Anyone who recognizes significant problems with capitalism is broadly on the left. That includes many people in both of those groups (however they're defined, which is a whole other conversation).
they view the current capitalism system as “crony capitalism”
That's not criticizing capitalism itself -- that's making the "not real capitalism" argument. What I'm talking about is people who see problems with capitalism even if it's some Platonic ideal of capitalism that works exactly as intended.
capitalism has “gone too far” in allowing the free movements of goods and people
This is a reasonable critique of the definition I supplied, but note that these exact sort of people -- people with reactionary social ideas but who recognize the inherent problems of capitalism -- are talked about all the time as people who could be brought over to the left. This is why Bernie did town halls on Fox, for example.
And if you want to argue that we shouldn't be recruiting from this group (and I would agree it would be a waste of time talking to committed bigots), describe who we should be recruiting from. We can't write off these people and libs if we want to have any hope of getting anything done.
Libertarians like to criticize capitalism and inequality caused by capitalism
I'll note that there's a distinction between capital-L libertarians -- the type that grift in the Libertarian Party and that openly discuss ideas like "a free market would have a flourishing free market in children" -- and people who use the label mostly because they're too embarrassed to call themselves Republicans.
For the capital-L Libertarians, they really don't criticize capitalism, and I say that as someone who's spent far too much time around both types. These are the folks who will tell you there's no such thing as a market failure, and who call for natural monopolies -- something practically every economist of every stripe agrees should not be handled by the market -- to be privatized.
What they're doing is manufacturing an excuse for the ills of capitalism that isn't capitalism itself. Some leftist points out a glaring, obvious problem with capitalism? Oh, that's not capitalism, that's crony capitalism. Oh, that's not capitalism, that's caused by government interference in the market. Oh, that's not capitalism, it's actually a personal choice to go out and work for sub-minimum wage under the table when your only other option is destitution. They blame everything but capitalism.
I never disagreed with recruiting from liberals and succ dems.
That's fair. The lib-bashing on here in general gets out of hand at times, though. Hard to recruit from them if shit-flinging turns into something more bitter.
Their critiques of capitalism are idealistic and individualistic, ours are systematic and scientific.
Just acknowledging that there are market failures is a systematic critique, and almost all libs buy into that. They also largely buy into stuff like social safety nets and public education, which are systematic programs that imply systematic problems with a pure capitalist system. You're right that there's a distinction between liberals and leftists, but thinking of them all as broadly on the same team is good. We want to engage them and pull them closer to us, not ignore them unless it's bullying time.
Anyone who recognizes significant problems with capitalism is broadly on the left. That includes many people in both of those groups (however they're defined, which is a whole other conversation).
deleted by creator
That's not criticizing capitalism itself -- that's making the "not real capitalism" argument. What I'm talking about is people who see problems with capitalism even if it's some Platonic ideal of capitalism that works exactly as intended.
This is a reasonable critique of the definition I supplied, but note that these exact sort of people -- people with reactionary social ideas but who recognize the inherent problems of capitalism -- are talked about all the time as people who could be brought over to the left. This is why Bernie did town halls on Fox, for example.
And if you want to argue that we shouldn't be recruiting from this group (and I would agree it would be a waste of time talking to committed bigots), describe who we should be recruiting from. We can't write off these people and libs if we want to have any hope of getting anything done.
deleted by creator
I'll note that there's a distinction between capital-L libertarians -- the type that grift in the Libertarian Party and that openly discuss ideas like "a free market would have a flourishing free market in children" -- and people who use the label mostly because they're too embarrassed to call themselves Republicans.
For the capital-L Libertarians, they really don't criticize capitalism, and I say that as someone who's spent far too much time around both types. These are the folks who will tell you there's no such thing as a market failure, and who call for natural monopolies -- something practically every economist of every stripe agrees should not be handled by the market -- to be privatized.
What they're doing is manufacturing an excuse for the ills of capitalism that isn't capitalism itself. Some leftist points out a glaring, obvious problem with capitalism? Oh, that's not capitalism, that's crony capitalism. Oh, that's not capitalism, that's caused by government interference in the market. Oh, that's not capitalism, it's actually a personal choice to go out and work for sub-minimum wage under the table when your only other option is destitution. They blame everything but capitalism.
That's fair. The lib-bashing on here in general gets out of hand at times, though. Hard to recruit from them if shit-flinging turns into something more bitter.
Just acknowledging that there are market failures is a systematic critique, and almost all libs buy into that. They also largely buy into stuff like social safety nets and public education, which are systematic programs that imply systematic problems with a pure capitalist system. You're right that there's a distinction between liberals and leftists, but thinking of them all as broadly on the same team is good. We want to engage them and pull them closer to us, not ignore them unless it's bullying time.
deleted by creator