Copyright Los Angeles Times
To the editor: Americans aren’t choosing “socialism” over “capitalism.” They are choosing spending priorities that favor human beings over corporations (“Can socialism ever be more than just a fad in America?,” Nov. 4). Capitalism, as practiced in the U.S., has evolved into crony capitalism and even predatory capitalism — straying far from textbook capitalism, which actually recognizes the need for regulations to prevent devolving into oligarchy and monopoly. The move toward “socialism,” as columnist Jonah Goldberg defines it, is actually a rejection of the horrible “corporations are people” and “money is speech” Supreme Court decisions that have plagued our politics and our economics as actual human beings struggle in the face of grotesque corporate greed. Textbook socialism is all about government control of the means of production for all sectors of the economy in order to flatten out wealth distribution. The “socialism” Goldberg objects to is really changing the spending priorities of tax revenue to favor people, not artificial intelligence, robots or billionaires and their businesses that wipe out competition. The transfer of wealth from the workers in our economy to a small number of individual hoarders has been increasing for at least the last 40 years. Now, working people regularly struggle to afford food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, safety or any other signs of a healthy society. Using the coded language of decades of right-wing fear mongering serves no purpose. It simply distracts us from the simple truth that our government is supposed to serve “we the people” and should “promote the general welfare” thereof. David Gene Echt, Torrance .. To the editor: In the richest country in the world, there should be a floor below which nobody can fall, providing basic housing, healthcare, food and safety. Above that floor, capitalism and free enterprise can flourish and individuals can thrive based on competition and innovation. If one wants to express oneself through the arts, by helping others, supporting the environment or in any other way that is not based on how much one is paid, so be it. And if one wants to invest, build or otherwise pursue other endeavors that are meant to generate income, that’s fine too. Call that system whatever you want. Anita Rufus, Palm Desert .. To the editor: Being a self-described progressive, I am stunned by the number of times that I agree with Goldberg. It gives me hope that there is a way out of our current divide. When he points out that Trump’s policies of “massive tariffs, cronyism, industrial planning and partial government ownership of industries” don’t align with the definition of capitalism, I could not agree more. Goldberg, however, does not tell us that the policies of the Trump administration have been noted to dovetail with what was called National Socialism in Germany before and during World War II. Larry Harmell, Los Angeles .. To the editor: Goldberg’s take on socialism is classic conservative thought: Don’t scratch the surface too much, because the conversation can quickly go against you. Just invoke Karl Marx and remind old people that, when they were young, that line of thought was considered bad. Capitalism has always been an unfair economic strategy. But when you combine it with unfair market practices like an arguably rigged stock market, huge tax cuts for the wealthy and huge corporate mergers, it turns into the Gilded Age. Goldberg should attempt the more difficult argument: reforming his beloved capitalism, to the point where any other idea won’t be as favorable. Michael Harold, West Los Angeles .. To the editor: Goldberg, in trying to determine whether socialism is here to stay, notes that agreement on what it actually is seems to be lacking. May I respectfully (and I do respect Goldberg) suggest the following? Socialism, by preventing poverty, averts communism. My grandfather, among many other activists in the Netherlands, fought for socialism, resulting in that country becoming and enduring as a social democracy. This puts to rest the lie that a socialist political system inevitably leads to a communist one. Anneke Mendiola, Santa Ana .. To the editor: Listening to New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s speech was such a breath of fresh air. He proudly calls himself a “democratic socialist,” while President Trump and his minions call him a radical left-wing “communist.” Why don’t our leaders start teaching the American people what “socialism” really means? As in, affordable housing, healthcare for everyone, clean air, fair wages, free education, universal child care, nutritional security and prioritizing community interests over individual ones.
