5307

Lol, they are criticizing her for calling herself a capitalist.

So these people are basically imbeciles?

5308

I think the criticism is more nuanced than that.

Even as a Democrat, Warren has remained, in her own words, a “capitalist to my bones,” favoring a top-down regulatory approach to matters such as financial reform that, while necessary, fails to look outside the federal bureaucracy for the ultimate sources of social change. Though some may point to the national Working Families Party’s (WFP) recent endorsement of her campaign, that, too, is little evidence that she has done little more than convince an organization with a tendency toward “quick trick” proceduralism instead of a serious infrastructure and vision for a labor left … Nothing about Warren’s history or her campaign platform policies — many of which are plagued by a predilection for means-testing — would help labor get its bearings…

Sanders’s Workplace Democracy Plan, for instance, aims to strengthen the labor movement and expand the rights of workers. The sweeping proposal lowers the barriers to forming unions, bans “right-to-work” laws, and extends the right to strike to federal workers. It also pledges to finally establish card check-in union elections, an unfulfilled Obama administration promise which Joe Biden was tasked with delivering. Additionally, the plan specifically addresses the misclassification of workers as independent contractors or managers.

5309

I don’t agree with many of Jacobin’s articles, but calling them imbeciles is a bit of a stretch. This was the first article of theirs that I read and really liked, I’d recommend it if you want some of their better work.

Also, you have to grade the media on a curve. If you want to call Jacobin imbeciles, fine, but then what words are you left with to describe Newsweek, CNN, Fox, the Bulwark, etc? The language just doesn’t let you go negative enough if you start off by calling Jacobin imbeciles.

Plus they have great iconography. You’ve got to love their short cut icon:
image

5310

Sorry, generally I can’t take people who think that capitalism is bad seriously.

5311

Medicare for all is a rejection of capitalism.

5312

Generally, they call Warren the “compromise candidate” They’d accept her if she won the nomination.

Also to young people, Capitalism means 1% , no health care, Republicans, and a destroyed planet. They really have no reason to like what capitalism means to them. Their definition of socialism is pretty much Sweden and Germany, not Venezuela.

Personally I identify as a social democrat, so Warren is in my wheelhouse.

5313

So, not a real definition of capitalism.

Sweden and Germany are capitalist countries. Only Venezuela is not.

5314

You can disagree with a worldview without believing it is logically incoherent. Jacobin prefer Bernie over Warren because he is slightly more left-wing. Yet, they still think Warren is pretty good and is their second preference. It makes perfect sense conditional on their existing worldview, doesn’t mean the worldview is great.

The whole point of this was to point out that the following statement is nonsensical:

It’s endemic of otherwise reasonable people who spend too much time reading social media. A couple of randos on social media write X (and X can be almost anything because there is no limit to craziness on the internet), then the person parrots this by writing “some people think X” as a cause for concern, and then cue dozens of people who think it is outrageous that there is this ‘group’ out there that think X and that it will ruin the coming election. They each repeat it to their friends, and so on…

It also unfairly taints whatever is being associated with these random internet commenters, in this case Jacobin but if you go back to 2016: “Bernie’s campaign is the reason we lost the 2016 election because I read some supporters on the internet saying they will never vote for Hilary.”

5315

Nah. 2345

5316

If you define capitalism as the laissez-faire variety now embraced by the right, then it’s reasonable to equate it with all of those things. And there’s no good reason not to define it like that. Particularly because the most outspoken defenders of capitalism are usually defending the laissez-faire variety.

5317

I’d argue laissez-faire is too generous. The current form of “capitalism” picks its own winners and uses the government to entrench its power.

I’d argue it’s socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.

5318

Except for the fact that you have tons of capitalist counties who are basically exactly what those people claim to want.

The example used to say ” we can do this" is always a capitalist county.

They never use a non capitalist country as an example… Because those countries don’t tend to work.

5319

Only if you define all mixed economies as capitalist.

5320

If you don’t define mixed economies as capitalist, then i guess America’s not capitalist either. The Communists have won!

But seriously, virtually every economist would consider the Nordic model to be a capitalist economy.

5321

It’s not black or white. Socialists recognize that America is a mixed economy, but they want to make it more socialist. Their opponents want to make it more capitalist.

Jerry Mander has likened the Nordic model to a kind of “hybrid” system which features a blend of capitalist economics with socialist values, representing an alternative to American-style capitalism.[53] Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has pointed to Scandinavia and the Nordic model as something the United States can learn from, in particular with respect to the benefits and social protections the Nordic model affords workers and its provision of universal healthcare.

So if you think that your “hybrid” system should have more socialist values, what are you allowed to call yourself, Timex?

5322

It’s stupid to say, “capitalism is bad” though, because it suggests a childlike naivete regarding economics.

Without capitalism to provide the fundamental basis for economic activity, the system collapses, because an economy where the government manages the majority, simply does not function.

And this is why Warren describes herself as a capitalist. Because anyone who isn’t an idiot, is a capitalist.

It’s a capitalist system. It says it right there. Capitalist economics.

What can you call yourself? I dunno. Progressive? A Democrat?

5323

Only if you interpret “capitalism is bad” as “capitalism must be destroyed”. Which is a childlike interpretation.

Socialist values. It says it right there. I think you are justified in calling yourself a socialist.

5324

Capitalism and the rule of exponential growth is inherently incompatible with environmentalism. Capitalism demands that we rape and pillage the Earth for all its natural resources, leaving it a husk.

5325

Oh man, why does Warren support that?!

SHE’S A MONSTER!

5326

Too many Scotsmen in this thread.