Capitalism

Welcome to the Era of Late Socialism

I'll take late capitalism over late socialism any day.

|

Alex Edelman/CNP/AdMEdia/SIPA/Newscom

We hear a lot about late capitalism these days, mostly on Facebook and Twitter. A million dollar investment in an app that allows you to send the word "yo"? Late capitalism. $25 nap pods? Late capitalism. $16 cocktails? Late capitalism. (Wait until Twitter finds out about $38 Bloody Marys.)

It's a social media punchline for jaded liberals, and the joke is always the same: Capitalism, having run its course, is increasingly devoted to frivolity and decadence, to solving the niche problems of the wealthy and comfortable. Tagging something as late capitalism is a way of signaling, with mock exasperation, that market economies have stopped solving real problems, or providing anything of real value. It's an easy form of snark that nearly anyone can participate in from the convenience of a mass-market $500 pocket computer. LOL, please like, vote Bernie.

I'll grant the point, at least partially. The Yo app was silly. I can take naps on my couch at home for free. The cocktails, however, are pretty good. Capitalism's end game is nothing if not tasty.

The problem with the joke is that it only runs one way: We're all familiar with the follies of late capitalism. But what about late socialism?

The left has increasingly embraced the idea—or at least the label—of democratic socialism, along with an ambitious agenda of big government programs: single-payer health care, a jobs guarantee, free public college, and so on and so forth. But that agenda comes with a price tag so large that it is hard to imagine much of it becoming reality, even with the ascent of actually-we-don't-need-to-pay-for-itism. (You can get away with saying that deficits don't matter for a while. The problem is that at some point, they do.)

In practice, then, the socialist agenda, or at least the agenda of those Americans who call themselves socialists, is rather less grandiose. Even a brief glance at the handful of urban enclaves where left-leaning interest in democratic socialism is concentrated suggests that socialism, such that it is, has entered a tired and decadent phase of its own.

Here I am thinking of the recent wave of plastic straw bans, the profusion of restrictive zoning rules, caps and bans on ride-sharing services, minimum wage hikes targeted at service industry workers who earn tips, and so on and so forth.

As exercises in petty bureaucratic tyranny, these policies are connected in character: They limit individual choices and force businesses into support roles for social crusades. More importantly, they are pointless at best, and counterproductive at worst. The straw bans don't address the primary sources of plastic waste (presuming that's the goal) and may even result in the disposal of more plastic overall; urban ride-sharing caps are likely to curtail service in poor neighborhoods first; minimum wage hikes for tipped employees were broadly opposed by the very service workers they were supposed to have helped.

One might object—reasonably—that none of this truly counts as socialism. It's just liberal nanny statism at the urban level. Real socialism looks more like Venezuela. If socialists, the real ones who take this sort of thing seriously, want to make this argument, they should go right ahead. You will notice it's a line of reasoning they tend to avoid.

Instead, socialists like Bernie Sanders typically focus on the Nordic economies in Europe. Scandinavia does seem like a nice area of the world in many ways, especially if you like it cold. But here, too, you find that American socialists tend to gloss over certain pesky details. Nordic economies are relatively lightly regulated, certainly when compared to many other European economies. The region is also home to high effective marginal tax rates, which hover around 50 percent for ordinary middle class incomes.

There may be some advantages to the Nordic model, or parts of it anyway, but this is hardly the discussion most of today's up-and-coming socialists are having. If high middle class taxes and low corporate regulation are what the newly energized socialist left wants, then by all means, that's the pitch they should make to American voters.

The point is that where the American left finds itself in power, it ends up pursuing penny-ante restrictions on individual freedoms, one straw, balloon, and scooter at a time. This is not socialism, precisely speaking, but it is what socialism breeds in practice, at the local level, when practiced by those who understand politics entirely as a means of control.

Capitalism hasn't given us a perfect world. Far from it. But its moral gains are difficult to deny. Market-based economic systems have lifted more people out of poverty than any other system of social or political organization in the history of the world.

And yes, the excesses of capitalism are real. (I doubt I'll ever pay for a nap pod, unless someone makes me.) But by and large they are designed to make your life, or at least someone's life, a little more comfortable and more interesting. The excesses of late socialism are petty, pointless exercises in bureaucratic busybodying. Socialism's end game may be shallower and sillier than the true socialism of yore, but it hasn't changed.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

89 responses to “Welcome to the Era of Late Socialism

  1. Those aren’t “Late Capitalism” problems. They are big prog city problems.

    Get away from DC (and not to NY, LA, etc…) and you won’t find those problems.

    1. Why are they problems at all? People want to spend money on silly crap, they can. Good for the people who get them to pay.

  2. Why does late socialism feel like early socialism? I’ll take my answer off the air.

  3. I wouldn’t even call it “Late Socialism” – I would call it “Late Progressivism,” a stage characterized by re-branding “Progressivism” as “Socialism” in order to make it sound more fresh and anti-establishment, and less arrogant and teleological.

    1. If there are no firing squads, then it’s early progressivism.

    2. Exactly. It’s just re-branding for the new generation. There’s nothing new at all, except MORE of everything.

      Meet the new system. Same as the old system.

  4. I’ve been trying to figure out how to put this delicately.

    There’s nothing about a status quo economic system being journalist-‘splained in defensive, professorial tones that makes me feel better about the economy.

  5. The excesses of late socialism are petty, pointless exercises in bureaucratic busybodying.

    and famine and prison and death.

    1. That was socialism done wrong. The line between done right and done wrong can barely be measured with a micrometer. So knuckle up.

      1. The line between done right and done wrong can barely be measured with a micrometer.

        That’s good news. It means we’ll have “real” socialism any day now, if we can just nudge things to the correct side of the line. Keeping it there is another matter.

        1. “We just need the right people in the right positions”.

    2. The famine, prison and death seems to have mostly come in early to middle socialism. Then it either collapses or morphs into some kind variation on Fascism. Or a bunch of dipshit progressive welfare-statists re-brand as “socialist”.

    3. The kulaks aren’t going to kill themselves.

  6. I, for one, can’t wait for late socialism to provide me with what I already have, plus more taxes.

    1. It will give you less for more.

  7. The emergent embarrassment for liberals and progressives everywhere will be when it is no longer possible for the mainstream media to black out or sugar coat the forceful redistribution of wealth coming in South Africa.

    The formula there will be brutally simple: take from people of European descent, give to genuine very long term inhabitants of the African sub-continent.

    I hope this assessment is hyperbole and false. I pray that it is. Should it be, however, the actual way events are trending and should it be the democratic socialists of the Western world intend to hide their heads in the sand and pretend it all is not happening, or simply try to alibi their way past it with their media advantage, I think they make an epic error.

    1. I’ve seen some of the responses. Apparently, it’s a “conspiracy theory” that they have… passed written legislation to take white people’s land. Needless to say, it’s easy to dismiss when you already hate white people and believe they have it coming. The ensuing famine will be harder to damage control.

      1. I thought they backed off that?

        1. I thought they backed off that?

          I don’t believe that the legislation has “passed” – last I heard it was still under discussion, but losing steam in light of the Zimbabwe thing.

          1. It is really hard to tell what is going on. Outside reporting by Westerners is almost non-existent because the agencies that would have to send reporters are reluctant to do it. In fact, news suppression may be more the order of the day.

            At most I have heard two farms may have been seized without bothering with laws.

          2. It still amazes me that with the example of Zimbabwe right next door, people still think it’s a good idea. What the hell do they think is going to happen?

          3. I think it is a proposed constitutional amendment, to allow for subsequent legislation. They haven’t reached the point of developing the legislation yet. I can’t find the actual proposed text yet, to see if it is specific to a given race, or just authorization to take land without compensation in whatever situation the current central government believes is appropriate.

      2. South Africa has already dipped into recession fueled by a drop in agricultural production.

      3. The famine is easy beans for proglodytes, you get to pick from global warming/climate change, the West, greedy whites, not enough socialism/foreign aid.

        “There’s no famine in Ukraine…China…Zimbabwe…Venezuela, I mean South Africa”.

    2. They have rationalized the USSR, Venzuela, Cuba, and China. South Africa is small potatoes.

    3. You realize that they just will not talk about it, and when it is brought up you will be branded any concoction of A) Racist B) White Supremacist C) Nationalist D) Xenophobic E) Shade-ist/Colorist F) Bigotted G) Russian troll …

  8. Real socialism looks more like Venezuela.

    No, Pete! Real socialism looks like [imaginary, stateless utopia]. Just because these socialist governments are trying to achieve this utopia doesn’t make it real socialism.

    Late stage capitalism refers to the Marxist trajectory of history, where capitalism is destined to collapse under the weight of… something. Followed by state socialism to mold the people into good communists (by any means necessary), then finally the state disintegrates into a cloud of unicorn farts… Liberation!

    There’s a Late Stage Capitalism reddit where you will find all sorts of funny people who either, inhabit an alternate reality, or cling to the religious belief in Liberation. People are still starving to this day as a direct result of that belief. And now you know why communists get thrown out of helicopters in some parts of the world.

    1. [i]No, Pete! Real socialism looks like [imaginary, stateless utopia]. Just because these socialist governments are trying to achieve this utopia doesn’t make it real socialism[/i]

      Although, they do sometimes let the mask slip that they don’t really have a problem with those governments. Probably one of the more direct examples I can think of is Corbyn praising Chavez and Venezuela. Or Trudeau in his eulogy of Fidel Castro or praising China’s dictatorship.

      1. “Or Trudeau in his eulogy of Fidel Castro or praising China’s dictatorship.”

        I could not believe that crap when I read it. Funny stuff. Now he is a PM of a country!

    2. Marxist utopia in three easy steps:

      Step 1: give the socialist government control of the means of production and the power to make all economic choices.

      Step 2: ???

      Step 3: Utopia!

      1. Purge the kulaks and middle peasants for Step 2?

      2. Wasn’t that the same plan used by the Underpants Gnomes of South Park?

  9. The funny thing is the people buying the “late capitalist” overpriced luxuries are likely the trendy people fawning over Bernie and his ilk. Capitalists tend to not to be spendthrifts.

  10. And yes, the excesses of capitalism are real. (I doubt I’ll ever pay for a nap pod, unless someone makes me.) But by and large they are designed to make your life, or at least someone’s life, a little more comfortable and more interesting.

    And the most important part is that you don’t have to buy it. Choice is great like that.

    1. Having choices is late capitalism.

  11. When the collective stupidity of a given population reaches critical mass, they will run off the cliff and take everyone with them, like Venezuelan lemmings.

  12. Two things: First, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, I liked this article. A Suderman article. Second, I would point out to anyone that uses the term ‘late capitalism’ in the manner that Suderman describes, that in a dynamic free market environment there will be plenty of bad ideas. You are free to say “No thanks.” to a bad idea.

  13. I mean, yeah, late capitalism has its problems in that basically in a reflective sense the bottom 80% don’t go anywhere, but can anyone here really tell me that they’d prefer to live in this country, with it’s fine governance, with the gulag-containing shitholes of Scandinavia with their family leave policies and cradle-to-grave social security. I think not!

    1. The Nordic model is essentially capitalism with a welfare state. As such, it betrays the revolution.

      A capitalist nation with high taxes on the bourgeoisie to provide some minimal basic needs to the proletariat is only stable to the extent that we have not achieved a classless society.

      To achieve pure social justice, we must do away with inequality altogether, which does away with the need of a progressive tax system completely. And we will achieve this by eliminating the ideal of private property rights.

      And the best way to eliminate private property rights is to destroy the concept of self-ownership: if you don’t own yourself, how can you own something/someone else? Thus, we eliminate slavery in all forms (both wage slavery and classical slavery), and the individualistic ideal, which is contrary to the nature and ideals of socialism.

      In short: the Nordic model sold out to western capitalism. Don’t fall into that trap.

      1. “The Nordic model is essentially capitalism with a welfare state. As such, it betrays the revolution.”

        If we define socialism as “control” of the means of production rather than “ownership” of the means of production, then it is clear that the continental European economies are more socialist than Scandinavian economies due to the relatively heavy-handed regulation of business and industry on the continent. See: Liz Warren’s idiotic corporate governance plan.

  14. We’ve never had capitalism so how can we be in its late period?

    1. Maybe it’s late to arrive?

  15. Excessive frivolity is a symptom of “Late Capitalism” not the problem. The problem with “Late Capitalism” which we are most certainly in, is that it allows clueless morons like much of the Millennial generation to take the luxuries and successes of capitalism for granted while spending most of their day pining for socialist fantasies and bemoaning the “tragedies” of inadvertent misgendering. Of course, that isn’t want most of the Progressives slinging the term around think, but that’s just a lack of historical literacy.

  16. There’s two ways to think about socialism and capitalism. Capitalism liberates third world countries because of the spare capital it generates to build B1 bombers. Socialism in the form of Social Security, Medicare, and universal health care leads to gulag archipelagos and people eating their dogs. I mean just look at Venezuela before Hugo Chavez! A first world paradise it was!

    1. Venezuela’s economy collapsed because it’s a dictatorship. That has nothing to do with its economic policies, which are completely successful, and bring about stable economic growth along with more equality.

      Bernie Sanders agrees.

      #PriceControls
      #NationalizationForThePeople

      1. Actually, economic growth under Chavez was higher than his predecessors and way higher than it was in the US.

        1. Exactly. It may look bad now, but that’s just bad luck. Sometimes dictators get it right.

          However, economic failure can be caused by dictatorships, though, as we see in Venezuela today.

          You seem like you’re coming out of that capitalist loving Trumptarian character. I am pleased with your growth. Especially when it comes to defending model socialist nations, like Venezuela.

          #Chavista

          1. It’s always bad luck, isn’t it?

            Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded?here and there, now and then?are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
            This is known as “bad luck.”

            ?Robert A. Heinlein

          2. Please. I’m still a rock-ribbed Republican making 30,000/year and waiting for my ship with Trump to sail. There’s nothing that gets my paycheck to rise and my taxes to fall then groveling before capitalists. History shows us this! Really, Socialist, you need to get with it. Trump acts just like Maduro. Why are you so against him, again?

            Donald Trump just wondered why protests are allowed. Yes, really.

            1. No, history shows us that, without socialism, prices go up, while quality goes down, and safety gets worse, as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And only socialism can stop it.

              This is known.

              You shouldn’t even be trying. Really.

              1. PSL, you forgot the /sarc.

            2. Bro you should really stop, it is embarrassing at this point. OBL or whoever PoorSocialistLosertarian is is making you look like you are some sort of Special Olympics competitor to his Jonathan Swift-like satire capabilities.

              Perhaps you like the attention, but everything you post is like a train wreck in gibberish.

        2. Well when you have nothing and gain a little bit it’s dramatic. Look at Shenzen 20 years ago and now.

    2. I am old enough to remember Lebanon in the 1950’s as a quiet, relatively prosperous liberal country with an American university in Beirut and liberal Islamic thought flourishing co-existent with an ancient Christian culture.

      You could ski in the mountains of Lebanon, see bikinis on the beaches an hour later, and drink martinis in the hotel bar.

      Then the King of Jordan decided to push all the Palestinian refugees out of his country and all hell broke loose in Lebanon. If you want example numero uno of how a sudden flood of unhappy refugees can devastate your nation for 50 years, just study Lebanon.

      1. That’s a nice story.

        1. I just love happy endings.

      2. In the early 60s my dad was doing his Med cruise with the Marines and he said Beirut was the most beautiful place he ever saw.

  17. The cocktails, however, are pretty good.

    There’s a KOKTAIL PARTEEZ joke in here somewhere, but I’m too tired to bother.

  18. But what about late socialism?

    Technically we’re still in early socialism. We haven’t gotten to middle socialism yet, which is characterized by firing squads, re-education camps, and purges of wreckers, hoarders, and saboteurs. Late socialism involves shortages and food riots.

  19. “You can get away with saying that deficits don’t matter for a while”.

    Or as Krugman utilizes, when republicans regain power.

  20. Years ago, Mark Steyn noted the same phenomenon, which he called (to the best of my recollection) Bicycle Path Socialism. He coined the phase when Howard Dean said he’d stopped belonging to a certain church because it opposed a bicycle path he thought would be a good thing. Steyn remarked, first, at what a shallow reason this was to change faiths. Second, Steyn noted that such trivialities are all the socialists have left now that ‘government ownership of the commanding heights’ has been discredited almost everywhere.

    1. Where I used to live, the city spent millions of dollars on bike lanes and infrastructure to support cycling, but hardly any of the cyclists use it because there’s a culture of petulant defiance that thinks using the bike lanes is “giving in” to the “enemy” i.e. drivers. The whole cycling lobby is pretty vicious and very political, maximizes it’s victimhood, and claims to speak for anyone who so much as looks at a bike. Anyone who disagrees “hates cyclists” and “wants them to die”. It’s like with the “anti-fascist” people; i.e. anyone who doesn’t agree with them completely is a “Nazi”. Identity politics can be anything. Define your chosen identity and then use it as a weapon to relentlessly destroy your perceived enemy by painting them in total bad faith as abjectly malicious. Cynical shit. When I ride my bike I don’t want it to be political, and when I drive my car I don’t want it to be poltical but of course “everything is political now”.

      1. I like cyclists, usually, there are the idiots that don’t stop at stop signs, switch back and forth between the road and sidewalks, are adamant about remaining in your blind spot, and those who ride in the middle of the road. I can tell the cyclists who have driven a car, and car drivers who have ridden a bike.

      2. When the civil war comes, I’m going after the cyclists first! I live in Seattle, and the militant cyclists are probably the worst people ever. 95% of them are the worst inconsiderate assholes.

    2. “Second, Steyn noted that such trivialities are all the socialists have left now that ‘government ownership of the commanding heights’ has been discredited almost everywhere.”

      Steyn would have been more accurate had he said “should have been discredited almost everywhere.”

      1. The Vatican seems to do OK with its government owning everything.

  21. I should have added that Mr. Suderman’s column is excellent.

  22. These late capitalism memes and arguments are in the not even wrong category. This is often purposely the case as seen with most political ideologues. In this instance, the term capitalism is used to describe general organization types and methodologies that often develop in free markets (or mostly free markets), and then this is asserted as the definition of capitalism.

    But how do socialists define socialism? In general the fundamental definition is worker controlled/owned means of production. They don’t accept the organization types and methodologies that generally arise when this principle is implemented as the definition (see the Killing Fields), yet… that’s how they demand capitalism be defined. And in many this includes actual state actions and market interventions.

    Capitalism is free markets and private property. That’s it. Or even more simply, trading.

    So capitalism vs socialism is free trading/markets vs nebulously defined group that has a ownership claim on just about everything- not tooth brushes I’ve been assured.

    This type of definitional sophistry is an indication of the desire to commit fraud.

    Another way to define socialism is an ideology that asserts a right to association.


    1. This type of definitional sophistry is an indication of the desire to commit fraud.

      Of course. Otherwise, they’d need to admit that their preferred ideology inevitably ends with murderous purges and mass starvation. Capitalists usually at least admit that some people aren’t going to benefit, and that this is simply the nature of things. That’s already more honest than any socialist has ever been.

  23. 180 years of deficits are going to kill us any day now, any day.


  24. urban ride-sharing caps are likely to curtail service in poor neighborhoods first;

    Uhh…yeah duh. It’s called ‘poor people don’t tip’ and ‘oh right, you might get robbed there’. They’re already doing this. The people who drive for Lyft and Uber figure this out pretty damn quick or they don’t drive for very long.

    It’s also why at least some of their drivers go armed, even though that’s supposed to be against the rules. Fuck the rules when you’re driving angry drunk people around in your vehicle.

  25. There is an aspect of this no one has discussed much and that is what rapid technological change does to capitalism or to socialist systems that are trying to protect this or that outmoded but popular form of livelihood (which all socialist countries do.)

    There is a reason why as soon as lucky entrepreneurs ascend into being instant billionaires they become willing to kick over the ladder of success so that no one can clamber up behind it on their heels. It is the classic limousine liberal syndrome. They do feel like they did not earn their success so now they are going to become nice socialists and give away money and other advantages to those not nearly as fortunate as themselves.

    Except the limousine liberal does not intend to give away their OWN wealth, of course. They are going to give away other people’s wealth or other people’s opportunity to earn it the exact same way that they did. High taxes will slow down further dangerous competitive changes, as will regulations to discourage start-up competitors.

    They are also going to grandfather themselves in really good with a bunch of new socialist pals. The Age of Extravagant Virtue Flaunting is born. Also the age of over-the-top intolerance for anyone not as cosmopolitan prog as they.

    I think I just explained Hollywood, Mark Cuban, and some other jerks adequately.

    1. I don’t think I’ve ever read a more succinct and effective explanation of our techno-elite betters. Well done.

    2. They are also going to grandfather themselves in really good with a bunch of new socialist pals.
      True.
      Then, as soon as the socialist pals are in control, the new government the grandfathered voted for will confiscate limousines and march the liberals off to work in reeducation camps, again.
      The liberals will be Utterly Surprised that their good pals treated them like every other socialist/communist government has treated liberal intellectuals. Again.
      Down the road a bit, the liberal’s newly-indoctrinated socialist children will see-something-say-something about them, and they will be Utterly Surprised to find themselves on the wrong end of a firing squad. Again.

    3. I have always thought that the main reasons rich musicians and actors are idiots leftists is because they don’t think they earned it. I mean they probably went through some hardship, but many of them ultimately chock it up to luck. Then they think EVERYBODY who has 20 million bucks just had the same thing happen. Forgetting most people put in decades of hard work to get there.

      I think the same could also be said for tech people. TECHNICALLY one can’t really say somebody got “more than they earned” if you want to believe in capitalism as a religion… But I personally do think sometimes people make more money than they probably should have for their contribution, even though that is technically what the market sent their way.

      I mean lots of tech billionaires are literally just high IQ doffuses who don’t know shit about shit, who stumbled onto a hot idea that some other idiot would have thought of 6 months later, or 2 years later or whatever. The rapid rise thing in many tech sectors is very different from more traditional industries where there is almost always a long, slow climb up to the highest heights. I think many of them know this themselves, and I imagine this contributes to them not feeling like they earned it, hence being anti capitalism.

  26. It’s easy to see late socialism because socialism has a very short lifespan.

  27. Any article or author who immediately conflates socialism and democratic socialism has no credibility. Straw men, and other logical fallacies do not an argument make.

    1. Obviously socialism and democratic socialism are very different.

      In socialism, government regulates the economy. In democratic socialism the people are allowed to vote for government to regulate the economy.

      Under socialism, government always screws up the economy. The main feature of democratic socialism is that when government screws up the economy, it can blame the voters instead of taking the heat itself.

  28. The point is that where the American left finds itself in power, it ends up pursuing penny-ante restrictions on individual freedoms, one straw, balloon, and scooter at a time.

    So Obamacare was penny-ante. Good to find such deep thinking as usual from Petey.

    1. “If you like your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan; well, unless it doesn’t cover acupuncture and aromatherapy and all the other features we think you ought to pay for. And birth control will be free as long as you use the method Congress approves and you get permission from a government-regulated physician, because we’ll send the bill to the taxpayers. (Meaning you.) But that’s okay because even if you’re male or a 70-year-old woman or have had a hysterectomy, your plan will cover childbirth.”

      Penny-ante here, penny-ante there, and pretty soon it’s billions.

  29. This made me laugh!

    The fundamental difference between capitalism and socialism, late or otherwise is the freedom vs compulsion to participate.

    Look at two of the article’s silliest examples: pricey nap pods and straw bans that create more plastic waste.

    If I completely refuse to participate in buying a pricey nap pod, NOTHING will happen to me other than saving me some money.

    If I complete refuse to participate in a straw ban, I will face tickets, fines, and court fees if I decide to contest it. If I continue to refuse the fines and ignore judges’ orders to honor the ban, I will be kidnaped by agents of the state and placed in a rape facility. If I defend myself against the agents when they come to kidnap me, I will likely be shot.

    Tell me again how late Capitalism and late Socialism are similarly ridiculous? One is silly and the other is terrifying!

  30. “The problem with the joke is that it only runs one way: We’re all familiar with the follies of late capitalism. But what about late socialism?”

    That’s when they find the mass graves.

  31. A million dollar investment in an app that allows you to send the word “yo”? Late capitalism. $25 nap pods? Late capitalism. $16 cocktails? Late capitalism.

    That’s not “late capitalism”, that’s crony capitalist progressive hotspots.

  32. Looks like almost everyone here has correctly identified this “straw ban socialism” as what it really is which is progressivism. Progs owe much to the capitalist system, going all the way back to the Rockefellers and Carnegies, because what it means is that if you have amassed so much money, you have earned the right to boss the little people around. Same goes for the modern day progs, who earn enough to be able to live comfortably in NYC, Seattle, or SF, and therefore have earned the right to impose their “values” on the lower classes. With socialism, everyone is supposed to be equal, and today’s progs clearly despise that idea, as they always have. So calling it socialism is incorrect, much like how lefties and progs brand anything they don’t like as fascist.

  33. “The free market is ugly and stupid, like going to the mall; the unfree market is just as ugly and just as stupid, except there is nothing in the mall and if you don’t go there they shoot you.”
    ? P.J. O’Rourke

  34. > But that agenda comes with a price tag so large that it is hard to imagine much of it becoming reality, even with the ascent of actually-we-don’t-need-to-pay-for-itism. (You can get away with saying that deficits don’t matter for a while. The problem is that at some point, they do.)

    And the so-called conservatives have set an horrific example in this regard. Now the neosocialists can deficit-spend with impunity, and the conservatives can’t say a damn thing about it. And in any case, the only result of deficit-spending is a devaluation of the currency, something that the Trumpists seem to want.

  35. If I was back on night shift, and living where it wasn’t quiet during the day, a $25 sleep pod might be a good investment.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.