448
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
448 points (99.3% liked)
Political Memes
12450 readers
3061 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
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.
They're not taking it too far, you're doing apologia by shifting the goal posts.
Markets != Capitalism.
Heavily regulated markets != Socialism.
See your first point there?
That's the main difference.
Everything else that follows is going to be either a description of either how regulated/redistributive a capitalist economy is, or the precise mechanism of how capital is distributed/controlled, and how its proceeds are distributed in a socialist/communist economy.
Also your point 5 is basically incorrect. 'Significantly' incorrect.
In capitalism, you just get a cartel of extremely influential fianceers and central bankers that direct and manage capital flows and monetary policy via complex and esoteric means, which are certainly not decentralized.
'Retail Investors' / 'Dumb Money' are very well directed and herded by the signals the capital/monetary cartel puts out.
As an example, everyone's 401k and pension plan either already has or is going to be buying SpaceX stocks, ie, be the bagholders for when that blows up. That's happening because of the morass of rules and some recent changes to those rules that govern how all those funds must be managed.
You did read the ToS on all your investments, right? And keep up with all the changes to them?
Well obviously not, but, legally, upfront disclosure basically just is indemnity, so, you agreed to this. If you disagree that you agreed, good luck personally suing the company that has all of your money, and hundreds of billions of other people's money.
You are also either ignoring or perhaps ignorant of large scale worker owned co-ops such as Mondragon, that are essentially a modern evolution of anarcho-syndicalism.
The 'company' itself has a form of democratic representative governance, where workers have a say in who their bosses will be, what the business strategy will be, etc, as opposed to the authoritarian governance internal model of most capitalist businesses.
Technically, Mondragon exists within a grander capitalist system and framework, but chances are that a wide swath of people would describe it as an operationalized form of socialism.
Also, it is not possible to have any societal or economic system that is value neutral... any complex system governing humans is going to be ultimately be created by humans, and is either going to intentionally or unintentionally create a framework that rewards some behaviors and activities an punishes others.
Any system of rewards and punishments just literally is a value system, we're social mammals, we learn from the environment we are in.
But you then list prerequisites for capitalism... as if they are value systems? Where 1, often 2, hell, often all 3 of those prereqs are also prereqs/components of systems that call themselves socialist or communist?
Anyway yes you are correct that both socialist systems and capitalist systems have much variability within them, but again the key distinction between the two is who actually controls the capital, and how.
In capitalism, it is literally always a cartel. A cartel that often funds a lot of propoganda devoted to convincing people they're not a cartel and its actually all a meritocracy.
In socialism, you get a range from... the state directly controls all capital and major industry... to the anarcho-syndicalist model of worker collectives 'owning' and governing their own capital.