Most traditional cultures have in place laws meant for social control but rarely have centralized mechanisms for economic control. As political opinions drift,

Most traditional cultures have in place laws meant for social control but rarely have centralized mechanisms for economic control. As political opinions drift, it's common for part of the population to stick to what they perceive as traditional values and part to push for something they perceive as better. Movements that catch on tend to be egalitarian. I think this sufficiently encapsulates the monarchist vs revolutionary position that the Economist uses. Any egalitarian revolutionary pushing for social change will have to address economic advantages that have built up over time, so they tend not to have a laissez-faire attitude toward business. The mechanisms they propose to adjust wealth and power inequalities vary. Even people pushing for less centralized control of the economy fall into this category. Government subsidized monopolies are not free market competition, no matter how much some multinational corporate advertising agencies might push the concept.