Franklin Delano Roosevelt is said to have remarked toward the end of his life that he had "saved capitalism" in eight days. He did this by drastically empowering workers, protecting consumers, and raising taxes and thus reallocating the country burden of revenue onto the upper echelon of the country's earners. In doing so, he ushered in the greatest economy the world had ever known and reformed capitalism's image as being, instead of a brutal and unfair ideology for the exploiter, instead a kind and just system that allowed for economic growth for all while ensuring basic upward mobility for the lowest among us. In an age when communists and socialists were gaining momentum domestically and internationally in the wake of unprecedented gains in living standards in Eastern Europe and the burgeoning prospect of "modernization in one generation" in state-capitalist Russia, the transformation was not a moment too-soon. However, what he didn't do is transform or meaningfully confront ownership of resources - of the means and modes of production of wealth. So, after a few decades of "liberal consensus" with the term "liberal" being paradigmatically redefined, the owners of capital came back with a vengeance. While the Republican Party had been compromised to social democracy during the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower, actual ideological conservatives, no matter how universally rejected (by both laypeople and Keynes-era economists) their ideology, struck back at the first sign of economic stagnation. During the presidencies of Nixon, Carter, and most of all Reagan they capitalized on reactionary politics and short-term economics to radically redistribute wealth upward and consolidate political consensus around policies that were inarguably against the interests of the average voter. Thus, the current political-economic climate was established, where the interests of capital (that is, the owners of capital) would stave off even the most obvious and common-sense solutions that would threaten their market share - the most obvious being universal healthcare, which had/has taken hold in every other developed country and proven itself to be more effective and cost-effective. And economic stagnation has proven itself, through the elections of George W. Bush and Donald J. Dumb, to not be a prequisite. In reality, any source of disagreement is enough for capital to, through reactionary politics, disrupt policy making in its own favor. So, in terms of even promoting pragmatic, let alone populist or progressive, policies, it increasingly seems to be a matter of one-step-forward and two-steps-back. Even with the most modest and modestly pragmatic populist policies of Barack Obama - a capitalist through and through - capital was able to foment enough faux-outrage to elect a complete moron who would then institute policies taking the country and economy many steps back toward Locknerian policy that is against the interest of the American people. So, with this forum's most intelligent posters across the spectrum - @Jack V Savage, @TheComebackKid and many more - all ultimately landing on the social democratic spectrum (I think @Greoric is the only semi-serious poster here who advocates for pure capitalism)......what is the way forward that isn't doomed to backslide? Is there a point when meaningful abridging of the market and of private ownership - through compulsory worker organization, nationalization of key industries, fundamental regulation (and, inherently, politicization) of wealth - becomes necessary?