The simplest measure of a government’s legitimacy is whether or not it works for the benefit of the people. Democrats also believe the government should be selected by the people.
America does not meet either criterion at this time. Yes, there are elections, but the duopoly means that voters tend to choose from a small slate, pre-selected by others. The most visible occasion of this was when Obama had every Democratic presidential nominee candidate drop out so that Biden could defeat Bernie Sanders. Year in, year out, most of the candidates put up for election are those chosen by party insiders.
This is not always true, of course. It is less true on the Republican side, where primarying incumbents often works and where a vocal but grassroots minority does have significant power in choosing candidates. On the Democratic side it’s mostly true, but some candidates do slip thru: Mamdani for New York City mayor being the most recent example.
Still, overall, it’s questionable that Americans really choose their own government, and that’s true in most Western countries. In Romania, for example, the unacceptable candidate who was going to win was simply arrested and banned from running and there is a movement to make Germany’s AfD illegal. In Canada the party leaders simply refuse to allow pro-Palestine candidates, even those who are selected as candidate by their riding, to run.
The more accurate view is that political parties in most ostensibly democratic countries are political oligarchies. How much this is true varies. First past the post system tend to have very strong oligopolies, while proportional representation countries allow more flexibility.
Perhaps worse when outsider candidates do break thru and win they usually don’t wind up voting for and doing what they ran on. You can see this (though it’s a bit of a stretch to call him an outsider) with Trump. It’s visible with AOC, the darling of the left who has voted for almost all Israeli aid packages and who has clearly decided to become an insider.
So first there’s a huge barrier to electing people who support outsider views, then most of them are co-opted. If there’s a real threat of an outsider taking the top seat, the establishment works hard against them. We saw that with Corbyn, where one academic study found that about 80% of all news stories lied about his policies.
It’s fair to say that most Western countries don’t really have “government by the people.” The mechanisms still, partially, exist. The form is there, but the reality isn’t. They’re political oligarchies. (The EU is worse than the US.)
And we all know that most Western governments aren’t “for the people.” For fifty years they’ve been immiserating their own people, becoming rich themselves and forcing money upwards, creating a financial oligopoly on top of the political oligopoly. I often say that for most Westerners their most dangerous enemies are their own politicians. Putin isn’t a danger to you as a EU member or America. But Macron or Von Der Leyen are. They’re the ones destroying your standard of living and piecemeal destroying social supports. This is even more the case in Britain, where there hasn’t been a Prime Minister whose primary legacy wasn’t hurting most Britons since the 70s. (Well, maybe Tony Blair had that as his secondary goal, his primary goal being hurting Iraqis to toady to America.)
Great systems are judged by their great opponents. For much of the 20th century that was the USSR and it is not entirely a coincidence that when the USSR was strong, Western governments treated their people well. Of course that isn’t all there is to it, there were the oil shocks, Vietnam, etc… But the West was ideologically scared of communism and when it seemed to work, they felt they had to make capitalism work.
These days the great opponent is China, and the one party communist state running a hybrid capitalist/socialist economy. And the problem for the West is that China’s government, while not “by the people” is definitely “for the people”. They’ve brought more people out of poverty than anyone else ever has. They keep rent and housing and health care prices low, as deliberate policy. Incomes are lower than in the West, but costs are much lower. You can buy enough food to feed someone for a week for $50 in most of China, with ease.
They also create the future: high speed trains, for example. They build real public infrastructure. I was very impressed when they built rest and relaxation places for delivery workers: they cared that such workers were miserable and exploited. And they build things like this:
In the US, rich people enjoy beautiful infrastructure.
In China, amazing things are open to everyone, even the poorest of the society.
That’s capitalism versus socialism.
A park in Chengdu. pic.twitter.com/D4NkHKqcLC
— S.L. Kanthan (@Kanthan2030) October 31, 2025
Now it’s fair to say that this isn’t precisely “socialism” vs. “capitalism”. There was a time when the West built lots of public parks and so on. It’s the difference between a real rich society and a financialized society. One has plenty of excess capacity, the other has plenty of money but very little actual ability to build and create and no desire to do so if someone can’t make an unfair profit from it.
The problem for the West is simple: China is better governed than almost any (perhaps actually any) Western country. And that governance shows plenty of signs of being in the interests of the vast majority of Chinese, whose lives it has vastly improved. Democracy itself is in danger. If it doesn’t produce better results for ordinary people, and if it’s basically fake anyway, why keep it?
The risk here is that the anti-democratic forces in the West aren’t the CPC, they’re billionaires who think the problem with the current government is that it still does some things for ordinary people which aren’t primarily about benefiting billionaires. They’re fascists, at best.
Democracy, if it wants to survive as a major force in the world, needs real reform (all so-called reforms in the West over the past 50 years have been about hurting ordinary people to benefit rich people). If it isn’t re-aligned to work for the majority, its day as a major force in the world faces a bloody sunset.
This site is only viable due to reader donations. If you value it and can, please subscribe or donate.
ibaien
“You can buy enough food to feed someone for a week for $50 in most of China, with ease.”
one of the things that confuses me most about america and americans is the constant bleating about “how expensive food is here”. my wife and i are more than comfortable spending $30 a week on good farmers’ market produce and buying whatever ‘reduced for quick sale’ meat is on special at the grocery. add in the occasional bulk bag of rice, dried beans, cooking oil, whatever. food in america is still absurdly cheap, if you can cook. processed garbage and takeout is expensive. wasting ingredients because you forgot to cook them is expensive. throwing out leftovers is expensive. none of that is the oligarchy’s fault.
Ian Welsh
If you eat a lot of starches, yes, you can eat for very little. If you want to eat a diet of mainly non-starch vegetables and meat (including beef and fish) it’s quite expensive. And I eat very little prepared food, I cook well over 90% of my own meals. Since 2020 my meat has become mostly pork, just because that’s what’s cheapest. (Also I do buy a lot of discounted meat. But not fish, that’s a BAD idea.)
That said, this is possible because of my work, which is from home. If you’re working two jobs, you’re going to eat food prepared by others.
NGG
Great Post Ian. It appears there may be some cracks in trickle down, big beautiful bill, and the sunset of ACA subsidies. By the people, for the people – indeed both parties have been legislating for the rich for far too long. As to the current group of grifter’s I am reminded of my favorite P.J. O’Rourke quote: “Republicans say government doesn’t work, and then get elected and prove it”. There is no longer any semblance of a consensus to make life better for what – 80% of our citizens. Truly an ill wind blows.
Oakchair
What accomplishment from China would cause the West to compete with it in the same sense that the West competed with the USSR?
Could that even happen without a strong internal political opposition like there was in western countries? Literal Communist parties were winning 20%-40% of the vote in France, Italy and other European countries in the post war period.
The oligarchs probably look at China and think “Whatever, Westerners will still lick our boots while they’re getting stepped on and owning nothing.”
Nat Wilson Turner
Democratic and Republican forms of government have had a terrible reputation in the West for most of the last 1000 years for many good reasons. We’re learning many of them over again now.
mago
ibaien, I have to call you out. No. You can’t live on $30 worth of food a week. I’m tempted to say you’re full of s**t, but that’s not nice.
As a chef I’ve been buying food wholesale and retail for decades. I shop twice monthly for ten to twenty people who have different dietary preferences, but they’re all into grains and vegetables and in a few cases, dairy, meat and seafood. Most lean towards organic. No one eats processed food or cat food for that matter.
I know what food costs have been over the years and what it is now. I know what it costs to grow, process and distribute it, from wholesale to retail.
I find your ignorance and lying insulting.
mago
Not knowing whether a previous comment will be posted or not, I’m going to add to it with factual prices.
Organic broccoli: $5 a bunch
Organic carrots: $5 for two pounds
Organic lettuce: $3 to $5 a head
Potatoes: $2 a pound
Onions, organic: $2 a pound, maybe less, but not by much
Organic apples: around $2 to $3 a pound
Organic spinach: $9 a pound
And blah blah blah
Whole grain bread: $5 to $7 a loaf
Rice, brown or white: $2 to $4 a pound, depending on variety
Lentils, red or green: around $3 to $4 a pound
Etc etc
Commercial steak: $7 a pound for cheaper cuts, up to $13 a pound for rib eye. Add more for organic pasture raised.
Chicken: $5 a pound for the toxic commercial cheap stuff up to $8 + for organic, depending on what it is, thigh, breast , drum sticks
Milk: $6 for a half gallon of organic pasture raised
Eggs: $5 a dozen for the least expensive so called cage free variety
Yogurt: please
Just samples here.
Want to get into coffee, tea, herbs and condiments? Ha ha.
Snack foods?
Oils?
Supplements? Off the charts.
In what universe can one live on $30 a week for food?
I couldn’t do that on a rice and bean diet in the tropics years ago, let alone in 2025 America.
Puhleez.
Ian Welsh
You can do it, but your diet will be 90% some combination of potatoes/rice/pasta. Unhealthy as hell.
mago
Apologies for being so off thread with my comments. but just want to say that practicing a cheap economy with vital food is an all too common and stupid practice.
People are willing spend $10 for cheap entertainment and $5 for a latte, but $15 for a bottle of oil that will last for a month? No way.
I’ve been dealing with this cheapo food mentality my entire adult life and was over it many long years ago.
Thanks for listening.
spud
the capitalists cranks will never ever forgive that FDR saved us from fascism, and that Truman saved the new deal and added to it and Gatt.
that being said, the rich are very very clever, manipulative and cunning, but one thing that almost all of them share to the ninth degree is, stupidity.
how they plan on competing against socialism which is now spreading because its so superior than rich run capitalism, is anyone guess.
if you starve, beat, jail and your policies massively shorten western life spans, and make those lifespans miserably sick, it will be very hard to compete with well fed russians and chinese, with state of the art social welfare, state of the art industrialization and state of the art infrastructure is anyone guess .
the rich will throw millions of underfed, sick fodder against the socialists in a war, only to find out how incredibly outmatched they are.
the fodder might just throw down their arms and desert like the russians did in 1917.
meanwhile the rich will desperately search through the writings of rand, hayek, and freidman, looking for a way to win.
NGG
So – will someone finally stand up for the average citizen, that is being crushed by the transfer of wealth to the 1%. My hope is diminishing. Most discussion of the wealthy and taxes are framed as “Taxing the Wealthy” but I think a Better framework, would be – that they need to share the wealth. It ain’t gonna be easy, we are going to have to rip the dollars from their cold dead hands. Ain’t Capitalism grand!!
Curt Kastens
Another Catch 22,
I think that I have an obligation to do some good in the world. Therefore by extention if I have some obligation to do good in the world, so do my family members, so does my community, and so does my nation. Of course people can disagree on what good is.
I would like to leave that problem to the side for a moment though. The real catch 22 is that doing good requires taking a risk. If the risk is only yours it is not a problem. But usually the risk is not yours alone. So when the risk involves others the problem is many of those others might deem it as a risk that they are unwilling to take. Especially if they can be a free rider. That means being able to benifit from risks taken by other people.
I think that this is important when considering progessive income taxation. Progessive income taxation is absolutly crucial for a well functioning society. Yet this type of taxation does not only effect the rich. it affects everyone that is above average. Therefore anyone who thinks that they are or might be in the future above average is potentially hostile to the idea.
I think that it is theoretically possible to overcome this resistence from the merely above average through education. But it will not be easy. The above average and the gifted need to learn that progressive income taxation will be a short term loss for them but a long term gain because without it will over a longer term become relatively speaking more and more powerful compared them. Without progessive income taxes the end game is a society like the US has now. And even now people in the US are afraid of progressive income taxation. They no doubt have never made the connection between the lack of it and the current situation. Though I should also point out that I do not believe that the super rich are the ones controlling the deep state. The title belongs to the Generals and Admirals.
Jan Wiklund
Colin Crouch coined the word “post-democracy”. According to him, the spine of democracy in the industrialized countries had been the trade unions. But they lost their power with outsourcing. So there was nothing left to counter the unavoidable tendency to elite grabbing, of positions as well as physical goods.
Of course, there would still be a ot of counter-power in the hands of ordinary people, if they just had enough “asabiya” as Ibn Khaldoun called it, i.e. ability of collective action. The present society is to a great deal dependent on transport just in time – and there is a big weakness that hasn’t been much exploited. Just as an example.
But collective action must be organized. And that will be impossible as long as people are stupid enough to believe in individualism.
DMC
I can prove the US tax system is utterly broken in 3 words: Billionaires. They exist.
spud
is anyone else enjoying the spectacle of the clintons smartest man in the room implosion?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GhUFoQRRjo
BlackRock’s Credit Collapses Overnight Is This The End ? | wolff responds
Is the $1.7 trillion private credit market a safe haven for your retirement, or is it a hidden poison lurking in your portfolio? In this video, wolff responds to the narrative sold by financial titans like BlackRock, exposing the lethal risks hidden within “safe” assets.
While asset managers prioritize the appearance of stability, wolff responds by breaking down the “extend and pretend” mechanisms effectively hiding massive insolvencies from investors.
We analyze the shocking collapse of Renovo Home Partners and the HPS Investment Partners scandal, where wolff responds to the systemic fraud and fabricated collateral undermining the shadow banking system.
As the commercial real estate market faces a meltdown worse than 2008, wolff responds to the dangerous liquidity traps that could lock investors out of their own money. Join us as wolff responds to the convergence of zombie companies and regulatory failure that signals an inevitable financial reckoning.”
https://truthout.org/articles/exposing-blackrock-who-s-afraid-of-laurence-fink-and-his-overpowering-institution/
“In 2013, BlackRock hired to its board of directors Cheryl Mills, a “longtime confidant and counselor to former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton.” Mills was chief of staff to Clinton at the State Department, and was “among the inner circle of advisers helping Clinton chart her plans for the future.” Mills has a long history with both Clintons; she was one of President Bill Clinton’s top attorneys during his impeachment.
A former aide with knowledge of the Clinton-Mills relationship explained, “There are no secrets… Cheryl knows everything and that’s a great equalizer for them.” In an interview with the Washington Post, Mills explained that she still advises and speaks with Hillary regularly.
As Hillary Clinton campaigns for the Democratic presidential nomination, her discussions of Wall Street regulations focus almost exclusively on banks – but nowhere does she mention the role played by asset management firms like BlackRock. In fact, in her comments on the subject, Clinton actually tends to parrot the ideas that have been put forward by Fink himself. For instance, after Clinton gave a speech on Wall Street reform, The New York Times noted that it seemed as if “she could have been channeling Laurence D. Fink.”
For years, Fink has been touted as a possible Treasury Secretary the likelihood of which may increase if Clinton becomes president. Indeed, Fink, a longtime Democrat, would be perfectly suited to such a position as the “top consigliere” of Wall Street in Washington, Suzanna Andrews writes in Vanity Fair, “and the leading member of the country’s financial oligarchy.”
And of course it helps that Fink and BlackRock are not simply influential within the US but across the globe. BlackRock has been hired as a consultant and adviser in Europe multiple times throughout the European debt crisis, having worked with the Irish central bank, the Greek central bank, and more recently the European Central Bank to advise on its quantitative easing program.
With $4.5 trillion in assets under management, the firm is without a doubt “one of, if not the, most influential financial institutions in the world,” noted a BlackRock co-founder. And Larry Fink, the architect of “his own Wall Street empire,” could become a household name in US politics soon enough.”
Carla
Love your writing, Ian. I believe the following sentence actually NEEDS a double-negative: “This is even more the case in Britain, where there hasn’t been a Prime Minister whose primary legacy was hurting most Britons since the 70s.” I believe you mean “whose primary legacy wasn’t hurting most Britons”.
Ian Welsh
Yes, thank you Carla.
Carl
This is where I’m at nowadays. I see the improvements in people’s lives in places like Russia and China and the contrast between these and the West is just staggering. The approval ratings of the leadership reflects this, as it does conversely in the West. Other than Georgia Meloni, I can’t think of a single Western leader who enjoys the approval of the population. So, what’s the big advantage of this democracy thing?