>

Yep—dialectical materialism and marxist analysis of class and power are the only theoretical principles that have continued to make sense to me as I've aged.
To your second point: “It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” - Mark Fisher
You and my mom share that same view. I'm less cynical and think it's a material interaction of old age with the world's near-constant experience of tragedy—so much exposure to tragedy after decades of life on this earth it must be the case that this level of tragedy is an anomaly and not the norm, right? Wrong! The world has always been horrible, cruel, and devastating.
It's easy to believe in the second coming of Christ from that frame. As nice as that'd be (for me, as a Christian) I don't think that's the case.
Liberal capitalism.
I define this as a republican reform of the corporate system, with more, and meaningful, internal and external checks on corporate governance, and an emergence of more union-owned businesses and shareholder democracy.
This ideology will be the basis for public policies that will expand access to capital broadly, and create a broad-based middle class with a larger share of the wealth than the extreme oligarch minority.
The ideology also includes socialization of some economic sectors, like education, medicine, energy, and media. By "socialization" I really mean local, democratic control, and networked national cooperatives for standardization, best practices, and economy of scale. >

we already have this >

Maybe you think so, but no, we do not have this.
We had something closer to it 1940s-1970s, but even then we did not have what I am predicting.
What we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.
What we have now is a trampling of Article 4 by institutions that are substate actors established under Article 4. 
What we have now is a casino for rich people instead of a capitalist stock market.
What we have now is an unconstitutional system of anti-republican and anti-democratic corporate governance that violates Article 4.
What we have now is a tyrannical corporate system that is hoarding money and resources which they cannot effectively invest, spend or save.
That is not a free market. That is not capitalist competition. That is not an equitable distribution of money or wealth or resources. That is not a good faith bargaining framework. That is a distortion of market forces.
We have a kleptocracy. Organized crime.
I could go on. >


What we have now is an economic oligarchy that has captured the economic system and is leveraging that overreach and attempting to overthrow the republic.

That is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. 
Corporations compete and compete and compete, get held back by regulatory systems, lobby to weaken regulations, compete and compete, buy out competitors, and generate oligarchies across industries. There has never been a free market—not one where an individual can adequately compete with a corporation.
Liberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation. >


That is the inevitable consequence of decades of capitalism, let's not be naive. 

😁 That sounds similar to Marxist thought.

Liberal capitalism = liberalism, which is the system we all currently live under that trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.

I would argue we live in a corruption of capitalism and yes I like a little idealism along with my realism.
You may not be aware of it but you may have some Marxism that has crept into your thinking:
trades gains for individual liberty at the cost of further entrenching exploitation.
One more thing. Whose individual liberty is getting gains over the last 40 years? Economically speaking? >

I am a marxist, yes. >

Alright then.
You accept the fundamental principles of dialectical materialism?
You believe that a historical narrative describing the social forces in play in society must lead to class warfare, and a decline of capitalism, a rise of socialism, and culminating in a communist state?
I am just as skeptical of that as I am of the historical narrative that the signs and wonders are all around us that Jesus Christ our savior is coming to judge the wicked and rule on earth.
At least Marxism has some credible critiques of social and economic class systems, though. And dialectical materialism need not build a Marxist historical narrative.