Some mark the distinction as 'market society' on top of a market economy. Implication being that societies that try to apply capitalist reasoning to their civics suffer the worst from this redistribution because market mechanics don't tend to do well with human factors.

Basically, the best we've figured out thus far is a mixed economy, something akin to a social democracy. Where many basic and essential human needs are augmented or provided through government action while our wants are catered to more through 'pure' market economics.

Of course, that runs into complications in terms of how we define needs and wants. So a slightly better framing is to view needs as rights, where the statement is 'this society views X,Y,Z as essential human rights and functions to provide those to its citizens'. (or in other words, 'these are the things we believe are worth fighting to preserve')

Which is all well and good overall, though it can be read as moralizing.

Ultimately though, as it goes with just about any sociopolitical structure(outside of extreme authoritarian arrangements), the best results come about when those within it act in good faith, are elected through free and fair measures and represent their citizens. So yeah. Easy to talk about, harder to actually implement, and even when implemented, still requires a lot of maintenance and long term thinking.