AHow to end with all that is putrid about capitalism and keep the free market
Article extracted and summarized from the Book “Repúblicas Libertárias e Democracia Econômica” (Libertarian Republics and Economic Democracies)
from book: What we learned from the practice of Basic Income — A compendium of Writings and Data (Translation by Monica Puntel, Leonardo Puntel, Carolina Fisher and Revison by Tracy Halls. Art by Júlia Cristofi.)
In reality, capitalism of the liberals and statism of the socialists is exactly the same capitalist system that contradicts the existence of the free markets. The system where, through the state monopoly, only a few can maximize their interests by imposing their values against a majority that does not have anything over and above the essential, or the capital to seek its interests and to develop its own values.
What the Law of Supply and Demand is to capitalism, the Law of Inertia is to the physics: theoretically perfect if the universe was theory instead of practice. It is perfect as far as it doesn’t exist in fact. And it doesn’t exist in fact because, as there’s no movement without friction, there’s also, for the will powers, no free time or space to coexist. There’s no way to have a free market in a world where most of the people don’t have the material means to exercise their power of decision over what’s naturally theirs.
All the economists  of the last century that still participate, through the governmental subsidy, in the current century, embrace and support themselves on the defense of the same mistake that supports them: the statism. And if the statist socialism preaches, as a remedy against evil, the maximization of the wickedness, more central power, the liberalism doesn’t redeem itself by trying to reduce this evil to the minimum necessary. On the contrary, it only preservers in its historical crimes against humanity, because “the minimum liberal state” is not necessary to mitigate the evil, but is a necessity only for the supremacists who wish to sustain their territories of segregation and exploitation of peoples and ethnicities dominated as gender and social classes.
I have no economical or metaphysical doubts, the state (minimum or maximum) is certainly the materialization of evil, and that evil is only a necessity of those who live off it. The evil is only necessary for the ones who idolize the total and exclusive power and use the capitalist liberalism and the statist socialism and their laws of the capital not only to cover up their crimes against humanity, but to continue practicing and disseminating their “necessary evil” through the millenary propaganda of the supreme power of the idea “I’m going to bring harm to you, but it’s for your own good”.
The Law of supply and demand doesn’t need a world without evil to exist, but only a world free from the cult of the supremacy and the systematization of the necessary evil; it would be a nice start if free markets had at least a place to exist. The problem is that free markets do not exist, the reason being because there are no people with free time, not for leisure, much less for business.
If there are no free societies, why would there be markets? But don’t kid yourself; free markets don’t exist only because there are socialist and liberal states regulating and intervening on the economies of the world, but for three simpler and far more basic reasons:
(One) because not all people seek the same thing;
(Two) not everyone has the same values;
(Three), and most importantly, not all people have enough means, not to pursue their interests, not to mention to impose their values.
A negotiation between free persons is made by people with enough means to make free will decisions and not coerced by force or by any threat of deprivation that equally prevents them to exercise their free will. If one party doesn’t have the strength or necessary resources to exercise his power of decision, he doesn’t have the conditions to enforce the freedoms of choice which are available, but not for him. Of course, if a person can’t maintain his possessions and basic livelihoods, whether because of lack of capacity, or because of the strength of circumstances, no one is obligated to provide his necessities, but to subtract his properties or to extract the work of people in this condition is the same as enslaving them.
Furthermore: if, at the occupied and nationalized territories, where the systematic expropriation of properties and the alienation of work is subsidized by the monopoly of the strength over the common property, the vital means aren’t necessarily and unconditionally provided for those who are under custody inside these domains, the ones who die due to the deprivation of these most basic natural rights are not victims of any natural misfortune, but of a genocide inside a supremacist territory transformed into a camp of concentration and eugenic extermination of peoples, classes and persons segregated from common property.
The extraction of compulsory work inside a nationalized territory, more than the apartheid between classes, is a slow extermination of the peoples who are discriminated, segregated and impoverished by definition, which isn’t done in years, but in decades or even centuries after extracting the absolute maximum sacrifice of people reduced to mere resources.
For that reason, if one of the parties in a negotiation doesn’t have any means to exercise his power of decision over his property or destiny and, during a negotiation, is obligated to buy, sell or renounce by fear or threat of deprivation to everything that is naturally his by law, all the agreements and contracts with this person deprived of the fundamental liberty are not only invalid and illegitimate, but also criminal if the other party participates on the control of this concentration camp of the peoples as a territory, the state.
The deal performed with a person deprived of the social security minimum, derived from properties and incomes that guarantee his living and most basic freedom, is not a negotiation, but the business of his alienation, and its historical name is slavery. Don’t fool yourself: what’s taken from people when their vital means are restrained isn’t the forced labor or resources, but that their own selves are forced to surrender as objects of those who deprive them. And, if this is not violence, the one who rapes people without the strength to scream or to defend themselves also doesn’t commit a crime until the victims rise up against him.
In fact, the party that detains the capital, whether it’s demanding or supplying, has always a much wider margin for negotiation against the party destitute of guaranteed revenues by the expropriation of common and private properties that constitute its fundamental freedom. The individual that doesn’t have his guaranteed support, in other words, all the people forced to make a living working not for themselves, but for someone else, don’t have natural rights anymore: (1) neither to the revenues of the common property; (2) nor to the self-preservation by all necessary means. It is, therefore, from the right to leisure and, consequently, to the business, that those destitute of the vital means are deprived when segregated from the common property.
Consequently, the alienated by nationalization is not required to sustain only the property and revenues of others, but the own system that perpetuates his deprivation. He literally pays not only to subsidize properties that don’t belong to him, but also its continuous and reiterated expropriation; he pays not only to protect a property that isn’t his, but also to maintain himself under suspicion and watch — since he’s the natural suspect to take that which he doesn’t own. And, worst of all, he pays to stop being destitute of everything he needs. In other words, he pays so he can dig his own pit. And if he was “well educated” since his childhood, he still thanks his lord all mighty of earth and heaven for the damned life he doesn’t have.
Submitted to this culture of poverty, of the submission to power, is not only a person who is forced to negotiate under the threat of the deprivation of basic needs, but also a person deprived from the non-material and conceptual basic conditions to express his/her freedom. They deprived of the necessary conditions to express their conscience, conception, their capacity of signification and valorization of his own things.
They are chained to a cave; a human being so deprived of the vital and conceptual means to set him free, that, many times, they have even lost the willpower to want it. It doesn’t matter their degree of conscience or knowledge, while incarcerated in this framework of the senses and signification, they are people with no factual or ideal freedom to express his free will. They are simply not free people to sign social or economic contracts.
And this is exactly the purpose of the denial of his fundamental rights, as property and natural incomes.
If in capitalism there’s a competition for the maximization of profits, this competition happens between the few who have the capital; the expropriated compete for their lives, for their survival and, when they negotiate, they’re not selling their free work, but paying for the kidnap of their common property, necessary to their survival, and if these vital means are partially liberated in exchange for the slavish work. This worker is never released from his condition of human resource through the deprivation of the right to the free initiative and vocation for the predestination of the job.
The independent owner, whether on the side of supply or demand, is always at an advantage over the expropriated individual, who doesn’t compete for the maximization of his interests, but, above all, to pay his bills. The contemporary slavery is a mix of servitude by need and debts, characterized mainly by the absolute ignorance disseminated by the culture of propaganda, by the collective unconsciousness state maintained by the culture of the submission to the political-economic power.
There is no free market in capitalism, because capitalism is not a system of signification of free relations, but of representation of power and its wholeness. There’s no free negotiation in capitalism because the capital implies the imposition of preconceptions as value, or, in plain English, the sign of power:
That one doesn’t earn his living without serving alienated interests, things only have one possible value and the pursuit of accumulating this value must be the meaning of life. In other words, you can have the sign of value you want, work for whoever you wish and choose anything more important than earning money as the meaning of your life, since you spend most of your life working to have money. You can do anything as long you support the government and its chiefs, who, not by chance, are the ones who control the emission of the forced values, and not you. Quoting Ford, the essence of the current capitalist market is exactly the same as its representative democracy’s “you can choose the car in whichever color you like, as long as it’s black”. The brands are just as the values are, and must be presupposed to the speeches.
For a free market to be possible, there must be a network of free negotiations formed by people who are in a position to establish their own and common significations, their connections as factual and not theoretical relations. People who don’t necessarily need to have the same possessions, but that must undoubtedly have enough basic conditions to be able to negotiate without being coerced, by the affliction of the needs, to accept signs and values that go against their free will.
Objectively, there’s only one free negotiation: between the owners, that despite being unequal, must possess minimum revenues unconditionally guaranteed not only to earn his living, but also to gain his freedom to value things, his own and that of his fellows. The ones who fight for survival are animals, people cooperate to compete, to live. Specifically: To create valuable things and to have a vocation is not a luxury solely for the rich who have the time to do so, but a necessity of societies formed by free people.
If a worker goes on strike, he negotiates with his hunger against what? The decrease of profits? The one who doesn’t have any property, doesn’t have a guaranteed income, has almost no room for negotiation (less than the vital minimum) not only to sell his work, but to buy what he wants, or even worse, what he needs. The citizen who is disintegrated and reduced, sometimes to a mere worker and other times to a mere consumer, always has only his resistance to the deprivations as his biggest “trading value” against the domain of the common property. In this kind of denial of the leisure against life, there is no balance, but the imposition of the biggest possible cost to the weakest, the expropriated. Let’s put it into other words, the imposition of the support and reproduction of the expropriated, not as free human beings, but as objects of work and consumption.
In this system there’s not enough competition to reduce the price of the products or the human cost of the imposition of forced work through the deprivation of the vital means, because the interest of all that detain the capital, and that ultimately impose the goals of production, is not to produce, but to profit, which in almost all cases is the same thing as to accumulate the exchange means and valuable properties. But not always, where the preconceived values are questioned, the maximization of interests is merely the accumulation of more of the same, but the imposition of this valuation as the only supreme value. In other words, in the beginning and in moments of crisis, the interest controls again the predetermination of the natural things, in a way that the process that reduces human and natural beings to things and their classification continues to be as things should be seen: the real.
So why the surprise if, in this system, crops are destroyed to elevate the price while entire populations starve? The main goal of the system is not to produce food, nor to obtain the highest possible profit or minimize the loss, but first and foremost to save the enterprise or state, or, putting it another way, to maintain control over the beings as things, to maintain the submission of the population which needs those goods. Market or State? Doesn’t matter, the important thing is that the production of everything that’s absolutely necessary is not controlled exactly by those who need the livelihoods: the natural people.
The state is an artificial body and legal entities are only the tentacles of this body. Enterprises and states are no longer societies, they’re corporations and, by definition, don’t have the goal to serve people anymore, fulfilling their social reason, but to make use of people using the social reason to perpetuate themselves; they’re an artificial body and not organizations of natural people. For that reason, capitalism is not only a system that destroys nature and the environment, but it is an inherent system of denaturation through the imposition of necessarily artificial and dystopian environments.
If statism is the inversion of the human and social values that turn societies and associations into human hives and corporations that force people to perpetuate their existence as a cult, through the idolatrous sacrifice to something that demands to be more important than their own lives; capitalism is the corporative economic system where all people are alienated from the materialistic ideology, not only as a greater body anymore, but as the unite and total dystopian reality .
If this national or private monopoly is destroyed by the competition of other capitalist enterprises or by the governmental regulation, the final result is the same: the control of a national or private corporation and never of the society over its common property; the managerial and bureaucratic control, the control of things by those who don’t exactly win from them in the form of actual gains, but rather from the lack of them or their controlled provision.
But who should be in control of things?
Certainly not of this system. What should guide the production isn’t the fallacy of the client’s satisfaction in the free capitalist market. The capitalist who pays for the production of goods wants to profit, he doesn’t care about consumers. The producer wants to profit as much as the one who finances him; and the worker doesn’t dream of getting the same as the other two did, just because what he earns is merely enough to buy the junk that he produces. The division of the capitalist production tends to generate all the worst, most expensive and most superfluous things possible; given that the power of those who own the capital to lower the costs, increase the prices and reduce the quality has as its only limit the reproduction consumers as workers.
What could really lower the prices and determine the quality of the products, the will of the client isn’t the decisive factor of the production and prices, because they’re not agents of the market, they actually don’t supply or demand anything, they consume and produce. The client isn’t a player in this game, but merely a variant to be considered by the players. The competition between enterprises always seeks to maximize their profits, in other words, there’s no competition of interests between private companies, but a dispute for the control of the market, which ends with the balance between the competing interests, but of those who have enough chips and strengths to compete in this game. And limited are the clients with enough capital to afford their interests in the market, but they’re obviously not stupid and they don’t wait for the supply of what’s available, they create the demand of what they want. They act on the “before” and not on the “after”, therefore they’re not exactly clients anymore, but the financiers of the production system.
The enterprises can compete as much as they like, what you’ll never see in capitalism is the decrease of prices to the least possible cost, simply because the expropriated, the one reduced to the condition of worker-consumer, has no political-economic strength to generate market demands, but only protests and strikes. They don’t have actual economic and political rights to take any decision, nor power to compete to produce what they really want. They don’t have capital or rights to free financial and monetary association that allows them to equally compete with those who own capital and property. The expropriated isn’t only devoid of the right to express his interest of production or consumption, but of his freedom to support his or other’s creative vocation.
Or, to put it another way, if the majority can hardly support itself without working for others, how could it generate the demands that actually finance whatever is done politically or economically? Yes, there is collective funding via the internet. But the question that is valid for the direct democracy is also valid for the free market: who has access to the internet? And how politically and economically free is this access?
The expropriated has very little control over the reduction of prices and the rise of the quality and it’s always inversely proportional to the degree of his needs and to the lack of means to afford his own self, not only for what he is, but for what he minimally must have in order to be. The worker actually competes for his political or economic social interests, he’s simply not capable of affording his interests, and the ones who can’t support themselves are not independent, and the ones who can’t veritably support themselves are not even free.
For the statism, the worker is and will always be the client, sometimes of the politicians and other times of the companies that, pretending to give for free or to charge a fair price for what doesn’t even belong to them in order to be given or charged for, are in fact stealing from him. So, for the prices to be the lowest possible (or at least fair) and for the products to be the best possible (or at least what people want), it would be necessary to maximize the competition through the biggest possible diversity of competitors, it would be necessary that every unsatisfied consumer was, if not a potential rival, at least a potential investor associated to a free potential entrepreneur and competitor. Which obviously would only happen, or should i say, only happens for those consumers who have capital and freedom of financial association not only to create thereafter the productive demand in the market, but before that, in the production resources. Demanding a production according to his specifications and competing with everyone that wants to monopolize the market and sell the garbage to others.
If all parties interested in maximizing their gains had not only the capital to do it, but also the political and economic freedom to determine which are their interests and values in association; if every person had the right to economically compete to control the production through the associative freedom, the interest of the people voluntarily associated would prevail upon the interests of the private and national corporations. This way, we would have a free market where you could buy what you want, instead of what they want you to buy; and for a simple but at the same time absurd reason: you’re the one who has actual control over your private and common possessions and wealth and not them anymore.
The control of things should belong, therefore, to those who want its provision instead of those who profit from the reiterated system of its deprivation as well as regulated and segregated provision. But the control of the production is exclusively in the hands of those who own the capital. However, it doesn’t need to be taken from them. We only need to end their monopoly by simply socially guaranteeing the competition of the people who are truly interested in the production of the common good and the social services. To guarantee that the capital is in the hands of those who know how to produce and those who want the goods to be produced, and not people who don’t have the slightest idea, don’t have an interest in the production or the consumption of the good, but only want to shove it down the throats of others, or even worse, to prevent others from having what they need.
For this purpose, it is necessary to return the properties and natural liberties to the people of peace, mutually guaranteeing the right to the basic capital necessary for them to control their private and common lives, guaranteeing the vital and capital means, the properties and basic incomes, so that they can exercise their natural right to self-determination and sovereignty over their private and common lives.
Who is actually interested in the production should be able to finance it. Who is actually interested in the production of something shouldn’t be prevented from using his participation on the common yield funds to finance whatever interests him the most. The citizens reduced to worker-clients should have the guaranteed capital not only to survive and reproduce, but also to directly support its production and development.
The ones interested in the acquisition and consumption of goods and services shouldn’t only buy the finished product, they should be able to finance their creation. They should have the freedom in fact to, without restrictions, interferences or impositions of any power, join other people interested in these commercial or social goods and services.
If there’s an apple farm, it should be financed neither by bankers, nor in any case by a company managed to maximize profits, but logically by those who like and want to eat the best apples produced by whom they consider to be the best producers. Because, if the person who afforded the production was the same as the one who was going to eat them, the investor’s interest would be the same as the consumer’s and the private interest would be the common, or better said, wouldn’t be disintegrated from it. Who buys and finances a house in order to live in it isn’t exactly worried about his sales profits, but about getting the best house his money can buy, which is exactly what any profit accumulator does, who accumulates profits selling garbage, so that, in the end, he can get the best things money can buy.
When you want to enjoy the best things, the interests change and the choices start being the use instead of the exchange. The one who invests wouldn’t use the garbage he produces for others, totally because he couldn’t produce something for him and another thing, or nothing, for the others. He couldn’t generate two distinct demands of products, one for himself, the financer, and another for the rest of the clients.
A statist would soon cry for the creation of a law that forced the producer to consume what he produces. I even think that a stamp, issued by the producers themselves, showing that who produces, eats would help guiding the investment of the consumers. But it’s important to know that theses certifications can equally be used in the public services and that it, not only shouldn’t be a monopoly, but also should be ruled by the same principle, the contributor should control the budget, or in other words, the budgets, because they would be decentralized and competing to get the investment of the citizen who owns his common property and basic income.
Therefore, the solution to meet the interests of those who pay for any service or product, whether public, private or even financial, is to stop subsidizing their capitalist statist production and, afterwards, buying what the owners of the capital oblige us to consume, but also to form mutual societies to finance the systematic production and the consumption of what we need and want, providing it with the lowest possible cost. There’s no problem in outsourcing the production and the administration, including the political, economic or financial ones, but may the most competent compete to offer the best service and product. However, since the one who pays for and uses, the common citizen, isn’t forced to renounce, by coercion or deprivation of the allocation control of common or private resources, the political-economic control over his common good, his interests and, ultimately, the destiny of his own life.
If the one who should produce and enrich is he who has the capacity and the qualification to produce the best product or service, the one who must recognize, protect, generate and finance this wealth is the one who benefits from what’s produced from it: the people who form the societies and its associations. Those who have the interest must be able to associate to allocate the necessary resources to finance what really interests them. Those who should control not only the financing of what they want and need, but also its provision, are the people interested in the consumption financing the production.
People should not literally be vulnerable to bureaucrats, technocracies or speculators for, if they don’t do what people want, it’s because their interest is different and is guaranteed: they don’t consume the garbage that they produce, as well as they use their privileged position to guarantee their distinctive properties. Who pays for the production has the right to consume in accordance to the demand, not of a central, economic or political power, but in accordance to the society’s decision. The solution is, therefore, in the capitalization of the people and in their unconditional freedom of mutual financial association to control and pay for the production of all goods, including the means of exchange, without the interference of any central or centralizing power. Political and economic direct democracy.
Freedom isn’t the political or economic choice among predetermined possibilities and alternatives; it’s the self-determination of the political and economic possibilities and alternatives. Something that demands the free associations as well as the disposition of permanent conditions that guarantee the access to the vital means and the state of peace of those who share the same place.
Real democracy is not only the political self-determination of a person over his common property, but the economic self-determination of a person over his natural properties in order to form the common properties. Democracies are formed by free republics, by a social protection system, mutual societies against the monopolies of the violence and central powers.
All people of peace that form society must have a share of sufficient capital, not only to support themselves, but to generate the balance of forces that maintains the equality of authorities over the common property capable of supporting the society against the appearance and the violence of central powers and monopolies, including the economic ones.
Yes, the revolution of capitalism doesn’t only concern the guarantee of a basic income so that all people can actually participate in society as a free market, but in particular it concerns the inversion of the order of the capital, where the one with the greatest interest, the worker-client, isn’t the last in line, but the first to express his interest, whether financing his works and productions, or financing the works and productions he wishes to enjoy, the extirpation of the cult of power by the societies for the art and the reverse of isolation of creative production.
The one who should control the supply of what he wants is the one who in fact demands it. And to truly demand, he must have the necessary means to generate the productive demand. Not only because he’s the determining factor of the demand and of the most decentralized, self-organized and efficient resource allocation system possible, but because he’s the natural co-proprietor of the revenues of the common goods of the territory he occupies, in peace communion, with the other people who form, not only his nation or his state, but his natural world without borders or segregation.
A world which needs to be socially protected due to its cosmopolitan disposition of universal provision without discrimination or segregation is as wide as the protection network of its society and its connections with all others that share the same principle.
However, just a social protection network without borders, destined to guarantee the vital minimum to everyone in the form of a universal basic income, wouldn’t be enough to fund libertarian societies and republics. People should also be able to invest in mutual funds capable of supporting companies, banks and free public and social services, a free competitive social market.
Therefore, it’s not the state or the profit maximizers that should establish the offer or the provision of goods and services, especially the public and social ones, but the people, according to their private interests, which are as common as diffuse. The capital distributed not only equally, but in a sufficient amount so that all people of peace can participate in the allocation of productive resources, is the fundamental basis, not only for the establishment of a free market of social interest, but for a true economic democracy. Or rather, for a true libertarian republic made by as many financial and productive voluntary associations as the diversity of interests of their investors-consumers.
Not simply a direct democracy, but a libertarian republic made by the unconditional disposition of guarantee of the common properties and the vital means for the fundamental freedom, not only in respect of the differences, but to the multiplicity of values in peace communion. For this purpose, the capital must be in the hands of all who have the productive interest, the worker or entrepreneur, but, above all, in the hands of natural and humane people and not centralized in the hands of those corporate fat cat monsters — national and private. The capital should be in the hands of those who are entitled to it by natural right: the natural people and their societies, and not under the control of the alienated and segregated from the national and corporate; and, for a very simple reason, because free people don’t worship and sustain the deprivation, the war and the power, but naturally value and appreciate life, peace and freedom.
 Voluntarily unfair generalization, there are good libertarian thinkers that approach the economy with a discipline that I don’t have. See Kevin Carson, but exactly for being good, their thought can’t be reduced only to economy and I believe that they prefer to be known as libertarians instead of economists.
 The empire of the state monopolies and their subsequent separations of peoples and classes, not only destroys humanity and prevents the emergence of the cosmopolitanism, but keeps all the world inhumanly segregated in the culture of the never-ending international conflict and disagreement. The egregore of the disagreement is a hate culture between peoples and classes, it is the supremacist cult to the absolute incarnate by the world powers that idolize its power.