Three Arguments
The Economic Argument
A ‘Free Market’ capitalist economy is defined by competing forces. The individual has very little power in such a system, and thus very little control. In fact, the only control an individual, non-owner, exerts in the free market is the power to choose. If all the choices become aligned against the good of individuals, this is very little power indeed. Remember, in the free market, business owners will always prefer to pay their employees as close to zero as the market will allow (see the Atlantic Slave Trade). Manufacturers will always make a product just as unreliable as the market will allow (planned obsolescence). Food producers will always use as many poisons and synthetic fertilizers as is economically viable without killing their consumer base (immediately). These examples are not necessarily a question of ethics, but of competition and market forces.
​
The simple solution is for consumers to position themselves as owners. Many of us are the ones producing the goods and services that society uses already. If we were to collaborate, we would become a market force ourselves, while shielding ourselves, and parts of society, from the market in the same way the owner class is able to. This would allow individuals some measure of security and, as a collective system, access to real freedom in the ‘free market’.
The Community Argument
​
In the days before society became mechanized, ordered, digitized, and controlled people lived close to their neighbors. Even as late as the 1960’s in the United States it was not at all uncommon to know the people that lived near you personally, to have community cookouts, to share basic necessities, to provide for one another, and to look out for one another’s safety. This was not some socialist scheme, it was the modern version of the village that has served humans since the dawn of agriculture. It is something that we have forgotten in the modern age, and been told to forget in our rush toward progress and ‘individuality’.
The system of community is still practical today. Unlike in days past, however, it no longer occurs organically in most places. By utilizing modern paradigms we can rebuild the village, codify the parts, and allow people a way to be productive in modern society without giving up the economic and social benefits of living alongside others in a meaningful way.
The Christian Argument
​
Christianity is used to sell everything from megachurches to clothing lines in the modern corporate state. Jesus, however, was an ideological messenger, not a capitalist. The teachings of Christ spoke of peace, charity, and togetherness. These teachings were carried out by his disciples, and if we look in the book of Acts we are able to see a glimpse of how they lived in practice (Acts 4 : 32-35). They lived communally, sharing all things in common, making sure everyone had enough.
​
Perhaps the ideal they lived is something of the past, but I believe that with some organization the spirit of their arrangement can rewrite the future. It can be written between the lines of the system, and perhaps, like Jesus said, it can grow from a seed into a mighty tree.