TJ Walker argues that while polling shows declining favorable views of capitalism (44% positive) and persistent negative views of socialism (49% negative), younger and Hispanic voters have cooled toward capitalism even as socialism remains net unpopular. He situates the debate with examples: Zoran Mandani's NYC mayoral rise, historical reconstructions showing global extreme poverty falling from roughly 3/4 in 1820 to about 1-in-10 by 2015, and China’s dramatic poverty reduction (about 90% below the poverty rate ~35 years ago). Walker emphasizes capitalism’s historical role in raising living standards, critiques communist regimes for mass repression and deaths, while noting democratic socialism (as in Scandinavian countries) combines socialized public goods—public schools, parks, roads, police—with prosperous economies. He cautions against policies like rent control that research links to reduced housing supply and higher rents, and suggests labels ("socialism" vs "capitalism") are blending and less decisive politically (e.g., NYC finance voters backing a democratic socialist).
Questions this video answers
44%
49%
About 3/4 of people lived in extreme poverty in 1820.
Roughly 1 in 10 people by 2015.
About 90% of China’s population were living below the poverty rate roughly 35 years ago.
Chapters
Capitalism slips in polls. Socialism still underwater. Here are the numbers. First, only 44% of voters now view capitalism positively, while 49% view socialism negatively. Democrats have moved more against capitalism. Younger and Hispanic voters cooled as well, even as socialism remains net unpopular. Zoran Mandani's rise. He's the New York City candidate we've talked about for mayor. His rise keeps the debate center stage. And he puts it this way. Call it democracy or call it democratic socialism. There has to be a better distribution of wealth. Context matters. For most of recorded history, a majority of humanity lived in extreme poverty. Reconstructions put the global rate near 3/4. In 1820, 3/4 of people were really poor then, falling across the industrial era to roughly 1 in 10 by 2015. Before recent shock. Market economies are messy and unequal, but historically productive. By contrast, communist regimes from the USSR to Mao's China produce mass repression and deaths in the tens of millions of people. The sober case is this fixed capitalism's failures don't repeat command economy catests. What's the real message here? From polls showing more and more Americans, especially young Americans, having a favorable view of socialism and having a bad opinion of capitalism? It's in part because the flaws of capitalism are right there. If you see rising inequality, if you can't get a job, if all of a sudden you are working and you can't pay rent, you feel like the current system isn't working and it's not for you. Let's dig a little bit deeper here. Now, I'm here as a sane, sensible centrist and I do believe that capitalism is the best system around for running a country. Here's in a society and a world economy, is it perfect? No. Does the so called neoliberal order make problems? Sometimes? Yes. But you always have to say, compared to what? If you're comparing it to feudalism, capitalism is pretty good. Because for thousands of years it's fascinating if you ever see the the average per capita income or for the last 3,000 years, it's like completely flat. Everyone had just bare subsistence income of roughly like $500 a year in current income. And then the industrial revolution starts, free market capitalism, and it just shoots straight up. It really is amazing. And when you think about how not that long ago, 35 years ago in China, you had some 90% of the population living below the poverty rate. And now almost all of them are out of poverty. And even though China says hey, we're communist, wink wink, nudge, nudge, they embraced capitalism for most of their economy. So what's really going on here with these approval ratings for the word socialism and the word capitalism. Capitalism, I think sometimes lacks for a good publicity. Very few people would say, gosh, the world is a lot better off today than it was 35 years ago. But in fact, by every measure of looking worldwide, the number of people in poverty then versus now, the number of kids dying prematurely from no healthcare then versus now, the world is so much better, in part because capitalism created surplus. Is it extremely unfair at times? Yes. Is it unequal at times? Yes. Does it form relationships with workers that are sometimes like slavery? Absolutely. But people say, you know, compared to socialism, you know, here's the big problem when it comes to words. To many people who are political activists and above a certain age, let's say over 50, you say socialism. And they instantly think of Fidel Castro's command economy, everyone driving around in 1957 Chevys and eating dirt. Or they think of North Korea. And yeah, those are types of communistic socialism. So compared to that, yeah, capitalism is a thousand times better. But you know what else is socialism? You know what else Karl Marx recommended in the Communist Manifesto? Public schools. So if you are in favor of your own public school in your community, guess what, you're kind of a socialist. You know what else is recommended in the Communist Manifesto? Public parks. So if you think there's some part of your community that everyone should be able to enjoy, and it's a public park and it shouldn't simply be auctioned off to the highest bidder, guess what? You're embracing socialism. If you think there should be a public highway or public streets in your community where everyone shares in the cost and everyone shares in the benefits, the right to use that road, you're in favor of socializing that road, that makes you in part a socialist. So when you compare it to that, all of a sudden socialism isn't so scary. If you've ever been to a Scandinavian country, if you've ever been to Sweden, Copenhagen, Denmark and other other cities and states in northern Europe, you realize they all think of themselves as democratic. Not all, but the ruling party quite often thinks of itself as democratic socialism. And you know what? It's great. I've been there, I've spent time. People are beautiful there, people are happy. You look at Finland and they are judged by some polls to be the happiest nation in the world. So any honest person who says, okay, let's look at the countries that have tried democratic socialism as distinct from communist rule, ussr, a lot of countries, people really like it and they have thriving economies as well. So part of what's happening in this polling data is people are rebelling on the old notions, the old definitions of these terms. To me, the beauty of capitalism is its flexibility. If it sees something working from any other political ideology, it's flexible. Hey, let's try that. You know what else is socialism? Your local police force. That's right. It's taxing people and taking something that could be done in the private sector. You could in fact have a system where rich people have their own private security guards and poor people like, eh, tough luck for you. We could do that. That's what we do for luxury automobiles. And it's fine for luxury automobiles. Rich people get what they want, others don't. But you could do that with a police force. But no, in the capitalistic system, we socialize security and that's why we have taxpayers and government workers serving as police force, which I'm in favor of. How does all this translate politically, what we're about to see tomorrow? Because a lot of people in New York City are capitalist. It's the finance capital of the world. These are some of the most ambitious, hardworking capitalists in the world and they are voting for a democratic socialist. So I'm inclined to think that the labels are not as meaningful as they once were, that we're seeing blending of definition and people not quite as dogmatic about it. So I don't think it's particularly significant except for this. You can go too far with socialism. Obviously even something like rent control can feel good at first, but all the research shows that ultimately it reduces incentives of developers to build more houses and it just depresses the overall supply of housing, which ultimately increases the cost of rent everywhere. And that is one area where the Democrats of this country and the liberal progressives in this country have really messed up. Because the most expensive places for housing in the country, New York, San Francisco, and they do have democratic rule. And the place where there has been the absolute least amount of socialistic rent control, places like Texas and Florida have the most plentiful housing at the lowest cost. That's why these definitions and terms can cut in a lot of different ways to different people.
