MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Turns Out the Internet Has Something to Say About Teen Vogue Trying to End Capitalism

Will ending capitalism also end global poverty? The for-profit magazine seems to think so.

|||Screenshot via Twitter/@TeenVogueScreenshot via Twitter/@TeenVogueTeen Vogue is on the frontlines of the fight against capitalism, but it won't come without some resistance from Twitter.

In April, the magazine published an article titled, "What 'Capitalism' Is and How It Affects People." The article compares capitalism, which could possibly leave the world in a "dystopian Mad Max nightmare in which resources have dwindled, rich plutocrats own everything," to a much more desirable system of socialism. The article was retweeted on Wednesday with a caption that called for ending poverty with the end of capitalism.

Predictably, the internet had something to say about a for-profit business rallying against capitalism.

Others anxiously awaited the new direction of Teen Vogue's content.

One Twitter user shared a chart showing how global poverty has been on a steady decline for the past four decades.

In fact, there are several reports within the last 10 years that have shown that the number of people who lived on less than $2 a day in the 1980s has been cut nearly in half, while the number of those who used to live on less than $1 a day is only a third of what it used to be. It would seem that global trends favor systems that promote "private property, economic growth, freedom of choice, and limited government intervention," as is so aptly described in the piece. As Reason's Steve Chapman previously wrote, it's becoming more difficult for anti-capitalists to ignore reality.

Photo Credit: Screenshot via Twitter/@TeenVogue

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.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Yes... Capitalism allows more people to thrive, which will erode resources that much faster. So Mad Max (the good one with Mel Gibson) is a strong possibility with capitalism.

    On the flip side, it's possible that there are fewer people living on $2/day because they couldn't survive. Or that we inflated those $2 to be $2.99.

  • Red Tony||

    Stupid or sarcasm? I'm leaning stupid, but I can't quite tell.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    It sounds like Teen Vogue is a subversive Marxist publication and an enemy of the republic.

  • Rorschach||

  • Don't look at me!||

    it's becoming more difficult for anti-capitalists to ignore reality.
    Judging by what I have been reading lately , I'm guessing that's not so.

  • ||

    Judging by what I have been reading lately , I'm guessing that's not so.

    Just because it's more difficult doesn't mean they won't work harder.

  • Mickey Rat||

    But they are really, really good at it.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Yup, both the anti-capitalists on the left and the anti-capitalists on the other left--Trumpistas, continue to deny reality.

    You should've heard anti-trade stalwart, Pete Navarro, spewing platitudes when questioned by Jonathan Hoenig yesterday on FBN's Bulls & Bears why the change in heart about trade from the time Navarro authored a book extolling trade. It was a sight to see quite disturbing.

  • Here for the outrage||

    Yes, limiting trade selectively and temporarily is that same as instituting socialism.

    Damn it must be nice to be so stupid you can't tell the difference between the two.

    How long does it take you to tie your shoes? Just kidding, I know it's velcro

  • Woody Chip Hurrrrr?||

    Not interested in self-ownership and individualism much, are you?

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Here for the outrage||

    Not interested in self-ownership and individualism much, are you?

    uhhh.... what?

    I'm for the free market, and I can tell the difference between socialism and selective trade barriers.

    So in your mind, a somewhat free market is just as bad as socialism?

    Again.... how long does it take to tie your shoes?

  • Woody Chip Hurrrrr?||

    So self-ownership for you, and you-ownership for me. Oh, temporary you-ownership, excuse me.

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Here for the outrage||

    Yes, this slaver that would rather have temporarily restricted free trade over socialism.

    Where'd I put my whip?

  • Woody Chip Hurrrrr?||

    You go ahead and surrender your self-ownership, that's your right. But keep your filthy grabby hands off mine.

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • BYODB||

    I take this to mean that you'd have no problem with an individual selling technical blueprints for nuclear weapons to Iran, since after all self-ownership must mean that no trade restriction could be legitimate. And, since borders don't exist it's not like it could have any effect since wars are nothing but a figment of our collectively deranged imagination.

    If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: the biggest failing of libertarianism is that other nations and ethos continue to exist.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You just said a bunch of things that are nothing but pops and buzzes to a,exi afry or his sock Woody.

  • esteve7||

    Capitalism is just another word for Freedom.

    And in a free society, you are free to give to charity. Studies have shown those on the left give far less to charity, because they think charity is not giving your money away, it's stealing someone else's to give it away

  • ||

    Studies have shown those on the left give far less to charity, because they think charity is not giving your money away, it's stealing someone else's to give it away

    I... uh... I need this unboxed or unpackaged or whatever for me. Even if you stole the money, isn't giving it to charity still a good thing? Isn't the person who steals his money and gives it away a robin hood while someone who just steals and hoards his money a miserly Scrooge?

    I assumed they gave less to charity because they assume someone else is taking care of it and are too stupid to realize that those people don't work for free.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    They give less to charity because it's the government's job to help those people, and it's their money. THEIRS!!! They get to decide how their money is spent or donated.

    As for your money? Your taxes should be raised, until you're one of those people that the government has to help.

  • esteve7||

    sorry i should have stated that studies showed they give less, and I am speculating as to why

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    "" Even if you stole the money, isn't giving it to charity still a good thing?""

    I doubt if someone broke into your house, sold everything and gave it to the poor your response would be that it was a good thing.

  • Cloudbuster||

    +1 Robin Hood

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Leftism is based around being generous with other people's money but feeling good like you've given your own money.

    Just another reason to get rid of progressives.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Pretty sure Jesus stated that theft is okay as long as you give some to charity. */Sarc

  • fdog50||

    I can't understand the reasoning behind believing that charity is "stealing someone else's money to give it away. That sounds like the definition of what government does. Charities get their money from people who voluntarily give it; if I don't want to donate to the American Cancer Society or the ASPCA, I don't have to. But government takes money under threat of jail or confiscation. And this is what the Left has always believed. Money must be forcibly taken and given out according to what they want, not what you as an individual wants.And if you claim to be a Christian and object to them taken it or what they spend it on, they denounce you as "un-Christian" or "uncharitable". This is why they give less to charity--they believe that private charities should be non-existent and only the government should control what is given out.

  • Joe Clave||

    Therefore, Capitalism is just another word for nothing left to lose, right?

  • JWatts||

    "...it's becoming more difficult for anti-capitalists to ignore reality."

    LOL, that is some wishful thinking.

  • soldiermedic76||

    It's getting harder but they haven't given up.

  • fdog50||

    Where there is a will, there is a way.

  • BYODB||

    Write up in Teen Vogue because you need to convince young adults of the miracle of socialism before they're taught critical thinking. Propaganda 101.

  • Longtobefree||

    Where will they ever learn critical thinking?
    The public schools can not, parents would be arrested for abuse if they did, what's left?

  • BYODB||

    Theoretically college, which is where you'd be potentially exposed to Freire which is hilariously ironic.

  • Dont Tread On Womyn||

    ^this

  • Dillinger||

    if didn't already ignore reality wouldn't be anti-capitalists?

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Which one of our resident NPC socialists will be the first to declare that the Teen Vogue article should be required reading in our high schools?

  • Eddy||

    Does NPC mean Non-Player Character? What's that about?

  • ||

    Yes.

    There are political actors with no will of their own. They are only capable of regurgitating pre-programmed talking points.

    The NPC itself is neither explicitly left nor right leaning so, of course, the left is more victimized by it.

  • ||

    I suppose I could've said more succinctly: It's a meme.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    It's a great meme. MMGA

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    THEY HAVE NO SOULS!

  • End Child Unemployment||

    NPCs in games often have very limited and predictable dialogue options. Similarly, the idea goes, socialists, communists, SJWs, etc have limited and predictable dialogue options.

    It's kinda funny as a way of tearing down ideological opponents, but can be applied to about anyone. Sometimes I feel as a libertarian I mostly say "Government is bad, Mkay? You don't want more government, cause that'd be bad. So don't do more government kids, because government is bad."

  • Red Tony||

    Man, you have a BIG head.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Hey some chicks like sucking on a big bloated mushroom.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Can we just all get together on the idea that progressives ARE essentially NPCs? So,they effectively aren't real people and are an existential and omnipresent threat to our freedom, and even our very lives,

    This being the case, we need to also get together on a plan to get rid of them. Even out of power they are a significant, ongoing threat.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    The Version of Socialism that Teen Vogue wants is the same as most [democratic] socialism: They want Fascism.

    They want a system where the means of production remains in private hands, but the results of production are guided and controlled by the state-- which is usually assumed to be poverty alleviation.

    This is what Camille Paglia refers to when she says her young students come into college having no fucking sense of history.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I don't know why I randomly capitalized so much crap. My apologies.

  • Eddy||

    Don't Worry, PlenTy of PeoPle do thaT.

  • BYODB||

    It's ok, it's still fewer typo's than the 'professional' authors here at Reason.

    That said, I actually agree with you regarding the left. It seems their direction is closer to Italian fascism than it is to any version of socialism. The irony, of course, being that ANTIFA is explicitly a fascist organization even while the name says otherwise.

    These people have absolutely no sense of history, and the reason is probably because public education is garbage or, worse, outright propaganda in favor of the fascists.

  • Brandybuck||

    Socialism is just Fascism without the military uniforms. Except when it does have uniforms. Then it's exactly like Fascism.

    The only real difference is whether it's national socialism or international socialism. Since the hipster Bernie-bros are all into trade restrictions, I'm guessing they all fall down on the side of national socialism...

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I still don't see any of the Bernie Bros demanding nationalization of industry (well, except when they occasionally do-- but I'm just talking overall). So if you aim to keep the "factories" in private hands, but demand that the factory pursue the interests of the state, then you're a fascist and we're done here.

  • Woody Chip Hurrrrr?||

    My understanding of the insignificant difference between Communism and Fascism is that Fascists control the means of production whereas Communists own the means of production. A distinction without a difference.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Fascists control the means of production whereas Communists own the means of production.

    Kind of. Fascists control the results of production in that they guide the corporations and their productivity towards the goals of the state.

    the socialists want to own the means of production, ie, nationalize the industries. There is quite a distinction in my opinion.

  • Woody Chip Hurrrrr?||

    Why do you see that distinction as important? Seems to me no more different than someone stealing the chair you just made or holding a gun on you to make them the same chair; they might have the different labels "theft" and "slavery", but they are the same result.

  • Microaggressor||

    The distinction is that privately owned firms still experience profit and loss signals, thus retaining some benefits of market mechanisms. Nationalized firms don't have any of that.

  • Woody Chip Hurrrrr?||

    Nationalized firms still have records of inputs and outputs. They might not be listed as dollars or rubles or bolivars, but they are still some common form of measurement. Central planners still have their own ideas of what to make and who gets the output, and whether the central planners own the factories or simply give orders to them is not a significant distinction.

    Stalin and Hitler both knew when certain weapons cost too much and ordered simplifications. Both still cared about efficiency.

    I fail to see a distinction.

  • BYODB||

    In terms of practical outcomes to our current system of civil liberties, property rights, and individualism we get to choose between two versions of destruction who's differences don't carry enough weight to offset the looming destruction.

    It's something to talk about, though, since it's likely an inevitable outcome no matter what 'we' do.

  • Bubba Jones||

    The practical difference is that hitler left production in the hands of the experts.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "Stalin and Hitler both knew when certain weapons cost too much and ordered simplifications. Both still cared about efficiency."

    They cared about efficiency in the goods produced for the government to use directly for it's own purposes, such as military weapons. That does nothing to prove or even suggest that they cared about efficiency in the production of goods for civilian use (such as food).

  • soldiermedic76||

    Is it Italian or the other, more Northerly version? I mean some of the anti-Semitism of the left is getting pretty bad.

  • Sevo||

    "I don't know why I randomly capitalized so much crap. My apologies."

    Just capitalize the nouns, Herr Paul.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    So there isn't as huge a market for hot takes on political/economic theory as one would feel?

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Well this article was from April, and Reason is just getting through their magazines, so...

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's because it became a Twitter thing yesterday. Which is how most of Hit n Run functions.

  • Here for the outrage||

    Guess which party Advance Publications donates to?

    https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/tot als.php?id=D000041920&cycle=2014

    I'm kidding.... we all knew the answer

    So weird how all this stuff about socialism and anti-capitalism is coming from one party?

    BUT TRUMP IS EEEEVIL!!!!

  • Eddy||

    And it even seems unnecessary - do they think if it's not in Teen Vogue their readers won't learn in school about the awesomeness of socialism?

  • Brandybuck||

    Poverty is usually defined as a set of bottom percentiles of a population's wealth curve. Basically, you're "poor" if you're in the bottom 10%. Or bottom 5%. Whatever. The problem with this definition is that getting rid of poverty is impossible because there will always be a bottom 5%. It's a definition that firmly entrenches the poverty pimps. Which is why the poverty pimps love it.

    But socialism! That changes everything! If everyone is exactly equal then there will be no bottom 5%. Or top 5%. Only the giant middle 100% (plus the select few who end up being more equal than others).

    And thus we get to a world where absolutely everyone is destitute but no one is poor.

  • Here for the outrage||

    That's why they ignore global figures about the average American compared to the global population. Half the US is globally in the top 1%.

    They're running out of Americans to soapbox to

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "American standards of poverty... like you still have a flip phone and you're embarrassed to take it out in front of chicks" -- Doug Stanhope.

  • I'm Not Sure||

    "The problem with this definition is that getting rid of poverty is impossible because there will always be a bottom 5%. "

    It's even stupider than that. The people currently in the bottom 5% aren't all going to stay there for their whole lives.

  • Brandybuck||

    I literally heard that argument back in the 70s on the Free To Choose series. In the roundtable discussion afterward someone from the Department of Housing and Stuff told Friedman that his ideas would not work because "there will always be a bottom 20% and we always have to help them!"

  • Griffin3||

    "there will always be a bottom 20%" -- only until everyone is made equal by hatchet, axe and saw.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Be more careful with your quotes. Ain't no one got time for a 20 minute drum solo.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Considering many Americans in the poverty range actually have a higher standard of living then the wealthy did at the beginning of the 20th century, it is entirely true poverty is subjective.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The only way to make people equal, so there is no bottom 5% is to make 99.9% of the population equal. This is done by restrict My positive outcomes for the masses. Just like in the Soviet Union. You could accomplish only what The State/The Party would allow.

    Just another reason to get rid of the progressives.

  • NoVaNick||

    It says a lot that leftists must target perhaps the most ignorant demographic (Teen Vogue readers) to sell their ideas.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Anti-capitalist uses capitalism to complain about capitalism. Film at 11. If government permits.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Standard, go to, answer for all bureaucrats: Permission Denied!

  • Juice||

    Michael Moore?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Good one.

    I played a benefit for Puerto Rico last year and Moore was there. I think he did some filming. I don't know if it ended up in his new(ish) movie. There were a few people filming and I signed a few releases, but I don't recall if one was for him.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Ending capitalism end poverty in Venezuela.

    I would like to see one country that ended capitalism and ended poverty.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Well since the left insists on defining poverty in relative terms, so that a rising economic tide has no effect on poverty levels, if you destroy capitalism, there by destroying all wealth, everyone will be equally poor, therefore: poverty defeated!

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Do we all get equal bites on the zoo animals?

  • Griffin3||

    No, because some bites will be more equal than others.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    No, the zoo animals get equal bites on you.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Don't you know that no one else has tried true socialism. Ignore all those communist/socialist countries that failed, it doesn't mean anything because it wasn't real socialism.

  • Muzzled Woodchipper||

    So TV is telling us that before capitalism, an economic system that really isn't that old, there was no poverty?

    Because that's what it sounds like.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Yes, serfdom was never really a thing. Those damn Dutch popularizing capitalism ruined the world.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Capitalism is obviously the worse thing to happen to humanity since Eve got a little peckish in the garden of Eden.

  • lafe.long||

    Wow. There maybe some hope for the twatterers after all.

  • Juice||

    Holy shit. Elizah nailed their asses.

  • Juice||

    the number of people who lived on less than $2 a day in the 1980s has been cut nearly in half,

    Thanks, inflation!

  • ThomasD||

    Every Conde Nast publication (e.g. Ars Technica) has gone this way - full on SJW, full on AGW, 'net neutrality,' etc. The whole enchilada.

  • Truthteller1||

    Hilarious.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Teen Vogue's advertisers must be apoplectic. Either that, or they working hard to develop new products that will appeal to style-conscious little Marxists, such as:

    Unisex, olive drab smocks, just like those worn by Soviet wives circa 1960. (They're retro!)

    "Lada Motor Oil" — parfum

    Square-toed, low-heeled sensible shoes available only in this season's (and all future season's) HOT color—GDR Institutional Grayish Brown!

    One-size-fits-all Winter Coat made from recycled fibers from old Trabant cardboard body panels! (Be sure to remain indoors when rain or snow threatens.)

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Is GQ a sister-publication, I wonder? Last few times I leafed through one while waiting for a haircut, it seems to have sprinkled left-wing politics between its fashion ad pages. They can introduce some party-conscious products for the boy Bolshevik in your life:

    Prole—Ver—Alls: forget dressing like a lumberjack, hipsters, now you can dress like a factory drone working on a Kruschev-era Kalashnikov factory!

    "Eau de Toilette" fragrance for men. It's actual toilet
    Water! (Still smells better than your sweat because Bernie's one-deodorant-is-enough policy resulted in mostly going without.)

    No style-savvy Leninist is complete without a timepiece, of course, so train to crane your neck to see the giant clock on the clock tower in the local square, because wrist watches are a bourgeois luxury item, you little Kulak!

    And for the retro-loving young revolutionaries who want to get to their state-assigned jobs (where you pretend to work and they pretend to pay you)—check out the Single-Speed Fixie bike made from heavy-as-hell wrought iron. But be sure to share it with your comrades because private ownership of personal vehicles is reserved only for officials!

  • BYODB||

    Someone needs to do a serial set of sketches in this vein in the modern era. Soviet propaganda commercials for 'consumer' items is a hilarious concept. I still think Yakov Smirnoff is amusing.

  • mlwjr||

    Maybe SNL can do.....oh forget it

  • soldiermedic76||

    Why not? If a murderous racist like Che can be the role model for the woke generation, is Soviet chic not far behind?

  • Sevo||

    "One-size-fits-all Winter Coat made from recycled fibers from old Trabant cardboard body panels! (Be sure to remain indoors when rain or snow threatens.)"

    Gym shoes? You bet? Size 20, left foot. In stock, ready for delivery

  • Nuwanda||

    But wasn't Che sexy with that beret, that dark unkempt visage, and that AK-47 slung oh-so raffishly over his shoulder? And for decades the kids have been lapping it up. T-shirts, posters, all hung on well-fed, healthy American bodies and solid American bedroom walls, all paid for by those fuddy-duddy yet very evil capitalists disguised as middle-class parents.

    Teen Vogue's just rinsing and repeating.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    I love casually asking Che enthusiasts what they think of his having ordered many black people and gays to be shot just for being black or gay. Their confused expressions are heartwarming.

  • Nuwanda||

    Sure, it's symptomatic of the shallowness of most politics and the deep anti-Americanism in the world. Che, Fidel (never Guevara or Castro) are fully absolved for their crimes upon the basis of having done good service in the cause of America Hating.

  • jello.beyonce||

    "It is not the process by which the authority is selected, but the authority itself that
    needs to be scrutinized."
    -The Authoritarian Personality in the 21st Century"

    Mere tags or buzz words like "capitalism" or "socialism" are as useless as those like "Democrat" or "Republican".

    The point?
    Any system be exploited.

    There is nothing inherently good or bad about either system, it is the process by which that economic system is maintained that matters.

    Both systems have seen their share of deficiencies.
    Much like "capitalism", most "socialist" states become controlled by a select few, whom believe they are entitled to more than others.
    Humans are selfish and insecure.
    Most people will put their wants above the needs of others.
    Most people need stuff (and power) to validate their most complete lack of true self-esteem.

    Anyone that resorts to mere buzz words or labels doesn't posses the intellect nor enlightenment to maintain that system's sustainability.

    I ask is, what's the difference between a "socialist" centrally planned economy, wherein a select few corrupt govt elite control the means of prod, and a "capitalist" centrally planned market economy, wherein a select few wealthy corporate Lords control the means of prod (and control the corrupt govt elite)?
    Folks like Plutarch, T. Jefferson, A. Smith, etc. have noted how wealth will always concentrate into the hands of the few (similar to the Pareto principle).....despite true talent, skill, knowledge, ability, etc.

  • Nuwanda||

    Well, my anarchist friend, in your stateless utopia how will you prevent a situation where "a select few wealthy corporate Lords control the means of prod"?

  • Don't look at me!||

    It's amazing to think that in a country overflowing with opportunity, those who cannot figure a way to make a few dollars for themselves would pretend to know how everything should be run.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Could it be because what you describe as capitalism actually is far more likely the result of cronyism rather than. Capitalism? The most wealthy corporations at the beginning of the 20th century are not the wealthiest corporations today (in fact Sears, one of the most powerful at the start of the 20th century just declared bankruptcy and uas not been a major market force for decades). Also, very few of the wealthiest families at the beginning of the 20th century are among the wealthiest today. Capitalism, when not hindered by the government corrects through competition centralization of wealth and power.

  • Sevo||

    jello.beyonce|10.18.18 @ 7:04PM|#
    "There is nothing inherently good or bad about either system, it is the process by which that economic system is maintained that matters."
    OK, you're proven yourself to be a fucking ignoramus; let's see how much more an ass you make of yourself.

    "Both systems have seen their share of deficiencies."
    Starting off real good there, imbecile.
    Yep, capitalism has the deficiency of making people prosperous, while socialism has the deficiency of making them dead. Got it. How much more imbecility do we have here?

    "Anyone that resorts to mere buzz words or labels doesn't posses the intellect nor enlightenment to maintain that system's sustainability."
    As opposed to resorting to absolute idiocy as you have?

    "I ask is, what's the difference between a "socialist" centrally planned economy, wherein a select few corrupt govt elite control the means of prod, and a "capitalist" centrally planned market economy, wherein a select few wealthy corporate Lords control the means of prod (and control the corrupt govt elite)?"
    Beat on that strawman, you fucking ignoramus.
    And fuck off, besides.

  • loki||

    Seems like nothing sells quite like anti capitalism, besides sex. Thankfully kids tend to grow out of this shit when they realize their socialism runs about as deep as the Che Guevara tee shirt they paid $25 for at Hot Topic. Until they pick the cotton, make the equipment and dye and make the damn shirt themselves I will never take them seriously!

  • loki||

    I deem this movement Fauxcialism®

  • Chipper Jonze||

    Is Teen Vogue copyrighted?

    It'd be a shame if every issue got scanned (with those eevil capitalist ads removed, of course) and put on every torrent and warez site.

    From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

    Of course, you could make the argument nobody really needs Teen Vogue.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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