Nothing much has changed with the New York Times over the years. In the 1930s, thanks to Walter Duranty, the so-called “newspaper of record” was effectively cheerleading for Joseph Stalin’s communism. Today, in Jia Lynn Yang’s “How American Socialism Changed, and Stormed the Democratic Party,” it displays a similar sympathy for a modernized version of that same evil system, now advanced by New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and his allies.
Yang’s article is filled with admiration for socialism’s supposed adaptability and moral force. She notes that Mamdani’s New York protégés “won by harnessing a wide sense of grievance.” In other words, they are skilled politicians, identifying discontent and converting it into electoral success. But Stalin, too, harnessed grievance, appealing to resentment against the czarist regime. That did not make him a champion of liberty.
Recommended Stories
Yang emphasizes that socialism has “endured” because it is “more of a spirit than a single ideology,” adapting to each era. This framing presents socialism as flexible, creative, and responsive. Yet adaptability is not inherently virtuous. A doctrine may evolve while remaining fundamentally destructive.
She also welcomes socialism’s renewed political success, citing Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-VT) talk of a coming “political revolution.” But success alone proves nothing. The Bolsheviks were politically successful in 1917 — their triumph ushered in decades of repression and economic failure. A movement can succeed politically while failing morally and economically.
Yang points approvingly to the Democratic Socialists of America platform, particularly its call for universal healthcare, noting its prevalence in Europe. But universal healthcare illustrates a basic economic problem: When a good is priced at or near zero, demand exceeds supply. The predictable consequences are rationing, waiting lists, and shortages. These outcomes are not accidental — they follow directly from elementary supply-and-demand principles.
She further claims that socialists promote “cooperation rather than competition.” In practice, however, socialist cooperation entails central planning of economic activity. As Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman have demonstrated, central planning does not yield harmony but inefficiency, misallocation, and stagnation. Capitalism, by contrast, fosters cooperation through competition. Firms must serve consumers better than their rivals, leading to improved products, lower prices, and innovation. This dynamic helps explain why the United States, even with its extensive interventions, continues to attract immigrants.
Income inequality is similarly mischaracterized. In a market system, differences in income reflect differences in individuals’ ability to satisfy consumer preferences. Those who create more value earn more. This is not exploitation but the result of voluntary exchange. To label such outcomes immoral is to ignore the underlying process that generates them.
Yang also portrays early socialists as utopian thinkers seeking a society of mutual care rather than conflict. But defenders of capitalism do not advocate hostility. Thinkers such as Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick, Murray Rothbard, Friedman, von Mises, and Hayek argued for systems grounded in voluntary cooperation and peaceful exchange. The contrast Yang draws — socialism as humane, capitalism as harsh — is therefore utterly misleading.
Throughout the article, socialism is described in glowing terms: “lofty,” “breaking new ground,” “good governance,” and so on. This language is not accurate. It encourages readers to admire socialism while downplaying its historical record of coercion, scarcity, and centralized control.
Yang goes further, suggesting that socialist ideas can now be realized on a larger scale in the U.S. and may represent “the hope for human freedom and justice” under modern conditions. She even praises socialist mayors for improving infrastructure such as water systems, libraries, and parks. But such achievements do not require socialism. Public works can exist without endorsing a comprehensive collectivist framework.
To be sure, parts of Yang’s account are descriptive and occasionally accurate. But the overall thrust is unmistakable: The article functions as an unhinged sympathetic portrayal of socialism rather than a reasonable analysis.
Capitalism, meanwhile, is depicted as “foul and decaying” and blamed for crises such as the Great Depression. Yet there is nothing inherently objectionable about what Nozick called “capitalist acts between consenting adults.” Moreover, the Great Depression was not at all a failure of markets — it was significantly shaped by Federal Reserve policy and other anti-capitalist government interventions.
This journalist also highlights the harsh labor conditions and child labor associated with early industrial capitalism. This criticism overlooks the broader context: Such conditions were products of preexisting poverty. Capitalism was already improving them by raising productivity and living standards. To condemn capitalism for these conditions is akin to condemning a medical treatment for its side effects while ignoring the disease it addresses.
Her praise of Robert Owen for refusing to employ children under 10 similarly confuses intention with outcome. If an employer declines to hire a child, he becomes worse off than otherwise, not better off. Economic analysis requires examining actual consequences, not supporting destructive policies.
This editorialist attempts to distinguish between socialism and communism, acknowledging that “many of their ideals overlapped” while emphasizing their differences. This distinction is tactical rather than substantive. Political movements often contain internal divisions, but the underlying goals may remain similar. The long-term aspirations of figures such as Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and Mamdani arguably point toward an expanded form of collectivism that differs in degree more than in kind from earlier disastrous socialist experiments.
She also praises President Franklin Roosevelt’s adoption of public works programs during the Great Depression, crediting them with employing millions. But this overlooks the role of earlier governmental errors in creating the downturn. In a free market, individuals, not central planners, would have determined which projects were worth pursuing.
THE SOCIALIST DOMINOES ARE FALLING, AND YOUNG AMERICANS ARE CHEERING IT ON
Finally, Yang claims that capitalism had triumphed by the late 1980s. This is difficult to reconcile with reality. By that time, the U.S. already featured extensive regulation, high taxation, and large entitlement programs. It was far from a purely capitalist system. Her attribution of the 2008 financial crisis to capitalism suffers from a similar problem. Government policies, including Federal Reserve actions and housing mandates, played a central role in distorting incentives and encouraging excessive risk-taking. Once again, state intervention caused the crisis, while markets were blamed.
In the end, Yang’s article is less an accurate examination than a polished defense of socialism. It romanticizes collectivism, minimizes the failures of central planning, and attributes the consequences of government intervention to capitalism. The result is not accuracy, but advocacy under the guise of objective reporting.
Walter E. Block is the Harold E. Wirth eminent scholar endowed chairman and professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans.
