They’re talking about capitalism in practice. In practice, economic policy is shaped less by ideology and more by they relative power of economic classes. When the rich have power, they get policies that favor themselves enacted, and vice versa. It’s only in theory that capitalism is about “free markets,” in practice, the rich support free markets if they alternative is something that’s more harmful to themselves (like taxes and nationalization) and oppose them when the alternative is beneficial to themselves (subsidies).
“Free market capitalism” is a purely theoretical idea that has never existed, and will never exist, because someone’s always going to have enough power to get the government to intervene in the economy to promote their own interests. Generally, left-wing people talking about capitalism mean capitalism in practice, not the theoretical idea.
Arkouda@lemmy.ca 9 hours ago
Ignoring the core principle of Capitalism, free markets, makes it impossible to actually talk about Capitalism in theory or in practice.
Your argument against can be used for every other economic system as well, so it becomes a matter of pros and cons which will never declare a clear winner and always demonstrate a mixed economy is best for everyone involved.
I think a blend of Socialism in the form of UBI for basic needs, social housing, full access to education and medical care, mixed with a Capitalist market economy seems likely to be best.
Objection@lemmy.ml 9 hours ago
The confusion comes from the fact that the word capitalism has two meanings. The original meaning, which the other person and myself are using, has nothing to do with free markets:
It was only later, in reaction to socialism, that capitalism began to take on this meaning you’re using, where it’s supposedly disconnected from class interests and is just about some abstract economic principle. But using the second definition, it’s impossible to talk about capitalism in practice because, as I said, such a system has never existed and will never exist.
Huh? Economic systems where the interests of capitalists are prioritized are best for the capitalists, economic systems where the interests of workers are prioritized are the best for workers. Also, aren’t you declaring a clear winner when you say you can, “always demonstrate a mixed economy is best for everyone involved?”
Arkouda@lemmy.ca 9 hours ago
Missed one.
Objection@lemmy.ml 9 hours ago
What’s there to address? You’re just asserting what you personally like.
The more the capitalists are able to gain power (through making a bunch of money), the more they’ll push the government to cut those social services and to remove regulations. The system you describe is viable only to the extent that the capitalists can be kept in check.
Many existing socialist countries (Vietnam, China, etc) have implemented a market economy, as it’s necessary to participate in the global economy, and it can be useful for economic development, at least to a point.
I’m not really sure what you want me to answer here.