and vice versa, lol. But I do hear you and get your overall position.


I think I was just trying to draw attention to the clear and obvious cultural hegemony "within" capitalism (not just surrounding it), which doesn't seem to receive enough criticism or blame. Or rather, the lack of diversity IS acknowledged but only as a hindrance to profits (eg. "Investors confess: Women-led corporations generate superior returns compared to corporations led by men!"), as opposed to the essential feature it is of "this" particular flavor of capitalism and one the current owner/executive/board of directors class seems keen to protect.

I find DEEPLY unfair the idea that people (especially historically underrepresented people) interested in enterprise could face barriers (i.e. to their chance to pursue their preferred path to security, access, comfort, and creative fulfilment) just because one dominant group has abused the system and (potentially) ruined it for everybody else. I don't care whether those barriers are due to unethical capitalists trying to protect the current system that benefits them so oppressively, or anti-capitalists trying to do away with capitalist systems to begin with. I would much rather see the system and its bad actors get their long overdue regulatory/legal smackdown and have the freedom to pursue my own dreams/fullest potential/own example (IF that's one's choice). It's literally been the same type of person dominating capitalism since its origin. Before trashing it all together, I'm not convinced a more diverse and ethical class of participants couldn't execute a better - or at least different - iteration, especially with lessons learned/appropriate safeguards put in place moving forward.

Again, as unlikely as it appears, I bet we (and probably a lot of SocialDems and DemSocs) agree on more than we realize. Of course the current system is broken, and it's not at all "radical" to take issue with the level of inequality we are seeing (I think you were being sarcastic but still, lol). But to me, the strongest disagreements appear to be in the diagnostics(eg. how (much?) blame/power is being attributed to structure vs. function, humans vs. environment, etc.), and the tactics and points of intervention which flow from that.

The main thing I find paradoxical in the Sanders approach is the almost singular focus on "just the one" type of exploitation (i.e. capitalistic). If exploitation truly is the CORE issue, I mean. Because if that's the case.. then even Sanders supporters have acquiesced to a sort of Faustian bargain, where either consciously or subconciously there is a level of exploitation you all are willing to live with.

Even IF Sanders was successfully elected and successfully enacted/coordinated his socialist agenda (sidenote: I only called it a revolution above because that's the language his camp has used eg. "Our Revolution"), government takeovers can only cover so much ground, right? What about the exploitation occurring in so many other theatres of everyday life (eg. mating/sexual relationships, childcare, etc.)? Talk less of the global impacts the American way of life has around the globe or even the historical exploitations being tallied by the reparations debate.

And I don't mean this as a question of "why try?", but more as an analogy to how "Warren Progressives" can stomach exploitative nuances in the private sector if it means architecting and preserving a more fair, accountable, capitalist system. In my view, "Sanders Progressives" are ALSO choosing to stomach exploitative nuances if, for example, yall would pat yourselves on the back after grabbing a morning coffee from your local coffee shop, knowing the cashier is now making a livable income, yet accept the fact that the small-scale farmer(s) in *insert global south country here* producing the beans for said coffee are not.

I'm not insinuating Warren doesn't also advocate for minimum wage increase or that Bernie doesn't care about the global scope of capitalist oppression. Just that.. Warren's style of progressivism is a bit more explicit about its targets and limitations, and imho this appears to be what's striking (some) people as more constructive. (Unless Sanders has some sort of grander feminist Trotskyist plan we're unaware of that might resolve why he is so fixated on one facet of exploitation and dismissive of others).