Cuba privatizes hairstyling

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.

Quote:

... the state lollipop factory, the state suppository factory...

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

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 [u]they[/u] define as "the good life".

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

[u]Here's a novel idea[/u]: 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.

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.

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 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.

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. 

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.

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.  

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

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.

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 wrote:

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

Yeah, close this pointless thread.

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 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 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. 

love it or love it

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.

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

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 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.

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 wrote:

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

It is a pretty dance they do.

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."

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