That's pretty much exactly what Bernie advocates for.

You might disagree about how much mixing is the ideal value, but a mixed system is exactly what he's advocated at least since 2014 when he came into the spotlight

the thing is, while i am indeed more critical than most people about the exploits of late stage capitalism, i don't reject it as the basis on which the vast majority of sectors of our economies should operate. i'm not at all in favour of planned economies, or anything along those lines. i do, however, think that markets need to be regulated (to guarantee the competition and innovation that capitalists always tout), and workers need to be protected against exploitation.

i simply reject the idiotic notion that unregulated markets will inevitably lead to the optimal results - a notion that libertarians and brainwashed bootlickers of the current system in the US (those that genuinely believe the myths about the inherent superiority of unfettered capitalism, while completely ignoring how the rich constantly benefit from 'socialising' costs and losses, while fearmongering about 'socialism' to the masses) uncritically accept. reality has proven that it leads to severe exploitation, monopolisation (goodbye competition and innovation), contaminated water (for the poor), collapsing eco-systems, slave labour, massive inequality, radicalisation...

you'd benefit from a more nuanced stance. it's not really capitalism vs. socialism, not black vs. white, but a matter of how we balance it. i'd describe my own approach to this as utilitarian, so naturally i consider the balance in most mordern democracies superior (though far from perfect) to that in the US - but again, that does NOT mean that i outright reject capitalism. that's just a very unintelligent and ignorant misinterpretation.

I've never read a more ironic post.

i'm not surprised you reject even having to think about abandoning your simplistic black or white dichotomy. just thought i'd put it out there anyway, maybe someone more intelligent might understand it...

I don't see how anyone could disagree with this summary. Certainly given me some things to think about.

No shit. Its vague and meaningless. Whenever pontificators like him get into power it ends up looking like Stalin in the end.

Unfettered capitalism that socialises losses is not unfettered capitalism. Contradiction aside, you're arguing against a strawman. "Unfettered capitalism" is not a widely held position, and "crony capitalism" is supported by no one except the direct benefactors of corruption.

I'm not sure if I'd agree with this...

Capitalism that socializes losses is indeed not unfetted capitalism, but that's the point Fender is making: large corporations do everything to keep the market as unregulated as possible, and there's a great deal of propaganda to keep people opposed to socialism. But in times of recession (e.g. right now), large corporations & their followers suddenly turn out to be very fond of the idea of bail-outs and the like. It shows that, for many people, the argument is not even "capitalism vs communism", it's really just "wealthy shareholders vs the rest of the population".

The strawman is true overall, but in this subforum we do have quite a number of people who outright reject anything that goes even remotely against capitalism. The post above yours is a good example of that.

no shit?! you clearly missed the point. the same people and corporations that benefit from socialising losses and risks are the ones that push the narrative of capitalism's superiority, and the dangers of socialism - to keep the markets unregulated, while preventing the masses from demanding more 'socialism' for themselves.

that's why you have so many people scoff at the idea of universal healthcare, unions, minimum wages, family leave... even though it would benefit them personally - because they uncritically accept this narrative without realising that you already have plenty of 'socialism' - just not for them.
that's why trump can score political points declaring 'we will never be a socialist country' (after securing trillions in corporate welfare in the form of subsidies and taxbreaks for his business partners) at his state of the union, that's why calling bernie a 'socialist / communist' is an effective smear - because americans have been brainwashed to regard it as an 'evil' ideology - when they think 'socialism' they don't think about northern and central europe, about some of the wealthiest, healthiest, happiest, most safe, and well educated places in the world. no, they think about venezuela (which still took some significant and rather cynical and inhumane american influence to fail that badly), and empty store shelves in soviet russia.

This post was edited by fender on May 22 2020 01:47am