Companies have been a staple of the American economic system since the Virginia Company organized charters to establish settlements in North America in 1609. Since then, privately-owned companies have evolved into the backbone of the American economy, and questions about capitalism and whether or not the system works for everyone have existed ever since. History provides countless examples of labor strikes and full-scale revolutions that illustrate the volatile nature of people’s faith in capitalism. Admits a global pandemic in which millions of Americans have filed claims for unemployment benefits, many feel the time is now for an economic overhaul. While exactly what a new system would look like in a nation that has only known capitalism remains unclear, the arguments made by both advocates for and critics of capitalism may provide insight into the state of our nation and may even provide a reason as to why the American public is so highly polarized today.
On August 27th, 2020 protesters gathered in front of Jeff Bezos’s home in Washington DC. That morning the 56-year-old Amazon CEO had surpassed a net worth of $200 billion making him the richest person in history according to Forbes. Not unconnected to Bezos’s rapid accumulation of wealth has been the sudden demand from the American public for the services that Amazon provides. In accordance with the requests of public officials, many Americans have been reluctant to leave their homes due to COVID-19. This in turn has seen Amazon’s revenue soar past expectations during their second quarter as more people than ever before are ordering goods online according to CNBC. During this time of economic turmoil for millions of Americans, I think it is only human to feel a bit of discomfort to see a billionaire getting richer while so many Americans are experiencing hardships. The protesters, many of which were Amazon employees felt that they were being taken advantage of and were there to demand higher pay and better working conditions. In America, it is a commonly held belief that workers should be treated fairly and that people should be fairly compensated for their labor. However, the line between what is fair and what is exploitation is often blurry. For example, what a single person considers a fair wage may be very different than someone who is trying to support a family. While the economics of the matter are intriguing, what may be even more interesting is the ways in which advocates for and critics of capitalism frame their arguments.
Recently, chants of “Eat the rich!” and protests such as the one that took place at Bezos’s home in August have received a majority of the publicity, however, there are many Americans who are not amongst the top one percent that argue in defense of capitalism and are adamantly opposed to a new system. To cast these individuals off as “old-fashioned” or unwilling to adjust I think does a disservice to the conversation as a whole. Some may argue, although it may be true that there are inherent flaws in the system, the presence of a top one percent is what drives the economy and fuels innovation. One such advocate of capitalism is German historian, Rainer Zitelmann who argues that the Anti-rich sentiment that has swept the nation had manifested itself in the form of the guillotine on Bezos’s doorstep. In his article “Anti-rich sentiment drives former Amazon employees to pick up the guillotine” published in the Washington Examiner, Rainer states, “Wherever you look, rich people have become the enemy. At the Democratic National Convention, there was a great deal of talk about rich people, but none of it was positive. Not one Democrat referred to the rich as creators of wealth or as innovators” (Rainer, 2020). Here a very different set of beliefs and ideals are present in Rainer’s article than the protesters in Washington DC. While the protesters were concerned with what Bezos could have and should have been doing for them, Rainer is acknowledging the good that Bezos’s wealth has already done for many Amazon employees. I think it safe to assume that many Americans share similar values when it comes to financial opportunity. For example, I think everyone would agree that hard work should be rewarded and that everyone should have equal opportunities to provide for themselves and for their families. Considering these common beliefs, it is all the more intriguing to examine the divide between those who support the system and those who are calling for an overhaul. The stark divide may not solely be based on the actual economics of the situation but also the emotional and ethical debate of whether or not one person should be able to accumulate so much by benefitting off the work of their employees. Would the protest be taking place if Amazon employees felt they were being compensated fairly but Bezos’s was still accumulating enormous amounts of wealth during this difficult time for so many Americans? Maybe or maybe not. Regardless, the extreme rhetoric used by critics of capitalism such as the assembling of a guillotine and chants of “Eat the rich” suggests that this debate isn’t going to disappear overnight. In fact, the anti-capitalist movement is garnering more attention than ever before and is becoming increasingly more popular amongst world leaders and politicians as well.
Rainer isn’t wrong when he highlights the recent criticism that capitalism has drawn at the Democratic National Convention. For example, in both the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, Bernie Sanders, a self-described “democratic socialist”, gained a very substantial following and was a legitimate contender to become the Democratic presidential nominee. Sander’s grievances with capitalism are very similar to the views expressed by the protesters. Sanders has repeatedly denounced the one percent and expressed his belief that capitalism is a system that exploits the working class. Among the policies, he proposed was his assertions that he would make tuition at public colleges and universities free, implement a national health care program, and follow through on a “Green New Deal” which would allocate massive amounts of funding to combatting climate change. Again, it would be a mistake to assume that because an individual may not support Bernie Sander’s that he or she must not value education or believe climate change is real. All too often, debates over the most important issues facing our nation become a matter of partisanship. In complicated issues such as the discussion surrounding whether or not a new economic system is necessary it is important that Americans do not fall into the trap of blindly agreeing or disagreeing based on the views of the political candidate of their choice. A voter may support another candidate for any number of reasons. In 2020 and 2016 many voters felt that Sander’s positions were too radical while others felt his proposals sounded great in theory though were skeptical of whether they would work in practice. Quite simply and more commonly voters may also simply agree on more policies with a different candidate. Still, the practice of a politician presenting themselves in a way that makes them “the candidate” on an issue is a staple of politics and campaigning. Similarly, to how critics of the protests outside of Bezos’s house may be unfairly deemed “anti-worker” or “traditionalists”, non-supporters of a given political candidate or movement are often characterized by those who are supporters. Statements such as “If you care about the environment vote for candidate x” make it easy for people to adopt an “us vs them” mentality as well as instilling a sense of guilt in the prospective voter. While they may not entirely agree with a politician’s policies, voters often find themselves at a crossroads. Rather than be labeled something they aren’t (i.e. anti-worker or a climate change doubter) voters are often compelled to associate themselves with a given candidate that has effectively positioned themself as the candidate of choice on a given subject that is widely valued by voters. For example, in June of 2020, President Donald Trump declared himself the “Law and order candidate”, a strategy that as CNN’s Gregory Krieg, Dan Merica, and Ryan Nobles point out was especially effective for former presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush (Kreig et al, 2020) Does that mean that the millions of people that voted for Biden this November are anti-law and order? Of course not, but depending on who you ask during these extremely polarized times in our nation, you may receive a much different answer.
Another interesting perspective regarding the laws of capitalism and its inability to provide prosperity for all is shared by self-proclaimed capitalist and member of the top .01% Nick Hanauer. During Hanauer’s Ted Talk, “The Dirty Secret of Capitalism- and a New Way Forward” he criticizes the economic system through which he acquired his wealth and insists that capitalism is built on “social norms and constructed narratives based on pseudoscience.” He advocates for a new economic system that no longer operates under which he believes to be false assumptions that “greed is good, widening inequality is efficient, and the only purpose of the corporation can be to enrich shareholders” (Hanauer, 2019) He proposes that innovation is not driven through competition but cooperation. Hanauer lays out a compelling argument that the assumptions under which our neo-liberal economy has operated are false and that in order to end economic inequality a new system must be adopted. Contrary to this argument however advocates for capitalism such as George Gilder, a best-selling author of multiple books defending capitalism and a co-founder of the Discovery Institution, have made a living off of discrediting the claims of those seeking to overthrow capitalism. In a video published by a well known conservative organization, Prager University, Gilder claims “That only capitalism can create a group of people known as entrepreneurs who have no choice but to concern themselves with the needs and desires of others. These others are their customers” (Gilder, 2014) He claims that if economists were to study these entrepreneurs that they would come to realize that these business owners “must shun greed.” In order to run a successful business, he alleges, entrepreneurs must put the interests of themselves second and those of their customers first which is the very opposite of greed. What I believe to be one of the more interesting aspects of this debate is the fact that whether you on Hanauer’s or Gilder’s side, both hold (or at least portray themselves to hold) very similar values. Both claim to have the interests of the employee and the consumer at heart when they are presenting their beliefs about which economic system is superior. Both portray themselves to be honest and empathetic people who have the common man’s interest at heart. Of course, not both of them can be correct. Gilder and Hanauer both present vastly different ideas about how the economy should operate and only one of them can be right. Either more people would be better off with a more cooperative and inclusive economy that Hanauer proposes or more people would thrive with the competitive and often times cutthroat capitalistic market-driven economy that we have today which Gilder advocates for. If we assume that both men truly have society’s best interest at heart then the debate becomes purely one of economics. Under-which system are more people better off? While this debate is sure to continue, it is interesting to see how the two major political parties have divided themselves into this debate. Perhaps it is because Republicans are inherently more conservative and Democrats more liberal that we see the vast difference in opinions on this issue on either side of the aisle, however, if we are to truly to reach achieve an economic system that sees the most people thrive the focus must be on furthering the economic of everyone not on furthering the political interest of the few.
Works Cited
Gilder , George. “Why Capitalism Works.” PragerU, 10 Mar. 2014, http://www.prageru.com/video/why-capitalism-works/.
Hanauer, Nick. “The Dirty Secret of Capitalism — and a New Way Forward.” TED, July 2019, http://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_the_dirty_secret_of_capitalism_and_a_new_way_forward?language=en.
Krieg, Gregory, et al. “Why Trump’s ‘Law and Order’ Rhetoric May Not Be as Effective as It Was for Nixon and Reagan.” CNN, Cable News Network, 4 June 2020, http://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/politics/law-and-order-trump-2020/index.html.
Palmer, Annie. “Amazon Sales Soar as Pandemic Fuels Online Shopping.” CNBC, CNBC, 30 July 2020, http://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/30/amazon-amzn-earnings-q2-2020.html.
Ponciano, Jonathan. “Jeff Bezos Becomes The First Person Ever Worth $200 Billion.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 27 Aug. 2020, http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanponciano/2020/08/26/worlds-richest-billionaire-jeff-bezos-first-200-billion/?sh=5f2729d74db7.
Zitelmann , Rainer. “Anti-Rich Sentiment Drives Former Amazon Employees to Pick up the Guillotine.” Washington Examiner, 31 Aug. 2020, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/anti-rich-sentiment-drives-former-amazon-employees-to-pick-up-the-guillotine.
Cosner Rhetoric 