Communism- Socialism

[FireDragon76]

I don’t have a lot of hope for America nor do I believe its citizens are in a position to undo what’s underway. I think the golden age we’ll enter won’t be to the majority’s liking and widening inequality and erosion of safety nets foretell a period of suffering and tumult. I think we’ll have less freedom, more restrictions and lots of monitoring. I expect our quality of life, happiness and mental health to experience similar blows.

When you don’t have many options the worst is better than none. If you’re hungry and they offer communism as a solution you’ll take it and the same applies to socialism.

~bella

I went to a hotel on 4th of July and had to wave around a security card everywhere. Security and mass surveillance are definitely being sold as the way to manage a world that has forgotten how to be human.

 

[FireDragon76]

I suppose folks can dream. But if the rich had hearts, they wouldn't be rich for long. Wealth on the order that the wealthy in America have tends to come from exploitation, so even in their philanthropy there is often an air of disdain. But such is life in a world in which the Prince of the Power of the Air has temporary custody.

Even Jesus had wealthy disciples, like Mary Magdalene, Nicodemus, and Joseph of Aramathea.

The thing is of course... it's hard for a rich man "to enter the Kingdom". But not impossible.

 

[Fervent]

Even Jesus had wealthy disciples, like Mary Magdalene, Nicodemus, and Joseph of Aramathea.

The thing is of course... it's hard for a rich man "to enter the Kingdom". But not impossible.

Comparatively wealthy, yes. Paul also was likely quite well off. But the wealth disparity that exists today is astronomical when there are folks living on pennies a day while others have more wealth than entire countries. It's not a matter of "hey, they're rich! That's bad!" but that there are individuals who could single handedly solve problems like the homelessness problem but choose not to.

 

[Hentenza]

Hear this, O ye that swallow up the needy, even to make the poor of the land to fail,

Amos 8:4

The lazy are not really needy, are they now.

 

[FireDragon76]

Comparatively wealthy, yes. Paul also was likely quite well off. But the wealth disparity that exists today is astronomical when there are folks living on pennies a day while others have more wealth than entire countries. It's not a matter of "hey, they're rich! That's bad!" but that there are individuals who could single handedly solve problems like the homelessness problem but choose not to.

That's why Jesus said "blessed are the poor". The poor, especially in the first century, were without certain pernicious illusions- the illusion of omnipotence, immortality, and self-sufficiency. When Jesus gave blessings, it was not empty, hollow, or merely aspirational rhetoric. Being wealthy presents many more temptations to individuals, than being poor.

It's not a coincidence that suicide and drug use tend to be higher in countries that are wealthy, than those that aren't. These are diseases of despair and rootlessness, where people are alienated existentially, lost in fantasies of grandeur. The US is actually one of the most wealthy countries in the world, but it worships money and power, and hoards both in the hands of a few.

 

[Fervent]

The lazy are not really needy, are they now.

Sure, but laziness is not the only impediment to accepting exploitation wages. Especially when doing so often leads to increasing their need as those safety nets that do exist get cut off and the employers opt to not pay them subsistence wages. The biggest abusers of welfare aren't individuals, but corporations like Walmart.

Characterizing the needy as lazy is nothing more than heaping insult on injury and neglecting your duty to care.

 

[Hentenza]

Their lives are their own and they are free to make their own living any way they can.

That’s the point. They are not free.

If you want them to work for you, you have to make it worth their while. What you are talking about is the commodification of labor, which is the equivalent in authoritarian capitalist systems to the dictatorship of the proletariat in authoritarian socialism.

I don’t own the lazy anything. It is their responsibility to make themselves marketable. It is their responsibility to get up their you know what and find a job.
Although I‘m not enamored with the bbb bill, the work requirement is one that I fully agree with.

 

[rjs330]

Simply not true. For example, slavery in the USA. Or the genocide of Natives.

And as far as I know, the USA still literally has the capital punishment, while all social democracies abolished this long time ago.

No one died from a capitalist government because there is no such thing.

Now if you want to compair deaths caused by various forms of governments then do that. But capitalism isnt a form.of government. Its an economic process.

 

[Hentenza]

Sure, but laziness is not the only impediment to accepting exploitation wages.

Dude let’s all just quit and take welfare then lol. You think that people are owned stuff or are entitled to stuff.

Especially when doing so often leads to increasing their need as those safety nets that do exist get cut off and the employers opt to not pay them subsistence wages. The biggest abusers of welfare aren't individuals, but corporations like Walmart.

They could get a job with a medium to small company. There is more to the job market than Walmart.

Between the first quarter of 2021 and the second quarter of 2024, small businesses (firms with 249 or fewer employees) made up 52.8 percent of the total net job creation in the United States.
Small firms had uninterrupted net employment gains for 3 years, from June 2020 until the third quarter of 2023. In fact, small firms accounted for 324,000, or 98.5 percent, of the 329,000 net job increase in the second quarter of 2022. Net employment at large firms (those with 250 or more employees) increased 5,000 in that quarter. Even the smallest firms (with 1 to 4 employees) had larger employment gains than the large firms.

Despite slowed growth in the second quarter of 2024, small businesses continue to make up a larger proportion of total net job creation

Small businesses continue to outpace large businesses in job creation

Between the first quarter of 2021 and the second quarter of 2024, small businesses (firms with 249 or fewer employees) made up 52.8 percent of the total net job creation in the United States.

www.bls.gov

Whats you next excuse?

Characterizing the needy as lazy is nothing more than heaping insult on injury and neglecting your duty to care.

Those that are able bodied should be working. Yes, they are lazy.

 

[rjs330]

Perhaps you should offer him or her one and discuss it. If you want a person to work for you you have to make it worth his while.

You know thats how it works now right? Businesses compete for employees. If they off too little no one will work for them. Its all based on what employers can pay and what workers want to be paid.

 

[rjs330]

You seem to like the word "lazy" too much. What about calling those people "rational actors"?

Not wanting to work for low wage in bad working conditions is not laziness.

Then don't. Get a different job, go work somewhere else. No one is forcing you to work where you are.

 

[Fervent]

Dude let’s all just quit and take welfare. You think that people are owned stuff or are entitled to stuff.

It's not about entitlements, anymore than God commanding leaving the fields for the poor to glean or caring for them through the tithes was entitlements.

They could get a job with a medium to small company. There is more to the job market than Walmart.

Small to medium companies tend to have exceedingly limited employment needs, most hardly need more than owner-operation.

Between the first quarter of 2021 and the second quarter of 2024, small businesses (firms with 249 or fewer employees) made up 52.8 percent of the total net job creation in the United States.
Small firms had uninterrupted net employment gains for 3 years, from June 2020 until the third quarter of 2023. In fact, small firms accounted for 324,000, or 98.5 percent, of the 329,000 net job increase in the second quarter of 2022. Net employment at large firms (those with 250 or more employees) increased 5,000 in that quarter. Even the smallest firms (with 1 to 4 employees) had larger employment gains than the large firms.

We're getting a bit far afield from the topic at hand, as the make-up of the job market isn't really relevant to whether or not we should create safety nets or whether or not those who rely on such programs are just no-good lazy moochers.

Despite slowed growth in the second quarter of 2024, small businesses continue to make up a larger proportion of total net job creation

Small businesses continue to outpace large businesses in job creation

Between the first quarter of 2021 and the second quarter of 2024, small businesses (firms with 249 or fewer employees) made up 52.8 percent of the total net job creation in the United States.

www.bls.gov

Whats you next excuse?


Those that are able bodied should be working. Yes, they are lazy. Prove me wrong.

You're the one making the claim, so I'll leave you to prove your statements. In the mean time, I'll simply believe that you are just looking for an excuse to blame them for suffering rather than recognizing the real sociological and economic barriers that lead to the need for safety nets.

 

[Hentenza]

Too late. You can't use the Christian religion to achieve the degree of workforce discipline that you desire any more. Decent pay and working conditions will be required and you can't decide unilaterally what those amount to.

Looks like you just didn’t like my answer to the poster that brought religion to this discussion.

 

[Fervent]

Would you apply this also to slaves in the USA two centuries back? If not, why not?

An interesting thing, as opposed as we are to slavery today due to the horros of chattel slavery, in some ways slavery was more humane than how the current economic system is structured. That is not to say its practice in the US was in anyway, but more how it functioned in the ancient world. After all, employers have no obligation to ensure that those whose labor they profit off of are housed or able to feed themselves.

 

[rjs330]

Comparatively wealthy, yes. Paul also was likely quite well off. But the wealth disparity that exists today is astronomical when there are folks living on pennies a day while others have more wealth than entire countries. It's not a matter of "hey, they're rich! That's bad!" but that there are individuals who could single handedly solve problems like the homelessness problem but choose not to.

Its not up to you to force those individuals to raise people in other countries out of poverty by giving them their money.

No the rich cannot solve the homeless problems. They could build all kinds of homes for rhe homeless and the homeless would still be homeless. They wouldn't be able to hold onto it. Thats becauae the homeless are that way because they arw either addicted, mentally ill or they want to be homeless or any combination thereof. I'm talking about the chronically homeless, not those that arw temporarily homeless due to temporary circumstances.

 

[Fervent]

Its not up to you to force those individuals to raise people in other countries out of poverty by giving them their money.

i'm less concerned with individuals property rights, than I am with alleviating the suffering of a significant portion of the population.

No the rich cannot solve the homeless problems. They could build all kinds of homes for rhe homeless and the homeless would still be homeless. They wouldn't be able to hold onto it. Thats becauae the homeless are that way because they arw either addicted, mentally ill or they want to be homeless or any combination thereof. I'm talking about the chronically homeless, not those that arw temporarily homeless due to temporary circumstances.

What would stop them from "holding onto it"? How would it be taken from them, in your imagined scenario?

 

[Hentenza]

It's not about entitlements, anymore than God commanding leaving the fields for the poor to glean or caring for them through the tithes was entitlements.

For your left camp it is all about entitlements. Secondly I premised my argument a few posts back with those that are able bodied to work. I called it a subset. I have no problems taking care of the actual poor so your attacks are unfounded.

Small to medium companies tend to have exceedingly limited employment needs, most hardly need more than owner-operation.

That is one big assumption you have there. Why don’t you try to bring some evidence next time. Example, most convenience stores are actually small to medium businesses. They have all sorts of business needs.

We're getting a bit far afield from the topic at hand, as the make-up of the job market isn't really relevant to whether or not we should create safety nets or whether or not those who rely on such programs are just no-good lazy moochers.

My earlier post addressed that to a subset of people a safety net can create a benefit cliff further perpetuating their poverty cycle.

You're the one making the claim, so I'll leave you to prove your statements. In the mean time, I'll simply believe that you are just looking for an excuse to blame them for suffering rather than recognizing the real sociological and economic barriers that lead to the need for safety nets.

There you go.

How safety net benefits discourage the escape from poverty

A new research paper from GCO shows the ways social safety-net programs provide critical support but also discourage career advancement.

foropportunity.org

 

[Fervent]

For your left camp it is all about entitlements. Secondly I premised my argument a few posts back with those that are able bodied to work. I called it a subset. I have no problems taking care of the actual poor so your attacks are unfounded.

My examples are neither left nor right, and your characterization says more about your positions than my own.

That is one big assumption you have there. Why don’t you try to bring some evidence next time. Example, most convenience stores are actually small to medium businesses. They have all sorts of business needs.


My earlier post addressed that to a subset of people a safety net can create a benefit cliff further perpetuating their poverty cycle.

Somehow I suspect your concern in that regard is...insincere. Especially since the poverty cycle is largely reinforced by restrictions that a lack of safety nets creates, such as inability to access public educational resources due to immediate needs and the ability to be selective about opportunities and only take those that best serve their interests.

There you go.

The benefits cliff, explained

Why is the benefits cliff issue so hard to address? And what are some communities doing to take on the problem in the face of that challenge?

fedcommunities.org

THe problem with ideas like this is they operate in the realm of hypothetical and serve little function other than to villainize the poor for their crime of not being born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

 

[ralliann]

It is the authoritarian dictatorial model of communism or socialism that is so negative.

It is about power. Giving power over to "Government". Why would people want that? Seems to me they like all that power.

The authoritarian dictatorial model of capitalism is just as negative, or even more so. It is taking control from the votes of the people and ceding it to callous amoral leaders who do not have our best interests at heart.

In other words the people are incapable of looking to their own interest? These others know better than they what is best for them? Seems like right there you have those who think the people are inept and need a certain class to control?

Our government in its current form and its current leadership is every bit as vulnerable to abuse of power as the communism and socialism you describe.

As long as freedom of speech continues ,and the vote is not corrupt "we the people can choose who has power to do what.

 

[Hentenza]

My examples are neither left nor right, and your characterization says more about your positions than my own.

Your characterizations have been quite left so far. My position has always been centrist.

Somehow I suspect your concern in that regard is...insincere.

What specifically gives you the wrong idea that I am being insincere. What I posted I posted in good faith. You could actually just reply to what I wrote instead of deflecting.

Especially since the poverty cycle is largely reinforced by restrictions that a lack of safety nets creates, such as inability to access public educational resources due to immediate needs and the ability to be selective about opportunities and only take those that best serve their interests.

Opinion without evidence is just that opinion. Let me give you an example of educational resources available here in Houston. The Houston Community College system has a plethora of vocational or academic two year degrees available to anyone that wants to study them. When combined with the pell grant the two years of study are virtually free.

THe problem with ideas like this is they operate in the realm of hypothetical and serve little function other than to villainize the poor for their crime of not being born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

No hypothetical at all. Explain why you think it is hypothetical.