Yeah, I'm sort of ambivalent about whether to use the term "free market." I enjoy the turn of phrase that "free market anti-capitalist" creates, but it obviously leads to confusion. The defenders of the term point out that the result is often exactly what you describe and what happened here, it forces us to reconsider fundamental assumptions (your point) and it tends to lead to more conversation than a readily understood label (which is what we've been doing). I think it's worth considering that the goal of mutualists (and most flavors of anarchist) is specifically to get people to question human relationships and reconsider how they define terms like "free." So creating a discourse that challenges those assumptions may further that goal.Dr. Medulla wrote:Okay, that helps me understand how you're describing a free market. That's much, much different than how free market is normally conceived of—i.e., the laissez faire capitalist sense. It's fine to redefine it that way, but it strikes me as a potential challenge to conversing with those not already familiar with the terms. Not only does it ask a person to question human relationships, but also to completely overhaul the meaning of free. But that's more a question of proselytization, I suppose.
edit: Proselytize may be the wrong word here, as it normally carries a negative connotation. Which wasn't my intent. I meant more in a teaching/persuading by argument kind of way and the challenges inherent in redefining words so significantly.
Or maybe it doesn't. I dunno. I think there's also merit to the idea that creating a confusing discourse can lead to alienation from those not conversant in it if you aren't very, very careful about helping bring folks along. I'm just summarizing what I recall of defenses of the term from others when challenged on the word usage and whether it helps or hurts. As I said, ultimately I'm fairly ambivalent on this one.