[Philorandroid]

It's hard to interpret "We basically put a big flashing sign right out front saying whose interests are the top priority" as anything but distaste, just as it's hard to parse "the name “capitalism” states whose interests are favored in our system" as anything but a favorable verisimilitude. Whose capital? Construction contractors? Service industry bosses? How exactly are they favored? Clearly wage theft is a well-understood phenomenon, so wouldn't it be a greater indictment of the legal system backing the law than the system that rests on top of it? How is any of this unique to a capitalist system and prevented in, say, command economies?

[vundercind]

> How is any of this unique to a capitalist system and prevented in, say, command economies?

Social-capitalist economies (the “social democracies” and adjacent) tend to do better job at this particular thing. Unions are pretty damn effective at cutting down on employers failing to follow through on their obligations, for one thing, and other states do a better job of supporting and incubating those organizations, besides whatever else they do in statute and enforcement to curb the power of capital to behave poorly.

The US tends to center its capitalist nature more than other states, is why I suggested we wear it rather “on our sleeve”.

“Why does this liquid taste like apples?”

“My brother in Christ: the label reads ‘Apple Juice’”

[Philorandroid]

> MBIC

No need to start flinging poo.

> Social-capitalist economies (the “social democracies” and adjacent) tend to do better job at this particular thing.

Can you point to a social capitalist country that does a demonstrably better job as a direct result of being a social-capitalist/social democratic/democratic socialist policies? From a cursory search, the US shares in wage theft being a problem with the UK, Australia, Germany and Sweden (granted to a lesser extent for the last two), and I have no doubt a slew of others as well.

[CaptainFever]

(Not GP) I think this is fair enough of an answer, I agree with you.

Though, when complaining about capitalism to try to improve it, it is probably best to mention social-capitalism as what you are advocating for.

Due to the recent political climate (e.g. the Russian invasion) communists are also complaining about capitalism on online forums as a way to advocate for it, which I believe is why GP thought you were talking about command economies. I thought so, too.

[vundercind]

Ah, fair point. The most extreme ideology I even kind of identify with is left-libertarianism, for the record, and mostly I’d just like a better social safety net, better social services, better consumer protection (this, overall, helps the market! Markets are pretty awesome and we definitely should work to keep them healthy and helpful) and stronger unions. I reckon that’s about as good as a large state can get, in the current environment.

I get the communism association given the origin of the term “capitalism”, though it’s been pretty thoroughly adopted and embraced by, well, capitalists. But no, I’m not a fan of communism and didn’t mean to give that impression.

In a world where political labelling can be so very misleading (“people’s democratic republic”) I just find it a bit amusing, and maybe even refreshing, that we tend to self-label our system as capitalist (among other things, to be fair) and that’s pretty damn honest. Take the term fairly literally and it’s a good guide to what you see actually happening, and what you ought to try to do to attain greater privileges and protections. We announce exactly what our deal is.

[edit] more to the point, I wasn’t even trying to get into a what’s-better discussion, just pointing out that thing from the last paragraph, really.