It may be the case that neither Socialism nor Capitalism are compatible with the distribution of authority - just by different means.
Capitalism tends there as more capital makes gaining more capital easier - authority centralises into the hands of those with more and more of it. It should be quite apparent that with one unit of currency amounting to one vote, more money is more votes: by contrast to democratic elections where everyone gets only one vote regardless of how much money they have. In reality, not even these democratic elections amount to one vote each because e.g. campaigns can be funded, and amongst other things - the winning party is going to be the one that attracts sufficient funding from those with enough money to get enough reach, and the best targeting and message etc. which you get by appealing to those with the most money. Various schools of Socialism try to counter this, but those that require controls over Capitalism require a body or bodies that are more powerful than the body or bodies that come to power under Capitalism. The same problem presents itself, but in a different form.
You might more accurately say that under certain schools of Capitalism, distribution of authority ought to be possible, and you might say that under certain schools of Socialism, distribution of authority ought to be possible.
You might then say that Capitalism is has a better track record, but does that mean that it cannot be beaten?
There’s two conflicting problems with laissez faire approaches versus interventionalist approaches:
The former has the benefit of less conspicuously amounting to centralisation, but at the cost of accountability since the mechanisms are more complex and it’s harder to tell exactly where the power resides.
The latter attracts more hostility because the centralised bodies are intentionally conspicuous, allowing direct accountability since the centralisation is much more simple and everyone knows where the power resides.
It seems to be a common approach to this topic to throw out simple blanket statements that neatly put you in one side rather than another, instead of sufficiently and objectively analysing all sides and underlying variables and causes that make the situation much more complex.
Popularly these topics take the form of a sports match where everyone is split down the middle about which team they support as clearly and absolutely far better than the other, and you just have to fight your respective corner as hard as you can to prove it. It seems vulgar to devolve the discussion to that level if you ever catch yourself doing it.
Yes you would hope that anti-trust laws would prevent huge corporations from attaining the monopolies and oligopolies that reign supreme today.
Gloominary references the deep state and you reference globalist deception by the DNC and what-have-you, but I think it’s more interesting than that.
For example the economic concept of Opportunity Cost is minimised by global trade, two-party election races are the Nash Equilibrium of First Past The Post voting systems, centralisation puts decisions and resources into the hands of the more qualified and results in more clear and efficient outcomes pragmatically, richness beyond a certain point is largely Zahavian Signalling and no longer correlates with quality of life…
All the evils and goods have other sides to them, and every decision one way or another is a trade-off, and more often than not - the biggest problems are little more than the result of these trade-offs in picking the most prized cornerstones of our civilisations, such as voluntary trade and technological superiority.
The greater mystery is how it’s possible to make things better or worse at all.