For all those concerned with truly affordable housing in free enterprise societies, broad socialist solutions seldom make a meaningful contribution to democratic debate.
In an investment-driven, wealth-chasing political framework, which is based on the value of land, what possibly can be acceptable about a super-nanny state that provides every citizen with food, water and shelter as a socialist first principle? It is a bridge too far.
In such a world, complete immersion in a socialist state overwhelmingly impinges upon individual freedom — freedom to try harder or with more timeliness or cleverness. The advantages gained by such enterprise allow an individual to rise above those who are not as clever, came late to the dance, or didn’t try as hard (to say nothing of those who didn’t even try at all).
Choice fruits of life are reserved for those who successfully strive and attain. More, these winning individuals are often more or less exempt from compulsory sharing their success with others.
It stands to reason that a government charged with managing such a free enterprise society absolutely cannot be comprised of a hatful of socialists.
But is there room, rhyme or reason in a free-enterprise government for, say, a socialist hatband? Just the odd socialist or two or three — a modest government brake helping to soften the blow to those who are accidentally or purposefully sucked dry by a whirlwind of other people’s success?
Explore a possible social benefit of the odd socialist or communist “under the bed” in an article in Jacobin: Having Socialist Elected Officials Makes a Difference for Working-Class People
