（The original article was published on the American media website Free Press, titled: Peter Thiel: Capitalism No Longer Works for Young People. The translation has been edited, and the subheadings are added by the translator for reference only and do not represent the views of Observer Network.）
【Interviewer/Sean Fischer, Interviewee/Peter Thiel, Translator/Jingsheng】
Five years ago, Americans often attributed young people's interest in socialism to being spoiled or ignorant — they didn't know what "socialism" truly meant. Political figures like Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the support for candidates like Senator Bernie Sanders from the millennial generation were dismissed by mainstream American society as trivial.
But Peter Thiel didn't think that way.
This billionaire venture capitalist, one of the co-founders of PayPal and Palantir, has been labeled many things: the "gravitational center" of Silicon Valley, the "nightmare" of the American left, a leader of the anti-elite movement, and an early supporter of U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance.
Thiel is also the kind of person who can foresee the "turning point." In 2020, he wrote a prophetic email to the typical "millennial company" — Facebook. At the time, he warned Facebook executives including Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg, and Nick Clegg to take seriously the growing interest of American youth in socialism.
This email went viral online after Zohran Mamdani, who calls himself a "democratic socialist," won the New York mayoral election on November 4th.
In the email, Thiel wrote: "When 70% of millennials say they are inclined toward socialism, we cannot simply dismiss them as foolish, spoiled, or brainwashed. We should try to understand why they think that way."
What did Thiel see that others couldn't in 2020? Is it reasonable for the millennial generation in the United States, burdened by student loans and unable to afford homes, to turn toward socialism? Will the United States actually head towards a socialist revolution? These were some of the questions I asked him last Thursday during our conversation.
The following is a lightly edited version of our dialogue.
"When the youth are proletarianized, don't be surprised if they become communists"
Sean Fischer: Your email from 2020 is now going viral due to Mamdani winning the mayoral election in New York. What was the background and inspiration for writing that letter?
Peter Thiel: Actually, the content of that email I have mentioned many times, not something I suddenly thought of in 2020. As early as the fall of 2010, when I founded the Thiel Fellowship to encourage young people to drop out of college and start their own businesses, I repeatedly emphasized a key policy issue: the runaway student debt.
American graduates from the 1970s had almost no student loans; but for millennials, the situation is completely different — they spent too much money on college, learned little practical skills, and ended up with heavy debt. This student debt is actually a symbol of intergenerational conflict that I have always talked about.
Photo: Trump and Peter Thiel (right)
The breakdown of the intergenerational contract in America is not just about student debt. I believe you can attribute about 80% of the "culture wars" to economic issues — like libertarians or Marxists — and about 80% of the economic problems in America can be traced back to real estate issues.
Today, it's almost impossible for American youth to buy a house. If zoning laws are strictly enforced, prohibiting the construction of more housing, it's good for the baby boomer generation — their properties keep appreciating; but it's a disaster for millennials. When you proletarianize American youth, don't be surprised if they become communists.
Fischer: You noticed the breakdown of the "intergenerational contract" earlier than many others and predicted it could lead to a resurgence of interest in socialism among Americans. Can you explain this further?
Thiel: Young people are told that if they work as hard as their parents' generation, everything will be fine. But the reality is that society has changed completely, and many things no longer work as they used to. House prices are much higher now, and buying a house is extremely difficult in New York, Silicon Valley, and any economically active area with plenty of decent job opportunities. People still think everything is the same, but it's not.
The indifference of the baby boomer generation toward the current situation of young people is even perplexing. I've always struggled to determine how much of it is malicious or how bad some behaviors are. But strangely, when I started complaining about student debt problems in 2010, people found it strange — at that time, the scale of student debt in the United States had already grown exponentially. In 2000, total student debt in the country was $300 billion, and now it exceeds $2 trillion. One day, this situation will collapse.
Fischer: Exit polls show that Mamdani's supporters are mainly educated new residents, tenants, and people under 30, who are most concerned about high rent and student debt. Does this validate your judgment in that email?
Thiel: I obviously have a strong bias against socialism. I think socialism cannot solve these problems, and neither can Mamdani. You can't socialize housing. If you enforce rent controls, the result will likely be less housing supply and ultimately higher prices.
I even think that if fewer people voted, society might be healthier. The voter turnout in New York was quite high, but if people weren't so concerned about who becomes mayor and didn't vote much, things might be better.
However, Mamdani deserves credit for at least discussing these issues. My pragmatic answer is always: the first step is to raise the issue, even if you don't know how to solve it yet. The establishment on both the left and right have long stopped even talking about it.
I'm not sure if American youth are really pro-socialist, but I'm more inclined to think they are less pro-capitalist than before. If capitalism is seen as an unfair scam, people obviously wouldn't support it. So they are relatively more "socialist," but essentially because they are saying: capitalism isn't giving me benefits, or this so-called "capitalism" is just an excuse for others to exploit me.
Mamdani wins the mayoral election in New York City. IC photo
Fischer: Setting aside feasibility, what motivates Americans to move away from capitalism to the extent that they feel the need to vote for someone whose policies are questionable?
Thiel: I won't easily generalize the psychology of all voters, but I at least understand this sentiment — even if I don't agree with it, it's not some weird or mysterious phenomenon. You can't try to make small adjustments on student debt issues like Biden, and expect it to solve the problem. It won't work. Various rent control measures in New York City are also small adjustments that haven't worked.
So, many people are looking for solutions outside the "Overton Window." This includes very left-wing economic ideas, even some socialist concepts. I think these solutions will ultimately fail, but they are at least more attractive than the options provided by the old system. Andrew Cuomo (former U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, former governor of New York State, one of the candidates in the New York mayoral election, note.) has no plan for housing issues and doesn't even consider it a problem. He has been in the political arena and government for so long — so it's easy for people to question: if Cuomo never cared about this before, what action can you expect from him now? Therefore, although I am not optimistic about Mamdani's policy proposals, it's not surprising that such a candidate would emerge if everyone is looking for answers outside the existing options.
"Trump and Mamdani represent authenticity"
Fischer: Many people are comparing Trump and Mamdani: they both rely on "emotional mobilization," attract unexpected allies, and appeal to anger politics, and both have strong personal charm. This similarity reflects what aspects that voters care about most in the digital age?
Thiel: I emphasize another side — their popularity is because others are too fake. For example, I don't know which example to give — like Jeb Bush, a typical politician, whose public image is meticulously rehearsed and extremely hypocritical, showing no trace of personal charm. In contrast, Trump or Mamdani have a certain "authenticity." Their images are not entirely consistent, nor are they entirely genuine, but this is exactly what the establishment Republicans and Democrats hate about Trump and Mamdani. However, they have no right to describe the two as "unreal," because nothing is more real than them compared to those establishment figures.
If you accuse Trump of being "hypocritical" like Paul Ryan (former Republican U.S. House Speaker), people will just ask: what about yourself? You lack charm and cannot move people — what does that say?
Fischer: In 2016, Trump took advantage of the economic despair of the people in the American Midwest to come to power. Last week, Mamdani won by leveraging the economic despair of the people in Brooklyn. Will future American politics become a class war?
Thiel: The Midwest region indeed has serious problems. Part of the impact of globalization caused severe negative effects in "Rust Belt" cities. One of the lingering symptoms is that from 1988 to 2016 over 28 years — through the administrations of Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama — the political elite showed extreme indifference or apathy towards this situation.
I really don't like the socialism represented by Mamdani, but I am not surprised. Many people in New York today believe that capitalism no longer works, especially the younger generation. I don't think his policies will succeed, but his victory is not surprising.
In a way, we are experiencing a decades-long "political bull market" — politics is becoming increasingly intense, and people place their hopes on politics to solve everything. The intensity of politics is rising无情ly. And I would rather this hadn't happened. In a healthy society, elections shouldn't be so important, and few people would vote. New York has a high voter turnout, but if people don't care who is mayor, or who is mayor is not important, they won't vote.
But we are in a "political bull market" period — which is good for media professionals, but not necessarily for society.
Fischer: Do you mean that if people don't vote, society may be healthier?
Thiel: What I mean is that it is related to a healthier society. In a healthy society, who becomes president is not important. Because everything in society runs smoothly, the risks of political games are low, and people don't feel it's a matter of life or death.
But when growth stagnates, inequality is rampant, and the economy becomes a zero-sum game, the stakes in politics become very high. Then you feel that if your faction loses the election, everything is over.
I haven't done a systematic study, but I guess in the 1980s and 1990s, people's participation in politics was actually lower. Then, maybe after the 2008 financial crisis, the situation reversed, and since then, Americans' interest in politics has risen steadily. Now, this "political bull market" period actually reflects an unfortunate reality, linked to some bad things.
The 2011 Occupy Wall Street Movement in the United States
Even if there is a revolution in the United States, it will not be a revolution led by the youth
Fischer: Many revolutions in history have been led by dissatisfied and disillusioned elites — Robespierre, Lenin. They came from the elite, but their social status declined, and they believed their lives would be worse than their parents' generation.
Thiel: This is exactly the true reflection of the relationship between the baby boom generation and the millennial generation in the United States. The baby boom generation has exaggerated expectations of themselves, and although they haven't succeeded in some aspects, they project these unrealistic expectations onto their children. But in today's world, there is no condition to make these expectations come true.
Certainly, the millennial generation is better off in some ways than the baby boom generation, and there are some social progress. But the gap between the expectations of the baby boom generation's parents and the actual situation of their children is huge. There has probably never been a larger generational gap in history.
Fischer: So, are we really facing a revolution?
Thiel: I still think it's unlikely. Revolutions in history have always been "youth movements," but the demographic reality is that there are far fewer young people now than in the past. People aren't having as many children, and as a result, politicians in the United States are getting older. This means that even if the United States becomes socialist, it is more likely to be led by the elderly rather than the youth — focusing on policies like universal healthcare.
The word "revolution" is full of masculinity, violence, and youth. But if the United States actually experiences a revolution, it would probably be led by grandmothers in their seventies.
We will pay attention to how many things Mayor Mamdani can accomplish in New York. But I think his election itself is a sign of a highly unhealthy society. It reflects that the establishment has failed to resolve some basic issues, and the intergenerational contract has completely broken down. I would rather people focus more on how to fix this intergenerational problem.
If you face this situation and all you can do is call Mamdani a "jihadist," "communist," or "absurd young person," in my view, you still don't know how to solve the housing or student debt issues. And if the most you can do is insult, you will inevitably lose.
Fischer: If in ten years you happily and unexpectedly find that the United States and the world have improved, what would cause that? Can you introduce what you think the next decade needs to go through smoothly?
Thiel: That sounds a bit arrogant, but I hope that by then we no longer need to discuss these issues. This would indicate that the political establishment and American leaders have finally solved some problems practically, and this would be our last conversation.
But if you come to interview me again in the next ten years, that's not a good sign. Because it would mean that the problems in society remain unsolved. I am willing to accept your interview, and the reason we are having this conversation today is because we both subtly feel that this is just the first of many conversations to come.
This article is exclusive to Observer Network. The content of this article is solely the author's personal opinion and does not represent the views of the platform. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited, otherwise legal liability will be pursued. Follow Observer Network WeChat guanchacn to read interesting articles every day.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7571258416136471055/
Statement: The article represents the personal views of the author. Please express your attitude by clicking on the [top/vote] button below.