In my opinion, a good first step is to stop looking at socialism and capitalism in absolute terms. I think its a mistake to idealistically cling to one archetyp

In my opinion, a good first step is to stop looking at socialism and capitalism in absolute terms. I think its a mistake to idealistically cling to one archetype as the best of all possible archetypes. When you go the idealistic route, you are doomed to repeat the failings of the past. I would argue that the most successful economies are blended economies that have achieved success by blending elements of both systems and perhaps other systems as well. For example, the USA once had working conditions as described by Upton Sinclair in “The Jungle .” Those working conditions are no longer legal thanks to regulations. But regulations are an element of command-economy, not of free markets. An example from the other side is the rise of China’s economy. I don’t believe China could have become “the world’s factory” without introducing elements of free market capitalism. During the cold war, propaganda made socialism the bogeyman to the west, and capitalism the bogeyman to the east. I don’t think this fear is rational. To me they are just two economic archetypes of many. Each has its own merits and faults. The key is to apply them where they make sense. To me the real enemies are: authoritarianism and corruption. I see regulatory capture as a form of corruption. The regulators are corrupted by those who would like to externalize their costs onto society. How do we fight corruption? It’s a tough battle, but remember it has been done before. Tammany hall, etc.