> But money gives an answer to some problems, and in the absence of it, an efficient answer is not possible. Absolutely wrong. Money gives one answer, but it's

> But money gives an answer to some problems, and in the absence of it, an efficient answer is not possible. Absolutely wrong. Money gives one answer, but it's not the most efficient: it's the one that profits the most to the one that already has the most. It doesn't benefit all the producers, and it doesn't benefit the consumers. It doesn't benefit society as a whole, because everyone is a competitor instead of working together. Your example is interesting because you start with a situation that only exists in a capitalist society, as if that was a sensible default. You're basically taking the example of a duopoly, and show that keeping that duopoly with one actor taking even more place is... good ? When has an oligopoly ever been good ? Why should the avocados producer make more avocados ? Do we need more avocados ? You say the land is uncultivated, but why is that a problem ? A third of earth with only avocados and another one with only olives is an absolute disaster in terms of ecology, biodiversity and health. It's the kind of situation where diseases are born. In that view, uncultivated land is something far more valuable than either farms, and yet, in your conclusion, the logical answer is to make even more avocados: that is a mistake on all accounts. You say avocados are going to be cheaper, but that's completely oblivious to reality: a farmer who owns 2/3 of earth will not reduce their price. They will hold even more power, have even more influence over a capitalist governance and will do whatever they want. Again, when have the prices of an oligopoly ever decreased without intervention from a government ? > The same exact formulation can be applied to torrent seeders. Which one of the seeders we want to buy new computers and better internet connection? The seeders of information who are the fastest and more reliable, we want to extend their production and sharing of information. That's opposite to P2P. We don't want bigger torrent seeders, we want more torrent seeders. we don't want to centralize production of information, we want to distribute it. Now, sure, money is needed to buy equipment, connection, and time. But we need money only because those things are not gratis. Which is why we must fight for more domains free of exchange of value: if more things do not need money, more people will be able to share information. Inequalities will vanish. > So, money is an automation. Automation as in the "increase of production". Anyone who's been paying attention to the climate change discussion in the past 50 years should understand that "Increase of production" is definitely the last thing we want.