Feudalism is to Capitalism as Capitalism is to the future, which begs the question of what the future of Capitalism will look like.
First, I believe, the future will be dominated by a form of Capitalism. People will always resist being a cog in an autocratic system. The individual’s need to succeed by individual talents and efforts is essential and, in my opinion, sacrosanct.
The problem is that many humans will continue to resist meeting the challenges of Capitalism.
The other problem is that people will always have different opinions about how to deal with that disparity.
People on the “Right” tend to want to make non-participants second-class citizens in the hopes that they will somehow go away.
People on the “Left” tend to want to enable the non-performers with Social Safety nets in the hopes of raising their standards and therefore raising their level of participation in the Capitalistic milieu.
The unavoidable consequences of the perspective of people on the “Right” is that future Capitalism would be doomed to drag an ever-growing and ever-increasing wad of second-class citizens. not to mention an increasingly unhappy and disaffected wad of second-class citizens. The unavoidable consequences of the perspective of the people on the “Left” is that future Capitalism will have the same wad of second-class citizens only less bitter and disaffected because many people will choose to subsist rather than succeed, but handing those people society’s money will have zero effect on their life choices.
The way forward, which neither the “Right” or the “Left” want to agree to, is Laissez Faire Capitalism with moderate and inexpensive safety nets. The most recent terminology that seems to fit is Common Good Capitalism.
Proposal: Join my moderate friends in the middle ground.
Recently a young Bernie Sanders activist mentioned the transition from Feudalism to Capitalism and that something new is coming, he is trying to help it. He says that he is more interested in systemic change than in economic self-improvement.
When we say “Capitalism,” we usually mean private property-based organizations regulated by buyers and sellers. Capital was originally defined as labor-saving tools, but the definition has expanded to include other productive assets and the money to invest in business. Socialisms are also called State Capitalism where the economy is controlled by political authorities.
We who prefer an economy run mostly by private decisions, neither want to “make” low earners into second-class citizens nor do we see the population divided into classes; we see personal net worth as a continuum that depends mostly on individuals’ actions. Free markets lead to the greatest good for the greatest numbers of people; as the rich get richer, the poor get better jobs, more opportunities, safer cars, new computers, expanded choices, and nicer homes. They get richer.
Others, like my young dishwasher friend, want increased political control which includes at least, a higher minimum wage nation-wide, higher personal and business income taxes. Many in the majority party also advocate government-run health care for all, abolition of private health insurance, student loan canceling or a similar intervention, Universal Basic Income, completely subsidized college, guaranteed federal job to anyone who wants one, a national wealth tax and a value added tax in addition to current taxes. Each of the above affect life choices.
The welfare state and public debt expanded under both parties. The public safety nets did not go away when Republicans controlled the Executive and both Houses of Congress in 2003-2007 and 2017-2019. We did get tax cuts that unleashed economic growth which pays for everything. State-level safety nets remain in states controlled by Republicans.
The Republican position is status quo on taxes and entitlements. Democrats want more of both. The middle is some more but not a lot more. Those who want less political intervention are not represented.
More to come.
Richard: Thank you for your well-balanced and thoughtful commentary. You said, “The Republican position is status quo on taxes and entitlements. Democrats want more of both. The middle is some more but not a lot more. Those who want less political intervention are not represented.”
As a person who thinks of himself as quintessentially “middle”, WinLoseorDraw would like to quibble slightly with that part of your characterization. Those of us who are truly in the middle don’t, as you say, want “more” entitlements and taxes, “but not a lot more”. We want better entitlements and better use of taxes. The purpose of entitlements and tax dollars seems to be to throw money at the problem of economically challenged disaffection with the American way of life.
Many of us, including WinLoseorDraw, believe we can be inclusive without increasing the massive federal debt. We just have to be a little bit smarter about it.
Proposed: Let’s start using our heads for more than just a Maga hat rack.