Trust Fund Commies

This morning, please check out The Filter Project, a Christian missionary project that provides clean water in Africa. A $55 gift will provide a filter that will last 20+ YEARS to a family that does not have access to clean, safe drinking water. Missionaries will train the family how to use the filter, clean the filter, and treat parasitic diseases. They will also share the gospel. Learn more here.

---

The Democratic Socialists of America has a class problem its own rhetoric is designed to obscure. Look at its rising stars—Zohran Mamdani, son of a Columbia professor and an acclaimed filmmaker, now a standard-bearer of New York’s left; the Ivy-credentialed activists staffing progressive nonprofits; the heirs and trust-fund organizers animating the movement’s intellectual core—and a pattern emerges the movement cannot honestly explain. The face of American socialism is increasingly young, college-credentialed, and conspicuously well-bred. This is not a coincidence. It is a structure.

The pattern is older than the DSA. Friedrich Engels co-authored the Communist Manifesto while running his father’s textile mill in Manchester. Marx married into Prussian nobility and lived on Engels’s industrial fortune. Lenin’s father held hereditary status under the tsarist table of ranks. Fidel Castro was the son of one of the largest landowners in Cuba’s Oriente province. The proletariat has rarely led its own revolutions; the bourgeoisie’s disaffected sons have. The pattern has held for nearly two centuries, and the reason is not accidental.

What socialism reliably produces, when imposed, is not equality but a closed caste. The Soviet nomenklatura had its sealed stores, hospitals, schools, and dachas. The Chinese Communist Party’s “princelings”—Xi Jinping among them—inherited political position as straightforwardly as any Habsburg. North Korea has produced three generations of Kims; the Castros gave Cuba six decades of dynastic rule. The empirical record is uncontested: every long-running communist regime has frozen its founding elite into a hereditary aristocracy. The system that promised to abolish class only ever abolished the class mobility that threatens its rulers.

This is the trade socialism actually offers the well-born. A free market is the most ruthlessly meritocratic mechanism humans have devised. Joseph Schumpeter called it “creative destruction”—the relentless process by which yesterday’s titans are unseated by tomorrow’s strivers, the immigrant entrepreneur eclipsing the inherited fortune, the garage startup gutting the incumbent. Capitalism does not care who your father was. It will take your standing and hand it to a kid from Queens with a better idea. For someone who suspects, quietly, that he is exactly the unearned aristocrat capitalism is engineered to dethrone, this is not liberation. It is a mortal threat.

Socialism offers the escape. Replace the market’s verdict with the committee’s verdict, and suddenly the credentials, connections, and cultural fluencies the elite child accumulated since prep school become decisive. The Harvard PhD is not displaced by an HVAC contractor in a system that allocates by ideological vocabulary and bureaucratic capture. The nonprofit, the agency, the university, the foundation—these are the institutions the inherited elite already dominates, and precisely the institutions a socialist order empowers.

But empowerment requires a mandate, and here the inherited radical faces a problem of legitimacy. He cannot rule in the name of his own privilege. So he must manufacture a constituency and then position himself at its head. This is the function of the modern grievance apparatus: the well-born organizer survives by persuading others that they are victims of an irredeemable society—and that he, the credentialed interpreter of their suffering, is the one qualified to lead them out of it. His status depends entirely on the permanence of their victimhood. A grievance that is resolved liquidates his position; a striver who climbs out on his own refutes the entire premise. The activist is therefore structurally invested in keeping his underclass aggrieved, dependent, and convinced that the ladder is rigged—because the moment they believe they can climb it themselves, they no longer need him.

This is the buried logic behind the doctrine that the bourgeoisie are the villains. The middle class is denounced not because it oppresses the worker but because it is the living refutation of the whole arrangement. The shopkeeper, the contractor, the engineer who built his own firm, the immigrant family that ran a bodega into a chain—these are the people creative destruction elevates, the people who prove that grievance is not destiny. They expose the inherited elite as unearned and the manufactured victimhood as a racket.

It is why the same movement has rallied behind Graham Platner in Maine, the progressive favorite to challenge Susan Collins, endorsed by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Platner campaigns as a “working-class Mainer,” an oysterman and harbormaster in salt-stained authenticity—and the costume is doing heavy lifting. The reality beneath it is precisely the inherited gentility the thesis predicts. His grandfather, Warren Platner, was a celebrated modernist architect who designed the dining room of Windows on the World atop the World Trade Center and interiors for the Ford Foundation building, and who built an expansive family estate in Connecticut he said was inspired by a chateau in the Loire Valley. His father, Bronson Platner, is a Dartmouth-educated attorney and former assistant district attorney who has contributed roughly $60,000 to Democratic candidates and causes. And Platner himself attended the elite Hotchkiss School in Connecticut, which costs more than $75,000 a year, before leaving and finishing at a public high school in Bangor (wait for the reason why, which is coming). This is not the biography of a man the market forgot. It is the biography of a man insulated from it.

The insulation is literal. The “working-class” oysterman did not buy his way into his home through grit; he financed it with a $200,000 loan from his attorney father in 2017, covering essentially the entire purchase price of a four-bedroom house near the water—a fact obscured for so long that the New Yorker was forced to correct a profile that had falsely credited the purchase to a Veterans Affairs low-interest mortgage. Platner himself had said he couldn’t have made the purchase without “the support of the VA.” Meanwhile he reports receiving roughly $4,800 a month in VA disability benefits and builds his identity around the dignity of the disabled, working veteran. The point is not to begrudge a veteran his benefits; it is to observe the architecture. Here is a man whose grandfather designed monuments, whose father bankrolled his house, who passed through one of the most expensive prep schools in America—now presenting himself as a victim of the very system that has cushioned him at every turn, and asking the working people of Maine to make him their tribune precisely on that claim. The blue-collar branding is not a description. It is mandate-manufacturing performed in real time.

Today’s wealthy young radicals need not consciously script any of this. The instinct suffices. They intuit that capitalism’s verdict on their merit would be unkind—and that their authority rests on keeping others convinced they cannot rise without them. Socialism is the insurance policy: dressed as equality, sold as liberation, and structured, always, to keep the right families on top.