267
With liberty and justice for.. who?
(lemmy.nz)
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/46359572
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2026
267 points (99.6% liked)
Political Memes
12450 readers
3119 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Well, that’s what you call propaganda: whitewashing designed to distract from the reality people live in.
Here are a few other examples that are characteristic of U.S. ideology:
This list could go on forever. The U.S. is simply what it is: the land of false promises.
That one's actually true. You're likely making the common mistake of thinking markets/free trade and saying capitalism.
While markets and trade are necessary for capitalism to exist, the opposite isn't the case.
Capitalism is an economic ideology where accumulation of capital is the ultimate goal and highest virtue.
Socialism is an economic ideology where the ultimate goal and highest virtue is for wealth to be distributed in such a way as to create the most social good for everyone, especially those that need it the most. That's by definition incompatible with capitalism. Its entire POINT is in fact to replace capitalism.
Yeah, no such thing as a completely "free market" is possible.
An unregulated market will inevitably encroach of the freedom of those with the least wealth and power, and regulating it is by definition making those with the MOST wealth and power less free to oppress the rest, for example via monopolization as you point out.
It is true that, in their purest forms, the two approaches are mutually exclusive, since socialism is essentially based on public ownership, while capitalism, in its most extreme form, is based exclusively on private ownership.
However, it is entirely possible to implement elements of socialism within a capitalist market economy, whereby key parts of socially important institutions remain under state control while others are organized privately.
One example of such an approach is the social market economy, which plays a role in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.
It was developed among others by the economist Alfred Müller-Armack and seeks to “combine the principle of freedom in the market with that of social balance.” This approach, in turn, bears a certain resemblance to ordoliberalism (as advocated by Walter Eucken, among others), which had a formative influence on German-speaking countries in Europe after World War II.
Unfortunately, however, this approach—which I consider sensible—is not immune to U.S.-style neoliberal capitalism (Chicago school of economics and others), which has, regrettably, also taken a firm hold in Germany today and whose effects are, among other things, significantly evident in the fact that the wealthiest segments of the population are becoming ever richer, while social benefits that benefit the general public are being cut back further and further.
In my view, however, this is less a problem with the approach itself and more—as with all theories—due to the fact that any system can be corrupted by unscrupulous people.
Fixed it for you. Market economy ≠ capitalism.
You can have a market economy with social elements, but those elements are by definition not part of the ideology of capitalism and in fact in opposition to the goals and ideals of it.
Yeah, that's the classic social democratic model. It's a compromise between the opposite ideologies socialism and capitalism rather than socialism mixed with capitalism.
Both of which arguably are forms of social democracy.
That's EXACTLY the problem with social democracy in general, and also Neoliberalism in the US as opposition to downright fascism:
when you START from a position of compromise and the people on the opposite side of the table are people of wealth and power with no interest in compromising, you inevitably end up making unacceptable concessions.
ESPECIALLY when spin doctors and profit driven media get involved on the side of capital, which is the case in all countries that allow such antidemocratic practices.
This has been the case just about everywhere, including in my native Denmark where spin doctors were unheard of until the 2000 parliamentary election, and have been wreaking havoc on everything good about our politics ever since.
I’m afraid you’re taking this too far. Capitalism is, first and foremost, a mode of economic organization in which:
This describes an economic system, although it is not completely value-neutral: it presupposes legal and political institutions such as private property, enforceable contracts, and market exchange. The ideology associated with capitalism depends partly on how the system is interpreted and organized. This helps explain why Germany and the United States can both be described as capitalist countries while having different economic institutions, political traditions, and social models.
Socialism can likewise take different forms and be connected to different ideologies. In Marxist theory, communism is generally understood as a later stage or goal of socialism. In political practice, however, the terms have been used in various ways. Not all socialist movements or countries are communist, while states governed by communist parties—such as China—can make extensive use of markets, private enterprise, profit, and other mechanisms commonly associated with capitalism.
In short, I think it is too simplistic to treat capitalism and socialism as completely separate and internally uniform systems. They are often used as political slogans rather than as precise descriptions. Many real-world economies combine market mechanisms with public ownership, regulation, social insurance, and collective provision. Whether such a combination produces the best results—and what “the best” should mean—is itself a normative and politically contested question. Still, maintaining an open-minded attitude seems important if we want to assess useful elements of different approaches rather than ruling them out in advance.