In the 1960s and 1970s, a fashionable idea, at least among the Western intelligentsia, was the convergence between socialism (read: communism) and capitalism. Even less obvious than today was the true distinction between, on one side, a regime of individual and private choice and, on the other side, a system of collective and political choice. Most people believed instead that the main line of fracture was between capitalism (i.e., the Right and the United States) and communism (i.e., the Left and the Soviet Union). Few saw that the convergence going on was about the supremacy of collective choices (whether of the Left or the Right) swallowing up the (classical liberal) philosophy of individual choices.
At that time (in illo tempore), a whole literature developed on the convergence of capitalism and communism. In Gregory Grossman’s Economic Systems (Prentice Hall, 1967), I just reread what I then underlined (pp. 112-113):
In the past, these kinds of planning and steering were instituted too rigidly in the East and perhaps too loosely in the West; some future convergence on this plane is not at all unlikely. (The already-mentioned considerable similarity between French and Yugoslav planning may be a case in point; they are, so to say, on the frontiers of capitalism and socialism, respectively.) …
While the Soviet-style East moves towards less rigid economic control by central authorities, and while the West is searching for more effective forms of social control, both sides are beginning to look forward seriously to the problems of higher productivity.
(In the roaring sixties, many believed that people could be totally free if the state were absolutely powerful, an idea recently rediscovered by a couple of economists who went on to win a Nobel prize.)
Forward to the present, the convergence has been progressing much faster, albeit not less stealthily. America has joined the race with a vengeance. A column of Greg Ip in the Wall Street Journal makes the point in different terms (“The U.S. Marches Toward State Capitalism With American Characteristics,” August 11, 2025); the whole piece is worth reading, but a couple of quotes will give its flavor:
A generation ago conventional wisdom held that as China liberalized, its economy would come to resemble America’s. Instead, capitalism in America is starting to look like China. …
This isn’t socialism, in which the state owns the means of production. It is more like state capitalism, a hybrid between socialism and capitalism in which the state guides the decisions of nominally private enterprises.
Of course, even from a narrow economic viewpoint, the pursued primacy of collective choices remains as much an illusion as it was more than half a century ago. Greg Ip notes:
Chinese state capitalism isn’t the success story it seems. Barry Naughton of the University of California, San Diego has documented how China’s rapid growth since 1979 has come from market sources, not the state.

READER COMMENTS
David Seltzer
Aug 13 2025 at 6:48pm
Pierre quoted, “a hybrid between socialism and capitalism in which the state guides the decisions of nominally private enterprises.” The term “guide” is generous in current political arenas. DJT’s tariffs, the most beautiful word in the dictionary, are not guides. They are authoritarian policies issued in petulant ignorance. I suspect my acerbic take on his policies will rub some the wrong way.
Pierre Lemieux
Aug 13 2025 at 7:08pm
David: On your point, I, for one, am pretty much unrubable (on reflection)!
Jose Pablo
Aug 14 2025 at 12:24pm
DJT’s tariffs,
As far as guiding private enterprise goes, tariffs are little more than a polite tap on the shoulder.
Handpicking which CEOs should stay and which should get tossed out … now that’s real, hard-core, Beijing-grade “capitalism”.
David Seltzer
Aug 14 2025 at 3:24pm
Jose, nice to hear from you. Yes, DJT demanding the Commanders and Guardians change their names. Childish. I respectfully argue tariffs are a more than a polite tap on the shoulder. I think the GM shareholders are not happy about last quarter’s $1.1billon loss due in part to DJT’s beautiful tariffs. Steel and aluminum tariffs of 50% has Toyota considering building vehicles in Japan. If you accept the proof demonstrating DWL, Harberger’s Triangle, is the square of the tariff imposed, the loss of consumer and some producer surplus is reflected in reduced economic production. See David Henderson’s Feb 4, 2025 EconLog post; Deadweight Loss From Taxes is Proportional to the Square of the Tax Rate. His proof is included.
Jose Pablo
Aug 14 2025 at 5:15pm
I respectfully argue tariffs are a more than a polite tap on the shoulder.
Sure, David.
The “tap on the shoulder” bit was just a literary flourish to highlight that this administration looks more than ready to go full, Beijing-grade authoritarian on the economy.
of course, always with the great interest of the nation in mind. So, we should be fine (and thankful).
Mactoul
Aug 13 2025 at 10:02pm
As introduced by Marx, the term Capitalism meant a system in which a small number of people (the capitalists) own the means of production and which employ the mass of people as their wage-employee. It is not a synonym for free enterprise.
Even in the first half of 20c, the capitalism was being transformed into managerial capitalism — in which the control of giant enterprises was in hands of the managers and the ownership was diffused into the mass of shareholders. So ownership was divorced from control. See Burnham’s Managerialism published in 1943.
IIn this sense, there was convergence between the manager-control in free countries and manager-control in state enterprises in communist countries.
But this convergence was an organic growth of the capitalist system itself, not something externally imposed.
Mactoul
Aug 14 2025 at 12:05am
Burnham wrote The Managerial Revolution and not what I incorrectly wrote above.
Thomas L Hutcheson
Aug 13 2025 at 10:17pm
The discussion should have been about what kind of choices should be private, whihc private with Pigou taxation/subsidy (“regulation” a peculiar kind of Pigou taxation), and which public/political, a discussion informed by Public Choice theory.
Pierre Lemieux
Aug 14 2025 at 9:38am
Thomas: The problem is that, in a society of non-identical individuals, what should be in the domain of individual choices and collective choices will vary among individuals (non-arbitrary aggregation is impossible), including among individual economists and philosopher-kings. Constitutional political economy, from Buchanan-Tullock to Brennan-Buchanan tries to avoid this problem by recognizing an equal (really equal) voice (that is, a veto) to each and every individual. It’s a very different way to look at the social world.
If one thinks that is impossible, de Jasay and Hayek offer alternative non-arbitrary solutions.
Asking Trump or Biden is not very different from asking Pigou.
Warren Platts
Aug 14 2025 at 11:51am
People talk about Trump as if he’s some sort of historical anomaly. But, really, it’s the experiment with laissez faire over the last few decades that is the historical blip. In the roaring sixties, we were busy with the Moon shot. If that’s not classical state capitalism, then nothing is; at it’s peak, NASA was sucking up 6% of the GDP.
Then look at World War II. It’s hard to believe how much materiel they produced then. Our GDP is supposedly far larger now, but I don’t think we could match that feat even if we wanted to.
Pierre Lemieux
Aug 14 2025 at 1:39pm
Warren: Try the red pill, that is, thinking in terms of individual choices instead of collective choices.
As for the claim that “Our GDP is supposedly far larger now, but I don’t think we could match that feat even if we wanted to.” Oh yes, “we” could match it with just a couple of nuclear bombs. By the way, who is “we”?
Craig
Aug 14 2025 at 1:45pm
Well if you measure it in megatons, sure, right? But you can’t really use nuclear weapons and I’d sugget WP’s point is that they built 50k Shermans and a gazillion Liberty Ships along with fleets of bombers which they probably could NOT do today…
Jose Pablo
Aug 14 2025 at 3:19pm
They couldn’t in 1940 either… and yet.
The U.S. Army ranked 18th in the world, and in May 1940 FDR told the nation it needed to produce 50,000 combat aircraft a year.
Given that the U.S. was turning out barely 3,000 annually, it was a desperate call.
(Spoiler alert for the paranoids: by 1944, the U.S. was producing nearly 100,000 combat aircraft in a single year.)
But, you know? Never let the facts ruin a nationalistic convenient narrative.
Jose Pablo
Aug 14 2025 at 5:08pm
And, by the way, tanks have proven useless in Ukraine. Much like ships, which are little more than sitting ducks in the Black Sea.
The French Maginot Line, built to “defend” the country, also proved useless.
Iran’s vast expenditures to prepare for war — including the building and arming of proxies in multiple countries — have been “proven extremely effective” (for those who measure military success in regional chaos and human misery).
The Sudetenland’s impressive fortifications were rendered useless purely by diplomatic means, greatly facilitating the invasion of the rest of Czechoslovakia. (A historical lesson I’m sure Trump is completely unaware of, but Putin knows by heart.)
Bottom line: preparing today for tomorrow’s war is, for the most part, a complete waste of time and resources, with melancholy as its most likely outcome.
Warren Platts
Aug 14 2025 at 5:59pm
That is actually a great recipe for war. The reason WWII happened is because the Germans and the Japanese were not deterred. In order to have deterrence, you have to have a credible force that is ready for war.
The same thing happened in Ukraine. Zelensky didn’t believe the Russians would invade until they did — even after our intelligence warned him that the Russians were coming. If they had, since 2014, spent all their spare resources rearming themselves to the teeth, it’s likely Putin would not have invaded, or if Putin did anyway, they would’ve been crushed and the war would’ve been over two years ago.
Waiting passively for the next war to start, with the idea that you will then figure out what to do about it is not a strategy.
“Si vis pacem, para bellum” — Vegetius, Roman general. (If you want peace, prepare for war.)
Craig
Aug 14 2025 at 8:44pm
“The French Maginot Line, built to “defend” the country, also proved useless.”
France lost the Battle of France and of course the Maginot Line is much maligned. Indeed it is Exhibit A when ‘Fighting the Last War’ is discussed. But here’s the thing, the Maginot Line did what it was supposed to do. We have to remember the French knew full well that the Germans could go around it. Indeed, the Germans took a route through Belgium in WW1. So were the French just stupid? No, hardly, the Maginot Line was designed to defend the French right flank with a minimum of forces. It did just that. A major percentage of WW1 was fought on French soil and when the French fought WW2, surely they probably shouldn’t have sitzkrieged through the German invasion of Poland, but their goal was to fight WW2 somewhere other than France. So when the Germans made a feint to the north, the French dove into Belgium and the Germans undercut through the Ardennes, not through the Maginot Line. Of course once they undercut the Anglo-French (and Belgian) army they were able to go around it.
“The Sudetenland’s impressive fortifications were rendered useless purely by diplomatic means, greatly facilitating the invasion of the rest of Czechoslovakia.”
This is true.
“(A historical lesson I’m sure Trump is completely unaware of, but Putin knows by heart.)”
Bit different than today because when the Germans take Czechoslovakia, that’s one less front to fight on and the Czechs had Skoda which made the Pz38(t), the German designation ‘t’ is the German word ‘tschechoslowakei’ and indeed it was among the better early war tanks and made up a strong portion of the tanks in Rommel’s division in France. The German Mark 1 (mg only) and Mark 2 (20mm gun) tanks weren’t really that good and were undergunned compared to tanks fielded by the Anglo-French armies.
So yes, giving up Czechoslovakia, and I might add doing nothing about it and then sitting through Polish campaign set up a battle that was on near equal terms. The difference of course is that no matter what happens in the Ukraine, NATO isn’t just conventionally stronger than Russia, its stronger than Russia. Its not close. GDP, funding, manpower, reserves, tanks, planes, artillery, navy, everything. Its 3:1 I grew up in an era where the Soviet Union plus the Warsaw Pact loomed over Western European NATO and the US. In conventional terms that would’ve been a fight. But NATO + most of former Warsaw Pact + US vs Russia? No, that’s not close. They’re not attacking NATO.
Jose Pablo
Aug 14 2025 at 9:22pm
The difference of course is that no matter what happens in the Ukraine, NATO isn’t just conventionally stronger than Russia
I wasn’t referring to Ukraine as the Sudetenland of Europe. I was referring to the fortified areas of Ukraine that Putin will likely demand Ukraine surrender in exchange for a short-lived peace.
Jose Pablo
Aug 15 2025 at 11:30am
The US is not “unprepared for war”. What are you even talking about?
Warren Platts
Aug 15 2025 at 8:32pm
Exactly right because the people running the Department of Defense do not follow your explicit advice: “preparing today for tomorrow’s war is, for the most part, a complete waste of time and resources.”
Warren Platts
Aug 15 2025 at 11:04am
Warren: Try the red pill, that is, thinking in terms of individual choices instead of collective choices.
One can pursue a scientific strategy of methodological individualism while rejecting ontological individualism. It is like trying to understand the behavior of individual humans. Shall we just accept humans as a given black box? Of course not. We understand an individual human by analyzing the parts. So we dissect human bodies, spend billions trying to understand how stem cells diversify into all kinds of different cells, more billions on DNA and a rain forest full of enzymes, we do MRIs trying to figure out how different parts of the brain perform different functions. (And the thing is, once you dig into all this, you begin to realize that “free will” is pretty much an illusion. And then we’re reduced to philosopher Dan Dennett’s contention that the best that we can hope for is to make our non-free choices in a non-coercive environment.) My point is, after we indulge in methodological “partism” does that dissolve the reality of the individual? I would say not. But the same logic also applies to so-called collectives.
Who is “we” as opposed to who is them? By “we” I mean the American state and the people that live in it. According to strategist Edward Luttwak (The Endangered American Dream, p. 314), states are “territorially defined entities designed precisely to outdo each other on the world scene…. their reason for being still derives from their historical function as providers of security from external foes (as well as outlaws within). In the past, these were enemies in arms who had to be fought; today they are competitors in the marketplace with whom free competition is for some reason or other a losing game. The winners in each sector of industry naturally always favor free trade. The losers may accept defeat and leave the field. But geo-economics offers the alternative of a state-supported second round, and every instinct of the state and its bureaucracies is to go for it, thereby being able to remain on center stage, almost as in war.”
Pierre Lemieux
Aug 15 2025 at 9:05pm
Warren: The question you raise of whether one can be a methodological individualist but not an ontological individualist is interesting. More interesting, I suggest, is the question of whether one can be a methodological individualist but not a political individualist. Certainly, it seems that methodological individualism is difficult to reconcile with the glorification of the state and “the people.” After all, the incarnation of “the people” is just an ordinary individual.
Now, with due respect and please pardon my audacity (don’t take it personal), since you were already manufacturing airplanes more than 80 years ago (“In the event, we built about 4,000 B-29s, compared to 21 B-2s”), there is perhaps a chance you met Yevgeny Zamyatin, who was still alive a few years earlier. Quoting his book We:
Warren Platts
Aug 17 2025 at 8:00am
No; thanks for the recommendation. Here is a pdf version, but I think that book deserves a spot on one of my many bookshelves!
Jon Murphy
Aug 14 2025 at 1:59pm
Currently in the US, about 10x goods are manufactured than at the peak of WW2. For defense goods only, 20x more goods were produced last year than at any point during WW2. (All data from FRB)
We’ve not only matched that feat, but surpassed it, using fewer resources too.
Warren Platts
Aug 14 2025 at 5:41pm
Could you clarify what you mean by this? And if you could provide a link to the FRB data, that would be great because after much searching, I cannot find it. Certainly, the USA’s shipbuilding capacity is a mere shadow of what it was during World War II.
Jon Murphy
Aug 15 2025 at 8:44am
That’s true. The Jones Act has been a horrific failure.
The US currently produces 20 times the amount of defense goods each year than any year during WW2. In other words, it’d take 20 years of production at the peak of WW2 output to produce what we are currently producing in one year.
Warren Platts
Aug 15 2025 at 12:06pm
The G.17 report is a haystack I’m not going to take the time to dig through and in any case, its historical data doesn’t go back to 1945 so you can’t do a direct comparison from the G.17 report. Consequently, I did my own BOTE calculation (with a little help from Grok) to compare the B-29 Superfortress bomber program during World War II, the most advanced bomber we had at the time (and that actually cost more than the Manhattan Project) and the modern B-2 Spirit bomber.
In 2025 dollars, the unit cost of a B-2 was ≈$4.3 billion each versus a unit cost of a B-29 at ≈$11.5 million. Thus for the cost of one B-2, we built 374 B-29s. In the event, we built about 4,000 B-29s, compared to 21 B-2s. Thus, given the cost of the B-2 program, we could have doubled the size of the B-29 fleet to 8,000 bombers!
Therefore, if I understand your logic, the B-2 program with its 21 planes produced twice as many “defense goods” as the B-29 program with its 4,000 planes. Did I get that right?
Jon Murphy
Aug 15 2025 at 7:05pm
You asked for a cite and you got it. Whether or not you choose to do anything with that data are up to you.
That’s the problem. You don’t. First off, your cherry picked example doesn’t undermine the data at all. The two planes are not similar. You’d need to adjust for quality.
Secondly, the point is about all defense goods, not just one plane.
Jon Murphy
Aug 15 2025 at 7:52pm
Really, the ideal way to ask it would be “if all aircraft manufacturing in the US were geared toward the production of B-29s, when how much could be produced?” This way, we’d be comparing apples to apples.
Using your numbers, some 4,000 B-29s were produced over the course of WW2, averaging about 1,000 per year (1941-1945). Assuming Grok is correct that the average cost was about $11.5 million (a big assumption. It’d be preferable if you provided an actual source), and coupled with the average productivity of US aircraft manufacturing workers of $562,706 (source: Contribution of the Aerospace Industry to the US Economy in 2023, June 2025), then the approximately 545,400 currently-employed aircraft manufacturers in the US could produce 26,687 B-29s per year. Using your chosen comparison, US aircraft manufacturers could produce almost 27x the number of B-29s than they could during World War 2.
That’s just those currently employed. If a war economy were developed like during WW2, that number could rise (although average productivity would fall).
Warren Platts
Aug 16 2025 at 10:40am
Respectfully, I don’t think that’s how it works. Consider all the diamond cutters in New York City. No doubt they are among the most productive manufactures we got. Now imagine that identically cut glass gems for costume jewelry cost 1/1000th of a similarly sized diamond (I’m just making these numbers up in order to illustrate the point). Does it follow that if the diamond cutters switched from diamonds to glass that they could automatically pump out 1000X more cut glass gems to be used for costume jewelry? (btw I believe you made a mistake in your labor productivity calculation: you divided the gross output $306.9 billion by the number of workers 545,400; but the actual value added — what they call “Contribution to GDP” — was only $151.1 billion, yielding a productivity per worker of $277,044; still respectable, but not all that much higher than the average American manufacturing worker.)
At the height of the war, over 2 million people were employed building aircraft. About 300,000 planes were built during the war, including close to 100,000 bombers (B-17s, B-24s, B-25s, B-26s, B-29s, A-20s, A-26s, and assorted other dive bombers and torpedo planes) plus close to another 100,000 fighters.
For comparison, in 2024, USA manufactured a total number of aircraft (not counting helicopters) of 3,420 units, including 2,169 general aviation aircraft, 1,094 commercial aviation jets (freighters and passengers), but only 157 military aircraft (of which 110 were F-35s).
As for comparing all defense goods, we can compare overall defense spending. Adjusted for inflation (CPI deflator), the USA spent about $1.7 trillion in 1944 in 2025 dollars. This is close to twice the 2025 budget, in real terms!, despite the fact that the GDP in 1944 was about 1/8th of what it is now.
Jon Murphy
Aug 16 2025 at 2:55pm
It is. Your assertion doesn’t stand up to rudimentary empirical verification.
Warren Platts
Aug 18 2025 at 9:11am
Professor Murphy, you made an astonishing claim:
That assertion doesn’t stand up to rudimentary empirical verification. As I’ve already pointed out, defense spending in 1944 was twice what was spent on defense last year — in real terms! Thus the conclusion of your argument is empirically shown to be off by a factor of 40.
Jon Murphy
Aug 15 2025 at 9:22am
I’m surprised you cannot find it. It’s the first thing that comes up on my Google search. Regardless, as I said above, the data come from the FRB’s G.17 report.
Although, one wonders why you made the statement you did if you didn’t even know where to find the data to support it.
Jose Pablo
Aug 14 2025 at 2:28pm
I don’t think we could match that feat even if we wanted to.
I have no doubt we would, if and when needed (even leaving aside the points Jon raises).
Ukraine is now the world’s largest producer of military-use drones, an achievement unimaginable before 2022.
What is a completely absurd, paranoia-driven misallocation of resources (and of people’s time, neurons, and sanity) is worrying oneself sick about war-production capacity during peacetime. But paranoids have never been in short supply.
Before WWII, the U.S. was no shipbuilding superpower either, yet it ramped up production fast enough to flood the oceans and win the war.
“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”
(Matthew 6:34, NIV)
steve
Aug 14 2025 at 5:16pm
A modern container ship can carry about 16 times more than a liberty ship and its usually faster. The modern Abrams is so much better than a Sherman it’s hard to tell how many Shermans it would take to kill an Abrams unless the Shermans could completely surprise an Abrams. However, the reality is that the drones, cheaper and faster to build, would easily take out the Shermans. A modern destroyer would take out a WW2 battleship at a range where the battleship likely wouldn’t know it existed. Air superiority might be even more pronounced as WW2 planes didnt have anything like the ability to kill at distance with missiles like modern planes and the modern 20mm auto cannons have an effective range of 1 1/2-2 miles while the WW2 guns had an effective range of maybe 500 yards.
Steve
Warren Platts
Aug 15 2025 at 1:51pm
Speaking of WW2 planes, I was just doing a little research comparing B-29s to the modern B-2. For the cost of the B-2 program (21 planes) we could have built a fleet of 8,000 B-29s (we built 4,000). Now, the B-2 is a far superior plane: it can carry 3X the payload of B-29 if you do it right (take off with minimal fuel, then refuel in the air) and of course it’s stealthy and all that. But for what we were trying to do in WW2, the B-29 was far superior. For example, consider Operation Meetinghouse — the firebombing raid on Tokyo in March 1945. Some 334 B-29s were launched. Just those had over 5x the payload capacity of the entire B-2 fleet. Sometimes quantity has a quality all its own.
Craig
Aug 14 2025 at 1:49pm
“In the 1960s and 1970s, a fashionable idea, at least among the Western intelligentsia, was the convergence between socialism (read: communism) and capitalism.”
Perhaps date this to the 1950s even and Roepke’s concept of the ‘Third Way’?
Pierre Lemieux
Aug 14 2025 at 3:29pm
Craig: You are right that it started before. Arguably with FDR and the intellectuals and economists who gathered around him. Moreover, Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom was published in 1944, after one or two decades of debate on the problems of socialist (communist) planning. My impression is that the scholarly economic literature reached its apex around the 1960s.
Pierre Lemieux
Aug 15 2025 at 9:23pm
If the convergence of individualism and collectivism continues and if I am right, the divergence in war capacity will continuously diminish because all the collectives waging wars will be at roughly the same level of economic inefficiency. It is true, though, that with nuclear weapons, you don’t need to be Hitler to cause much damage.
Comments are closed.