Free enterprise

Press, 11 July 1980, Page 12

Free enterprise

Sir, — Pope John Paul in Brazil: “Any society which does not wish to be destroyed from within must establish a just social order.” Private enterprise negates a just social order because, when free to increase efficiency either by cut-throat competition or “restructuring” competition by absorption, capitalism means supranational monopoly control of society — the cause of most of the world’s present ills. It is strange that the evils of laissez-faire capitalism have been kept at bay so long (appeasing rather than denying the logic of Karl Marx) because of a British liberal tradition based on agnosticism, _ responsible for the American and French revolutions and

ultimately the just social orders being achieved in Russia and China against constant military pressure from the “free” world. We socialists dream of the alternative control of the resources of the people for the people by the people, or economic democracy. — Yours, etc., VARIAN J. WILSON. July 8, 1980. Sir, — I would respectfully ask W. H. Daly (July 7) to agree that he means capitalism when he uses the term “free enterprise,” or at least agree that he means capitalism in its pre-mon-opoly era. If he would concede this, I can challenge his assertion that free enterprise “has produced great periods of cultural and scientific advance simply because people were not employed in senseless, soul-destroying jobs, but were able to do that to which they were best suited.” It also produced the inhumanly ruthless exploitation of men, women and children in the Industrial Revolution in England, when the workers were subjected to unrestricted hours of work, in dangerous, unhealthy, life-destroying conditions. It was imperative that the British State (Parliament) assumed the responsibility and power of curbing the insatiably voracious appetites of individuals (capitalists) for profit, to save the British workingclass from physical extinction. — Yours, etc., M. CREEL. July 8, 1980. Sir, — Mr Daly (July 8) refers to a period of great

cultural advancement under a system of unlimited free enterprise, when people worked at the jobs most able for them. When that period existed would be hard to imagine, as the majority of the poets, artists, and musicians of repute died in poverty, usually of malnutrition. This must have been the period when the present monopolies and multinationals started out as oneman businesses. At present these products of freedom are making sure there will be no competition to complicate their existence. While it is consoling to see things in black and white, it is very seldom true. Our unemployment at present bears witness to the breakdown of the present system. Labour with its emphasis on full employment, is at least taking a step in the right direction. People have to be more important than computers. — Yours, etc., J. SHARP. July 8, 1980. Sir, — Mr Moore and 1 may not agree on the veracity of our information sources, but the main point remains — man is basically a freedom-loving being, and functions best in an atmosphere of free thought, free movement, and free speech. A government that denies these things, that exploits and oppresses its people, has to erect iron (and bamboo) curtains to prevent them escaping. Countries respecting and promoting freedom have to have strict immigration controls to stop too many people coming in. The fundamental dispute is whether

we, as individuals, want freedom and self-responsi-bility, with the possibility of climbing to great heights, or plunging to great depths, and the danger, adventure, and variety this brings, or the grey monotony of being an equal cog in a State-con-trolled machine. I do not mind if Messrs Moore and Creel want the latter, but object to their desire to force it on others. — Yours, etc FRANK A. SMITH. July 7, 1980.