Do left-wingers have a hatred of the rich?

[Greater Miami Shores]

Many leftists hate the rich, and many leftists are rich lol, like Robert de Niro, many Hollywood celebrities are rich and leftists, many support Fidel, Raúl and Diaz-Canel of Cuba, when Obama improved diplomatic and economic relations with the Cuban regime, many Hollywood leftist comedians, actors and celebrities flocked to Cuba to celebrate, the leftist media said Cuba was in fashion, the only reason Cuba was in so called fashion, was because the leftists celebrities flocked to Cuba to celebrate, we see them on TV as nice and funny, but they are still leftists, nothing wrong with that as that is their democratic right to be so, but the irony is they support a government regime who would take all thier wealth away from them and restrict thier artistic freedoms, lol, now that is not entirely true, in communist nations like Cuba and others, if you are an artist, a baseball player, or an athlete, and loyal to the regime, the government gives you a nice car, a nice house, and socialist privileges, even lots of money to certain ones, and restricts your artistic freedoms, but not anywhere as much money and wealth as they would have in a capitalist nation, while the privileged governing elite live like rich capitalists, socialists, please look at the pics that proves the point, https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=844667

Now dont get me wrong, I laugh at thier jokes, I even laugh at thier anti Trump jokes, and laughed at their pro Castro Brothers Cuba humor when they were in Cuba, but the irony is they support a government regime that would take all or most of thier wealth away and restrict thier artistic freedoms, lol.

1. Many leftists ain't rich
2. Exactly how is Robert de Niro and other Hollywood celebrities "leftist"?
3. Cuba is not Communist - in fact, no government has been communist. The term you are looking for is socialist (specifically state socialist/state capitalist)

Many leftists hate the rich, and many leftists are rich lol, like Robert de Niro, many Hollywood celebrities are rich and leftists, many support Fidel, Raúl and Diaz-Canel of Cuba, when Obama improved diplomatic and economic relations with the Cuban regime, many Hollywood leftist comedians, actors and celebrities flocked to Cuba to celebrate, the leftist media said Cuba was in fashion, the only reason Cuba was in so called fashion, was because the leftists celebrities flocked to Cuba to celebrate, we see them on TV as nice and funny, but they are still leftists, nothing wrong with that as that is their democratic right to be so, but the irony is they support a government regime who would take all thier wealth away from them and restrict thier artistic freedoms, lol, now that is not entirely true, in communist nations like Cuba and others, if you are an artist, a baseball player, or an athlete, and loyal to the regime, the government gives you a nice car, a nice house, and socialist privileges, even lots of money to certain ones, and restricts your artistic freedoms, but not anywhere as much money and wealth as they would have in a capitalist nation, while the privileged governing elite live like rich capitalists, socialists, please look at the pics that proves the point, https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=844667

Now dont get me wrong, I laugh at thier jokes, I even laugh at thier anti Trump jokes, and laughed at their pro Castro Brothers Cuba humor when they were in Cuba, but the irony is they support a government regime that would take all or most of thier wealth away and restrict thier artistic freedoms, lol.

1. Many leftists ain't rich
2. Exactly how is Robert de Niro and other Hollywood celebrities "leftist"?
3. Cuba is not Communist - in fact, no government has been communist. The term you are looking for is socialist (specifically state socialist/state capitalist)

Lol, give me a break Dude, I'm having a lol attack, many leftists hate the rich, and many leftists are rich, lol, no matter how you define leftists, no matter how you define the rich $, many Hollywood celebrities are leftists and rich, like Robert De Niro, supported President Obama at the democratic national convention, and supported Hillary Clinton for President.

Has been to Cuba, is a leftist political activist, no matter how you define real communists and socialists, all the communist nations have practiced some form of socialist communism, Russia under the Soviet Union, China under Mao Tse-tung, Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh, North Korea under Dear Leader Kim Kim Il-sung and Dear Leader Kim Jong-un, Cuba under Fidel, Raúl and Diaz-Canel, in Cuba's case, I think you mean Fidel and Raúl's military dictatorship government Mafia for life incorporated, of which Diaz-Canel is part of.

The Problem with socialist communism is once all the means of production and everything are in the hands of the people, it is really in the hands of the leaders, who become an automatic dictatorship, as their cant be any opposition to anything, and their cant be any opposition to the revolution for life.

"If you are correct Cuba is not Communist - in fact, no government has been communist." than the cold war against communism and for communism was a waste of time, and real communists and socialists on NS should not support and defend Fidel, Raúl and Diaz-Canel the way they do, and attack me and try to accuse of me of anything they can think of as they have done many times, even using the Cuban government's revolutionary language of so called insults against me, which I wear with pride anyways.

The irony is, these leftist Hollywood celebrities support and defend a government regime and ideology that would take all or most of their wealth away from them and restrict their artistic freedoms, lol, while the privileged governing socialist elite live like rich capitalists, socialist, communists, please check out the Pics that proves the point, https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=844667

[Post War America]

[spoiler=]

1. Many leftists ain't rich
2. Exactly how is Robert de Niro and other Hollywood celebrities "leftist"?
3. Cuba is not Communist - in fact, no government has been communist. The term you are looking for is socialist (specifically state socialist/state capitalist)

1. Many leftists ain't rich
2. Exactly how is Robert de Niro and other Hollywood celebrities "leftist"?
3. Cuba is not Communist - in fact, no government has been communist. The term you are looking for is socialist (specifically state socialist/state capitalist)

Lol, give me a break Dude, I'm having a lol attack, many leftists hate the rich, and many leftists are rich, lol, no matter how you define leftists, no matter how you define the rich $, many Hollywood celebrities are leftists and rich, like Robert De Niro, supported President Obama at the democratic national convention, and supported Hillary Clinton for President.

Has been to Cuba, is a leftist political activist, no matter how you define real communists and socialists, all the communist nations have practiced some form of socialist communism, Russia under the Soviet Union, China under Mao Tse-tung, Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh, North Korea under Dear Leader Kim Kim Il-sung and Dear Leader Kim Jong-un, Cuba under Fidel, Raúl and Diaz-Canel, in Cuba's case, I think you mean Fidel and Raúl's military dictatorship government Mafia for life incorporated, of which Diaz-Canel is part of.

The Problem with socialist communism is once all the means of production and everything are in the hands of the people, it is really in the hands of the leaders, who become an automatic dictatorship, as their cant be any opposition to anything, and their cant be any opposition to the revolution for life.

"If you are correct Cuba is not Communist - in fact, no government has been communist." than the cold war against communism and for communism was a waste of time, and real communists and socialists on NS should not support and defend Fidel, Raúl and Diaz-Canel the way they do, and attack me and try to accuse of me of anything they can think of as they have done many times, even using the Cuban government's revolutionary language of so called insults against me, which I wear with pride anyways.

The irony is, these leftist Hollywood celebrities support and defend a government regime and ideology that would take all or most of their wealth away from them and restrict their artistic freedoms, lol, while the privileged governing socialist elite live like rich capitalists, socialist, communists, please check out the Pics that proves the point, https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=844667

[/spoiler]

This liberalism = leftism bullshit is getting old.

The overwhelming majority of those "Evul elitist hollywood liberual socialist nazis" are liberals. Liberals are not leftist, and have often imposed fascist dictators to prevent leftists from taking power. Please stop equating Hollywood liberalism with the left.

[Valgora]

1. Many leftists ain't rich
2. Exactly how is Robert de Niro and other Hollywood celebrities "leftist"?
3. Cuba is not Communist - in fact, no government has been communist. The term you are looking for is socialist (specifically state socialist/state capitalist)

Lol, give me a break Dude, I'm having a lol attack, many leftists hate the rich, and many leftists are rich, lol, no matter how you define leftists, no matter how you define the rich $, many Hollywood celebrities are leftists and rich, like Robert De Niro, supported President Obama at the democratic national convention, and supported Hillary Clinton for President.

Has been to Cuba, is a leftist political activist, no matter how you define real communists and socialists, all the communist nations have practiced some form of socialist communism, Russia under the Soviet Union, China under Mao Tse-tung, Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh, North Korea under Dear Leader Kim Kim Il-sung and Dear Leader Kim Jong-un, Cuba under Fidel, Raúl and Diaz-Canel, in Cuba's case, I think you mean Fidel and Raúl's military dictatorship government Mafia for life incorporated, of which Diaz-Canel is part of.

The Problem with socialist communism is once all the means of production and everything are in the hands of the people, it is really in the hands of the leaders, who become an automatic dictatorship, as their cant be any opposition to anything, and their cant be any opposition to the revolution for life.

"If you are correct Cuba is not Communist - in fact, no government has been communist." than the cold war against communism and for communism was a waste of time, and real communists and socialists on NS should not support and defend Fidel, Raúl and Diaz-Canel the way they do, and attack me and try to accuse of me of anything they can think of as they have done many times, even using the Cuban government's revolutionary language of so called insults against me, which I wear with pride anyways.

The irony is, these leftist Hollywood celebrities support and defend a government regime and ideology that would take all or most of their wealth away from them and restrict their artistic freedoms, lol, while the privileged governing socialist elite live like rich capitalists, socialist, communists, please check out the Pics that proves the point, https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=844667

1. Supporting the Democratic Party and politicians like Obama ain't a leftist thing. The Democratic Party and Democratic politicians ain't leftist, they're liberal.
2.Explain to me exactly how Robert de Niro is a leftist. Because I've never heard him say anything about private ownership of the means of production.
3. There has never been a nation that has had communism except for Revolutionary Catalonia.
4. There ain't no such thing as "socialist communism".
6. State socialism/state capitalism is when the means of production are in the hands of the state/government.
7. The Soviet Union was state socialist/state capitalist, as was China. Juche is a perversion of socialism (specifically a perversion of Maoism if I remember correctly). I don't know enough about Vietnam under socialism, but I assume it was also state socialist/state capitalist. Cuba was also state socialist/state capitalist.
7. Yes, the Cold War was a waste of time. But it wasn't about democracy vs. "communism", it was a struggle for power and control between the two superpowers.
8. Real socialists can defend Fidel Castro; however, this will take many forms. The ones who support him the most are most likely Marxist-Leninist.
9. Again, what proof is there that many leftists are rich? Again, we ain't talking about liberals.
10. What is the proof that there are Hollywood celebrities that are actually leftist?

[The Alexanderians]

I can't speak for all of us but by default i don't like the typical upper class people.

[NeuPolska]

It’s human nature to be jealous. If someone has more than you, then you naturally want what they have and may suggest resorting to violence. It’s just a very bitter extention of competition.

I guess leftists tend to earn less than others? Or maybe they’re leftists because they earn less?

I dunno. I make pretty shit money but I have no envy of the rich. As far as I’m concerned, they’ve earned what they have. We need them as a society and they need us.

[Post War America]

It’s human nature to be jealous. If someone has more than you, then you naturally want what they have and may suggest resorting to violence. It’s just a very bitter extention of competition.

I guess leftists tend to earn less than others? Or maybe they’re leftists because they earn less?

I dunno. I make pretty shit money but I have no envy of the rich. As far as I’m concerned, they’ve earned what they have. We need them as a society and they need us.

Oh sure its jealousy, definitely. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that social iniquity, and the increasing divestment of the wealthy from public institutions, has at this point actually become a significant societal problem. It can't be that, we leftists are just salty that people have more money than us.

[Torrocca]

It’s human nature to be jealous. If someone has more than you, then you naturally want what they have and may suggest resorting to violence. It’s just a very bitter extention of competition.

I guess leftists tend to earn less than others? Or maybe they’re leftists because they earn less?

I dunno. I make pretty shit money but I have no envy of the rich. As far as I’m concerned, they’ve earned what they have. We need them as a society and they need us.

>TFW you as a leftist literally don't care about socioeconomic conditions leading to stringent poverty, social disenfranchisement, economic gaps that're literally vaporizing the middle class, etc. and just literally want to steal rich peoples' monetary assets

[Post War America]

It’s human nature to be jealous. If someone has more than you, then you naturally want what they have and may suggest resorting to violence. It’s just a very bitter extention of competition.

I guess leftists tend to earn less than others? Or maybe they’re leftists because they earn less?

I dunno. I make pretty shit money but I have no envy of the rich. As far as I’m concerned, they’ve earned what they have. We need them as a society and they need us.

>TFW you as a leftist literally don't care about socioeconomic conditions leading to stringent poverty, social disenfranchisement, economic gaps that're literally vaporizing the middle class, etc. and just literally want to steal rich peoples' monetary assets

I hope you're being sarcastic.

[Torrocca]

>TFW you as a leftist literally don't care about socioeconomic conditions leading to stringent poverty, social disenfranchisement, economic gaps that're literally vaporizing the middle class, etc. and just literally want to steal rich peoples' monetary assets

I hope you're being sarcastic.

Oh, no, I have absolutely no reason to be sarcastic whatsoever about poverty and how it kills people through a million different ways, all because they were poor! Those poor people all clearly deserved being poor, being born into poverty or forced into it through a loss of jobs, injuries, natural disasters, etc.! They should've pulled harder on the metaphorical, nonexistent straps of their boots that would've somehow lifted them up despite not actually doing that at all because clearly they're all lazy, greedy scumbags! Beggars can't be choosers, and beggars get tossed into the ladderless pit of poverty!

...

/S

[Fahran]

Oh, no, I have absolutely no reason to be sarcastic whatsoever about poverty and how it kills people through a million different ways, all because they were poor!

Most people in the developed world will not die as a result of living in poverty. This does not mean that essential issues such as hunger and homelessness should not be addressed by both non-profits and, in places where those fail, the apparatus of the state. As for the developing world, large-scale socialist projects aren't likely to benefit people in such countries in the long-term. A gradual process of industrialization and modernization, on the other hand, might bolster living standards while minimizing hunger, disease, and homelessness. That doesn't mean governments shouldn't be proactive, but we should acknowledge that they're limited as institutions. I'd prefer the Chilean model over the Cuban or Venezuelan model, even while acknowledging the horror intrinsic to all of them.

Those poor people all clearly deserved being poor, being born into poverty or forced into it through a loss of jobs, injuries, natural disasters, etc.!

Nobody said that.

They should've pulled harder on the metaphorical, nonexistent straps of their boots that would've somehow lifted them up despite not actually doing that at all because clearly they're all lazy, greedy scumbags! Beggars can't be choosers, and beggars get tossed into the ladderless pit of poverty!

Again, nobody said that.

[Puldania]

Oh, no, I have absolutely no reason to be sarcastic whatsoever about poverty and how it kills people through a million different ways, all because they were poor!

Most people in the developed world will not die as a result of living in poverty. This does not mean that essential issues such as hunger and homelessness should not be addressed by both non-profits and, in places where those fail, the apparatus of the state. As for the developing world, large-scale socialist projects aren't likely to benefit people in such countries in the long-term. A gradual process of industrialization and modernization, on the other hand, might bolster living standards while minimizing hunger, disease, and homelessness. That doesn't mean governments shouldn't be proactive, but we should acknowledge that they're limited as institutions. I'd prefer the Chilean model over the Cuban or Venezuelan model, even while acknowledging the horror intrinsic to all of them.

Those poor people all clearly deserved being poor, being born into poverty or forced into it through a loss of jobs, injuries, natural disasters, etc.!

Nobody said that.

They should've pulled harder on the metaphorical, nonexistent straps of their boots that would've somehow lifted them up despite not actually doing that at all because clearly they're all lazy, greedy scumbags! Beggars can't be choosers, and beggars get tossed into the ladderless pit of poverty!

Again, nobody said that.

What makes you think all leftists live in the developed world?

[Fahran]

What makes you think all leftists live in the developed world?

The majority of the leftists on this site do, as a rule, live in the developed world. I'm also inclined to point out that the most severe instances of poverty in the developing world occur in places where normal economic activity has been rendered impossible by conflict or natural phenomena. Some of those conflicts were actually caused by socialist revolutionaries.

[NeuPolska]

It’s human nature to be jealous. If someone has more than you, then you naturally want what they have and may suggest resorting to violence. It’s just a very bitter extention of competition.

I guess leftists tend to earn less than others? Or maybe they’re leftists because they earn less?

I dunno. I make pretty shit money but I have no envy of the rich. As far as I’m concerned, they’ve earned what they have. We need them as a society and they need us.

Oh sure its jealousy, definitely. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that social iniquity, and the increasing divestment of the wealthy from public institutions, has at this point actually become a significant societal problem. It can't be that, we leftists are just salty that people have more money than us.

Yeah that’s what it boils down to

You can work up from what you have

I set out on my own with $3 in my bank account and a high school diploma. I’m now in the Army with free healthcare, college aid, and am on course for a future career in the NSA if not the CIA or Secret Service. Oh and I’m 19, by the way. I’ve met former drug addicts, drug dealers, people with really fucked up stories and scars to show for it, and they’re out being successful and respected.

But yeah the wealthy suck. Bill Gates totally doesn’t give out college textbooks for free. And there’s Elon Musk doing what he does. I mean yeah you got people that work at Goldman Sachs or something Wall Street like that, but that’s whatever. You know the cost of living in Manhatten? Making 100k a year leaves you broke.

I mean you can continue to sit around complaining or you can go do something about it.

[Puldania]

Oh sure its jealousy, definitely. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that social iniquity, and the increasing divestment of the wealthy from public institutions, has at this point actually become a significant societal problem. It can't be that, we leftists are just salty that people have more money than us.

Yeah that’s what it boils down to

You can work up from what you have

I set out on my own with $3 in my bank account and a high school diploma. I’m now in the Army with free healthcare, college aid, and am on course for a future career in the NSA if not the CIA or Secret Service. Oh and I’m 19, by the way. I’ve met former drug addicts, drug dealers, people with really fucked up stories and scars to show for it, and they’re out being successful and respected.

But yeah the wealthy suck. Bill Gates totally doesn’t give out college textbooks for free. And there’s Elon Musk doing what he does. I mean yeah you got people that work at Goldman Sachs or something Wall Street like that, but that’s whatever. You know the cost of living in Manhatten? Making 100k a year leaves you broke.

I mean you can continue to sit around complaining or you can go do something about it.

Rising from poverty has more to do with luck than hard work.
The amount of money rich people give is not at all comparable to their total wealth.

[NeuPolska]

I didn’t need any luck at all to sign a dotted line

I’m also quite middle class, though. I just wanted to make my own money. Do my own thing. I had shit to just my name alone. Some of my friends are from some really economically disadvantaged areas, though. I’m talking people who have had sleep for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

If you don’t like where you’re at, there are things you can do if you’re determined to actually improve your life.

[Puldania]

I didn’t need any luck at all to sign a dotted line

I’m also quite middle class, though. I just wanted to make my own money. Do my own thing. I had shit to just my name alone. Some of my friends are from some really economically disadvantaged areas, though. I’m talking people who have had sleep for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

If you don’t like where you’re at, there are things you can do if you’re determined to actually improve your life.

Ideally, yes. Realistically, no.

Idealized capitalism is a beautiful idea, but it doesn't exist, just like idealized communism.
The reality is that class mobility is shit in capitalistic societies. For the poor, schools are shit, medicine is shit, jobs are shit, everything is shit.
Society is a pay2win mobile game in the worst way possible.

[Fahran]

Rising from poverty has more to do with luck than hard work.

Depends on how you qualify it. If you're born in the developed world, completing your education and not having children out of wedlock dramatically improves your chances of not living in permanent poverty. In many cases, it's a personal, social, and cultural dysfunction that can be prevented. The principal recipients of welfare in the United States at the moment for instance are young single mothers and young "deadbeat" dads. This doesn't mean that they're bad people or that they should starve. It does mean that generational poverty can be fixed through proactive means.

The amount of money rich people give is not at all comparable to their total wealth.

And? We're discussing poverty, not the wealth possessed by the one percent. Frankly, that's none of our business.

[NeuPolska]

You aren’t listening.

If you don’t do jack shit, you will continue to get jack shit. You may need to make decisions that take you outside of your comfort zone. You may will have to network. But you can and will move past your present situation if you’re willing to do what it takes.

[Torrocca]

You aren’t listening.

If you don’t do jack shit, you will continue to get jack shit. You may need to make decisions that take you outside of your comfort zone. You may will have to network. But you can and will move past your present situation if you’re willing to do what it takes.

>attempts to move up despite living paycheck to paycheck
>end up injured or out of a job instead because you took a risk
>lose house because no means of paying bills
>have nothing to fall back on because literally no savings due to living paycheck to paycheck
>end up homeless, no healthcare insurance or anything to get back onto feet with
>go online on a public library
>"But you can and will move past your present situation if you're willing to do what it takes," says person online, completely oblivious to the struggles incurred by poverty

Most people in the developed world will not die as a result of living in poverty.

Your premise requires the notion that I was only talking about the developed world.

You've also apparently never heard of the struggles of homeless people in the developed world, or people that die every year from treatable diseases and the like because of a lack of healthcare coverage or the funds to afford healthcare.

As for the developing world, large-scale socialist projects aren't likely to benefit people in such countries in the long-term.

Burkina Faso would like a word with you.

A gradual process of industrialization and modernization, on the other hand, might bolster living standards while minimizing hunger, disease, and homelessness.

My Gilded-Age of America timeline would have you know that that shit exacerbated issues in the standard of living.

Those poor people all clearly deserved being poor, being born into poverty or forced into it through a loss of jobs, injuries, natural disasters, etc.!

Nobody said that.

They should've pulled harder on the metaphorical, nonexistent straps of their boots that would've somehow lifted them up despite not actually doing that at all because clearly they're all lazy, greedy scumbags! Beggars can't be choosers, and beggars get tossed into the ladderless pit of poverty!

Again, nobody said that.

I never said anyone in this thread said that. Someone's clearly never heard any right-wing talking points in regards to the poor.

[Fahran]

Your premise requires the notion that I was only talking about the developed world.

Yes. The vast majority of the left-wing rhetoric on this website is predominantly concerned with developed countries, and most are not capable of engaging on the issues of the developing world because they do not understand those issues to any significant degree. It's why orthodox Marxism-Leninism isn't altogether popular anywhere outside of Russia and the universities.

You've also apparently never heard of the struggles of homeless people in the developed world,

Given that I've worked with homeless people on multiple occasions, I'm inclined to disagree to some extent. Somewhere between twenty to twenty five percent of homeless people struggle with mental illnesses. Thirty eight percent of homeless people abuse alcohol. Twenty six percent of homeless people abuse drugs other than alcohol. Twenty three percent of homeless people are veterans often with PTSD and/or severe addictions. Forty percent of homeless people are LGBT folks. Most of these are cases where people are struggling with serious health issues or were abandoned by their families at a young age. I'm not denying that it's a serious problems. On the contrary, it should be one of our most serious concerns as citizens. My point is that you have to do more than throw money at the problem in most cases. And socialism probably isn't the answer.

or people that die every year from treatable diseases and the like because of a lack of healthcare coverage or the funds to afford healthcare.

The statistics regarding this mostly relate to heart disease, cancer, and the like. Such diseases are usually exacerbated by poor diet, drug abuse, and lack of an active lifestyle. In terms of preventive medical care, promoting exercise and dieting programs would be extremely useful. It's not an instance where doctors are telling you that they won't treat you. Hospitals take on tens of millions of dollars of debt annually, treating patients they know won't be able to pay. Some even fail as a result.

Burkina Faso would like a word with you.

And that has nothing to do with all the mining operations that sustain such programs?

My Gilded-Age of America timeline would have you know that that shit exacerbated issues in the standard of living.

For awhile, yes, but the economic growth allowed us to amass the wealth to pay for nice things. It's why we had amenities like microwaves and refrigerators well before the Soviets. I'm not in favor of a wholly free market either though, so...

I never said anyone in this thread said that. Someone's clearly never heard any right-wing talking points in regards to the poor.

Patronizing classical liberals and prosperity gospel preachers say all manner of silly things. I'm not one of those. Neither are most of the people here.

[Aureumterra]

I can’t speak for American politics, but much of the left here is more focused on making the poor richer rather than making the rich poorer, as a rightist with many leftist friends, they sometimes feel frustrated that the “radical left” (The ones who actually hate the rich) is so vocal that it creates a stereotype for all leftists

[Torrocca]

Your premise requires the notion that I was only talking about the developed world.

Yes. The vast majority of the left-wing rhetoric on this website is predominantly concerned with developed countries, and most are not capable of engaging on the issues of the developing world because they do not understand those issues to any significant degree. It's why orthodox Marxism-Leninism isn't altogether popular anywhere outside of Russia and the universities.

Okay, and? I wasn't talking from a Marxist-Leninist angle, and I wasn't talking only about developed countries.

You've also apparently never heard of the struggles of homeless people in the developed world,

Given that I've worked with homeless people on multiple occasions, I'm inclined to disagree to some extent. Somewhere between twenty to twenty five percent of homeless people struggle with mental illnesses. Thirty eight percent of homeless people abuse alcohol. Twenty six percent of homeless people abuse drugs other than alcohol. Twenty three percent of homeless people are veterans often with PTSD and/or severe addictions. Forty percent of homeless people are LGBT folks. Most of these are cases where people are struggling with serious health issues or were abandoned by their families at a young age. I'm not denying that it's a serious problems. On the contrary, it should be one of our most serious concerns as citizens. My point is that you have to do more than throw money at the problem in most cases. And socialism probably isn't the answer.

Socialism isn't about throwing money at things to make them better. It literally addresses the issue of homelessness and the like by guaranteeing everyone gets homes (in theory, it argues everyone has a right to personal property, including a home, and in practice, the USSR which was arguably socialist and arguably not socialist did eradicate homelessness), guaranteeing work for everyone, etc.

or people that die every year from treatable diseases and the like because of a lack of healthcare coverage or the funds to afford healthcare.

The statistics regarding this mostly relate to heart disease, cancer, and the like. Such diseases are usually exacerbated by poor diet, drug abuse, and lack of an active lifestyle. In terms of preventive medical care, promoting exercise and dieting programs would be extremely useful. It's not an instance where doctors are telling you that they won't treat you. Hospitals take on tens of millions of dollars of debt annually, treating patients they know won't be able to pay. Some even fail as a result.

Those underlying issues (the poor diets, drug abuse, inactive lifestyles) all stem from poverty itself, in fact. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, really; people get sick from poverty, are afraid of going even more in debt because of that, and then unfortunately die from something that was treatable.

Burkina Faso would like a word with you.

And that has nothing to do with all the mining operations that sustain such programs?

As far as I'm aware, that kinda thing never happened in Burkina Faso under Sankara.

To quote Wiki:

"Other components of his national agenda included planting over 10,000,000 trees to halt the growing desertification of the Sahel, doubling wheat production by redistributing land from feudal landlords to peasants, suspending rural poll taxes and domestic rents and establishing an ambitious road and railway construction programme to "tie the nation together".[5] On the localised level, Sankara also called on every village to build a medical dispensary, and had over 350 communities build schools with their own labour. Moreover, his commitment to women's rights led him to outlaw female genital mutilation, forced marriages and polygamy while appointing women to high governmental positions and encouraging them to work outside the home and stay in school, even if pregnant.[5]"

His policies, although blatantly authoritarian in the last years of his rule before being untimely assassinated, did a lot to alleviate the situation of the poor of the country.

My Gilded-Age of America timeline would have you know that that shit exacerbated issues in the standard of living.

For awhile, yes, but the economic growth allowed us to amass the wealth to pay for nice things. It's why we had amenities like microwaves and refrigerators well before the Soviets. I'm not in favor of a wholly free market either though, so...

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that shit had to get worse before it got better. This happened literally everywhere with an industrial revolution, regardless of how fast or slow things changed.

I never said anyone in this thread said that. Someone's clearly never heard any right-wing talking points in regards to the poor.

Patronizing classical liberals and prosperity gospel preachers say all manner of silly things. I'm not one of those. Neither are most of the people here.

Fair enough, but we can still mock those types

[Fahran]

Okay, and? I wasn't talking from a Marxist-Leninist angle, and I wasn't talking only about developed countries.

Then I'd have to weigh any arguments on a case by case basis. As a general rule, I prefer the conservative modernization approach employed in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa. It creates the social and economic infrastructure necessary for long-term prosperity.

Socialism isn't about throwing money at things to make them better. It literally addresses the issue of homelessness and the like by guaranteeing everyone gets homes (in theory, it argues everyone has a right to personal property, including a home, and in practice, the USSR which was arguably socialist and arguably not socialist did eradicate homelessness), guaranteeing work for everyone, etc.

In so far as such resources were available, perhaps. That said, the Soviet economic policies created extreme inefficiencies in the market, resulting in multiple famines, the ubiquitous rationing commodities, and other rather undesirable outcomes. When the government finally collapsed, the extent of the damage in Russian society became even more apparent.

Those underlying issues (the poor diets, drug abuse, inactive lifestyles) all stem from poverty itself, in fact. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, really; people get sick from poverty, are afraid of going even more in debt because of that, and then unfortunately die from something that was treatable.

It's not quite so simple as that. Cultural factors likely play a massive role in determining the quality of general or individual health. I'm loathe to blame it exclusively on class, especially given that many fresh vegetables are far more affordable than expensive fast food or processed foods and that cultural changes in the developing world tend to correlate with increased rates of obesity. Poverty can impact culture, but, again, economic redistribution only solves the problem to a limited extent. These are leading causes of death for middle-class and rich people too.

Source.

As far as I'm aware, that kinda thing never happened in Burkina Faso under Sankara.

His policies, although blatantly authoritarian in the last years of his rule before being untimely assassinated, did a lot to alleviate the situation of the poor of the country.

While Sankara was probably one of the better socialist leaders, I'm inclined to say that he had a great deal of fortune on his side as well. Nonetheless, I hope that Burkina Faso continues to do well.

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that shit had to get worse before it got better. This happened literally everywhere with an industrial revolution, regardless of how fast or slow things changed.

You're not wrong, but a developed economy will eventually yield results at least initially. The rules of economics may change in the near future as well between automation and increasing industrialization in formerly agrarian communities.

Fair enough, but we can still mock those types

Be my guest. I'll join you occasionally even.

[Torrocca]

Okay, and? I wasn't talking from a Marxist-Leninist angle, and I wasn't talking only about developed countries.

Then I'd have to weigh any arguments on a case by case basis. As a general rule, I prefer the conservative modernization approach employed in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa. It creates the social and economic infrastructure necessary for long-term prosperity.

Fair enough. I disagree on principle and how to do it, but fair enough.

Socialism isn't about throwing money at things to make them better. It literally addresses the issue of homelessness and the like by guaranteeing everyone gets homes (in theory, it argues everyone has a right to personal property, including a home, and in practice, the USSR which was arguably socialist and arguably not socialist did eradicate homelessness), guaranteeing work for everyone, etc.

In so far as such resources were available, perhaps. That said, the Soviet economic policies created extreme inefficiencies in the market, resulting in multiple famines, the ubiquitous rationing commodities, and other rather undesirable outcomes. When the government finally collapsed, the extent of the damage in Russian society became even more apparent.

As far as I'm aware, there was only one famine caused by the economic policies. The ones after the Holodomor and the larger Soviet famine came as a result of World War Two, or before that as an immediate aftershock of the revolution coupled with World War One.

In regards to other issues, the post-WWII USSR did have a fairly stable HDI up until its collapse, in addition to some other favorable conditions. Not to say it wasn't an authoritarian shitshow, though, because it absolutely was and it arguably did fuck up leftist movements for years to come, especially ones that were developing alongside it that could've arguably (and did arguably, when they came to being, like Revolutionary Catalonia in most, not all, regards) worked out better than the USSR.

Those underlying issues (the poor diets, drug abuse, inactive lifestyles) all stem from poverty itself, in fact. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, really; people get sick from poverty, are afraid of going even more in debt because of that, and then unfortunately die from something that was treatable.

It's not quite so simple as that. Cultural factors likely play a massive role in determining the quality of general or individual health. I'm loathe to blame it exclusively on class, especially given that many fresh vegetables are far more affordable than expensive fast food or processed foods and that cultural changes in the developing world tend to correlate with increased rates of obesity. Poverty can impact culture, but, again, economic redistribution only solves the problem to a limited extent. These are leading causes of death for middle-class and rich people too.

Source.

Fair enough.

As far as I'm aware, that kinda thing never happened in Burkina Faso under Sankara.

His policies, although blatantly authoritarian in the last years of his rule before being untimely assassinated, did a lot to alleviate the situation of the poor of the country.

While Sankara was probably one of the better socialist leaders, I'm inclined to say that he had a great deal of fortune on his side as well. Nonetheless, I hope that Burkina Faso continues to do well.

Yeah, it might've been fortune playing a part in their situation as well. AFAIK, his rise wasn't particularly bloody by any means, with tons of popular support on the basis of eradicating the French colonial sphere of influence, widespread corruption, and socioeconomic issues that particularly hurt the poor. I feel like his case would've been a good one for authoritarian, statist socialism if he hadn't been couped by French-backed reactionaries so quickly into his governance.

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that shit had to get worse before it got better. This happened literally everywhere with an industrial revolution, regardless of how fast or slow things changed.

You're not wrong, but a developed economy will eventually yield results at least initially. The rules of economics may change in the near future as well between automation and increasing industrialization in formerly agrarian communities.

Yeah, they're definitely gonna change with society becoming fully-automized. They'll most likely swing in the field of, "incredibly better for everyone," unless those in power go down the most dystopian path and massacre everyone that's not rich with machines and shit.

Fair enough, but we can still mock those types

Be my guest. I'll join you occasionally even.

Woo!

[Puldania]

You aren’t listening.

If you don’t do jack shit, you will continue to get jack shit. You may need to make decisions that take you outside of your comfort zone. You may will have to network. But you can and will move past your present situation if you’re willing to do what it takes.

No, I'm afraid you're the one who isn't listening.

In many parts of the world, what you're describing simply is not possible for the majority of the poor.