Some aspects to ponder:
* The Supreme Leader spoke of transferring ownership of various but not every means of production from the government to
the people. He employed this particular term multiple times, in fact he used it in place of "private sector". Which implies more than privatization per se, because economies dominated by the private sector usually feature strong concentration of capital in the hands of a token number of individuals. Case in point, the Leader highlighted how privatization did not always play out to the benefit of Iranians.
In terms of proportion of the workforce, generally a minority of less than 15% is self-employed in market economies. Examples: the highest rate in the EU belongs to Greece, where some 30% are self-employed. In Italy, Romania, Portugal and the Czech Republic however the figure's between 17% and 23% and those are upper tier countries. In Germany, which along with Italy has traditionally been renown for the dynamism of its small companies, a mere 10,5% of the workforce is self-employed. 10,7% in France and even fewer in Sweden, Denmark and the Baltic states. Everybody else in the private sector is employed by and working on behalf of some business entity.
When it comes to business owners, percentages are lower still. 9% of the adult population in the USA and 6% in Canada as of 2022.
7 percent of Americans owned a business in 2023, slightly lower than in Canada.
www.statista.com
Looking at the share of the GDP, it turns out that very few companies generate the bulk of the GDP, and passage of time has only aggravated this tendency. In the USA for instance, the revenues of the top 500 companies stood at 58% of the GDP in 1994, which after nineteen years rose to a staggering 73% in 2013.
Now here's the thing: the term people tends to refer to the broad masses, rather than to special minority groups. In other terms, the Leader's guideline in this regard will not be served if Iran merely emulates the typical market economy.
Stock markets do not offer the solution. In 2013 the top 10% of American households owned 84% to 94% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity as well as almost 80% of non-home real estate.
Details on the wealth and income distributions in the United States (1% of households control 35% of the wealth), and how to use these distributions as power indicators.
whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu
Cooperatives on the other hand may fit the criterion set forth in the Leader's speech. That is, shared ownership of businesses by workers and employees. This was practiced especially in the agricultural sector by former Yugoslavia.
The idea that the people (not a restricted set of capitalists) ought to be in control of production is reminiscent of Proudhonian socialism. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a 19th century French thinker who also delved into politics, initiated a brand of socialism distinct from Marx's theories. In fact Proudhon and Marx engaged in a well publicized dispute, reflective of the fact that socialism as early as the 19th century was subdivided into different currents - Marxians, anarcho-syndicalism, etc.
The following quote summarizes relatively well the economic model outlined by Proudhon: "Proudhon adopted the term mutualism for his brand of anarchism and socialism which involved control of the means of production by the workers. In his vision, self-employed artisans, peasants and cooperatives would trade their products on the market." De facto private ownership is thus combined with empowerment of the people, popular control over production. Something which common market economic practice does not enable, given how it systematically leads to a small minority rather than the people in general owning most of the means of production.
* The Leader reminded us of the fact that certain sectors of activity must not be removed from government control no matter what. Those who'd like to see Iranians spend the rest of their lives reimbursing debts and interests because the schools or universities they studied at are privately owned, should not feel emboldened by his eminence's speech.
* Far from resembling a manifesto of unfettered capitalism, the Supreme Leader's address clearly stresses the need for strong governmental regulation of the private sector. This is evident in the part where his eminence advocates additional regulation by the government, suggesting current levels are not enough.
Mind you, the monetarist brand of neo-classical economics dominant in Iran since the presidency of Hashemi Rafsanjani and even more so since the former Islamic left morphed into the reformist faction, represented by the likes of the Niavaran school or the Kian circle and also prevalent at institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank,
does not subscribe to significant state regulation of the economy. On the contrary, they press for maximally deregulated markets. That this would lead to a further increase in economic inequalities and more hardships can be observed across the world, including in the west.
To put things into perspective:
- Does the Leader's speech preclude welfare measures such as social housing, unemployment benefits, universal healthcare etc? No, it doesn't.
- Does it preclude increased taxation of the wealthy? No.
- Does it preclude subsidies on or rationing of basic consumer goods? No.
- Does it preclude de-dollarization of the Iranian economy through state control of the exchange rate? No.
Basically the Leader's request is to lower the share of government-owned enterprises while ensuring that the people (rather than a select few capitalists) will take over. Since some 60% of companies in Iran are government-owned if I'm not mistaken - which should be about twice as much as in China, this could be reduced to around 25% or so. But, this is not synonymous with introducing an Anglo-Saxon style capitalist economy as market extremists in Iran would like to do.
