Capitalism vs. Free Markets
Also check out the Daily Thread Archive
Capitalism Is Not the Free Market — A European Perspective
From a European perspective, Americans’ definition of capitalism is strangely lopsided.
When Americans talk about capitalism, they think they are talking about a free market economy — an economy where free enterprise and competition define the value of goods. That is not capitalism. It is simply a free market economy. And markets are ancient. People have traded, haggled, and set prices against each other for as long as we have records — in Mesopotamian grain accounts, in medieval town squares, in the souks and harbors of every civilization. Money as a unit of account is some five thousand years old; coins — easier to carry around than your sack of grain while looking for someone with a sow — appeared about twenty-six hundred years ago in Lydia.
Then came the layers that turned exchange into something else. Money itself became a commodity: charging interest for lending it was regulated as far back as Hammurabi, and in Christian Europe it was condemned as usury for centuries — officially pushed onto a Jewish minority who would historically pay a horrific price for that “privilege,” while Christian bankers from Lombardy to the Medici quietly found their workarounds. About four hundred years ago, the Dutch and the British invented the modern corporation — the East India Companies — whose value could be split into shares, sold, and speculated with from nearly the first day. And by 2007, mortgages — the debt people owed on their houses — were packaged, bundled, and sold as speculative securities and derivatives. When it all collapsed, roughly ten million American families lost their homes, and countless more lost their retirement savings. The wealthy took losses too — on paper. Their fortunes recovered within a few years. Median household wealth took more than a decade, if it recovered at all.
Now that’s Capitalism.
So what is the actual difference? Let me try to make it as simple as possible.
A free market economy is a way of exchanging things: many buyers, many sellers, prices set by supply and demand, competition keeping everyone honest. People who create value with their labor, creativity, or talent trade fairly with others. Markets like this are useful, old, and worth defending.
Capitalism is a way of owning things: the factories, the land, the platforms, the capital itself are held privately, most people work for wages on assets they will never own, and the whole machine is organized around one goal — accumulation. Capital must grow. The French historian Fernand Braudel made the point better than I can: the market economy is the transparent ground floor of exchange among many small players, while capitalism is the “anti-market” — the top floor of monopoly, opacity, and concentrated power that sits on top of the market and frequently works against it. Capitalism uses markets. It does not love them. Given the chance, it prefers to eliminate the competition that markets require — which is why, left alone, it produces monopolies and the concentration of power in the hands of a few who are privileged, corrupt, and ruthless enough to extract wealth from everyone who contributes.
Capitalism the way it is experienced in America now is more than an economic arrangement. It is a mindset, a religion — so total that its own believers can no longer tell it apart from the markets it feeds on. The late British theorist Mark Fisher had a name for this: capitalist realism — the widespread sense that capitalism is not merely the best system but the only imaginable one, so that even our capacity to picture an alternative has been quietly confiscated. A religion, in other words, that no longer needs to forbid heresy, because it has made heresy unthinkable.
And here is the irony, now that America is experiencing a new emergence of what it calls democratic socialism: most of what young Americans mean by that phrase — Medicare for all, free college, strong unions — is not socialism at all by European standards. It is social democracy, Sozialdemokratie, the system I grew up in: capitalism and the free market kept, but domesticated — refused the status of a religion. Bernie Sanders points at Denmark; Denmark politely points out that it is a market economy. (For those who want the full vocabulary — how communism, socialism, democratic socialism, and social democracy actually differ — see the appendix below.) Americans looking for a new definition of the economy they want do not have to invent one, and they do not have to choose between worshipping capitalism and abolishing markets. The third option has been running for seventy years, and it has better trains.
Why do Americans — Democrat and Republican alike — find the distinction between capitalism and the free market so hard to see? Not because they are stupid. Because for two generations, Cold War rhetoric deliberately welded the two words together into a single term meaning “not communism.” Question capitalism and you were told you were questioning the market, freedom, America itself. That welding was propaganda, and it worked. Undoing it is not radicalism. It is just getting our definitions back.
A free market is a tool. Capitalism is a belief system that captured the tool. And a society, it turns out, can keep the tool and lose the religion.
Appendix: A Short Vocabulary for those who want to dive deeper:
Communism, in Marx’s theory, was the final destination: a classless, stateless society in which even money would no longer be needed — “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” No state ever claimed to have arrived there. The regimes we called communist — because communist parties ruled them — officially described themselves as socialist, still on the road to that destination; East Germany’s own term was real existierender Sozialismus, “really existing socialism.” What really existed was this: the party owned everything — the factories, the farms, the newspapers, eventually the truth. No private enterprise, no free market, and no democracy to vote the arrangement away. I grew up with that system standing on the other side of a wall through my country. It failed, and it deserved to fail.
Socialism is the broader idea that the major means of production — energy, transport, banks, heavy industry — should be owned collectively or by the state. In Marxist doctrine it was the waystation on the road to communism; as a general idea it can come with democracy or without it. History shows it mostly came without.
Democratic socialism insists on the “democratic” part: socialism pursued and maintained only through free elections, where the voters can reverse it. It still ultimately aims at social ownership of the big economic levers.
Social democracy — Sozialdemokratie — is something different again, and it is the European punchline: it keeps capitalism and keeps the free market, but refuses to worship them. Private enterprise, competition, profit — all there. But the market is domesticated: strong unions with seats on corporate boards, universal health care, free or affordable universities, real unemployment insurance, regulated banks, and taxes that treat great wealth as a responsibility rather than a sacrament. Germany, Scandinavia, Austria, the Netherlands — none of these are socialist countries. They are capitalist market economies with the religion taken out and the plumbing put in.