(I think about the "worst system, except for all the other systems" quote often)
Socialism is not necessarily cuddly. "To each according to his contribution" is the one sentence description of it after all. I want socialism, because it's "to each according to his contribution" but "to each according to his contribution" isn't obviously this nice cuddly we-take-care-of-everybody type thing.
I'd call the New Deal an attempt to bring discipline to go from capitalism to free markets, to control excesses, prevent monopolies and otherwise preventing people from locking down the economy so that there can be competition, and that's a goal compatible with socialism, because it does bring us closer to "to each according to his contribution" but it isn't an attempt at creating socialism, but of breaking capitalism down to create a market economy with free markets (capitalism is not a market economy, capitalism is the accumulation of capital by some to the exclusion of others, so capitalism and a market economy with free markets are actually things that are extremely incompatible).
"Democratic socialism" is a bit better defined because less people use it, and does mean something like today's world but with more welfare.
"Capatalism" means something different in the USA than it does in say France. In the USA, any attempt to keep check of or reign in capatalism is seen as socialism, and governemnt overreach. In France it's seen as common sense, though they would still say they practice "capatalism". Similarly, taking care of people that can't take care of themselves is obvious in France, but seen as nearing socialism in the USA.
It's important to note, because when people go for things like "democratic socialism", they may not be against what they think they're against.
The author of this post apparently lives in Porto.
I guess this is the basis of my critique: the author seems to be writing as though capitalism is robbing him of some ideal that would otherwise exist: invoking the so-called "Protestant work ethic" to describe a system that took over the world and made us all worse off.
That doesn't feel right to me because I don't think previous economic systems did better at protecting the vulnerable. (But I'm not sure, that's why I framed my comment the way I did!)
Most replies to me are framed more as either "do what Europe does" (but the author lives in Europe!) or "we haven't gotten there yet" - which...sure! We shouldn't accept the status quo. But that's a different argument.
Concretely: if the author's perception that a capitalist/calvinist fusion robbed us of/distorted something is true, that he could have existed in a society outside of this shadow in a way he'd find acceptable...that's a very different story than him longing for a world that has never existed.
>Even just capitalism with more regulation and safety nets (the ones most countries implement don't work very well) would suffice here.
You speak very matter-of-factly, and you might be right, but in reality this is only a hypothesis! Maybe more regulation has a tipping point at which it starts to do more harm than good. Maybe if safety nets are too strong they create perverse incentives.