The freedom of the free market doesn't denote the universal freedom of its participants, but rather the freedom of the participants to agree on the price of goo

The freedom of the free market doesn't denote the universal freedom of its participants, but rather the freedom of the participants to agree on the price of goods without interference. That's the only specific freedom guaranteed to a free market. e.g. One is not usually free to trade stolen goods in a free market. In economic theory, capital is that which can be combined with labour to produce money. It is the "means of production". It isn't just any money, or just any accumulation of goods. In a socialist free market, the vendors can set their prices, and the consumers can choose which prices they'll accept, and/or negotiate a better deal, just like any normal free market. The only (necessary) difference is that the capital - i.e. the means by which the goods being traded were produced - is communally owned. One possible policy is all consumers get the same basic income, and vendors - in the form of worker collectives - are given control over capital by lot or election. Profit would be reinvested in the capital, and/or returned to the state to be redistributed. The consequences are similar. With enough vendors and consumers, prices would tend to the marginal cost of goods. Vendors who consistently fail to sell their goods at or above cost will, rather than running out of capital, have their control over the shared capital taken away by the state/community (e.g. via a recall process).