The World’s First Poor Rich Country

[Grigoris]

How Predatory Capitalism Left Americans Without Capital — Poor, Broke, and Desperate

America presents us with something new, gruesome, and weird in modern history: the phenomenon of a new kind of poverty. And all the problems it brings with it: despair, suicide, violence, superstition, ignorance, hatred, extremism. Yet what does “a new kind of poverty” — this weird phenomenon of an imploded middle, rich poor people — really mean?

[Könchok Thrinley]

Source for those who were intrigued just like me.
https://eand.co/the-worlds-first-poor-r ... 11afc68539

[Grigoris]

Source for those who were intrigued just like me.
https://eand.co/the-worlds-first-poor-r ... 11afc68539

Ooooopppsss...

[PeterC]

It's not just about poverty. To keep people in a state of economic serfdom, it's helpful if they're dumb, unable to influence politics, and easily imprisoned if they dissent. So you trash the education system, gerrymander the country and disenfranchise as many as possible, militarize the police and criminalize as many things as possible. Let's not pretend this was all accidental.

[Könchok Thrinley]

A year or two ago I would say this is a leftist conspiracy theory despite myself being mostly democratic socialist. However, the recent presidential election and even the current pandemic have brought many things to light. It is more than clear that the american people are held hostage by big companies and many of them have developed a stockholm syndrome. How else to explain the tendency of so called liberals to justify the system of oppression? Say what you want about Trump voters, but at least they do want change and better lives. However, in the end their "way out" is nothing else but a crazy vision planted into their heads by their masters to lead them to even worse poverty.

Ricky Gervais was right when he criticised celebrities for "speaking out". I only hope that american workers wake up and demand better conditions for themselves outside of any political fraction, but as a single unit of people who really create wealth.

[Grigoris]

How else to explain the tendency of so called liberals to justify the system of oppression?

The political system is so skewed in the U$ that what passes as liberal there would be considered mainstream center-Right in Europe.

[Könchok Thrinley]

How else to explain the tendency of so called liberals to justify the system of oppression?

The political system is so skewed in the U$ that what passes as liberal there would be considered mainstream center-Right in Europe.

Oh yes, definitely. I mean our most succesful ex-minister of finances (that is being demonized by our current PM and most of the populist asshats ) is quite conservative, however even he said few weeks back that he would tax the hell out of big companies because they are responsible for the crisis.

America is probably the most dysfunctional country in the 1st world and I am surprised it has managed to hold itself together so far. Elections there are a joke on every level and some laws and procedures are too old to function in modern times.

[tatpurusa]

"Communism" in the form of the so-called "real existing socialism" was finished by the end of the Soviet Union.
Capitalism, in its most unscrupulous and most arrogant form is just being ended now (thank gods).
The future is probably something between the two, sort of a middle way - state capitalism, as practiced in China and Russia.

Just a thought.

[PadmaVonSamba]

"Communism" in the form of the so-called "real existing socialism" was finished by the end of the Soviet Union.
Capitalism, in its most unscrupulous and most arrogant form is just being ended now (thank gods).
The future is probably something between the two, sort of a middle way - state capitalism, as practiced in China and Russia.

Just a thought.

Please read Marx.
“Communism” is a society in which the cause for unequal economic classes has eventually been eliminated and thus no class distinctions arise.
That has never been realized anywhere (yet).

[PeterC]

"Communism" in the form of the so-called "real existing socialism" was finished by the end of the Soviet Union.
Capitalism, in its most unscrupulous and most arrogant form is just being ended now (thank gods).
The future is probably something between the two, sort of a middle way - state capitalism, as practiced in China and Russia.

Just a thought.

Please read Marx.
“Communism” is a society in which the cause for unequal economic classes has eventually been eliminated and thus no class distinctions arise.
That has never been realized anywhere (yet).

[tatpurusa]

"Communism" in the form of the so-called "real existing socialism" was finished by the end of the Soviet Union.
Capitalism, in its most unscrupulous and most arrogant form is just being ended now (thank gods).
The future is probably something between the two, sort of a middle way - state capitalism, as practiced in China and Russia.

Just a thought.

Please read Marx.
“Communism” is a society in which the cause for unequal economic classes has eventually been eliminated and thus no class distinctions arise.
That has never been realized anywhere (yet).

Please read what I wrote.

"Communism" in the form of the so-called "real existing socialism"

This is the term "communist" countries used to call themselves. I know, because I have lived more than 20 years of my life in a "communist" country.
This means, that not even the governments of those countries (including the Soviet Union) claimed that they had realized communism as defined in the works of Marx. They defined themselves as "being on the way" to communism.
Of course they were not on the way. It was just another form of a dictatorship and exploitation by the elite.
But still, on the economic front they had made a lot of efforts implementing collectivist and state governed ideas.

I think you missed my point altogether.
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union and what it represented, the US and the capitalist countries found they had won because their economic system was sustainable. Well, it isn't at all sustainable, and it is collapsing before our eyes.
My point was: in economic sense, what the "communist" countries represented and what nowday's free looting financial capitalism represents, are two unsustainable extremes. A reasonable future could be somewhere in between: more state control that ends the unlimited privatization of profits and socialization of losses practiced by the humanity-suffocating 1% plutocrats. Something that Putin did to the Russian free looting oligarchs. That means state controlled capitalism, or state capitalism.

[Könchok Thrinley]

Please read what I wrote.

"Communism" in the form of the so-called "real existing socialism"

This is the term "communist" countries used to call themselves. I know, because I have lived more than 20 years of my life in a "communist" country.
This means, that not even the governments of those countries (including the Soviet Union) claimed that they had realized communism as defined in the works of Marx. They defined themselves as "being on the way" to communism.
Of course they were not on the way. It was just another form of a dictatorship and exploitation by the elite.
But still, on the economic front they had made a lot of efforts implementing collectivist and state governed ideas.

I am with you there, have not lived in that era but still born in a post-communist country. Anyway, wasn't the ideological "template" of the eastern block more closer to Leninism and Stalinism? AFAIK the Marxist model was not followed that much and the main thing was "bastardized" by Lenin and his sort. But this is all rather off-topic.

[Caoimhghín]

I had a polisci professor who insisted that Marx predicted that if the revolution were to fail midway through, the result would be state capitalism. He's read more Marx than me. I've no clue what writing of Marx he got that from.

[Caoimhghín]

I think Marx was actually talking about the French Revolution when he goes on about the "revolution." Like many revolutionaries, even armchair ones, I don't think he thought of the French Revolution as "finished" yet. When he was born it wasn't even 20 years finished. During the oh-so-long drawn out revolution, there were periods of relative stability and peace between outbursts of extraordinary violence and terror. I think he thought it might start up again and finish, but in a "glorious" way.

Maybe I'm utterly full of shite.

[Johnny Dangerous]

How else to explain the tendency of so called liberals to justify the system of oppression?

The political system is so skewed in the U$ that what passes as liberal there would be considered mainstream center-Right in Europe.

Oh yes, definitely. I mean our most succesful ex-minister of finances (that is being demonized by our current PM and most of the populist asshats ) is quite conservative, however even he said few weeks back that he would tax the hell out of big companies because they are responsible for the crisis.

America is probably the most dysfunctional country in the 1st world and I am surprised it has managed to hold itself together so far. Elections there are a joke on every level and some laws and procedures are too old to function in modern times.

State, regional elections are nowhere near the spectacle of national elections, and actually often achieve something.

The result is that states differ substantially in how well they have been able to mitigate the effects of 30 years or so of neoliberal austerity, destruction of social safety net etc. It's effected everyone, but as an example where I live (Washington state) is -far- better off in terms of public services etc. provided by state government than where I grew up - New Mexico, whereas services are minimal and overall poverty is much more widespread. There is also more union membership here, and unsurprisingly much better working conditions than are found in many other states. I'm going to guess that we have less of a regional gap between the rich and poor than these other places. It's a huge issue everywhere, but my hunch is it's mitigated to some degree in some states, typically more liberal ones. Other states - parts of the South for example, have more dire poverty less mitigation of it.

On Communism, the main issue has always been the "dictatorship of the proletariat"...whether that was ever actually realized (I'd say no), and whether it's even possible without calamitous results.

[tatpurusa]

On Communism, the main issue has always been the "dictatorship of the proletariat"...

Believe me, this has never existed in practice and I hope it never will.
What really existed was a dictatorship of a party elite, that was probably even worse.

[Grigoris]

On Communism, the main issue has always been the "dictatorship of the proletariat"...

Believe me, this has never existed in practice and I hope it never will.
What really existed was a dictatorship of a party elite, that was probably even worse.

Dictatorship of the proletariat means that working people (the people that make society tick) decide for themselves how they should work, be governed (self-governing), divide/distribute wealth, etc... Why (unless you are a member of the bourgeoisie, ie own capital which you use to create profit by exploiting the surplus value produced by the workers) would you hope this never happens???

[Könchok Thrinley]

State, regional elections are nowhere near the spectacle of national elections, and actually often achieve something.

The result is that states differ substantially in how well they have been able to mitigate the effects of 30 years or so of neoliberal austerity, destruction of social safety net etc. It's effected everyone, but as an example where I live (Washington state) is -far- better off in terms of public services etc. provided by state government than where I grew up - New Mexico, whereas services are minimal and overall poverty is much more widespread. There is also more union membership here, and unsurprisingly much better working conditions than are found in many other states. I'm going to guess that we have less of a regional gap between the rich and poor than these other places. It's a huge issue everywhere, but my hunch is it's mitigated to some degree in some states, typically more liberal ones. Other states - parts of the South for example, have more dire poverty less mitigation of it.

On Communism, the main issue has always been the "dictatorship of the proletariat"...whether that was ever actually realized (I'd say no), and whether it's even possible without calamitous results.

Oh, really? That is good. How is usually the turn out in local elections? I have heard that in many places people barely know that there are any elections happening, be it local sherif or some local authority. US is such a huge country. Something sometimes too hard to grasp for folks who live in a rather small state like me. Hence my generalization.

[Johnny Dangerous]

State, regional elections are nowhere near the spectacle of national elections, and actually often achieve something.

The result is that states differ substantially in how well they have been able to mitigate the effects of 30 years or so of neoliberal austerity, destruction of social safety net etc. It's effected everyone, but as an example where I live (Washington state) is -far- better off in terms of public services etc. provided by state government than where I grew up - New Mexico, whereas services are minimal and overall poverty is much more widespread. There is also more union membership here, and unsurprisingly much better working conditions than are found in many other states. I'm going to guess that we have less of a regional gap between the rich and poor than these other places. It's a huge issue everywhere, but my hunch is it's mitigated to some degree in some states, typically more liberal ones. Other states - parts of the South for example, have more dire poverty less mitigation of it.

On Communism, the main issue has always been the "dictatorship of the proletariat"...whether that was ever actually realized (I'd say no), and whether it's even possible without calamitous results.

Oh, really? That is good. How is usually the turn out in local elections? I have heard that in many places people barely know that there are any elections happening, be it local sherif or some local authority. US is such a huge country. Something sometimes too hard to grasp for folks who live in a rather small state like me. Hence my generalization.

Again varies very widely. We have mail in voting here. Participation is I think, not fantastic, but elections have a tangible effect on state and local levels here.

[tatpurusa]

On Communism, the main issue has always been the "dictatorship of the proletariat"...

Believe me, this has never existed in practice and I hope it never will.
What really existed was a dictatorship of a party elite, that was probably even worse.

Dictatorship of the proletariat means that working people (the people that make society tick) decide for themselves how they should work, be governed (self-governing), divide/distribute wealth, etc... Why (unless you are a member of the bourgeoisie, ie own capital which you use to create profit by exploiting the surplus value produced by the workers) would you hope this never happens???

Why? Because "dictatorship of the proletariat" implies that there exist non-proletarians that are oppressed.
Any society that needs oppression besides the natural social/psychological control of its members (except for criminals and outright psychopaths and sociopaths) is an unjust one. It does not matter whether the oppressed are proletarians or any others.