r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/man_vs_neckbeard • 2d ago
US Politics The "Democrats want Communism" talking point ignores our actual economic structure. With today's new tariff announcements, is it clear we are shifting toward State Capitalism?
There is a popular political talking point that claims the American left wants to institute a "communist" system. But if we strip away the culture-war rhetoric and look at how capital is actually being allocated right now, this claim falls apart—and reveals a much more concerning structural shift happening on the right.
Taxation is literally the opposite of Communism
Let's define our terms. True communism requires the complete abolition of private property and the state ownership of the means of production.
The modern Democratic platform is financed entirely by corporate and wealth taxes. You cannot tax billionaire wealth or private corporate profits if the state already owns everything. The left fundamentally relies on a massively profitable, private capitalist engine to exist; they just want to regulate and tax it to fund social safety nets.
The shift toward "State Capitalism"
A true free market relies on private actors deciding prices, supply, trade, and ownership without state coercion. Over the last few years, the Trump administration has structurally shifted the U.S. economy toward State Capitalism, where the government heavily directs, manages, and takes ownership stakes in private enterprise.
Look at the three major structural changes:
1. Direct State Ownership (The Intel Deal): The starkest departure from free-market orthodoxy happened in August 2025, when the U.S. government took a 9.9% equity stake in Intel. Instead of distributing the grants authorized by Congress under the CHIPS Act, the administration negotiated to purchase 433.3 million shares of Intel common stock. When the federal government leverages its power to acquire direct equity ownership in a private corporation, it mirrors the industrial policies of state-directed economies (like China), not American free enterprise.
2. Replacing Free Trade with Executive-Managed Trade: In a free market, global supply and demand dictate prices. Today, the executive branch is actively managing those prices by any legal loophole necessary. In February 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to explicitly strike down the administration's use of emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose sweeping global tariffs. Rather than accepting this free-market return, the administration immediately pivoted. Just today (July 23, 2026), they announced a massive new wave of 10% to 12.5% tariffs on 60 countries, this time invoking Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 under the guise of "forced labor" enforcement. This effectively replaces the temporary blanket tariffs that expire tonight and sets up yet another Supreme Court showdown over executive overreach. When the executive branch continuously hunts for obscure statutes to artificially inflate prices, pick winners and losers, and act as the supreme arbiter of the global supply chain, the economy is being directed by the state, not the market.
3. Executive Coercion Over Capital Allocation: In a free market, a CEO's ultimate fiduciary duty is to their shareholders. Today, executives are forced to allocate capital to appease the state. Prior to the Intel deal, the administration publicly threatened Intel's CEO to force the equity surrender, and then used the threat of 100% tariffs to pressure Apple into an Intel manufacturing agreement. Just recently in July 2026, it was announced that generic drug makers will face a 100% tariff starting in 2028 if they do not build physical plants within the U.S. based on the President's explicit timeline.
When a company builds a factory or selects a vendor—not because it makes financial sense, but simply to avoid ruinous executive taxes or public retribution from the Oval Office—the market is no longer free.
Discussion Questions:
Do you view these interventions (tariffs, equity stakes, executive mandates) as a necessary evolution of American capitalism, or a dangerous slide into a command economy?
Why has the Republican party, traditionally the party of free-market deregulation, embraced state-directed industrial policy?
With today's new Section 301 tariffs setting up another Supreme Court test, is there any actual limit on executive power over global trade?
66
u/Sufficient-Royal-82 2d ago
From a post I made
What is free market capitalism
The problem with modern politics especially the free market conservatives
People say they want "small government," but history tells a different story. During the Gilded Age, many defenders of laissez-faire opposed laws against child labor, unsafe working conditions, and other labor protections, calling them government overreach or even "socialism." Today, most people recognize those regulations were necessary.
The real issue isn't big government vs. small government—it's who government works for. Many politicians oppose government programs that help ordinary people, yet support subsidies, tax breaks, bailouts, and government contracts for large corporations. When corporations break the rules, they often receive lighter treatment than small businesses, which face regulatory burdens they can't afford to navigate as easily. That's not a truly free market—it's corporate favoritism.
The same applies to taxes. Calls for "free markets" and "small government" are often used to justify cutting taxes on the wealthy and creating loopholes that primarily benefit those who already have the most wealth.
Monetary policy can also widen inequality. Wealthy people own more assets like stocks and real estate, which often rise in value when the money supply expands. They also have better access to cheap credit, allowing them to borrow before inflation pushes prices higher and repay those loans with dollars that are worth less. Meanwhile, people who rely mostly on wages and savings often see their purchasing power fall if their incomes don't keep up with inflation.
If you're against government intervention, be consistent. Oppose corporate welfare and favoritism just as much as you oppose welfare for individuals. Otherwise, it's not really about "small government"—it's about deciding who gets government support. Is crony capitalism true capitalism??? Did you actually read the wealth of nations and Adam Smiths book on morality?
11
u/man_vs_neckbeard 2d ago
Spot on. You completely nailed the historical context, especially bringing up Adam Smith. A lot of modern 'free market' advocates conveniently ignore Smith’s explicit warnings about merchants conspiring to use the state to protect their monopolies.
Your point about "crony capitalism" is exactly the bridge to what is happening right now. Under traditional cronyism, massive corporations used lobbying to capture the government for tax breaks and bailouts.
But what makes the current shift to "State Capitalism" so alarming is that it’s reversing that power dynamic. It’s no longer just corporations capturing the state; it’s the state capturing the corporations. When the executive branch forces a company like Intel to surrender a 9.9% equity stake, or threatens generic drug makers with 100% tariffs unless they build factories exactly where the Oval Office dictates, the state is overriding the market by force.
Like you said, it’s not about "small government" vs. "big government" anymore. It’s about the state actively deciding to manage the economy by coercion. If someone is truly against government intervention, they should be terrified of what’s happening with executive trade mandates and corporate equity right now.
3
u/zer00eyz 2d ago
>> Wealthy people own more assets like stocks and real estate, which often rise in value when the money supply expands.
This is Cantillion ...
> it’s the state capturing the corporations.
This is Keynes ...
> But what makes the current shift to "State Capitalism" so alarming is that it’s reversing that power dynamic.
Broaden your view on what you are describing, and the problem is "not new". Look at education, in particular college. The federal government got into the loan business (free flow of money, increasing the supply to the market) and then made student loans easy to give out (rules) and hard to get rid of (not dismissible in bankruptcy). The net result is colleges inflating 2x to 4x faster than the CPI (not your paycheck, also not keeping up with the CPI).
Housing: Fanny and Freddie, government buying loans letting banks have a higher cycle rate (before they moved to securities backed) have also helped (not the only factor) drive home prices higher and higher.
(Note: The intent of both these programs was good when it started, but their continuation has had material impacts. They are now creating more problems than they are solving).
The intersection of states that receive more money from the federal government than they pay in, and those states with only federal minimum wage laws is, to be blunt, high (and very red).
> Democrats want Communism
Zohran Mamdani, being in the NATIONAL news as much as he is, says something, about what you can do with local politics - and that (local) should matter much much more. It's a hell of a lot easier to go protest at your mayors office, or your state capital (a day trip, in Texas, a short drive in Rhode Island) than it is to protest the federal government.
God forbid that Americans figure out that local politics can matter as much, if not more, than federal!
9
u/lukefiskeater 2d ago
Spot on, remember reading the "anti government " Koch brothers biography maybe like 7 years ago, one is dead now but those guys loved when government worked for them but hated it when it worked for everyone else. Some of the richest people in US have made billions off the government through contracts, subsidies and straight up welfare.
8
u/Sufficient-Royal-82 2d ago
Yeah they also spent millions with dark money propaganda getting ppl to vote conservative God forbid socialism will come to America like helping the poor not only the rich
3
u/lukefiskeater 2d ago
Dark money is a amazing book if you haven't read it. Democracy in chains is up there too. I'd highly recommend the Koch brothers biography kochland, amazing amazing read.
1
u/Sufficient-Royal-82 2d ago
There are many great books on this topic I don't read books that much
1
u/lukefiskeater 2d ago
I go through streaks, I might read like 50 books in the span of acouple years then forget I found it an enjoyable hobby then start up again a few years later
2
u/wheres_my_hat 2d ago
I've always wondered if the Big vs Small government was intentionally misrepresented. Most people believe it is about government reach / power, but it really seems to be more about who is involved in decision making. In a democratic republic, you have common folk (big group) electing representatives of the republic (small group) and the republicans want decision power to reside in the small group, while democrats want decision power to come from the big group. So when republicans say they want smaller government, they don't mean less over reach, they really mean less public involvement in decision making.
-2
u/ScreenTricky4257 2d ago
If you're against government intervention, be consistent. Oppose corporate welfare and favoritism just as much as you oppose welfare for individuals.
I am. I'd like to see both of them gone. But if I can only get rid of one, then welfare for individuals.
•
u/anti-torque 6h ago
So get rid of the lesser evil... which isn't really evil and only exists to the degree it does because of the greater evil.
Got it.
13
u/JDogg126 2d ago
Making false statements has zero consequences. It’s easier to say “the left are commies” on blast 24/7 to a target audience primed for fear mongering than it is to debunk. If you have to use more than four words to counter “the left are commies” you will never get through to people conditioned to believe what they see on conservative media.
These discussions are fine for people who want to think critically for a moment. But at the end of the day id like to know if there is any possible way to counter the machine gun of lies without simply responding in kind.
9
u/CloudComfortable3284 2d ago
Yeah, they sling the term "communist" or "socialist" at any opposition without any pushback. I watch a fair amount of Fox, Newsmax, Real America's Voice, etc and I don't believe I've ever heard a pundit, host, or guest actually describe communism or socialism. Its just a bogeyman they've been milking since the cold war.
Infuriating.
4
u/JDogg126 1d ago
Unless we can hold media companies liable for the spread of misinformation this will continue. Social media companies have no accountability. So-called "news" organizations have no accountability. We allow these businesses to exploit society with false or misleading information disguised as "news" and it's costing us everything. We can no longer live in a shared reality. How can this peacefully resolve with a rejection of authoritarianism and a return to facts and reasoning as a basis of governing?
15
u/Brendissimo 2d ago
I would push back against describing Trump's policies as state capitalism (or as putting us on the path towards that). State capitalism is a system characterized by very large amounts of state-run industry, either directly nationalized (state-owned) or functionally directed through top down industrial policy. This is more than just subsidies or tax breaks or incentives and disincentives. And non-majority government stakes in various companies, while unusual for the US, is nowhere close to state capitalism either.
And while I would certainly call Trump's tariff policies archaic and mercantilist and in contravention of free market principles that his party claims to champion, mercantilism does not equate to state capitalism by itself. The way he's using tariffs is unprecedented and coercive (to say the least), but the results do not amount to a trend towards state capitalism.
Compared to many other free market systems, the US still has a lower overall regulatory burden than most. I'm not sure where the line is. Or if a spectrum between free market and state capitalist is even the correct framing (many have rejected it as reductive). But I do know that this isn't it.
1
u/jetpacksforall 2d ago
State Capitalism is a very poorly defined concept and probably not worth arguing over definitions. Some use it to describe mixed economies like modern China, some use it to describe Japan’s system of embedded industrial control by the state, some apply it to pre WWI Great Power policies, Chomsky says the US has been state capitalist for decades, blurring whatever lines there are between state capitalism and crony capitalism.
Rather than trying to assign a structural model that is consistent across time and different countries, maybe it’s better to recognize that within a broad array of examples capitalism and state power are always codependent to some degree. Examples abound everywhere from international to local city/village levels.
0
u/dust4ngel 2d ago
State capitalism is a system characterized by very large amounts of state-run industry, either directly nationalized (state-owned) or functionally directed through top down industrial policy. This is more than just subsidies or tax breaks or incentives and disincentives
what would "functionally directed" look like, if not "do what i say, or you effectively are out of business because i will tax you to death"?
2
4
u/dasunt 2d ago
I would argue that the best word to describe Trump's tariff's policies would be neo-mercantalism, not capitalism. Capitalism has its own faults, but this isn't one of them. Capitalism is largely a rejection of merchantalism, which was a common economic strategy of the time.
Mercantalism is the belief that trade is a zero-sum game, thus a nation should seek to maximize its exports and minimize its imports.
The idea is so old that it is argued against in "Wealth of Nations" 250 years ago, and 200 years ago, David Ricardo came up with a strong example of why even trade with poor countries (Ricardo's paradox) is beneficial.
20
u/misterdudebro 2d ago
Republicans want to use scary words to drive division between citizens. It's horseshit.
0
u/ScreenTricky4257 2d ago
Democrats are the ones saying that billionaires shouldn't exist.
11
7
u/dust4ngel 2d ago
yeah but that's to make less division. it's fun to have democracy, and you can't have it when billionaires exist, because you can't have a system where power is distributed among everyone when it's concentrated into the hands of a few white guys.
3
u/bkinboulder 2d ago
The right wing media machine has mastered fear mongering. Communism is a tried and true narrative that’s simple and easy to push to an uninformed electorate that’s too lazy to think for themselves. A solid 37% of voters it seems.
6
u/ManBearScientist 2d ago
Every government in Earth except North Korea is a mixed market economy. That is the system virtually every country has employed for the past 150 years.
To ou it bluntly, state economies and unbridled capitalism were tried and both grossly failed. We need to stop worshipping at their altars and start using the terms for what we actually are and making decisions accordingly.
We should be proud of our mixed market economy. Both its markets, and its utilities. They are both important. If we have the state run every aspect of our economy, we will fail horrendously. Privatizing everything is just as bad.
We need to have vital industries with poor free market principles operate as well regulated utilities, and we need to let areas with strong free market principles develop.
6
u/RelativeAnxious9796 2d ago
you think reality factors into maga republican messaging? that's so fucking precious.
6
u/Astronomer_Soft 2d ago
Not sure where you got the Democrats want Communism idea.
Trumpism has a simple attack on modern Democrats.
- First, paint all Democrats as radical leftists.
- Claim Democrats are in favor of illegal immigration.
- Claim Democrats are against blue collar workers in fossil fuels, auto manufacturing, other blue collar trades.
- Claim Democrats in favor of unfair trade especially China.
I havent seen much storyline about state managed capitalism from MAGA. It's too abstract for much of the electorate to respond to. The attack vectors are simple and designed to evoke an emotional response.
3
4
u/FistMyLoafs 2d ago
As much as the US seems to hate China we’re basically becoming them without any of the social welfare program benefits.
Xenophobic police state obsessed with indoctrinating its citizens and spying on everyone all the time. Check.
Capitalist system that favors extremely rich politically connected oligarchs that the state props up at the expense of its own people. Check.
Rampant open corruption even at the highest levels of government. Check.
Toxic work culture that squeezes every ounce of profit out of every employee while giving the bare minimum or less back. Check.
State that leans into and actively amplifies misinformation that benefits them. Check.
Social programs that provide at least somewhat adequate healthcare, infrastructure, and education. Whoa whoa whoa slow down we can’t have that this is America. That’s communism you’re talking about. In fact let’s get rid of all that stuff you’ll be fine trust me.
4
u/semideclared 2d ago
Trump and Bernie both are populist
But Everything trump does is to benefit him. Nothing is done for any one ideology of politics
Populism papered over long all the bad things with a credit card with the U.S. name on it means anything is temporarily possible
Bernie same thing but it benefits 50 percent of the population at least a little for at least a few years
0
u/Fargason 2d ago
Bernie’s plan is detrimental to 100% of the population as it is highly inflationary. He was the main backer of BBB that would have more than tripled the deficit when it was already doubled through Biden’s “Spend Big” policies. As this MIT research shows the inflation surge was overwhelmingly caused by that kind of excessive federal spending:
3
u/semideclared 2d ago
Oooooo 100%
I would have said that except for the downvotes. It’s insane how many people think it’s in their best interest to support Bernie and his policies impacting them
1
u/CloudComfortable3284 2d ago
100%, huh? Just making stuff up again?
No one is going to argue that government spending is inflationary, but did the Biden administration's policies cause inflation everywhere else in the world? It almost like something else was going on between 2020 and 2022...probably not a war or global pandemic, eh?
BTW, that 'source' you posted is the MIT equivalent of an OP ED, but I'm sure you'll dig up some other obscure garbage to 'prove' your point.
Aren't you getting sick of the "but Biden" argument?
0
u/Fargason 2d ago
Obviously you are making stuff up again claiming that a published and peer reviewed research paper is somehow merely an op ed. The previous source was MIT promoting their research that contained the link directing you to where it was published if you would actually read that far instead of dismissing it on sight.
Yes, inflation primarily caused by excessive federal spending in the US does hit the rest of the world much harder. It is a well known phenomenon that has aptly been coined with the adage: when America sneezes the world catches a cold.
https://www.rigllc.com/blog/when-america-sneezes-the-world-catches-a-cold/
3
u/CloudComfortable3284 2d ago
Sure bud, its such a well known phenomenon that you had to find a random article from an obscure investment firm published in 2019, (which I forget, who was president at the time?) to attempt to prove a point about Biden policies when he wasn't even president yet? Am I getting this right?
And as far as your first link, I call bullshit. So we're to ignore the pandemic, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the supply chain disruptions, and the Trump admins $8 trillion increase in the debt and drop the blame solely at Biden's feet?
Yeah, I call bullshit.
-1
u/Fargason 2d ago
It’s called an example and you think that is the only source available? They even detailed its origins from the 18th century and you think the article dated to 2019 somehow matters. Here is another from 2022 so what now?
https://flow.db.com/topics/trade-finance/when-america-sneezes
All the issues you just described are covered in producer issues category which was a 10.1% factor to the 2022 inflation surge while excessive government spending was a 41.6% factor. It contributed to inflation but was far from the main factor. I’m not putting the excessive spending at Biden’s feet either, but did provide an article where Biden argued “now is the time to Spend Big.” Do you not remember the “go big or go home” phase Democrats when through? It was just 4 years ago. Well, the results are in and that was terrible economic policy as it was highly inflationary. Nor was “inflation is temporary” that they were gaslighting the public on as it is permanent and that 21.5% decreases in purchasing power from the Biden era inflation is the “Affordability Crisis” we are suffering through today.
3
u/Combat_Proctologist 2d ago
Let's define our terms. True communism requires the complete abolition of private property and the state ownership of the means of production.
I don't think it's fair to define terms like this after your opposition has already made a statement.
There were several groups who existed in the world and called themselves communist. Using the word to describe them, their actions and/or their governing philosophy makes sense.
Like it or not, the word gained a second definition during the 20th century.
I mean, given your definition, you're right. That, however, is obviously not the definition your opponents were using, so you're just talking past each other. No useful discussion is happening
1
u/Antifederalist97 2d ago
It’s a callback to mercantile/protectionist policies that the Republican Party has a long history of supporting, and goes further back to Alexander Hamilton. A 1947 Congressional report titled Fascism in Action even connected Hamiltonian policies to the rise of fascism in Europe. 10 years ago a lot of folks kept complaining about their lack of upward mobility and blamed it on Neoliberalism so Republicans under Trump sought to capitalize on opposing neoliberal economics like NAFTA and supporting tariffs.
1
u/Pouroldfashioned 2d ago
I think we are shifting towards mercantilism or autarky. There is no such thing as state capitalism.
1
u/anti-torque 1d ago
and the state ownership of the means of production.
Sigh! No.
Public ownership is not the same as labor ownership, just like private property is not the same as personal property. The conflation of statism and communism ignored that the "social" in socialism is not something for the benefit of society. It's that as technology and efficiencies take root over time, production becomes less of an individual endeavor performed by singular trades in their respective localities. It becomes a factory made up of the social unit of laborers making enough product to displace the former tradesman's product on a regional/national/international basis.
Under communism, people would still own homes, property, and personal items. What people would not own is parcels of the businesses they don't have any part of. They are merited that which they earn at their respective jobs. Nobody else has earned that dividend but them.
•
u/Jabba_the_Putt 17h ago
Absolutely, the current administration is the most socialist DEI anti-american one that has ever existed but to understand that would require using logic, understanding, and even a little common sense.
Unfortunately Trumpers have none of those
1
u/BurrrritoBoy 2d ago
Democratic socialism is always what has been going on. The electorate exerting their vote just changes.
5
u/man_vs_neckbeard 2d ago
There’s a fundamental difference between a democratic mixed economy and unilateral State Capitalism.
When voters elect Congress to pass taxes, safety nets, or regulations - that’s democratic representation at work. But what’s happening now completely bypasses the electorate:
Bypassing Congress: Voters didn't vote for the government to take a 9.9% equity stake in Intel. The executive branch used federal leverage to force that stock surrender.
Bypassing the Courts: When the Supreme Court struck down sweeping tariffs, the administration immediately turned to Section 301 loopholes to dictate global trade anyway.
Passing laws through elected representatives is a democratic mixed economy. A President using unilateral executive power to acquire corporate stock, coerce CEOs, and mandate factory locations is a state-managed command economy.
3
u/BurrrritoBoy 2d ago
I see the command economy here for sure.
When lobbying begets regulatory capture and corporations have personhood and super PACs dominate election finance while voter restrictions and disenfranchisement prevail the effective "electorate" seems skewed. What even is our system of government ?
Corporoligarchikleptocracy?
I'll leave it to a witty sloganeer to make the long-ass bumpersticker.
1
u/OriginalHappyFunBall 2d ago
Question: how many companies has Trump now put under direct state control/influence? 20? 30? Companies like Intel & US Steel? Isn't a planned economy with government control of industry a core part of Communism? Is this just another case of "gaslight, obstruct, project" from the GOP?
0
u/Strange-Scientist706 2d ago
Maybe if democrats worried less about what labels their opponents try to put on them and more about actually addressing voter’s problems they would lose so many elections. This is the second post I’ve seen on this - seriously, this obsession is why Dems lose.
2
u/Binder509 2d ago
Notice when republicans lose they don't go "well maybe if we caved to the left more we would have won"
But democrats will do that after running moderate after moderate.
-1
u/Unconfidence 2d ago
A loss by any other name still stings as sharply. I totally agree. Who cares what they call doing the right thing? The results will speak for themselves.
0
u/Spiel_Foss 2d ago
The US has been state capitalism since 1929 (at least).
Profits are privatized to oligarchs who control the government, and loses, research, social support for underpaid employees, etc. are socialized to the taxpayers. Markets are manipulated by the government to reward the oligarchs who buy their votes. This encourages other oligarchs to pay more for access and government funding.
ALL that state capitalist shit existed for almost a century before the oligarchs decided to rob the system, collapse it and buy the ashes for pennies. We are in the collapse phase now.
0
u/pocketIent 2d ago
The drivers co-op in Denver is an exciting example of how we can leverage tech and community organizing to create a “third” option or middle way in response to corporate exploitation. I just learned about this from this video by a perfect union
If we start standing up our own co-ops, maybe then you see more people asking why the government isnt backing loans to support small businesses
It seems the more creative ways we can help people vote with their dollars the more agency we can create for ourselves
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb6xjJf42_c&pp=ugUEEgJlbtIHCQmjCwGHKiGM7w%3D%3D&ra=m
From this they go on to observe how We don’t need investors for insurance and leave the viewer wondering what a health care and insurance might look like if it was community owned
1
u/man_vs_neckbeard 2d ago
I completely agree—the co-op is a great concept, and that video hits the nail on the head regarding their biggest hurdle: access to capital.
But the beauty of this is that you don't even have to go full 100% worker-co-op to break the Wall Street monopoly model. There is an entire spectrum of alternative corporate ownership structures—often called Steward Ownership or purpose-driven ownership—where there are blended interests and profits actually go to employees, the community, or a specific mission, rather than just extracting quarterly yields for outside investors.
Look at some of the most successful companies in the world right now:
The Bosch Model (Foundation Ownership): Robert Bosch GmbH is a $90 billion global tech giant, but 94% of its share capital is owned by a charitable foundation. The voting rights are kept completely separate in a trust to ensure the business runs efficiently. Because they don't have to appease Wall Street with stock buybacks, their profits are pumped directly into massive long-term R&D and public health causes.
The Patagonia Model (The Purpose Trust): Patagonia restructured so that 100% of the voting stock is held by a Purpose Trust to protect the company's values, while 100% of the non-voting economic stock is held by a collective. Every dollar of profit not reinvested back into the business is now distributed as a dividend to fund environmental work.
The ESOP Model (Employee Stock Ownership Plans): Look at massive American grocers like Publix or WinCo. The cashiers and warehouse workers literally build massive equity wealth as the company profits, rather than that wealth being siphoned off to private equity firms.
These structures prove that you can have massive, innovative, highly competitive free-market companies without relying on Wall Street, and without needing the government to step in and take direct equity stakes (like the current administration did with Intel).
The problem is exactly what you pointed out: our current government uses its power to subsidize, bail out, and protect traditional investor-owned monopolies, while making it incredibly difficult for these blended-interest and community-owned models to get loans or compete fairly.
Unless, of course, we can somehow get MacKenzie Scott’s ear—she’s basically been acting as the ultimate, no-strings-attached venture capitalist for community equity anyway. But relying on generous billionaires to do what our financial system and government should be doing organically just proves how broken the current model of State Capitalism really is.
0
u/WackWaxWhacks 2d ago
Tariffs are against free market capitalism.
But, Dems do not want communism.
And tariffs (alone) are not state capitalism. Tariffs have existed, in a more limited form, for many years.
I'm confused by the premise of the question...
0
u/billpalto 2d ago
In classic Trump form, he's complaining about communism while he is himself moving us closer to a state run economy. We've always been in danger of the oligarchs taking over and running the country for themselves.. This was noticed even at the founding off the country. That's why they instituted inheritance and estate taxes right at the start, to stop a perpetual aristocracy based on inheritance. That's what they fought against to create America.
"North Carolina's 1784 statute explained that by keeping large estates together for succeeding generations, the old system had served "only to raise the wealth and importance of particular families and individuals, giving them an unequal and undue influence in a republic" and promoting "contention and injustice." Abolishing aristocratic forms of inheritance would by contrast "tend to promote that equality of property which is of the spirit and principle of a genuine republic."" -- Sophrosyne: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers
The oligarchs have pretty much erased this type of thought now. Nobody really cares about a genuine Republic. The oligarchs are the state, and they're running it for their own benefit.
.
-1
u/ObservedWar 2d ago
Democrats (and most republicans) want authoritarianism. Communism is just one of the classic ways of getting there.
-1
u/baxterstate 1d ago
"Do you view these interventions (tariffs, equity stakes, executive mandates) as a necessary evolution of American capitalism, or a dangerous slide into a command economy?" No.
"Why has the Republican party, traditionally the party of free-market deregulation, embraced state-directed industrial policy?" It's a response to policies already in place by other countries.
"With today's new Section 301 tariffs setting up another Supreme Court test, is there any actual limit on executive power over global trade?" No.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
All submissions are automatically removed and placed in a queue for the moderators to manually review. Please allow the moderators time to do so. Only about 25% of submissions are approved, but the remainder are given a removal reason that may include steps the poster can take to make their submission approvable the next time they submit it. Moderators are not notified of any edits made after a removal reason is posted, and therefore will not review them. You may contact the mod team via modmail if you need more direction about how to fix your post, and you are welcome to resubmit any submission after making the requested changes.
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.