Yes, people should have that, but it's not that simple. Some liberals, particularly classical liberals, think a free market would bring those things to everyone. I don't necessarily disagree, though I think free markets can only ever be free under communism/socialism, not capitalism. The issue with centrally planned, universal healthcare is that a hostile government could refuse to provide you care, much like insurance companies that don't approve coverage for many things. Additionally, there needs to be strong medical privacy protections.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 35 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Markets are fundamentally profit driven, and services like healthcare or housing need to be provided regardless of the profit motive. These are a natural fit for the state owned industries. Where markets can have a role is providing nice to have things that improve general quality of life, but aren't living essentials.

[–] Overshoot2648@lemmy.today -2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

*Capital markets. Commodity markets are fine as long as you align stakeholders with ownership. So worker and consumer coöps. Rental and housing coöps are a great example.

[–] mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

How do you prevent the commodities turning into capital?

[–] Overshoot2648@lemmy.today 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

You don't have to. If it becomes capital, then it is subject to the same multi-stakeholder analysis.

If I bought a printer, it would just be a commodity. If I start selling products made from said printer and hire more people, then it would need to be a worker coöp.

How would an authoritarian socialist system handle someone wanting a printer given that it could be used as capital?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 4 weeks ago

Depending on the stage of socialist construction, private ownership is either limited, or no longer possible to begin with.

load more comments (11 replies)