bigbadwolf said:
Seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too. Typical of American liberals -- to want to mitigate the egregious excesses of a system that is inherently predatory and cannot be reformed. Might as well try to make a vegetarian out of a tiger. Capitalism is about capital accumulation -- this by itself yields economic disparities that eventually translate into disparities in political power. The system itself is a roller-coaster ride of booms and bust, prone to crises. Either be for it or against it. Not talking out of both sides of your mouth.
For roughly three decades after WW2, US capitalism was strong enough to reach a modus vivendi with a chunk of the American population. That's where the "middle class" came from. Those days are irretrievably in the past. US capitalism is in a state of deepening crisis. The disparities are a consequence of this, not a root cause. In other words, restoring progressive taxation will not seriously mitigate USA's economic crisis.
Unlike you, I believe that the capitalist economic system can be managed to make it just. The way to do so is through a progressive tax system that requires those who earn a lot to contribute a large percentage of their earnings to the state for the public benefit.
I disagree with your description of all capitalist societies as necessarily "predatory." Yes, capitalism seeks to harness man's inate desire to acquire wealth for selfish, personal well being in contrast with communism's nobler philosophy of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Unfortunately, the problem with communism is that while it's theoretically more humane, in practice it simply doesn't work. Witness, the failure of the Soviet experiment. China's economy didn't begin to excel until a large measure of entreprenurial capitalism was permitted to coexist with state ownership of industries.
All economic models are a blend of private enterprise and state managed programs, e.g. socialized medicine, old age retirement benefits, state funded schools, municipal services, public utilities, housing, and transportation, etc. Where any particular society falls on the spectrum of private/public ownership varies according to the philosophy of that particular society which is commonly traced to the popular election of government, a process which you unpersuasively malign. For example, there is a greater degree of state participation in the economies of countries like Norway, Sweden, France so that they may be described as more socialistic than the US. To my knowledge, no pure communist society has successfully endured.
You concede that following WWII capitalism created an upwardly mobile middle class, but decree those days are irretrievably gone. Why? I agree the US is suffering a financial crisis caused by excesses in the financial/banking system and wasteful, illegitimate wars ( Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan), however, I have not abandoned all hope that the US can recover. After all, the creation of the middle class to which you refer with which capitalism reached a "modus vivendi" came into existence following a depression worse than what we are experiencing today.
Along with many other Americans I was enthusiastic when Obama was elected President. Unfortunately, "change you can believe in" and "yes we can" seem to have devolved into more of the same "business as usual" nonsense on both the domestic and foreign policy fronts. I agree the outlook is dim, but believe (perhaps optimistically) it is not yet time to draw the curtain on capitalism or the USA. Moreover, if the bottom should drop out of the US economy and with it the economies of most of the world, what do you think will resurrect them? Communism? I doubt it.
p.s. I don't think it is accurate to criticize me for either "wanting to have my cake and eat it too" or "talking out of both sides of my mouth" simply because I acknowledge the nobler philosophical basis of communisim while maintaining that in practice it is not yet a viable system.
