Capitalism? WHICH capitalism??? What are we talking about?



On a rather productive capitalism, as it once was in its golden age? I still
believe it would be possible again under certain socio-economic and
institutional conditions, certainly not being a stable constellation in the
longer run, though. (As it was not a stable systemic mixture under its New
Deals 1930s through 1960s, 1970s.)


Or a financialized, neoliberal, just exhausting and just redistributive
(rather than productive, innovative) one?


Wouldn't we all prefer an "orderly", producing, innovative capitalism with a
role for working people, organized labor or protesting young people to play,
over the rotten oligarchic, plutocratic one that we currently have, which no
longer provides impulses to human progress?


In that sense, aren't we all "pro-capitalist", at least if we are engaged in
policy and union advice and dirty our hands (like also the MMT people do)? I
do wish to restore a functioning capitalism when I teach to politicians and
unionists, so I am pro-capitalist, although they know that I am just to
release human progress toward something that will definitely no longer be
"capitalism" .  


So I am a pro-capitalist "collectivist", "socialist", "egalitarian",
"ecologist", whatever. 



PS: Such loose and nonlinear personal reflections of the neoclassical
paradigm, which basically is apologetic toward "capitalism" (or of
institutionalism, post-Keynesianism .), does apply to a number of
neoclassical economists, who personally sometimes may be liberals, DEMs,
egalitarians, ecologists, unionists etc. We all know such "deviators" form
the "base type", as has been said.


In other words, a paradigm is something much more complex, on its
propositional, methodological, examples, world-view, externalism-internalism
or policy dimensions than allowing us to easily draw linear conclusions on
just one dimension (pro-anti-capitalism). Nothing really new, I am aware.
Just to remind ...