686
Five years after killing a journalist in cold blood, Saudi Arabia is stronger than ever
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
686 points (97.4% liked)
World News
32291 readers
628 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I thought you liked the free market?
It's only free for American companies.
When Canadian companies like Bombardier try to get involved in the free market, they get blocked by the US DOJ until they run out of money.
Canadian private jet companies just can't catch a break^1^.
^1^ Unless its a federal election year, and Québec seats are up for grabs.
Lol fair enough, but the CSeries is legitimately a really nice plane so it's a shame that it ended up getting sold to Airbus for pennies.
That classic free market system where a cartel has regular meetings to set production levels to maximise their profits.
cartels are a free market force. Cartelisation is a natural consequence of market logic
Yes, actually
Actual free markets are almost as rare as actually existing socialism.
free market is when good so obviously when the market does something bad it must not be the market
the free market produced the triangle trade ffs
Really? I thought the most infamous example of triangular trade was more of a mercantilism thing.
Ah, of course, real capitalism has never been tried
A "free market" as the term is usually understood is a well-defined thing, which of course has many problems and failure modes, but is not well-represented by a market dominated by a large cartel routinely controlling prices. It is also not the same thing as capitalism.
How is it defined? Usually understood by whom? Are you talking about abstract concepts or historical examples of "free markets" and their development?
Cartels and monopolies are the result of "free markets" btw. The strongest agents will organize to dominate and destroy the competitors however they can.
The free market is an abstract concept, one which rarely exists in anything like its ideal form due to its instability under current conditions of capitalist development. The original definition given by classical economics is still the prevalent one. Despite what slogans from some proponents of capitalism would have you believe, not only are free markets not identical with it, but capitalism tends to take markets further and further from anything resembling their theoretically ideal state of freedom.
'Free-markets' has never referred to a philosophical, moral or spiritual idea of freedom, except when used rhetorically in discourse by the right, especially since Thatcher and Reagan, i.e. the full onset of the Neoliberal counter-revolution.
Economists do not study the idea of 'freedom'. That is a philosophical concept. When they say 'free', and you actually look at the structure of the propositions they use, they are referring essentially to the private autonomy of firms as 'free' to the degree that there is no non-private, social, public or governmental interest (it's not only the government, as this definition implies that trade-unions make a market 'less free').
trade unions are also a form of cartel that seeks to set the prices of comodified labour
an example of how cartels can be a perfectly legitimate part of the market
I understand what you mean, but I'd really strongly object to the use you've made of the term though as that is precisely the use which was introduced by the right-wing for the purposes of delegitimizing labour organization by conflating labour organization with the anti-competitive nature of cartels in the ideological and rhethorical climate of Neoliberalism that has continuously fetishized supposed competition and playing off our fear of it while nevertheless tending the conditions that promote cartelization of the global economy to the hilt.
The difference is that cartels are firms controlled by capitalists for the purpose of profit and capital accumulation. They fix prices for this purpose. Workers do not, because by their very nature capital accumulation is the logic of the capitalists' material interests, and so in strong contradiction, in the final analysis, with the material interests of labour. Cartel on this definition you've used would then just mean 'price control'. But is then a monopoly or the government a cartel when they respectively fix or regulate prices? The purpose of the introduction of the term was to refer to new formations, concentrations and centralizations of capital in the late 19th century for purposes of overcoming the economic slowdown of this period. It seems harmful, confused and inevitably confusing to widen the meaning of the word so broadly.
I obviously agree that labour should organize, and there are circumstances in which markets might be tolerated in very restricted ways from a socialist perspective, and in such markets labour should therefore of course be organized in such a way as to control production and therefore prices. But the assumption in your question that markets are 'legitimate' in general strikes me as deeply problematic and politically un-Marxist.
What I mean to say is that in a market system the rational behaviour is to seek to maximise what you get for what you give. Anti-competetive practices are simply the logical way to behave in such a system. Trade unions do aim to use market forces to gain for workers an advantage and that is a good thing.
The market isn't fair and it never has been about fairness.
Ideally we wouldn't have a market system but while we do it makes no sense for the workers to not try and get ahead in it. I consider the market by its very nature crooked and therefore think that engaging in market tactics like cartelisation on behalf of workers is the only way to not get completely ripped off. Take coffee growers for example they are pitted against each other by the buyers and thus live in poverty as competition pushes their wares lower and lower. If they were to cartelise they would be able to afford good things and have the basic dignity of always having enough to eat. Competition in the market makes everyone poorer
so while trade unions are an anti-competetive practice that's only because competetive practices are stupid
a chapter in a book clarifying my point
Yes I'm aware that's what you meant but that has nothing to do with my point and affects it in no way that you are expanding a definition in a way that has normally only been done by the right-wing, for obvious reasons (Elon Musk loves hammering this point).
"What I mean to say is that in a market system the rational behaviour is to seek to maximise what you get for what you give. Anti-competetive practices are simply the logical way to behave in such a system. Trade unions do aim to use market forces to gain for workers an advantage and that is a good thing." Sure. Up to a point, but you are assuming an understanding of rationality that is perfectly consistent with the neoclassical and neoliberal view of the world. The rational interests of the working class are not limited to restricting their behaviour to maximisation of their income in a private labor market.
"The market isn't fair and it never has been about fairness.". Yeh. Sure. Who said otherwise?
"deally we wouldn't have a market system but while we do it makes no sense for the workers to not try and get ahead in it". Up to a point, sure, except exclusive focus on this has historically and inevitably led to economism and reformism.
"Take coffee growers for example they are pitted against each other by the buyers and thus live in poverty as competition pushes their wares lower and lower. If they were to cartelise they would be able to afford good things and have the basic dignity of always having enough to eat. Competition in the market makes everyone poorer". The formation of unions can be useful but is limited in effectiveness, especially in periods of poor-bargaining power for working class groups such as now, with very low levels of organization. The purpose of supporting unionization, from a communist view, must also include the concern to increase our leverage during period of economic boom so as to be better prepared during downturns for pushes for radicalization.
"so while trade unions are an anti-competetive practice that's only because competetive practices are stupid" - this is vague or ambiguous and it doesn't look like the former point doesn't step from the latter. Also stupid for whom? Why? How? For workers? then yes, as per my point.
Yes you are correct I am arguing from what is the best way to behave within a market system and you are also correct that a market system is not the best way to organise society but as it is the current way we organise our society it's worth considering how to live in it
Yes trade unions won't on their own result in communism
operating in the market competitatively is stupid for anyone. It's like paying double whatever the person you're negotiating with was asking
There is absolutely nothing inconsistent between free-markets and market concentration. If by a free-market, we use the standard neoclassical meaning of one where there is no/very little/minimal government or public regulation to influence demand or supply or the price mechanism, which in material terms implies that those are completely controlled by private capital and its owners, then there is nothing stopping this from being an oligopoly, a cartel or a monopoly. Actually lack of public regulation has generally lead to more concentration, not less.
I think you are confusing the neoclassical 'perfect competition' (which does not, and cannot, exist in the real world) and neoclassically defined 'free'-markets.
Please don't try drop econ-101 learns on Marxists if you don't know the definitions of free-market economics, perfect competition or oligopolies.
If it involves "an oligopoly, a cartel, or a monopoly" then it is not a "free market" according to what they taught me in econ 101, everything convincing that I've heard since, and what Adam Smith explicitly wrote down when he first described the idea. Wikipedia cites Karl Popper in saying that in classical economics a free market is one that's "free from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities," and that it's a market in which economic rents are minimised. A monopoly is by definition antithetical to a free market. Any neoliberal suggestions that attacking the whole concept of public regulation of markets will always make them more free are simply lies, and should not be accepted.
That there is at present little or nothing preventing any imperfectly but approximately free markets that might otherwise exist devolving into less free ones dominated by monopolies, cartels, corrupt and captured regulators, out-of-control rent seeking, frauds that rely on information asymmetry, and other such perversions is (obviously, I thought) the reason why I've been consistently saying that "free" markets are not something we see much of in reality. Perhaps that's not exactly congruent with Marxism, but I don't think it's inconsistent with it either.
lol
How do all these cartels keep getting in my free market? Gosh darn-it!
Markets unregulated tend towards oligopoly, cartels and monopoly over time. Free market is interchangeable with private autocracy.
"The free market is so wonderful that the slightest unpleasant activity makes the free market no longer wonderful but that isn't the free market's fault except everyone with means is able to make that unpleasant activity happen, which again isn't the free market's fault and we can not possibly have a better system."
Yes, companies exist under capitalism.
A free market is a distinct concept from a perfect market. You're describing a perfect market operating under ideal conditions.
A free market with laissez-faire policies lends itself directly to cartels and monopolies because a perfect market cannot exist without government intervention. Maybe you should've paid attention in ECON 101.
The free market is a theoretical model assuming perfectly rational actors acting on perfect information and it is indeed ideal within those assumptions. The issue is that it's not realistic. Real-world markets can be brought closer to the free market ideal by regulation. Don't let those laissez-faire fucks confuse you what they're peddling, by equivocation, is unregulated markets which are the complete opposite of free, what they want is institutionalised market failure.
Next time a "free market advocate" shows up on your doorstep, tell them to give you all their trade secrets so that you have better information about everything, it's what they want, after all.
I dunno, maybe they changed the terminology since I took it. Seems to me "free market" was not previously imbued with all that meaning you guys are reading into it. I'm not convinced it isn't just an Americanism. To me a "free market" is simply one that's substantially free of distortion, resembling to a notable extent a perfect market. But I'll certainly avoid the phrase in future.
A "free market" is an unregulated market. At least, that's how it's sold in politics. An unregulated market lends itself towards cartels and monopolies.
Indeed, I am convinced of it. Thanks to everyone who took the trouble to help fill in my ignorance there. It was a pleasure being your crazy person on the internet for the day.
You're one of the lucky 10,000 for today!
welcome to monopoly capitalism, the inevitable end stage of free market systems
Yes