16 Feb 2024 7:16 am
(PART II OF III)
Cannonpointer: "And I took that position when? Are you now equating free enterprise with national socialism?"
So, Cannonpointer doesn't wish to replace capitalism with National "Socialism." Alright. Is it "'free' enterprise" that he would place in capitalism's stead? If so, how is it that "free enterprise" isn't anything more than a harking back to an earlier and more "fair" form of capitalism? How is it that "free enterprise" doesn't also encompass the private ownership and administration of the means of production? And does Cannonpointer's concept of "free enterprise" include the existence of markets? If so, how is it that laws, characteristic of a lack of freedom, don't structure markets?
Additionally, as I mentioned in the discussion of Singapore, "free enterprise," the idealized concept of an earlier and more "evenhanded" form of capitalism, is dead and can't return. Or am I mistaken? Are mega-corporations willing to surrender the things that give them advantages over - what? - "free enterprisers"? Are Mattel and Hasbro, for example, ready to support a new system where petty toy manufacturers wouldn't be required to submit hundreds of copies of each product for safety testing? Lastly, no, I haven't equated "free enterprise" with National "Socialism," for large corporations would be advantaged over small firms just as they were under Germany's Nazis.
I wrote: "Cannonpointer may ... support capitalism's demise and the 'return' of 'free enterprise.' Still, those things are the same since their 'respective' means of production are privately owned. Therefore, irrespective of what one calls it, who owns the means of wealth production remains the same.
Cannonpointer: "If we believe that, then we must believe that there's no free enterprise in a 'true' socialist nation. Is that your position, or are you simply lacking nuance again? It seems that even in a socialist nation, a kid can cut your grass, a gal can cut your hair, or a fellow can reupholster your couch in a free enterprise exchange of goods and services. Is this not true?"
Again, beyond the requirement for a socially owned and democratically administered means of production, there are no set and thus dogmatic rules for ordering and governing socialist societies. So, since a child mowing lawns, an adult cutting hair, or reupholstering a couch wouldn't be related to the commanding heights of an economy, the futuristic "American Socialist Commonwealth" may not have a problem with any of that or more. I know from firsthand experience that Cuba's revolutionary government has never had difficulty with small-scale - "free enterprise"? - hair salons. So, who knows? The only reservation I would have would be one related to whether, say, this "American Socialist Commonwealth" would choose to eliminate cash in favor of digitized labor-time vouchers. If so, it might be challenging to establish a medium of exchange concerning the interactions between young gardeners and their customers. Too, given that, under socialism, workers would enjoy the total economic value of their labor power, it's likely that few, if any, workers would find the need to engage in cottage "industries." With the ability to support and advance oneself and one's family while working much less than under capitalism, workers and their family members could develop themselves as human beings rather than continue to be little more than appendages to a privately owned means of production. In brief, there would be no need to "side hustle" to keep oneself afloat as there is now.
(END OF PART II)