How should an economy be structured?

[Cutlass]

Somewhere in the last couple generations the term 'rights' evolved from what a human was allowed to do, to what government owes that human.

I have the right to speak freely, but the government is not obliged to facilitate that right.

I have the right to seek medical care when and where I like, but the government (according to the US constitution) is not obliged or required to pay for that care.

A 'right' is not an automatic obligation of the government.

According to the US constitution, I have the right to keep and bare arms. Does the federal government owe me a rifle?

The government was not intended to be the citizen's provider. It is there to allow us to go out and provide for ourselves.

Nothing is also stopping the government from providing such things, if it is deemed to be in the public interest.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

A government that doesn't guarantee and enforce rights has no justification for its existence.
Rights that aren't guaranteed and enforced are not rights, they're just opinions.

 

[Lexicus]

Show me one example of collective ownership that exists today.

Business corporations are a form of collective ownership. I have a feeling that's not the kind of collective ownership you mean, though. Cooperatives, employee-owned companies, state-owned enterprise, all exist in the world today, though.

Healthcare, education, minority rights, income equality, um... water and air conditions? Idk, quality of life-type stuff

Please, show statistics demonstrating that Cuba is comparable to the Nordics in any of these areas.

 

[Traitorfish]

Somewhere in the last couple generations the terLm 'rights' evolved from what a human was allowed to do, to what government owes that human.
[...]
The government was not intended to be the citizen's provider. It is there to allow us to go out and provide for ourselves.

Governments are something we just made up, my dude. They can do whatever we tell them to do. There's no higher rule-set at work.

I mean sure, on the first paragraph.

But on the second paragraph, I see no solutions on offer. How do we get to a point where people play a role in the decision making and what does that look like?

Short answer, industrial unions. (That is very generally the short answer, when Traitorfish is holding forth on the state of the world.)

Long answer, I don't think there's any neat or uniform path to that place, except that it is going to involve some measure of force. If you wanna be Marxist about it, the conditions for a new world are produced through the class struggle, et cetera and et cetera. From a more generally progressive position, nobody gives up power freely. Any greater say for the working class (meant here in the broad sense of all wage-workers) in the economy is going to be the result of a long and democratic struggle, one which will be by turns gradual and sudden, will surge triumphantly and grind along with great frustration. As such, there's no clear policy, no clear blueprint, that is going to bring all this about, it's not something that we can simply enact by decree, any more than any gain for the working masses has been enacted by decree. (Even those which were, theoretically, decree; the Emancipation Proclamation is the great example, here, giving legal rationale to something which was already an established fact in the liberated territories of the South, but yet a mere ambition in those still under slaver control.) Means tend to shape ends, and that applies to democratic struggles as much to anything else.

(If that all sounds like a long, pompous way of saying "I don't know", then you should try reading some long-form texts written by leftcoms, they'd knock your socks off. )

Show me one example of collective ownership that exists today.

Literally all corporations by definition.

The socialisation of production is a settled question, has been for three or four generations at least. The questions that remain are questions of organiastion, and of power.

 

[Robo-Star]

What I'm curious to know is how you believe an ideal economy would be structured. Entirely free market? Entirely communist?

Mostly free market, with communist healthcare and housing.

And what do you mean when you say 'free market' or 'communist'?

Free market: equality of opportunity for individuals to produce and exchange goods and services on a quid quo pro basis

Communist: goods and services produced and administered in order that all members of a community recieve sufficient

 

[Karpius]

Governments are something we just made up, my dude. They can do whatever we tell them to do. There's no higher rule-set at work.

You are quite right! I suppose I should have been more clear, but I was referring specifically to the US Constitutional Republic.

I have the right to speak as I please and read what I want, but the government is not obligated to provide buy me the books and materials for doing so.

I have the right to worship as I wish (or not) but the government is not obligated to build me a church.

This, however, does not preclude the people from petitioning the government for various services, especially those services which serve all citizens regardless of any status, and do not otherwise abrogate any other rights guaranteed in the Constitution. But that is far different from being a 'right'.

 

[inthesomeday]

Please, show statistics demonstrating that Cuba is comparable to the Nordics in any of these areas.

Can’t find any links that proportionately weight statistics alongside GDP per capita, but considering the huge disparity there between Cuba and the Nordics Cuba is probably even dong better with what it has.

Business corporations are a form of collective ownership. I have a feeling that's not the kind of collective ownership you mean, though. Cooperatives, employee-owned companies, state-owned enterprise, all exist in the world today, though.

Literally all corporations by definition.

The socialisation of production is a settled question, has been for three or four generations at least. The questions that remain are questions of organiastion, and of power.

Feh. Come on now, the right answer was “EZLN Chiapas”.

 

[Lexicus]

Can’t find any links that proportionately weight statistics alongside GDP per capita, but considering the huge disparity there between Cuba and the Nordics Cuba is probably even dong better with what it has.

No, the statistics show that Cuba is far behind the Nordics in all these areas. Now part of that, certainly, is due to the shameful policy of the US towards Cuba for the past sixty or so years, part of it is due to the collapse of the USSR which was Cuba's main patron state for a long time. But Cuba is also a place where gay people were placed in concentration camps, political dissidents were tortured and executed, and so on. Cuba is not really the place you want to hold up as a shining example of socialism, at least not to my mind.

 

[inthesomeday]

But Cuba is also a place where gay people were placed in concentration camps, political dissidents were tortured and executed, and so on. Cuba is not really the place you want to hold up as a shining example of socialism, at least not to my mind.

I had a feeling you’d bring these things up. These negatives are the fact in every single state that exists today, except those which historically lacked the instruments to create concentration camps. LGBT rights in Cuba today lead the Latin American world as well as parts of Europe, and the Party has since denounced those years. The political dissident angle doesn’t really work when you consider those dissidents were mostly fascists and Gusanos.

And I never called Cuba socialist, but they’re among the closest in the world.

 

[Lexicus]

The political dissident angle doesn’t really work when you consider those dissidents were mostly fascists and Gusanos.

It's very strange that the political compass reads you as anti-authoritarian.

 

[inthesomeday]

It's very strange that the political compass reads you as anti-authoritarian.

Fascists and gusanos are the REAL anti-authoritarians

 

[Lexicus]

Fascists and gusanos are the REAL anti-authoritarians

No, but that isn't really the point, is it? Incidentally, you probably want to watch where you say the word "gusano," gringo.

 

[onejayhawk]

Fascists and gusanos are the REAL anti-authoritarians

It's the Ron Paul's of the world. They may acknowledge a right for the government to set taxes, but not for the IRS to exist.

No, but that isn't really the point, is it? Incidentally, you probably want to watch where you say the word "gusano," gringo.

Why worry? Fascist is a bigger slur, even though they are extremely authoritarian. Maybe because they are extremely authoritarian.

J

 

[inthesomeday]

No, but that isn't really the point, is it?

So the point is I should roundly condemn any extrajudicial revolutionary practices from a Western point of view without any consideration into the conditions that made them necessary? Yeah those silly Commies should’ve just voted Batista out of power.

Incidentally, you probably want to watch where you say the word "gusano," gringo.

You probably want to watch who you call gringo, gringo. Should I just use the ethnically ambiguous “kulak”, then? Or a term more friendly to the American lexicon, “counterrevolutionary”? Perhaps g*sano should be reserved for use by Cubans against “Cubans” (self-censored for now) but to call a term employed by members of an ethnic group against members of their same group for a very specific ideological purpose because some Americans said so seems a bit misguided to me. I mean the link you provided says it’s wrong to say it’s ideological motivated, then in the same sentence says it was repurposed by the Castro regime, itself composed roundly of Cubans.

 

[Yeekim]

I define basic rights in this context to be healthcare, education, shelter and food, in addition to bunch of political (and not necessarily economic) rights like free speech and free association. I think everyone has a right to those things and should be guaranteed access to them.

What about peoples rights to not be the ones to provide the other people their rights to food? What if no one wants to farm without being compensated at a level that not everyone else is going to reach? How do you decide who must provide free labor for someone else’s right?

What Hygro said.
Guaranteeing someone access to food, shelter, healthcare etc is only possible if someone is forced to work in farming, construction & healthcare.
That does not mean we should not strive towards an outcome where everyone has reasonably good access to these things, provided they are willing to do reasonable amount of work.

 

[Mouthwash]

Locally. Anything else is inherently evil.

Governments are something we just made up, my dude. They can do whatever we tell them to do. There's no higher rule-set at work.

I believe he was referring to what he might consider an ethical government.

Short answer, industrial unions. (That is very generally the short answer, when Traitorfish is holding forth on the state of the world.)

Long answer, I don't think there's any neat or uniform path to that place, except that it is going to involve some measure of force. If you wanna be Marxist about it, the conditions for a new world are produced through the class struggle, et cetera and et cetera. From a more generally progressive position, nobody gives up power freely. Any greater say for the working class (meant here in the broad sense of all wage-workers) in the economy is going to be the result of a long and democratic struggle, one which will be by turns gradual and sudden, will surge triumphantly and grind along with great frustration.

Surely this would be easier within a single state than in an international system?

 

[Lexicus]

Surely this would be easier within a single state than in an international system?

Well, yeah, but probably more because of language barriers than anything else.

 

[Mouthwash]

Well, yeah, but probably more because of language barriers than anything else.

Well, don't states shove their problems (such as dissidents or economic malaise) onto other states?

 

[Lexicus]

extrajudicial revolutionary practices

It's telling that you feel the need to use this kind of euphemistic language, isn't it? You're talking about extrajudicial executions. If you're going to defend something, at least call it what it is.

Should I just use the ethnically ambiguous “kulak”, then?

That isn't exactly an ethnically ambiguous term. At least, I've only ever seen the most ideology-drunk tankies apply it to any context outside the former Soviet Union.

I mean the link you provided says it’s wrong to say it’s ideological motivated, then in the same sentence says it was repurposed by the Castro regime, itself composed roundly of Cubans.

The whole context:

Please do not respond to say that “anyone of any race can be a gusano” or that “it’s an ideological term, not an ethnic one.” That is patently false. My family, friends and fellow Cuban Americans all know the history of this word. It was created by the Castro regime as a propaganda tool. It refers to (and is solely meant to) discredit the entire group of Cubans living outside of the island. It was created to discourage collaboration and communication between Cubans on the island and off the island. It was created in order to make two sides of an ethnic group become enemies, instead of family, based on their geography.

Sadly, this slur was adopted by Castro supporters—and somehow, suddenly, it because OK in some circles, even academic circles, to call an ethnic subgroup of human beings “worms.”

"It's an ideological term, not an ethnic one" is an imprecise way of putting the point, which is that it is simply a slur directed at Cubans who escaped the Castro regime. It is not "ideologically precise" in any sense except that it refers to Cuban exiles, it has no real class connotation the way that "kulak" sort of does (though even "kulak" of course became a general slur for anyone, prosperous or poor, who resisted Stalin's Benevolent Policy of agricultural collectivization), it doesn't even denote particular politics or other beliefs because the people who escaped or opposed Castro ranged from the far left to the far right (the same as those who opposed Stalin, though naturally tankies like to pretend that everyone he killed was a fascist too).

Now, just to be clear about where I stand here, I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that many of the Cubans who escaped Castro have very bad politics (though very few were genuinely "fascists"). Many of them were/are racist. Many were wealthy or petit-bourgeois. I just don't think any of these facts mean it's right to just kill them all or call them "worms." And it disgusts me that you evidently disagree. Like, disgusts me to the point that I think there is very little to distinguish you from a fascist.

Well, don't states shove their problems (such as dissidents) onto other states?

Sometimes. I'm not under the impression that external exile is a particularly common tool used by states today, though. I suppose I could be wrong about that. I can think of an example off the top of my head: Osama bin Laden, iirc, was basically exiled from Saudi Arabia.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

What do you mean by tankies? I've never heard that term before.