The War On Poverty

[BobPlumb]

I have not read the Heritage article in depth. It simply states what others have been saying for some time. True or not, it is an allegation that raises questions that are worth asking and answering.

I have read the Heritage article. My thought is that the Census has a definition of the poverty level. Other people (most notably the Institute on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin, a rather liberal leaning but still mainstream organization) have developed alternative measures. The Current Population Report (P60-247) I referenced found that the existing measure looks very suspect, but stands up well as a proxy for much broader definitions.

The Heritage piece is really just a jeremiad that says that because "poor" people can afford, X they really aren't poor. I have three objections to this approach.

1. The Heritage Foundation provides no alternative definition of poverty to compare the official definition to. How many people do they think are "truly" poor? The implied definition from their discussion is a true level of destitution not often seen in this country (although I have seen it and it is more common than most people think).

2. The Heritage Foundation has misused the Census data. The Census study gave percentages for ownership of a given asset for people below the poverty line and for a general population. The percentages for most items for poor people are half or less than for the general population. You wouldn't know that unless you fact checked the Heritage Foundation sources.

3. The underlying reasoning of the Heritage Foundation report is profoundly anti-liberty. Milton Friedman famously promoted the "negative income tax" in the 60's while advising Barry Goldwater on the basis that it was more cost efficient than specific welfare programs and that poor people could be trusted to determine what they needed better than government bureaucrats. The Heritage is a big-government Big Brother anti-libertarian advocate apparently when it comes to the poor. Or maybe they want the poor to simply starve to death outside emergency rooms in the freezing cold after being evicted from their homes while being denied medical care. While that might be satisfying to Republican presidential primary debate audiences, I think it smacks of libertarianism for only the rich and "please die quietly" a la Alan Grayson's famous speech for everyone else.

The first question that was asked was: Was LBJ's so called war on poverty a success or failure.

First:

I am not sure anyone set the bar for what success or failure would be. That would be a debate in itself. But since we don't know the standard...we can't answer the question.

To me the bar is obvious: LBJs goal was to reduce the number of people in poverty as rapidly as possible, looking toward a day in the foreseeable future when it would be eliminated. By that definition, he was relatively successful, decreasing the portion in poverty from 19% to 10% over six years.

Second:

How is poverty measured ? Has it been consistent ? And...does it really say what poverty is. I recall from past readings that the so-called poverty line is a function of the price of a bag of groceries. I'll read your article....Does this metric really measure poverty ?..... I am asking what is a good metric ?

I referenced the Census website for both the historical development of the measure from Mollie Oshansky on and the recent study looking at alternative measures. You are correct that the official measure continues to be a multiple of food cost. The study compares that to broader measures.

I have finessed one issue so far which is indirectly raised by the Heritage Foundation. The official measure is statistically reliable and valid with reference to the broader alternative definition. But if someone wants to argue that both definitions are "wrong" and we should look at mortality rates or other measures of extreme deprivation, the floor is open to such a debate. The Heritage Foundation avoids this as I assume they realize those measures (compared to other developed countries) would weaken their argument. For example, according to OECD statistics, the death rate for ALL major causes of death used to gauge effectiveness of health systems is higher in the United States than the median OECD country. Assuming that the affluent have access to better medical care, the higher death rates for everything from infectious diseases to congenital abnormalities is concentrated in the poor.

Now I sometimes get the impression that some folks think that as long as our death statistics are better than Somalia, we have no reason to complain. Who wants to set the bar that low? If our comparison is to Switzerland, Germany, or Japan, it would be an interesting measure, but we have statistics worse than Ireland and Portugal in that regard. The same thing is true of measures such as income distribution (Gini coefficients), economic mobility, and educational attainment as for health statistics.

In fact, I think that a lot of the whining on the Right reflects the case that they are playing a shell game; they know that any remotely reasonable measure of how we treat the lowest quartile or so makes America look bad. You have good questions, for which I commend you, and I think that when you look at it, you will realize that much of this is an attempt to divert attention from measurable facts and replace them with emotionally and politically loaded anecdotes.

Again, all the best!

Does the census dept use pre entitlement dollars or post entitlement dollars to define poverty? Once entitlements are added, I don't beleive so many are still in poverty. This is partly due to many people earning money under the table.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Listening:
A. spiritual poverty
is the lack of knowledge that FORGIVENESS heals and attracts health and wealth
while UNFORGIVENESS wastes energy on conflicts and costs time energy and resources
as well as quality of life, mental and physical health, and relationships/success in life

B. physical and financial poverty
is related to lack of access to resources to improve one's condition
such as lack of education or training, especially in financial resources
and credit to invest in building on a path to financial independence

C. political poverty
is lack of access to equal representation, equal due process, and equal defense of interests
again based on lack of legal education and assistance in conflict resolution to
overcome oppression by competing interests

I believe by setting up equal access to educational resources, then medical and legal services, and training in financial and property management, can be made accessible to all people to break the cycle of poverty, abuse and oppression on all levels

I would focus educational outreach on
* research and development in spiritual healing to cut the costs of crime and medical care, while also reducing, correcting if not preventing all forms of abuse, from relationship and sexual abuse or drug/criminal abuse by individuals, to political and legal abuse by corporate and govt leaders
* legal education and conflict resolution/mediation (including negotiating settlements and restitution for the abuses mentioned above in order to finance the costs of reform and recovery from damages and debts incurred by the wrongdoers)
* property and financial education and training (to break the cycle of physical poverty and change the mindsets dividing rich and poor into class or caste systems of society) this would include knowledge and training in banking, currency and credit systems for local economies and business networks to manage community resources democratically
* media and technical education (to provide equal access to communications and networking to solve problems through self-governed communities and campus programs managed through locally elected leaders instead of being exploited politically)

Currently, there is a thread in the political forum on the failure of LBJ's war on poverty.

I've tried to keep up, but to many people are like me...prone to flame instead of debate.

One reason is the frustration of getting an agreeable set of definitions.

I want to know more about what it means to be in poverty.

In a new report, Heritage’s Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield lay out what the U.S. government’s own facts and figures really say about poverty in the United States. The results might surprise you, especially if your view of poverty is the conventional one, perpetuated by the media–namely, destitute conditions of homelessness and hunger. In reality, though, the living conditions of those defined as poor by the government are much different than that popular image. The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau:

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning
Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks
Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television
Two-thirds have at least one DVD player and 70 percent have a VCR
Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers
More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation
43 percent have Internet access
One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD television
One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo
As for hunger and homelessness, Rector and Sheffield point to 2009 statistics from the U.S. Department of Agriculture showing that 96 percent of poor parents stated that their children were never hungry at any time during the year because they could not afford food, 83 percent of poor families reported having enough food to eat, and over the course of a year, only 4 percent of poor persons become temporarily homeless, with 42 percent of poor households actually owning their own homes. Want an international comparison? The average poor American has more living space than the average Swede or German. You can read even more of those facts in their report, “Understanding Poverty in the United States.”

https://www.askheritage.org/what-does-it-really-mean-to-be-poor-in-america/

**************

I assume that Heritage mixes poor with "in poverty". I've heard some of this before.

So....just how do we define the poor. And have we changed he defintion of poverty such that LBJ's war was on a moving target. Did it really do a good job ?

I'll be looking to flesh this out some more.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Poverty figures come from the Census Bureau. For a good overview see: How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty - U.S Census Bureau

There is an excellent study in Current Population Reports by Kathleen Short dated November 2013 (Report 60-247) titled "The Research Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2012". You can find it here: http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-247.pdf

In a nutshell, the official poverty levels are based entirely on food costs. The alternate measure looked at a wider range of goods and services and came up essentially the same results with less than a 1.5% variation, so the official figure which seems suspect in methodology is statistically extremely reliable.



Read the Census reports and let me know what you think.

We can all agree that the Heritage Foundation has a conservative bias, but would you agree that most of academia has a liberal bias?? But even biased people can bring important issues to a conversation. The Heritage Foundation's report on poverty doesn't give any solutions, but it certainly does bring up some important issues - specifically what poverty in America really looks like (big screen TV's, multple vehicles, game systems, A/C, multiple refrigerators, most kids have their own bedrooms, virtually NO real hunger, etc) instead of just a statistical label (ie: below the "poverty line").

No conservative has ever suggested we get rid of the safety net. We all agree that, as a society, we are wealthy enough to not have ANY our citizens in true poverty (my definition of true poverty = Haiti and many other countries). But we SHOULD be able to have a civil discussion about how high to set that safety net.

Too low, and people truly suffer (hunger, freezing, etc) which is unacceptable. Too high and people lose the incentive to work which should also be unacceptable.

Bottom line about the Heritage Foundation report is that it paints a description of what kind of safety net the Census bureau statistics actually gets us.

 

[oldfart]

Does the census dept use pre entitlement dollars or post entitlement dollars to define poverty? Once entitlements are added, I don't beleive so many are still in poverty. This is partly due to many people earning money under the table.

Your answer is Figure 5 and Tables 5a and 5b on pages 14 and 15.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-247.pdf

 

[oldfart]

First, if you think the Heritage Foundation is a good unbiased source on this, you are delusional and this will be a very short conversation.

the Heritage Foundation has a conservative bias, but would you agree that most of academia has a liberal bias??

No. I would agree that most of academia is biased, and that most of that bias is non-political. For example Harvard and Yale have a pronounced view of their own superiority which most academics find both irritating and unwarranted.

University hacks come in all political persuasions. Where you view most of them being tells more about you than about them. From my worldview, academe is a hotbed of neo-con interventionism by both parties, for example.

But even biased people can bring important issues to a conversation.

Agreed, and that is the justification for a robust debate.

The Heritage Foundation's report on poverty doesn't give any solutions, but it certainly does bring up some important issues - specifically what poverty in America really looks like (big screen TV's, multple vehicles, game systems, A/C, multiple refrigerators, most kids have their own bedrooms, virtually NO real hunger, etc) instead of just a statistical label (ie: below the "poverty line").

My point is that absent a good-faith effort to define poverty, these anecdotal "studies"
constitute an intentional diversion away from any real discussion about poverty into thinly veiled racial and class stereotypes.

No conservative has ever suggested we get rid of the safety net.

I have met quite a few "conservatives" who have. Perhaps you need to narrow that category somewhat? We also heard them in the Republican primary debates in the audience.

We all agree that, as a society, we are wealthy enough to not have ANY our citizens in true poverty (my definition of true poverty = Haiti and many other countries). But we SHOULD be able to have a civil discussion about how high to set that safety net.

Agreed. I think I have been sufficiently specific in my objections to the Heritage Foundation approach. I have yet to read a post from any conservative who read the Current Population Report and felt like commenting on it in any fashion. XXXXXXX

So what do you think of the SPM?

 

[Publius1787]

Currently, there is a thread in the political forum on the failure of LBJ's war on poverty.

I've tried to keep up, but to many people are like me...prone to flame instead of debate.

One reason is the frustration of getting an agreeable set of definitions.

I want to know more about what it means to be in poverty.

In a new report, Heritage’s Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield lay out what the U.S. government’s own facts and figures really say about poverty in the United States. The results might surprise you, especially if your view of poverty is the conventional one, perpetuated by the media–namely, destitute conditions of homelessness and hunger. In reality, though, the living conditions of those defined as poor by the government are much different than that popular image. The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau:

Poverty figures come from the Census Bureau. For a good overview see: How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty - U.S Census Bureau

There is an excellent study in Current Population Reports by Kathleen Short dated November 2013 (Report 60-247) titled "The Research Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2012". You can find it here: http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-247.pdf

In a nutshell, the official poverty levels are based entirely on food costs. The alternate measure looked at a wider range of goods and services and came up essentially the same results with less than a 1.5% variation, so the official figure which seems suspect in methodology is statistically extremely reliable.


Read the Census reports and let me know what you think.

Considering that their data is the governments data I would say that it's as accurate as any other measure on poverty.

 

[Asclepias]

Poor is a mindset. This comes about by having opportunity around you but not taking advantage of it for whatever the reason may be. 1 of those reasons may be people telling you that you are impoverished.

Poverty is a real condition. This comes when you do not have opportunity at all no matter how well adjusted you are. I once thought that people in the US were in poverty. Once I went overseas I saw what real poverty was in some of the countries i visited.

So do you have an opinion on the OP ?

Do you think we need to really look at how we report poverty over the years ?

I thought i was expressing my opinion on the OP.

I think the way we report poverty is one of the least important things to focus on. Teaching people a different mindset so they do not confuse poor with poverty would be a better use of our time and efforts.

 

[gnarlylove]

My point is that absent a good-faith effort to define poverty, these anecdotal "studies" constitute an intentional diversion away from any real discussion about poverty into thinly veiled racial and class stereotypes.

Browsing through some of the posts of page 2 I see I have stumbled upon the grain of salt (who would have guessed it was in "The Clean Debate Zone!").

The Heritage foundation is the political implementing tool of Koch brothers who ran in 1980 as a Libertarian Candidate. Their primary task was running to remove social security, public schools and other government sponsored activity. These ideals do not go away. It takes little effort to take statistics out of context and with such overt views to stamp out the poor (or at least any assistance, sounds feudal), I would imagine this Heritage provides carefully chosen statistics for the audience of the regular conservative out there.

The trouble is no one has offered a satisfactory definition on poverty. The attempt to offer a wide ranging definintion of spiritual, financial etc was helpful.

That's because poverty is variable. To define poverty according to minimal nutrition standards may have been appropriate back in agrarian times. That died out by 1900 in America with farming becoming mostly mechanized and completely industrialized. That's why my family can watch satellite TV, use a washing machine and dryer!, drive a car (on loan of course resulting in major debt) and possess a full wardrobe in the closet (also resulting in several credit cards with 29+% interest). Also! we own a fridge and microwave! And despite all these things we are still working class and in poverty.

Defining poverty based on what one has is naive. Any and all things (modern appliances etc) can be found in dumpsters (in working order) as well as good food. We wouldn't consider the person with the industrial-ness to gather all these appliances as a sign he has lept out of poverty would we?

A quick way to define poverty is living paycheck to paycheck (or at least two checks away from financial ruin). This is a lot closer than you may think because debt among consumers has risen since the 1980s just as the wild income disparity between the top 1 and bottom 80 has increased. However, living paycheck to paycheck assumes you have paychecks coming in and so misses much of poverty. In a capitalist economy though, I'd think this is the definition they like best since everyone else is considered worthless homeless trash.

I still think this fails to take into account the full nature of poverty: by failing to account for the future of a person/family. In other words a more accurate view of poverty would include one's potential and their ability to access that potential. Many Americans, living in America's heartland are unequipped to truly earn their way out of rural poverty without at least spending their whole life toiling in a job they likely come to despise just so their children can go to college and perhaps leave the ranks of poverty (and perhaps spoil it by studying liberal arts education over careerism)

That's because a good definition of poverty would include the fact that there is mad amounts of generational and chronic poverty. In other words, poverty that is built into the system by the fact that capitalism promotes wealth concentration and prevents the ability to solve this sort of poverty.

That's why there is a New American Dream: appearing rich by having all manner of stuff bought on credit. Too bad appearances are inadequate because 4 million homes were foreclosed on, displacing millions: foisting people into poverty and homelessness or couch sufring with friends and family. Metlife Study of the American Dream, released in 2011 notes we still believe in hard work as the key to success but “Americans no longer seek to become wealthy; rather, they want to achieve a sense of financial security that allows them to live a sustainable lifestyle.”

The debt burden of families earning minimum wage has steadily risen alongside income inequality from 68% of total household income in 1980 to 97.4% in 2000. Today it is extreme with the median household debt of $75,000, far above average annual incomes in impoverished counties like mine of $33,000/yr. And people are required to pay debt back or life gets tricky with wage garnishment etc.. Sadly for every 1 spent on the principle of the loan, between 2 and 3 dollars are additionally paid in other fees and interest! That would mean the average person in my county is in poverty with over 100% of their annual income as debt.

That's why I think it's important we realize capitalism leads to this exact scenario. That's why poverty is a moot point and no one can reason with it. It is a fact and facet of capitalism and until we can move beyond this narrow perspective that capitalism is the final solution, we will never be able to address the real issues of poverty: the state, period.

 

[HenryBHough]

He sez it all.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_DV54ddNHE]Billy Preston - Nothing from nothing 1975 - YouTube[/ame]

But ya gotta listen to it all.

 

[gnarlylove]

It's like asking Christians if Native Americans who never heard of Christ will go to hell...

What about those people who start out in debt with less than nothing to begin with, are they "going to hell" too? Wait, that's already answered with a resounding "Yes" just like in real life every day.

But I ask you, Why should we punish those born into poverty to be forever doomed to be enslaved by wage labor? Oh, that's right, the priveledged and middle class have found enough of a space to call their own and thereby figuratively spit on those who are what they once were: tired immigrants who hadn't quite made it.

 

[emilynghiem]

I would teach people to fish. How to manage and pool together their own labor into sustainable economies like the founders of Grameen with microlending and Ithaca HOURS with labor backed currency. These are the type of leaders who are personal heroes to me.

Ithaca Hours - Local Currency - Ithaca, New York or http://www.ithacahours.net
Grameen Foundation | Connecting the World's Poor to Their Potential

 

[gnarlylove]

Love the Ithaca HOURS. There are many programs and currency akin to it, quite promising.

XXXXXXX

In achieving this goal, it would require us to address and overhaul how wealth is distributed. Instead of the government or Darwinian principles to decide how a human lives, real humans like you and I must be in charge of distribution and production. A bottom up, not a top down system. This is truly teaching one to fish. Together we can run our own lives in dedicated communities. Perhaps a million little grassroots campaigns can awaken the majority to how capitalism is quite harmful and bring egalitarian views to bare (of course capitalism has it's good side but not without an army of slave labor...I mean wage labor.).

 

[gallantwarrior]

Love the Ithaca HOURS. There are many programs and currency akin to it, quite promising.


In achieving this goal, it would require us to address and overhaul how wealth is distributed. Instead of the government or Darwinian principles to decide how a human lives, real humans like you and I must be in charge of distribution and production. A bottom up, not a top down system. This is truly teaching one to fish. Together we can run our own lives in dedicated communities. Perhaps a million little grassroots campaigns can awaken the majority to how capitalism is quite harmful and bring egalitarian views to bare (of course capitalism has it's good side but not without an army of slave labor...I mean wage labor.).

You have my attention: Could you provide some details as to how you would facilitate this social change you propose?

 

[HenryBHough]

I would teach people to fish.

Yeah.

And have Greenpeace all over you like flies over shit for molesting those finned friends and, worse, encouraging others to do it too.

Then all those friends will get busted for not having licenses.

But government is your friend and wants everyone to have plenty to eat. Provided, of course, it comes from a government handout and the recipient is properly respectful when next at a polling place.

 

[gnarlylove]

You have my attention: Could you provide some details as to how you would facilitate this social change you propose?

Quite simply, I propose anarchism or revolutionary socialism. If you take these two propaganda-charged terms in 2014 America at face value you miss the whole point of what they aspire.

I highly recommend Noam Chomsky's latest book, On Anarchism (watch video lecture here: Politics - "On Anarchism" - Book TV). He expounds the fact that these ideas are not new.

They were emerging alongside industrial capitalism. And how could opposition not when workers worked from age 9 till death and worked sometimes 16 hour days with one 40 minute lunch. Inevitably, this led to eventual strikes over the 19th century to reduce hours to 8/day. Since that time, capitalism has succeeded in crushing its competition: equality. Socialism is to be free or not at all--not that hanky panky state sponsored socialism in Denmark (though it's a bit refreshing).

Obtaining control of production through unions is one potential avenue. It rarely succeeds though. Workers and unions have pushed to buy up old plants like in Flint, MI and try to restore it in order to produce again or simply as a keep sake of a by-gone era. However, the capitalist class recognizes this as a threat and so it almost never happens but with adequate support, says Chomsky, it can be done.

Any real action towards the goal I mentioned would include removing money from politics so that ideas that oppose wealth concentration can begin to flourish. They are much more alive in Europe, so I'm told. Until we can begin to reocgnize private property is the source of our misery, the rich minority will continue to dangle the carrot of success as a distraction from our real problem: that we fail to give basic needs to our citizens when exorbitance is a euphemism for prosperity among the rich.

How do we bring this reality to the fore? Get people united, for as individuals we may never succeed at overcoming our oppressors. We must alert our peers to the fact that they are being oppressed (alienated labor) and that our life of ads and Iphones is not liberty (see signature below).

Probably isn't 100% satisfactory but it's a start...let's keep the dialogue movin'!

 

[gallantwarrior]

You have my attention: Could you provide some details as to how you would facilitate this social change you propose?

Quite simply, I propose anarchism or revolutionary socialism. If you take these two propaganda-charged terms in 2014 America at face value you miss the whole point of what they aspire.

I highly recommend Noam Chomsky's latest book, On Anarchism (watch video lecture here: Politics - "On Anarchism" - Book TV). He expounds the fact that these ideas are not new.

They were emerging alongside industrial capitalism. And how could opposition not when workers worked from age 9 till death and worked sometimes 16 hour days with one 40 minute lunch. Inevitably, this led to eventual strikes over the 19th century to reduce hours to 8/day. Since that time, capitalism has succeeded in crushing its competition: equality. Socialism is to be free or not at all--not that hanky panky state sponsored socialism in Denmark (though it's a bit refreshing).

Obtaining control of production through unions is one potential avenue. It rarely succeeds though. Workers and unions have pushed to buy up old plants like in Flint, MI and try to restore it in order to produce again or simply as a keep sake of a by-gone era. However, the capitalist class recognizes this as a threat and so it almost never happens but with adequate support, says Chomsky, it can be done.

Any real action towards the goal I mentioned would include removing money from politics so that ideas that oppose wealth concentration can begin to flourish. They are much more alive in Europe, so I'm told. Until we can begin to reocgnize private property is the source of our misery, the rich minority will continue to dangle the carrot of success as a distraction from our real problem: that we fail to give basic needs to our citizens when exorbitance is a euphemism for prosperity among the rich.

How do we bring this reality to the fore? Get people united, for as individuals we may never succeed at overcoming our oppressors. We must alert our peers to the fact that they are being oppressed (alienated labor) and that our life of ads and Iphones is not liberty (see signature below).

Probably isn't 100% satisfactory but it's a start...let's keep the dialogue movin'!

Have you considered the fact that human nature will not allow your plan to succeed. There have always been those who profit by the efforts of others, "takers", if you will. There are always those who will labor and enjoy only the minimal fruits of their labor because the takers will always be there, reinforcing their claims through force. Force is usually provided by another class of human who will enforce the claims of the takers for a share of that which is taken.
What you propose is the rise of another class of "takers". Of course, your takers couch their claims in a hopefully altruistic "good" of the group as a whole. Whatever, there will emerge a class of those who believe their efforts at distribution and control earn a greater share than those who simply produce what is distributed.

 

[Tresha91203]

It's like asking Christians if Native Americans who never heard of Christ will go to hell...

What about those people who start out in debt with less than nothing to begin with, are they "going to hell" too? Wait, that's already answered with a resounding "Yes" just like in real life every day.

But I ask you, Why should we punish those born into poverty to be forever doomed to be enslaved by wage labor? Oh, that's right, the priveledged and middle class have found enough of a space to call their own and thereby figuratively spit on those who are what they once were: tired immigrants who hadn't quite made it.

I was that kid in class asking those questions. They don't go to hell, they are not punished.

In case you were wondering: if you are on your way to confession and die in a crash, you are forgiven. You were forgiven the moment you were sorry. The confessional is more for you than God. Also, there is no accidental sin, coerced sin, mental incapacity sin, etc. I tried to trip her up, lol. Funny memory from catholic school.

 

[emilynghiem]

I would teach people to fish.

Yeah.

And have Greenpeace all over you like flies over shit for molesting those finned friends and, worse, encouraging others to do it too.

Then all those friends will get busted for not having licenses.

But government is your friend and wants everyone to have plenty to eat. Provided, of course, it comes from a government handout and the recipient is properly respectful when next at a polling place.

Hi Henry
Since I meant figuratively not literally,
I will try to read your reply msg that way as well.

the equivalent of your objection would be
* opposition by people who want to control the issue of currency
or who oppose capitalism and money altogether and protest it on its face
* and support by people who want to control handouts for political favor.

1. for opposition by the federal govt or people who support federal reserve notes only
the notes are legal as long as you follow certain rules so there is no conflict with licensing
2. for people who opposing capitalism like you point out those who opposing killing fish
most of those people are okay with cooperative economics and self-managed labor
most do not see this form of money as exploiting or oppressive so they tend not to object
3. it takes TOO MUCH WORK to be any kind of handout for political favor
so even the people who support it have difficulty enacting it

Does this answer the same points that you were making
using the literal example of fishing and opposition by animal rights environmentalists
or pro government regulation by licensing?

Does it address the issue of govt handouts and political exploitation not applying?

If there is any political empowerment of one group over any other it is a definitely
a push for cooperative and sustainable economic development and independence
from either excessive govt or corporate control. So yes, you may see opposition from that.

 

[emilynghiem]

You have my attention: Could you provide some details as to how you would facilitate this social change you propose?

Quite simply, I propose anarchism or revolutionary socialism. If you take these two propaganda-charged terms in 2014 America at face value you miss the whole point of what they aspire.

I highly recommend Noam Chomsky's latest book, On Anarchism (watch video lecture here: Politics - "On Anarchism" - Book TV). He expounds the fact that these ideas are not new.

They were emerging alongside industrial capitalism. And how could opposition not when workers worked from age 9 till death and worked sometimes 16 hour days with one 40 minute lunch. Inevitably, this led to eventual strikes over the 19th century to reduce hours to 8/day. Since that time, capitalism has succeeded in crushing its competition: equality. Socialism is to be free or not at all--not that hanky panky state sponsored socialism in Denmark (though it's a bit refreshing).

Obtaining control of production through unions is one potential avenue. It rarely succeeds though. Workers and unions have pushed to buy up old plants like in Flint, MI and try to restore it in order to produce again or simply as a keep sake of a by-gone era. However, the capitalist class recognizes this as a threat and so it almost never happens but with adequate support, says Chomsky, it can be done.

Any real action towards the goal I mentioned would include removing money from politics so that ideas that oppose wealth concentration can begin to flourish. They are much more alive in Europe, so I'm told. Until we can begin to reocgnize private property is the source of our misery, the rich minority will continue to dangle the carrot of success as a distraction from our real problem: that we fail to give basic needs to our citizens when exorbitance is a euphemism for prosperity among the rich.

How do we bring this reality to the fore? Get people united, for as individuals we may never succeed at overcoming our oppressors. We must alert our peers to the fact that they are being oppressed (alienated labor) and that our life of ads and Iphones is not liberty (see signature below).

Probably isn't 100% satisfactory but it's a start...let's keep the dialogue movin'!

Have you considered the fact that human nature will not allow your plan to succeed. There have always been those who profit by the efforts of others, "takers", if you will. There are always those who will labor and enjoy only the minimal fruits of their labor because the takers will always be there, reinforcing their claims through force. Force is usually provided by another class of human who will enforce the claims of the takers for a share of that which is taken.
What you propose is the rise of another class of "takers". Of course, your takers couch their claims in a hopefully altruistic "good" of the group as a whole. Whatever, there will emerge a class of those who believe their efforts at distribution and control earn a greater share than those who simply produce what is distributed.

Dear Gnarlylove and Gallantwarrior:
I have worked with Green activists who managed to implement the same ideals as Gnarlylove describes but WITHOUT going against capitalism and free market development.

One activist worked with farmers to set up self-managed cooperatives under "fair trade" which is still "free enterprise" but minus the corporate oppressive ownership exploiting the labor of the actual workforce at the bottom.

You can take the best of both systems, and people can label it "whatever they want".
One person may see it as an anarchist-syndicate and another as socialism.
But to the capitalist, it is just a locally-owned "free market" business network of people managing their own production and sales as a group.

And it is still the same people sharing ownership and management control of their pool of labor and products.

I agree with GW that by the nature of human free will, nobody can impose "anarchy" or socialism as a system onto anyone else or they will resist and want to control it themselves.

Any system whether anarchy, socialism, capitalism, democracy, communism must be freely chosen by the people under it or of course it falls apart from oppression and dissension.

so by the time people freely choose to represent themselves under any such system, it may be called by a different name. if people choose to be under one company policy that owns and controls everything, to the outsider it is capitalism but in fact it is socialism within that company.

the main points to make any system work, regardless of identity, is to make sure there is due process and representation of interests within the group so any grievances are redressed, conflicts are resolved for the mutual good of the individual and the whole, and there is no unchecked abuse of collective authority to oppress or exploit individuals.

once you educate and train people on the democratic process, this can be applied in any system of any affiliation and make it work as long as the people choose to participate.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Gnarlylove: Thanks for your messages and added information that is very helpful.
I believe in the same things and notice that many people use different language for this,
some more conservative and traditional. But I believe we are talking about the same
revolutionary ideas of returning and retaining ownership of labor and goods with the people geographically to develop local sustainable economies and avoid outside
exploitation that causes political disparity and oppression. I can use fancy liberal
language for this, but most people don't need to hear all that.

A friend online in Florida introduced me to a young media student unable to find work in Sweden who took an unpaid internship through a govt program to get his monthly unemployment while he looks for paid work. I suggested taking this internship program through the govt and trying a new system of issuing currency to represent the credits for labor hours worked, where the local businesses can agree to exchange the notes and basically start their own banking or credit system tracking the 'labor hours' invested in the training on the job for these 'unpaid interns'

if you are ready to start a revolution by setting up real life examples of self-managed cooperatives (whatever you want to call this) would you like to form a team and try it with the young man in Sweden? i proposed that he set up an online fundraiser to try to create a paid job for him designing the notes. they seem to be very traditional and conservative over there so this liberal agenda of govt kickbacks for hiring immigrants is disrupting the traditional communities and creating resentment about racism and nationalism, etc. I would rather focus on a peace and justice campaign to encourage collaborative economics and business networks, where the old and new work together, not in political competition.

what do you think?

the other ideas I offered to him to set up fundraisers to create a paid job in media:
* designing notes to raise funds in a bank to lend out to finance jobs in restoring environmental sites or species, anything from cleaning up a historic cemetery to make a community park or garden, or restoring a local river or cleaning up pollution in seas or oceans to save wildlife.
* designing notes with a peace and justice message such as unity between Muslims Jews and Christians since that is one issue they are facing in Sweden with Muslim immigrants
* buying property to set up low cost housing for elderly or workers displaced from jobs
I recommended setting this up in conjunction with a school, so interns are supervised.

You have my attention: Could you provide some details as to how you would facilitate this social change you propose?

Quite simply, I propose anarchism or revolutionary socialism. If you take these two propaganda-charged terms in 2014 America at face value you miss the whole point of what they aspire.

I highly recommend Noam Chomsky's latest book, On Anarchism (watch video lecture here: Politics - "On Anarchism" - Book TV). He expounds the fact that these ideas are not new.

They were emerging alongside industrial capitalism. And how could opposition not when workers worked from age 9 till death and worked sometimes 16 hour days with one 40 minute lunch. Inevitably, this led to eventual strikes over the 19th century to reduce hours to 8/day. Since that time, capitalism has succeeded in crushing its competition: equality. Socialism is to be free or not at all--not that hanky panky state sponsored socialism in Denmark (though it's a bit refreshing).

Obtaining control of production through unions is one potential avenue. It rarely succeeds though. Workers and unions have pushed to buy up old plants like in Flint, MI and try to restore it in order to produce again or simply as a keep sake of a by-gone era. However, the capitalist class recognizes this as a threat and so it almost never happens but with adequate support, says Chomsky, it can be done.

Any real action towards the goal I mentioned would include removing money from politics so that ideas that oppose wealth concentration can begin to flourish. They are much more alive in Europe, so I'm told. Until we can begin to reocgnize private property is the source of our misery, the rich minority will continue to dangle the carrot of success as a distraction from our real problem: that we fail to give basic needs to our citizens when exorbitance is a euphemism for prosperity among the rich.

How do we bring this reality to the fore? Get people united, for as individuals we may never succeed at overcoming our oppressors. We must alert our peers to the fact that they are being oppressed (alienated labor) and that our life of ads and Iphones is not liberty (see signature below).

Probably isn't 100% satisfactory but it's a start...let's keep the dialogue movin'!

* as for removing money from politics, one key issue I promote is conflict resolution. if all policies and decisions are made by consensus of the parties affected, then no matter how much you pay one candidate or party, it should not affect the outcome. we couldn't buy judges or legislators if all decisions depend on consensus of the public. anything we disagree on could be reverted to the party or groups who want that agenda, so you pay the people you want and set up your own programs through them. that's no longer bribing public officials with campaign funds, but hiring your own party reps and funding programs.

so it is like voting with your dollars by party and leaving federal govt to represent only consensus decisions that everyone agrees with across the board as public policy without any political bias or agenda that remains private per party.

so the other idea for funding jobs would be to teach, train and provide assistance in conflict resolution so people become self-governing and cannot be bought or sold for votes. (again you can call this anarchism or Constitutional self-government and limited federal govt but it's basically the same. pushing more control to the people locally to represent themselves and protect their own interests inclusively and leaving less burden to the federal levels so there is less bureaucracy and not this monopoly on resources and power concentrated in fewer hands)

the main issue I see going on is people fear other groups that use different terms and have different agenda that appears competing or hostile. so that is where mediation and conflict resolution will help all groups align on common principles, and keep our different language and solutions private if other groups don't agree or they call it something else. if we don't threaten to impose on each other, we will no longer depend on politicians to bully for us.
we can resolve our own conflicts and manage our resources and solutions locally instead.

Thanks GL I hope I can help you take your ideas and implement them to teach more people how to govern themselves, and end exploitation politically and economically. if we can even set up one example, then it will catch on. I am ready for the global reform this involves!