which will make them unable to compete? Those must be the “socialists”.
Please. If the author wants to make a valid distinction between two social movements, he can stop using a Soviet-era Communist poster (mysteriously, with labels in English) to represent Socialism. “Communism” vs. “Socialism” - look it up.
2
Socialism? Read the theories or examine the product on display. One is near-by: Venezuela. Visit, (try to) shop, enjoy talking to people, draw your own conclusion.
2
The wolves are frightening the sheep for some reason! Time for the wolves to ask themselves some hard questions.
I couldn't agree more with this column. It is all about perception and our youngest generations have seen the effects of what some have termed 'vulture capitalism'. Two defining Trump era events have only hastened this movement to new levels of interest.
First, the GOP's complete inability to replace and repeal (supposedly with something better than the ACA) has left many in each generation feeling the vulnerabilities about their healthcare needs. The same feelings they had prior to the passage of the ACA.
Second, the decadent Trump tax cuts which primarily help the top 1% and the corporate capitalists added $1.5 trillion in debt our youngest generations, who now will have the burden of paying for it over the years.
While vulture capitalism has been well-known for decades, the Trump/GOP alliance of supporting primarily the wealthy while passing on additional debt to all taxpayers is enough to drive anyone to take a long hard look at Democratic Socialism as a better answer for the American public.
2
It's not so much about what anyone can create anymore, financial managers now dominate the US economy. The more costs (people and their benefits) you can rapidly cut, the more millions you will rake in. If you are a CEO making twenty million a year and want a outrageous fifty million dollar bonus, merge with somebody so you can justify quickly firing ten thousand people. Don't retrain or re assign them, that takes effort and will jeopardize your blood-money bonus. Remember to spend lavishly on lawmakers too, in order to make it as easy as possible to escape your pension obligations and crush any hint of a union. Be proud that you saved your fellow millionaires a fortune in taxes with the clever offshore address your finance guys set up. Pure genius. Just know that the masses will eventually figure things out and remember who you are. Donald Trump was only a misdirected first salvo from the average worker. Subsequent generations know the Trumpified GOP is really just the same old greedy and bigoted wolf dressed in populist sheep's clothing. In a world where the rich and powerful decided to so lavishly reward the most ruthless enemies of labor, the real backlash will arrive much faster than you think.
4
Right On! And we can look at countries like, say Venezuela, to show us how well off we could be under socialism. The author would do well to first define what he means by socialism and capitalism... and maybe market driven economies.
Bill
@Bill W And we can look at countries Argentina, after implementing the capitalistic Washington Consensus ideas, opening markets after decades, and ending with a country with a hyperinflation crisis.
You will always find at least one example to scare people, from one side or the other.
And you missed the main message. The capitalism of the 40s and 50s is NOT today capitalism, particularly for workers. It does not work for them. So why keep doing the same stuff? "Let's try something new!" becomes a battle-cry.
2
@Bill W
Bill: Venezuela has issues, to be sure. But if you're going to hold its faults against us, you have to admit Norway is a pretty pleasant place to both live and do business.
(I won't even try to convince you a lot of V's troubles have more to do with a concerted effort by capitalist countries to bully it into accepting "market reforms.")
2
A minority of American capitalists get it and are on board with your mesage. Warren Buffet wants to pay more taxes than his secretary! A majority, who will never, ever read this or anything like it, would have no idea what you are talking about.
Fortunately there is an answer, in English in the lower left of the poster. We get to vote! An important election in barely 90 days and another two years later. Liberals and moderates are isolated in ghettos (many gilded), gerrymandered, and have their votes suppressed. But they are a solid majority and with the appropriate investment of money and shoe leather we can Make America Great Again, starting with the retirement of many Republican Reps and Senators and emphatically with the dethroning of the con man.
Dan Kravitz
3
Things are going to change, one way or the other. It's just a question if they are changed voluntarily or not.
Companies can, and should, pay their workers better. Full-time work, perhaps with some overtime, should provide at least a living wage along with benefits like healthcare coverage. A college or trade-school education should be affordable for all, and not just by taking on mountains of debt. This is doable, if only our leaders have the political will and courage to make it so.
However one area that I would imagine will remain difficult to control is housing affordability. The price of housing is ultimately set by supply and demand, where the former is often artificially restricted by zoning and other factors, making the price higher than it would otherwise be. Additionally, the notion of houses as an investment, or even as a security, has resulted in much higher housing costs than in periods before, where houses were just a place to live.
One of the main issues with housing affordability is that when supply is restricted, it's not uncommon to see workers income gains disproportionately eaten up by rent increases or house price increases. However, rent control does not appear to actually address the issue. Perhaps less restrictive zoning, and more supply (whether houses in the suburbs or rental apartments in cities) is probably the best answer
1
Capitalism generates more wealth than any other system. Redistribution is government’s job. Scrapping capitalism is flushing money down the drain. You should improve government instead.
1
@michjas Excellent point. The issues people are having are largely failures of government.
You allow yourself two sentences to say you have mixed feelings about this “socialism boomlet,” but every other sentence speaks otherwise. Your “mixed feelings” are probably well-placed, though, given the Democrats chronic and pathetic inability to play politics to their advantage.
1
It is not capitalism. Oh sure, capital is essential in this game. But this game is rigged. As such it is not capitalism. "Free markets" also implies "fair markets".
Really now, if Bezos were worth $50 billion instead of $150 billion, would his world be any different? If Apple were worth $100 billion instead of $1000 billion (trillion) would they be less innovative? No.
On the other hand, if the minimum wage (i.e., maximum wage for most people) was also a "live-able" wage, life would be much better for tens of millions.
What is happening now is a deliberate power grab by and for the 1%, who hope to make it permanent and hereditary.
3
Actually, Socialism is on the wane worldwide, even in Socialist countries where the benefits of free markets and private enterprise are making a comeback. Even Cuba is turning slowly towards entrepreneurship. Vietnam could teach us a thing or two about capitalist culture. So the very premise of this opinion piece is wrong I believe. It is socialism that is morphing into capitalism not the other way around.
2
Let’s call our economic policy north European. A relative free market with strong social welfare (childcare, healthcare for all, free public schools and college.
Interesting article, and one I largely agree with.
One omission, which I've noticed in other articles sympathetic to the "leftward lurch," however: morality (or: humaneness).
The simple glaring obvious truth that I can't imagine anyone who's honest with themselves seeing is that the trend of the past 40 years is clearly towards an immoral and inhumane society. We see it in Republican contortions necessary to square "Christian faith" with moral obscenities so integral to their preferred system of organizing the economy.
We see it in hysteria whenever someone like AOC manages to slip through the cracks with a relatively unfiltered message that we have it within our power to create a society less unpleasant for the vast majority of us to live within. What she and others are suggesting is that we might be able to live in a more humane world.
I agree with the many other commentators who suggest the choice between capitalism and socialism is a false one, and with those who point out the mixed economy of the postwar era seemed to strike a good balance (for white men, at least) and provides a model of sorts for how we might begin to move towards a system that makes more sense.
But for any of this to happen, I think a necessary condition has to be met: we have to agree human welfare is more important than growth, or efficiency, or innovation, or [insert buzzword]. We have to agree we want to live in a moral and humane society.
I'm not sure we've got it in us, but I hope we do.
2
Bravo, Mr. Tomasky, for your insights on today's capitalism.
Over the past thirty years wages for workers have fallen.
It seems that corporations want to do stock buy backs for shareholders and make sure that large investors get richer.
I am not surprised by young people finding socialism appealing especially if they read or travel to the Scandinavian countries. In Sweden, Denmark and Norway there is a strong social safety net. They pay high taxes for a much higher standard of living compared to the U.S. Young people today see the lie to each generation having a better life. They are drowning in student loans or working for minimum wages. The chances for another "revolution" occurring in the future are increasing because of wage inequality, government paralysis and unending greed between Wall Street and the super rich.
2
First, the Democratic socialists should be distinguished from "socialism." Socialism is about worker control and abolishing private ownership of the means of production. There is not a single candidate calling for that. Democratic Socialists are perhaps slightly to the left of New Deal Democrats, but they are not much different. The media needs to get that straight. They are not a revolutionary group, like a socialist would be. They want to make capitalism more workable for more people. BIG difference. Second, Tomasky points to the golden era of American capitalism post WWII to roughly the the early 1970s as if that is something that could happen again. This was a golden era for some--it excluded women, blacks, and other minorities, and there was a large poor underclass. Also it was only a "golden era" because every other major capitalist country was destroyed in WWII. The reality is that capitalism creates a permanent underclass, and that is what true socialists argue and so demand an alternative system. The past 40 years has been a result indeed a result of class warfare--but isn't that what capitalism is really about?
4
@Bret: "The past 40 years has been a result ... of class warfare"
Yes, indeed.
"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."
- Warren Buffett (one of the most successful capitalists ever)
2
@Bret
It's important to recognize that people like AOC and vast majority of DSA folks, regardless of where they land on the capitalist-socialist spectrum, see radical inclusiveness as part of the platform.
In fact, as probably the most consistently "capitalist" member of my DSA chapter, I've been surprised at how actually-socialist the organization is. At the national level, the goal really is a lot closer to your definition than it is to scandinavian capitalism.
Those incomes have shot to the heavens. They will only keep climbing as the regulations on the financial industry decreases. Considering the Tax Cut for the wealthy, and the ever increasing debt, and deregulation, I do wish to know how soon before the repeat of the 2008 crisis. And, more importantly, how can we possibly afford the enormous increase to the already staggering safety net for the wealthy as would be required in yet another bail out?
2
smart capitalists would leave wages high enough for people to have decent lives -- instead of taking every crumb
walmart employees need food stamps to eat. this is deliberate. this is wrong.
4
What an eye-catching, alarming graphic.
And what tepid commentary.
Capitalists should "Do something"?
Mega-fatcats & offshoring hyper-profiteering corps will do nothing but exploit loopholes, buy politicians & policies to further their cornering of all the money, yada yada, unless you Make Them!
You didn't address a single common-sense policy provision advanced by Bernie's platform.
This muttering of cliched bromides that the monied HRC wing of democrats always trots out about 'socialists', & the canard that they're 'bad for democrats' & won't win elections', etc.
This is the typical refusal to admit that Bernie came darn near winning the primary against Hillary, with none of the vast wall street wealth lavished on Hillary. And he would likely have won against Trump.
The 'democratic socialists' (as they unfortunately call themselves), are not reason to drag out the blazing 'hammer & sickle' straw-man communist graphics.
They're talking about basic stuff every other developed democracy provides.
Does it work, does it improve society & make a happy, healthy nations of educated people?
Look at the latest World Happiness Report's top 3 happiest nations:
#1: Finland
#2: Norway
#3: Denmark
Where is the USA in this report?
#18: Eighteenth!
(& growing more ornery by the hour it seems)
What is it about the happy societies that makes them different?
Maybe it has something to do with... Health Care, Education, etc, you know, all those 'crazy Bernie' ideas.
5
Comparing a country of almost 400 million to people to countries that do not have populations of over 10 million is not a rational comparison. Furthermore the countries you listed rose to prominence based off periods of unrestricted commerce as well as having vast resources for a small population.
1
@P
That doesn't mean we can't learn from them. Why don't you want people to have healthcare or decent wages?
@TldrThe problem with the U.S. citizen is that they are ignorant. Are Finland, Norway, and Denmark socialist countries? Well, their capitalist systems are different from the U.S. capitalist systems, but their economic systems are totally capitalistic. The only difference is that their capitalism is supported by much better safety-nets such as universal health care, but they are not socialist countries at all. Indeed, it is actually Bernie who helped Trump get elected.
1
Mr. Tomasky, I usually love your writing, but this sentence "by 2021 we could wake up and see that it’s been a disaster for Democrats." was an unnecessary downer. When the other side is as all-in for their crazy causes as they are, liberals should do away with caveats. Trying for evenhandedness and hedging your predictions drains urgency and force out of your writing.
2
Great article, but you forgot to add: "And then people wonder how we got Trump??"
And there's no need for these Crony Capitalists to look in the mirror, when they've got the Mainstream Media doing round-the-clock coverage of Trump, Russia, and Stormy.
2
The failure of people of all political stripes to see what is right in front of their noses continues to amaze me. Thank you Michael for, once again, pointing out that there is an elephant in the room.
Resurgent predatory capitalism did not come out of thin air. Right wing think tanks, phony academic analysis (George Mason University anyone?), books masquerading as objective analysis (former CIA agent Charles Murray's Losing Ground and his other nonsense comes immediately to mind) all backed by massive amounts of money from mostly inherited wealth (Koch, Olin,Scaife ect.) which has now taken over campaign finance to boot, and enabled by an unthinking corporatist media and a careerist meritocracy. A big mess that brought us Trump and is unlikely to get better easily. So what will it be,
Fascism, revolution, or a new New Deal? One can only hope.
1
I think the average American has a hard time differentiating between Marxism, Communism, Socialism, etc. It is all communism and all is bad! I have lost many conservative friends over the years from just saying that perhaps Jesus is the most famous socialist in Christianity!
“someone who lost a job or even HIS house,“
So no “HERs” loss their home in the financially meltdown of 2008?
1
The graphic illustrating this article implies that there is no middle ground between obsequious deference to the blind, uncaring corporation “persons” and violent revolution, between pagan worship of “the Invisible Hand of the free market” and total social collapse.
Our so-called “Democrat socialists” are in fact capitalists, fully supporting the capitalist economy, but wishing for slightly more governmental oversight of the behemoth corporate “persons” that are making life a misery for so many Americans.
1
I work as a writer in Hollywood. I make good but not crazy good money. And I pay my taxes without any accounting trickery involved. These are the values I was raised with and will always adhere to. I worked hard to get where I am and I work quite hard for the money. But I keep any greed impulses in check and don't feel any need to rise any higher than I already have.
But sadly, I interact with studio chiefs whose outlandish pay days are funded by willing shareholders--the vast majority of whom hail from the top ten--and most likely, top one percent. The rich are getting richer and this has become a passively accepted reality in the culture. People see no possibility of somehow putting the greed of their fellow citizens in check.
We live in an unethical--make that, cheating--culture. I can recall when a CEO made a factor of 40 times what the lowest paid assistant might have then made--but that was 1971. But 2011, four decades hence, that factor went from 40 to 1,000 times. I also recall the heroic Medtronic CEO Bill George who shared his exorbitant bonus with employees and railed over the idea that any CEO should earn more than a million dollar annual salary. Such a quaint notion.
The have's have far too much. The have not's are multiplying. It is time to social engineer a fix to our late stage capitalism--or suffer violent repercussions after a "let the eat cake" episode--probably involving someone like Mnuchin's wife--spawns a random violent flare-up or worse.
3
Every once-in-awhile you get an inkling you’ve done something right as a parent. My four Millennials are 1) chemist 2) Epic software specialist 3) economic develop director of a muncipality and 4) Air Force linquist.
All abjure Democratic Socialism. It is nice to know they’re not drinking the Kool-Aid, as the Kool-Aid leads to a drunken path to nowhere.
I wish those imbibing what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is selling the best of luck. You are going to need it.
1
They're thinking the same thing capitalists have always thought. The only difference is now they're unafraid of saying what they're thinking out loud, of showing the rest of society that the only thing they care about is their rapacious appetites, their ridiculous myopia, and their ruinous disregard for the public's welfare.
Twenty years ago, before Twitter, it might have been possible to in good faith think highly of someone like Elon Musk. That time has past. In words and deeds the capitalist class has shown the American people precisely what they think of us. These are people who are publicly announcing their desire to destroy our planet and flee to another, and there are still fools eager to line up behind them for a chance to be exploited in low gravity.
1
just as nobody owns the word "Christianity" wit its many variations, nobody owns the word "socialism," used by the nazis, the Soviets, in Venezuela, China, none of which are at all appealing, but also in Scandinavia where their system has arguably produced the best society humanity has yet achieved. Only the greediest capitalist should fear that.
However, the richest capitalists here seem to have taken a nasty turn, losing interest in helping the US, investing wherever labor is cheapest, and where they once helped create national parks, public universities, libraries, they are now indifferent or hostile to the environment and public higher education. With Trump they have created a monster even they cannot control and some may well be scared by his trade policies, nuclear bluster, and reckless indifference to the climate challenge that threatens civilization itself.
2
Mr. Tomasky writes: "And if you’re a capitalist, you’d better try to understand it (the appeal of socialism), too — and do something to address the very legitimate grievances that propelled it."
In other words, as Pikkety warned, "The Pitchforks are Coming" if capitalists don't begin to see the writing on the wall!
3
Please stop calling the basic and long established citizen and worker benefits and rights of Advanced Western and Asian Countries as socialism or socialist...they are NOT.
They are the democratically agreed, voted and pursued policies, protections and privileges of the People, by the People, for ALL the People. (sound familiar?)
If you want to talk about Socialism, how about looking in the mirror America where the country is increasingly held in sway by the interests of business and policies of corporations which are permitted to lobby (bribe/pay off) Politicians that pursue and legislate (legislation and laws written by ALEC for them to pass!) to their profit driven corporate agenda...NOT those of the American people or majority.
As a result, business is allowed to fund and influence elections pay politicians for regulations and policies that suit and profit them best...and often at the cost and bad consequences to people, who suffer accordingly in so many and myriad ways and means.
And that's why America is and has been an outlier for years compared to other advanced Western Democracies in terms of the benefits, support and opportunity their people now take for granted, yet lie beyond the scope for most Americans to have.
Paid Maternity Leave is the best example as EVERY country in the World provides it except Somalia, Papua New Guinea and the U.S.A. Fascinating that the richest country of all cannot provide it.
Business Socialist America...business before people!
1
Once I thought the use of the word socialism, as in Democratic Socialism, was a mistake. That is because I remember well how Republicans spent years making it into a curse word. But language can change and it is, even as I write. As we burst the chains of right wing government, let us burst their semantic power over us as well. Suddenly the term “Democratic Socialism” seems fresh, even to this man of 77 years, who grew up soaked in McCarthyism and the Commie scares.
2
@Jagadeesan Those nations that we fought so hard against were responsible for so much death, destruction, and starvation. Luckily for us that’s not the road we chose for ourselves.
Capitalists have nothing to worry about as long as racial hatred and xenophobia animate white politics. White voters would seemingly prefer destitution to seeing the wrong sort of people get healthcare, affordable education, or a living retirement income. Trump is living proof that the above is true.
Interesting article. I'd like to read the comments from readers. In the past most comments posted were pro-capitalist, negative socialist democrat. The Times is a pro-capitalist newspaper along with the WaPo. Their staunch support for Hillary Clinton and their constant bashing of Bernie Sanders mimics their readers ideological views. I'm surprised they printed your article. As a reminder to all, capitalists will do business with ANYBODY, it doesn't matter if their a dictator, psuedo-communist country(China) or a theocracy. Our country's history proves that without a doubt, but all of this talk and lame action with regards to human rights, the environment, is just that, mostly talk. The election of Trump and the right wingers along with centrist democrats(Wall St lovers) proves that Americans care only about their own welfare and bank account. They'll gladly live in a dump and breathe in polluted air and drink and eat tainted food and water if it means that they can have a car, watch T.V., and carry a gun. Bread and circus will kep the masses(including the rich) from becoming intelligent, common sense using individuals. Democracy, human rights, health care for all, clean air, water and land? Who cares. The American and world wide mantra.
2
What I cannot understand is why are Stock buybacks not equivalent to trading on insider information which is clearly illegal. Why do we have a carve out for companies to manipulate their stock price and buy their stock when they know good reports are coming and sell it when they are not? We roll over every time the rich and powerful want a favor like this and there is no end in sight as they own the lawmakers.
2
@seltzerman: Do you actually understand the concept of stock buy backs?
Just how does that hurt Joe and Jane Lunchpail?
You are correct. The capitalists had better try to understand and address the very legitimate grievances of working class Americans or we WILL have a repeat of the French Revolution. Complete with pitchforks, tumbrels and guillotines. None of which I want to see.
1
Many good insights - said differently...
> Prosperity is a byproduct of capitalism successfully seeking rent
> Equality is a byproduct of socialism successfully destroying capitalism and its prosperity
Capitalism is agnostic to prosperity and whether to invest in an enterprise and its people or liquidate it – and them...
It works backward from seeking rent...
Quarterly earnings ostensibly about revenue and profit – but really a thumbs-up/down on whether stakeholders believe adequate (or, on the upside – excess) rent will be collected, going forward...
And whether investment or liquidation points the way...
Before anyone yammers about European socialism – read up on European royalty and their same-class cronies and then we’ll talk...
> Royalty is a byproduct of capitalists successfully seeking exemption from wealth taxes of any sort
> Bourgeoisie is a byproduct of royals successfully getting others to collect the rent and keep the peace, on their behalf
To royals, bourgeoisie are just one more entity to be invested in – or liquidated...
The line between royal and bourgeoisie is nuanced – it’s not a level of wealth...
It’s a level of exemption from taxation...
In stressful times – a la burning furniture to keep warm, or contemplating cooking and eating a limb to survive – the royals will feed the bourgeoisie to the masses, at starvation’s onset...
They want to keep all of their limbs – and so, suddenly find the furniture dated and boring...
Especially the mirror...
2
Great points, except you’re missing the most important part. It’s not capitalism so much is its crime Syndicate by definition upheld by a corrupt judiciary and Congress. So much for separation of powers or that no one is above the law. It’s all a myth. Life, liberty, and justice for all, all are born equal, etc., its a monopolistic crime syndicate and the so called informed citizenry doesn’t get it because supposedly informed journalists can’t or won’t call a spade a spade.
1
Democratic Party leaders are wrong to hail socialist newbies like Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Cynthia Nixon as the future of our party. Ms. O-C, Ms. Nixon and other Democratic Socialists will achieve no more than sporadic wins, and may cost us many seats in the mid-terms and 2020. (Remember Bernie in 2016.)
On July 10 Cynthia Nixon told Politico she is a Democratic Socialist, as is Alexandra O-C. The goals of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) won't appeal to most Democrats or any Republicans; two of many examples: (https://www.dsausa.org/where_we_stand#global )
1. "...direct ownership and/or control of much of the economic resources of society by the great majority of wage and income earners." This is plain old Marxism/Communism, where workers own/control the means of production; it hasn't worked elsewhere and won't appeal to US voters.
2. "...massive redistribution of income from corporations and the wealthy to wage earners and the poor and the public sector, in order to provide the main source of new funds for social programs, income maintenance and infrastructure rehabilitation...." As Margaret Thatcher so aptly put it, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Abolishing ICE, increasing taxes and turning the means of production over to workers are suicidal platform planks for the Democratic Party platform in the midterms and 2020.
2
Long ago when humans were hunter gatherers, the community probably worked more reliably than it does now.
Yes it was brutal then, nature can be that way; but now you are born into a stacked deck of wild cards and jokers. Mostly all created by humans. Hard brain work may take you to the top, but misfortune could easily and quickly take you down.
To give up all our comforts to return to a reliable system is beyond being impractical, it's likely impossible with so many of us humans scouring this little planet.
Please consider adoption. Love is love.
Mr. Tomasky,
Weren't you the Hillary Clinton cheerleader/apologist who ripped Bernie Sanders again and again in the last election cycle? And only now have you come to realize that what he has been advocating for, at his own personal political peril, for decades has merit?
It's never to late to come over from the dark side, so welcome, but perhaps you might want to acknowledge your own minuscule, back-bench role perpetuating the capitalist status quo.
Because make no mistake, Hillary not only represented that status quo, she was, and remains, the epitome of it. And so does the centrist Democratic party.
1
Mr. Tomasky leaves something important out: the success of Democratic Socialism in Europe. We look at countries like Sweden, and see universal health care, inexpensive higher education, care for pregnant women, maternity leave, and a host of other so-called socialist benefits, and we feel that pure capitalism has failed us.
Those glorious 30 years from 1945 to 1975 were mostly glorious if you were white, and especially a white male. The legal abolition of race and gender discrimination in the workplace did not do much to close the income or wealth gaps, and in some situations they have gotten worse. So it's a sad and telling commentary on our society that these issues start getting more attention when the suffering spreads farther into the white middle class.
Also, dear editors, stock buybacks allow corporations to "hoard" profits, not "horde."
1
American capitalism is quite literally destroying the planet earth and is the cause of endless warfare. It is unfortunate that some Americans think of the Soviet Union when they hear the word socialism. A better model of what socialist ideas can create would be Canada. We have universal socialized medicine, affordable university education, and strict gun control.
1
The human species wants...and wants more...and to do so in the most efficient way possible.
Elected officials promise more and more that can’t be afforded so they can elected.
End result...every state in the country has massive deficits and can’t afford to even pay all their pension debt.
We refuse to embrace that we must live within our means.
And if we can’t afford it....maybe, just maybe we shouldn’t borrow money and spend more then we have.
It is greed and relative greed that underpins a lot of our species behavior.
And I encourage all of us to be open to that being a key problem...rather then simply blaming ”capitalism”.
What’s going on has been going on throughout history.
So how do we learn to change our collective behavior rather then just divide us and blame some...
Simply put, it is time for the top 1% to invest in America and stop this disproven notion of trickle down economics.
1
The very simple non-theoretical fact that anyone can see in plain sight is that capitalism works - but only for the capitalists, that is, the very rich.
Capitalism does not work for the People.
What People have gained from capitalism are just scraps thrown from the table. And we worked like slaves for those scraps.
1
We, too, have a daughter born in 1990, the beneficiary of an expensive education, well-off but far from rich parents, who did well enough in law school to have her pick of jobs, who just scored her dream job (appellate public defender). We know who she has voted for, and who she will vote for - and none will be Republicans nor establishment Dems (unless she's compelled to hold her nose while voting).
Capitalists and their politician helpmeets have brought it all on themselves - and they should be thankful that torches and pitchforks are not close at hand.
4
As a child of the 60s, I have benefitted for the most part by the system. But also owing to being a child of the 60s, I've done better than my parents, and can remember a time of stronger unions more equitable pay country-wide.
I have always leaned somewhat socialist. That said, I have come with age to realize that capitalism isn't the evil, capitalism unchecked is. If those power brokers at the top do not correct what they've created, they will find themselves on the wrong end of a guillotine.
2
Anyone not convinced by this article should read “The March of Folly” by Barbara Tuchman (the author of “The Guns of August”). Unfortunately, if history holds in our current situation, we should be prepared for the worst to happen, and pray we live to tell the tale. I am not exaggerating.
3
Socialism works!
Just ask any farmer. Any pro sports team owner. Any banker. Any real estate developer. Any charter school operator. Any businessman extorting taxpayer subsidies under threat of relocating. Any exporter. Any airline. Any industry feeding at the public trough of government subsidies.
If socialism can work for the elites, it can work for the rest of us.
1
Just read LISTEN, LIBRAL by Thomas Frank to understand the system failures of how we got to where we are today, a plutocracy run by oligarchs, corporations, Wall Street and Silicon Valley created by both the Republicans and the Democrats.
2
I am a socialist. There's nothing wrong with doing social good. And I am for welfare, as the expression of social good. Socialism is about the welfare of the people.
1
Democratic socialists care about what is best for those of us who are middle class, working class, or poor. Republicans and establishment Democrats care about preserving both their wealth and the status quo. The status quo has failed miserably, and everyone knows it; however, many of those in power are using the tool that those in power in America since Bacon's Rebellion around 1670 have used. That tool is racism. It has worked for Trump and many of those in the Republican Party, but even many Republicans can see that younger Americans are different from those whom they have manipulated for so long. The policies that they are using such as voter suppression and gerrymandering will only work for a short time. Younger Americans and Americans who are aware of how they have been used want changes that will make life better for them. Republicans have indeed showed us that they will not help us, but maybe the Democratic Socialists will.
1
Unsaid in this column is that the capitalists just wish us "little people" would accept that they are the Masters of the Universe and be content with our smartphones and other shiny gadgets.
They would do well to get the word, however. Mobs with pitchforks aren't as far-fetched as they might think.
3
Extreme capitalists from the robber barons to current Trumpets have one impressive achievement. They successfully branded the word "socialism" as somehow evil and unpatriotic. It's taught that way in our schools and treated that way in the media (including the NYT). Even some of the comments here seem to tread gingerly around the word.
ALL successful societies have found a regulated balance between both economic systems and realize that neither are inherently good or bad..
Rich Republicans consider anything to the left of feudalism to be socialism. And yet the Trump serfs continue to applaud.
2
Karl Marx: "The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.”
One more cause and effect that should be smacking us all in the face: Supply side economics and rolling back the New Deal (which was partly responsible for saving capitalism) gave rise to the Great Recession (and the next one?).
2
With the exception of Medicare, LBJ’s “Great Society“ social programs were expensive underfunded failures that fueled the painful “stagflation” of the 1970’s. That kind of socialism didn’t work.
Until the ascendency of Reagan, the Republican Party had moderate and liberal elements that accomplished great things. It is important to remember that Eisenhower, Nixon, G. Romney, N. Rockefeller, and many others were all Republican moderates AND Capitalists. The Interstate Highway System, the Clean Air and Water Acts, the EPA, OSHA, Title 9, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and many other things of enduring benefit were initiated or completed under REPUBLICAN administrations. Social security was expanded under Nixon to cover catastrophic illness (e.g. hemodialysis). Nixon and Ted Kennedy were on track for compromise for universal healthcare that was far more comprehensive than Obamacare.
Starting with Reagan in 1980, the GOP hardliners took control of the Republican Party, purged it of its moderate elements and transformed it into a party of religious zealots, plutocrats and oligarchs. They then castrated the unions and dismantled much of the social safety net. That is when the real rot began.
For awhile Capitalism tempered with moderation and oversight lifted the living standards and created wealth for most Americans. Unfettered capitalism and socialism wrecked this progress.
It is time to return to moderate Capitalism that worked, not Democratic Socialism that didn’t.
What happened? Abject greed, that's what happened, unleashed by the flim-flam flinging Reagan Restoration, aided and abetted by craven "centrist" Democrats.
Recently there was an article - in The Atlantic, I think - exploring whether democracy could survive capitalism. Our democratic republic cannot survive predatory, vulture, neo-imperialist capitalism - the costs to the soul are too high, too corrosive of our spirit.
No, in order for the American Experiment to survive - and in order for the human species to survive, it is looking more and more - we (we!) must bend capitalism to a Scandinavian style of reasonableness. It can be that a civil society can support a thriving capitalism and maintain a decent - decency, yes - social welfare system with minimum standards of well-being and care for everyone: Denmark was recently rated #1 for business by Forbes magazine. How did that happen and how can it happen here?
But the $64 trillion dollar question is always whether those plutokleptocrats who know no bounds to their greed and control our government can be made to loosen their stranglehold on our society. Reagan/Thatcherism ushered in their renaissance, if you can call it that, and they won't give it up at all easily. And they are more entrenched than ever with one of their ilk in the Oval Office, granting them irresponsible largesse of more obscene tax cuts. After all, that third palatial summer home in the Hamptons needs redecorating, and not next year, this year!
3
Calling any Democrat a,"socialist," is candy to the Republicans. Trump, had destroyed Bernie Sanders, (then stole most of his ideas), simply by calling him a socialist. It should have been "Democrats for Medicare for all," rather then "Democratic socialist." Labels matter, as the Republicans always get the best ones to run on, and "Democratic socialist," for some people, is as bad as Democratic cancer. Does anyone think the average American can nuance progressivism as being good for the country, when it means higher taxes for those that can afford it?
1
Socialism is not a reactionary force despite what this author would have us believe. It is a normal part of government and economics in the civilized world which we have rejected here in the U.S. because the right wing extremists that rule this country have spent decades convincing poor white people that non-white people are taking their stuff.
1
One must agree, especially as a free market advocate. Crony capitalism is the death of competitive capitalism and participatory democracy. We don’t even need to mention the word Trump.
1
The problem isn't capitalism, it's the imposition of government on capitalism. It's cronyism, favoritism and the over regulation of private industry by government.
Capitalism is inherently unfair. It distributes wealth unevenly. There are winners and losers. Government however, cannot make capitalism fair, ever. Politicians and bureaucrats cannot be trusted with the power to pick the winners and losers. They cannot be trusted to decide the distribution of wealth. It then ceases to be capitalism, and instead becomes the mess we have now.
Only capitalism has the power to create wealth and prosperity. Government cannot do it because everything government has, everything government passes on to others must first be taken from the private sector.
Government never adds value in this process. Instead, it destroys value, it wastes assets, it diminishes the incentive of the private sector to create wealth and properity.
So, why the rise of socialist sentiment? It is simply the naive and ignorant belief that somehow more government will fix the problems government has caused in the first place.
1
"But I understand completely why it’s happening. Given what’s been going on in this country, it couldn’t not have happened. And if you’re a capitalist, you’d better try to understand it, too — and do something to address the very legitimate grievances that propelled it."
We must also understand what created the Trump phenomena. Both parties have forgotten the needs of their constituents and the pro-Trumpers are so frustrated they won't listen to reason and will blow up the entire democratic enterprise since it doesn't work for them anyway. Throw a couple of scapegoats and hollow promises in for good measure and you have an entire class of people fed up with democracy who will believe anyone and anything else is better even if proven utterly false. Well guess what, they are not alone. Their path may be undesirable, but those who wish for a similar outcome are many. Personally, want to get me on board? I have yet to hear any one of the candidates say anything regarding improving the landscape for unions. Throw the corporate sycophants to the curb and elect a government who will not kneel to the failed corporate mantra of trickle-down economics, golden manna from heaven. Mostly, the aspect of the platforms of both parties are very similar in their disregard for the betterment of the working class. I am sick of it and it appears I am not alone.
2
The drift toward socialism is just that, a drift. The waves might get a lot choppier when future health insurance premiums are published.
In the minds of Trump's deplorables, socialism is evil. We need to explain to them the evils of a plutocracy.
Timely comments, now that we are at the fringes of a poorly regulated capitalism, when the intolerable inequality made the rich richer...at the expense of the great majority in these United States. Don't the 'rich and powerful' corporate world realize that this inequity may signify a dead knell of capitalism, as it is divorced of a true democracy, where goods and services are provided according to our needs, and where those lucky enough to have become wealthy, entrepreneurs who, with their talent and hard work, are up there, ought to realize that for social justice to become real, they have to contribute according to their abilities? And here is the rub: the corporate world has forgotten where they came from and the huge help they got from the infrastructure we all helped to build. Of all the sins we, flawed humans, are guilty of, greed is the worse; and avarice, if left unchecked, will do us in; forget socialism's ills and outside malevolent influence (l.e. Putin's, with Trump's complacency), Pogo had it right, as "We are the enemy". All this greedy behavior explains the poverty in this country, and an inadequate social safety net for those left behind and of no fault of their own. The ongoing segregation and discrimination we see in Housing, Education and Health is not due to invading hordes from Mars' imposing this injustice. Ought we not find the real culprits...by looking in the mirror?
In his comment below, Alan Behr recommends that these budding socialists move to Venezuela, which is spiraling out of control under its socialist government. Mr. Behr is not wrong to point to the disaster that Venezuela, my birth country, has become. But he fails to mention that people initially voted for Hugo Chavez because they were desperate for something better than the “capitalism” his predecessors had put in place. Boy, did they get it wrong. But the point is that desperate people do desperate things that may not necessarily work in the long run.
We should heed the warnings from Mr. Tomasky and stop providing these budding socialists a reason to exist. Obviously we know how to do it because, as he points out, socialism was but a footnote during a long time in our recent history. JFK once said that those who make peaceful revolutions impossible make violent revolutions inevitable. To paraphrase him we could say that capitalists who are too blind and arrogant to allow some controls on capitalism will make the rise of socialism inevitable.
1
I recall very clearly the language used when, in 2008, a slew of large institutions got their "bail outs." Hank Paulson and all the crony capitalists were intent on helping out the large institutions, but cautioned that any help to regular folk was a "moral hazard." In other words, the institutions didn't want to assume the risk of borrowers (even though the banks themselves created the credit crisis by cooking the books and fixing the lending game with false credit ratings) by offering them debt modification or forgiveness.
What followed was a massive number of personal bankruptcies, foreclosures, repossessions and job losses. What also followed were some nicely packaged loans and bail-outs for the criminals who caused the crisis. I think a lot of people forget how this all went down.
And now that most of the uber-capitalists are wealthier than ever, is it any surprise that wages are still stagnant and Americans are deeply in debt. That's the way the game is played in 2018 in the U.S.: all you "little people" sit down, shut up and do as your told. You're nothing but the "hired help."
3
Capitalism is the greatest economic system ever created.
Because socialism is always there to bail it out (1930s, 1980s, 2000s).
3
Greed is destroying the country and the leader of the free world hates democracy
Till we address the rot on this country such as racism health care, education wages etc. we know what needs to be done. Since our elected officials refuse to listen, we the people need to be the change that forces politicians to listen to our message. We need to stay involve and change our plight right now.
1
Oh boy. Have we forgotten the millions upon millions murdered by socialist governments in the 20th century? Russia under Lenin and Stalin, China under Mao and the cultural revolution? Venezuela today, widespread suffering. Let's learn from history, and not from propaganda. Idealism is fine for students, but capitalism though imperfect is far far better than any alternatives.
1
@Joe yohka - based on that odd logic, is it then fair to ascribe all other murdered people to capitalist governments?
1
True, socialists' enemy was socialists, and now capitalists' enemy is capitalists. I have no intention to defend socialism. To the contrary, I would like to defend capitalism in every possible way, because no socialist country has ever succeeded in defending democracy. I do not even believe that it is in principle possible to combine democracy and full-blown socialism. When the economy is fully controlled by the central government, it is impossible to have political freedom. It is also well supported by simple induction--all the socialist countries ended up despotism and tyranny.
That said, however, it is unlikely that the Republican-style capitalism will ever succeed in promoting a happy life in long run. A country suffering from injustice, discrimination, environmental abuse, sexual inequality, etc. will never lead to overall happiness in the long run.
It is time that capitalists examined their own theory; they should find a way to combine capitalism with humanism. Capitalism with human face is what is needed in the U.S.
Otherwise, the U.S., which survived the competition with socialism, will be defeated by its own -ism, i.e., capitalism. That would be a true disaster for everybody.
1
It was not the failure of Keynesian economics that allowed supply side economics to take hold in the eighties. It was a combination of flukes: the price of the Vietnam War finally exacting its due with the accompanying inflation; the oil embargo with said inflation as well; a celebrity culture where Americans mistook the movies for reality and voted in a leader who lived inside a movie; an Iranian dictator who contracted cancer; and a napkin and a booster congressman from New York who attacked economics like he attacked the defensive line as a Buffalo Bills quarterback. We could throw in a few racist dog whistles as well. Philadelphia, MS anyone.
1
When you boil it right down what does American exceptionalism mean to a family who cannot afford to send their kids to college or who work just to stand still. What does it mean if you get sick and cannot afford the bills.
In Europe we moan about our health services but there free and college is generally free. Free means we as a society pay for each other so no one is left behind.
I've always thought the American armies motto to leave no one behind was inspirational.
Why then do you allow capitalism malign your weak and vulnerable to be marginalised and forgotten.
The author seems to be mistaken. Most millenials aren't really socialists, they want social democracy. I doubt any of these people would give up the comforts of capitalist life that they've grown up with. The most that they want is marginally higher top tax rate and maybe public healthcare; they don't want the whole system of capitalism to come crashing down. That's absurd.
1
The New Deal worked. Trickle down is a failure. Time to go back to what worked.
2
US politicians, especially the majority of the GOP members are extremely corrupt. They're passing far-right laws that favour their donor class, and not their constituents. And Citizens United enacted by unelected Conservative justices of the US Supreme Court has made matters far worse, amplifying the voices of billionaires and millionaires at the expense of voters the middle class, and the poor. The GOP is distracting their voter base by pretending to be pro-life, anti-abortion, stoking hate against women, minorities and LGBTQ, and fear-mongering with an assist from the NRA. Once the majority of people wake up, start registering and voting in large numbers, for politicians who will uphold their interests, well-being, and want to better their future, the GOP should be relegated to the minority and should not win another election.
1
very close to a"both sides" article. the free enterprise system is voraciously amoral. Democrats wish to control it. Republicans do not. St.Ronnie started the destruction of the labor unions. Republicans cut taxes for the wealthy and their corporate donors. Any move that the Democrats take to improve health care carries a wicked political price. vote for liberal Democrats. vote for centrist Democrats. vote for socialist Democrats. just vote against republicanism. simple.
Capitalism is a technical term and a political slogan. The growth in the 1940-70's was based on the US monopoly on manufacturing because Europe destroyed itself. Capitalism grows on competition, and tends toward Monopolies which are imperfectly regulated. Your young person's parents might also remember 2 newspapers in many towns. Now there is CNN and FOX, with newspapers being used to start charcoal grills. This is no longer a perfect free-market economy and as larger businesses squeeze out or buy smaller ones, leverage and monopolies have changed our economy from what you call Capitalist, to rather closer to Oligopoly.
So, we also have a political system feeding on the money of the oligarchs and plutarchs. The mega-wealthy now control the presidency, congress and the Supreme Court. Looked at from my point of view, you wonder what do these politicians want? No consumer protection, no unions, no tax on wealthy, no minimum wage, very weak social safety net, full employment at low wages? Add that up and you get a different Capitalism that is a return to the Guilded age, before unions, or the middle ages before enlightenment. The pendulum of history swings as wealth and power suppress the the ordinary, the small or the gullible, until the dispossessed rise up. The last time it was unions, now they're gone.
Trump is actually a Fascist, which blows the cover of the Oligarchs, who have at least followed the law in the past. Now we have the real challenge, Democracy or not.
1
The GOP and its enablers in the right-wing media and its conspiracy-generators and conspiracy-believers have created a messaging system which spreads the repetition of bald-faced lies, misinformation, conspiracies in GOP echo chambers. It is extremely successful.
Sadly, the DNC has a messaging problem. The DNC is being drowned out by all malicious mendacities generated by the GOP operatives. The DNC needs to get this problem solved and soon. They need to generate their message of support for the common Americans like me who know what Tomasky is saying is TRUTH. AND when they get the power back, they need to take actions to make their message become reality. I am not 28 years-old like Alexandria. I am much older and I know from my own life story what this vampire capitalism is doing to this country. The Occupy Wallstreet protesters should have been given support by the Democrat Party and the 2008 recession/economic meltdown could have and/or should have been a waterloo moment for the banks and investment firms which caused this assault on the wealth of the lower 90%.
An opportunity for a "new deal" was ignored and here we are now seeing "trumpism" as the new normal.
We made need a few more election cycles before socialists thinking really clicks in. Presently, the capitalists class, led by Trump's version of crony capitalism, is now navigating the perfect storm of capitalism--a congress that will grant any tax break for the 1%; a supreme court that will gut any rights workers have; and a president who is perfectly comfortable with picking winners and losers in the marketplace. The sheer force of money gushing to the top has produced 4 or 5 men owning all the wealth, a total collapse of whatever safety net programs are left, and a third world infrastructure. But Trump voters and Trump leaning voters need a few more years of real pain---which is coming---to wake up and smell the workers unite roses.
"greed uber alles" is the blindfold that will prevent any of the oligarchs from even considering your suggestions. The only way out is to overwhelm them in the next elections and hopefully find a "leader" who will be able to temper the control of big money and return us to the heydays of yesteryear. If not, the end is nearer than we think, and the U.S. banana republic will forever erase any semblance of what "most" of our founding fathers had envisioned.
I remain hopeful, but am, as best I can, preparing for the worst (Sell everything and move into a tent)
2
I had the good luck to grow up in a socialist country (Hungary). Here is the basic rule of socialism: we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.
Reaganism turned our country backwards and we will never recover from it. 1980 was the beginning of our end. Period.
3
The 1% defines Socialism as expectation they pay the same US taxes the 99% are paying.
1
There are very few "capitalists" anymore, from philosophical leanings. Just greedy wealthy people exercizing power to enhance and protect their own wealth.
The other thing that happened is the end of the Cold War. Formerly the Soviet Union gave socialism a bad name. Now they practice an extreme form of capitalism run by their version of the mafia. They make capitalism look even worse.
1
"The failures of Keynesianism in the 1970s smoothed the path for supply-side economics."
Good grief (and more...)! Must Tomasky, like too many others, throw in an encomium or two for the right to show that he is "balanced," "fair," whatever else?
In this case Tomasky throws in a Milton Friedman--that massive government spending for social purposes produced nothing of the sort, only inflation. This is pure nonsense. Double-digit inflation came from energy (oil, mainly) and food prices. And cuts in spending had nothing to do with the subsequent drop in inflation; that came from 19 percent Federal Reserve prime rates and disarray in the OPEC cartel
2
We have a deeply, blindly greedy class at the top of America's business enterprises. They are not merely in it for themselves (who isn't?), they behave like robbers and rapists of our economy. It is as though the whole system was set up to reward them (in a sense, it was) and the rest of us can, if we are lucky, eat dirt.
Why are people so self centered to believe that they, and only they, count? There is just too much money sloshing around at the top, the payoff for being near that money is just far too big and there are no counter forces, or very few, able to say when the big payday comes, "No!"
Some years ago it was revealed that the woman in charge of call centers for the DISH satellite programing service was making 13 million a year to supervise people who would have to work perhaps five to ten lifetimes to make half as much. (Her "salary" was revealed in a lawsuit when he sued for wrongful termination.)
The head of what then was Gannett Broadcasting got a parting retirement package of close to 40 million. His main accomplishment was to lay people off, demand furloughs from workers and convince Wall Street that he was deadly serious about adjusting to the Great Recession and the lowering of revenue in broadcasting.
When you can work for a few years near the top of businesses and have the potential to grab enough money to live like a king for the last 20 or 30 yrs. of your life, who cares who gets hurt? Who cares about the future of your country? Greed rules.
4
Can we just outsource our entire government to Denmark? This includes my local government, which has sold out to rich white male developers. I'm ready for socialism, since I already pay for it; I have less than half my gross income left to live on. I just want my taxes to go to people who need it, and not to subsidize Trump, Waltons, Buffett and Bezos.
1
Perhaps there is a place in the US for a Socialist party (there has of course been one), along with the Grass Roots party of David Brooks and some others. But as long as the US remains basically a 2 party country, turning the Democratic party into the Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists will ultimately spell its doom.
Problems there are, but is socialism the the solution? If that 28 year old thinks so then they wasted their time on that expensive education they could not afford.
1
@Joshua Schwartz That 28 year old has lead quite a privileged life.
What are capitalists thinking? They are thinking that they want it all. But greed left unchecked will destroy our nation. And the greediest of the capitalists could care less if your kids don’t get a good education or if our nation’s 54,000 deteriorating bridges remain deteriorating, as long as they get their tax cuts. Unfortunately, the greediest of the capitalists are now in control of our nation and they are running unchecked. That is not good.
1
It isn't that difficult to figure out. Either you regulate capitalism stringently and keep it in check or you will have what we have now. Once CEO's began to make so much more than the lowest paid employees and loopholes and de-regulation crept in, income inequality rose sharply. If we don't change this, and you can call it socialism, democratic socialism, or whatever you like, the average person will eventually get fed up and when that happens it's going to get real ugly.
3
Since when a “capitalist” is a self-serving exploitative money grabber? Well maybe since before Karl Marx. But there is some sense to be found in capitalism.
But sense or not, the present problems facing the country have less to do with “capitalism” than with the fact that the GOP Congress is run by a clique of crazy billionaires whose toadies aren’t willing to do anything that might upset their cozy arrangements.
2
Good points all. However, a fundamental change took place in Capitalism with the fall of the old Socialist bloc in 1989-1991. It didn't matter how authoritarian and dysfunctional the USSR was, the threat of an alternative system meant capitalism in the liberal western democracies had a vested interest in making the system appear fair - contracts had to be honoured, courts and judicial systems had to work (or be held accountable), etc., etc.
Since 1990 though, capitalism has no longer had to behave itself - capitalism won, and if people want another alternative where will they go? Mars? Thus, massive corporate concentration in every sector of the global economy, banks that now control government and have a lock-in on taxpayer money when they fail and... no more need for functioning democracy.
Simultaneously, humanity faces a far more serious self-made threat to its existence after nuclear weapons - anthropogenic global warming. At the same time that a super-elite of billionaire families and their super-managerial employees are looting everything and creating a space for themselves above and beyond the law, we have already run out of the time needed for the vast, multi-state actions necessary to have any effect at all on the run-away engine that is AGW.
"Man hands on misery to man, it deepens like a coastal shelf, so get out early whilst you can, and don't have any kids yourself"...
1
Like most Australians, I am a rusted on supporter of the United States so to watch what is happening now hurts. This article has summed up what appears to be happening to the US very accurately but the biggest risk isn't socialism, it is disengagement from all those being left behind. You need another one of your great Presidents to create a new New Deal otherwise those that are left in gutter will justifiably pick up a rock and that will damage the one per cent as much as the remaining ninety nine.
3
Love it when someone states the bleeding obvious in such an eloquent and informed manner on the front page of the Times. Well done!
2
The real question is whether the socialist boomlet will overwhelm the democrats and cement a more radical economic stance for the party. Rarely have we seen a political party in the U.S. simultaneously run to the center in certain parts of the country while driving hard left in others. The two can't co-exist and the moderate democrats are fools if they don't understand that the Left plans to purge them and have a socialist candidate and platform in 2020.
So...lemme get tis straight: because (mostly) young people are frustrated and disappointed that every new generation (except for theirs, of course) has been doing better than the previous one, these energetic, ambitious millenials will now be content workers. Turning our (mostly) capitalistic society into one where, in the name of fairness, we give GOVERNMENT the ability to take over industry has, after all, proven to be the ticket in so many other places. . In so doing, you argue, "corporations will stop "hording profits, government will naturally re-invest in workers (like Russia? Cuba? Venezuela? China? Oh...'Democratic Socialist' countries like Sweden, Netherlands or New Zealand?) and workers will stop dying of opioid overdoses as they are now? Is this your plan? And, ummm...what exact evidence do you have that this government panacea would work? In WHAT other countries?
It’s just amazing how many posters dismiss the idea of socialism by referring to Venezuela, but not daring to mention Europe. Most reasonable people will agree that incompetent, kleptocratic socialism will fare poorly. However, incompetence and cravenness are neither inevitable outgrowths of socialism nor unfamiliar in today’s American capitalism.
3
The type of “socialism” Ortasio-Cortez proposes is perfectly reasonable policies. The amount of opposition to based solely on the word “socialism” as opposed to actual facts or policy positions is both astounding and worrisome.
1
Some of the demand for socialist constructs like single payer healthcare may be more about the failure of our current semi-capitalist system than a wish for true socialism. In our system, consumers are forced to buy drugs from higher priced domestic companies rather than low priced foreign ones. That’s NOT capitalism. Capitalism means companies should compete on price and value. What we actually have is a bunch of drug companies buying politicians votes. No wonder hard working citizens of all ages and political parties are fed up.
Congress, wall street, etc are already on socialism. They are to big to fail.
2
Give me a break. I’ve been hearing that socialism is the future, the Republican Party is a dead man walking, demographics will put the Democrats in the driver’s seat, and world peace and love is right around the corner since, oh, about 1973.
Really, we are worried about socialism and capitalism when in about 100 years there won’t be any viable coastal cities? It’s rather like arguing about the font to use for a letter when one has sea water washing over one’s feet in a fourth story office.
Humans functioning in large groups. Or misfunctioning.
1
Good luck appealing to capitalists to stop, you know, being capitalists.
We face a choice between Chairman Mao and Frederick Douglass, and let’s hope Douglass wins out. “Power concedes nothing without a demand,” said Douglas. “It never did and it never will.” It would be a good result in this case if demands were enough because as Chairman Mao said, “Power comes from the barrel of a gun.” The capitalists listened to FDR when he told them he was saving capitalism for them. But who’s going to tell them that now? It looks like Mao could be the prescient one here. Let’s pray that he’s not but it sure ain’t looking good.
The mistake we've made is to enable unfettered aggressive capitalism that destroys the planet and steals our souls.
Capitalism is the necessary evil that drives our economic engines and keeps society afloat. Aggressive capitalism is the fire breathing monster that pushes aside any attempt to deter our self destruction with humanitarianism.
There is no perfect utopian formula for a flawless society.
Look to Scandinavian countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark for guidance on how to optimize the quality of our lives without selling our souls with unnecessary greed!
3
Yes! Everything said here needs to be said, and it's as true as sure as the sun rises. Timely. Gets to the core of the major issues that need addressing. Points to solutions that are fairly easily identifed.
My question is: Why the need to go and make up a political philosophy, a needless abstraction, to slap on the discussion. This is what derails progress in our politics.
The solutions are plain. Why muddy up the discussion with phony abstractions? Oh, I know why. We need big words for the intellectual elite to feel warm about simple, plain spoken ideas that are long over due.
I have a PhD and write professional text weekly. I use the vocabulary necessary. And I confess, I use quite technical language. No need when it comes to this discussion. Socialist, conservative, libertarian etc. Needless labels that hide the motives of those who wish to subvert the system to their benefit.
Bernie and bone spur had the wording roughly correct. One was an overly emotional man with good intensions. The other was a sick, corrupt, pathological liar that prayed on the pain of others - with no intent to do anything but make inequality worse.
That's what abstract political labels gets. We need solutions.
1
There is no socialism "boomlet". If you ask poor people if they want free stuff at just about anytime - they will say "YES".
The pendulum swings back and forth, only stopping at the extremes.
What are capitalists thinking?
They're not thinking but obsessing about wealth -- how to get it, hoard it, keep it, alchemize it into power, which they use to wash, rinse and repeat until they become demigods who are untouchable and unaccountable, and despite empty gestures of charity and epic generosity, are detached from real life.
They're also not thinking as capitalists. They think as CEOs bankers, investors, heirs, lawyers, doctors, techies, media owners, oil titans, business-owners, inventors, builders, developers, defense contractors, and like nearly everyone elected to Congress.
They think as "winners" or at least, "not losers", but not as capitalists.
But whatever they're thinking about, it sure ain't socialism and none of them look in the mirror except to admire the image of the smug winner looking back at them.
If they worry at all it's about their wealth: keeping it, expanding it, reaching for the next tier of wealth and its attendant privilege and power.
But they do worry about developing new and better ways to systematically trick people into acting against their own self-interest and remaining blind to their own exploitation.
Their DNA reads: Capitalism = Winner, Socialism = Loser.
Are they worried about peasants storming the Bastille?
More likely they're worried about getting fast WiFi at their 2000 acre New Zealand ranch.
6
@Yuri Asian; Are you jealous?
One need not look far to find just how “socialism” works out. Ask the people standing in line in Caracas to buy bread, or diapers, or aspirins, exactly how it is paying off for them.
Venezuela is not a socialist country, it is communist. There is a distinct difference. Perhaps if everyone took the time to learn the differences this could be a more productive conversation. Capitalism creates inequality, always has. It’s goal is profit, where as socialism’s goal is to create prosperity. Yes, there are bad examples and good examples of how they have been executed, but to refuse to fairly compare, contrast and improve on them, is ignorant.
Why do we defend a system so religiously that has created the largest wealth gap in human history? Or the huge levels of poverty that we see in the richest country on earth? Surely it must be because the poor are lazy. And why does such a robust economic system essentially crash every 8-12 years?
The article fails to mention that the main reason of socialism’s decline after WWII was the Cold War and the equating of socialism and communism. Socialist economic theory was essentially banned from being taught in US universities for 50 years. Both parties are beholden to Capitalism. The Democratic Party is just as afraid of it as the Republicans are.
On another note the most insidious thing the Republican Party has ever done was turn government into the “other”, a thing to be feared. As a representative democracy, if actively participating, we control what the government does. We have no such control over private companies. Capitalism gives them the power and they leave us the crumbs.
(pt 2): You bet Hoover and the GOP deserved it. My grandmother was a hardworking woman who dropped out of high school her freshman year of high school to go to work because of the Great Depression. Her family, a farm family out of Quebec, made it through the Depression relatively unscathed, according to her, but she had to take work as a nanny in Boston for a year or so, and worked at a hosiery mill in her small NH hometown. She got to experience the benefits of the FDR policies and that man walked on water in her eyes. I, too, experienced part of the FDR economic legacy programs but not when Reagan and his cronies took office in 1981. It's been a pretty fast slide back to the 1920's for us, hasn't it? I dread where we are going and fear another Great Depression, which we appear to be barreling towards thanks to the stupidity and laziness of most Americans, who either deliberately vote against their own best interests or don't care about voting. When I try to share my fears with some of my friends, they either accuse me of being a sore loser (we know who they voted for), or refuse to acknowledge that our democracy is under threat by using the "whataboutisms" and false equivalences they've absorbed from their ill-informed co-workers but haven't bothered to educate themselves about more deeply. Fascism wins again. So, don't blame the "failure" of Keynesian economics, Mr. Tomasky, blame the laziness and fear of Americans who refuse to remember their history.
As of Oct. 3, 2008 -- the day TARP passed -- the US was no longer a capitalist country. At that point, it transformed into a pure Oligarchy where the rich and well off are shielded from the downside of their reckless bets while everybody else loses their life savings and houses under the guise of a "free market." I'm American but live in Europe and it's clear, from afar, that TARP changed everything. It's how the Tea Party rose to prominence and the reason Trump sits in the White House.
In France, an income redistribution system favoring the rich led to a revolution and a year of terror where the rich, and plenty of other random people, were hauled to the guillotine en masse. What's ironic is that many self-made rich Americans understand the problem, where extreme income inequality leads to. Warren Buffet and countless other billionaires have repeatedly called for a fairer system. Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post and left the editorial side alone except to push them to hire more reporters. It's the heirs, the Koch's, DeVos/Prince's, and of course fearless leader Trump, that are too selfish or too stupid to understand what happens when inequality becomes too extreme.
2
@Michael
Great comment re: TARP
A real slap in your face Marie Antoinette style: Let Them Eat Cake.
1
Most americans don't even know what 'socialism' means.
We've been propagandized by the sociopath elites - those most responsible for the destruction of public education, a 'socialist' prorgam - to equate socialism with authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and communism. None of this, of course, is correct, but our now 'poorly-educated' citizens, for the most part, don't understand this.
Most have been brainwashed by Reaganism to believe that they would be D Trump if not for all of those 'Others' - i.e. minorities, other workers, immigrants, 'commies', etc.
We must use 'Social' programs to fight the sociopath oligarchs and the unconcious privileged and entitled.
1
The national drug crisis in which 115 people die every day was NOT simply ignored. It was created by capitalists in the drug company that manufactured the pills that got these people hooked in the first place. Capitalism is going to be the end of large species on this planet, including homo sapiens. Capitalism is a disease that has to be cured. It is destroying the very things that make life possible.
1
Great article. There is a relatively easy fix, redistribution of extreme obscene wealth (looking at you kookoo DeVos with you ten!! Yachts) a focus on the LONG term health of companies, an investment in employees, healthcare, education, gender and racial TRUE equality, and infrastructure, renewable energy and so on. If we cut the military budget in half I’m betting we’d still have a bigger more expensive military than any in the world and still have money to pay for REAL people and real good. Wake up.
If government and companies and donors won’t step up, the grass roots rise of socialism and young people and labor will. Resist and persist! Throw the R bums out, elect democrats in EVERY election!
1
Socialism starts looking really good when a person finally realizes just how completely the game is rigged.
3
When Chinese Workers realize that they have been ill-served by the Capitalists and the Money Lenders and finally come to breed their discontentment with demands for worldwide pay equity -- then the so-called 'unfettered Capitalist" rise out of poverty will actually have to PAY for their unbridled greed of the last half century.
Ha. Don't worry fellow communists and socialists. The capitalists, while not necessarily Trumpsters, are thankfully myopic about everything. Yes everything. I am not for a second concerned that more than a half dozen capitalists who matter will read this, and just as thankfully, none will understand anyway. We we can fully enjoy the sign of change that this article comprises.
Besides it is as dead wrong as its subject. I am in my eighth decade. Why have I been a communist my entire adult life? Did I think I wouldn't do better than my parents? I outdid them fantastically. Did I lose my house or did a friend? Never. If it's as this author thinks, I don't exist.
The author is so wrong. Communists and socialists are not made by poverty or tragedy. They are made by rational thought, generosity, and most of all by inequality.
Inequality causes socialism. Making capitalism "more" fair cannot cure it. Let them erect all the safety nets in the world. As long as inequality persists (and it is the very basis of capitalism), socialism will beckon. The power of the pen is great but the power of morality will inevitably prevail. Get rich quick. Because your time is coming.
1
Interesting that you left out the 1930's and the wider spread appeal of socialism after the genius capitalists crashed our economy so badly, we suffered the Great Depression and then had to deal with WW2 and the deprivations citizens had to endure for the war effort. I'm pretty sure that FDR saw the rising popularity of socialism during the 1930's as a political threat to Dem party and adopted some of their ideas, like Social Security, unemployment insurance, and curbing Wall Street excesses by helping to get the Glass-Steagal Act through Congress. Keynesian economics failed because the federal government got lazy and stupid, slowly abolishing all of the successful aspects of the New Deal programs and here we are. Rapacious vulture capitalism rules the day, the income inequality has skyrocketed due to Hoover "laissez-faire" trickle down economics, and a great deal of Americans including myself, who was 10 years old (according to your calculations of the "failure" of Keynesian economics) in 1975 and have seen even more so than today's Millenials how our country went from being an economic powerhouse to the hollowed out shell of a middle class we have today. Am I angry? You bet I am. My grandmother was a Great Depression/WW2 "Greatest Generation" survivor who despised the name Hoover so much, she never bought any products with the Hoover name and practically spit on the ground if his name was mentioned in front of her. Did Hoover deserve it? (part 1)
1
The right is using Socialism as a scare tactic.
We already are socialist with public grammar school, public high-school, Social Security and Medicare.
People like Bernie Sanders are only talking about is giving us universal healthcare like all the other first world countries.
And those countries spend between $4,500 to $5,500 per capita while we spend $10,000 per capita.
And we have parts of America with infant mortality rates the same as Botswana.
After that, maybe we can extend public education to include two years of trade school or community college.
Get people educated and working an paying taxes. Shades of Carl Marx!
So please stop this nonsense about "terrible Socialism."
1
People aren’t risking their lives swimming to Cuba for the dream of socialism. I do believe the human flow is in the other direction.
1
Wow. The illustration for this piece is ridiculous. Advocating for health care, affordable childcare, good public schools - including community colleges, good regulation to protect the environment and supplemental care for seniors and disabled citizens is not socialism much less communism. It’s what good government does when it serves the citizens.
Capitalism becomes oligarchy when the richest, by the power of their wealth, control government, ignore or subvert the laws of the land, and manipulate regulations and taxes for their benefit and not for the well being of the common good.
I’m not ‘afraid’ of every US citizen having healthcare, every child going to a good school, every worker being paid a living wage, every senior living a decent retirement. Or, for God’s sake, regulations to protect the earth from pollution or everyone (including the corporations who now are considered persons) paying a percentage in taxes to achieve these things.
I’m afraid of a psychotic president put in power by a despotic foreign dictator and an ignorant electorate then encouraged by corrupted elected officials.
That’s what has me up at night in a panic. How about you?
2
You think this socialistic boomlet could be a disaster for Democrats? Well, you've lost 1000+ seats over 8 years with the Third Way playbook. Including Governorships, the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. 100+ million voters sat on their tails or voted third party rather than vote for the Democratic Wall St. poster child even in the face of Donald Trump. But hey, let's stick with the business as usual playbook that your ossified leaders and their donors want because some socialistic policies that would help the working and middle classes might be a disaster for the Dems.
1
Obama bailed out the banks, demanding nothing in return and without a second thought for the remainder of the country. Eric Holder and his oleaginous deputy Lanny Breuer declined to prosecute a single Wall Street figure responsible. Not even two weeks after leaving office, Obama was snapping selfies as he went on a speed-dating spree with billionaires. Holder and Breuer went right back to their old firm Covington, representing those very firms they should have busted. Their combined actions and inactions helped give us Trump. This, and the Schumer/Pelosi money machine are the backbone of the Democratic Party, so its not hard to see how Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez wouldn't be seen as threats to the ongoing orgy.
The fact that Holder is considering a run for the Presidency in 2020 shows just how clueless these people are.
1
@stan continople
Yes....the banks and the investment houses and AIG all players in the casino game of the housing bubble.... they got their socialistic bailout and they all got their "bonuses" and their golden parachutes .... and what happened on main street and in middle America and below?.... we got to be the "taxpayers" who had what little "wealth" that we had accumulated despite wage income stagnating and/or declining since the 80s starting with Reagan but then also continued by all presidents that followed ....repeat.... what little "wealth" that we had made trickled upwards to the uber rich .... haven't we 90%ters finally finally realized what a great big fat lie the "trickle-down" economic theory is ??? Have we?
We have socialism for the billionaires and mega corporations but the rest of us have to pull ourselves up by our stalls which is hard when the corporations have taken our bootstraps!
To be frank the media doesn’t help when it refuses to stop pretending that attacks on socialism are fair and just. Many leaders in the word are identified as socialist when they are actually nothing more than authoritarian dictators who use the power of government to favor their cronies...whoops who does that would like!
1
All too frequently and especially in prosperous countries, people associate intelligence, ingenuity, hard work, happiness, and success with wealth and income. Most people measure success by how much they own and/or how much they earn. For the wealthiest people, money is a way to keep score. This is misguided for the most successful people are the most accomplished - they find ways to excel and to distinguish themselves.
Capitalism and socialism should not be compared nor preferred one over the other. They both have their virtues yet are prone to pitfalls. It is all too convenient and intellectually lazy to rhetorically juxtapose one against the other which may be why the media, talking heads, editorialists and politicians traffic in such prattle. Or more likely, they are self-serving and materialistic.
Government is the system by which a nation, state, or community is governed for the good of ALL. Therein lies the problem with our government. All too often, rules, codes, laws, legislation, and taxes are designed to favor the rich (1%) over the rest (99%), the haves over the have-nots. A government for ALL does not pick winners over losers. It should always endeavor to level the playing field and provide the necessities of life including a livable wage, food, shelter, and healthcare. The mission statement for governance should prioritize humanitarian needs over monetary wants.
3
So what kind of structural legal, policy, enforcement changes would we need to curb these excesses?
Seems like corporations steal because they can. What if they couldn't? What if individuals at corporations, at all levels of management, were held fully accountable? I mean… if corporations are people, then corporations (made of up people) can go to jail, meaning EVERYONE IN IT but especially the top paid execs.
1
We want corporations to GET OUT of politics. We want corporations to stop canceling out our votes. Corporations, are NOT "people." They are entities, and should never have influence over any elected official. Wealthy individuals should not be able to influence politicians, by giving them huge amounts of money, thus BUYING votes, and canceling out OUR votes. This is why we are interested in socialism. ALSO, socialism works very well in government programs, like roads and bridges, health insurance, social programs that help the needy, and make our government far more empathetic towards the half, of all income earners, who may need help making ends meet. Prosperity for all, means everyone has what they need, food, shelter, health care. Higher taxes for the wealthy who will hardly notice the increase, except that they are greedy and selfish, and don't believe they have any responsibility towards the country that made their successes possible.
7
the value of the democratic socialists is that they move the national political conversation to the left. The long sad time of democrats trying to be republicans (middle of the road!) served to help republicans move the conversation ever rightward. Those radical righties from far right places pulled the moderate republicans rightward, and they pulled democrats rightward too. And yes, they eventually took over the party ( no one is in the middle of the republican road now) but it took forty five years...and then came Trump, an entirely different entity which took them right off the rails. There is no further movement right without becoming something fundamentally different from what we were meant to be (fascism is what comes next, and we are almost there). We start in this moment way over on the right side-- It's springtime for billionaires. Democratic Socialists are providing a self-correcting function that we need badly. The concentration of wealth we have now is dangerous, and we need to slowly back away to the left, lest we correct violently.
2
All that Tomasky writes is true - and I would like to add to it, the GOP idea/myth of "trickle down economics". Which basically says it's ok for the rich to get richer - because their crumbs will go to the working class and that will be great! I think some recent justifications for the massive tax cuts to the wealthy- went along these lines. Add to this Trump cabinet members like Price and Pruitt - who felt- as government servants, they could only fly first class or in private planes.......and it sure seems logical that we are heading towards France 1789.
4
Somehow, we need to get business mentality back to the priorities they had prior to the 1980s when customer and employee satisfaction were top priorities instead of shareholder value in order to trigger CEO bonuses that rules the business world today. One way to increase shareholder value has been to hold wages down or offshore the manufacturing entirely to countries where the wages are a fraction of our minimum wages. Inflation has marched along with the higher incomes while a growing percentage of Americans is left behind, buying a house is unaffordable and rent is even more expensive in any city where a decent job can be found. The GOP monkeying around with the ACA has done nothing but increase price and reduce care benefits. The Democratic Socialist wing of the party promising to work for more "free" stuff that are necessities will have much appeal for a working class that can barely afford their next meal.
1
Just a thought about that golden age from 1945 to 1975. I'm old enough to remember holding my mom's hand at the butcher (the old butcher shop with sawdust on the floor) and looking up to see a sign on the wall from the OPA (Office of Price Administration). For working class people, the forties still felt a lot like the depression. The Eisenhower era golden age of road building, new car sales and new suburban tract housing luring people out of the decaying inner cities, when Doris Day had a white collar job in a shiny new chrome and glass skyscraper, a harbinger of the two-earner nuclear family was the shortest lived relief from depression and war in our history.
1
The consolidation of wealth and power has been rampant over the past four decades and doesn't seem to be stopping. The author is right, he could have listed consolidation of industries, Citizens United, loss of pension retirement benefits and the switch to the market in 401ks, and tax rates, of course.
But the single most impactful thing capitalists have done to secure the rise of socialism is health care and their desire to protect insurance and medical profits at all costs. All other socialist ideas ride this coattail.
2
I find it interesting that so many now find their lives to be so miserable. American jobs are safer and easier than ever. Most people have luxuries that extend well past what used to be considered basic needs. Smart phones, gaming consoles, high speed internet, unlimited access to entertainment, etc are not the domain of just the rich. Americans are living, on average, a much easier and leisure filled lives than previous generations were able to.
@John Because the only jobs left in this country for people without a college education (and sometimes *with* a college education) are low-paying service jobs that are more likely to be part-time so that companies don't have to pay benefits like health insurance and retirement contributions. Notice that I didn't say "pensions", because that's another bulwark against financial insecurity which has vanished.
As for "safer and easier", notice that corporations have been agitating for a long time, and with some success, for stripping those workplace protections in the name of "over regulation" killing "competitiveness". And that's true, if you are in a race to match working conditions in China and other nations which consider human beings as interchangeable parts whose lives aren't worth much.
I have seen the idea frequently lately that somehow the access to tech like smartphones and the abundance of entertainment is somehow supposed to make up for the lack of affordable housing, access to affordable healthcare, decent jobs with a living wage, and an old age not spent in poverty. You might want to review your history to see how the idea of 'Bread and Circuses" worked out for the Romans.
1
@LarkAscending
Great doc. on HBO called San Francisco 2.0 on the subject of mega tech billionaires and what big metropolis has become.
Director: Alexandra Pelosi
1
What is the current conservative majority on the Supreme Court thinking? As it continues apace issuing right wing decisions that weaken and harm working and middle class people, while favoring capitalist and plutocratic interests, not only does it delegitimize itself but furthers a leftward societal backlash . It has become the legal instrument of economic production.
2
The word "Socialism" is used as a pejoritive, but socialistic ideas: social security, for instance: are ingrained in our society. But if the definition of "socialism" is resticted to having government do when it can provide more and better services (or do them for less), it then encompasses Police and Fire Protection, Public Schools, Water and Sewage and, perhaps, Health Care.
If we avoid fixing labels to ideas and consider them on their merits, we would often make different choices.
2
What we should also look at during the impressive economic growth years, described in this op-ed as "the “Trente Glorieuses,” or "the glorious 30 years from 1945 to 1975 when everything largely worked in Western economies" is that our immigration rates were a fraction of what they've been for the past few decades:
In 1970 we had 9,619,000 or so immigrants, roughly 4.7% of our total population, the lowest point in our 20th century history. In 2016 by contrast, we have 43,739,000+ immigrants, which is over 13% of our population.
Our captains of industry love the endless supply of cheap labor that we import while simultaneously outsourcing whatever production they can to even lower rates of cheap labor abroad. While this practice has lifted millions out of extreme poverty in some of the poorest countries, it has also contributed to our own anemic domestic wage growth.
I wish you would go on for 20 pages, because I don't believe that you have compellingly linked our current "version" of Capitalism to the left's increasing affinity for Socialism. Firstly, there are infinite "versions" of capitalism, because it's every free person making their decisions based on what resources are available to him or her at any time, and what they desire or need. Secondly, there is only one "version" of socialism, and it's not the one being "practiced" in the Netherlands, a free market, Capitalist economy with social programs like here in the US.
Thirdly, Capitalism is precisely what pulled 40% of China's population out of poverty to where they have the same poverty rates as us. It's the social programs that stifle people and encourage them to do less.
Fourth, what the left needs to realize is that Capitalism (people's ability to do with their money as they see fit) is the necessary condition for civil rights, not the sufficient condition. The only countries in the world that guarantee civil rights are those that offer economic rights. Every single country that experimented with central planned economies, or true socialism, failed to guarantee the most basic civil rights.
Lastly, college is the problem. There are more professors teaching kids of the virtues of the murderous system of socialism than teaching them how to produce something useful for another human being. This is the great tragedy. And if we make that "Learning" free, big mess.
1
@PJ ABC "Lastly, college is the problem."
Uh, no. At least, not in the way you are fantasizing it is. The problem is that many jobs in the U.S. which require college degrees once did not. They do now because employers decided that they could add that qualification to lower tier jobs as a discriminator in hiring. And since most factory work has been exported, there is no way for someone with only a high school diploma to make a decent living. So, people who were not ready for or did not want a college education now must have that piece of paper in order to be minimally qualified for a full-time job with a living wages. Since demand is high and places are limited, the cost of college has risen faster than inflation even as faculty salaries have dropped and adjuncts teach the undergrads. And then there has been the rise of for-profit "colleges" engaged in educational fraud, leaving students deeply in debt without a marketable degree. find a way to allow people to work at living wage jobs without needing bachelor/masters degrees, and that will solve a lot of our economic woes. Trouble is, unfettered Capitalism is what got us in this mess in the first place, and we need to stop pretending that every person is an economic island unconnected to the rest of society.
The evidence shows that the overwhelming thought among Capitalists in the last few decades is "More." Such thinking, however, will always be insufficient to satisfy their voracious appetites.
6
Re. "socialism": In the U.S., the politico-capitalist right, as it so often does, has won the "Define the Subject" contest.
"Welfare." "Right to work." "States rights." On and on. ...
The right has made certain that its trope for any given problematic social situation becomes the default.
Of course, the word or phrase portrays the left in the worst possible light.
For Americans, "socialism" the word has almost exclusively come to mean highly progressive government redistribution; take the wealth from those who earned it the old-fashioned way (inheritance), and give it to layabouts.
Recently, "socialism," as advocated ed by Sanders et al, with their call for national single-payer healthcare and "free" tuition, has returned a tinge of the old definition of "socialism" which included Marxist theory; state control of the means of production on behalf of the people.
2
It's always interesting to see comments from readers in the EU. As I read their takes on their social democratic government system compared to our current implementation of capitalism, I find myself wishing that more Americans would travel abroad and see for themselves.
Less American ignorance would be a wonderful thing.
7
When people make more money than they can possibly spend, either now or later with savings, the excess may as well be flushed down the toilet. That money has been taken out of the economy. So small wonder that the economy as seen by most of us is declining.
Economics 101: "The economy is grand as long as money is changing hand". I heard that years ago from a doorman at a New York hotel. And it cuts to the heart of the problem. Unless money circulates it is worthless. It is the rate at which it circulates, not its total amount, that determines the strength of an economy.
This is especially so because of a multiplier effect: Spend a dollar, and the recipient will then spend it, and the next person will also spend it, and so on. Investing it locally does the same thing. Stuff the money in an offshore bank and it does nothing.
The country including the very rich was prosperous when, due to strong unions, wages were high. And tax rates were very, very progressive. This was during Republican President Eisenhower's era.
If we limited take-home income to that of Mitt Romney's, $50,000 per day (about $20 million per year), then I'm sure the rich could live quite well. Any excess could be put into higher wages and benefits so that economic multiplier could jump start itself. Even the rich would benefit by, at the least, having friendlier neighbors.
9
First of all, it will lead to pitchforks. Second of all, the deeper and fixable problem is that since Reagan demonized government and Repubs all fell into line, policies that ameliorate the effects of the market have been torpedoed because: "socialism". I don't care what label you put on it; governments should have an interest in making sure that their citizens can lead decent, healthy, and productive lives. Policy should serve the many, not the few. If our current capitalism is serving the few at the top, it is government policy that should balance it for the many. That is generally the Dem position and ethos and that is why I can never vote Repub.
VOTE in the midterms!!!!!
10
Meanwhile, video game companies preach the virtues of socialism to NYC. They explain that socialism for them will lead to NYC becoming the epicenter of their industry and wealth beyond imagining--for them, not the rest of us.
See https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/nyregion/programming-new-york-for-vid...
I say we should found the Pragmatic Party. It is pragmatic to provide health care, low-cost access to education, the safety net, and to retain certain elements of free enterprise. Dump the Socialist label, now. It's a loser in a land where everyone thinks he can grow rich, even amidst squalor.
6
@Zen Squalor? Statistics show that the is a smaller percentage of people in poverty in the US than in the EU.
If a democracy is functioning as it should socialism is unnecessary. The people do not need to give the means of production to the government because the government belongs to the people. Our tax dollars are, ideally, our tax dollars. The people in a democracy, supposedly, decide how to spend the people's money.
Of course, we know that wealthy and powerful people have fiddled with our democracy so that the tax dollars in our national budget are no longer spent at the behest of we the people. These wealthy and powerful people want a kind of cruel capitalism that assumes that failure is a personal choice and that if we provide a soft landing for non workers, regardless of the reason that they are not in the work force, we are encouraging people to be non participants in the nation's economic success and we are allowing them to be a drain on people who succeed.
American socialists are not actual socialists; they are people who want to spend the people's money on the people. They want to offer universal health care and support to workers who are unable to work, to parents whose working lives could be better with some backup from social programs, to children who need the very best start in life to be successful adults and to solving social problems like the opioid addiction epidemic as they crop up. They are not socialist; they are Democratic Socialists.
6
Capitalism in the United States has come to resemble the abuse responsible for the establishment of communism 100 year ago. History has a way of repeating itself. Even a cursory reading of Marx and revolutionaries such as Che Gueverra reveals the basis of their desire for change. Alas, utopian visions met human nature but the root of their pursuits was flagrant abuse of capitalism and oligarchy.
It appears that Scandinavian countries have set the standard for functional societies. Instead of socialists and capitalists fighting each other they have integrated both into systems of checks and balances. Taxes may be higher but so is return on investment. People pay far less in taxes for health insurance, for example, than what we have to supporting for profit insurance corporations. Perhaps Scandinavians are less susceptible to brainwashing diatribes by the far right oligarchs of Wall Street?
6
Democracy must include mechanisms that allow countries to have more or less government and more or less taxes. The USA is no longer a functioning democracy because the GOP is not a political party but a cult. Their mantra less government and less taxes is a recipe for disaster and after 54 years of relentless propaganda and the presidency of Ronald Wilson Reagan we don't know if the nation will survive. Ideology is no substitute for practicality and in time where only good government can see and understand the needs of all citizens the USA is blindfolded and has its hands tied behind its back.
6
I actually hope capitalists don't do anything about it. The supply-side ethos, which extends across party lines, needs to be tossed in the dust bin of history. The extraordinary effort required to achieve this goal will come easier if capitalists and their Reagan-esque adherents remain blissfully unaware.
Here's the thing: Millienials don't want economic security at the cost of economic paternalism. Why would anyone want to rely on the benevolence of their corporate overlords for security? More than anything, the younger generation seeks a return to representative governance along with the great social works such governance can achieve. We're not looking for charity; we're looking for economic justice.
Furthermore, throwing up images of the Soviet propaganda mischaracterizes the entire effort. Communists are not socialists. George Orwell made this point abundantly clear in "Homage to Catalonia." Orwell himself was a socialist fighting both Franco and the communists. Socialists are especially not communists in the Kenseyian mold envisioned by the DSA and their more moderate allies the Democratic caucus. Bringing up the October Revolution qualifies quite frankly as fear mongering.
7
By 1980, labor unions were arguably at the peak of their power. Since then, the pendulum has swung to the other extreme in favor of capital. Over this same time, real wages have stagnated, especially for the bottom half of incomes.
In addition, we are in the midst of a secular shift in the economy. We are moving from the industrial age to whatever will follow it. The last parallel shift was from agriculture to manufacturing in the 19th century. At that time, 50% of people worked in agriculture. Today about 2% do, yet we have more food for more people.
Similar trends are happening today in manufacturing (the prior beneficiary of unions). Today only 8.8% of Americans work in manufacturing, compared with about 25% in 1960. Due to technology and productivity improvements, it requires just one worker today to produce the same amount of steel that required ten workers a few decades ago. This economic shift away from factory jobs is painful and disruptive for many.
In the 19th century, factory work was brutal, dangerous, and paid subsistence wages. By 1960, a single worker with a high school education could support a middle class family with a factory job - thanks in large part to labor unions.
We need a new labor movement. We need it in job sectors that have not been represented before - including in the service industries and the gig economy, among others. We need labor unions to fight for the well-paying jobs of the future, just as they did for factory jobs a century ago.
12
Sorry to say that I live in a very poorly economically educated society. Quite a few younger people do not understand or care that these economic issues that have been tested over and over around the world. Fully socialistic or communistic countries don’t seem to be really humming along delivering a quality life for the citizens. Admittedly capitalistic countries require education to separate you from the masses in order to do well and one would expect people to get it and respond. And if you don’t the idea perhaps of an easier way is appealing. Every country on the planet has elements of socialism in their economic construct - social security for example in the US but the engine of the economy should be capitalistic and free. The alternative does not work as well. All those people leaving fully socialized countries are leaving their home country because it is not working to allow them a life worth living. Social justice is the goal we all should strive for not fully a socialistic economy. It will not work for long.
People want more stuff for free. That's always been the appeal of communism, socialism, and all the other 'isms. Heck, that's the appeal of most politicians.
However, in real life the overwhelming majority of "the people" only care about creature comforts and Maslow's basic needs. Only dissatisfied elites care about the structure and organization of the political system. And luckily, there aren't enough of them to succeed.
Maybe something is wrong with the system when someone works multiple full time jobs just to pay rent while others work very little and sit on most of money. But I guess it’s some moral failing on the part of the workers, right? Why else would they struggle? Surely it has nothing to do with the iniquities of our economic and political system.
2
For centuries the very rich have controlled money and power. The difference now is the corporatocracy largely guided by the teachings of Business Schools. B-Schools preach a sort of corporate religion that is as absolutist as Catholic, Muslim and Judaism. Dead cold profits, couched as "shareholder value", drive their zeal, by any and all means. Corruption is their final tool when all else fails, which happens when they choose not to compete. Satisfied by piles of money and possessions, yachts, jets, ski lodges, penthouses, they plunder rather than nurture. Look at the scandals. Look at the outcomes. Look at the desperation of a people, your people, your people.
2
For Socialism to win the White House it must be understood by those that will benefit most from it.Clinton beat Sanders in the Primaries, because she won the Black & Hispanic Vote. Two groups that would benefit most from Socialism, part of this was due to the lack of knowledge as to how they would benefit from Socialism, & the other was intolerance.I recall a Black voter who replied when asked if he would vote for Sanders, he said ,"I don't know Sanders from Madoff"This was cutting his nose to spite his face, his reward was Trump.
3
Capitalists posing as populists, especially populists who become unpopular, should look at what's happening to Venezuela's Maduro. He'd be a lot safer if he chose retirement over clinging to power. There may be a lesson in this for Trump.
1
Amen.
If we are going to have Republicans in charge, could we at least have a Teddy Roosevelt-type Republican? He came from a privileged background, and he appeared to understand the dangers of unchecked, winner-take-all capitalism.
He also liked to read.
5
The rise of socialists on the left is accompanied by the rise of Donald Trump on the right. Both point to serious failures in American Capitalism and our mainstream political system.
When return on investment and short term profit at all cost become the driving forces behind business decisions, government is supposed to step in and say, "whoa, boys and girls, you can't do that." This was the balance struck after the Great Depression. Unfortunately, our leaders--and this has been bipartisan--have been slowly chipping away at the protections put in by FDR. The result has been an enormous transfer of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the top 1%.
If you're an older white person whose personal status has slipped you're most likely to place the blame on those who seem to have risen while you've fallen. That would be women, black people and immigrants. If you're younger you are repelled by the racism of the Republican party and are more likely to be attracted by socialist leaning Democrats who at least point out steps to a future which sounds like it would be better than our present.
The failure of both parties to stand up to the donor class has brought us to this fine mess that we're in. Is there any surprise that voters are looking for alternatives?
11
Capitalism is the only economic system that works.
These days anyone who wants a job can get a job. Thanks to capitalism, not socialism.
A quote I found at "The Atheist Conservative":
Capitalism works well because it is in tune with our nature. Adam Smith called it “the natural order of liberty”. Everyone selfishly desires to provide for his needs. To pay for what he wants from others – services and goods – he has to provide something that others will pay him for. Millions do it, and the result is prosperity. Capitalism is an abstract machine most beautiful to behold in the wonder of its workings. When individuals have the incentive to achieve, acquire, and enjoy something for themselves, they’ll go to great lengths to afford it. They’ll compete with each other to provide what others want, toil to make it the better product, and set the price of it lower. The best is made available at the least cost. Everyone is both a taker and a giver, and everyone benefits. True, not everyone’s effort always succeeds, but nothing stops anyone from trying again.
1
You’re wrong about Adam Smith. He wrote a sequel to “Wealth of Nations” entitled “A Theory of Moral Sentiments” that lays out the need for moral actors in business, government, and everyday life to keep markets in line and acting to the betterment of societies and their members.
2
Yes, this post causes me to wax nostalgic about the unfettered 19th Century with its serial financial meltdowns, 8 year olds "taking the initiative" to work in coal mines for pennies, widespread illiteracy, wealth disparity at a level we are once again approaching, rampant corruption, and a life expectancy of 40 years. Ah, the blessings of unfettered capitalism!
1
I really don't understand the use of the terms "socialism" and "capitalism," not as concepts but as practices in the US. Unless you're against private ownership of businesses, you're a capitalist. Unless you believe in zero taxes you're a socialist. The number of people in this country who hold either extreme belief are likely negligible.
These words in practice are so ill defined that it's too easy to pick the word that sounds anathema to your political dogma, hold it close to your little black heart and never let it go.
Rather than addressing these things as just tools to generate wealth and then protect against the inevitable failings of unobstructed wealth generation (I remember Obama doing this once. He should have hammered this home regularly through both terms of his presidency... Republicans would not make this mistake) they get labeled as soundbites. And so swings the ideological pendulum from one extreme to the next driving ideological factions further apart.
1
If you think for one moment that rapacious oligarchic capitalists are going to think about the consequences of their actions and why there is a movement towards democratic socialism again, at least until their own lives are threatened (which some of them in the 30's thought they would be), I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. And it ain't even the one in Brooklyn.
These people, they think differently from you or me. They believe they are the elite (the Calvinist Elect, even if they don't recall the religious underpinnings of the belief) who deserve all of this by virtue of their hard work and brains, and that those who don't have much are getting precisely what they deserve--not much. And, moreover, those without much shouldn't ever be given charity--private or governmental--because, given their inferiority, they'll just squander resources that rightfully belong to the elite anyway.
Marx was correct in at least one respect--these people will sell us the rope that we would hang them all with if they thought they could profit from it. (Except nowadays it's probably be AK-15's. Higher profit margin than rope.)
In any case, the continued absorption of 90% of the resources by 1% of the population can only go on so long before something breaks. But whether what breaks is oligarchic control or the entire world order is an open question.
7
Capitalism has destroyed America beyond its ability to repair the damage. We have instant gratification and little else and we lost our soul in the process so it’s no wonder that interest in democratic socialism is growing. Is that really so bad?
3
The average tenure of an American CEO is under 10 years, after which they have accumulated enough wealth to insure a posh lifestyle for themselves and all their grandkids. What’s even better, is that in today’s information society, you don’t need to employ a lot of people to make a lot of money. Given these conditions why should they care about the rest of Americans? Why should ‘the takers’ get a piece of this prosperity?
6
To some degree, this column explains my theory of the first duty of a democratic republic/capitalist government is to protect the capitalists from themselves and their natural greed. Keep the misery level of the lower economic classes low enough, the government stays stable.
There's no evidence of socialism having broad appeal beyond where it always has appeal: young people who want someone else to support them. If you think otherwise, convert the Democratic Party into a Social Democratic Party and see what happens. I wish you well.
1
Whatever Mr. Tomasky says about this issue is overwhelmed by the picture chosen to illustrate the text. Democratic Socialism is not the 'red'takeover of much of Europe and Stalin. Democratic Socialism is based on Scandinavian socialism not the Communists. I do not think this was not intended.
4
Can we stop drawing these false red line distinctions? Even free market capitalists believe there are public goods the government should provide. None of the Democratic Socialists are communists and never claimed to be. There are very good capitalist arguments for why things like health care, for example, cannot be provided through a capitalist system and should be public goods in agreement with socialists. Articles like this create division where there should be none and limit authentic policy debate. Please stop.
6
“I have mixed feelings about this socialism boomlet. It has yet to prove itself politically viable ... and by 2021 we could wake up and see that it’s been a disaster for Democrats”
And I have mixed feelings about this Crony Capitalism. While it has to proven itself to be politically viable ... in 2016 we finally woke up and saw that it’s been a disaster for Democrats.
4