https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/food-banks-covid-universal-credit-b1910399.html
Hmmmm.
Step outside your bubble on occasion, eh?
I Have A Question About The Dialectic of History According to Marxists
- Thread starter Joij21
- Start date
Hmmmm.
Step outside your bubble on occasion, eh?
Zardnaar
Deity
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/food-banks-covid-universal-credit-b1910399.html
Hmmmm.
Step outside your bubble on occasion, eh?
Big difference between food banks and literal starvation.
They exist to stop people starving. Collectivization in pretty much every Communist country was a miserable failure.
That's the oxymoron of Communisn you can't basically feed yourself. If you seize the land starvation. And who actually wants to work the land it sucks. I'm guessing I'm the only one here who has?
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
In times like this, I don’t know whether to turn to classical philosophy or scripture, or Bio-Dome.
“Just cause we're stuck in a bubble, doesn't mean we can't cause any trouble.”
The original point was trading carrots for onions. My point was the identified flaws under communism (or Communism, or Whatever Big-Brained Liberals Think Is Socialism These Days) exist under capitalism .You're the one who moved the goalposts to "literal starvation".
Yes, food banks exist to stop people starving. Well done. I don't get how you can't see the link between their existence and starvation, but it's not on me to do your homework for you
EDIT
A better question would be: do you think food banks are provided by the state? If they are not (which they aren't), why are you attributing them to capitalism, when they exist to stave off a problem capitalism has created (i.e. starvation through poverty)?
This is a good read:
https://theconversation.com/food-banks-are-becoming-institutionalised-in-the-uk-114325
Last edited:
Joij21
🔥Deny, Defend, Depose!🔥
Well it depends on the individual Calvinist on whether they choose to be humble or not twords those predestined to Hell. While Hell is predestined for certain people, they believe that God gives fundamental signs to you and those around you while your still living that Hell is in fact where your going. One of those signs being poor, and constantly struggling in life with lots of bad luck that never seems to end.
But again it's up to the individual Calvinist on whether to be an ******* about it. If the Calvinist is predestined to Heaven (or rather they believe they are do to certain signs indicating so) they don't have to really be nice at all, because at the end of the day they'll be rewarded with Heaven no matter what.
It is however discouraged to ever speak badly of your own Holy chosen ones or speak badly of God. Because if you do it would be a sign you have no faith, and if you have no faith that is a sure sign God has already singled you out for Hell.
Because those countries are far less religious than the U.S. is. Those countries have more Atheists and Agnostics.
The Evangelicals in America, well many of them are of a Calvanist derived denomination.
You have a pretty low opinion of Christians it seems.
aelf
Ashen One
That's not a Calvinist thing. That's just bog-standard popular Christianity, especially of the prosperity kind.
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
Perhaps I've never met such a person
. Seriously, no. A person's own abilities and needs are constantly changing and subjective. Aside from that, even the "better than average" person has relatively poor judgment regarding the abilities and needs of others. It's not a fault. It's part of the design. Noone can really walk in someone else's shoes.
Joij21
🔥Deny, Defend, Depose!🔥
Sort of. There are certain strengths that I believe Christians have that secular society struggles at. However those things are few and when you read the Bible you quickly learn Yahweh is a ruthless and cruel God probably not worthy of worship.
Last edited:
There is no "natural state" of economics. Commerce, trade, sharing, culture, laws, etc. are dynamic and change over time and place. We are no longer a pre agriculture world. Our humanness invokes sharing, greed, hate and kindness etc., but our cultures over lay that with other traits. We have moved on from the savannah and the hunting gathering days. We have moved on from an agriculture based society. We are moving on from a "worker" based society. Our knowledge and lifestyles require looking forward and not back to solve today's economic problems, once we figure out which are the most pressing ones.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Sure. If you hate the world you hate the God. If you want to change the parts of it you're capable of, you've been tasked by The Son, also God.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
I suppose you hold that expression to a much higher standard than I do!Perhaps I've never met such a person
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
Wait, your argument is actually that if people starve because food is expensive that is redefined to "not starvation"?
Are you going to pretend you're unaware that food banks are usually unable to serve everyone in need? Next thing you'll be denying homelessness in capitalist countries because the homeless have bridges to sleep under, or can get themselves arrested?
Come on, you know your stance is dishonest. Pricing people out of essentials to live is imposed scarcity.
Because there was a famine in the 1930s communism cannot produce food? How did the soviets survive until the 1990s? When glorious capitalism crashed their living standards, mind you.
And working the land is working the land, whether the political organization is communism or socialism or feudalism. It's hard. And it sucks the most where the work regime is more intense. Soviets were derided for being "low productivity", for letting workers slack of. I do believe that communist agriculture in the USSR, during the time it was a stabilized country (after the wars and subsequent dislocations), was "nicer" that comparable capitalist agriculture. People could slack off. That was why productivity was low. And they also kept the best produce for themselves and to trade locally. That is way better living conditions than poor immigrants working sunrise to sunset, or plantations in banana republics.
You can't have it both ways. You cannot attack the USSR economic and political organization bot for letting workers slack of, and for demanding heavier work. Its' either one or the other. But I have noticed along years here that you dishonestly use either attack, depending on whether it is convening to make a point against it. It may be unconscious bias or it may be intentional, either way I'm calling you on that.
I agree with your comment... but there are some remnants of that old world still around, in marginal lands. And I do not think that people there should be dragged kicking ans screaming into modernity. They will undoubtedly be, but that is a loss and a wrong that is being done, and one I avoid helping along as much as I can.
It0s complex, very complex. Moral dilemmas abound. I don't like the pervasive positivism that we live under.
Zardnaar
Deity
Wasn't just the USSR though that deliberately starved en masse. China, North Korea, Cambodia etc.
I'm not talking about going hungry but starving in their millions in a developed economy.
Capitalism problem is who gets what. Communism often can't produce the what in the first place due to bone headed beliefs.
We goofed off on the farm lots as well. Work wasn't that hard but wasn't a fan of being in the sun all day or working after the rain.
I'm not talking about going hungry but starving in their millions in a developed economy.
Capitalism problem is who gets what. Communism often can't produce the what in the first place due to bone headed beliefs.
We goofed off on the farm lots as well. Work wasn't that hard but wasn't a fan of being in the sun all day or working after the rain.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
They made up the shortfalls by selling oil and buying grain on the world market.
Also Reagan paid them to take our wheat.
Zardnaar
Deity
Soviet newspapers were big on the annual grain harvests as well.
They were never particularly good at feeding themselves from 1917 until the end.
Exports continued post 91 as well and the alot of the debt was written off. Russian diet probably sucked in the 90's I understand basic pasta was a staple.
Lexicus
Deity
I can only assume this is a euphemism for making sure that Jeff Bezos owns literally everything on Earth by year 2050
He won't; there is no need to worry about that.
Lexicus
Deity
He won't; there is no need to worry about that.
You sure? The way things are going you'll have to sign a EULA to use that smart toothbrush.
Most of my friends give him money every month.
But he won't own everything! I own some shares!
(until he forces a buyout, of course).
But he won't own everything! I own some shares!
(until he forces a buyout, of course).
Similar threads
