The New Right's War on Capitalism
A growing number of conservatives agree with the left that free markets are to blame for society's ills.

Capitalism gets a lot of hate.
I expect it from the left. They blame free markets for racism, "horrifying inequality," and even, according to economist Joseph Stiglitz, "accelerating climate change."
People on the right generally defend capitalism, but today, a growing number agree with the left.
In my new video, author James Lindsay says, "They make the exact same arguments that we've heard for decades: 'capitalism has made everything about the dollar. Everything's about [gross domestic product]…you lose everything that really matters, like kinship and nation and identity.'"
Tucker Carlson, whom Lindsay calls "woke right," praises Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D–Mass.) economic programs, saying they "make obvious sense."
"Astonishing!" says Lindsay. "Warren put forth something called the 'Accountable Capitalism Act,' which was going to restrain the way that corporations are able to behave under the brand name of 'accountability.'"
Even Vice President J.D. Vance attacks free trade.
"While the government shouldn't be controlling the American economy," he said "we should…put a little bit of a thumb on the scale…protect nascent industries from foreign competition."
"[This] is just another way of saying, 'your company got too big, so we need to take some of your property and distribute it further down the chain,'" says Lindsay. "[Vance is] very against large multinational corporations and the things that they do and wants to limit them."
But why? Large companies get large mostly by doing things right. Businesses don't make profits unless they please their customers.
Look at places that mostly embrace free markets: the United States, Singapore, Switzerland, New Zealand, and Hong Kong (until China's government clamped down). These are good places to live. People prosper when markets are free.
"It works!" says Lindsay. "When you have free people who can engage freely with one another and trade…you actually have a rising of all ships. Because what you have is a people who are free to do with their things as they will. They, therefore, can implement their stuff, their money, their resources, their talents, whatever they happen to be, to solve problems for other people. And when you solve a problem for other people, even if it's a kind of silly thing, like entertaining them with a silly game on their phone, when you solve a problem for other people, they'll give you money for it in exchange."
Exactly. Trade is win-win. Otherwise, we wouldn't engage in it.
So it puzzles me that as markets continue to lift more people out of poverty, capitalism faces more attacks, even from the right.
"The problem," says Lindsay, is "it requires people to be free….You can't control people who are free.…So we need to have a government system to tell them to do the right thing in the name of the common good. That's the mentality."
Lindsay even hoaxed a conservative magazine, American Reformer, into publishing part of The Communist Manifesto, merely by substituting Christian nationalist language for words like "proletariat."
When the editors learned that they'd been tricked, they left the article up, saying it was "a reasonable aggregation of some New Right ideas."
Yikes.
Government-managed trade, protection for politically connected industries, state promotion of Christianity, speech restrictions, morality laws, state-owned industry, cronyism—these are bad ideas, no matter which side sells them.
COPYRIGHT 2025 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Lindsay even hoaxed a conservative magazine, American Reformer, into publishing part of The Communist Manifesto, merely by substituting Christian nationalist language for words like "proletariat."
When the editors learned that they'd been tricked, they left the article up, saying it was "a reasonable aggregation of some New Right ideas."
Reason would probably claim it to be the new libertarian ideal...
when you've lost the argument, make shit up
You make shit up as soon as the argument starts.
Trump defenders, like middle school girls, never let what a person says get in the way of what is said about them.
Who brought up trump?
The drunky.
And who randomly brought up the "left" when I started criticizing the orange overlord, stating he is nobodies friend, and when I started talking the overreaches of a broken, defeated, republican party on its way out? For which I have been called a leftist and progressive ever since?
You guys are just as inconsistent and fake as any other american. And you know what they say about what happens when you think you are seeing the enemy...
It's amusing when sarc complains that others do exactly what he routinely does. Somehow he's never quite able to apply these standards to himself or his allies.
He’s pickled his death nuggets so much that his low T blathering is nearly unrecognizable from the cows on The View.
Sure Whoopi. Whatever you say.
Starcasmic Jones, post the list!
What the hell does this have to do with Trump? He's the ultimate capitalist! And have you ever tried talking to a leftist? They yap, yap, yap, and never get to the point! You want and example? Look at The View, Abby Phillips on CNN, Morning Joe, any talk show on CNN and MSNBC, etc.! You are projecting.
"I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system"
- George W Bush
What's old is new again.
Government-managed trade, protection for politically connected industries, state promotion of Christianity, speech restrictions, morality laws, state-owned industry, cronyism—these are bad ideas, no matter which side sells them.
There you go with both sides again. And by the way you and your quaint principles are wrong. The goodness or badness of ideas are determined by who, not what. So if Trump is doing it then it's a good idea, and if Democrats are doing it then it's a bad idea. No matter what "it" is. Democrat managed trade is bad. Trump managed trade is good. Democrats protecting politically connected industries is bad. Trump protecting politically connected industries is good. And so on and so forth. So take your principles and stick them up your ass. Then get with the program and start judging right and wrong based upon who is doing it, not what what they are doing. So sayeth the Trump faithful.
Here is what the retarded like yourself dont get. Trade was always managed. Those trade bills always included caps, tariffs, restrictions, government regulations, trade regulations, etc etc.
But you were too dumb to ever look past a globalist screaming free trade to notice.
Youre economically retarded. Ignorant on every topic.
And by the way you and your quaint principles are wrong. The goodness or badness of ideas are determined by who, not what.
This is certainly the sarc principle even if no one else. Even his signature saying "It's ok because Dems did it first" is an effort to protect himself for applying standards to Reps that he refused to apply to Dems.
Even his signature saying "It's ok because Dems did it first" is an effort to protect himself for applying standards to Reps that he refused to apply to Dems.
It's a mockery of you Trump defenders when you guys excuse everything Trump does by saying "Whatabout when Obama did this? Whatabout when Biden did that? Whatabout them?" you idiot.
It's not a mockery. It is you defending you not only criticizing democrats when they did it, but often cheered it.
Equality of the law has never been pme of your principles. Your principle is dems can do whatever they want.
Are you a child? It's not about who did what, it's about what works and who's refusing to listen! Economics is a simple process: supply and demand! There is a limited amount of goods for a limited amount of people! This is why you can't have government controlling the economy. It has to be a free market to keep things going. Nobody will work their ass off for nothing, but most, especially those on the left, will take until we run out of whatever they are getting, then they complain and riot as if it's going to change anything. That is childish indeed!
you idiot.
I'm so old I remember when you pretended to want to discuss ideas rather than name calling, but that was always a lie wasn't it?
"Whatabout when Obama did this? Whatabout when Biden did that? Whatabout them?"
Testing the basis of criticism to see if it is generally applied seems standard. Let me show you how it works:
Above you imply whataboutism is wrong. But to pick one example for decades now whenever Dem spending was criticized you responded with "whatabout Rep spending"? So we know you don't oppose whataboutism in itself, you only claim it is illegitimate when others note that Dems also fail the applied standard. So we can see your core values are to insist criticism be made only at Reps while any criticism of Dems be redirected at Reps.
You do this (criticize Reps for "failures" you refused to criticize Dems for) on literally every subject which is why you developed the idiotic claim "Dems did it so it's ok" thinking you're mocking others. But the truth is that you're highlighting that you refused to apply this standard to Dems. You think your mantra hides what you're doing to protest Team Blue but that makes your criticism that other people criticize based solely on who says something rather than what is said absolutely hilarious.
It's a mockery of you Trump defenders when you guys excuse everything Trump does by saying
It's kind of amusing you think I don't realize that. Once again you're so far behind you think you're ahead. But is it really mockable when you do the same thing?
What is it about Team Blue that prevents so many people from recognizing they do the same things they claim to hate: Left Wing Privilege.
Because the far left controls academia, the media, NGOs, and government they determine who is out of line. And their rule is that you cannot be out of line to the left because they aren't interested in truth, logic, or reason. They are only interested in winning. That's why left wing protesters feel free to use violence and intimidation while also claiming hearing a principle they disagree with is violence they must be protected from. Left wingers develop in this environment, think it the normal circumstance, and implicitly expect it to continue. They certainly develop no introspection or discipline which is why when they come out to the real world they so often prove themselves fools as you do continually.
But to pick one example for decades now whenever Dem spending was criticized you responded with "whatabout Rep spending"?
Except you won't find an example of me doing that because it does not exist. Thus all of your "reasoning" that follows is fallacious because the premise is a lie.
What is it about Team Blue that prevents so many people from recognizing they do the same things they claim to hate: Left Wing Privilege.
Sure buddy. Except for the fact that I'm not a left winger. Nor am I a right winger. I'm on the side of liberty, which neither wing cares about. So once again all of your "reasoning" that follows is fallacious because the premise is a lie.
― Robert A. Heinlein
Right wingers and left wingers are both the former, while I'm the latter. Unfortunately you don't understand this because you can't. I don't think you can wrap your brain around the concept of just wanting people to be left alone.
Except for the fact that I'm not a left winger. Nor am I a right winger. I'm on the side of liberty, which neither wing cares about.
If that were true you'd apply the same standards to both sides instead of making a pithy comment to disguise why you don't. You want to disguise who you support because admitting it would make your refusal to apply consistent standards more obvious.
Except you won't find an example of me doing that because it does not exist.
Liar. You seem to think no one can remember your comments, but we all do.
Not everyone remembers his comments. Even when he’s shown them in full context.
If that were true you'd apply the same standards to both sides instead of making a pithy comment to disguise why you don't.
No you ninny. I hold the GOP to a higher standard because they profess to support liberty, while I hold Democrat to no standards because they have none.
I would never accuse Democrats of being assholes for opposing free trade, because they've always opposed free trade.
I call Trump's GOP assholes on free trade because Republicans traditionally oppose government barriers to trade, and now those barriers are patriotic.
I have principles, not principals. Something you lack the honesty and intelligence to understand.
I have principles, not principals.
An obvious lie since you don't apply these standards to yourself either. Are we to believe you think you are a lost cause?
No, you apply standards only to those you hate because you're a propagandist. You choose not to express consistent principles because that would undermine your purpose, and instead you make up whatever standard serves to help the attack of the moment even when you and your allies fail that same standard.
Sorry but you can't tell me the amount of health insurance prices are low because of competition and the free market. The prices are very high because of health insurance companies not competing but getting together annually to decide what the next years National average price increase will be and they all increase their profits together...
There are many things wrong with health care and health insurance, but I doubt collusion is one of them. Among other things we've got the AMA limiting the supply of medical students and doctors, which raises the price. Each state has its own licensing scheme, which prevents medical commerce across state borders. Of course there's the fact that health insurance through your employer is not taxed, but it is on the open market. All of which reduces competition and raises prices. And that's just off the top of my head. No, shouting collusion is just looking for an easy fix. The problem goes much deeper than that.
The easy fix is a federal government catastrophic single payer as a percentage of Adjusted gross income.
Private insurance to fill the gap.
The cronies would throw themselves off of buildings if we ended the Obamacare grift.
That won't do anything about the AMA controlling the supply of doctors, requiring "letters of need" for new hospitals, or not being able to access care or insurance across state borders. All of those things jack up the cost. While your solution simply shifts the cost without doing anything to reduce it.
Why "as a percentage of adjusted gross income"? Are rich people more likely to suffer catastrophic illnesses or accidents? That's the only valid reason I can see for charging them what amount to higher insurance rates—because, like cigarette smokers or 19-year-old motorcyclists, they're more likely to need higher benefits.
No. I suspect that the real reason why people favor income-based premiums is that they want government goodies, and they want someone else to pay for them. And that, my children, is why we all pay such high taxes...
My use of the word
Catastrophic means bankruptcy inducing and does not have carveouts.
The percentage of AGI is Flat. It would end Medicare and Medicaid.
The problem is that MAGA thinks that anyone who can't afford insurance or self pay for their health care is a loser who deserves to die.
And more retardation. The entirety of ACA acts as a collusion mechanism as all providers have fixed requirements and cant screen for pre existing conditions you dumb retarded fuck.
I have witnessed it. Perhaps a Reason writer will do the research and produce an article about the health insurance sham in America.
Lancaster will say we should stop ot but then have to replace it with the exact same system.
The AMA has absolutely no say in how many medical students and doctors there will be. And states will not allow federal licensing of doctors. Unclear what in the Constitution would allow that anyway.
Health insurance isThird Party Healthcare Payment Plans are not, by any stretch of the imagination free market. That market is so overly regulated that it's hard to even call it a "market."This is pure fantasy. The prices are high because of government interference and regulations.
It's a combo of both. Have you not heard of the National Average increase they give to companies each year they sign an agreement? Where do you think they determine what the national average increase should be?
Our healthcare system is largely out of control for the same reason our University Tuition system is out of control: The government has done everything in its power to insure that consumers are not price sensitive when they need to consume healthcare.
Through tax breaks to offer health insurance in lieu of wages, through medicare and medicaid, and through regulation of what insurance companies must cover, the federal government has basically forced everyone into "All you can eat" plans for health care. And it is a well known fact that people gorge themselves once they know they are paying for the AYCE buffet.
Studies of Health Savings Accounts paired with High Deductible plans showed that consumers tended to price shop more, even with the little amount market penetration in these plans. When people are forced to pay out of pocket, the price of services tends to stabilize- LASIK and many types of elective plastic surgery remain competitive while prices of similar procedures covered by Health Insurance universally tend to increase faster than inflation.
Unfortunately, the parting shot of the ACA (Obamacare) was to neuter HSAs and turn them into nothing more than a tax shelter for well-to-do upper middle class types.
None of this has anything to do with the private sector, other than the fact that they are responding to signals forced on them by a dipshit government.
Isn’t it so that cronyism can be blended with politics in order to promote better outcomes for investors and no so great outcomes for taxpayers?
Example apartment subsidies. In the old days companies would buy some condos or houses, long term hotel rooms, put up their entry level employees at a lower than market rent price.
Nowadays, a percentage of entry level employees have access to 20-30 % lowered rent prices courtesy of the local and state/federal taxpayer. All while the development corporation gets a tax break to build the taxpayer funded apartments. ROI comes from the taxpayers in this example.
The rent for the market rate units go up.
Perhaps the word I’m looking for is called a Racket or something similar to infrastructure municipal bonds in Los Angeles/ California?
It's sad to see Stossel hoaxed by Lindsey.
The American Reformer is a lunatic fringe outfit that has little, if any bearing on events.
Vance's position is reached by twisting his words beyond recognition and Tucker....well, Tucker's gone round the bend lately.
When you can be described as 'woke', you're no longer on the right.
Before this, they were quoting rando bots on Twitter.
“See, the DEmOCRatS aren’t so bad after all”. At least open borders and violent felonies reduced to misdemeanors are in their platform. A platform Reason can strategically and reluctantly get on board with. I mean, who gives a shit if the next Mayor of NYC believes that suicide bombings are just a social justice movement.
Before this, they were quoting rando bots on Twitter.
Behold the abyss.
Federally-backed research in peer-reviewed academic *Science* journals = Random independent, religion-heavy blog on the internet.
If your belief is free markets are defined by unilateral globalist corporatism then yes. Unfortunately many idiots actually think that's what free market means now. Making absurd claims that the system of the last few decades was a free market.
"A growing number of conservatives agree with the left that free markets are to blame for society's ills."
John, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but only those who believe free markets are to blame for society's ills are leftists regardless of political party.
Mussolini was a Leftist???
Let's not start that argument again.
What would you call a communist who failed to incite class wars win Italy but then decided to try socialist nationalism? And thought that government should control industry?
Are conservative and leftist (economically at least) necessarily in opposition?
You know who *isn't* part of a growing number of conservatives?
Aborted fetuses.
The far left/far right are both populist in nature and this then leads to the attack on capitalism. Populist movements seek power by have an enemy on to which the movement focuses people attention. Capitalism by it nature creates certain inequalities that the populist movement can focus on to recruit people. The free movement of goods and people benefits all when viewed in total. Populist movement focus on minor problems and sell those as part of the whole system failing.
Speaking of globalists...
Its better than being a tribalist.
Don't think left vs right, think primitive monkey brain vs enlightenment. Judge people and predict actions based on dominance of primal urges like tribalism, status-seeking, in-group vs. out-group, etc. And expect motivated reasoning, special pleading, emotional reasoning, and all the other common fallacies.
Actual free markets are not natural, or the default mode for humans.
Libertarians have no one to blame but themselves for this development. Reps tried to focus on free markets largely to ally with libertarians, so naturally we called them racist instead of working together.
What mainstream libertarian outlets like CATO call free markets are not. They just use claims of free market beliefs to criticize the right responding to foreign market actions. Their version of the NAP is "shut up and take it bitch."
Mussolini hated free markets as much as any communist. So does Trump.
The irony is that, based on the amount of effort companies put into ensuring they get the biggest slice of the market they can through collusion with policy makers (i.e. rent-seeking) to regulate or price competitors out of the market, Capitalists hate Free Markets. Yet, Free Markets allow Capitalism to thrive.
And policy makers hate Free Markets because they don't control them. Regardless of any stated or intended purpose of government, the number one goal of the people in government, is to maximize their influence and power through control.
How else can they lead us to utopia?
Yeah; That's why he De-Regulated and Cut-Taxes. /s
Stossel got a lot of that right except "protect nascent industries from foreign competition."
WHAT protection? Domestic nascent industries have been paying taxes all along. The only market getting Government 'protection' is the imports ... as well as subsidized shipping.
That is just Cherry-Picking which Market gets Free-Trade and which one doesn't which is exactly the Government Picking/Managing.
Fact is the [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s] Spent, Spent, and Spent and now they don't want to pay their own-made bill as most importing goes on in Democrat-leaning areas. They want to shovel that bill off onto Just-Domestic producers.
For all those Democrats who insist they don't mind paying MORE ... Here you go.
Joseph Stiglitz has a new book, "The Road to Freedom":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_09xd9O1Ymo
Perhaps it will be a new favorite of what stossel calls "The New Right".
The will to power is insuperable.