A majority of millennials now reject capitalism, poll shows
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
That being said, capitalism and having things like free healthcare and education are hardly mutually exclusive. So I think the article's conclusion, "In an apparent rejection of the basic principles of the U.S. economy...", (more the poll) are a bit misleading.
Here's the actual poll, by the way:
http://www.people-press.org/2011/12/28/little-change-in-publ...
Thanks to twblalock for including the recent poll:
http://iop.harvard.edu/youth-poll/harvard-iop-spring-2016-po....
Socialism to most Americans is free healthcare and college. Capitalism is lobbying and the abuse of government sponsored monopolies.
That said, yes, the feudal lord's band of merry thugs would keep the peace, because peasants can work harder if they're not squabbling with each other.
You don't have to go that far back in time:
The gray area, which I consider to fall in the 'upholding the rule of law' category, are consumption-based regulations or incentives, where a practical piece of society (like burning fuel) infringes on the rights of many others to a small degree, and this is where a carbon tax could easily fit in a free market system. In fact, it could be argued that the system is freer than if there were no pollution taxes at all, because then people would be allowed to infringe on the property rights of others (via shared atmosphere, oceans, climate) unhindered.
It's also important to note that the semantics on capitalism is almost always misleading in discussions:
https://chomsky.info/20130305/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9XFBN5X1JU
Capitalism (in the free markets sense) is great. The problem is that gobs of money are stolen from poor people like me by the government through various processes, the biggest of which is inflation. This money is largely redistributed to cronies - the easiest of which to see are the big contractors. Less obvious are the banks and directly profit off of low-interest loans by flipping them to higher-interest borrowers, and even less obvious is wall street (whose coffers are filled by middle class people pushed into protecting their assets from inflation).
This is Capital-ism (in the marxian sense) -- the philosophy deciding that the pursuit of capital is a good unto itself. Unfortunately, the state has decided to attempt to 'harness' capitalism for its own idea of 'social good' which of course basically taints the non-zero-sum nature of free exchange with the zero-sum game of political hierarchy. The more this happens, the greater there will be inequality. It's a direct consequence of the first principles, and is unavoidable.
The WHOLE POINT of inflation is that it screws over wageearners:
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/the-case-for-hi...
"even in the long run, it’s really, really hard to cut nominal wages. Yet when you have very low inflation, getting relative wages right would require that a significant number of workers take wage cuts. So having a somewhat higher inflation rate would lead to lower unemployment, not just temporarily, but on a sustained basis."
True, some prices have risen. But, if I may, here are some fun equations to ponder.
1996 (Florida)
Minimum wage $4.25 Gallon of milk $2.73 Gallon of gas $1.26 Dozen eggs $1.31
2017 Minimum wage $8.10 Gallon of milk $3.31 Gallon of gas $2.41(was almost $4.00, if I remember correctly a few years ago?) Dozen eggs $1.59
1996
Electronics (to do work, using one's natural talents, for example) Expensive.
2017 Electronics: Much cheaper. Adjusting for inflation: much, much cheaper.
Of course, with electronics, there are too many intricacies to list, but here's a specific one. I bought a 512MB compact flash card in 2001, which set me back $249. I think the last one I bought was 2 years ago, or so. It was $60 for 16 GB. I make my living taking pictures. What would 16 GB worth of pictures have cost me in 2001?
I'm happy with these numbers. Simply put, let's think very carefully before using absolutes.
How much can the government be stealing from you if you have no money? The government is in a position to help you, by providing you with social services, with financial benefits, by providing police to protect you, not to mention debt forgiveness (you mentioned your family is in bankruptcy). None of these things come from free market capitalism; they come from socialist policies intended to help those at a disadvantage. And there should be more of that -- health care, education, etc. Of course, corruption and inefficiency in government exists and is a problem, but the ones stealing money from you are those at the top who are constantly seeking to pay less in taxes, do less to protect to the environment, lobby or contribute (aka bribe) to profit at the expense of public good, outsource or automate away their labor, etc. You mentioned the negative impact of common practices of bankers and Wall Street -- those kinds of things are natural consequence of free market activity.
John Oliver did a good breakdown of how municipalities do pretty nasty things when you can't pay your tickets.
http://www.academia.edu/6681088/Washing_Away_the_Sins_of_Deb...
Why is inflation useful as opposed to deflation? If money were to be gaining in value rather than losing value people would be incentivized to do a few things
1. Hold on to money because it would increase in value over time
2. Not make purchases because the object being purchased will require fewer units of money over time.
3. Not invest in starting new businesses because the investor would be losing out on the guaranteed income from holding onto the money along with the fact that whatever the business sells will be worth fewer units of money over time
4. Disincentivize individuals to take out loans to start businesses because the value of the loan will increase in price over time.
However when money loses value over time there are a few nice properties
1. The burden of debt decreases over time
2. People are incentivized to invest their money into business
You seem to believe that secondary markets (namely wall street) are bad things. The secondary market is a good thing because it gives individuals that initially put up capital for new businesses to be created a way to realize the return on their investment without having to wait for dividends. This is good because people that are successful in choosing which businesses should have capital (because their product is valuable) and which businesses don't deserve that capital will be able to take their money and invest it into other businesses which would presumably create products that add value to the world.
Of course there are bad things such as advisors charging excessive fees to ignorant people, corporate raiders, fraudsters, etc.
> 1. Hold on to money because it would increase in value over time
"disincentivize poor people from saving"
> 2. Not make purchases because the object being purchased will require fewer units of money over time.
"push poor people into consuming"
> 3. Not invest in starting new businesses because the investor would be losing out on the guaranteed income from holding onto the money along with the fact that whatever the business sells will be worth fewer units of money over time
"Benefit rich people who seek to invest in venture capital"
> 4. Disincentivize individuals to take out loans to start businesses because the value of the loan will increase in price over time.
"make it easier for people to sell themselves into debt slavery"
> 1. The burden of debt decreases over time
"make it cheaper for leveraged investments, de facto restricted to a small class of investors, to exist"
> 2. People are incentivized to invest their money into business
"push middle class people into subsidizing risky behavior by capitalists"
The reason why I am reframing your statements in this way is because a general policy of inflation affects everyone, and by and large the rich (good for them!) already have ways to escape, if not profit from, the generalized effects. The rest of us do not.
There are additional problems to the "perpetual growth mentality", that I don't want to bring up too heavily, like incentivising continued erosion of the environment, natural resource depletion and less conservation.
> You seem to believe that secondary markets (namely wall street) are bad things.
No. Secondary markets are great. What is not great is forcing people to participate, as in, socializing risk while while allowing the rich and politically connected to enjoy the fruits of the casino capitalism with golden parachutes and fail-upwards scenarios. The traditional left/liberal argument is that we need to add regulation to fix that and protect the investment of general public, which, being anti-state-socialist, I am vehemently against (besides which the long history of added regulations seems to only have the effect of ensnaring more of the middle class into the system of socializing risk and paying off the privileged). The only solution is to not have these insidious little pushes that force the general public into these dangerous activities.
Inflation is like proto-matter from star trek II. You think you know what you're doing, harnessing this praeternatural force that can bend and shape society to what you think are "good things", but the cost is you're really making things unstable because of the fallacy of the unseen.
You can save by investing in the stock market or bonds which is what everyone should be doing
>"push poor people into consuming"
You can save (investing is saving)
>"Benefit rich people who seek to invest in venture capital"
The majority of people starting businesses aren't rich venture capitalists and more venture capitalists fail more often than succeed.
>"make it easier for people to sell themselves into debt slavery"
Getting into debt is definitely slavery, I'm sure the millions of people that have used debt to their benefit agree with you.
I'm done reading your comment, it's filled with unreasoned hyperbolic language that doesn't reflect the truth. Look inward and realize that at some point in your life you became radicalized to the point where you can't even think rationally
Inflation is a mechanism to prevent the rich from hoarding cash. The flipside is that people who aren't putting their money to use lose value.
Without inflation, the rich would hoard with impunity.
As "mechanism to prevent hoarding" by the rich it's pretty shitty. The rich know how to protect their net worth from devaluating currency (e.g. real estate), and can more easily partake in leveraged investment vehicles which would not be possible with higher interest rates and non-inflationary base currency. You don't see the guy on the tenderloin buying leveraged etfs. For that matter neither does the middle class, who mostly are locked into managed find situations which provide low yield (if you look through to trough, the real value of the stock market has been static for 25 years)
> That doesn't make any sense. If the rich hoard money the velocity of money goes down, and that causes the value to go down too.
'Velocity' of money is a shitty concept, but regardless what it means is that with higher velocity, goods and services are in higher demand relative to cash (more transactions over time). This increases price levels but reduces the value of cash.
So velocity going down decreases demand for and the value of goods and services (price levels), increasing the relative value of cash.
And it is a puzzling thing. Where did those jobs go? How is personal income so stagnant? And one of the things I note that is different now than was different before, was that by accumulating capital, large companies remove from circulation large chunks of money. It gets trapped by companies demanding it be 'cash or cash equivalents' so you aren't seeing it invested in long term projects. What you see are lots and lots of T-bills and other dollar denominated investments which can be liquidated on short notice. In January of last year the New York Times reported at $1.9T![1] and that has only gotten worse over the last 12 months. Nearly a $1.4T of this held by 50 US companies[2]. It is hard to get a handle on a trillion dollars, but if you take $60,000 a year as a "nice" middle income job in most of the country, half that $1.4T or $700B dollars circulating around in the economy is nearly 12 MILLION jobs!
I assert that because those trillions are sitting there in T-bills they have taken all of the oxygen out of the middle class. Many people when they have a bit more money in their pocket month to month spend at least some of that on things they wouldn't have spent on otherwise. Whether its a new car, or eating out, or vacations, or new furniture, or repainting the house. All of that spending then is going to companies that are hiring people to paint or sell you stuff or serve you stuff or make stuff for you to buy. And those people who doing all this stuff are also spending money and buying stuff etc.
I believe it is entirely possible that this has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism and everything to do with economic capital becoming trapped and stripped of its agency by companies who hoard it for no reason.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/magazine/why-are-corporat...
[2] http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/14/news/tax-us-companies-offsho...
If so, we simply need to increase the rate of inflation and the cash will start flowing.
I think you do raise a legitimate point about echo chambers, but how does that observation on its own help us? It's pessimistic. In my opinion, you've not really contributed to a resolution here except to be cynical.
I support capitalism, and I admit it has done very well by me. I don't come from a privileged upbringing whatsoever, but it's now likely my children will. But your binary characterization of the inevitable functions as sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy here - will my opinions on capitalism be viewed as coming from someone who benefits from it because that's the way you framed it? By starting the conversation off in the way you did, I believe your framing antagonizes it prematurely. Why not decry an echo chamber when it actually emerges?
However, I will say that the latter part of your post is the kind of comment that I was expecting, for better or worse.
For example, I'm willing to engage in dialectics about the advantages and disadvantages of a capitalist system (for example, see my other comment about this article), but you didn't really say anything other than "you make some good points, but this is what I expected."
Take a position. You don't diminish an echo chamber just by observing that it exists, you have to engage with it and attempt to improve the discussion. I called out my potential bias and took a stance. You've not really done either here, which ultimately diminishes the impact of calling out the difficulty in the first place. What was the point?
There's a great saying actually that's relevant, but for the life of me I can't remember.
They aren't big changes either, small incremental policy changes make huge differences to individuals. Those individuals just don't have the capacity after work, or the connections, to advocate effectively for themselves.
It's not just that, but it's the fact that it takes a huge amount study to even understand how things like the national economy work. Business people and the upper class already have a huge leg up in this because it's their bread and butter. Poor people and shift workers really need to go out of their way to learn the ins and outs.
And what ruins the whole endeavor is the fact that it is much easier to cherry-pick statistics and spin any given policy decision to adhere to a certain message and populist ideology. Republicans have mastered the art of spinning every talking point to appeal to rural and working class voters while maintaining a firm agenda benefitting the special interests they claim to be against. Not that Democrats are objectively any better—the two party system ensures that anyone with deep enough pockets can just donate to both sides and not worry too much about anyone with real principles standing in their way. But considering that Trump has managed to paint himself as somehow being of and for The People despite the most elite and privileged trust-fund roots imaginable really goes to show what an uphill battle it will be to make real progress.
It is sometimes said that truth is powerful, but in an increasingly complex world with cheaper and cheaper information production and distribution, propaganda is gaining power much faster than the populace's capacity to understand it.
I'm curious to hear what small changes you think will have a huge difference.
A win for corporates, and even a win for small businesses who were struggling to afford it.
But ultimately taking the money from the lower end workers and passing it up the chain instead.
Who do you think made that policy change? Who do you think would have fought against it if they both knew about it and had the means to advocate against it?
Those who couldn't fight for themselves were trodden on in that particular small policy change.
I guess it seems like there are small changes that have large impacts on specific people, but that's true of all change at the margins.
To put it into perspective though, that particular law affects hospitality workers the most. More than 60% of women and minorities are employed by that industry here, and so the change directly affects already marginalized individuals.
Their pay is essentially bikeshed by people way above their pay grade and stature in society, who unsurprisingly decided it wasn't that important.
Those struggling from from inequality are struggling from relative deprivation, not absolute deprivation, while the latter is the only thing that rationally matters. I don't give a damn that Bill Gates is a ridiculous amount richer than me, in fact I admire him and want to be rich too someday. I have enough to survive and buy books, why should I worry about my relative wealth? People on the poverty line in the US ($20k) actually make 2x as much as the global mean wage ($10k). I doubt the people that currently complain about inequality today would be willing to give up >50% of their wage to alleviate it on the global scale, rather they will make arguments about "standard of living" as if they have some fundamental right to live better than those in Africa, poor India, ect... meanwhile I would rather be lower middle class now in US than Rockefeller 100 years ago.
I'm taking a pretty hard stance on this because I feel pretty strongly about it.
The argument in america seems to be that if you work hard, you can have a decent life and a house in the suburbs. There are already problems here, what of the people born with disabilities?
But assuming everyone is capable of work, there is still the assumption that adequately rewarding work exists for everybody. Perhaps this assumption can be summarised as the american dream that people need to wake from. Conservatives argue that bringing back well paying, low skilled jobs can restore this dream time. Perhaps if they also rolled back 50 years of legislation and restored the unions this would be true, but times have changed.
The reality is that access to rewarding work almost requires a privileged upbringing. It is completely unfair to assume that if poor people worked harder they would make it. I personally have a friend who grew up in a trailer park. After slogging it out through multiple entrepreneurial ventures, in his 30's he used his life savings to relocate his mother to find better medical care. Imagine at 30, a time when by your argument one should be buying and reading books, the burden of caring for you parents fell solely on your shoulders. Even in your 30's you are at a disadvantage due to your family's wealth.
I personally believe that I should not have such an automatic advantage (for what its worth I do). I would be much happier in a world where I was taxed 50% but lived in a world where I knew the person serving me at a restaurant wasn't potentially a desperate single mother trying to hold down a job to care for her child. A person who probably doesn't have time for books.
Before we get to charity, long story short I don't believe that wealthy people should get to choose were their money goes. That's a decision for society as a whole, and I believe people should be represented in that decision equally. Therefore I don't donate to charity.
> "Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took all of it from them."
Edward Albert Filene
Also, you would realistically need to be taxed more like 80-95% to get to the global mean.
I think there needs to be a greater global redistribution effort, but we should start with a more politically tenable one based on nation states.
Also, I have a hunch (but no data) to suggest that a national one may be more economically viable since you redistribute money inside your own economy which boosts demand and increases your tax base.
No, you did not take it from them. They willingly gave it to you. You are free to give it to them, but you choose not to.
> I don't believe that wealthy people should get to choose were their money goes. That's a decision for society as a whole
Please do not equate any body of government to "society as a whole."
Even in a true democracy where everyone votes, the majority will never have an adequate enough perspective to ensure funds are correctly distributed.
I don't know your friend. How can I know what he needs? How do you expect the real specific cases to be solved without direct assistance from someone (an individual, a charity) who knows how to help?
Being content and happy in life has a LOT to do with expectations and we've done a great job of promoting huge expectations for Americans ala "The American Dream!" Poor people don't care that Bill Gates and Elon Musk have near unfathomable wealth. They care that a lifetime of hard work doesn't guarantee a decent home, access to affordable healthcare, or the security to live without constant threat of basic necessities being out of reach.
Further, the poor should demand more! All we hear from the upper class/business owners is more, more, more! Get leaner, cheaper, and make more money! The poor are only following the examples set by the "titans of industry." And if they didn't constantly ask for more, they would be in even worse shape than they are now.
And finally, if you ever want to convince others of your viewpoint, comparing America to third world countries is not the way to go. You've got to put on your oxygen mask before you help those around you. Otherwise you all end up screwed.
I think this is the 2016 Harvard poll the article was referring to: http://iop.harvard.edu/youth-poll/harvard-iop-spring-2016-po...
Then it tempers that with the acknowledgement that "capitalism means different things to different people" and that it's unclear if respondents favor another system more, or just don't support anything.
Finally, it sort of meanders around with different people weighing in on what this might mean or what the cause could be.
Nothing really...happened here. It would be nice to see an article (or survey) that does a few things better than this:
1. Engages with both the material and millenials in an intellectually satisfying and nuanced way. Millenials are spoken about here not as members of the conversation, but as specimens. Furthermore, there's frankly not a lot of rigor in figuring out why millenials might not approve of capitalism other than the garden variety "first-pass" analyses you can read elsewhere.
2. Establishes greater rigor in both terminology and discovery. Maybe "capitalism" should have been defined more rigorously in the study. Maybe questions should have been less leading and asked about alternatives if capitalism is not satisfactory to the respondents.
3. Attempts to develop real conclusions instead of polarizing ones. Maybe the survey shouldn't have asked about "capitalism" at all, but instead asked about specific policies in a bipartisan manner. Avoiding the difficulties that make mistakes in my #2 point would be a significant improvement.
In fact, at this point I'm not sure if the goal was to honestly engage with the material or millenials at all at this point, or if there is an agenda for pushing out articles that paint huge demographics with such a broad brush. I don't like feeling that way or questioning this, but it doesn't feel like a real attempt was made here. I honestly left this piece without being able to make any real conclusions. I'm a millenial myself, so take that for what it's worth.
We can now debate the merit of concepts like "privatise luxury, socialise necessity" without being a 'commie bastard'. With the irony being socialist policy was far more in place and accepted 60 years ago when people were so anti-Russia and communism/socialism.
I really hope nations leaders can hear this because if they keep pushing people down with income disparity, access to a reasonable living and opportunity the pressure will build up for a bigger push-back, and potentially something dangerous if driven by anger/desperation rather than a common will to succeed.
I feel this is one of many strengths of democracy where it should allow pressure values to pop safely and society realign much earlier and easily than other government styles.
I can hardly believe that anyone who was alive during the 'cold war' would ever say that.
I grew up in an immigrant community in Canada, and most of my friends fled those disastrous, oppressive and totalitarian 'communist paradises' all over E. Europe, China, Vietnam, Cuba - and also - Sweden, by the way. Nordic countries were extremely socialist during the 1950's to mid 1980's.
If you were to try to say this in front of my friend's parents, they'd 'trigger', and kick you right out of the house in anger.
My uncle escaped Communist Hungary as a boy, literally, at night, running through the forest with soldiers chasing he and his mother.
I also remember the very real threat of a nuclear holocaust, in the 1970's to late 1980's it was a very, very real and tangible things.
You can try to 'debate', that's all fine, but communist utopian (read: dystopian) ideals seemed pushed by young naive people in every generation. It's almost as though they don't grasp the lessons of history.
There'll always be need for 'constant vigilance' against oppression by capital, fleeced consumers etc. - but socialism and especially communism are unmitigated disasters.
Communists are definitely 'dirty'. They represent, in reality - the world's greatest movement of mass murder and oppression. The paradox of the constant attraction to communism lies in their apparent goodwill: hey, who wouldn't want 'equality' and 'food for everyone' , yada, yada? Sounds great! Reality is a little harder and sometimes takes time to grasp.
"privatise luxury, socialise necessity". Defining 'luxury and necessity' is the root of that statement.
In Poland, just before the fall of communism, they had only Vanilla, Chocolate and 'Pink' ice-cream, because anything else was bourgeois (i.e. a luxury), and banned. In Bulgaria, there was no ice-cream. :)
Food is definitely on some level a 'necessity' and we definitely have not socialized that. Maybe we can make sure everyone gets healthcare without socializing too hard as well.
Communism, I believe, was to be implemented in a post industrial country. When Russia implemented it, they were pre-industrial, and during a massive war.
As an aside, Germany actually shipped, by train, an exiled Lenin to Russia to destabilize it during WWI.
There's also the problem that violent revolutions are extremely risky, and are unlikely to result in anything but a dictatorship, exacerbating the previous point.
Most failed communist communist governments have these problems, as do most failed capitalist governments. Until you have a peaceful transition into a communist system properly hardened against corruption, you'll have little real reason to believe it is any more flawed than capitalist economies.
My point is ANYTHING communism/socialism became a negative point. Kinda how you jumped on my comment without as though I was being a communist/socialist avocate when I was saying elements of have potential. Healthcare in USA is a good real world example. Most developed nations do universal healthcare and its the preferred way for the majority in these countries with clearly better outcomes for the mass. Many Americans still seem emotionally charged against 'socialising healthcare', argueing this is not a viable alternative despite significant empirical examples proving this works well. And also allows for integration with private alternatives for those that want service options.
I just feel the world is getting more ration in its discussion on this point. Plenty if irrationality remaining elsewhere :)
The second greatest is capitalism throughout the period of colonialism, and who knows which would win given an equal population at the time. Very few of the things you list have even tangential links to an economic system, and the few that do are confirmation of a central tenet of Communism, the need of a worldwide revolution.
People aren't ignoring the lessons history with their continued support of Communism/Socialism, they're looking past the surface commonly brought up. One of the first acts of the Bolsheviks was the elimination of any Soviet that had been formed. They went for a totalitarian approach from the start, and any small hope of that succeeding died when basically every nation in WWI declared war on them. This is very similar to what happened in the French revolution, and the results are very similar.
Economic theory isn't to blame for the atrocities committed during revolution and by tyrants. There are a host of reasons those events happened, and capitalism isn't some magic shield stopping them from happening again.
Oh, and food definitely has been socialized. The combination of farm subsidies, insurance programs, and welfare programs work to ensure everyone has access to it.
If that's what passes for capitalism, who wouldn't reject it?
People spend too much time debating economic systems when the fundamental problem is a public neglect of equal justice under the law.
Edit: who wouldn't reject these things if they weren't benefiting from them (vast majority of people)?
If a small bank got into the insurance business prior to financial services dereg of 1999, it would have been crucified by the feds. Citibank and Travelers did exactly that, but since our justice and regulatory structures are pay-for-play, and their market capitalizations were high enough, they were able to proceed without controversy.
On an individual level, our prison population is disproportionately black, and disproportionately locked up on minor charges with an inadequate defense. A prison stay has far-reaching consequences on wealth, employment, and social status.
As a small business person, if I were to copy an idea from Apple (like, say rounded corners), they would sue me into the ground (I think their suit with Samsung is already over $1B). If they were to steal my idea, I would go broke on attorneys fees long before I ever got to a courtroom.
Equal opportunity isn't worth much without equal justice under the law. You'd have a good run, only to have the house take back all the winnings in the end.
But these millenials who seem to think they are all smarter than everybody else forget one thing: of all the things we tried capitalism and democracy are the least destructive forms of governing society.
Or as Jordan Peterson, a tenured psychologist, has stated several times already: "Those who claim 'With us this time it (Marxism) will become so much better' have no idea what they are talking about"
Globalization itself isn't bad. Globalization where the playing field is rigged so that you need to be a billion-dollar corporation to participate in the spoils is.
On the other hand, it does take away from the poor people in developed countries like the US, Japan, the UK, Australia, South Korea, etc. when their economies seek out cheaper labor to make their economies work. If we didn't have imported labor for farm workers for example, we might pay more for grocery goods, etc but we'd have people who are currently out of a job making some money working on farms --working on farms _isn't that much worse_ than working at a McD or Walmart. It's be kind of like grocery goods are in Japan --good quality, but expensive picked by their own farm workers -with the aid of automation.
In addition to that, Globalization has not only enabled seeking cheap labor but also seeking "cheap" regulation and government through globalization. And these kids of things either enable or exacerbate things like the financial crises.
What I would like to see is a survey that asks people their opinions on certain characteristics of capitalism, without mentioning the word "capitalism." I think the results would be very different.
People today get so caught up in economic arguments that they overlook the fact that communism was a system of government during the Cold War... a system that required censorship and oppression to maintain power.
The word "capitalist" has never been embraced broadly as a social movement in the U.S. Its earliest usages in the U.S. were largely pejorative, by socialists and communists attempting to highlight differences.
Even today, people who create and accumulate capital in the U.S. rarely refer to themselves as "capitalists." They call themselves entrepreneurs, business owners, managers, executives, businesspeople, investors, etc.
I mean, sure, most Millenials probably equate capitalism with neoliberalism and socialism with social-democracy, but hey, given that interpretation, yeah, neoliberalism has ruined quite a lot of our lives.
Unregulated supply side economics appears to lead to massive exploitation and monopolies.
That being said socialism and capitalism work together everyday in America. See highways, education, plumbing, etc.
It has been argued that Socialism/government regulation is needed for Capitalism to work optimally.
I'm curious what the results would be for "free enterprise", "free markets", or "private property".
Contract law. "Capitalism" here usually means private voluntary agreements are very sacred or absolutely sacred.
Property law. "Capitalism" here usually means a rule of first possession.
Tax law. "Capitalism" here usually means a presumption against taxation, especially if redistributive in purpose.
Limited liability. "Capitalism" here usually means possibility of absentee investors.
Fiduciary duties. "Capitalism" here usually means duty to maximize shareholders' economic value.
Antitrust law. "Capitalism" here, as term is used by self-perceived opponents, usually refers to corporate bigness.
Etc.
Was Thomas Jefferson capitalist? He hated bigness in all forms.
Was Thomas Paine capitalist? He thought rule of first possession was useful because easy to administer but proposed something akin to universal basic income.
Important to be clear, as many others have noted in the comments.
> If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
Within a capitalist society, young people on the whole have less, but have to work for everything. After a decade or two working to earn stuff, you feel like other people should do that too. You can chase the reasons why down a million psychological rabbit holes.
That said, there's no reason why this would not be more true now than it ever has been before. Adjusting for inflation, we're paid the same as our parents but houses and rent is 10× what it was for them. (At least in the UK) the post-war decade-long housing boom flooded the market with cheap but good stock. Councils used to build for their own social care, and these eventually went on the market too. Now we only get mega-developers holding land until they get approval for high-density crappy houses.
That's a very distinct shift from socialised building projects to capitalist building. And it's skewed our entire economy, and really hobbles anybody on a lower income without a house to inherit.
― G.K. Chesterton
if your system can prevent these people from wielding such power, i'd like to hear how!
Part 2: Enact the Anti-corruption act in every governmental capacity from mayorships to congress to ban all money in politics.
Part 3: Members of congress can earn no more than the average salary of an American Citizen, and their healthcare plan is--the same as the average American w/ no perks above what American's get.
Part 4: Term limits for congress, not life-time bans, but you can only server in congress non-congruent terms, meaning you can't serve back to back, someone else has to take your place for a term. More lifeblood bled into congress can't be a bad thing.
Why is this not good? Who also resides in Washington DC and interacts with legislators, with virtually no limits on their length of involvement in this game? Lobbyists. You set up a system where the Legislators are effectively perpetual newbies with an extremely broad scope of issues they must interact with and influence for the best. Lobbyists with just a decade of experience will know far more than any legislator. There's already a lot of legislation is introduced that's provided verbatim from lobbyists... expect that to get worse, not better, with an even more inexperienced elected officials.
We already have a system of term limits, it's called electing someone else. Don't make it impossible to keep an excellent legislator who has the broad support of their constituents; make it easier to elect someone new to replace a bad one. With the insane costs of campaigning and getting elected, we'd all be better served by simply reducing that barrier to a minimum. Publicly funded campaigns also remove the influence of financial contributions.
They will gladly post all their private information to Facebook for that warm fuzzy feeling of people liking their updates, while they are being datamined and their profiling sold to advertisers.
But when asked, then sure everyone is against capitalism.
Karl Marx means one thing by the word, Ayn Rand means another, most other people in between have other ideas (or vague fuzzy feelings) about it, and yet everybody talks as if their own idea matches someone else's.
By the way, the problems you describe about insurance (I assume you mean health insurance) and the high cost of education are not characteristics of most capitalist economies. The United States is an outlier in those areas. Plenty of other capitalist countries have universal health care and free education. Plenty of others have universal health care and non-free education. Only the US has the double-whammy of expensive health care and expensive education.