[defgeneric]

As a Marxist, I actually agree with his point here. Of course he was being provocative but I don't think malicious, not by any means.

He did not mean women should not have been given the vote. And "welfare beneficiaries" actually doesn't refer to minorities there (although they'd be included among the beneficiaries of the New Deal).

What he said and meant, translated into Leftist language, is that it was clear by the 1920s that there was no longer any hope for resolving the crisis of bourgeois democracy. In other words, democracy and capitalism had become contradictory, incompatible. That's true, and had been true long before 1920, but the concept of history he articulates isn't totally incorrect. At least he thinks.

It is worth noting that the 1920s was also the decade when the German Left collapsed, all but sealing the fate of the October Revolution with it. Theil misrecognizes history when he blames the failure of the bourgeois revolution on politics, but he isn't wrong to recognize the importance of the bourgeois revolution. He just doesn't go far enough--only the socialist revolution could fulfill the promises of the bourgeois revolution (Great French Revolution).

I give a sort of point-by-point critique of his essay here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12928487

[carapace]

But even if you accept that "democracy and capitalism had become contradictory, incompatible" Theil favors the latter over the former. Bad feels ensue.