Free market bad?

What are some strong, fundamental arguments against the free market?

It cannot work.

the concept of freedom is bollocks and easily crushed by the first guy in town

None, freed markets are the best system of distributing resources.

It doesn't and can never exist.

Can you guys please explain to me why?

I'd like a couple of points that I can look up and read on

It is extremely inefficient because what is profitable is not necessarily what is effective or desirable. e.g planned obsolescence, environmental destruction, throwing out unsold food, throwing out harvest to inflate food prices, suicide nets, etc.


Theoretically I suppose so but that's dependent on having a population that is fully informed and one that isn't apathetic. Given how easy it is for companies to absolutely dominate the media, silence their workers and generally just breed a society that doesn't care very much about what happens to other people when it inconveniences them I think depending on the consumer to keep companies in line is extremely unrealistic.

coz the current sistem isn't free at all

Because for markets to exist in the first place you have to have private property, and to have private property you have to have some sort of regulation. In Feudalism, the private property was the land and the people on it, and the regulation was deeds of patent and a bunch of guys in armor coming to kick your ass if you fuck with it. In Capitalism it's similar, with articles of incorporation, intellectual property, etc, and guys in armor coming to beat your ass if you fuck with it.

If there were a free market, anyone would be able to make Mickey Mouse cartoons and make money off of it. In a "free market," Disney owns the rights into perpetuity and will send the goon squad to steamboat your willie if you even think of messing with their precious intellectual properties.

The law of value. Only with its abolition can we get rid of capitalism.

There are great but I'm talking about the free market as the ideology not free market in the context of the society we live in.

More like to tackle the ideology itself

It ends up in monopolies, overproduction and the need for production to be destroyed AKA war.

Also, it's never free.

It's doomed to self destruct when a civilization reaches a point where machines can replace every worker and as a result consumers won't be able to keep the economy going.

How do you respond to someone saying that you own yourself as property and the labor of his body and work?

Is it insane to say they dont own the resources they found to create?

Participants need to behave by rules and we always have at least a few people who will ignore rules and just take what they want.

So the biggest/strongest gets what ever he wants until somebody else gets an army.

I have yet to hear of how we preclude private armies without rules.

Hence Free Markets are as numerous as Unicorns.

I think that makes your answer a bit more understandable.

Point out that there has never existed in history a truly free market.

Maybe I didn't explain myself well. But I'm interested in the argument that to establish private property you have to acknowledge that you own yourself as a person and the work of your body.

Is that unreasonable?

Or even better point out that capitalism has only existed for around 5 centuries if you stretch the definition of it enough.

And also point out that capitalism isn't just exchanging shit.

This. There's nothing wrong with free markets. They're actually highly beneficial. The problem lies in the mode of production.

Free market advocates for punting off factories to whichever countries are the shittiest because you can exploit their workers and environment to a greater degree, instead of making them in rich countries to take advantage of the more developed infrastructure

Free markets advocate paying a bunch of money to people who don't actually contribute anything to society like bankers or advertisers instead of the actually productive people like laborers or scientists (engineers are payed decently, but still not anywhere near proportionate with the leeches)

Free markets think consumerism is something to be encouraged instead of eliminated; they think society consuming more is to be encouraged, not discouraged

It is only by starting with a critique of material conditions that we can move on to a critique of the ideology which forms around them. With both feudalism and capitalism, they started out as a mode of organization within the previous system which eventually got a catalyst to displace it (be it feudalism from classical slavery through complete collapse and chaos or capitalism from feudalism through primitive accumulation) - in fact, if we look at the birth of any new societal form, we always see material change preceding the formation of a new ideological hegemony, and critique must reflect that. The generally superstructure-focused works of the Situationists, for example, would be worthless without the more strictly material analyses of Marx, Engels, Pannekoek, and Mattick (I think he influenced them) giving them a starting point.

One should point out that the word "free market" is wrapped in several layers of obfuscation and ideology. Usually it's brought up in regards to neoliberal reforms, which has little to do with actual markets that are free from regulation. Free markets reforms according to neolibs = states, treaties and NGOs like the IMF and TTIP propping up the power of multinational corporations

free market is a good way to ratchet up the self expansion of capital
I'd just rather argue against the market instead

...

tl:dr

I wish I could shove a glass rod up your pee hole and kick you in the groin

Once upon a time, national governments relied on import/export taxes, which depended on excess supply/demand to generate money, and pushed nations toward self-sufficiency.

This didn't suit national government interests, so they opted to tax all transactions within the nation instead

profit requires a buildup of debt because theres no way for capital to produce commodities, way workers and other capitalists less than what the price of the final goods of the market will be, and then for there to be enough money to buy those goods

Its an impossibility


Any company or person is a price setting authority.
In addition to that, the free market itself promotes making money, which promotes competition. Larger corporations have an economical edge over smaller ones. Large corporations will be monopolistic and do everything they can to keep competition out.
The free market is inherently self-destructive, if it exists at all.

There's no point in having free markets when you can make a program to plan the entire economy infinitely more efficiently with a single i7 laptop in a few minutes and have that with Athenian democracy and fully automated luxury communism made possible by modern technology. There's no reason for anyone to be poor like they are right now, and it is econophysically provable that the system tends towards the current state (this is dealt with in another of his major books, "Classical Econophysics").
Bleak world when you know that policy is entirely irrational from the standpoint of human welfare and based around simply reproducing capital by forcing humans to work until it all self-destructs or AI supplants humanity as capital's new body a la Nick Land, isn't it?

not that guy but does "a new socialism" go into detail about central planning and its math/CS problems and solutions or is it more of a general thing?
t. CS student.

This