Also, even if you set moral principles aside, you’d want some form of welfare from a purely practical (or even selfish) standpoint.
If one visits South Africa or Brazil, two countries with massive inequality one can see that inequality takes a toll even on the lifestyle of the one percenters - constant vigilance, private security details, no real freedom of movement, just shuttling from one gated community oasis to another etc.
Precisely so.
Do you guys think the lack of welfare programs and government healthcare in Brazil and South Africa are the root cause of a permanent underclass of hopeless poor left behind by the very few rich? I submit that it’s because of the corruption/cronyism in those economies where the rich get theirs through back room manipulated deals with the government and other oligarchs.
If you look at colonial America the amount of prosperity for the average human was higher than anywhere in Europe at the time. The average colonial soldier was 1.5 inches taller than his English counterpart and ate two lbs of meat per day.
If I follow your argument to its conclusion then the US should have been the most destitute place on earth before the new deal and later the great society programs.
Since the “great society” has been implemented we’ve spent trillions on poverty and we have a lower workforce participation rate, more people on assistance and in public housing and graduating functionally illiterate from inner city schools with rates for single motherhood skyrocketing (and all that means for bad outcomes). Far from being a hand up, the programs have created a permanent dependent under class that resents the productive… while living off their largesse for generations.
Root cause? Absolutely not. I have to admit I am out of my depth on South Africa and South America, I just don’t know enough to opine usefully.
You misunderstand my point, I think. I am not saying that a welfare state is fundamentally crucial to a society’s functioning (nor am I defending current social programmes per se). I would say that provision for the poor is a good thing to do, and that ignoring poverty will cause downstream effects.
The US is a complicated issue for me to opine on, there are a host of things that make you unique. I would say that I don’t support a welfare system that harms the family.
My views on welfare are complicated. It’s not a defence of any current system, and welfare isn’t sufficient by itself at all.
Edited for clarity.
I agree. I support voluntary help for the poor as much as I can. I just don’t believe in compulsory, state-run unwieldy programs that don’t vet recipients. Helping people who need it is really fucking hard, and throwing money them doesn’t always lead to the best outcomes.
I completely agree. However, I would argue that a well run government welfare system is achievable.and a good thing.
It’s a more complex story. Let’s look at SA first - during WW2 it experienced massive industrialization as the Brits relocated built key war effort industries down there due to SAs comparative advantages, namely abundance of natural resources, proximity to major shipping lines (Suez channel was closed off), no threat from Axis powers and most importantly a massive pool of dirt cheap unskilled and semi-skilled African labor.
In the immediate postwar period the economic boom continued and the Afrikaner white minority seized power, set on creating a whites-only ethno state under the maxi of total segregation. Like all utopian blood and soil ideas, they new National Party government encountered it’s biggest problem - who was supposed to do the shitty jobs if all inhabitants were recruited from the ranks of the supposed master race? They realized that the whites will suffer a massive drop in living standards and industrialists also freaked out realizing their bonanza years will come to an end.
So they devised a compromise solution, separation (apartheid) instead of segregation, meaning that they would get to reap all benefits of cheap African labor while keeping the out of sight whenever possible in satellite townships, subject to draconian laws controlling every minutiae of their existence.
Rich whites loved it because it enabled them an unparalleled lifestyle with a small army of domestic help, gardeners and cheap labor in general for the industry due to artificially suppressed wages for the blacks. You were a skilled black laborer who wanted to accept a better paying job? Not possible as your employer could legally prevent you from resigning due to a massive apartheid regulation apparatus who over organized everything.
White unions also loved it because cheap black labor subsidized artificially high wages for uneducated whites in fake jobs who would have otherwise been proper white trash.
So it worked, for a while - a small percent of the population lived a first world lifestyle with suburban swimming pools, cricket, weekend barbecues and absolutely didn’t give a fuck what the remainder of the population did in their shanty towns, usually only visible (and smelt) in the distance when driving on the highways surrounding major urban centers.
Brazil was a pretty similar story, although draconian separation was never enforced. In the last two decades of the 19th century Japanese de facto took over from black slaves the role of dirt cheap indentured labor on plantations. You don’t want to work or demand higher wages? Well I don’t give a fuck, I’ll bring boatloads of Japanese to replace you, only to rant about the Yellow Peril a couple of years later.
In the long term, this extreme inequality was not sustainable. You simply have to give something to the proverbial great unwashed - now, cynics will say that reality TV, legalized weed, affordable PS4/XBOX games and ubiquitous fast food restaurants are a form of wealth transfer used to placate the poorest classes so they don’t grab their pitchforks.
Antifa isn’t ‘hailed as heroes’ by Democrats. Not even close. Fuck antifa.
I think when the name ‘antifa’ first started to circulate, this might have been at least closer to the truth. 2 or 3 years ago, I didn’t know who they were. I heard the name first from far right wing sources (breitbart probably). And since I was hearing about them from such a source, my first thought was essentially ‘breitbart is dumb, why would an anti fascist group be bad, I bet they’re lying about antifa’. So I googled. Learned that antifa is exactly what Breitbart said they were. And that was that.
I think the problem with the right’s take on antifa is exactly what you’ve shared here. This notion that the majority of the left likes what they do. The lie isn’t about what antifa is, the lie is that the rest of the left wants them in the party.
NPC beep boop
Ironically, the same people who cry about the right being Nazis are adorably out of touch when it comes to the left.
Guess that’s what happens when you never leave your tribes land
Tribe? Whoa cool it with the anti-semitism
I think the issue is more the defending of Antifa or lack of criticism by some on the left, while no one really defends Nazis. Otherwise, I agree with your post.
Which brings me to another point. Why are communists not as abhorred as nazis? Minneapolis literally has a restaurant called Hammer and Sickle. http://www.hammerandsicklempls.com/ Good question for @loppar…
it’s an interesting question. I THINK that, at least in America, it’s largely due to the fact that we were fighting against Nazi’s in WWII, and the Cold War just didn’t have the social impact that WWII had. The issue with nazi’s is slightly more black and white to the public (not saying it should be, just what I think is happening). It’s not like communists get left off the hook or anything. Communists have CERTAINLY been vilified for decades.
yea that’s a problem
except Trump, lol. The whole ‘there are good people on both sides’ thing after Charlottsville was essentially the reaction you’re talking about from the left regarding antifa. The difference is that Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo are just television personalities, while Trump is the President.
I expected this one to pop up, haha. I guess my only disagreement would be that some people actually went there to defend the statues from being taking down and the media showed only the tiki torch guys cuz narratives and all.
I mean… assuming there were some people there with more ‘normal’ intentions, is that promoting a narrative, or is it covering the part that’s actually news-worthy? Should the media have been covering the 50 town-folk who wanted to keep the statue, or should they have been covering the hundreds of nazis with tiki torches from across the country who showed up?
Yeah, but more as Cold War rivals, never on a Nazi level…
no of course not, that’s what I was trying to say. We’d look at communism here very differently today if there had been any ‘hot war’ with Russia. Which is pretty funny. If Russia had actually launched ANY sort of attack on us during the cold war era, we’d be lumping Communists and Nazis together, without question.
Just a quick question - without googling, you ever heard of Walter Duranty?
