6 ms·

There is no free market in capitalism, because it creates monopolies, and you easily could have some form of market socialism with workers cooperative based eco

There is no free market in capitalism, because it creates monopolies, and you easily could have some form of market socialism with workers cooperative based economy.

xigoi 3y ago
Capitalism doesn't inherently create monopolies. Badly regulated capitalism does.
- Jensson 3y ago
  Or more generally, badly regulated anything tends to create new power centers. If you don't prevent people from organizing then they will organize and create a new power structure. See workers unionizing, corporations becoming monopolies, maffias, rebels becoming kings etc etc. So this has nothing to do with capitalism, it happens under every single system unless you have strong forces to prevent it. If you ban companies, then informal companies will appear in the form of mafias or similar (we call medieval maffias nobles), and those will completely ignore any regulations and therefore be the worst kind of capitalism.
  - zero-st4rs 3y ago
    > Or more generally, badly regulated anything tends to create new power centers. > .. > So this has nothing to do with capitalism Capitalism is the idea of the market regulating itself, no?. Regulation / Government is a mixed economy (Socialism (edit: this is incorrect)) at best. The whole talking point (when it is convenient) around "free enterprise" is the lack of regulation, see neoliberalism. Regulation is also not the answer when the people in charge of regulation are or are funded by the corporate entities being regulated. Worker cooperatives or really any economic system that privileges socially intentional results is simply a better model. I'd much rather own the means of my production than have someone else regulate the work I also do for someone else. I'd also happen to need less government and have more agency to care for the welfare of others. Hmmm..
    - Jensson 3y ago
      > Capitalism is the idea of the market regulating itself, no? No, markets completely regulating themselves would be anarchism. Protecting your property rights and your contracts is a form of regulations in itself, that is the fundamental part of capitalism and is what enables large companies to form without military might. Protecting property and contract rights encompasses many things, such as protecting your property from being taken from you via unfair means such as extortion etc. This necessitates limiting others property rights, others can't just build a wall around your property and force you to sell it for example. > Regulation / Government is a mixed economy (Socialism) at best. No, that is just regular capitalism. Socialism doesn't allow privately owned companies. Are you from USA? They misunderstand this part a lot, thinking that Europe isn't capitalist or something.
      - zero-st4rs 3y ago
        > No, markets completely regulating themselves would be anarchism. Protecting your property rights and your contracts is a form of regulations in itself, that is the fundamental part of capitalism and is what enables large companies to form without military might. Huh, I am from the U.S. and I wasn't aware that Socialism was sort of all or nothing. (I'm not a socialist). I would say that it is presented differently (or at least culturally differently) where I am. Good catch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism says: > The degree of competition in markets and the role of intervention and regulation, as well as the scope of state ownership, vary across different models of capitalism. The extent to which different markets are free and the rules defining private property are matters of politics and policy. I do think that the point of my comment is definitely still at play, even if regulation is absorbed into the definition. Happy to speak more to it. ----- I can't seem to reply to comments, so let me rephrase. "Huh, I didn't know that, thanks for the learning opportunity! I'm very used to hearing Socialism thrown around as a boogeyman in my country whenever a policy is mentioned that benefits people disenfranchised by the aggregation of capital into the hands of a few. I think my point is still valid, regardless."
        Jensson 3y ago
- kristofferg 3y ago
  Are you saying unregulated capitalism will not result in monopolies? If so - thats a pretty bold statement. Would love to see some evidence :)
  - xigoi 3y ago
    Where did I say that? On the contrary, regulations are often needed to ensure free markets.
    - kristofferg 3y ago
      One could interpret “Capitalism doesn't inherently create monopolies.” like that. :)
      - xigoi 3y ago
        It can be interpreted that way if you don't know the difference between capitalism and anarcho-capitalism, which seems to be oddly common on the internet.
        kristofferg 3y ago
        I do believe its quite controversial to equate Regulated Capitalism with “Capitalism”. Ime. the opposite is more often true. (We do, however, agree on the necessity of properly regulated markets) :)
        xigoi 3y ago
        I'm not equating them. Regulated capitalism, just like unregulated, is a subset of capitalism.
viktorcode 3y ago
"Free market is an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses." Monopolies restrict competition, obviously.

There is no free market in capitalism, because it creates monopolies, and you easily could have some form of market socialism with workers cooperative based economy.

xigoi 3y ago

Capitalism doesn't inherently create monopolies. Badly regulated capitalism does.

Jensson 3y ago
Or more generally, badly regulated anything tends to create new power centers. If you don't prevent people from organizing then they will organize and create a new power structure. See workers unionizing, corporations becoming monopolies, maffias, rebels becoming kings etc etc. So this has nothing to do with capitalism, it happens under every single system unless you have strong forces to prevent it. If you ban companies, then informal companies will appear in the form of mafias or similar (we call medieval maffias nobles), and those will completely ignore any regulations and therefore be the worst kind of capitalism.
- zero-st4rs 3y ago
  > Or more generally, badly regulated anything tends to create new power centers. > .. > So this has nothing to do with capitalism Capitalism is the idea of the market regulating itself, no?. Regulation / Government is a mixed economy (Socialism (edit: this is incorrect)) at best. The whole talking point (when it is convenient) around "free enterprise" is the lack of regulation, see neoliberalism. Regulation is also not the answer when the people in charge of regulation are or are funded by the corporate entities being regulated. Worker cooperatives or really any economic system that privileges socially intentional results is simply a better model. I'd much rather own the means of my production than have someone else regulate the work I also do for someone else. I'd also happen to need less government and have more agency to care for the welfare of others. Hmmm..
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > Capitalism is the idea of the market regulating itself, no? No, markets completely regulating themselves would be anarchism. Protecting your property rights and your contracts is a form of regulations in itself, that is the fundamental part of capitalism and is what enables large companies to form without military might. Protecting property and contract rights encompasses many things, such as protecting your property from being taken from you via unfair means such as extortion etc. This necessitates limiting others property rights, others can't just build a wall around your property and force you to sell it for example. > Regulation / Government is a mixed economy (Socialism) at best. No, that is just regular capitalism. Socialism doesn't allow privately owned companies. Are you from USA? They misunderstand this part a lot, thinking that Europe isn't capitalist or something.
    - zero-st4rs 3y ago
      > No, markets completely regulating themselves would be anarchism. Protecting your property rights and your contracts is a form of regulations in itself, that is the fundamental part of capitalism and is what enables large companies to form without military might. Huh, I am from the U.S. and I wasn't aware that Socialism was sort of all or nothing. (I'm not a socialist). I would say that it is presented differently (or at least culturally differently) where I am. Good catch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism says: > The degree of competition in markets and the role of intervention and regulation, as well as the scope of state ownership, vary across different models of capitalism. The extent to which different markets are free and the rules defining private property are matters of politics and policy. I do think that the point of my comment is definitely still at play, even if regulation is absorbed into the definition. Happy to speak more to it. ----- I can't seem to reply to comments, so let me rephrase. "Huh, I didn't know that, thanks for the learning opportunity! I'm very used to hearing Socialism thrown around as a boogeyman in my country whenever a policy is mentioned that benefits people disenfranchised by the aggregation of capital into the hands of a few. I think my point is still valid, regardless."
      - Jensson 3y ago
kristofferg 3y ago
Are you saying unregulated capitalism will not result in monopolies? If so - thats a pretty bold statement. Would love to see some evidence :)
- xigoi 3y ago
  Where did I say that? On the contrary, regulations are often needed to ensure free markets.
  - kristofferg 3y ago
    One could interpret “Capitalism doesn't inherently create monopolies.” like that. :)
    - xigoi 3y ago
      It can be interpreted that way if you don't know the difference between capitalism and anarcho-capitalism, which seems to be oddly common on the internet.
      - kristofferg 3y ago
        I do believe its quite controversial to equate Regulated Capitalism with “Capitalism”. Ime. the opposite is more often true. (We do, however, agree on the necessity of properly regulated markets) :)
        xigoi 3y ago
        I'm not equating them. Regulated capitalism, just like unregulated, is a subset of capitalism.

viktorcode 3y ago

"Free market is an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses." Monopolies restrict competition, obviously.