Hell's Own Dividend: The American Dream's Brutal Accounting

With AI Assistance

Introduction: The Double-Edged Sword of Economic Modernity

The history of modern economic thought and practice is animated by a profound and persistent paradox: systems ideologically founded on the principle of individual freedom have concurrently generated immense structures of control, and their outcomes have been experienced as both liberation and enslavement. At the heart of this paradox lies the complex, often fraught relationship between capitalism and free enterprise. Though frequently conflated in popular discourse, these two concepts represent distinct, and at times conflicting, logics. The tension between them is not a simple opposition but a dynamic, dialectical relationship where the internal mechanics of one system often subvert the philosophical ideals of the other. The historical narrative of Western economies is, in large part, the story of this ongoing struggle.

This report seeks to dissect this historical tension by exploring it along two fundamental axes. The first is the axis of Freedom versus Control. This axis examines the perpetual conflict between the ideal of a self-regulating market composed of free actors and the reality of economic power concentrating into forms of private and public control that dictate market outcomes. It traces the swing of the pendulum between laissez-faire ideology and state intervention, revealing how each, in its own way, has been marshaled in the name of liberty while often producing new mechanisms of constraint. The second is the axis of Liberation versus Enslavement. This axis confronts the dual legacy of these economic systems as both an engine of unprecedented prosperity and technological advancement, and as a structure historically and currently implicated in profound forms of human subjugation, from chattel slavery to modern labor exploitation and systemic inequality.

To navigate this complex terrain, this analysis will proceed in four parts. Part I will establish the foundational concepts, meticulously distinguishing between free enterprise as a system of exchange and capitalism as a system of production, and tracing their intellectual origins to the foundational philosophies of Locke and Smith and the powerful critique of Marx. Part II will analyze the historical struggle along the Freedom-Control axis, from the rise of Gilded Age monopolies to the regulatory responses of the Progressive Era and New Deal, the neoliberal turn, and the emergence of surveillance capitalism. Part III will engage directly with the Liberation-Enslavement axis, weighing the narrative of poverty reduction against the historical entanglement with chattel slavery and the contemporary realities of global labor exploitation and wealth inequality. Finally, Part IV will project these enduring tensions onto the challenges of the 21st century—namely, the rise of artificial intelligence, the existential threat of climate change, and contemporary debates over systemic reform.

Ultimately, this report will argue that the relationship between capitalism and free enterprise is an unresolved dialectic. The promise of freedom inherent in the ideal of the free enterprise system is constantly challenged by the logic of accumulation and power concentration inherent in the capitalist system of production. The history of this relationship is not a linear progression toward a final synthesis but a continuous, often contradictory, struggle to define the terms of freedom's bargain in an ever-evolving economic world.

Part I: Foundational Concepts and Ideological Origins

To comprehend the historical tension between capitalism and free enterprise, one must first resist the common impulse to treat them as synonyms. Their distinction is not merely semantic; it represents a fundamental divergence in focus, principles, and logic that is the primary fault line from which the conflicts of freedom versus control and liberation versus enslavement emerge. Free enterprise, at its core, is an ideological and legal framework for exchange, while capitalism is a socioeconomic system for production and accumulation. This distinction, once grasped, illuminates the entire history of their relationship, from their shared philosophical origins to their modern-day antagonisms.

Defining the Terms: Production vs. Exchange

The concept of free enterprise refers to an economic system where commercial activities are primarily regulated by private measures within a legal framework that guarantees certain rights, rather than by direct government command.¹ It is an economy where market forces—supply and demand—determine prices, products, and services with what is ideally minimal government interference.² The core principles that define a free enterprise system are rooted in the concept of individual economic liberty: the right to private property, the freedom to enter into voluntary contracts, the freedom of consumer choice, and the ability of buyers and sellers to engage in competitive bidding.¹ In its purest theoretical form, it is a system of

exchange that aims to maximize market efficiency, consumer rights, and economic opportunity by removing bureaucratic and coercive government controls.¹ The emphasis is on the

enterprise itself—the act of participating directly in the labor of creating and exchanging goods and services.⁷

Capitalism, on the other hand, is more accurately defined as a system of production.⁸ Its essential features are the private ownership of the

means of production—capital goods such as factories, machinery, and technology—and their operation for profit.¹⁰ While free enterprise focuses on the rules of commercial interaction, capitalism is centered on the

creation of wealth and the relentless accumulation of capital.² This is achieved primarily through the employment of wage labor, where workers are hired to operate the means of production but do not own them, nor the products or profits generated from their labor.⁹ As Adam Smith noted, the primary motive in a capitalist system is not benevolence but self-interest, specifically the pursuit of profit.¹² The formula

Profit=Revenue−Cost represents the fundamental calculus of the system.¹⁰

The initial and most critical divergence between the two concepts lies in the relationship between ownership and labor. In an idealized free enterprise model, such as a small, owner-operated shop, the sphere of ownership and the sphere of labor heavily overlap. The person doing the work is the person who owns the results.⁷ Capitalism, particularly in its industrial and corporate forms, creates a distinct separation between these spheres. Ownership is held by capitalists (investors, shareholders), who may be far removed from the actual labor process. They do not participate in the work but extract profits from the sphere of labor, which is performed by wage-earning employees.⁷

While a legal system of free enterprise, with its emphasis on private property and contracts, tends to produce capitalism in the absence of central planning, the two are not identical.¹ The internal logic of capitalism—the drive to maximize profit and accumulate capital—often creates incentives that directly contradict the core tenets of free enterprise. For example, to maximize profit, a capitalist firm has a powerful incentive to eliminate competition by forming a monopoly, thereby violating the free enterprise principle of open competition. It has an incentive to create vast power asymmetries with its workforce, rendering the concept of "voluntary exchange" of labor for wages a legal fiction rather than a material reality. It also has an incentive to lobby the government for favorable regulations, subsidies, and protections, undermining the ideal of minimal government interference.¹³ This internal conflict is not an aberration but a central feature of their historical relationship. The ongoing struggle to regulate capitalism through antitrust laws, labor protections, and financial oversight can be understood as a continuous societal attempt to force the

practice of capitalism to adhere to the ideals of free enterprise.

Table 1: Core Principles of Free Enterprise vs. Capitalism

Principle

Free Enterprise (System of Exchange)

Capitalism (System of Production)

Primary Focus

The rules and freedom of commercial interaction and exchange.¹

The method of producing goods and accumulating wealth (capital).²

Private Property

Emphasizes the right of individuals to own, use, and exchange property freely.¹

Emphasizes private ownership of the means of production (capital goods).⁹

Profit Motive

A key incentive for individuals and businesses to participate in the market and innovate.¹

The central, driving force of the entire system; profit is the primary goal of production.¹⁰

Competition

An essential condition for a healthy market, ensuring consumer choice, fair prices, and innovation.³

A market dynamic that exists but which individual firms are incentivized to reduce or eliminate to maximize profit (e.g., through monopolies).¹⁵

Labor

The "enterpriser" often performs the labor and owns the results; emphasizes voluntary exchange.⁵

Labor is a commodity (wage labor) purchased by capital owners; characterized by a separation of ownership and labor.⁷

Role of Government

Minimal intervention; limited to protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, and maintaining order.¹

Role is debated; can range from laissez-faire to significant intervention (e.g., state capitalism, welfare capitalism) to protect property, manage crises, and regulate markets.¹¹

The Philosophical Bedrock: Locke, Smith, and the Promise of Liberty

The moral and political justifications for both free enterprise and capitalism are deeply rooted in the Enlightenment, particularly in the works of John Locke and Adam Smith. Their philosophies constructed a powerful narrative of liberation, arguing that individual freedom, private property, and market exchange were the keys to human progress and prosperity. Yet, woven into the very fabric of their theories are the seeds of the contradictions that would later dominate the history of these systems.

John Locke laid the philosophical groundwork with his theory of property. In his Two Treatises of Government, Locke argued that individuals have a natural right to life, liberty, and property.¹⁸ He posited that property is created when a person mixes their labor with the natural world, which God gave to humanity in common. Whatever a worker produces is, by this logic, rightfully theirs.¹⁸ This labor theory of property provided a powerful moral justification for private ownership, a cornerstone of both free enterprise and capitalism, by grounding it in individual effort and natural law, rather than the consent of a monarch or society.¹⁹ This was a profoundly liberating idea, asserting the individual's right to the fruits of their own work against the claims of feudal lords or an absolute state.

However, Locke's philosophy also contained a crucial turn that would be used to justify the vast inequalities of wealth that capitalism would later produce. He argued that the invention and consensual use of money—a durable good that does not spoil—overcomes the natural limit on accumulation (i.e., that one should only appropriate what one can use before it spoils). By agreeing to use money, individuals implicitly consent to a "fair unequal distribution of wealth," allowing for the legitimate accumulation of property far beyond one's immediate needs.¹⁸ Thus, Locke's thought simultaneously provides the principle of liberation through labor and the justification for a system of vast economic disparity that can lead to the effective subjugation of those without property.²⁰

Adam Smith, often called the "father of modern capitalism," built upon this foundation in his 1776 masterpiece, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. He articulated what he called the "system of natural liberty," a vision that became the quintessential expression of the free enterprise ideal.²² Smith's central argument was that in a free market, individuals pursuing their own self-interest are guided by an "invisible hand" to promote an end which was no part of their intention—the public good.¹² The butcher, brewer, and baker provide our dinner not from benevolence, but from their regard to their own interest.¹² This system, driven by competition and free exchange, would lead to a more efficient allocation of resources and greater overall prosperity for the nation.²⁴

A key mechanism for this growth was the division of labor. Smith famously used the example of a pin factory to show how specialization could dramatically increase productivity. Where one person working alone could make perhaps one pin a day, ten people specializing in different tasks could produce 48,000.¹⁵ This increased output, fueled by capital accumulation and reinvestment, was the engine of national wealth. Smith was a fierce critic of the prevailing mercantilist system, in which governments granted monopolies and imposed protectionist trade barriers. He argued that such state intervention stifled competition and served the interests of a few powerful merchants at the expense of the general public.¹⁵

Yet, to paint Smith as a simple champion of laissez-faire is to miss the critical nuance in his work. He was deeply skeptical of the motivations of the capitalist class, warning against the "mean rapacity, the monopolizing spirit of merchants and manufacturers, who neither are, nor ought to be, the rulers of mankind".¹⁵ He recognized that capitalists would always seek to conspire to raise prices and limit competition, undermining the very market freedom he championed. Furthermore, Smith wrote with profound insight about the dehumanizing effects of the division of labor he so praised for its efficiency. He worried that the worker who performs a few simple operations their whole life "generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to become".¹⁵ This "intellectual degradation" was a form of mental enslavement that stood in stark contrast to the alert intelligence of the independent farmer.

Therefore, the tension between freedom and control, liberation and enslavement, is not a later corruption of a pure ideal but is woven into the philosophical DNA of these systems from their inception. Locke's freedom to accumulate property becomes the freedom for some to concentrate economic power and control others. Smith's freedom of the market, driven by a division of labor, creates a production process that can degrade and mentally enslave the worker. The historical struggles that followed were not aberrations; they were the logical unfolding of these foundational contradictions.

The Great Critique: Marx and the Logic of Enslavement

While Locke and Smith provided the foundational narrative of liberation, Karl Marx offered the most comprehensive and enduring counter-narrative, recasting capitalism not as a system of freedom but as a sophisticated architecture of exploitation, alienation, and enslavement. His critique directly attacks the core premises of free enterprise, arguing that the "voluntary" exchange at its heart is an illusion masking a relationship of profound domination.

At the center of Marx's critique is his analysis of the capitalist mode of production and the concept of exploitation. Building on the classical economists' labor theory of value, Marx argued that the value of a commodity is determined by the socially necessary labor time required to produce it.¹⁶ He extended this to "labor power"—the worker's capacity to work—whose value is the cost of sustaining the worker (food, shelter, etc.). The capitalist purchases this labor power for a wage, but in the production process, compels the worker to labor for more hours than are necessary to cover the cost of that wage. This extra, unpaid labor time produces

surplus value, which is the source of the capitalist's profit.⁷ For Marx, this is not a fair exchange; it is a form of systematic theft. The profit motive, the engine of capitalism, is fundamentally based on the extraction of this surplus value from the working class (the proletariat) by the capitalist class (the bourgeoisie) who own the means of production.¹⁶ The relationship is inherently exploitative, an economic form of enslavement where the worker is forced by economic necessity to produce wealth for another.²⁷

Beyond this economic exploitation, Marx described a profound psychological and social form of enslavement he termed alienation. In his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, he argued that under capitalism, workers are systematically estranged from their own humanity.¹⁶ He identified four dimensions of this alienation:

1. Alienation from the product of labor: The worker creates an object that they do not own or control. The product becomes an alien thing that stands against them, its power (as capital) reinforcing the domination of the employer.³⁰

2. Alienation from the activity of labor: Work is not a fulfilling expression of the worker's creativity but is forced, external, and controlled by another. It is a means to an end (a wage), not an end in itself. Life begins only when work ends.³¹

3. Alienation from one's "species-being" (human nature): For Marx, what makes humans unique is their capacity for free, conscious, creative activity. Capitalism reduces this life activity to a mere means of survival, alienating individuals from their essential nature.²⁹

4. Alienation from other people: Capitalism pits workers against each other in competition for jobs and wages, and reduces social relations to market transactions, estranging people from one another.³²

This condition of alienation is the direct antithesis of the Lockean-Smithian promise of liberty. Instead of finding freedom and self-realization through work and property, the individual becomes a "robotlike mechanism" ¹⁶, a "cog in the machine" ³³, whose life is dictated by the impersonal forces of the market and the commands of the capitalist.

Finally, Marx saw this system not as a stable equilibrium but as a dynamic, crisis-prone engine of conflict. He viewed history as a class struggle between the owners of capital and the propertyless workers.²⁵ He predicted that the internal contradictions of capitalism—such as the relentless competition that drives smaller capitalists into bankruptcy and creates monopolies, and the recurring crises of overproduction—would intensify over time. This would lead to the growing misery of the proletariat, who would eventually recognize their collective power, overthrow the bourgeoisie in a revolution, and establish a socialist society where the means of production are owned collectively, ending exploitation and alienation.¹⁶ For Marx, capitalism was not a system of freedom but a temporary, chaotic, and self-destructive stage of history, defined by its inherent logic of control and enslavement.

Part II: The Axis of Freedom versus Control

The history of capitalism in practice is a history of the relentless tension between the ideal of market freedom and the reality of economic control. While the philosophy of free enterprise champions a decentralized system of voluntary exchange free from coercion, the operational logic of capitalism—the drive to accumulate capital and maximize profit—inherently creates powerful incentives for the concentration of power. This has manifested in two primary forms: the rise of private control through monopolies and corporate consolidation, and the assertion of public control through state regulation. The narrative of the last 150 years is not a simple story of a "free market" versus "government intervention," but a complex dialectic where the state has repeatedly intervened to save the market from being devoured by its most powerful participants, only to see new forms of control emerge in its wake.

The Laissez-Faire Ideal and the Rise of Corporate Control

The late 19th century in the United States, often termed the Gilded Age, stands as the paramount historical test of a largely unregulated capitalist economy. It was an era doctrinally committed to laissez-faire principles, where government's role was, in theory, minimal.³⁴ However, the result was not the idyllic, competitive marketplace envisioned by free enterprise theorists. Instead, it was an unprecedented consolidation of economic power into the hands of a few, giving rise to massive industrial trusts and monopolies that extinguished competition.³⁴

Figures like John D. Rockefeller of Standard Oil and Andrew Carnegie of U.S. Steel built their empires not merely through innovation, but through the systematic elimination of their rivals.³⁶ Standard Oil, for example, achieved control of over 90% of the U.S. oil refining industry by engaging in predatory pricing, securing secret rebates from railroads to undercut competitors, and acquiring rivals to create a monolithic trust.³⁶ A board of trustees was given control over all component companies, dictating prices, production, and executive appointments, effectively creating a centrally planned economy within a single industry.³⁸

These trusts represented a form of private control that was antithetical to the principles of free enterprise. They were able to:

• Destroy Competition: By their very nature, monopolies eliminate the rivalry that is supposed to drive innovation and keep prices low for consumers.³⁶

• Control Prices and Supply: Without competitors, trusts could dictate prices to consumers and terms to suppliers, distorting the natural market mechanisms of supply and demand.³⁶

• Stifle Innovation: With little threat from rivals, monopolies had less incentive to improve products or processes, leading to economic stagnation in the long run.³⁶

• Exert Political Influence: Their immense wealth allowed them to wield enormous political power, lobbying politicians and capturing regulatory bodies to protect their dominant position, further eroding the ideal of a government that stands apart from the market.¹³

The Gilded Age thus revealed a fundamental contradiction: the system of capitalism, when left to its own devices under a banner of "freedom" from government interference, did not naturally produce a state of free and fair enterprise. Instead, its internal logic of profit maximization and accumulation led directly to the concentration of power and the establishment of private, monopolistic control, effectively destroying the market freedom it was supposed to cherish.

The Visible Hand of the State: Regulation as a Response to Control

The excesses of the Gilded Age provoked a powerful societal backlash, giving rise to the Progressive Era (roughly 1890s-1920s) and, later, the New Deal (1930s). These periods marked a fundamental shift in the American political economy, characterized by the belief that the "visible hand" of government was necessary to counteract the unchecked power of private capital and restore a semblance of market fairness and public welfare.³⁵ This was not a rejection of capitalism itself, but an attempt to regulate it—to use state

control to preserve market freedom.

During the Progressive Era, reformers from diverse backgrounds grew convinced that the government had a responsibility to address the social and economic problems spawned by industrial capitalism.³⁴ They sought to use the power of the state to regulate industry and mitigate its harshest effects on behalf of the public good.³⁵ This led to a wave of landmark legislation:

• Antitrust Legislation: The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was the first federal law to outlaw monopolistic practices and combinations "in restraint of trade".³⁵ Though initially weakened by court interpretations, it established the principle that the federal government could and should break up private concentrations of power to preserve competition. Presidents like Theodore Roosevelt became known as "trust busters" for using the act against corporate giants like Standard Oil and J.P. Morgan's railroad monopoly.³⁹ The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 further strengthened these powers, specifically prohibiting practices like anti-competitive mergers and price discrimination.³⁸ This was a direct use of state power to dismantle private control and foster a more competitive, free-enterprise environment.

• Financial Regulation: The recurring financial panics of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, products of an unstable and unregulated banking system, led to the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913.⁴³ This marked a move away from the chaos of "wildcat banking" toward centralized control over the nation's money supply, with the goal of ensuring economic stability and checking excessive risk-taking in the financial sector.⁴⁰

• Consumer and Labor Protection: Recognizing that profit-driven firms often created negative "externalities," progressives pushed for laws to protect the public. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 responded to unsafe products, while various state and local laws sought to improve workplace safety, abolish child labor, and limit working hours for women.³⁵ These interventions represented the state stepping in to correct for market failures where the pursuit of private profit harmed public well-being.

The New Deal under President Franklin D. Roosevelt represented the zenith of this interventionist philosophy, born from the total collapse of the market during the Great Depression. The New Deal was not an attempt to install socialism, but a pragmatic effort to save capitalism from itself.⁴⁵ As Roosevelt stated, his administration acted "because of our belief in private enterprise... to permit individual enterprise to resume its normal functions in a socially sound competitive order".⁴⁷ The "Three Rs" of the New Deal—Relief, Recovery, and Reform—dramatically expanded the government's role as a mechanism of control to stabilize the economy ⁴⁶:

• Financial System Reform: The Glass-Steagall Act separated commercial and investment banking, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured bank deposits to prevent runs, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was created to regulate the stock market and protect investors from fraud.⁴⁵ These measures imposed strict controls to restore confidence in a financial system shattered by speculation.

• Industrial and Labor Regulation: The National Recovery Administration (NRA), though later ruled unconstitutional, was a radical attempt to control the economy by establishing industry-wide codes for prices, wages, and production to halt deflationary spirals.⁴⁵ More enduringly, the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (Wagner Act) guaranteed workers' rights to organize unions and engage in collective bargaining, establishing a legal framework to create a countervailing power to the control of capital.⁴⁸

• The Keynesian Revolution: The New Deal's philosophy aligned with the emerging economic theories of John Maynard Keynes, who argued that free markets were not self-correcting and were prone to long periods of high unemployment.⁵¹ Keynesian economics justified active government intervention through fiscal policy (deficit spending on public works) and monetary policy to manage aggregate demand and stabilize the economy.⁵² This "mixed economy" model, which dominated post-WWII policy, represented a fundamental rejection of the laissez-faire ideal in favor of a managed capitalist system.

This history reveals a central paradox of the Freedom-Control axis. Unregulated capitalism, celebrated for its "freedom," led to the monopolistic control of the market by private actors. In response, society turned to the control of the state through regulation, not to abolish the market, but to restore its freedom from private domination. This challenges the simplistic libertarian narrative that equates any government intervention with a loss of economic freedom. In historical practice, targeted state control has often been the only effective mechanism for protecting the free enterprise system from the self-destructive, centralizing tendencies of capitalism itself. Freedom, in this context, is not the absence of rules, but the presence of rules that prevent the powerful from controlling the weak.

The Pendulum Swings Back: Neoliberalism and Deregulation

Beginning in the 1970s and accelerating in the 1980s, the pendulum swung dramatically back toward a philosophy of deregulation. This movement, known as neoliberalism, was intellectually championed by economists like Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.⁵⁵ They mounted a powerful critique of the Keynesian welfare state, arguing that decades of government intervention had led to stagflation (a combination of high inflation and slow growth), inefficiency, and an erosion of individual liberty.⁵¹ In their view, government was not the solution but the problem. Hayek's

The Road to Serfdom famously contended that economic planning inevitably leads to totalitarianism.⁵⁵ Friedman argued that free-market capitalism was the most effective path to both economic growth and individual freedom.⁵⁵

This ideology found powerful political expression in the administrations of U.S. President Ronald Reagan and UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.⁵⁵ Their policies aimed to "unleash" the power of the market by dismantling the regulatory state built up over the previous half-century. Key neoliberal policies included:

• Privatization: Selling off state-owned industries and services to private companies.⁵⁵

• Deregulation: Rolling back regulations across numerous sectors, most notably in finance, which saw the weakening of New Deal-era controls like the Glass-Steagall Act.⁴⁴

• Tax Cuts: Lowering taxes, particularly on corporations and high-income earners, based on the theory that this would incentivize investment and stimulate growth.⁵⁵

• Anti-Union Policies: Taking a confrontational stance against organized labor to weaken its bargaining power and increase labor market "flexibility."

This shift was framed as a restoration of economic freedom. However, in the context of the Freedom-Control axis, the results were deeply paradoxical. The "freedom" from government oversight enabled a new era of unchecked private power and control. The deregulation of the financial industry fueled rampant speculation and the creation of complex, high-risk financial instruments, culminating in the global financial crisis of 2008—a market failure on a scale not seen since the Great Depression.⁴³ The weakening of labor and the focus on shareholder value maximization led to soaring income inequality, with a vast share of economic gains flowing to the top 1%.⁵⁵ The neoliberal era demonstrated once again that reducing public control does not necessarily lead to a free and competitive market for all; it can simply clear the way for the most powerful private actors to reassert their dominance, creating new forms of systemic risk and private control.

New Frontiers of Control: Surveillance Capitalism

In the 21st century, the tension between freedom and control has entered a new, unprecedented phase with the rise of what Harvard Business School professor Shoshana Zuboff has termed surveillance capitalism.⁵⁸ This is not merely an extension of industrial capitalism but a "new logic of accumulation" that represents the most invasive form of control yet devised.⁶⁰

Zuboff defines surveillance capitalism as "the unilateral claiming of private human experience as free raw material for translation into behavioral data".⁵⁸ This model was pioneered by Google and perfected by companies like Meta (Facebook) and Amazon.⁵⁸ It operates through a simple but radical process:

1. Extraction: Digital platforms and services are designed to extract vast amounts of data about users' online and offline behavior—clicks, likes, searches, locations, conversations, facial expressions, and more. This data, or "behavioral surplus," is claimed by the companies as their proprietary asset, taken without meaningful consent.⁵⁹

2. Prediction: This raw material is fed into advanced manufacturing processes, or "machine intelligence," which fabricate "prediction products." These products forecast what users will feel, think, and do now, soon, and later.⁵⁹

3. Sales: These prediction products are sold in new types of markets, primarily to advertisers who want to target consumers with near-perfect accuracy. However, the customer base is expanding to any actor interested in predicting and modifying human behavior.⁵⁹

This system represents a new frontier of control that dwarfs the monopolies of the Gilded Age. While industrial capitalism controlled the means of production, surveillance capitalism aims to control the means of behavior modification. It is an architecture of observation, analysis, and influence that operates largely in the dark, creating a profound "epistemic inequality" where the companies know everything about us, while we know almost nothing about what they know or what they do with that knowledge.⁵⁸

This form of control erodes freedom in several fundamental ways. It undermines privacy, which Zuboff argues is essential for individual autonomy and democratic life. It uses this information to nudge, herd, and tune human behavior for commercial ends, subverting individual free will. This system was able to flourish in the post-9/11 security environment, where the state's desire for surveillance aligned with the tech companies' profit motives, creating a powerful public-private surveillance apparatus.⁵⁸ Surveillance capitalism is the ultimate expression of the logic of capitalist accumulation, extending its reach from the factory floor into the very fabric of human experience, turning life itself into a factor of production and creating a new, totalizing "instrumentarian" power that seeks to control not just what people

do, but who they are.

Part III: The Axis of Liberation versus Enslavement

The moral ledger of capitalism is profoundly complex, defined by a dual legacy of liberation and enslavement. On one hand, the system has unleashed productive forces that have generated unprecedented wealth, driven world-altering technological innovation, and lifted hundreds of millions of people from material deprivation. This is the powerful narrative of liberation. On the other hand, this same system is historically and structurally intertwined with some of the most brutal forms of human subjugation, from the absolute bondage of chattel slavery to the exploitative dynamics of modern global labor. This is the haunting narrative of enslavement. These are not two separate histories but two sides of the same coin, produced simultaneously by the core logic of capital accumulation. The system's greatest triumphs are inextricably linked to its greatest sins, making the axis of liberation versus enslavement a permanent, unresolved feature of its existence.

The Engine of Prosperity: Growth, Innovation, and Poverty Reduction

The most compelling argument for capitalism as a force for liberation rests on its undeniable record of economic growth and innovation. The shift from agrarian societies to industrial capitalism, beginning in the late 18th century, triggered a transformation of human life.⁶¹ The system's core principles—private ownership, the profit motive, and market competition—created powerful incentives for efficiency, investment, and technological advancement.⁶ This resulted in the mass production of goods, a dramatic rise in living standards for many, and the creation of a vast consumer culture.⁴² Innovations like the steam engine, railways, and electricity not only revolutionized production but also reshaped society, fostering urbanization and the emergence of a new middle class.⁶²

The ultimate moral justification for this system, in the eyes of its proponents, is its purported success in reducing global poverty. The mainstream narrative, heavily promoted by institutions like the World Bank, points to a dramatic decline in the rate of global extreme poverty, which is defined as living on less than the International Poverty Line (currently $2.15 per day).⁶⁴ According to this data, the number of people living in extreme poverty has fallen by over a billion since 1990, a period that coincides with the global expansion of market-oriented economies.⁶⁴ This achievement is often presented as definitive proof that capitalism, for all its flaws, is the most effective system for lifting humanity out of destitution.⁶⁵

However, this triumphant narrative is subject to a potent critical counter-narrative that challenges its core assumptions. Critics argue that the story of capitalism and poverty reduction is, at best, a gross oversimplification and, at worst, a self-serving myth.⁶⁶ Their arguments include:

• Arbitrary Poverty Lines: The $2.15-a-day line is an extremely low bar. While the number of people below this line has fallen, the number of people living on a still-impoverished measure, such as less than $6.85 per day, has remained stubbornly high, barely changing since the 1990s due to population growth.⁶⁷ This suggests that many have moved from extreme poverty to simple poverty, a far less triumphant outcome.

• Questionable Causality: Critics contend that attributing poverty reduction solely to capitalism is a logical fallacy. Wealth grew during the global spread of capitalism, but that does not prove capitalism caused it, especially when considering the role of state-led development, particularly in China, which accounts for a vast portion of the global poverty reduction.⁶⁶ Furthermore, historical analysis suggests that in many regions, incorporation into the capitalist world-system, especially under colonialism, was associated with an
  increase in poverty and a decline in human welfare.⁶⁸

• Simultaneous Production of Wealth and Poverty: A more radical critique posits that capitalism does not simply reduce poverty; it actively produces both immense wealth and immense poverty as two inseparable parts of the same process.⁶⁹ The enclosure movements that preceded industrial capitalism in Britain, for example, created a landless, impoverished class that was then available as cheap factory labor.⁶⁹ The system requires a pool of labor dependent on wages for survival, and the drive to minimize costs inherently pushes wages down, creating a permanent state of precarity for many.

Thus, the liberation narrative of prosperity and poverty reduction, while powerful, is far from uncontested. It stands in stark tension with a history that reveals a much darker and more complex relationship between capital and human well-being.

The Original Sin: Capitalism and Chattel Slavery

No analysis of capitalism and enslavement can ignore the system's deep, historical entanglement with chattel slavery, particularly in the formation of the American economy. This relationship has been the subject of intense historical debate, pitting a traditional view of the two systems as rivals against a more recent, powerful argument that they were mutually constitutive.

The traditional argument, long dominant in historical scholarship, held that capitalism and slavery were fundamentally antithetical systems. Capitalism, in this view, is based on the ideal of free wage labor, where individuals voluntarily sell their labor power in a competitive market.⁷⁰ Chattel slavery, by contrast, is a pre-capitalist system of coercion, where labor is extracted through brutal force and human beings are treated as property. Proponents of this view, such as historian Eugene Genovese, argued that the slave-based plantation economy of the American South was inefficient, paternalistic, and economically stagnant compared to the dynamic, industrial free-labor capitalism of the North. The U.S. Civil War, therefore, represented the triumph of the more advanced and morally superior capitalist system over its archaic, slave-holding rival.⁷⁰

This comforting narrative has been forcefully challenged by what is known as the "New History of Capitalism." Scholars like Sven Beckert, Seth Rockman, and Ed Baptist argue that, far from being an obstacle, slavery was absolutely central to the development of American and global capitalism.⁷² Their research makes several key points:

• Slavery as a Capitalist Innovation Hub: The slave plantation was not a pre-capitalist relic but a brutally efficient, profit-driven enterprise. Plantation owners developed sophisticated techniques in management, accounting (e.g., depreciating human assets), and finance to maximize output and profits from their enslaved workforce. Baptist argues that enslavers used systematic torture—the "whipping machine"—to achieve ever-increasing productivity quotas from cotton pickers, making enslaved labor a highly efficient engine of production.⁷⁰

• Cotton as the Fuel of the Industrial Revolution: The global capitalist economy of the 19th century was built on cotton. The textile mills of Manchester, England—the heart of the Industrial Revolution—were fed by raw cotton produced overwhelmingly by the forced labor of enslaved people in the American South.⁷⁰ The immense profits generated from this slave-produced commodity flowed to financiers, merchants, and industrialists in New York, London, and beyond, providing a critical source of the capital that was reinvested to expand the capitalist system.⁷²

• Intertwined Systems: American capitalism's origins are therefore inseparable from a system of violent human bondage. The credit markets that financed westward expansion, the insurance companies that underwrote slave voyages, and the banks that accepted enslaved people as collateral for loans were all integral parts of a single economic system. To understand the nation's spectacular economic development, one must situate slavery "front and center".⁷²

This reinterpretation shatters the clean distinction between market freedom and human freedom. It reveals that the rise of a system celebrated for its ideals of private property and the self-made man was predicated on the legal ownership of human beings and the violent extraction of their labor. This "original sin" suggests that the enslavement narrative is not an unfortunate footnote to the story of capitalism, but is written on its opening pages.

The Chains of Labor: From Wage Slavery to the Global Supply Chain

The critique of capitalism as a system of enslavement extends beyond the historical institution of chattel slavery to the very nature of wage labor itself. For Karl Marx, the transition from feudalism to capitalism did not represent a move to true freedom, but rather a change in the form of servitude. He famously characterized wage labor as "wage slavery." While the worker is legally free and not owned by a specific master, they are unfree in a more fundamental sense. Lacking ownership of the means of production, the propertyless worker is compelled by the threat of starvation to sell their labor power to a capitalist in order to survive.⁹ In this transaction, the worker submits to the control of the employer, who dictates the terms, pace, and conditions of their work and appropriates the surplus value they create.³¹ This relationship, though based on a "voluntary" contract, is one of structural domination and economic compulsion, not genuine freedom.

This theoretical concept finds its starkest contemporary expression in the reality of global supply chains. In the era of globalized capitalism, the relentless drive to maximize profit and minimize costs has led multinational corporations to structure production across vast, complex networks spanning the globe.⁷⁴ This system incentivizes a "race to the bottom," where production is outsourced to countries with the lowest wages and weakest labor and environmental regulations.⁷⁵

The consequences for workers at the bottom of these chains are often dire, constituting a modern form of economic enslavement:

• Widespread Labor Exploitation: Investigations have repeatedly uncovered systemic exploitation, including poverty wages far below a living wage, dangerously unsafe working conditions, excessive hours, and the use of child labor in industries ranging from cobalt mining for electronics to garment manufacturing for fast fashion.⁷⁵

• "Modern Slavery" and Forced Labor: The complexity and opacity of multi-tiered supply chains create "blind spots" where the most extreme forms of exploitation can thrive.⁷⁴ According to the UN, human trafficking for forced labor is on the rise, with workers trapped in debt bondage or coerced into labor under threat of violence.⁷⁴ This is not an anomaly but, as some scholars argue, an "integral feature of global supply chains".⁷⁶ The low prices and constant availability of consumer goods in wealthy nations are directly subsidized by the subjugation of this hidden, global workforce.

The logic of capitalist accumulation, which prioritizes profit above all else, thus perpetuates a system of enslavement. The "liberation" of the consumer in the Global North, enjoying an abundance of cheap products, is directly and structurally linked to the economic bondage of the worker in the Global South.

The Great Divide: Inequality in the 21st Century

The ultimate outcome of these dynamics—the historical legacy of slavery and the ongoing exploitation of labor—is a world of staggering economic inequality. This inequality represents the culmination of the enslavement narrative, a form of societal disempowerment that makes a mockery of the system's promise of widespread liberation and prosperity.

Data from organizations like Oxfam paints a stark picture of wealth concentration in the 21st century. In 2024, it was reported that the world's five richest men had more than doubled their fortunes since 2020, while nearly five billion people were made poorer.⁷⁷ A handful of billionaires now possess more wealth than the bottom half of humanity combined.⁷⁷ Oxfam projects that if current trends continue, the world will have its first trillionaire within a decade, but it will take over 229 years to eradicate poverty.⁷⁷

Crucially, this extreme wealth is not necessarily a reflection of merit or productive contribution. Oxfam's 2024 report, titled Takers Not Makers, argues that a majority of billionaire wealth is not "earned" but "taken".⁷⁸ Their analysis suggests that 60% of billionaire wealth derives from three main sources:

1. Inheritance: A new "aristocratic oligarchy" is emerging, where trillions of dollars are passed down, entrenching wealth and power across generations.⁷⁹

2. Monopoly Power: Corporations control markets, set prices, and crush competition, funneling wealth to their owners.⁷⁸

3. Cronyism: Close connections to government result in favorable policies, subsidies, and contracts that enrich a select few.⁷⁸

This extreme concentration of wealth translates directly into a form of economic and political enslavement for the majority. When vast fortunes can be used to buy political influence, lobbying for deregulation and lower taxes, democracy is undermined. When billions of people lack access to basic healthcare, education, and economic security while a few accumulate unimaginable riches, the promise of liberation through economic growth is exposed as a hollow one for much of the world's population. This level of inequality is not a bug in the system, but a feature of a version of capitalism that has prioritized capital returns over labor income, shareholder value over stakeholder well-being, and private accumulation over public good. It represents a modern form of bondage, where the life chances and freedoms of the many are constrained by the economic and political power of a tiny few.

Part IV: Contemporary Tensions and Future Trajectories

As the 21st century unfolds, the long-standing tensions between capitalism and free enterprise are being radically reshaped by a new set of powerful forces. The rise of artificial intelligence, the existential crisis of climate change, and the growing public discontent with inequality are pushing the axes of freedom-versus-control and liberation-versus-enslavement into uncharted territory. These contemporary challenges are testing the very foundations of our economic systems, forcing a re-evaluation of their core logics and future viability.

The Algorithmic Future: Artificial Intelligence and the Fate of Labor

Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative technology with the dual potential to act as a profound force for both liberation and enslavement. Its integration into the economy promises to supercharge the productive capacity of capitalism while simultaneously threatening to render its foundational labor-capital relationship obsolete.

On the side of liberation, AI offers the potential for immense economic benefits. By automating routine and repetitive tasks, AI can free human workers to focus on more creative, strategic, and complex activities, potentially improving job quality and satisfaction.⁸⁰ Studies predict that AI could contribute trillions of dollars to the global economy, boosting productivity and stimulating growth.⁸⁰ The World Economic Forum has projected that AI and automation could create 69 million new jobs worldwide by 2028, particularly in fields like data science and AI development.⁸⁰ For some workers, particularly those with the skills to complement AI, the technology could enhance their productivity and lead to higher wages.⁸²

However, the narrative of enslavement and control is equally, if not more, compelling. The risks posed by AI are profound and systemic:

• Mass Job Displacement: The same automation that boosts productivity also threatens to displace human labor on an unprecedented scale. One Goldman Sachs report estimated that generative AI could expose approximately 300 million full-time jobs worldwide to automation.⁸⁰ Unlike previous waves of automation that primarily affected manual or routine tasks, modern AI has the ability to impact high-skilled, white-collar jobs in fields like law, finance, and journalism.⁸⁰ This could lead to widespread unemployment and income insecurity for millions who lack the ability to reskill.

• Exacerbation of Inequality: The economic gains from AI are predicted to be distributed highly unequally. The technology is expected to widen the wage gap between high-skilled workers who can leverage AI and low-skilled workers who are replaced by it.⁸³ More fundamentally, as AI systems (a form of capital) replace human labor, the share of national income flowing to capital owners is likely to increase dramatically, while the share going to labor declines. This will concentrate wealth in the hands of the few who own the AI technologies, exacerbating existing inequalities to an extreme degree.⁸²

• The Rise of "Autocapitalism": Some theorists argue that this trend could lead to a new phase of capitalism, termed "autocapitalism," where human labor is almost entirely eliminated from the production process.⁸⁴ This would represent the ultimate fulfillment of capitalism's logic—reducing costs by removing the most troublesome input: people. In such a scenario, the social contract, which for centuries has been based on the exchange of labor for wages, would be broken. The vast majority of the population, rendered economically superfluous, would face a new kind of technological subjugation, dependent on the owners of automated capital for their very survival. This poses an existential challenge to our current social and economic structures, potentially creating a future of unprecedented abundance for a few and dependency for the many.

The Planetary Limit: Capitalism and the Climate Crisis

The climate crisis represents perhaps the most profound challenge to the logic of modern capitalism, exposing a fundamental conflict between a system predicated on infinite growth and a planet with finite resources. The debate over climate change forces a direct confrontation with the system's external costs and its capacity for self-correction.

The argument that capitalism caused the climate crisis is straightforward and compelling. The core logic of capitalism demands perpetual growth and profit maximization.⁸⁵ Historically, this has been achieved by treating nature as a free and limitless resource to be exploited—a classic economic "externality" where the costs of pollution and resource depletion are not paid by the producer but are socialized, borne by the public and future generations.⁸⁵ This has created a "high carbon economy" driven by the burning of fossil fuels, the primary source of the greenhouse gas emissions that are destabilizing the global climate.⁸⁷ From this perspective, climate change is not an accidental byproduct of the system, but an inevitable consequence of its fundamental design.⁸⁸

The central debate now revolves around whether this same system can be harnessed to solve the crisis it created. This question splits into two opposing camps:

• The Market-Based Solution Argument: Proponents of this view argue that the mechanisms of capitalism—competition, innovation, and the profit motive—are our best hope for addressing climate change.⁸⁵ The strategy involves using government policy to "internalize the externality" by putting a price on carbon. This can be done through a
  carbon tax (a fee on each ton of emissions) or a cap-and-trade system (setting a cap on total emissions and allowing companies to trade permits to pollute).⁹⁰ Once carbon has a cost, it becomes profitable for firms to reduce their emissions. This unleashes a wave of market-driven innovation in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and other green technologies.⁹² In this view, properly regulated capitalism is not the problem but the solution, as it is the most efficient mechanism for deploying clean technology at scale.⁶⁵

• The Critique of "Green Capitalism": Critics dismiss this approach as a dangerous illusion designed to preserve a fundamentally unsustainable system.⁸⁶ They argue that market-based solutions are often too weak and implemented too slowly to meet the urgency of the crisis. They point out that the energy market is not a "free market," as it is heavily distorted by decades of massive government subsidies for the fossil fuel industry.⁹⁵ Furthermore, they contend that "green capitalism" does not challenge the core ideology of perpetual growth that caused the problem. It simply seeks to find new, "green" ways to continue the cycle of production and consumption, which will inevitably run into other ecological limits.⁸⁶ For these critics, what is needed is not a greener version of capitalism, but a "transformational change" to a post-capitalist, eco-socialist system that prioritizes ecological sustainability and social equity over profit and growth.⁸⁸

This debate places the axes of freedom/control and liberation/enslavement in stark relief. Can the "freedom" of the market, guided by price signals, liberate us from climate catastrophe? Or is that freedom merely the freedom to continue profiting from destruction, requiring a new system of collective control over our economy to prevent planetary enslavement to ecological collapse?

Reimagining the System: The Debate Over Stakeholder Capitalism

In response to the growing crises of inequality and environmental degradation, a significant movement to reform capitalism from within has gained prominence: stakeholder capitalism.⁹⁶ This model stands in direct opposition to the neoliberal doctrine of shareholder primacy, which asserts that a corporation's only social responsibility is to maximize profit for its owners.⁹⁷

Stakeholder capitalism proposes a fundamental reorientation of corporate purpose. It argues that a corporation is a social organism and should be managed to serve the interests of all its stakeholders: not just shareholders, but also employees, customers, suppliers, the communities in which it operates, and the environment.⁹⁶ Proponents, including the World Economic Forum, believe this approach leads to more ethical, sustainable, and resilient businesses in the long run. By investing in employee well-being, ensuring product quality for customers, and minimizing environmental impact, companies can build trust, attract talent, and achieve more durable success.⁹⁷ In theory, this represents a move toward a more "liberating" form of capitalism, one that balances profit with social responsibility.

However, the concept faces sharp criticism. Many view stakeholder capitalism as little more than a sophisticated public relations strategy or "greenwashing".⁹⁷ Critics argue that without fundamental changes to corporate law and governance, the rhetoric of serving all stakeholders is meaningless. They contend that it can dilute accountability, creating a situation where executives can justify any decision by claiming it serves some stakeholder interest, while in reality continuing to prioritize shareholder returns.⁹⁸ From this perspective, stakeholder capitalism is not a genuine shift in power but a tool of

control—a way for the existing corporate structure to placate public anger and preempt more radical calls for regulation or systemic change, without ceding any real power or altering the fundamental logic of capital accumulation.

Late-Stage Capitalism and the Question of Freedom

The convergence of these crises—technological disruption, ecological limits, and extreme inequality—has fueled the popularization of the term "late-stage capitalism." While contested in academia, the phrase captures a widespread cultural feeling that the current system is characterized by a sense of decay, absurdity, and hyper-commercialization, where every aspect of life is commodified.⁸⁴ It describes a world of immense wealth alongside immense precarity, of technological marvels used for trivial or manipulative ends, and of a political system seemingly unable to address fundamental problems.

Building on this, the late political theorist Mark Fisher coined the term "capitalist realism" to describe what he saw as the dominant ideology of our time: the pervasive belief that capitalism is the only viable political and economic system, and that there is "no alternative".³³ This, he argued, functions as a powerful form of ideological control, an "invisible barrier" that constrains our collective imagination. When it becomes "easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism," true freedom—the freedom to envision and build a different kind of society—is foreclosed.³³ This represents the ultimate form of control, where the system's logic becomes so totalizing that it colonizes our consciousness, preventing us from even thinking our way out of its contradictions.

Conclusion: An Unresolved Dialectic

The relationship between capitalism and free enterprise is not a settled matter but a dynamic, contradictory, and unresolved dialectic that has shaped the modern world. The analysis of this relationship through the axes of Freedom versus Control and Liberation versus Enslavement reveals a system at war with its own ideals. The promise of individual liberty, market efficiency, and universal prosperity is perpetually shadowed by the realities of concentrated power, systemic exploitation, and profound inequality.

The historical evidence demonstrates that the pursuit of profit and capital accumulation, the core engine of capitalism, consistently generates forces that undermine the foundational principles of free enterprise. The "freedom" of the unregulated market in the Gilded Age did not lead to fair competition but to the control of monopolistic trusts. In response, the state intervened during the Progressive Era and the New Deal, using its own power of control in an attempt to restore market freedom. The neoliberal turn away from public control only cleared the path for a new era of private financial control, culminating in crisis. Today, this axis is being redefined by surveillance capitalism, a new form of power that seeks not just to control markets, but to control human behavior itself for profit.

Similarly, the system's legacy is irreducibly dual. The narrative of liberation—of capitalism as an engine of innovation and wealth creation that has lifted billions from poverty—is a powerful one, supported by significant economic data. Yet it cannot be disentangled from the narrative of enslavement. This includes its foundational dependence on the brutal exploitation of chattel slavery, its inherent logic of extracting surplus value from wage labor, and its modern manifestation in the exploitative conditions of global supply chains. The system produces immense wealth and immense poverty, often as two sides of the same coin. The liberation of the consumer in one part of the world is structurally linked to the economic subjugation of the worker in another.

As we look to the future, these tensions are intensifying. The rise of artificial intelligence promises a new wave of liberation through productivity but threatens a new form of enslavement through mass labor displacement and the final triumph of capital over labor. The existential threat of climate change, born from the system's logic of externalizing costs, forces a stark choice between market-based "green capitalism" and a more fundamental, systemic transformation. The debate over stakeholder capitalism reveals the deep-seated conflict over whether the system can be reformed from within or if such efforts are merely a cosmetic attempt to preserve an inequitable status quo.

The "freedom's bargain" at the heart of our economic order remains a precarious one. The immense productive and innovative power of capitalism has undeniably been a force for a certain kind of progress. Yet, this power has consistently been yoked to a logic of accumulation that concentrates power, deepens inequality, and exploits both people and the planet. The fundamental question for the 21st century remains unanswered: can this immense power be harnessed for genuine human liberation and collective freedom, or will its inherent drive for control ultimately lead to new, more profound forms of enslavement? The answer, as history suggests, will not be found in abstract economic theory, but in the ongoing political and social struggles to define the rules that govern our collective economic life.

Works cited

1. Free Enterprise: Definition, How It Works, Origins, and Example - Investopedia, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/free_enterprise.asp

2. www.investopedia.com, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/free_enterprise.asp#:~:text=Free%20enterprise%20refers%20to%20how,or%20production%20of%20those%20goods.

3. Free Enterprise | Economic Definition + Examples - Wall Street Prep, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.wallstreetprep.com/knowledge/free-enterprise/

4. www.rd.usda.gov, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.rd.usda.gov/files/cir45-1.pdf

5. American Free Enterprise - EdTechnology, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.mcmsnj.net/cms/lib07/NJ01911694/Centricity/Domain/155/ECON%20CH-3.pdf

6. Free Enterprise Definition and How it Works - Career Principles, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.careerprinciples.com/resources/free-enterprise-definition

7. The Crucial Differences Between Capitalism And Free Enterprise, accessed June 23, 2025, https://insertphilosophyhere.com/crucial-differences-between-capitalism-free-enterprise/

8. Capitalism vs. Free Market: What's the Difference? - Investopedia, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042215/what-difference-between-capitalist-system-and-free-market-system.asp

9. What Is Capitalism? History, Pros & Cons, vs. Socialism - Investopedia, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalism.asp

10. Understanding Capitalism's Core - Number Analytics, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/understanding-capitalism-core

11. Capitalism - Wikipedia, accessed June 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

12. What Is Capitalism? - Back to Basics - Finance & Development, June ..., accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2015/06/basics.htm

13. Lobbying Timeline - OpenSecrets, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.opensecrets.org/resources/learn/lobbying_timeline

14. Lobbying in the United States - Wikipedia, accessed June 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States

15. Economics, Wealth, Capitalism - Adam Smith - Britannica, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Adam-Smith/Economic-growth

16. Marxism - Econlib, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Marxism.html

17. The Political Economy of Capitalism - Harvard Business School, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/07-037.pdf

18. Who Was John Locke? - Investopedia, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/john-locke-5271458

19. JOHN LOCKE AND THE LABOR THEORY OF VALUE - Mises Institute, accessed June 23, 2025, https://cdn.mises.org/2_4_3_0.pdf

20. "JOHN LOCKE'S MORAL JUSTIFICATION FOR ECONOMIC INDIVIDUALISM" by CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH WHITE - Purdue e-Pubs, accessed June 23, 2025, https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/dissertations/AAI8113771/

21. Was John Locke an intellectual father of "economic growth" as a social goal?, accessed June 23, 2025, https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/76556/was-john-locke-an-intellectual-father-of-economic-growth-as-a-social-goal

22. History of capitalist theory - Wikipedia, accessed June 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalist_theory

23. What is Adam Smith's Economic Theory? - 2025 - Robinhood, accessed June 23, 2025, https://robinhood.com/us/en/learn/articles/1EAManQDjRJ20KWcLpOOHx/what-is-adam-smiths-economic-theory/

24. Adam Smith: Who He Was, Early Life, Accomplishments, and Legacy, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/updates/adam-smith-economics/

25. Marx's diagnosis of capitalism is clear. Is his analysis outdated? - Inside Higher Ed, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/columns/higher-ed-gamma/2024/10/30/marxs-diagnosis-capitalism-clear-his-analysis-outdated

26. 16.1C: The Marxist Critique of Capitalism - Social Sci LibreTexts, accessed June 23, 2025, https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Sociology/Introduction_to_Sociology/Sociology_(Boundless)/16%3A_Economy/16.01%3A_Economic_Systems/16.1C%3A_The_Marxist_Critique_of_Capitalism

27. en.wikipedia.org, accessed June 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation_of_labour#:~:text=Exploitation%20is%20a%20concept%20defined,between%20workers%20and%20their%20employers.

28. Exploitation of labour - Wikipedia, accessed June 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation_of_labour

29. Marx's theory of alienation - Wikipedia, accessed June 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation

30. www.simplypsychology.org, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.simplypsychology.org/marx-alienation.html#:~:text=According%20to%20Marx%2C%20the%20product,physical%20life%20%E2%80%93%20purely%20for%20wages.

31. Marx's Theory of Alienation - Asher Horowitz | Department of Political Science | Faculty of Liberal Arts and Professional Studies | York University, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.yorku.ca/horowitz/courses/lectures/35_marx_alienation.html

32. Marx's Theory of Alienation In Sociology - Simply Psychology, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.simplypsychology.org/marx-alienation.html

33. Late stage capitalism prevents true freedom - The Brookhaven Courier, accessed June 23, 2025, https://brookhavencourier.com/112639/opinion/late-stage-capitalism-prevents-true-freedom/

34. Progressive Era and Economics - Historical Society of Pennsylvania, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.portal.hsp.org/unit-plan-items/unit-plan-22

35. The Square Deal: Theodore Roosevelt and the Themes of Progressive Reform, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/essays/square-deal-theodore-roosevelt-and-themes-progressive-reform

36. Monopolies - (US History – 1865 to Present) - Vocab, Definition, Explanations | Fiveable, accessed June 23, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/united-states-history-since-1865/monopolies

37. A History of U.S. Monopolies - Investopedia, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/insights/history-of-us-monopolies/

38. An Economic History of Antitrust Legislation in the U.S. – Michigan ..., accessed June 23, 2025, https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2025/05/02/an-economic-history-of-antitrust-legislation-in-the-u-s/

39. Antitrust: Understanding the Competitive Marketplace - The Policy Circle, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.thepolicycircle.org/minibrief/antitrust-laws/

40. The Origins and Evolution of Progressive Economics - Center for ..., accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-origins-and-evolution-of-progressive-economics/

41. Antitrust Law and Democratic Capitalism: Balancing Market Competition and Economic Freedom, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.law.georgetown.edu/denny-center/blog/antitrust-law/

42. Growth of the American Economy Unit 11 – Progressive Era: Economic Regulation, accessed June 23, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/growth-american-economy/unit-11

43. A Brief History of Financial Regulation in the USA - SideDrawer, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.sidedrawer.com/blog/the-history-of-usa-financial-regulation

44. A Brief History of U.S. Banking Regulation - Investopedia, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/011916/brief-history-us-banking-regulation.asp

45. The New Deal: Meaning, Overview, and History - Investopedia, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/new-deal.asp

46. The New Deal (article) | Khan Academy, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/rise-to-world-power/great-depression/a/the-new-deal

47. The New Deal: Address on the Survival of Private Enterprise, accessed June 23, 2025, https://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/academics/research/faculty-research/new-deal/roosevelt-speeches/fr102336.htm

48. New Deal - Wikipedia, accessed June 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

49. The Economic Effects of the New Deal - Investopedia, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/011116/economic-effects-new-deal.asp

50. National Labor Relations Act, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/key-reference-materials/national-labor-relations-act

51. What Is Keynesian Economics? - International Monetary Fund (IMF), accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/basics/pdf/jahan_keynes.pdf

52. What Is Keynesian Economics? - Back to Basics - Finance ..., accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2014/09/basics.htm

53. Keynesian economics - (AP European History) - Vocab, Definition, Explanations | Fiveable, accessed June 23, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/ap-euro/keynesian-economics

54. Keynesian Economics: Theory and How It's Used - Investopedia, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/keynesianeconomics.asp

55. Rise of Neoliberalism: A Historical Analysis - Number Analytics, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/rise-of-neoliberalism-historical-analysis

56. Neoliberalism | EBSCO Research Starters, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/diplomacy-and-international-relations/neoliberalism

57. From colonialism to neoliberalism | Health Poverty Action, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.healthpovertyaction.org/how-poverty-is-created/power-and-politics/neoliberalism/

58. What You Need to Know about Surveillance Capitalism - Wellesley, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.wellesley.edu/news/what-you-need-to-know-about-surveillance-capitalism

59. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism - Wikipedia, accessed June 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Surveillance_Capitalism

60. Surveillance capitalism - Wikipedia, accessed June 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism

61. Industrial Capitalism - (AP World History: Modern) - Vocab, Definition, Explanations, accessed June 23, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/ap-world/industrial-capitalism

62. A Guide to Industrial Capitalism: History & Impact - Number Analytics, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/guide-industrial-capitalism-history-impact

63. 19th-century industrial capitalism - (AP European History) - Vocab, Definition, Explanations, accessed June 23, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/ap-euro/19th-century-industrial-capitalism

64. Poverty - Our World in Data, accessed June 23, 2025, https://ourworldindata.org/poverty

65. Capitalism is good for the environment - Institute of Economic Affairs, accessed June 23, 2025, https://iea.org.uk/capitalism-is-good-for-the-environment/

66. Why poverty reduction under capitalism is a myth - Canadian Dimension, accessed June 23, 2025, https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/why-poverty-reduction-under-capitalism-is-a-myth

67. Poverty, Prosperity, and Planet Report 2024 - World Bank, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/poverty-prosperity-and-planet

68. Capitalism, Global Poverty, and the Case for Democratic Socialism - Monthly Review, accessed June 23, 2025, https://monthlyreview.org/2023/07/01/capitalism-global-poverty-and-the-case-for-democratic-socialism/

69. Capitalism and the Production of Poverty | MR Online, accessed June 23, 2025, https://mronline.org/2024/01/15/capitalism-and-the-production-of-poverty/

70. Capitalism and Slavery - OER Project, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.oerproject.com/en/oer-materials/oer-media/html-articles/origins/unit6/capitalism-and-slavery

71. Capitalism and Slavery - OER Project, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.oerproject.com/OER-Materials/OER-Media/HTML-Articles/Origins/Unit6/Capitalism-and-Slavery/940L

72. Slavery's Capitalism: A New History of American Economic Development - Book - Faculty & Research - Harvard Business School, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=51947

73. Slavery's Capitalism – Penn Press, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.pennpress.org/9780812224177/slaverys-capitalism/

74. Human Trafficking for Forced Labour in Supply Chains: What You ..., accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/2025/May/human-trafficking-for-forced-labour-in-supply-chains_-what-you-need-to-know.html

75. The complex battle for change in tackling supply chain labor exploitation, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.scmr.com/article/the-complex-battle-for-change-in-tackling-supply-chain-labor-exploitation

76. Reimagining more just, equitable global supply chains - Stanford Report, accessed June 23, 2025, https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2021/12/reimagining-just-equitable-global-supply-chains

77. wealth inequality | Oxfam International, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.oxfam.org/en/tags/wealth-inequality

78. Oxfam: "inequality through modern-day colonialism" | World Economic Forum, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/01/oxfam-new-report-inequality-colonialism/

79. Takers Not Makers: The unjust poverty and unearned wealth of ..., accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.oxfam.org/en/takers-not-makers-unjust-poverty-and-unearned-wealth-colonialism

80. Artificial Intelligence Impact on Labor Markets - International ..., accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.iedconline.org/clientuploads/EDRP%20Logos/AI_Impact_on_Labor_Markets.pdf

81. AI and the Labor Economy: It Still Takes Two (Labor & Capital) to Tango - ISS Insights, accessed June 23, 2025, https://insights.issgovernance.com/posts/ai-and-the-labor-economy-it-still-takes-two-labor-capital-to-tango/

82. AI Will Transform the Global Economy. Let's Make Sure It Benefits Humanity., accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2024/01/14/ai-will-transform-the-global-economy-lets-make-sure-it-benefits-humanity

83. Dynamics of labor and capital in AI vs. non-AI industries: A two-industry model analysis, accessed June 23, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10807838/

84. This Is Not Late-Stage Capitalism - Quillette, accessed June 23, 2025, https://quillette.com/2025/01/08/this-is-not-late-stage-capitalism-automation-ai-robotics/

85. How capitalism holds the secret to addressing climate change - The Fulcrum, accessed June 23, 2025, https://thefulcrum.us/business-democracy/capitalism-and-climate-change

86. The Limits of a Capitalist Solution to the Climate Crisis - Dartmouth Digital Commons, accessed June 23, 2025, https://digitalcommons.dartmouth.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1247&context=clamantis

87. Capitalism and Climate Change: How our current economic and social system are detrimental to our future kids - the University of Manchester WordPress Websites & Blogs, accessed June 23, 2025, https://sites.manchester.ac.uk/global-social-challenges/2025/01/16/capitalism-and-climate-change-how-our-current-economic-and-social-system-are-detrimental-to-our-future-kids/

88. Full article: Adapting to Climate Change: From Capitalism to Democratic Eco-Socialism, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10455752.2024.2389053

89. Is capitalism incompatible with effective climate change action? | World Economic Forum, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.weforum.org/stories/2019/09/is-capitalism-incompatible-with-effective-climate-change-action/

90. www.c2es.org, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.c2es.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/market-mechanisms-options-climate-policy.pdf

91. Market-Based Strategies - Center for Climate and Energy SolutionsCenter for Climate and Energy Solutions - C2ES, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.c2es.org/content/market-based-strategies/

92. Capitalism caused climate change. Can capitalism also solve it?, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.colorado.edu/ceae/2023/03/29/capitalism-caused-climate-change-can-capitalism-also-solve-it

93. Why We Need to Change Capitalism for Climate Action | Earth.Org, accessed June 23, 2025, https://earth.org/change-capitalism-for-climate-action/

94. Market-Oriented Solutions to Climate Change | George W. Bush Presidential Center, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/environment/stefanik-market-solutions

95. Free-market solutions to climate change aren't 'realistic' - The Next System Project, accessed June 23, 2025, https://thenextsystem.org/learn/stories/free-market-solutions-climate-change-arent-realistic

96. www.investopedia.com, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/stakeholder-capitalism-4774323#:~:text=Stakeholder%20capitalism%20is%20a%20system,%2C%20shareholders%2C%20and%20local%20communities.

97. What stakeholder capitalism is and what it isn't | World Economic ..., accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/02/stakeholder-capitalism-what-it-is-and-what-it-isn-t/

98. What is stakeholder capitalism? - The Corporate Governance Institute, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.thecorporategovernanceinstitute.com/insights/lexicon/what-is-stakeholder-capitalism/

99. en.wikipedia.org, accessed June 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_capitalism#:~:text=The%20idea%20of%20%22late%20capitalism,and%20when%20it%20will%20end%22.

100. Late capitalism - Wikipedia, accessed June 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_capitalism

101. Long Podcast Discussion