For much of my life, I have approached economic systems from a Marxist perspective, recognizing that capitalist relations are inherently exploitative. I still recognize the exploitative character of the capitalist mode of production—and I don’t think classical liberals would disagree (indeed, in many ways, Marx was a classical liberal, accepting John Locke’s labor theory of value). At the same time, I understand that modes of production before capitalism—feudalism, ancient class-based societies, and even some agrarian systems—were also exploitative. Apart from hunter-gatherer societies, which primarily involve subsistence-level labor, every class-divided society imposes forms of exploitation. Nevertheless, in any society beyond mere subsistence (and even in subsistence societies, where distribution is egalitarian, but work is required), people must produce value through their labor and exchange it for the things they need to sustain themselves.
Capitalism, despite its exploitative nature, has historically enabled an unprecedented development of productive forces, greatly improving the overall quality of life. Yet the pursuit of free trade, made possible by capital portability and labor mobility, has introduced significant challenges. Policies favoring globalization, offshoring, and mass immigration have, in many cases, de-industrialized local economies and increased structural unemployment—what Marx called the “industrial reserve army.” Workers face declining wages, displacement, and marginalization by foreign labor, both abroad and domestically, as well as by automation and bureaucratic rationality. The emergence of artificial intelligence and advanced robotics will only worsen these problems, and the end of work is a very real and dire eventuality (we may have to move to some form of communism, whether we like it or not).
The welfare state arises in this context as a mechanism, at least ostensibly, to support those marginalized by these economic shifts. While I firmly believe in taking care of the unemployed, underemployed, and otherwise disadvantaged, the expansion of welfare can entrench dependence. Moreover, as implied, this dependence may not always be inadvertent. To fund these programs, resources are drawn from productive members of society, creating a cycle in which the exploited labor force must also sustain the very system that compensates for exploitative policies. This dependency can have profound social consequences, including family disintegration, idleness, and the emergence of a managed “culture of poverty” under technocratic administration.
Although I critique capitalism’s exploitative tendencies, I also recognize that it will persist and bring considerable benefits to human civilization. Even the very poor live better lives than the poor did in the past. But are they freer? As an individualist who values personal freedom and autonomy, I oppose a welfare state that fosters dependency and expands government intrusiveness. Instead, I support policies that promote economic independence: protectionist measures, tariffs, strong national borders, and the cultivation of domestic industry—often called economic nationalism. By fostering a domestic labor market insulated from global wage competition, economic nationalism can raise wages, increase employment, and shrink the need for intrusive government. This was the vision at America’s founding, the American System, and it propelled a nation from agrarian peripheral status in the global capitalist economy to the most technologically advanced civilization in human history and world hegemon.
A contemporary illustration of this problem is the SNAP (food stamp) program (see Oh SNAP! Democrats’ Antics Raise Consciousness About the Consequences of Free Trade and Progressive Social Policy). In 1969, SNAP covered approximately 1.4 percent of the population; today, it encompasses roughly 42 percent. While the expansion reflects some genuine social need, it also signals the risk of allowing welfare programs to replace economic and social policies that create prosperity at home and promote independence. SNAP was expanded not only to ameliorate the effects of globalization but also to pull a larger proportion of the population under government control. My argument is not against aiding those genuinely in need, but against allowing the state to substitute for policies that empower individuals through meaningful, well-compensated work. Economic and social systems should instead cultivate dignity, independence, and the opportunity for productive engagement. This is why I describe my politics as populist and nationalist and have aligned with the Trump wing of the Republican Party.
Progressives, who defend neoliberal and social welfare policies that undermine American labor and the nuclear family and subject the population to corporate and technocratic control, often attack populists as lacking empathy for those who are suffering. By doing so, they frame their argument in moral terms, portraying those who call for small, unintrusive government as heartless. However, morally, my argument is rooted in compassion and concern for human flourishing. Critics misrepresent the stance I have adopted as a lack of care for the vulnerable, but the core of my position emphasizes a desire to see people live dignified and self-sufficient lives. True compassion, in this view, is not merely the provision of aid but the creation of conditions under which people can thrive, achieve meaningful work, and participate fully in society.
It is also important to acknowledge that among those dependent on the welfare system are many able-bodied individuals who could work. While globalization has undeniably altered Americans’ life-chances and created real economic challenges, it does not eliminate the possibility of meaningful work. Human striving—the desire to work, create, and provide for oneself and one’s family—is a fundamental aspect of human dignity. Opportunities still exist. Historically, even during the Great Depression, when unemployment was widespread and opportunities scarce, people still sought work to sustain themselves and their families. Welfare dependency has diminished this drive, substituting state support for personal initiative and eroding the ethic of self-reliance, in turn degrading human freedom and, too often, leading to demoralization, which in turn generates crime and violence. While the state can and should support those genuinely unable to work, it should not supplant the human pursuit of achievement, independence, and purpose in the face of economic adversity.
Restricting access to welfare programs, while politically controversial, can, over time, encourage individuals to reenter the labor market and take advantage of the jobs that do exist. Job-seeking also signals to capitalists, policymakers, and the public that workers desire an economic course that restores domestic employment and raises wages. Since unemployment statistics measure those actively seeking work, restricting welfare will raise the official unemployment rate by sending people out looking for work. This increase conveys to policymakers and the public that current economic and social policies contribute to labor market challenges and limit opportunities for meaningful employment. By making visible the gap between available jobs and the need for more positions and higher wages, these statistics provide feedback that can drive policy change.
Encouraging labor market participation thus both empowers individuals and communicates a democratic demand for reforms that restore economic independence, higher wages, and a more self-reliant society. Individual initiative thereby becomes a form of politics: by striving to work and provide for oneself, citizens communicate a demand for economic conditions that promote opportunity and self-sufficiency. Although opponents may frame welfare restrictions as unsympathetic or harsh, we must insist that such measures can, in fact, be the most compassionate course of action because they signal a demand for action. By fostering independence, human dignity, and engagement in meaningful labor—and by compelling elites to address societal unrest rather than channel it into projects that further globalization—these policies ultimately benefit both individuals and society, creating conditions in which people can flourish rather than languish in dependence.
The push for expanding welfare programs, especially when cloaking itself in the language of empathy and humanitarianism, portraying opposition to big, intrusive government as heartless, is therefore a barrier that populists must overcome. Progressives’ misplaced humanitarianism, or, in societal terms, suicidal empathy, masks the long-term consequences of current policies and discourages critical evaluation. Even progressives face peril, as the present course risks undermining Western civilization and replacing capitalism with a form of neo-feudalism. By framing welfare expansion as an act of moral superiority, proponents of free trade (opponents to tariffs) have been conditioned to normalize and perpetuate the economic and social disruptions caused by globalization, offshoring, and the erosion of domestic labor markets to the detriment of most, except perhaps the power elite. The vast welfare state serves as a tool to sustain these systemic forces, cushioning the population from their consequences while disincentivizing self-reliance and independence; far from being purely compassionate, this approach prioritizes ideological and economic goals over the long-term well-being and dignity of the very individuals it claims to help.
While my critique of the expansion of the welfare state might strike some as neoclassical, it is worth noting Friedrich Hayek’s nuanced position on welfare. Hayek recognized that large, intrusive government undermines individual freedom and is prone to the inefficiencies of central planning. Yet he argued that a compassionate society must provide for the aged, the disabled, and others genuinely unable to work. In this light, limited social welfare can coexist with a system that encourages self-reliance and initiative, provided it is narrowly targeted and does not create widespread dependency. Amartya Sen, in Development as Freedom, similarly advocates a minimalist welfare approach that ensures a safety net for the genuinely vulnerable without supplanting individual striving or labor market participation.
Finally, I have considered whether my argument can be situated within a Marxist framework without abandoning Marx’s critique of capitalism. Marx emphasized that exploitation arises when workers do not fully control the value of their labor and are subject to alienating conditions. From this perspective, policies that create dependency on welfare, rather than promoting productive labor, sustain labor’s alienation. At the same time, ensuring basic provision for those genuinely unable to work aligns with Marx’s concern for human dignity and material well-being. It is possible to maintain a Marxist critique of capitalist exploitation while advocating for policies that cultivate independence and self-sufficiency, seeing these not as a rejection of Marxism but as a pragmatic application of its principles to modern economic realities. Scholars such as Michael Lebowitz, in Beyond Capital: Marx’s Political Economy of the Working Class, emphasize the need for structures that promote worker agency—ideas that resonate with the balance I advocate. At the same time, Lebowitz envisions this in the context of industrial democracy and collective worker control over production, the possibility of which is highly unlikely given the concentrated power of elites in a transnational corporate system.
My bottom line is that, given the persistence of capitalism, it is preferable to embrace a small-government, liberal-capitalist framework with targeted social provisions, rather than allow an ever-expanding welfare state to entrench dependency and push society toward a form of serfdom, as Hayek warned. In this sense, one can maintain a Marxist critique of exploitation while pragmatically recognizing the benefits of capitalist development (Marx himself was impressed by capitalism’s dynamic). I am reminded of Christopher Hitchens, who publicly renounced socialism while still identifying as a Marxist, arguing that the capitalist revolution is not yet complete and that its ongoing unfolding promises greater affluence and human well-being through advances such as the progressive elimination of disease and the expansion of material prosperity. While it is unclear whether Hitchens would have endorsed globalization and free trade, his position resonates with my own: that it is possible to retain a critical, class-conscious perspective while advocating policies that maximize human flourishing within the existing capitalist framework, promoting independence, dignity, and meaningful work rather than dependency. The task before us is to shape it to the advantage of the working class, and, in the context of the international system, the advantage of the American worker.
freedom and reason 