Let's chat about the balance between capital and social. How exciting! In economics, capital means private while social means sharing. Are you a 5-year old who doesn't want to share or are you an adult who sees the benefit of sharing? While at the same time, of course having some things private. Which would be a balanced approach with the most co-benefit happening with a mix of both private capital and public social. Now, if we add an "ism" to these two things, for far too many, one of them stays great but the other becomes a boogeyman. And when we hear someone blanketly denigrate socialism can tell that not only are they self hating if they're middle class, but that they've been mind controlled by oligarchic media when that happens because the con of the oligarchy for hundreds of years has been to privatize gains and socialize losses, essentially keeping the best aspects of private and public for themselves, instead of for the people. A prime example being taxpayers bailing out banking crooks on Wall Street in the 2008 mortgage crisis. So what type of socialism, or capitalism for that matter, is one referring to? Because these things, on both ends, exist in a spectrum.
As for the accumulation of capital, we have:
Laissez-Faire Capitalism, State Capitalism, Corporate Capitalism, Crony Capitalism, Welfare Capitalism, Democratic Capitalism, People's Capitalism, Natural Capitalism, Financial Capitalism, Green Capitalism, Creative Capitalism, and Inclusive Capitalism
And for the sharing of resources we have:
Democratic Socialism, Social Democracy, Utopian Socialism, Marxist Socialism, Libertarian Socialism, Revolutionary Socialism, Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Eco-Socialism, Market Socialism, Guild Socialism, Fabian Socialism, and Syndicalism
So, even though we would much rather be talking about meditation, or Jungian Psychology, or our psychedelic experiences, or alchemical symbolism in engravings, or other esoteric things instead of anything orbiting the political, as we've said before, and we'll say again, because it can't be said enough, and also because one of the main pillars of our work is about balance, and we got a comment the other day blanketly denigrating the social aspect which led to our mouth sighing and then our eyes rolling because this is like high school level stuff that a lot of Americans don't get so we have to keep sinking down into lower consciousness insights to do our part to help democracy... in what configuration are you mixing these in order to have the most balance between the two, and thus the most liberty and freedom? Because 100% Capitalism without any public social, becomes Fascism, and 100% socialism, without any private capital, becomes Communism. Both of which are authoritarian and aweful. Psycho North Korea being an example of a communist nightmare. Which is a single-party system, that has a nearly 100% state (meaning totalitarian government) control of all significant economic activities, complete centralized planning and distribution, including the media and the means of production where there is little to no private enterprise - IE the government makes the food, shoes, and TV sets, and all that is tightly controlled by a ruling authority cult under a Marxisst-Leninist economic style ideology with complete lack of political and economic freedoms. At the complete opposite end of that polar spectrum, you have psycho Natzi Germany, which was Fascist, yet cleverly marketed itself during its formation as being "National Socialists" to win over the minds of German's at the time cause socialism was very popular in Germany in the 1920's and 1930's but the SS were actually just ultranationalists who immediately privatized all industry also under a single party totalitarian cult that also rejects liberal democratic principles such as a strong middle class, individual rights, pluralism, and multiparty democracy.
What does have the most liberty and justice for all is a balance between capitalism and socialism where corporations operate within a set of rules in which the government acts like a referee on behalf of the middle class - this is referred to as a social market economy or social democracy. An approach which combines the benefits of a market-based economy with robust social policies and government regulation to ensure economic stability, reduce inequality, and provide a basic safety net for all citizens.
A Social Market Economy or Social Democracy is the most populous system in the freest parts of the world because of its key characteristics that entail:
Having a mixed Economy: Allowing for private ownership of businesses and capital, fostering innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth. At the same time, it maintains a significant role in regulating the market to prevent monopolies, ensure fair competition, and protect workers.
Having a strong social safety net: Social democracies typically have comprehensive social programs, including universal healthcare, free or subsidized education, unemployment benefits, pensions, and social housing. Reducing poverty, supporting the vulnerable, and ensuring that basic needs are met for all citizens.
Having Progressive Taxation: Which ensures that the wealthier individuals and corporations pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. Preventing morbid wealth, reducing income inequality, and fund social services and public goods.
Having Labor Rights and Protections: Including minimum wage laws, collective bargaining rights, and safe working conditions, empowering workers and ensuring fair wages. Helping to build a robust middle class by promoting job security and fair compensation.
Having Regulated Markets: While markets are largely free and competitive, the government plays a role in regulating them to prevent abuses, protect the environment, and ensure public well being. This regulation helps to stabilize the economy and prevent crises that could disproportionately affect the middle class.
Having Public Investment in Infrastructure and Services: Creating jobs across the economic spectrum, improving the quality of life across the economic spectrum, and providing equal opportunities for economic advancement.
And having Promotion of Small and Medium Enterprises: Through grants, loans, and favorable regulations which foster a diverse economy and reduce dependence on large soulless mega corpses.
A strong middle class is often associated with political stability because middle-class citizens tend to favor policies that promote public services and democratic governance, reducing the risk of political extremism and polarization. Contributing to economic resilience by providing a stable consumer base, fostering creative entrepreneurship, and promoting economic growth. Middle-class citizens tend to have more disposable income, which supports domestic consumption and demand. Reducing economic inequality and promoting a strong middle class can enhance social cohesion and reduce social tensions. When citizens feel that they have a fair opportunity to succeed, it fosters a sense of shared purpose and solidarity. This engagement is crucial for maintaining a healthy democracy, as it promotes accountability, transparency, and public participation in the political process. And most of all, and empire very much knows this, a prosperous middle class is more likely to be politically active, engaged in civic life, and then free to be focused on their self-development. Which is terrifying to the empire because it gives the most freedom to the people to control their own destinies.