MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Is Socialism or Capitalism Better at Bringing Freedom and Prosperity To the Masses? 10/15 Debate!

The next Reason-Soho Forum debate in New York features Barron's Gene Epstein vs. Jacobin's Bhaskar Sunkara.

"Socialism is more effective than capitalism in bringing liberty and prosperity to the masses."

That's the resolution under discussion at the next Reason-Soho Forum debate, scheduled to take place in New York on Monday, October 15, at the Gerald W. Lynch Theater of John Jay College. Reason is proud to co-sponsor The Soho Forum, a monthly Oxford-style debate series that "features topics of special interest to libertarians and...aims to enhance social and professional ties within the NYC libertarian community."

As The Soho Forum summary of the event notes, "Socialism has been making a comeback in this country. According to Gallup, 55% of 18-29 year-olds now view socialism favorably. Among Democrats, support for capitalism has plummeted over the past two years from 56% to 47%—while Democrats' support for socialism stands at 57%."

The capitalism vs. socialism debate is taking place in a venue that seats 600 people and tickets, which cost between $12 and $24, are selling fast and must be purchased online.

Here's more about the debaters:

The Soho ForumThe Soho ForumFor the affirmative:

Bhaskar Sunkara is the founding editor and publisher of Jacobin and the editor of several volumes including The ABCs of Socialism (Verso, 2016). He is the author of the forthcoming Socialism In Our Time (Basic Books, 2019).

For the negative:

Gene Epstein has recently stepped down from a 26-year stint as Economics and Books Editor of Barron's, where he wrote the weekly column, "Economic Beat." He has taught economics at the City University of New York and St. John's University, and worked as a senior economist for the New York Stock Exchange. He's the Director of the Soho Forum.

The debate will be followed by a reception. Here are the details:

Event starts at 6:30 pm
Reception to follow
Gerald W. Lynch Theater
John Jay College
524 W 59th Street
NY, 10019

Seating must be reserved in advance. Buy tickets here.

All Soho Forums are turned into Reason videos and podcasts. Go here for a full archive.

Last November, Reason Editor in Chief Katherine Mangu-Ward and I debated Jacobin's Sunkara and NYU's Vivek Chibber on the same question. The New York Times' Michelle Goldberg moderated. Here's video from that (the program starts at the five-minute mark).

To listen to a podcast version, go here.

Photo Credit: Georgetown Book Shop

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.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    Mass graves vs mass consumption. I'm gonna need a minute.

  • Tony||

    The deck is quite stacked because you won't acknowledge even a single death "caused" by capitalism, while pretty much any death that happened in Stalinist Russia (or wherever) you will claim was "caused" by socialism.

  • ||

    Don't you keep saying you're not a socialist?

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    Please give examples of people dying from voluntary transactions, absent force or fraud.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    There are deaths attributed to coal pollution and other fossil fuels. No one voluntarily agrees to the odds. They do buy and burn fossil fuels, even if indirectly, but that's no more agreement than the vaunted "social contract" we all signed at birth.

    But to attribute these to capitalism is bizarre, because there are no other ways to get power. You may as well attribute skin cancer to capitalism because free people have the right to voluntarily lie in the sun.

  • Rat on a train||

    I know it wasn't socialism, but the Soviet Union didn't have the best environmental record.

  • ||

    As a general rule, the extent to which countries have managed economies is the extent to which they have a terrible environmental record.

  • Jerry B.||

    Oh, come on. It's right there in the name. Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.

  • Fancylad||

    Obviously you've never seen the green glories of the Venezuelan oil industry or the Cuban or Vietnamese manufacturing industries.

  • ||

    The deck is quite stacked because you won't acknowledge even a single death "caused" by capitalism, while pretty much any death that happened in Stalinist Russia (or wherever) you will claim was "caused" by socialism.

    You're right, we're being totally unfair. Instead of counting total deaths in Stalinist Russia (or whatever) we only count the ones from the holodomor and gulags.

  • Sevo||

    "The deck is quite stacked because you won't acknowledge even a single death "caused" by capitalism, while pretty much any death that happened in Stalinist Russia (or wherever) you will claim was "caused" by socialism."

    No need for capitalism to cheat as you propose in that strawman; all you need to do is read some history.
    Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Kims; just add 'em up.
    Now, you fucking ignoramus, what you got?

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    How about all those fucking idiots really brave people that signed up to go kill Vietnamese because they thought the next step was ChiComs coming to America?

  • Sevo||

    "LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian|9.20.18 @ 1:59PM|#
    How about all those fucking idiots really brave people that signed up to go kill Vietnamese because they thought the next step was ChiComs coming to America?"

    Fucking commie kid, as stupid as ever.
    1) Your presumption of the reason proves your ignorance
    2) That was a result of 'capitalism' exactly how?
    3) 58K deaths is bad, and it's really bad when a brain-dead ignoramus like you compares it to ~100,000,000 deaths.
    Fuck off.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    General,

    I don't know who you think I am, but know this. You and others who protected my freedom by shooting up a bunch of nationalists in desperately poor countries have all the respect that is due to your well-considered service. Thank you for everything you've done for the world.

    And, BTW, I think like you do. The only deaths worthy of considering in the Vietnam War were American ones. The hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese killedby American B-52s engaged in an ideological war with nationalists looking to kick out hegemons can hardly be considered as victims of capitalism. They were just in the way of capitalism's metal projectiles filled with incendiaries manufactured by Raytheon and thus totally collateral and incidental. Good catch there, sir!

  • Sevo||

    LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian|9.20.18 @ 5:28PM|#
    "General,"

    Fuck off, commie kid.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Lesseeeee ... 100M deaths to socialism in the 20th century, and ongoing still in the few remaining socialist paradises.

    How many can you assign to capitalism, Tony? 1M? 10M? Can't go much higher without stealing from socialism's totals, but you'd already be in the dishonest column anyway.

    Which one is better Tony? A fake 10M or a real 100M?

  • ||

    How many can you assign to capitalism, Tony? 1M? 10M? Can't go much higher without stealing from socialism's totals, but you'd already be in the dishonest column anyway.

    We really aren't as picky as Tony indicates. Usually, the total democide numbers that get trotted out count people killed by the American government too.

  • perlchpr||

    The "logic" is easy. America is a "capitalist country". The founding of modern America involved the deaths of a lot of Indians. Therefore, all of those deaths are attributable to capitalism.

    Lather, rinse, repeat.

  • Ben of Houston||

    Let's acknowledge some things. Some people have died due to poverty. A lot of people over the years. Those deaths can be reasonably accounted to capitalism.

    However, the same can be said for communist countries. The Soviet Union was famous for long bread lines and people starving. The Great Leap Forward was one of the greatest killers of the century, simply due to incompetence.

    In fact, every last economic system creates a poverty class. The one that seems to minimize it is a capitalist-socialist hybrid, like what is used in the majority of countries in the world.

  • DesigNate||

    The fuck they can. Or does poverty not exist in Socialist countries?

  • DesigNate||

    Damn it, I should have finished reading your post. That's bad form on my part, my apologies.

  • lap83||

    Sure, people die from negligence and malice in capitalist societies because humans are flawed and, no matter what you do, sometimes the severely flawed end up with power over others. But only a complete fool looks at that fact and concludes "Golly, why don't we give a few people MORE power over the rest of us. That'll make things better"

  • Brian||

    Capitalism makes it hard to count, because it usually doesnt cause mass human rights violations and deaths attributed to one policy or event: there is no capitalis Holocaust or Holdomor.

    I know: capitalists are so fucking annoying that way.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Tony wants us all to consider deaths caused by Western interventions in Vietnam, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Africa, Iraq, and Iraq again as the fault of capitalism and then have us draw some lefty distinction that only he can between Finland and the Soviet Union. How disingenuous! Hasn't he heard of JosefStalinRobespierrePot? I mean, Jesus Christ, man.

  • Brian||

    Do we blame Vietnam, etc, on capitalism, or communism/socialism? The US wasn't fighting capitalist nations after all.

    50/50?

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    No, it's 100% socialism. I'm not here to draw distinctions in a complex world where one may acknowledge that societies may run better with a Welfare State. I'm here to suck Trump's cock just like you. MAGA!

  • Procyon Rotor||

    You know what the problem is with your performance LTAL? You fail the ideological Turing test. The only thing that gives OBL away as a parody account is that it's a little too sincere. A little too obviously trying to tick every checkbox of the leftist stereotype, mention all the paint-by-numbers talking points.

    You on the other hand, don't spare any thought for establishing your premise before you start spewing nonsense. You didn't even get your handle right. Chomping at the bit to match OBL, you didn't stop to realize that you shouldn't call yourself a "liberal-tarian". If you're parodying the right, you're supposed to hate the damn libruls, not call yourself one. And then for your schtick, you use tortured, unnatural sentence structure to insult yourself while trying to make it seem like you're proud of what you're saying. You come across as a weirdly masochistic leftist who gets off on the degradation of pretending to be a Trump supporter.

  • Zeb||

    Are capitalism and socialism the only two forces in the world? I'm not sure you can blame a war on economic systems alone.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Tony,

    The deck is quite stacked because you won't acknowledge even a single death "caused" by capitalism,


    That's because capitalism doesn't cause deaths. Capitalism is based on private property rights, i.e. not stealing from each other, but voluntary trade and production. How is that supposed to cause a death?

    Point out the mass graves caused by 'capitalism' [which I'm sure you want to] and I'll show you where each case the cause was either war, the State or criminal gangs or all combined.

    while pretty much any death that happened in Stalinist Russia (or wherever) you will claim was "caused" by socialism.


    Because socialism was the justification for depriving people of their property and their rights. Stealing from people ALL their FOOD and LIVELIHOOD causes DEATH.

    And it wasn't Stalin's Russia only. It is happening right now in Venezuela where people are eating the zoo animals!

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    So tell us: what are the accurate numbers? Are you really arguing that it's even a close contest?

  • Tony||

    We really would need to define our terms and be pretty specific about it. It would probably still be a futile effort. Let's just continue muddling through on an experimental basis trying to create the best possible society, shall we? No more dogmas running the lives of millions or billions of people. Dogma is the real enemy.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|9.20.18 @ 5:29PM|#
    "We really would need to define our terms and be pretty specific about it."

    Yeah, we've seen that pile of crap before:
    "It's not REALLY socialism! Socialism HELPS people, so this can't be socialism!"

  • some guy||

    No, see socialism has never really been tried. It always gets derailed into a dictatorship by the strong central authority the masses empower to bring it about. If we just put the right people into power, it will totally result in real socialism where we can all live free from the consequences of our decisions.

  • GoatOnABoat||

    Or... maybe socialism is naturally prone to turn into dictatorships and totalitarian societies.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Make sure they agree on what Freedom means early on. Or else there is going to be a lot of arguing across one another.

  • some guy||

    Same thing with prosperity, capitalism and socialism. The definition of socialism can be especially slippery. Federal, state and local governments in the US consume roughly half our GDP in taxes. That's quite a bit of socialism considering for one of the most capitalist countries the world has ever seen.

  • Adans smith||

    Next debate, what tastes better, a lasagna or a shit sandwich?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It ought to be a slam dunk in favor of the negative, of course.

    The big problem, however, will be defining socialism convincingly for those who are voting on the debate.

    The pro-socialist side will define socialism to mean Denmark or Sweden.
    The anti-socialist side will define socialism to mean Venezuela or the Soviet Union.

    So I expect what will happen is, Mr. Sunkara will say "socialism is great, just look at Sweden, Venezuela isn't real socialism, that is authoritarianism!" and Mr. Epstein will have to argue not just why Soviet-style socialism is bad (easy), but why Swedish-style socialism is also bad (not as easy).

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I believe he could argue either point well, the issue is moving definitions make it hard to argue effectively. The definitions need to be clear early one, but I doubt that will happen.

    Though this is also true for capitalism, which is perhaps even less well defined than socialism.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    From what I have heard of Mr. Epstein in previous debates, I think he will do a good job here. The question is how the audience will react.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I find it interesting just how often the "libertarian" side of the argument tends to win considering the choice of venue. It actually gives me some hope.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Aren't most of the audience there usually libertarians or libertarian-leaning?

  • some guy||

    Both capitalism and socialism are hard to define because there are no clear examples of either in the real world. Every country is somewhere on the spectrum and most are near the middle.

  • Zeb||

    I don't know. A true free market doesn't exist. But I'd say capitalism exists everywhere and always.
    Of course, that's just by my definition.

  • some guy||

    Yeah, but there's always some socialism mixed in with it in the form of taxes and regulations because how else would we have ::fill in the blank::.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Yes, it will be important to define both "socialism" and "capitalism," and both sides will have to agree on the definitions. I guarantee they will come to the table with wildly differing definitions for both words. They might never even reach an agreeement as to the definitions.

  • perlchpr||

    They should hash that out ahead of time and present the agreed upon definitions to the audience at the beginning of the debate, to save the time of doing it all live.

  • Ecoli||

    The success of Denmark and Sweden is a result of their culture, not their socialist leanings. But that's racist so it must not be mentioned.

  • Zeb||

    They also tried socialism (in the sense of state control of key industries) and it was a failure so they rolled those policies back for the most part. I think a distinction between socialism in that sense and welfare-statism is necessary. And "democratic socialism" isn't it. The socialism of places like the UK and Sweden was democratic. It still sucked. A big welfare state isn't good either, but it's not nearly as harmful as actual government control of industry.

  • ||

    So I expect what will happen is, Mr. Sunkara will say "socialism is great, just look at Sweden, Venezuela isn't real socialism, that is authoritarianism!"

    You mean the Sweden that made a bunch of money on oil, frittered it away on government programs and a lack of economic growth and then scaled back the size of government and largely returned to a much more free market? That Sweden?

  • Ecoli||

    Yes.

    That is the Sweden being discussed; the country that pissed away a lot of wealth on a utopian experiment, then sobered up and became adults once more.

  • ||

    Any socialism you can walk away from is a good socialism I guess.

  • some guy||

    ::Eyes the US debt and deficits::

  • perlchpr||

    Sadly, the Venezuelans seem to have decided to see if the accelerator pedal has any more throw to it.

  • Zeb||

    The pro-socialist side will define socialism to mean Denmark or Sweden.

    When Bernie was holding up Denmark as an example of how great socialism is, the prime minister of Denmark had to correct him, saying that Denmark is not in fact a socialist economy, but a market economy with a big welfare state.

    That should really be the distinction. Does the government directly control a large part of the productive economy? A lot of Western European states tried that for a while and it failed horribly.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well, people here have been known to call public roads a type of "socialism".

    If that is "socialism", then literally any government at all is "socialism".

  • ||

    ^ This.

    I've know more than one self-described "socialist" for whom the term pretty much just means "not an anarchist."

  • Dillinger||

    >>>The capitalism vs. socialism debate is

    a question of wetness of water.

  • Azathoth!!||

    There is no debate.

    Socialism is not designed to bring either freedom--of ANY sort, or ANY definition or prosperity to ANYONE. It is designed to create a smoothly running society.

    Capitalism, likewise is not designed with a purpose of bringing freedom or prosperity. It is designed for making it possible to use symbols instead of physical objects for the purpose of making commerce simpler.

  • Tony||

    In other words, a more smoothly run society.

    We're all utilitarians. Some of us are just dumber than others.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|9.20.18 @ 12:30PM|#
    "Some of us are just dumber than others."

    You are occasionally amusing in your stupidity, but most often just the village idiot.

  • sarcasmic||

    Society isn't "run." There is no puppet master. Socialists attempt to be puppet masters, and invariably kill the puppets that don't dance according to their master's strings.

  • Azathoth!!||

    ^^^^^

    THIS

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Socialism mandates a static society. If there is no innovation, such as a new more efficient way to make steel, then you could spend centuries precisely allocating resources for maximum efficiency.

    Then along comes a storm -- boom! no spare capacity to restore the status quo (ante-quo?) So much for a stable society.

    Whereas with capitalism and individualism, there is always room to adjust, because capitalism is nothing but continual adjustment.

    If you were to take two identical worlds, make one socialist with perfect resource allocation and no innovation, make the other unbridled laissez-faire individualism; sure, the socialist one would be more "fair" at the instant of conception. But the individualist world would immediately start innovating and improving, and the socialist one never would. Right from the start, the clever ambitious independent people would be deserting the socialist paradise for the laissez-faire one in droves, while only the unimaginative drones would make the opposite move. And within a decade, only the power hungry fools and capitalist revolutionaries would move to the socialist graveyard.

  • sarcasmic||

    I like tube amps for my guitar because tubes do a lousy job of amplification, and they sound great doing it. Know where all the tubes come from? The old Soviet bloc. Forty years after America switched to transistors, the old commie factories are still churning out vacuum tubes.

  • ||

    Yeah - if there's evidence that there's any such thing as "market failure," it was the replacement of tubes with transistors.

    *spits*

  • some guy||

    Capitalism isn't really about money. It's about property rights and free association. You need to be assured that you will retain what you produce and that you will be free to continue producing once you have made an investment to do so.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Weird how it says nothing about either of those things then, isn't it?

  • some guy||

    It doesn't say anything about money. Capital is anything of value. And the point of capitalism is that if an individual produces something of value they should be assured that they will get to decide what they do with it. That way people actually have an incentive to produce things of value (capital).

  • Ron||

    Well heck I'll just hop into my jet and be right over for tonights debate. little lead time on upcoming events across the country might be a good idea. Not that I would go, just complaining for fun

  • Ron||

    my mistake i though it was tonight

  • Cynical Asshole||

  • Ron||

    Ha Ha worth the laugh

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I would actually like to go to one of these. Alas they are generally always in the middle of the work week.

  • Ron||

    maybe they will youtube it because it would be interesting

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Never ever forget that "Nazi" was short for the "National Socialist German Workers' Party" (emphasis mine). It wasn't the "National Capitalist German Entrepeneurs' Party"!

  • some guy||

    And North Korea is a Democratic Republic, right? What's in a name?

  • ||

    And North Korea is a Democratic Republic, right?

    As was East Germany.

  • Rat on a train||

    Democratic People's Republic

  • DesigNate||

    They hold elections.

    Just because the people vote with a gun to their heads....

  • Sevo||

    "Socialism has been making a comeback in this country. According to Gallup, 55% of 18-29 year-olds now view socialism favorably. Among Democrats, support for capitalism has plummeted over the past two years from 56% to 47%—while Democrats' support for socialism stands at 57%."

    "Before an audience of children, the baker will always win the debate over the nutritionist"
    Can't remember the credit, but D's are all for 'free shit' so long as they can tax someone else to get it.

  • sarcasmic||

    Capitalism is nothing more than what emerges when contracts and property rights are enforced.
    As Hayek said, it is the result of human action, but not of human design.

    Socialism is basically the opposite.

    So if you think private property isn't fair, and that being held to your word isn't fair, then socialism is for you.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Capitalism is an expression coined by marxists to describe 19th-Century slaveholding mercantilism. Turning that into a geuzenaam in an effort to sideline the jurisprudence-changing LP is just plain stupid. The only similar error that comes to mind are the Soviet attempts to deride U.S. anti-ballistic-missile defenses by calling them Star Wars back when the franchise was free-market, anti-tax and pro-gun.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    You know what I like about this question? Remember how we were told to look at Venezuela as a shining example of socialism? Sympathetic celebrities and politicians worldwide pointed and pointed with fawning accolades for Chavez and his shining city on the hill.

    Then the whole thing turned into a dumpster fire, and every one of those people told us we're not allowed to look at Venezuela because it's not socialism.

  • sarcasmic||

    As the Iron Lady said - socialism works great until you run out of other peoples' money.

    Venezuela ran out of other peoples' money.

  • perlchpr||

    Which is amazing, given that with the oil they're sitting on, they should be able to basically just print money.

  • Sevo||

    perlchpr|9.20.18 @ 4:19PM|#
    "Which is amazing, given that with the oil they're sitting on, they should be able to basically just print money."

    Not going to do the search, but they (the fucking commies) have already sold the rights to the known reserves to prop up their idiocy for some period of time.
    And after that ran out, they (t-f-c) are trying to base a cryptocurrency on the oil reserves they've already sold to China (I think).
    As a culture, the Chinese tend to be pretty good business-folk, handy with accounting and pretty quick to detect duplicity. I don't think Maduro is gonna get away with this three-card-monty.

  • Sevo||

    "Then the whole thing turned into a dumpster fire, and every one of those people told us we're not allowed to look at Venezuela because it's not socialism."

    And the Stalin apologists were totally fine supporting the 'alliance' between Stalin and Hitler until June 22, 1941, when every single one of them did a 180 and never so much as flinched.

  • ||

    Then the whole thing turned into a dumpster fire, and every one of those people told us we're not allowed to look at Venezuela because it's not socialism.

    Whether it's Venezuela or Sweden it's like a plane crash; "good socialism" is any socialism you can walk away from.

  • sarcasmic||

    Socialists want to kill the golden, capitalist goose, and keep its eggs.

  • some guy||

    I think Europe, Asia and America are showing that smart socialists know they need some capitalism. They seem to be getting pretty good at riding that fine line and taking as much as possible without taking too much.

  • ||

    They seem to be getting pretty good at riding that fine line and taking as much as possible without taking too much.

    ^ This. A successful parasite doesn't kill the host completely.

  • Azathoth!!||

    A parasite--which socialism AND the left as a whole IS-- harms the host.

    And always winds up killing or being a large cause of it's demise.

    Unless it's destroyed.

  • Eddy||

    If I may presume to offer some advice (unneeded, I'm sure) - Mr. Epstein needs to study the previous debate where this Jacobin guy appeared. The capitalism side, from the purely debating standpoint, didn't seem to come off very well.

    IIRC Mr. Jacobin said last time that by socialism he meant Finland, only not really because Finland wasn't socialist enough. But he didn't mean Venezuela.

    Maybe Mr. Epstein could start off by praising the capitalistic element in mixed economies like the ones Mr. Jacobin admires. Then as which parts of these capitalistic elements Mr. Jacobin opposes.

    Also read (shudder) some back issues of Jacobin magazine.

    Read Rommel's book.

  • Eddy||

    (That was an analogy, I mean read the Jacobins' own Web site)

    See what Mr. Jacobin and his cronies endorse, compare it to the record. By citing the ideas that have been Jacobin-approved as socialistic, you can avoid the True Scotsman dismissals. But make sure to make plenty of asides like "I'm sure we're agreed that you're against Venezuela and etc." Keep making them invoke No True Scotsmen so that you can finish off triumphantly with "we seem to agree that most forms of socialism are wrong - our only ground of difference has to do with the theoretical version of socialism you're pushing, and which you have the burden of showing will work better than the other versions."

    Take advantage of the socialists having the affirmative. "We don't have to prove we're perfect, you have to show your system is better than ours."

  • Eddy||

    I'd also say stay alert to see if Mr. Jacobin claims, for the socialist side, any reform which was endorsed by Hayek. Then say "here's something which really *isn't* socialism!"

    (Yes it's a violation of libertarian purism but beating socialists doesn't require libertarian purism)

  • Sevo||

    Some times I

  • Sevo||

    look upthread to

  • Sevo||

    see to whom you are replying

  • Sevo||

    and then see it's you.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Great. An aging conservative is revived to debate the same communist for whose bebefit Nick threw the last such debate--without so much as taking a powder. Whoopee!

  • Eddy||

    A Jacobin article on paying for socialism - rejects some pat leftist answers, while hymning the glories of higher taxes -

    https://bit.ly/2xEZhuO

    With this article, you can pin the education establishment/teachers union albatross on the socialists' neck:

    https://bit.ly/2QKvtpo

    Note the hostility to charter schools - an important point since plenty of middle of the road people are sympathetic to charters.

  • Eddy||

    Jacobin reviewing a novel about Karl Marx:

    "To its credit, rather than valorizing its hero, Marx Returns presents its protagonist as a deeply flawed character. Barker's Marx is neck deep in debt, always mentally exhausted, impatient with his comrades, unfaithful to his wife, often neglectful of his children, and perpetually tormented by his boils. Barker also hints at the uneasy relationship between the demands of the revolutionary horizon and the uncompensated domestic labor that is borne by Jenny and especially Lenchen. "Love sharing and mutual need were incalculable. How could Marx ever hope to calculate Helene's wages?" Barker has Marx wondering at one point. Yet instead of pursuing this paradox to a conclusion — that his obsession with calculus and infinity is, at best, tangential to the practice of revolutionary politics as a shared, and gendered, human experience — Barker's Marx simply puts this question aside, not to pick it up again."

    https://bit.ly/2QOGupE

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    I know it's counter-intuitive for libertarians and Trump supporters like you and me, but I say socialism. True, it's killed millions in the postwar Welfare states in Western Europe, but can you really argue for capitalism when it has spawned an effete warrior class of SJWs with TDS? I mean, clearly, capitalism in the US has a record of peaceful coexistence with various third world countries over the last 50 years, but I think the presence of so many trans activists who want their own bathrooms has decidedly shown us that this society is definitely late stage. Besides Trump clearly wants to govern like his best pal Kim Jong Un. I say we let him.

  • lap83||

    "but can you really argue for capitalism when it has spawned an effete warrior class of SJWs with TDS?"

    I was unimpressed at first, but your trolling is getting more creative. Solid B

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    "Socialism is more effective than capitalism in bringing liberty and prosperity to the masses."


    How can you start a debate with an obvious lie?????

    It's like starting a debate saying that not drinking water is better for you than drinking water because fish pee in it. It is that absurd.

  • Necron 99||

    Milton Friedman is rolling in his grave.

  • esteve7||

    Should be the easiest debate in history. Only someone completely ideologically possessed would think socialism is better.

  • some guy||

    This is taking place in NYC, so...

  • esteve7||

    Capitalism is just another word for Freedom, and Socialism is just another word for Tyranny. Those who argue against 'Capitalism' either have no idea what it is, or do not believe in freedom itself.

  • esteve7||

    Capitalism is just another word for Freedom, and Socialism is just another word for Tyranny. Those who argue against 'Capitalism' either have no idea what it is, or do not believe in freedom itself.

  • Rob Misek||

    Which cable bundle do you prefer, the one with the paint drying or the cesspool channels?

    The best ideology, not represented by any political cable bundle party, is to value and accept the truth about any issue as demonstrated by the evidence of logic and science.

    But then you'd have to chew your own food and truth doesn't support corruption and the riches from it.

    Previous generations would have given their eye teeth to have the technology we have today to criminalize and eliminate lying, but ours scoffs at it from corrupt opulence.

    We are living in the dark ages.

  • ||

    We are living in the dark ages.

    Dark ages where the Sheeple think that Paul McCartney is still alive.

  • ||

    Or, should I say (((Paul McCartney)))?

  • Rob Misek||

    What kind of fucking retard are you?

  • WhatAboutBob||

    About Bhaskar Sunkara from Wikipedia:

    The son of immigrants from Trinidad and Tobago,...

    Those immigrants and their offspring are really into capitalism. But of course libertarians say bring more of them because once they step on American soil they instantly become libertarians!

  • CE||

    So one guy gets to use evidence, and the other guy has to rely on emotional appeals about what is "fair"?
    How do you judge that?

  • Sevo||

    CE|9.20.18 @ 4:37PM|#
    "So one guy gets to use evidence, and the other guy has to rely on emotional appeals about what is "fair"?
    How do you judge that?"

    Simple. The idiot in second place loses.

  • TerdFergeson||

    Why are the tickets for sale? Shouldn't they be distributed "free" to those most deserving to go according to very intelligent decision makers?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online