You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The 10 things capitalism suffers from
You had "free markets" in different historical periods,in the way that the markets weren't regulated. Mostly farmers and craftsmen selling their goods in a credit system. This didn't protect them from bankruptcy and debt slavery. Actors in a free market are always eventually outcompeted by bigger actors like states, churches, or big private capitalists who enforce monopolies. The free market is a pipe dream. Not that its my dream anyway. I believe in the commons, and in the long term, post-scarcity.
It's a question of definition. In my view sharing the commons eliminates monopolies and thus, as a result leads to the free market.
The best tools to achieve this is nationalisation of land and other natural resources and public control over the monetary system.
This is the the concept of Free Economy by Silvio Gesell, you may have been familiar with.
If not, I recommend reading this - http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~roehrigw/onken/engl.htm
A quote from the link above to give you a flavour of the concept:
Gesell's theory of a Free Economy based on land and monetary reform may be understood a reaction both to the laissez-faire principle of classical liberalism as well as to Marxist visions of a centrally planned economy. It should not be thought of as a third way between capitalism or communism in the sense of subsequent "convergence theories" or so-called "mixed economy" models, i.e. capitalist market economies with global state supervision, but rather as an alternative beyond hitherto realized economic systems. In political terms it may be characterised as "a market economy without capitalism".
I see your point. It's just that the term free matket is often used by people without any moral qualms in their pursuit of profit. A commons based system would not be a free market in either a positive or negative sense IMO, even though you eliminate monopolies. Because the commons is more about access than profit. The commons should serve the commoners, meaning everybody. I believe in getting rid of the monetary system altogether, I think it fosters inequality, and it's inefficient.
I do think we agree to a large extent, so I don't want to be too polemical.
Yes I agree. There is no need to be polemical when you have agreement in principle and discuss nuances. To be honest I think one of the reasons why the current narrative is hijacked by vested interest is lack of healthy amount of tribalism between people who share views like ours.