Millennials Need Capitalist Morality

[Ed Hudgins]

Millennials Need Capitalist Morality
By Edward Hudgins

April 28, 2016 -- A new Harvard survey found that only 42% of 18 to 29 year olds support capitalism. The good news of sorts is that only 33% support socialism. Yet 44% support its close cousin progressivism, and 48% support “social justice activism.” These results show a deep confusion that will require a strong dose of capitalist morality to cure.

Mixed-up data about millennials and capitalism

Many friends of freedom see the strong support for Bernie Sanders among young people as evidence that a new socialist ascendency will move America more swiftly to economic catastrophe a la Greece or, worse, Venezuela. And Pew surveys have found that only 46% of young people have a positive “reaction to” capitalism while 49% react positively to socialism. Granted, these are different questions from the ones in the Harvard report. But when the word “free market” is used instead of “capitalism,” results are more favorable. Even so, concerning that Harvard report, the Washington Post screamed a sensationalist headline, “A majority of millennials now reject capitalism, poll shows.”

While these findings indeed are wake-up calls for friends of freedom, they need to be understood in full context. For example, while the Harvard survey found that 51% of young people do not support capitalism, it also found that 59% don’t support socialism. Further, 49% don’t support progressivism and 42% don’t support “social justice activism.” These and other surveys do find that America is an extremely polarized society.

 

Mixed-up millennial understanding about capitalism

But even more than being polarized, America is an extremely confused society. Today we live in a crony system. Businesses, unions, and ideological interest groups use political pull and influence to secure taxpayer handouts or regulations that favor them by limiting the liberty of others. This corrupt system, facilitated by both Democrats and Republicans, is rightly condemned by both Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street adherents. Capitalism, by contrast, is the system in which who gets what is determined by individuals and enterprises producing goods and services to trade with voluntary customers.

But statist politicians, led by Bernie Sanders, portray the crony system as “capitalism” and argue that it should be replaced by a system in which only certain elites... (Continue reading here.)

[jts]

I suspect that about 99% of the population doesn't know what capitalism is. They probably think they know.

Most people, if they even have a definition of capitalism, would define capitalism as private ownership of the means of production. That is not correct. Slavery is private ownership of the means of production, the means of production in this case being slaves. The correct definition of capitalism is Ayn Rand's definition, a social system based on recognition of individual rights.

If anyone wants to argue against capitalism, Ayn Rand definition, or in other words wants to argue against rights, grab his watch (or somesuch property of his). Then you offer to give it back if he says you should respect his property rights, else you don't give it back.

I listened to 2 debates, each between 2 Objectivists on one side and 2 socialists on the other side. I was disgusted by the performance of the socialists in both debates. The socialists literally did not know what they were talking about. They had no definitions. I doubt they would even understand what a definition is.

If I was the moderator of those debates, I would require a pre-debate session where all 4 debaters hammer out definitions that all 4 can agree to, a definition of capitalism and a definition of socialism. Then these definitions would be posted in large font where all 4 debaters can see them and where the audience can see them. Otherwise I would not accept being moderator, on the ground that the debate has zero chance of being productive.

One of the main principles of clarity of thought is definitions. In Euclid's Elements, we have definitions. In physics, we have definitions. I didn't do a survey on this but I suspect that there is a correlation between the amount of progress in a field of study and the number of quality definitions in that field of study.

 

[Brant Gaede]

You need to educate the audience. Anyway, the socialists would not agree to your "pre-debate."

[anthony]

On 2016/04/30 at 8:28 AM, jts said:

I suspect that about 99% of the population doesn't know what capitalism is. They probably think they know.

.

 

If I was the moderator of those debates, I would require a pre-debate session where all 4 debaters hammer out definitions that all 4 can agree to, a definition of capitalism and a definition of socialism. Then these definitions would be posted...

.

 

You'd first have the challenge of defining (subjective) egotism from (objective) egoism in your pre-debate as well. Cronyism, for example, is simply subjectivity, I think.

There is a fair amount of innocent ignorance and some truth in perceptions of "capitalism" as seen today, perverted further by capitalist businessmen who are not even slightly ashamed to deny their 'favored', assisted and 'connected' status, and who chicken out of defending capitalism with integrity and on principles (assuming they know them).

[merjet]

On 4/30/2016 at 2:28 AM, jts said:

Most people, if they even have a definition of capitalism, would define capitalism as private ownership of the means of production. That is not correct.  [snip] The correct definition of capitalism is Ayn Rand's definition, a social system based on recognition of individual rights.

The former is no more incorrect than the latter, which is incomplete. "Capitalism is a social system based on individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned" (Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal, 10).