Cuba privatizes hairstyling

123 posts / 0 new
Last post
Jacob Richter

RosaL wrote:

Jacob Richter wrote:

RosaL, I have a problem.  That "business" may not be socially productive, and because of that lesser known function of money, at some point that small businessperson will go out there to hire labour.

l, it makes me a bit nervous, too. But I think there's probably a place for a single-person workplace (so to speak). But I'd make it illegal for them to hire anyone! (I might be misunderstanding you, though ....)

If you replace money as we know it today with a labour-based electronic exchange medium that doesn't circulate (especially at the consumer end point), the commodity production M-C-M' or M-C-P'-C'-M' will be severely constrained if not eliminated altogether.

You got my e-mails, remember? Wink

KenS wrote:

If not hiring labour is an absolute then you can't have a business, and everyone will have to remain state employees, whether that is socially useful or not.

If you can only be a one person business then you can't adapt as needed. Its far too specialised a niche- in any context. Just not sustainable over any length of time.

There is the intermediate solution of cooperative politics and laws, but that is dependent upon prohibiting any form of subcontracting (hiring other coops to do certain things before selling the final product).

Sven wrote:

RosaL wrote:

(In any case, NO ONE gets to hire labour.)

So, if my neighor ran her own gardening business and I wanted to work for her part-time to earn some extra cash during the summers, would I be prohibited from doing so in your ideal world?

You have in your head the bourgeois concepts of "liberty" and "equality."  The concepts of labour emancipation and emancipatory politics are not synonymous with "liberty."

George Victor

Check out Raj Patel's The Value of Nothing, as a source of indices of the "good life", that are not related to Sven's consumer economy, images of which, now carried by satellite to Bhutan, "presents a world unattainable to the majority of people both in the United states and B hutan and, in seeking to recover their happiness, the youth have gone shoplifting....Other indicators of social health and happiness not only exist, but are far more revealing. The Human Development Index published by the United National Development programme bundles national income with date about health and education. The Gender Empowerment Measure, also from the United Nations, shows how women's rights are respected in different countries, and the extent of participation in political, social and economic life.

Patel notes that "These indices are attempts to capture the elusive notion of the good life, what the ancient Greeks called audaimonia, in which happiness is linked to human flourishing, rather than cash.

Patel demonstrates how Homo economicus is replacing that perspective, thanks tothe work of people like Milton Friedman's protege, Gary Becker, whose the The Economic Approach to Human Behaviour became the market bible of the Bush era (he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2007).  "In advocating the spread of a world of markets and Homo economicus, Becker contributes to the culture of market society in ways that serve the amterial interests of particular groups. Culture doesn't just hang in the air, but matters on the ground, in the world of flesh-and-blood people . Becker's views advance the interests of creatures far more akin to Homo economicus, and more at home within market society, than we are:  corporations."

Don't imagine that in your Becker-bunker you'll ever get around to reading The Vlue of Nothing in its entirety, Sven (it was only published in '09 and has not reached the rich, ripe classical stage that you prefer) but it would demonstrate to you just how out-to-lunch, how subservient to the hamburger you (and we) are here in Norte' Americano land (sorry Fidel). The externalities of social and environmental costs are about to catch up with us, and unless we can grasp just what a fool's paradise we've created, Cuba will soon look like a far superior place to live than hereabouts.   Oh, we've left them with the expectation of far more severe hurricanes and risng seas, but they are now able to grow food sustainably, not dependent on extracted fossil fuels and other artificial fertilizers (in Canada you would have seen the David Suzuki two-parter on this about three years back), and they can now market their food to the city folks...

Sure wish you'd expand your range of reading, Sven.  Give us something NEW to mull over.

Sven Sven's picture

 

Jacob Richter wrote:

Sven wrote:

So, if my neighor ran her own gardening business and I wanted to work for her part-time to earn some extra cash during the summers, would I be prohibited from doing so in your ideal world?

You have in your head the bourgeois concepts of "liberty" and "equality."  The concepts of labour emancipation and emancipatory politics are not synonymous with "liberty."

Equality and individual autonomy (liberty), while they can coexist, are in conflict with each other.

As Alexis de Tocqueville said in "Democracy in America" back in 1835:

"There is, in fact, a manly and lawful passion for equality which excites men to wish all to be powerful and honored.  This passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom."

I prefer inequality with freedom.

If you are forced to live as the collective decides you will live, then you are a slave to the collective.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
... the state lollipop factory, the state suppository factory...

 

You just know there'd be a tragic mix-up eventually.

RosaL

Whereas in Sven's ideal world, a small minority can buy "lots of consumer goods" while the rest of the world dies. Hail Liberty!

Sven Sven's picture

 

George Victor wrote:

Check out Raj Patel's The Value of Nothing, as a source of indices of the "good life"...

...Other indicators of social health and happiness not only exist, but are far more revealing....

Patel notes that "These indices are attempts to capture the elusive notion of the good life, what the ancient Greeks called audaimonia, in which happiness is linked to human flourishing, rather than cash.

Some someone (or, more accurately, some group) is attempting to capture what they define as "the good life".

Ah, yes...the all-knowing group composed of self-appointed elitists who know what's best for everyone.

Here's a novel idea: How about letting individuals decide for themselves what constitutes "the good life"?

I think reading and life-long learning are keys to "the good life".  But another person may think that accumulating the necessary financial resources to do a lot of world traveling is a key to "the good life".  Another person may consider lots of time with family members as being "the good life" and may, therefore, be willing to forgo working in a demanding career where the person would make a lot more money but would sacrifice that important family time.  The choices are endless.

George Victor wrote:

...reading The Vlue of Nothing...would demonstrate to you just how out-to-lunch, how subservient to the hamburger you (and we) are... and unless we can grasp just what a fool's paradise we've created, Cuba will soon look like a far superior place to live than hereabouts.

That's why I think it's great to have a diverse set of political and economic systems in our world.  If the example of life in Cuba can convince people in other countries that the Cuban system is marvelously kugat, then people elsewhere can make the decision to adopt some or all of the features of Cuba's political and economic system as their own.

Others can choose differently.

 

RosaL

Slumberjack wrote:

Labour, wherever it can take root, should be valued and not suppressed, as the dead end Marxists would have it.

 

huh?? So if I manage to enslave 15 children and 25 old people (keeping them chained up in a shed and feeding them kibble) to create sashes for beauty pageant winners, we should celebrate that? 

Mind you, I freely admit that I have always been very unfashionable, even before I became a Marxist, if that's part of your point Wink.

kropotkin1951

Apparently the only vehicle capable of delivering people into liberty is the corporation.  I can understand a fascist taking that view but I find it hard when people who preach individual responsibility for everything think that the economic system should be based on the rich taking no responsibility for their actions as they hide behind the veil.  

I say leave the Islamic women alone but lets unveil the rich buccaneers who inhabit Wall Street.  Why when they screw up because of greed do they get public tax dollars.  That is the actual system you need to compare to Cuba not your Friedmanite fantasy world.  There is no equality in the capitalist system the rich get richer and the poor can try to grovel their way out of poverty.

Since the Friedmanite experiment started the workers on both sides of the border here have lost real purchasing power and the rich have gotten richer at the expense of everyone else's share.  For 30 years working class wages in real dollar terms have been declining and that is a direct result of the culture of greed.  That american hair stylist is far worse off than before the Chicago School's ideology took hold.

Slumberjack

RosaL wrote:
huh?? So if I manage to enslave 15 children and 25 old people (keeping them chained up in a shed and feeding them kibble) to create sashes for beauty pageant winners, we should celebrate that? Mind you, I freely admit that I have always been very unfashionable, even before I became a Marxist, if that's part of your point Wink.

As I said, the value of labour should be held well above the value of profit. Although transnational 'free' trading marauders may see the benefits of enslavement, the cure for that dreadful pathogen doesn't necessarily require the outlawing of all non-state labour, merely to satisfy the prescriptions outlined in another decrepit totalitarian ideology.

And as for being unfashionable, perhaps it's just as well. With the complete absence of incentive, it isn't much of a stretch to envision the state run garment factory eventually reduced to producing one size fits all polyester coveralls in bulk, for reasons of efficiency, and class uniformity.

kropotkin1951

Take a corrupt system highlight its few good points and ignore all the bad outcomes for the vast majority of the people living under the imperialist system.  Great debate.

 

This is not about some fantasy free market verses an oppressive slave state. This is about imperialism and its effect on people around the world especially in places that are similar to Cuba. I would hope that Cuba moves to make syndicalism a part of their socialism.  Diversity is the key for all human endeavor which is why monopolistic imperial capitalism is such a dismal failure in places like Haiti or Puerto Rico or Jamaica or Panama.  

There is nothing free or liberating about american capitalists dictating to Latin Americans how they must structure their economies to provide benefit for their imperial overlords.  That is the real world.

RosaL

Slumberjack wrote:

As I said, the value of labour should be held well above the value of profit. Although transnational 'free' trading marauders may see the benefits of enslavement, the cure for that dreadful pathogen doesn't necessarily require the outlawing of all non-state labour, merely to satisfy the prescriptions outlined in another decrepit totalitarian ideology.

Who are you talking to? Has someone said 1) we need to outlaw all non-state labour 2) in the interests of some type of totalitarian order? or rather, out of some kind of stupid and morally viscious loyalty to a dogmatic, totalitarian system?  Those are strong charges. (If I were more fashionable, I might protest your use of the term 'decrepit' as ageist.)

Slumberjack

RosaL wrote:
Who are you talking to? Has someone said we need to outlaw all non-state labour in the interests of some type of totalitarian order? or rather, out of some kind of stupid and morally viscious loyalty to a dogmatic, totalitarian system?  Those are strong charges. (If I were more fashionable, I might protest your use of the term 'decrepit' as ageist.)

Well, your interpretation of Marxism would outlaw the individual private entrepreneur, as besieged as she or he may be depending on the scale of production, from seeking the assistance of an individual willing to trade their valued labour in return for a level of compensation which respects that value. In an equitable socialist society that respects individuality over conformity, the value of labour would be arbitrated between the employee and an independent panel or representative body free from corporate coercion, bearing well in mind what would be the universal principle of equal work for equal compensation. As you pointed out earlier, as a person imbued with the Marxist spirit, all would either be single handed entrepreneurs, or state employees.

Decrepit btw means worn out, barely or non-functioning. It has a wide application you know.

George Victor

George Victor wrote:

 

"Check out Raj Patel's The Value of Nothing, as a source of indices of the "good life"...

...Other indicators of social health and happiness not only exist, but are far more revealing....

Patel notes that "These indices are attempts to capture the elusive notion of the good life, what the ancient Greeks called audaimonia, in which happiness is linked to human flourishing, rather than cash."

 

Sven: 

"Some someone (or, more accurately, some group) is attempting to capture what they define as "the good life".

Ah, yes...the all-knowing group composed of self-appointed elitists who know what's best for everyone.

Here's a novel idea: How about letting individuals decide for themselves what constitutes "the good life"?

I think reading and life-long learning are keys to "the good life".  But another person may think that accumulating the necessary financial resources to do a lot of world traveling is a key to "the good life".  Another person may consider lots of time with family members as being "the good life" and may, therefore, be willing to forgo working in a demanding career where the person would make a lot more money but would sacrifice that important family time.  The choices are endless."

 

 

And here is how many in the land of the free find "the good life"... See Gabriel Thompson's (2010) Working in the Shadows: A Year of Doing the Jobs (Most) Americans Won't Do.

 

After learning so much from rushing through Patel's work (you must have rushed) I'm sure you're salivating at the prospect of learning even more about basic wage earners in your neck of the woods, Sven. Just tough titty for the losers, eh?

 

RosaL

Slumberjack wrote:

Well, your interpretation of Marxism would outlaw the individual private entrepreneur, as besieged as she or he may be depending on the scale of production, from seeking the assistance of an individual willing to trade their valued labour in return for a level of compensation which respects that value. In an equitable socialist society that respects individuality over conformity, the value of labour would be arbitrated between the employee and an independent panel or representative body free from corporate coercion, bearing well in mind what would be the universal principle of equal work for equal compensation. As you pointed out earlier, as a person imbued with the Marxist spirit, all would either be single handed entrepreneurs, or state employees.

Decrepit btw means worn out, barely or non-functioning. It has a wide application you know.

1) It's not just my interpretation of Marxism. 

2) Where did I say that everyone should be either a single-handed entrepreneur or state employee? 

3) I read quite a bit and have encountered the word 'decrepit' several times before. 

Doug

Snert wrote:

Quote:
... the state lollipop factory, the state suppository factory...

 

You just know there'd be a tragic mix-up eventually.

 

Not a mixup at all. The state planning agency ordered 1 million suppositories and 10,000 lollipops, so that's what you get. Take a bucket of free suppositories and file some forms to get on the waiting list for lollipops. Laughing

Slumberjack

RosaL wrote:
 Where did I say that everyone should be either a single-handed entrepreneur or state employee? 

Quote:
Oh, for heaven's sake! Marxists have no problem with one person "owning their own business" as long as they aren't employing anyone else.

RosaL

Slumberjack wrote:

RosaL wrote:
 Where did I say that everyone should be either a single-handed entrepreneur or state employee? 

Quote:
Oh, for heaven's sake! Marxists have no problem with one person "owning their own business" as long as they aren't employing anyone else.

 

Yes, I know I said that. Where did I say that everyone should be either a single-handed entrepreneur or state employee?

Slumberjack

Doug wrote:
Not a mixup at all. The state planning agency ordered 1 million suppositories and 10,000 lollipops, so that's what you get. Take a bucket of free suppositories and file some forms to get on the waiting list for lollipops. Laughing 

And it's not as if you couldn't make do with what you have on hand, if the reverse were true.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
 Take a bucket of free suppositories and file some forms to get on the waiting list for lollipops.

 

Laughing

Jacob Richter

Sven wrote:
Jacob Richter wrote:
bourgeois concepts of "liberty" and "equality."  The concepts of labour emancipation and emancipatory politics are not synonymous with "liberty."

Equality and individual autonomy (liberty), while they can coexist, are in conflict with each other.

I did say "and 'equality'" for a reason.  Labour emancipation and emancipatory politics aren't synonymous with "equality" either.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Could this thread be put out of its misery, please?

And would those being lured into debating first principles please stop taking the bait?

 

Sven Sven's picture

What, specifically, are the "first principles" which you object to being discussed here?

ETA: You might try, LTJ, doing what people who don't like what they see on TV: "Turn the channel"

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

Sealed

Sven Sven's picture

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

Sealed

That may be the best thing you've said in a long time, Lard.

Jacob Richter

Yeah, close this pointless thread.

Jacob Richter

Yeah, close this pointless thread.

George Victor

I believe the "first principles" were lost in lollipops and suppositories...always an attraction to the anal imagination.

And now we'll never know if Sven is ready to look around him at the real world and a socio-economic explanation of how he arrived at his comfortable position among the workers of America in 2010. Do not present him with John Ball's question: "When Adam delved and Eve span, who then was the gentleman."  Sven knows, that's just the way of the world. Things work out for some. 

Whoops, maybe I should have said something about the Peasant Revolt rather than mention balls.  Hope it does not set off another round of anatomical speculation.

kropotkin1951

Our Babble "libertarians" seem to fit nicely into the profile of the tea baggers in the US.  It seems they all equate imperialism with freedom in the market.  A strange and bizarre idea iMO.  At least the British etc admitted they had an empire.  

According to our resident libertarians america is only about the "free market".  No need to worry about how any economic system based on imperialism can be thought of as "free."  Unless of course they mean that other people resources should flow freely into the american market the concept of a "free market" is a sham much like the British "white man's burden."

Quote:

Yes, Tea Partiers are a bit wealthier and educated, but the poll also makes clear that they are whiter, male-er, angrier, and well, more racist -- 25% believe Obama favors black people over white (vs. 11% of the general public) and they are "more likely to say that too much has been made of the problems facing black people" (yes, that pesky history of slavery, repression, and civil rights issues). But all of that demographic data, while interesting, is a side show. The core of this movement is an un-nuanced, unthinking belief that government should be smaller no matter what.

This perspective is making it hard to do anything of scale in our country, such as building and investing in infrastructure (e.g., a new energy grid) or pass broad legislation to tackle as big a problem as climate change. Imagine a Congressman proposing that we spend what China is laying out on high-speed rail ($300 billion in the next three years) or even the hundreds of billions we need to spend on crumbling infrastructure. He or she would be pilloried by Fox and likely run out of office.

I could easily be wrong, but I don't think we used to debate whether we needed things like roads, bridges, sewers, and rail. Republican President Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway Systemafter all. Without infrastructure, led by government, we can't grow and evolve (but that's the point of the movement isn't it?). So now we've got a rising portion of people thinking government equals bad, full stop.

What's really interesting about the article is to see how disconnected from reality the Tea Partiers are about what government does for them (see my earlier post on what small government means in reality). So, the point of this blog was actually just to share the end of the Times article, which made me laugh out loud. Enjoy...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-winston/the-serious-problem-with_b_...

VanGoghs Ear

the only thing that's disingenuous about this thread are comments like Michelle's - "If that's how Cuba wants to do their system, more power to them.  Everyone eats and has shelter in Cuba, at least."

 I assume that by Cuba - she means the citizens of Cuba and not the people in charge

 That's like visiting a prison, seeing some of the inmates smiling and saying the prisoners seem to like their system as if they have any say in how things are run. Sure they're happy because they are fed and clothed and if they don't like it and start speaking up about it - they're trouble makers who need to be isolated before they start disturbing the contented population.

1. Desiring no more than what one has; satisfied.

2. Ready to accept or acquiesce; willing:

con·tent·ed, con·tent·ing, con·tents To make content or satisfied: contented himself with one piece of cake.

 

 

Slumberjack

VanGoghs Ear wrote:
 That's like visiting a prison, seeing some of the inmates smiling and saying the prisoners seem to like their system as if they have any say in how things are run. Sure they're happy because they are fed and clothed and if they don't like it and start speaking up about it - they're trouble makers who need to be isolated before they start disturbing the contented population.

Visited LA a couple of summers ago for a little R&R, slightly before the scale of the economic disaster that had been well underway for awhile at that point, which couldn't be contained any longer by the corporate media as it later became too widespread to hide. Stayed in a burb outside city limits where all the streets appeared to have a foreclosure sign on the front lawn of nearly every second home, apparently the houses had been vacant for some time. Beautiful weather down there though, hit the Venice or Santa Monica beaches most every day. One day decided to have a bbq at a local park not far from the city, and what a gorgeous place it was with it's well watered green spaces, artificial pools, waterfalls and picnic areas. Spent the entire day there hoping the sun would take its leisurely time before disappearing behind the mountains. Talked to my LA friends recently, reminiscing about our day there. They don't go there anymore, as it is now a sprawling tent city for what was formerly known as the middle class, who once lived in houses much like the ones with the lawn signs. Apparently the civic authorities have no idea where to situate these folks, these growing numbers of refugees from the burbs, except on what they have available at hand, the municipal parks. What on earth would happen to these people in your imagination, if they decided to disturb the contented ones.

VanGoghs Ear

if by "disturb" you mean organize and make signs, get a permit and hold a parade/protest, contact their congressman, run for office themselves - I expect many would support them and the local media give them some attention.

What were you thinking would happen?

George Victor

VanGoghs Ear wrote:

the only thing that's disingenuous about this thread are comments like Michelle's - "If that's how Cuba wants to do their system, more power to them.  Everyone eats and has shelter in Cuba, at least."

 I assume that by Cuba - she means the citizens of Cuba and not the people in charge

 That's like visiting a prison, seeing some of the inmates smiling and saying the prisoners seem to like their system as if they have any say in how things are run. Sure they're happy because they are fed and clothed and if they don't like it and start speaking up about it - they're trouble makers who need to be isolated before they start disturbing the contented population.

1. Desiring no more than what one has; satisfied.

2. Ready to accept or acquiesce; willing:

con·tent·ed, con·tent·ing, con·tents To make content or satisfied: contented himself with one piece of cake.

 

 

 

What a tiny, a-historical perspective. 

VanGoghs Ear

You've heard the phrase "make the best of a bad situation"

That was my only point  - it makes no sense to say "these people seem content with the situation they are in, when they don't even have the option of trying to change or improve the situation.  It's easy to be content when you have no choice.

VanGoghs Ear

love it or love it

 

VanGoghs Ear

I actually think alot about Cuba since the revolution is good but my point about judging Cuban's satisfaction with the state of things stands.

Sven Sven's picture

I don't think anyone here would disagree with a statement which asserts that if the people of a country wish to freely and willingly live collectively, then they have every right to do so - and that includes the people of Cuba.

But skeptics ask: Are Cuban individuals free to make the decision to live collectively (or not) - and, as importantly, free to change their minds once a decision is made?

I think the only honest answer is "No" if an individual in that society, who does not want to live in a collective system, is prohibited from (1) peacefully challenging the existing political structure and (2) opting out of the system (through unrestricted emigration rights).

If those two conditions are in place, then such an individual is nothing less than a prisoner of that system.

VanGoghs Ear

Communal living with one family is tough enough, 2 or more families  - very difficult - an entire country ???  Communal living and democracy can't go together - it doesn't work.

 

check out the great swedish film - Together

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuXtsXqdJpQ

 

 

RosaL

What if I don't like living in a society that prohibits slavery? What if I want to beat up on gay people? 

George Victor

Boat rocker!

George Victor

And what if you, the individual, could not give a fiddler's fart about others' fate? ...or a tinker's damn about trying to bring into being a society that was concerned about the fate of generations to follow?  Why, you'd obviously be living in the land of the free...

Ken Burch

RosaL wrote:

What if I don't like living in a society that prohibits slavery? What if I want to beat up on gay people? 

You can move to the States when the Palin Administration is sworn in.

RosaL

Ken Burch wrote:

RosaL wrote:

What if I don't like living in a society that prohibits slavery? What if I want to beat up on gay people? 

You can move to the States when the Palin Administration is sworn in.

 

Laughing

Sven Sven's picture

RosaL wrote:

What if I want to beat up on gay people? 

Well, if you're looking for a country that positively condones such behavior, you might try Iran.

With regard to your comment about slavery, you might as well have asked, "What if I want to live in a society in which murder is not prohibited?"

The distinction between your slavery question (and my equally absurd murder question) and the question of individual freedom versus collectivist living is that in the latter instance there is actually a legitimate debate among people as to the pros and cons of living in a collectivist society versus one that values individual liberty.  There is no similarly-legitimate debate about whether or not slavery (or murder) would be a good idea.

Sven Sven's picture

It seems as though no one wants to directly defend the idea that collectivist living in Cuba is something that is freely chosen, given that political speech which is adverse to the existing regime is all but impossible in Cuba and that individuals are not free to leave Cuba (except with the "permission" of the Cuban authorities).

So much for liberty.  Long live equality!

KenS

Looks like you are having a grand old time orchestrating those straw people.

It is a pretty dance they do.

Ken Burch

KenS wrote:

Looks like you are having a grand old time orchestrating those straw people.

It is a pretty dance they do.

Ken Burch

And remember, Sven, the more deeply ingrained the idea of "flexible labor markets" become, the lower wages get, and the closer we get to slavery-by-default.  We can fairly call a job slavery, after all, if it doesn't pay enough to cover your living expenses at a base level.  If the only job you've been able to find leaves you short of affording "three hots and a cot", you ARE a slave.  And the fact that you have the "right" so "freely offer your services elsewhere" means about as much as Anatole France's sardonic observation that "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

Ken Burch

And remember, Sven, the more deeply ingrained the idea of "flexible labor markets" becomes, the lower wages get, and the closer we get to slavery-by-default.  We can fairly call a job slavery, after all, if it doesn't pay enough to cover your living expenses at a base level.  If the only job you've been able to find leaves you short of affording "three hots and a cot", you ARE a slave.  And the fact that you have the "right" so "freely offer your services elsewhere" is as comforting to wage-slaves as Anatole France's sardonic observation that "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

RosaL

Sven wrote:

The distinction between your slavery question (and my equally absurd murder question) and the question of individual freedom versus collectivist living is that in the latter instance there is actually a legitimate debate among people as to the pros and cons of living in a collectivist society versus one that values individual liberty.  There is no similarly-legitimate debate about whether or not slavery (or murder) would be a good idea.

What makes a debate legitimate, apart from your agreement with one side? Undecided If I can find enough people who want to be able to have slaves, does a society that disallows slavery become one that denies liberty? Was the question of slavery ever legitimate? If so, were societies that prohibited it (at that time) oppressive? If capitalism really is a bad thing, must every country reach that conclusion at the same time, societies that reach (and act on) that conclusion "prematurely" being oppressive?

Slumberjack

Sven wrote:
It seems as though no one wants to directly defend the idea that collectivist living in Cuba is something that is freely chosen, given that political speech which is adverse to the existing regime is all but impossible in Cuba and that individuals are not free to leave Cuba (except with the "permission" of the Cuban authorities). So much for liberty.  Long live equality!

You continue to provide the unmistakable indication at every miserable turn of being incapable at the very least, to manage the slightest acknowledgement of a reality where people insist upon survival on their own terms, despite the misfortune of being subjugated to the oppression of relentless capitalist strangulation, but also through the impudent act of being born adjacent to a pathological system which never ceases to impose its disastrous implications far and wide to sustain your way of life at the expense of all others.

Bay of Pigs

Pages

Topic locked