Food stamps are just a part of the minimal welfare state that exists in America. That is not Socialism by any definition no more so then the Nordic model of the Welfare state is Socialism. The economy is still a Capitalist one so nope no Socialism.
Why Socialism?
- Thread starter bit_pattern
- Start date
Food stamps are just a part of the minimal welfare state that exists in America. That is not Socialism by any definition no more so then the Nordic model of the Welfare state is Socialism. The economy is still a Capitalist one so nope no Socialism.
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
No, these are government concessions given to stabilize capitalism. With out them, capitalism would be much more volatile and would receive much more resistance. We can observe this by comparing the levels of instability in countries like Sweden, Denmark and Norway as opposed to countries that are introducing austerity measures like Greece, Spain and Italy. The former countries aren't socialist countries, they're very stable capitalist countries.
Welfare capitalism causes much less stress on the working class than countries without comprehensive concessions. This is why the "socialist" parties of Europe really have no intention of transitioning into a socialist economy, their job is to stabilize and preserve capitalism by minimizing it's instability and the dissent that accompanies instability.
Last edited:
Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
Y'know, I've earned far more than McDonald's employees, and I still have a tendency to use thrift stores and to cut the bruise off an apple. I won't eat stale bread though, but then again, I never cook recipes where stale bread could be used. I suppose I could make croutons, but I never eat those.
I agree with you when you said:
But my, Americans are spendthrifts. Really, when going to the thrift store instead of the mall is radical advice for a low wage worker, there's something seriously wrong.
So McD's - screw you, you have poverty level wages. McD workers - really, yes, you can skip the mall. Try to plan your meals and not have food going to waste. Oh, and it's time to stop bitching and start unionization efforts.
Shimmer.Fade
Bluelighter
Your opinion.
Could you elaborate on this? You also assume they own themselves.
Why is it common sense that an employer would pay an employee a living wage? If they employer has created a large potential employee pool then the employer doesn't have to pay a living wage to the very lowest rung as those that don't show up to work can be easily replaced. Of course he pays his essential employees who have perhaps proven themselves a living wage, but the rest? Eh...
LOL. Maybe because it is illegal to pay documented people so little money?! This just illustrates your point about people not working for less than current minimum wage is bullshit.
By anything I mean two things. One is that desperate people will turn to criminal activity, especially those with a certain type of self worth. The other is that desperate people will work hard for next to nothing to in order to barely get by, especially those with another type of self worth. The point is that it is good to keep people's minimum requirements covered, so that they do not become desperate.
Have you been to a big city before? What about those areas where there isn't enough water (remember we have pumped a lot of fossil water out of the ground already in arid places)? Who gives up land to to account for those who under the new system would otherwise perish?
I wish we could live like native americans too. Sadly, there are too many people on this planet right now with current infrastructure and technology for that to really work out. A hungry, more organized nation would abuse such a 'free from the market' nation.
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
QFT. Realest thing I've read in this thread.
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
I literally have nightmares about socialism
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
^Was that photo taken in Nashville or Memphis?
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
San Francisco the birth place of American socialism.
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
All power to the Ashbury Soviet!
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
Anza vista commies was their former affiliation.
Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
If I asked you who Eugene V. Debs was, could you tell me without looking him up? How about Wobblies?
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
Yeah the first one was featured on a msnbc program a few years back. I wish we could still put socialists in jail!
I very much doubt droppers has even heard of the IWW or how Socialists fought for the labour rights that we take for granted today.
McCarthy would have been proud
. If it where not for Socialists you would have nothing in the way of labour rights and would be little more then a slave to the whims of the bourgeois even more so then the working class is now. But i guess working 16 hour days with no breaks for lunch, working in very unsafe conditions, being blacklisted for even being suspected for participating in a union, being beaten half to death by company thugs and getting no overtime pay wouldn't bother you.Droppersneck
Bluelighter
Right and if we didnt have Lincoln we would still have slavery8( I do think places should have the right to set up a union and the business should have the right to shut down and move. Socialists of that era were at least principled and I can appreciate their role though I do not agree. Reminds me of the communist sienfeld episode.
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
I reread this sentence a few times, and I still don't quite understand it.
In any respect, it's a mistake to write off labor struggles as relics of the past. One has to be absolutely blind in order to not see that the gains the labor movement made in the past are slowly being eroded. Since the beginning of the Reagan era, deregulation and privatization have been shaving away at all of the labor achievements made when unions were "relevant". Wages have been frozen since this period while profits have continually soared with little resistance. How is the working class compensated for a lack of growth? Debt. Debt has become the most profitable commodity in the US over the last few decades and is the new engine that drives our economy. Once again, just as before the great depression, income inequality is at an all time high and capital has become the most important influence over society.
Organized labor should be even more relevant now than it was in the 30s.
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
You force people to earn wages above what the market dictates then you better be prepared for massive job cuts/unemployment you cant have your cake and eat it too. GovernmentMotors taught us that if they taught us anything.
bit_pattern
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2008
- Messages
- 8,127
Are you saying they don't already?
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
There's nothing extraordinary about union demands in the 1970s compared to say, the 1950s. Workers were on track to simply continue the steady rate of growth as experienced after the war and the decades that followed. Trade liberalization and access to new foreign labor markets had much more to do with the collapse of American industry. Tariff rates in 1970 were around 6%. Today this number is around 1%.
The same sort of thing happened in 1994 with the NAFTA, and is happening now with the TPP.
The same sort of thing happened in 1994 with the NAFTA, and is happening now with the TPP.
Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
But the US did great when there were strong unions in the post-war period. One could argue that a large middle class with disposable income helps drive consumption and drives innovation.
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
Yeah but you could argue with higher unemployment consumer confidence drops and more people save instead of spend not knowing if they can count on having the job they have.
-bitpattern some places do not allow it but yeah for the most part that is walmarts and its likes MO.