I suggested that you read some political economists from the past. The list did not include Marx. Why then are you writing about a Marxist course at University of Maine as a response to my post? My point was that the “free market” does not exist separate from society and politics and, therefore, the simple dichotomy you create between “socialism” and “fascism” on the one hand (both involving government) and “free enterprise” (which is based on markets) is an oversimplification. Without the coercive powers of the state, there would be no extensive private property, especially no private property in land, nor would “labor” be a commodity whose “value” is determined in a “market.” Markets were places where small consumables and luxuries were traded, sometimes for money and sometimes for other consumables and luxuries. To analogize the free behavior of buyers and sellers at a market fair to the “sale” of labor or land requires a big stretch in ideas and a bigger stretch in governmental power. Farmers have to leave their land (under duress or protest) to sell their labor to the highest bidder and someone needs the clout to clear all competing claims to land (customary, political etc.) in order for it to be freely transferable by a single owner for money or used to finance a loan by granting a mortgage. Take your time and don’t respond quickly by drawing analogies (like from what I am saying to “socialism”) without giving things some deeper thought.