What is wrong with Socialism, or Marxism?

[Revoltingest]

Objectively speaking, that "positive change" hasn't been economic so he is right on that front.

Everyone think's they're "objective".
But I see agenda driven doom & gloom in
such shallow pronouncements. The imagined
golden age wasn't so golden for a great many.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It's not moot to look in history at how socialism has been tried in reality rather than in the minds of denizens of the internet.

(Responding further to this here in case you're already typing out a response to my previous post.)

In addition to what I've said, I'm not sure what the "in the minds of denizens of the internet" part is supposed to imply. You, I, and billions of other people are also "denizens of the internet," and that includes many public and influential figures as well. Does that make the views we or any of them express genuinely and in detail on the internet any less valid or not existent in the "real world"? Of course not.

I could see the point in such a comment if we were talking about some extremely fringe view that was only found in some niche internet subculture, but this is not the case here. We're talking about anti-authoritarian socialism, which is an ideological direction that is over a century old with an extensive history of activism and academic literature behind it (and again, George Orwell's position was a prominent example of that).

All of the above only applies if your comment was meant to imply that the position I expressed was uncommon outside niche parts of the internet, though. If not, feel free to disregard this post.

(I'm quite tired and nearing bedtime, too.)

 

[Left Coast]

Yeah, so they're not socialist, and someone who believes that a country should attempt to move away from that system (regardless of the methods they propose such a change) is not a capitalist, at least not in a conventional sense. Do you disagree?

It depends entirely on the ways in which they want the system to change. Socialism and capitalism exist on a spectrum. They have basic definition, and shades of grey between. The farther away from each pole you get, the less the pole's label makes sense.

Why is that objectionable to you?

That's what I've said in this thread and others, like here:



But just because Marxist-Leninists are the only socialists who have managed to run a state doesn't mean other socialists don't exist or don't disagree with them.

It does mean that whenever socialists have gotten enough political power to implement their ideas, they use the State to leverage power and enforce their policies. They haven't done that just incidentally or by accident. They've done it for two reasons: 1) because it has been part and parcel of the ideology they advocate since it was founded, 2) because there is no other viable mechanism to achieve the widescale changes they want as effectively or efficiently.

We've been over this point too, specifically here (my response hasn't changed, so I'm quoting it instead of rephrasing anything):

Yes we have, and my point hasn't changed either, so I'm not going to repeat myself.

I know many people (socialists and otherwise) believe that state ownership is the only realistic way to achieve public ownership, but again, I'm only talking about my own position here, which differs from that.

That's nice. I'm vastly more interested in what socialism actually looks like on the ground when it's implemented versus what some idealized version of it exists in someone's head.

See above. How it has been tried in reality doesn't change that many socialists disagree with the modes of government that were used in every one of the dictatorships in question. It's a fact that many socialists were (or are) anti-USSR, anti-Maoist, etc., to the point where some of them were purged.

Nor do the existence of those dissidents change the basic facts I've outlined.

How would that fundamentally differ from a board of directors "micromanaging" a private business, then?

It wouldn't. That's my point. If you want government (or some other abstract "public" entity) to run an economy, it's gotta do all the things business does in a market economy.

My original point was to express opposition to having the state do the micromanagement, as in the USSR. I believe a heavily state-centered, state-commanded economy is a recipe for disaster, hence my previous comment.

On that we agree.

 

[Left Coast]

(Responding further to this here in case you're already typing out a response to my previous post.)

In addition to what I've said, I'm not sure what the "in the minds of denizens of the internet" part is supposed to imply. You, I, and billions of other people are also "denizens of the internet," and that includes many public and influential figures as well. Does that make the views we or any of them express genuinely and in detail on the internet any less valid or not existent in the "real world"? Of course not.

Of course yes.

Are you joking? I'm shocked someone as bright as you is espousing such a silly thing. The idealized notions of randon laypeople on the internet, discussed in abstract, are vastly less authoritative or relevant than real world implementation by actual people with the power and expertise to realize them. This is the whole point of experimentation in science. At some point we stop talking and start doing, and a lot is learned in the doing about the viability of an idea.

As an old saying goes: don't tell me. Show me.

I could see the point in such a comment if we were talking about some extremely fringe view that was only found in some niche internet subculture, but this is not the case here. We're talking about anti-authoritarian socialism, which is an ideological direction that is over a century old with an extensive history of activism and academic literature behind it (and again, George Orwell's position was a prominent example of that).

All of the above only applies if your comment was meant to imply that the position I expressed was uncommon outside niche parts of the internet, though. If not, feel free to disregard this post.

(I'm quite tired and nearing bedtime, too.)

Your belief that we should have public ownership of the means of production but you also oppose the government doing so is, I'm sorry to say, quite an idiosyncratic view. Look up the platform of any major socialist party or activist group. All of them I've ever seen advocate governmental ownership, often nationalization, of industry. That is very much the mainstream view among socialists.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It depends entirely on the ways in which they want the system to change. Socialism and capitalism exist on a spectrum. They have basic definition, and shades of grey between. The farther away from each pole you get, the less the pole's label makes sense.

Why is that objectionable to you?

It's not objectionable to me. I just don't want to be pigeonholed based on the label I use only because I don't support Marxism-Leninism or other totalitarian states. I haven't found any capitalist ideology that perfectly describes my views, so I use a different label. That's all there is to it.

It does mean that whenever socialists have gotten enough political power to implement their ideas, they use the State to leverage power and enforce their policies. They haven't done that just incidentally or by accident. They've done it for two reasons: 1) because it has been part and parcel of the ideology they advocate since it was founded, 2) because there is no other viable mechanism to achieve the widescale changes they want as effectively or efficiently.

And every single socialist who has obtained power on the scale of running a country has been a Marxist-Leninist or a follower of a variety thereof. You've acknowledged this point too. There aren't any examples of, say, a democratic or market socialist running a country that we could pull from a history book for comparison here.

If you want to judge all socialists based on the actions of people that many of them staunchly oppose, go ahead, but it shouldn't be surprising to encounter objections and criticism of the inaccuracy in that case.

That's nice. I'm vastly more interested in what socialism actually looks like on the ground when it's implemented versus what some idealized version of it exists in someone's head.

I think a lot of socialists realize that they're realistically not going to rapidly change the system of any capitalist state, so what you'll see is either socialists working within a capitalist system and pushing for some gradual changes, mainly toward social democracy (like Bernie Sanders and AOC have done), or sticking to the classic hammer and sickle and pushing for some revival of Marxism-Leninism, which is obviously an unrealistic and awful idea.

For now, we still don't have any examples of socialist states aside from Marxist-Leninist ones. Whether this will change at some point is something I can't answer, but it doesn't change my own views either way. I believe we should pursue a better economic system than what we have now, especially with the climate crisis intensifying. If someone could come up with a capitalist system that would include a robust plan to address the most pressing issues that led me to support socialism in the first place, I would readily agree with their suggestions. I just haven't seen such a system yet.

Nor do the existence of those dissidents change the basic facts I've outlined.

Of course, but it means that lumping in the dissidents with those they dissented from is inaccurate.

It wouldn't. That's my point. If you want government (or some other abstract "public" entity) to run an economy, it's gotta do all the things business does in a market economy.

I wouldn't want the government to do that, but yes, a market would still exist, and the main difference would be that an ultra-wealthy minority wouldn't have as much political and economic influence as they do now. I haven't said anywhere that I oppose markets or personal wealth; just that I believe in a fairer arrangement for both than what currently exists in much of the world.

 

[Left Coast]

It's not objectionable to me. I just don't want to be pigeonholed based on the label I use only because I don't support Marxism-Leninism or other totalitarian states. I haven't found any capitalist ideology that perfectly describes my views, so I use a different label. That's all there is to it.

As I said, sounds like you're somewhere between to me.

And every single socialist who has obtained power on the scale of running a country has been a Marxist-Leninist or a follower of a variety thereof. You've acknowledged this point too. There aren't any examples of, say, a democratic or market socialist running a country that we could pull from a history book for comparison here.

How would they have implemented such a system? That's the linchpin question.

If you want to judge all socialists based on the actions of people that many of them staunchly oppose, go ahead, but it shouldn't be surprising to encounter objections and criticism of the inaccuracy in that case.

I'll judge socialists based on the actions of those of them who have actually implemented their ideas. If you want to tell yourself that some other version of socialism that's never been tried would totally be nothing like that other socialism, then...okay? Show me, don't tell me.

I believe we should pursue a better economic system than what we have now, especially with the climate crisis intensifying. If someone could come up with a capitalist system that would include a robust plan to address the most pressing issues that led me to support socialism in the first place, I would readily agree with their suggestions. I just haven't seen such a system yet.

Thus far I haven't seen a socialist system with a robust plan to address those problems either. What I mostly see are lofty goals and unrealistic solutions (or ones that would disproportionately screw the poorest people in society - which as an advocate for the Global South should worry you). The bottom line is that the problems you mention are complex and any viable solutions are also going to be complex. They're likely going to be solved with a combination of public and private efforts.

Of course, but it means that lumping in the dissidents with those they dissented from is inaccurate.

Calling them socialists isn't inaccurate. Pointing out the history of their ideas isn't inaccurate. Again, you're arguing a counterfactual: that if some other socialists took power that never have, things would've turned out totally differently and they somehow wouldn't have used government to achieve their goal of public ownership of industry. Sorry, but that's a tough mountain for you to climb.

I wouldn't want the government to do that, but yes, a market would still exist, and the main difference would be that an ultra-wealthy minority wouldn't have as much political and economic influence as they do now. I haven't said anywhere that I oppose markets or personal wealth; just that I believe in a fairer arrangement for both than what currently exists in much of the world.

And none of that requires socialism.

 

[Stevicus]

Those who can do.
Those who can't claim.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Of course yes.

Are you joking? I'm shocked someone as bright as you is espousing such a silly thing. The idealized notions of randon laypeople on the internet, discussed in abstract, are vastly less authoritative or relevant than real world implementation by actual people with the power and expertise to realize them. This is the whole point of experimentation in science. At some point we stop talking and start doing, and a lot is learned in the doing about the viability of an idea.

I wrote that response because I suspected you had made the comment as a dismissal of my arguments not based on their substance but based on my being a "denizen of the internet" and posting them on a forum. Yeah, I obviously don't claim to know nearly as much about economics as an economist, and I'm not planning to ever try to run a country, but none of us would be able to express our opinions about much of anything if those were requirements for doing so. I was just saying that we have no evidence as to the beliefs of most socialists worldwide. Do you dispute this? Are there any reliable surveys or statistics documenting such a thing, for example? I'm not sure why the statement is controversial at all; replace "socialists" with almost any other large group and the same thing still holds.

Also, nowadays, many of the people with the power and expertise to put ideas into practice express their ideas through the internet. I can't think of any presidential candidate in a major power who hasn't done that in the last decade or so, for example, and some scientists have also used the internet to spread their authoritative knowledge.

My point is that the ideas stand and fall on their own merit, not on where they're expressed. Of course, I agree that the views of an expert in their field of expertise carry far more weight than those of a layperson, but that's true regardless of which medium each of them uses to communicate their views.

As an old saying goes: don't tell me. Show me.

We'll have to wait for someone who shares my beliefs to hold office. I don't think that will happen, though.

Your belief that we should have public ownership of the means of production but you also oppose the government doing so is, I'm sorry to say, quite an idiosyncratic view. Look up the platform of any major socialist party or activist group. All of them I've ever seen advocate governmental ownership, often nationalization, of industry. That is very much the mainstream view among socialists.

The mainstream view among Catholic churches is that homosexuality is sinful, yet some churches now have no problem with same-sex marriage. Am I going to dismiss their views just because they're "idiosyncratic" or against the mainstream? No. In fact, I think it's useful to support people with these beliefs because, in my view, their beliefs are more helpful and accepting than the mainstream.

I don't care whether my view about any given topic is in the minority; I just care whether it is logical, helpful, and based on evidence.

 

[Stevicus]

Everyone think's they're "objective".
But I see agenda driven doom & gloom in
such shallow pronouncements. The imagined
golden age wasn't so golden for a great many.

But the point is, it's even worse today.

It's interesting how you, Reagan, and others of that ilk seem to decry the greatest period of economic growth and improvement of standard of living as being such a horrible time. It was still capitalist, and America was in pretty decent shape. So, there was really nothing for Reagan to "fix," and yet, he messed up a good thing.

 

[Debater Slayer]

As I said, sounds like you're somewhere between to me.

What other label do you think would capture the exact positions I've expressed here?

How would they have implemented such a system? That's the linchpin question.

I think that would highly depend on the circumstances in which they assumed power and the country in which they did so.

I'll judge socialists based on the actions of those of them who have actually implemented their ideas. If you want to tell yourself that some other version of socialism that's never been tried would totally be nothing like that other socialism, then...okay? Show me, don't tell me.

Only Marxist-Leninists (or Stalinists and Maoists, both offshoots thereof) have gotten to implement their ideas, though.

Would it be fair for me to judge all capitalists based on the actions of those who have implemented capitalism so far? That would entail judging all capitalists, even proponents of reform (e.g., better environmental regulations), based on the actions of those who have contributed to major pollution, exploitation, and deforestation—and yes, that's pretty much all capitalist countries right now, albeit to varying extents.

I judge people based on their own beliefs and actions, not those of others. I think that's much fairer to them. Not everyone can show me an example of their beliefs being put into action either, especially given that there are certain issues today that are unprecedented (the main one being the climate crisis) and therefore require new solutions.

Thus far I haven't seen a socialist system with a robust plan to address those problems either. What I mostly see are lofty goals and unrealistic solutions (or ones that would disproportionately screw the poorest people in society - which as an advocate for the Global South should worry you).

I don't disagree, but I would extend that to apply to all current systems. At this point, I don't know whether the ideologies we currently have will suffice to address those problems. Perhaps we will end up needing to experiment with new approaches (even if they're partially based on older and current ones), but I don't know exactly what those would look like.

The bottom line is that the problems you mention are complex and any viable solutions are also going to be complex. They're likely going to be solved with a combination of public and private efforts.

Agreed.

Calling them socialists isn't inaccurate. Pointing out the history of their ideas isn't inaccurate. Again, you're arguing a counterfactual: that if some other socialists took power that never have, things would've turned out totally differently and they somehow wouldn't have used government to achieve their goal of public ownership of industry. Sorry, but that's a tough mountain for you to climb.

They were socialists; just not the socialists. This ties into my above point about judging people based on their own beliefs and actions rather than those of others. That applies even if I believe that someone's ideas may not be realistic or possible to implement in the real world; their goals and intentions don't change.

And none of that requires socialism.

Which brings us back to my question about which label you think would capture the exact positions I've expressed in this thread.

 

[Left Coast]

I wrote that response because I suspected you had made the comment as a dismissal of my arguments not based on their substance but based on my being a "denizen of the internet" and posting them on a forum. Yeah, I obviously don't claim to know nearly as much about economics as an economist, and I'm not planning to ever try to run a country, but none of us would be able to express our opinions about much of anything if those were requirements for doing so. I was just saying that we have no evidence as to the beliefs of most socialists worldwide. Do you dispute this? Are there any reliable surveys or statistics documenting such a thing, for example? I'm not sure why the statement is controversial at all; replace "socialists" with almost any other large group and the same thing still holds.

This is a rather silly quibble. We can look at policies that socialist societies have implemented and can look at what socialist parties advocate in terms of policy to see what is typical. I wasn't making a scientifically validated statement in a peer-reviewed article. Jesus.

Also, nowadays, many of the people with the power and expertise to put ideas into practice express their ideas through the internet. I can't think of any presidential candidate in a major power who hasn't done that in the last decade or so, for example, and some scientists have also used the internet to spread their authoritative knowledge.

My point is that the ideas stand and fall on their own merit, not on where they're expressed. Of course, I agree that the views of an expert in their field of expertise carry far more weight than those of a layperson, but that's true regardless of which medium each of them uses to communicate their views.

I wasn't dissing the internet. I was pointing out that armchair musings about what could be are not sufficient to inform us about what is. And if we have evidence of what is, I'm gonna bank on that before someone's claim about what could be that they've never produced (and which contradicts our existing evidence).

Again, these quibbles aren't helpful.

We'll have to wait for someone who shares my beliefs to hold office. I don't think that will happen, though.

I don't either, since anyone in such a position would have to articulate a concrete policy of how their goals would be implemented.

The mainstream view among Catholic churches is that homosexuality is sinful, yet some churches now have no problem with same-sex marriage. Am I going to dismiss their views just because they're "idiosyncratic" or against the mainstream? No.

I would dismiss them if they told me they're Catholic, yes. I'd be like, okay, you're "Catholic" by baptism perhaps but you disagree with a basic teaching of the Church.

I don't care whether my view about any given topic is in the minority; I just care about whether it is logical, helpful, and based on evidence.

On that we agree.

 

[Revoltingest]

But the point is, it's even worse today.

In your opinion, based upon things you've
cited, but not on things you've ignored.

It's interesting how you, Reagan, and others of that ilk seem to decry the greatest period of economic growth and improvement of standard of living as being such a horrible time.

It's interesting how you, Stalin, Mao, & others of the socialist
ilk see only that which serves to exalt socialism, & demonize
capitalism, eg, ignoring the Carter era economic malaise, &
Reagan's ridding us of some counterproductive tax dodges.

It was still capitalist, and America was in pretty decent shape. So, there was really nothing for Reagan to "fix," and yet, he messed up a good thing.

"Decent" for some. Horrendous for others.
You also ignore our having productivity advantages
because of much of the rest of the world was in ruins.
That, & other factors have nothing to do with Reagan.
We now compete with China, Korea, Japan, & others.

 

[Stevicus]

Exactly, deregulated capitalism sucks.

A regulated Keynesian system might work, and that's capitalist. John Kenneth Galbraith, who came up under FDR.

 

[Left Coast]

What other label do you think would capture the exact positions I've expressed here?

I've already attempted an answer at this. Also, it's not my job here to give you a perfect label. Nor do you need one.

I think that would highly depend on the circumstances in which they assumed power and the country in which they did so.

Pick one.

Only Marxist-Leninists (or Stalinists and Maoists, both offshoots thereof) have gotten to implement their ideas, though.

Would it be fair for me to judge all capitalists based on the actions of those who have implemented capitalism so far? That would entail judging all capitalists, even proponents of reform (e.g., better environmental regulations), based on the actions of those who have contributed to major pollution, exploitation, and deforestation—and yes, that's pretty much all capitalist countries right now, albeit to varying extents.

Yes, I think it is fair to judge capitalism overall based on the overall results it has produced. And I'd put it up against the overall results of socialism any day of the week. Which socialist country would you prefer to live in today over say, somewhere in Western or Northern Europe?

I judge people based on their own beliefs and actions, not those of others. I think that's much fairer to them. Not everyone can show me an example of their beliefs being put into action either, especially given that there are certain issues today that are unprecedented (the main one being the climate crisis) and therefore require new solutions.

I'm not judging you as an individual, DS. I'm making a judgment about the ideology that's topic of this thread. If we're gonna have productive conversations, we have to be able to make that distinction.

 

[Debater Slayer]

This is a rather silly quibble. We can look at policies that socialist societies have implemented and can look at what socialist parties advocate in terms of policy to see what is typical. I wasn't making a scientifically validated statement in a peer-reviewed article. Jesus.



I wasn't dissing the internet. I was pointing out that armchair musings about what could be are not sufficient to inform us about what is. And if we have evidence of what is, I'm gonna bank on that before someone's claim about what could be that they've never produced (and which contradicts our existing evidence).

Again, these quibbles aren't helpful.



I don't either, since anyone in such a position would have to articulate a concrete policy of how their goals would be implemented.

I don't have anything to add here that wouldn't include things I've already said.

I would dismiss them if they told me they're Catholic, yes. I'd be like, okay, you're "Catholic" by baptism perhaps but you disagree with a basic teaching of the Church.

I definitely wouldn't dismiss them, partially because I believe reform sometimes needs to happen from within ideologies and religions rather than from outside. If moderates and reformers are dismissed both by fellow believers and by non-believers as unserious, that can play into the hands of extremists who believe their extremism is the only "true" version of the religion (or ideology).

 

[Stevicus]

In your opinion, based upon things you've
cited, but not on things you've ignored.

I'm basing it on the overall state of affairs in America today. You may not believe it, or maybe you see things from a different standpoint. I don't know what else to say there is beyond that.

It's interesting how you, Stalin, Mao, & others of the socialist
ilk see only that which serves to exalt socialism, & demonize
capitalism, eg, ignoring the Carter era economic malaise, &
Reagan's ridding us of some counterproductive tax dodges.

Well, if you're trying to demonize me, you're wasting your time.

However, I will point out that when you criticize the Carter era, you're still effectively demonizing a capitalist economy.

"Decent" for some. Horrendous for others.
You also ignore our having productivity advantages
because of much of the rest of the world in ruins.
That, & other factors have nothing to do with Reagan.

It has more to do with his Administration than him personally.

Other than that, I'm not sure if I can see any point to what you're trying to say. We're talking about different timeframes within a capitalist economy, so it's not really the standard old socialism vs. capitalism debate, but different kinds of capitalism within the American experience. From what I can gather, you favor the Reagan-Greenspan style of capitalism which has been in place since the 1980s, as opposed to the Keynesian style of capitalism practiced by FDR and his successors up until Nixon. Would that be a correct assessment?

 

[Left Coast]

I definitely wouldn't dismiss them, partially because I believe reform sometimes needs to happen from within ideologies and religions rather than from outside. If moderates and reformers are dismissed both by fellow believers and by non-believers as unserious, that can play into the hands of extremists who believe their extremism is the only "true" version of the religion (or ideology).

I do have to chuckle about a socialist's concern about political extremism. But again, you're not a typical socialist.

 

[Pete in Panama]

I would like to ask all the staunchest defenders of Laissez-faire and neo-liberism, why they think socialism is a bad idea.
But also defenders of Socialism and Marxism can express their take and strengthen or correct the OP.

Also from a spiritual point of view.
I think that we live in a over-exploited world. And Capitalism has pushed people to over-exploit the planet, so we need to re-think of ourselves as co-workers of social justice.
And not makers of inequality and injustice.

This ephemeral life is meaningless if it's all dedicated to over-exploitation of resources, which is fomented by greed.

Thank yous for your answers

My big concern is that the two most famous (notorious) examples of socialism by that name were Soviet Socialism and National Socialism. Both were horribly despotic, and I see despotism and being inherently consequential to state ownership of all production. It only works when the people believe that the nation is in peril and fails when that belief is gone.

In short, it's a bad way of life compared to the many gov't/business partnerships around.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I've already attempted an answer at this. Also, it's not my job here to give you a perfect label. Nor do you need one.

I'm not saying it's your job; I'm asking because stating that the socialist label doesn't fit my views implies that you might have already thought of another label that you believe better describes my positions.

Pick one.

Regardless of which I picked, I don't think I could formulate an exhaustive economic policy for them and simply write it out. Such a process would require extensive familiarity with the nuances of a country's situation and expert advice as well.

Yes, I think it is fair to judge capitalism overall based on the overall results it has produced. And I'd put it up against the overall results of socialism any day of the week. Which socialist country would you prefer to live in today over say, somewhere in Western or Northern Europe?

I don't really think the question gives much insight, for two main reasons:

1) As we have been over multiple times, the examples of socialist states are few and have all been based on a single variety thereof (or one of its offshoots). Almost all of the world's countries right now are capitalist, to varying extents.

2) Even when comparing most countries (which are capitalist) to each other, there are some that have better living standards than the rest. This is not limited to the dichotomy of capitalism versus socialism but also involves a lot of historical, geopolitical, and cultural factors.

So, out of the few examples that have existed, there have been no socialist countries I would have liked to live in.

I'm not judging you as an individual, DS. I'm making a judgment about the ideology that's topic of this thread. If we're gonna have productive conversations, we have to be able to make that distinction.

I recognize that. I'm also highlighting that what I support isn't remotely close to the ideology that resulted in the atrocities committed in the USSR, China, and other totalitarian states.

I do have to chuckle about a socialist's concern about political extremism. But again, you're not a typical socialist.

I mentioned George Orwell earlier. I think he works as an example here too: He was a vocal critic of political extremism in the USSR, and his socialism didn't prevent or contradict that. He certainly wasn't the only socialist critic of the USSR's oppressive policies either.

(I also don't mind being in a minority. I'm used to it due to my religious background. )

I'm quite sleepy, and I also think I've said pretty much everything I have to say about this thread. Thanks for the discussion! It's always thought-provoking and fun to talk to you.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm basing it on the overall state of affairs in America today.

Yeah....like you really take in the whole picture.

You may not believe it, or maybe you see things from a different standpoint.

Duh.

Well, if you're trying to demonize me, you're wasting your time.

I'm trying to help you.

However, I will point out that when you criticize the Carter era, you're still effectively demonizing a capitalist economy.

Of course. There's much to criticize in USA from
its origin to modern times. Capitalism doesn't
eliminate problems. It just has less severe ones
than alternatives.

Other than that, I'm not sure if I can see any point to what you're trying to say.

So it always goes.

We're talking about different timeframes within a capitalist economy....

You what you like in the 50s & 60s.
You scorn what happened since.
This approach entirely ignores what's
worse in the former, & better in the latter.
I see a different (bigger) picture, so we'll
never agree.