Let them eat cake

[RGacky3]

Aparently, there are no poor people in America.

xWpz9NQipp0

Look how out of touch these people are, first their facts are wrong, but it just points out the attitude of these people.

[ZombieRothbard]

I didn't exactly get the sense that he was glorifying the "poor" living in what many Americans would consider downtrodden conditions.

But since you guys are socialists and I am assuming you are at least marginally concerned about the Third World, wouldn't you say that comparatively even our poor live in quite good conditions? I interpreted it as them comparing our "poor" to ACTUALLY poor people.

[Octavian]

But since you guys are socialists and I am assuming you are at least marginally concerned about the Third World, wouldn't you say that comparatively even our poor live in quite good conditions? I interpreted it as them comparing our "poor" to ACTUALLY poor people.
Obviously there's always poorer people. The first world lives on the backs of the third world and rely on them for cheap manufacturing. But it isn't the fault of the poor living in the first world. You also could keep criticizing everyone for their material conditions.

"Oh you think you're poor what about the workers in china"
"The Chinese think their poor, what about the people in africa"
etc

[Judicator]

Aparently, there are no poor people in America.

xWpz9NQipp0

Look how out of touch these people are, first their facts are wrong, but it just points out the attitude of these people.

Facts are wrong? You think really only 80% of the poor own fridges? Is that really what this argument is about?

The point is simply that the poor enjoy many modern conveniences, so to the extent that a third world poor person is the kind of poor person stereotype (the "good old days" poor referred to by the host), this is an inaccurate characterization.

[Pretty Flaco]

Poor is a relative term.

[RGacky3]

First of all many of those facts ARE wrong, many many poor people only eat a meal a day, many can't afford power and so on.

Its the attitude that bothers me, its the attitude that I'm pointing out, the disdain for the poor, that comes over and over again from right wingers.

When you are confronted with poverty a normal human would respond with compassion, empathy and solidarity. A right winger, responds like this.

[Per Levy]

But since you guys are socialists and I am assuming you are at least marginally concerned about the Third World, wouldn't you say that comparatively even our poor live in quite good conditions? I interpreted it as them comparing our "poor" to ACTUALLY poor people.

are you trying to play devide and conquer or something? sure there are more poorer people on the planet then the us poor, so? as socialists/communists/anarchists we care and are concerned about every poor person in the world. but this thread is about the poor of the usa. if we would go your route of thinking we could argue that southafrican poor dont have it bad because the poor in somalia have it worse.

also there is a huge poverty in the us, i know of a lot of people who are very poor who didnt had enough money ot buy food, who lost a lot of wheight because of that, who even had to live on the streets and almost died because they couldnt afford medical services. so yeah there are a lot of poor and not just "poor" in the usa.

[agnixie]

I didn't exactly get the sense that he was glorifying the "poor" living in what many Americans would consider downtrodden conditions.

But since you guys are socialists and I am assuming you are at least marginally concerned about the Third World, wouldn't you say that comparatively even our poor live in quite good conditions? I interpreted it as them comparing our "poor" to ACTUALLY poor people.

One in seven people in this country are in a state of food emergency, it's worse with youth. Concern trolling will get you nowhere.

Fun fact: the average net worth of single parent african american families is about 200$. The bottom two quintiles control less than 4% of the US' wealth (50-ish trillion) and this is decreasing constantly. There are states where running water is uncertain.

[ZombieRothbard]

First of all many of those facts ARE wrong, many many poor people only eat a meal a day, many can't afford power and so on.

Its the attitude that bothers me, its the attitude that I'm pointing out, the disdain for the poor, that comes over and over again from right wingers.

When you are confronted with poverty a normal human would respond with compassion, empathy and solidarity. A right winger, responds like this.

Do you have a source on the idea that "many poor only eat one meal a day".

And I still fail to see the disdain for the poor. Usually the disdain I see on the right is disdain for those that are willfully unemployed loafers. I would say the majority of people would wish to support the legitimately impoverished, the only difference is that the left tends to think people are entitled to things that the right does not agree with.

[ZombieRothbard]

One in seven people in this country are in a state of food emergency, it's worse with youth. Concern trolling will get you nowhere.

Fun fact: the average net worth of single parent african american families is about 200$. The bottom two quintiles control less than 4% of the US' wealth (50-ish trillion) and this is decreasing constantly. There are states where running water is uncertain.

Yeah, crony-capitalism blows.

[Sensible Socialist]

Yeah, crony-capitalism blows.
You can put any adjective in front of it you like, but it's still capitalism that blows.

[Baseball]

First of all many of those facts ARE wrong, many many poor people only eat a meal a day, many can't afford power and so on.

Its the attitude that bothers me, its the attitude that I'm pointing out, the disdain for the poor, that comes over and over again from right wingers.

When you are confronted with poverty a normal human would respond with compassion, empathy and solidarity. A right winger, responds like this.

Disdain from whom? The Stuart Varney interview was about people whom the USA classifies as being poor. Mr. Young Turk's comment about microwave ovens and their purpose expressed the only disdain in this piece toward the poor.

[PhoenixAsh]

Disdain from whom? The Stuart Varney interview was about people whom the USA classifies as being poor. Mr. Young Turk's comment about microwave ovens and their purpose expressed the only disdain in this piece toward the poor.

No..it did NOT express disdain toards the poor when he pointed that out...it expressed the truth of the situation in contrast to the obviously rethroical bullshit and propaganda piece by FOX. The dumbest microbe on the planted got that. People who do not get that seriously need to reevaluate their Darwin factor...

Its always funny that those kind of people form the largest part of the group who immediately retract with these truths by pointing towards other more poor people or other countries instead of actually recognizing the situation and doing something about it...that says something....because apparantly they are under the impression that that comparison is a justification. Instead it tells us that the person who is doing that plainly doesn't get it and is simply uncaring and unworthy of time and consideration.

[Baseball]

No..it did NOT express disdain toards the poor when he pointed that out...it expressed the truth of the situation.

Seems to me the truth of the situation is what the Varney piece was all about.

But lets look at it from a socialist angle:
Does a household really "need" two television sets? Would a socialist community endorse that type of production ahead of say, food production?
Does an household really need an "XBox" or Nintendo or such games? Again, would a socialist community direct production to such products, ahead of say to medicine or clothing?

I find it hard to believe the answer would be "yes."

[Nox]

Seems to me the truth of the situation is what the Varney piece was all about.

But lets look at it from a socialist angle:
Does a household really "need" two television sets? Would a socialist community endorse that type of production ahead of say, food production?
Does an household really need an "XBox" or Nintendo or such games? Again, would a socialist community direct production to such products, ahead of say to medicine or clothing?

I find it hard to believe the answer would be "yes."

In a socialist/communist society it's a silly misconception that everyone would just be given the bare minimum, to provide the bare minimum for everyone I'm guessing people would need to work just 2 hours a day tops. There will easily be many consumer goods in a socialist society, such as TVs like you mentioned.

[Baseball]

In a socialist/communist society it's a silly misconception that everyone would just be given the bare minimum, to provide the bare minimum for everyone I'm guessing people would need to work just 2 hours a day tops. There will easily be many consumer goods in a socialist society, such as TVs like you mentioned.

That isn't what I asked. I expressed whether we are to believe that a socialist community would place the production of televisions or X-boxes as a greater priority than the production of food or medicine.

[Nox]

That isn't what I asked. I expressed whether we are to believe that a socialist community would place the production of televisions or X-boxes as a greater priority than the production of food or medicine.

Obviously it would be food/medecine, until enough is produced.

But I really don't see the point you're trying to make

[Sensible Socialist]

That isn't what I asked. I expressed whether we are to believe that a socialist community would place the production of televisions or X-boxes as a greater priority than the production of food or medicine.
If a choice has to be made, there already is a problem. Society should produce all goods that allow for the improvement of living for all people. If there was a severe shortage, I don't think you'll find anyone advocating production of iPads over food or medicine, but we shouldn't be looking at production as an either/or situation.

[Baseball]

Obviously it would be food/medecine, until enough is produced.

But I really don't see the point you're trying to make

The point is simply that people choosing television and X-boxes sets ahead of food or clothing are making unwise choices. That would be true in the capitalist, and as you have agreed, in the socialist one.

So why condemn people in the capitalist community who voice the same thing which people in a socialist community would?

[Baseball]

If a choice has to be made, there already is a problem. Society should produce all goods that allow for the improvement of living for all people. If there was a severe shortage, I don't think you'll find anyone advocating production of iPads over food or medicine, but we shouldn't be looking at production as an either/or situation.

Well, in a two hour day, a person cannot produce everything. Even in an eight hour workday. So production still has to be prioritised.

[Sensible Socialist]

Well, in a two hour day, a person cannot produce everything. Even in an eight hour workday. So production still has to be prioritised.
Different people and groups can make different things. I can make X while you make Y.

[Nox]

The point is simply that people choosing television and X-boxes sets ahead of food or clothing are making unwise choices. That would be true in the capitalist, and as you have agreed, in the socialist one.

So why condemn people in the capitalist community who voice the same thing which people in a socialist community would?

Are you intentionally being an idiot? Stop it, it's annoying -.-

In a socialist/communist world, it would be made sure that there has been enough necessities produced to cover everyone in the world, then work could begin on producing consumer goods, simple.

[RGacky3]

Yeah baseball, your not honestly debating here, your playing semantics and purposefully not understanding things, I have no problem debating but sophistry is not debate, you have to actually debate honestly.


Do you have a source on the idea that "many poor only eat one meal a day".

And I still fail to see the disdain for the poor. Usually the disdain I see on the right is disdain for those that are willfully unemployed loafers. I would say the majority of people would wish to support the legitimately impoverished, the only difference is that the left tends to think people are entitled to things that the right does not agree with.

http://usfoodpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/11/food-insecurity-in-united-states.html

The disdain is the implication that poor people DESERVE to be poor, and the assumption that the unemployed are loafers, this comes up all the time. Just things like "entitlement" words like that, that is all disdain for the poor, as if they SHOULD be poor.

[Sir Comradical]

I didn't exactly get the sense that he was glorifying the "poor" living in what many Americans would consider downtrodden conditions.

But since you guys are socialists and I am assuming you are at least marginally concerned about the Third World, wouldn't you say that comparatively even our poor live in quite good conditions? I interpreted it as them comparing our "poor" to ACTUALLY poor people.

Physicalist nonsense. The economy grows and more products can be produced cheaper this means that workers can buy a few more products than they could years ago. Big deal. The same could be said at every stage in the history of capitalism. The point to be made is that America's productive forces are advanced enough for everyone to work a lot less and still have all these items anyway. Compared to the constantly increasing share of wealth going of the capitalist class, a few extra microwaves and coffeemakers are relative crumbs. With regards to the wealth that actually does exist, the share that goes to workers as wages has declined.

[ZombieRothbard]

You can put any adjective in front of it you like, but it's still capitalism that blows.

That is a sentiment the left seems to hold, and I think it is quite honestly totally moronic. You lump apples and oranges together, and only cite evidence about how rotten the apples are.

[ZombieRothbard]

Physicalist nonsense. The economy grows and more products can be produced cheaper this means that workers can buy a few more products than they could years ago. Big deal. The same could be said at every stage in the history of capitalism.

:thumbup1: Exactly?



The point to be made is that America's productive forces are advanced enough for everyone to work a lot less and still have all these items anyway.Source? We can't even get full employment right now (due to minimum wage law), how the hell are we going to start cutting back hours? And how the hell do you cut back working and somehow produce the same amount?



Compared to the constantly increasing share of wealth going of the capitalist class, a few extra microwaves and coffeemakers are relative crumbs. With regards to the wealth that actually does exist, the share that goes to workers as wages has declined.

Disparity of wealth is due to a lot of crony-capitalist policies, but even with those horrendous corporatist policies you still get standards of living rising for the lower classes like you cede here.

[CommunityBeliever]

This is all so representative of the capitalist mentality. The important consideration isn't that workers happen to posses a few pieces of personal property like refrigerators its that they don't own any private property and that every month they have to pay most of their money to the bourgeoisie for rent and utilities.

[CommunityBeliever]

:thumbup1: Exactly?The fact that we have a few personal possessions like computers that are given to us by our bourgeoisie masters doesn't change the reality of exploitation. Some slaves might have had raising living conditions change over time in slave societies but that never changed the reality of their exploitation.

[Aspiring Humanist]

The fact that the poor own a fridge doesn't show much. The income disparity between classes in the US shows the real problem of poverty in the US


Statistics from the United Nations tell us that the bottom 40 percent of the population of the United States own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth. That is about 120 million people. If each and every one of these individuals “forced” the banks to give them mortgages and loans, and then failed to pay them back, the worst that could happen would be a total national loss of 1 percent of wealth.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25430.htm

[RGacky3]

Source? We can't even get full employment right now (due to minimum wage law), how the hell are we going to start cutting back hours? And how the hell do you cut back working and somehow produce the same amount?


No, its due to insufficient demand, and you cut back hours so that more people can work.


Disparity of wealth is due to a lot of crony-capitalist policies, but even with those horrendous corporatist policies you still get standards of living rising for the lower classes like you cede here.

No its not, its due to Capitalism, crony-capitalism is the natrual outcome of Capitalism of anysort.

YOU don't get ever rising living standards, and the stuff you do, is from technology and would be much higher living standards if the benefits were equitable.


The fact that we have a few personal possessions like computers that are given to us by our bourgeoisie masters doesn't change the reality of exploitation. Some slaves might have had raising living conditions change over time in slave societies but that never changed the reality of their exploitation.

Not even to mention that computers and the such were inveted by government researchers, and those invetors are not the main profeteers of computers, those things are not the result of Capitalism.


That is a sentiment the left seems to hold, and I think it is quite honestly totally moronic. You lump apples and oranges together, and only cite evidence about how rotten the apples are.

Well, you support the same policies .... Sooo. And both your world views lead to the same outcomes.

[Sensible Socialist]

That is a sentiment the left seems to hold, and I think it is quite honestly totally moronic. You lump apples and oranges together, and only cite evidence about how rotten the apples are.
It is the inevitable result of the private ownership of capital, aka capitalism.

[CommunityBeliever]

Not even to mention that computers and the such were inveted by government researchers, and those invetors are not the main profeteers of computers, those things are not the result of Capitalism.And since the loss of state funding for building computer systems we have most of our best minds working on how to get people to click advertisements instead. That is capitalism for you :thumbup1:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I gotta say ever since discovering The Young Turks, it has consistently impressed me. Cenk Uygur is a competent and engaging host.

The FOX idiots also seem to forget that a lot of poor people get their stuff cheap or second-hand. Most of the furniture I have in my flat, I either managed to grab off neighbours moving out, or has been rescued from skips and front gardens.

[PhoenixAsh]

Seems to me the truth of the situation is what the Varney piece was all about.

But lets look at it from a socialist angle:
Does a household really "need" two television sets? Would a socialist community endorse that type of production ahead of say, food production?
Does an household really need an "XBox" or Nintendo or such games? Again, would a socialist community direct production to such products, ahead of say to medicine or clothing?

I find it hard to believe the answer would be "yes."

no...its NOT the truth of the situation. Its a sensation piece that portrays information in one dimension with the most obvious attempt to say that poor people are poor because of their own faults and is wrought with both visual and auditory attempts to influence minds without giving any content of these so called facts not to mention the most obvious rethorical attempts to sway information based on wrong conclusions and one sided information.

That was most clearly uncovered when the anchor was undermined by his own expert.

Now...have you considered the following:

1). Refrigirators are must. So why would this say anything about poverty?
2). Microwaves cost about 30 bucks...and electricity bills are much lower than gas bills. Which you would know if you ever were in the position you had to make a distinction
3). Coffemakers....are you freaking kidding me?
4). Cellphones are cheaper than landlocked phones
5). Computers are a dime a dozen
6). Televisions you can find for about 5 bucks these days.

None of the items on the list cost very much. They make it appear like they do...because they put nice pictures of state of the art stuff next to them. But they tell us NOTHING about the origins of these products.And not having these products does not ensure your food "production" for an extended period of time.

But the main question is...why are you so freaking pedantic that you actually think these items tell if somebody is poor or not? What the fuck do you expect...that poor people live in dark, cold, damp rooms with a matrass on the floor and a candle for light?

Wauw...most people in the slumb have a radio...wellll....that just goes to show that they are sooooo much better off. What the hell are they complaining about???

There are in fact a whole lot of sides to this issue. And what a socialist society would in fact never do...unlike the FOX crew and, well, you apparantly....is put people in a position that they had to make the choice between a 10 bucks coffee maker and food.

And you are also making a huge mistake...families do not produce food not consumer goods. They produce labour. The consumer goods are produced by companies....who indeed put such production ahead of more important things...like people. You are blaming the people for the situation the burgeoisie is putting them in.

Also...ever think...people get poor because they lose their jobs? Ever think that people may have been bottom line first but still able to afford all that stuff and slowely empoverished?

[Klaatu]

But the refrigerators and microwaves of the poor are not gold-plated, nor do they sit on ivory toilet seats, like the wealthy do.

[Klaatu]

The FOX idiots also seem to forget that a lot of poor people get their stuff cheap or second-hand. Most of the furniture I have in my flat, I either managed to grab off neighbours moving out, or has been rescued from skips and front gardens.

Same thing in my brother's neighborhood: he ONLY has second-hand refrigerator, washing machine (oh what a luxury) second hand TV, stereo, etc.

The working poor in a capitalist society are lucky to even be alive, by what the opulent class has swiped from them.

[Decolonize The Left]

Good god the underlying point here is that the shit you own doesn't determine real wealth - real wealth is determined by your quality of life (i.e. your relationship to your own labor).

- August

[Klaatu]

Good god the underlying point here is that the shit you own doesn't determine real wealth - real wealth is determined by your quality of life (i.e. your relationship to your own labor).

- August
This is true. The richest may actually be the poorest, from the perspective of having the poorest of morals and the poorest of ideals.

[Decolonize The Left]

This is true. The richest may actually be the poorest, from the perspective of having the poorest of morals and the poorest of ideals.

I'm not talking about morals/ideas, at all.

I'm talking about a healthy life being one in which you can pursue your personal goals both physically and creatively, which means that you have a direct relationship to your own labor, one in which you feel as though your labor is possessed by you and used for your own purpose.

This is the relationship which capitalism destroys. It separates us from our labor, commodities our labor, forces us to give it away for a medium of exchange. And in doing so, it reduces us to mere providers of labor - dehumanizes us into the very commodity which only we can produce.

I'm trying to say that it doesn't matter how many refrigerators you have when you can't do what you want with your labor - when the act of laboring doesn't mean anything, when it's a means to an end rather than the sole end of humanity within itself.

- August

[Baseball]

Are you intentionally being an idiot? Stop it, it's annoying -.-

In a socialist/communist world, it would be made sure that there has been enough necessities produced to cover everyone in the world, then work could begin on producing consumer goods, simple.

Fine. But remember- In order to to do that:

1. You have to place priority of that production of those neccessities over that of those non-neccessities.

2. And you have to be prepared to be reject the claims of your fellow workers who might wish to vote the other way.

So yes, it is entirely fair to conclude that socialists who endorse the condemnation of Varney & Co. on that subject to be rather hypocritical.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=hindsight20/20;2183170]no...its NOT the truth of the situation. Its a sensation piece that portrays information in one dimension with the most obvious attempt to say that poor people are poor because of their own faults

Ect. Ect Ect.

Look. The question is perfectly fair to be asked of, and to be answered by, socialists.

Let's put it a different way: Could workers in a democratic socialist community vote to place the production of X-boxes ahead of the production of food or some such neccessity and still be:

1. Considered a socialist community?
2. Condemned for making such a choice?

[Sensible Socialist]

[QUOTE]
Let's put it a different way: Could workers in a democratic socialist community vote to place the production of X-boxes ahead of the production of food or some such neccessity and still be:

1. Considered a socialist community?
2. Condemned for making such a choice?
Why would they have to? There is more than enough food production to feed everyone on the planet.

[CommunityBeliever]

We really don't have to make decision right now, we have an incredible abundance of food and other necessities, it just isn't being sent to the right people.

ECPVJvb0qVo

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Baseball;2183352]
Why would they have to? There is more than enough food production to feed everyone on the planet.


Yep, capitalist food production. Can't assume it in a socialist system. Change the system, change the results.

In a socialist system, that food production would have to be "democratically" voted upon. People would have a "say" ect ect ect.

So the workers would have to vote WHERE the community should place its production first, and second and third ect.

So all I am asking is whether a socialist community would prioritise its production to place x-boxes first ect ect ect.? If not, then why condemn Varney & Co. for making the SAME observation?

[Sensible Socialist]

[QUOTE=Sensible Socialist;2183354]


Yep, capitalist food production. Can't assume it in a socialist system. Change the system, change the results.
There would be more food. Grain wouldn't be left to rot in India, harmful farming practices wouldn't destroy land, etc.

In a socialist system, that food production would have to be "democratically" voted upon. People would have a "say" ect ect ect.


So the workers would have to vote WHERE the community should place its production first, and second and third ect.
No, no they wouldn't. When workers take control of the means of production, goods that people want will still be produced. There is no reason to vote on every single item on a store shelf. If there is a segment of the population who believes that product X shouldn't have resources wasted on it, it will be discussed. But goods that people use will be produced.


So all I am asking is whether a socialist community would prioritise its production to place x-boxes first ect ect ect.? If not, then why condemn Varney & Co. for making the SAME observation?
Why does there have to be a prioritisation? You're not making any sense. People can grow fruit and produce consumer goods. You are acting as if things have to be ranked in order to be produced. Simultaneous production can occur, you know.

[Sir Comradical]

:thumbup1: Exactly?

The same could be said about feudalism or any system that came after the hunter gatherer society. Point is that determining someone's welfare by pointing to an arbitrary bundle of commodities they possess is irrelevant given what I said after this point.


Source? We can't even get full employment right now (due to minimum wage law), how the hell are we going to start cutting back hours? And how the hell do you cut back working and somehow produce the same amount?

Where's your fucking source? If there literally is not enough work to go around, then society should be able to cut back hours for the workforce and everyone does less work, of course this is only possible under socialism. You produce the same amount by eliminating the need to produce surplus value for the capitalist.


Disparity of wealth is due to a lot of crony-capitalist policies, but even with those horrendous corporatist policies you still get standards of living rising for the lower classes like you cede here.

Crony-capitalism is the logical end of capitalism anyway. Sure you can pretend that your precious free-market capitalism is being corrupted by *exogenous* government forces imposing corporatism on it but that changes nothing. Pointing to rising standards of living is irrelevant, there were rising standards of living under slavery.

[PhoenixAsh]

[QUOTE]

Ect. Ect Ect.

Look. The question is perfectly fair to be asked of, and to be answered by, socialists.

Let's put it a different way: Could workers in a democratic socialist community vote to place the production of X-boxes ahead of the production of food or some such neccessity and still be:

1. Considered a socialist community?
2. Condemned for making such a choice?No, its not a fair question to be asked in the context of this topic. Especially since you are equating two things which are not comparable in order to make a conclusion and in the proces of doing so you are misusing terminology in such way you seem to be redifining it.

If you were not...this question would have shit-all to do with this topic and you know it.

So you first need to tell me how you think this question pertains to the poverty status of induvidual families....and then you need to tell me how that relates to your insinuation of how their poverty is a choice.

[Fulanito de Tal]

I just wanna throw my poor fist into his fucking face. That sack of fucking shit. FUCK!!!!!

[eric922]

I know he may not be a liberal/progressive type, but at least the young turks host has some compassion for his fellow man that's more than I can see for the right

[RGacky3]

Yep, capitalist food production. Can't assume it in a socialist system. Change the system, change the results.

In a socialist system, that food production would have to be "democratically" voted upon. People would have a "say" ect ect ect.

So the workers would have to vote WHERE the community should place its production first, and second and third ect.

So all I am asking is whether a socialist community would prioritise its production to place x-boxes first ect ect ect.? If not, then why condemn Varney & Co. for making the SAME observation?

This is NOT a hypothetical question, as has been pointed out time and time again, we have historical examples of socialist communities, and none of them had these problems.

Varney and Co are not making their decisions based on what people need, they are making their decisions based on how much money they can get.

But the point is Baseball, is the utter disdain for the poor that right wingers have (I hav'nt seen it in you perse, I've seen it in Skooma addict, and many other ring wingers here), beyond the intellectual discussion they tend to have a disdain for the poor and a exhautation of the rich.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Baseball;2183352]

So you first need to tell me how you think this question pertains to the poverty status of induvidual families....and then you need to tell me how that relates to your insinuation of how their poverty is a choice.

A socialist ought to be able to analyze socialism in terms of socialism.
So my question still stands, and has yet to be answered.

[RGacky3]

A socialist ought to be able to analyze socialism in terms of socialism.
So my question still stands, and has yet to be answered.

It has been answered all ready over and over again but you ignore it.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE]This is NOT a hypothetical question, as has been pointed out time and time again, we have historical examples of socialist communities, and none of them had these problems.

What problem? "Excessive" consumer products with a dearth of needed items? Socialists keep saying the latter before the former. So again, why condemn a pair of non-socialists for making the same observation?


Varney and Co are not making their decisions based on what people need, they are making their decisions based on how much money they can get.

They seem to be making their comment based upon choices the poor are freely making with their own money.

[RGacky3]

What problem? "Excessive" consumer products with a dearth of needed items? Socialists keep saying the latter before the former. So again, why condemn a pair of non-socialists for making the same observation?


They are not making a systemic observation, they are making an ignorant observation tyring to bellittle poor people's suffering, they are trying to minimize the effects of poverty, both you and I know what they are trying to do.


They seem to be making their comment based upon choices the poor are freely making with their own money.

First of all they are WRONG, second of all, many people own TVs, could have been bought before they lost their jobs, same with refrigerators, people need to eat.

The fact that your making these narrow and ignorant comments trying to belittle the poverty of Americans and basically blame it on them, shows the basic right wing pro-capitalist attitude.

[Ingraham Effingham]

In a capitalistic society, its funny how the more stuff you own, the more the system owns you. Mortgages, bills, even interest on student loans are all increased, when you 'own' more. Maybe what society views as 'poor' should really mean 'free.'

FOX news is reinforcing a capitalistic notion that not owning the newest microwave or your own place is sad, and teaching the poor and under-informed that they need extraneous stuff, and a mortgage bill, to mean anything in society.

its nothing but capitalist propaganda, pure and simple

with this, spend time only showing others OUTSIDE of the left mindset what it is. critically analyzing this drivel is not worth anyone's time on this site.

[Baseball]

They are not making a systemic observation, they are making an ignorant observation tyring to bellittle poor people's suffering,


And yet again... Would not a socialist community demand production geared toward needed items ahead on non-needed games and entertainment? I do not understand why this is so difficult to answer.



The fact that your making these narrow and ignorant comments trying to belittle the poverty of Americans and basically blame it on them, shows the basic right wing pro-capitalist attitude.

If the poor are buying Nintendos ahead of buying food, whose feet should this decision be laid upon? The capitalist? Talk about having disdain for the poor:rolleyes:

[CommunityBeliever]

Would not a socialist community demand production geared toward needed items ahead on non-needed games and entertainment? Part of the point of the socialist mode of production is developing such an abundance that we can easily satisfy everyone's needs in communism. This isn't hard to imagine since we already live in an era of over-abundance such that much of our products go to waste (see the video I posted above).

Therefore, in communism we wouldn't have the problem of "gearing production" like you are saying, but yes in a socialist society we would manage things to make sure everyone's needs are met and that they are healthy, see for example the health care system in Cuba.

[CommunityBeliever]

If the poor are buying Nintendos ahead of buying food, whose feet should this decision be laid upon? The capitalist? Talk about having disdain for the poor

Who is buying Nintendos? Most of the world's workers are struggling for their very survival, so perhaps you are talking about the first world workers, so what if they have a few personal devices? They still don't own any private property and they are being exploited by the capitalists.

[Baseball]

[
QUOTE=CommunityBeliever;2184033]Part of the point of the socialist mode of production is developing such an abundance that we can easily satisfy everyone's needs in communism.

Yes. I understand the theory. But you have to deal with the realities as well. At some point, somewhere, a decision has to be made- X-boxes or cornflakes.

[CommunityBeliever]

Yes. I understand the theory. But you have to deal with the realities as well. At some point, somewhere, a decision has to be made- X-boxes or cornflakes. Assuming cornflakes are the product with a greater use-value:

Communism = X-boxes AND cornflakes
Socialism = cornflakes

[RGacky3]

And yet again... Would not a socialist community demand production geared toward needed items ahead on non-needed games and entertainment? I do not understand why this is so difficult to answer.


yes, but thats not what we are talking numbnuts.


If the poor are buying Nintendos ahead of buying food, whose feet should this decision be laid upon? The capitalist? Talk about having disdain for the poorhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/let-them-eat-t158397/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

Thats not whats happening. it might have happened a couple times, and these guys are trying to ues what MIGHT have happened and use it to belittle the poor.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

[

Yes. I understand the theory. But you have to deal with the realities as well. At some point, somewhere, a decision has to be made- X-boxes or cornflakes.

That's a false dichotomy. Obviously food is higher on the hierarchy of needs than entertainment electronics, but there's no reason to believe there is going to a spectacular shortage of either for the forseeable future.

The productive technologies developed under capitalism could swamp the world in food and electronics, but under the capitalist price system it just doesn't make sense to do so, because the economic structure is such that it is a matter of corporate survival to acquire capital, with citizen's welfare taking a backseat.

[Baseball]

That's a false dichotomy. Obviously food is higher on the hierarchy of needs than entertainment electronics, but there's no reason to believe there is going to a spectacular shortage of either for the forseeable future.

This isn't what i am saying there. I am simply pointing out that when an individual gets up in the morning and trundles off to work (even in the socialist community) he or she can't do everything. And the community cannot have that person doing anything. The priorities have to be set for where that labor is trundling off to. That's all I am saying. And as you said, food is the greater priority. So I am not following the condemnation of a pair of pro-capitalists who are saying exactly the same thing.

[Baseball]

Thats not whats happening. it might have happened a couple times, and these guys are trying to ues what MIGHT have happened and use it to belittle the poor.


If X% of the poor have Nintendos and the like, then we move beyond "might have happened."
But yet again, and despite claims to the contrary, I fail to see any explanation as to why a socialist community would have any differing opinions on such prioritisation of production and consumption by members of its community.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This isn't what i am saying there. I am simply pointing out that when an individual gets up in the morning and trundles off to work (even in the socialist community) he or she can't do everything. And the community cannot have that person doing anything. The priorities have to be set for where that labor is trundling off to. That's all I am saying. And as you said, food is the greater priority. So I am not following the condemnation of a pair of pro-capitalists who are saying exactly the same thing.

So what, you think there's going be a shortage of people choosing professions in the agriculture and/or electronics sectors?

Even if there is a shortage of people going into a particular profession, do you think a socialist society would not have means of addressing that shortfall?

[RGacky3]

If X% of the poor have Nintendos and the like, then we move beyond "might have happened."
But yet again, and despite claims to the contrary, I fail to see any explanation as to why a socialist community would have any differing opinions on such prioritisation of production and consumption by members of its community.

You don't get it at all do you, your totally missing the disdain that bleeds out of the right wing.

[PhoenixAsh]

A socialist ought to be able to analyze socialism in terms of socialism.
So my question still stands, and has yet to be answered.

We are not debating socialism here now are we? We are debating poverty here. Something you have a vested interest in as being painted as the result of not producing enough food by the induvidual. Its your assertion that this goes against socialism.

As has been pointed out, several times, families do not produce. Your terminology is wrong to begin with. Which needs to be repaired to have your posts make any sense what so ever. I can not give you an answer...because like I stated: if you use the wrong terminology in an obvious attempt to paint poverty as somebodies own fault instead of the direct result of exploitation....you are baiting. You have got to use the right terminology. Otherwise you are just trolling.

Also what has been pointed out is that the other assertion you made...namely that those people are poor...because they own other stuff instead of using the (supposed) resource expenditure to aqcuire food has been answered and debunked.

Also I like to note that obviously its a direct resulty of capitalism that people are FORCED to make a choice between aqcuiring food and goods. Something which you will obviously ignore and do not seem to grasp. The system creates whole legions of people who seem to be only getting by on scraps even if they have three jobs at once. And you STILL defend that system and the fac t that these people are poor based on their life choices? WTF? Obvious troll is obvious.


ALSO...learn how to quote properly

[Napoleon Winston]

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Poor.shtml


One reads much about the poor in America, their piteous lives, their blighted hopes, and the unrelieved downtreading of them by various social ogres such as oppressive corporations who sell them greasy hamburgers. (Why does my wretched spell-checker object to “downtreading”? You can’t be downtrodden unless someone downtreads you. How obvious is that?)

This I submit is goober-brained nonsense. America has precious little poverty, if by poverty you mean lack of something to eat, clothing adequate to keep you warm and cover your private parts, and a dry and comfortable place to sleep. In the “inner cities” or, as we used to call them, slums, there is horrendous cultural emptiness, yes, and the products of the suburban high schools are catching up fast. But poverty? The kind you see in the backs streets of Port au Prince? It barely exists in the United States.

The problem is that the poor do not know how to be poor.

As a police reporter for the better part of a decade, I’ve been in a lot of homes in allegedly poor parts of cities. Physically they weren’t terrible. Some (not many, really) were badly kept up, but that isn’t poverty. The residents could have carried the garbage out to the dumpster in the alley. They just couldn’t be bothered.

Ah, but they were indeed morally deprived, culturally and intellectually impoverished, or what we used to call shiftless. I’ve come into an apartment in mid-afternoon and found a half dozen men sitting torpidly in front of the television, into homes where the daughter of thirteen was pregnant and on drugs. The problem wasn’t poverty. The poor can keep their legs crossed as well as anyone else. If the daughter could afford drugs, she could afford food.

Most of these homes would have been regarded as fine by the graduate students of my day. They would have put in board-and-cinderblock bookshelves and a booze cache and been perfectly content.

The reality is that the wherewithal of a cultivated life of leisure, if only in tee-shirts and jeans, is within the reach of almost all of the “poor.” If I had to live in really cheap welfarish quarters in Washington, DC, which I know well, on food stamps and a bit of cash welfare, what would I do?

I’d have a hell of a good time.

First, I’d get a library card, which is free, for the public libraries of the District. The downtown library, over on 9th Street, is a huge dark half-empty building in which very few people appear and none of the poor. I’d spend time reading, which I enjoy and the poor don’t. They aren’t interested.

A great many of the poor can’t read, and the rest don’t, but in both cases it is by choice, not because of poverty. The poor can go to the public schools. Their parents can encourage them to study. The schools are terrible, but neither is this because of poverty. The per-student expenditure in Washington is high. The city could afford good teachers and good texts. It isn’t interested.

Music? A hundred-dollar boombox these days provides remarkably good sound, and I’d roll in pirate CDs. The poor listen chiefly to grunting animalic rap, but that is by choice, not by necessity. Washington is neck-deep in free concerts by good groups, as for example the regular ones at KenCen. All of these are advertised in the City Paper, which is free. You never see the poor at these performances, though there is no dress code or discrimination. They aren’t interested.

Washington abounds in good museums and galleries, usually free, none terribly expensive. There is the entire Smithsonian complex, with the National Gallery of Art; there is the Phillips Collection, the…on and on. You never see the poor in them. They aren’t interested.

In parts of Washington near the Hill there are, or were, sometimes thirteen liquor stores encompassed in a four-block circuit (this I think is the number I once counted). You hear of drugs being the curse of the slums, but fortified wine may be as bad. You see old men with paper bags wobbling and bumping into things, a very short way from cirrhosis. Again, a choice: they could spend the money on something else.

All of this much reminds me of homosexuals and AIDS. Like illiteracy, AIDS is voluntary. I don’t dislike homosexuals, certainly wish AIDS on no one—but they know how HIV is transmitted. It they choose to indulge, well, so what? People ride motorcycles without helmets. It’s their decision, but don’t expect me to be particularly stunned if they, or I, croak as a result. Don’t want to study? Your decision. I don’t care. We make our choices.

So it is with poverty.

I now encounter charges that culpability for the usually unimpressive health of the purportedly poor rests with McDonald’s, which sells them foods loaded with fat and salt. Indeed McDonald’s does. But eating Big Macs is a choice, isn’t it? The poor could buy better food at the supermarket. Further, they know they could. They tend to watch a lot of television, with its endless health warnings. They eat fat because they want to eat fat.

Is this, in the tiresome phrase, blaming the victim? Absolutely. When the victim is to blame, blame him. If I get drunk and suffer a hangover, is it your fault? Jim Beam’s fault? Why?

Some will object that the (slight) poverty of the American poor somehow forces them to make bad decisions, which they know to be bad decisions. Well, if the poor have no free will, and haplessly do what their environment ordains, can not the management of McDonald’s plead the same?

If the poor of America were truly penurious, and forcibly kept so, I would see things differently. The sweated children of New York, the slaves of the South, the virtual slaves of the Industrial Revolution in England—these had a cause for complaint. They suffered greatly, and had no way out.

Neither did they have the subsidized housing of today, the welfare, and the leisure consequent to these, nor free medical care, nor public schools which by law they had to attend, nor free libraries, nor the array of special and unearned privilege called “affirmative action.” Today’s poor do have them. They also live in a society that has begged them, prodded them, enticed them to do something with and for themselves. They haven’t. They aren’t interested. And neither, any longer, am I.



Im not going to take either side on this (however Im sure most of you could guess my position on it :cool:), but I thought it was an interesting article.
I look forwards to your thoughts.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Poor.shtml

Im not going to take either side on this (however Im sure most of you could guess my position on it :cool:), but I thought it was an interesting article.
I look forwards to your thoughts.

The guy says "the poor do not how to be poor" when it's obvious that he's never been poor himself. For example, he says that the poor "don't enjoy" reading, but putting aside the sweeping generalisation of this statement for the moment, does this idiot realise the state of public education in America? Poor kids have to deal with overcrowded classrooms, underpaid and over-stressed teachers, and a culture of anti-intellectualism which stigmatises "smart kids". That library he mentioned? That's being gutted along with the schools, the welfare, the public housing, and similar social services.

And when he says things like "The poor listen chiefly to grunting animalic rap" it stinks of racism.

He also conflates AIDS with homosexuality, even though the HIV virus doesn't care about your sexual orientation.

In short, he's a bigoted prick spouting the usual dog-whistle crap.