The “free market” is an incredibly tense topic among Anti-Capitalists. Capitalism itself claims that it is based within a free market system, which to Anti-Capitalists has come to mean a system based in exploitation, domination and subjugation at the expense of the Capitalists, whom maintain control over the majority of the land and its resources. This forces the rest of the population to either sell its labor or risk dying in the streets. Opposition to Capitalism, on these grounds, is completely understandable. I happen to consider myself an avid opponent of Capitalism. However, I must object to the concept that to oppose Capitalism is to oppose free markets, a claim I find to be inaccurate in its analysis.

A market itself is simply a system of exchange, a free market therefore being an open system of exchange, meaning without restriction upon the voluntary interactions between those whom participate within it. Such a market implies peoples that are capable of freely exchanging their goods and services in a manner that suites them as both individuals and communities. In and of itself, markets are not inherently a negative concept. However, the implication of a “free” market directly implies the possibility of markets that are not in and of themselves free.

I would certainly argue that Capitalism is anything but a free market. Capitalism can certainly be described, partially, as a system of exchange, however the “freedom” of Capitalism means a highly regulated, manipulated and artificially captive market into the hands of a small minority of Capitalists on behalf of the state. This is possible due to both the legal justification and protection provided by the state through its laws and market regulations that create high entry costs into the market for those that lack capital, while also being directly enforced by the police and military apparatuses of the state itself. This captive market is most evident within the labor market, under which the majority of the population is artificially, due to interference by the state on behalf of the Capitalists, forced to sell their labor to the Capitalists.

This is all possible due to the justification and enforcement of private property rights under Capitalism. Many understand private property to be, quite literally, that which an individual has private, exclusive use of. There is some truth in this, though I consider it only a partial one. It is true that private property is exclusive, but what is often missed is that private property is not only exclusion, but exclusion even from that which one does not use or interact with, that is to say, absentee ownership. With this understanding private property, and by extension Capitalism, are only possible under a system in which such absentee property may be enforced, i.e. under the state. Absent the state, private property as such would be unenforceable.

This leaves us with questions. How is a society, absent a state structure, to organize property and exchange? Does such a society abolish any personal ownership outright? As an Anarchist, I am an advocate of liberty and equality, that is to say the freedom of of all peoples to be able to act as they will, so long as it does not infringe upon the freedom of others. As such, I see Capitalism and the state as hierarchies that must be abolished in order to create a more liberated, freed society. If we take the above to be true, that Capitalism is in fact not a free market, a system of exchange based in manipulation and domination, then a freed market would mean a society in which free exchange would exist. Such a society, in my opinion, is perfectly in line with the Anarchists revolutionary vision.

Property and exchange under conditions of liberty and equality, by such a definition, could very well include the personal ownership of property, so long as said property did not infringe upon the freedom of those around them. By extension, if one so chooses to share property with others collectively, then by the same principle this would be perfectly reasonable as well. Suffice it to say, such conditions would be one in which individuals would have full control over their labor, being able to decide at their own discretion how and in what way to use it. One could choose to participate in any number of associations, from one based within a cash nexus, that is to say exchange mediated through currency, to ones based on entirely communistic principles of “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs”.

As mentioned above, these concepts are revolutionary in their implication. To build such a society would require the complete abolition of both the state and Capitalism, alongside all other oppressive hierarchies within our society. It requires a complete re-organization of not only the way in which we organize ourselves as a society, but also the ways in which we view ourselves and each other. It requires not only the revolutionary vision of a society based in liberty and equality, in the free exchange of individuals and their communities, but also an ability to be critical and recognize the conditions under which our present society rests. Through a critical analysis guided by a clear vision, we may forge a path towards, what I consider, to be a truly liberated and equal society.