35
this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2025
35 points (100.0% liked)
Economics
2057 readers
14 users here now
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is good awareness to raise. The US can and should do better, on this metric.
Needlessly leaving people in poverty isn't just unethical, it's foolish.
ok but the reason this is happening is because the communists liquidated the bourgeoisie
J/s don't just vaguely support outcomes, support the steps needed to achieve them
Some of us need to start by building agreement on the outcomes.
Most people agree poverty is bad, and less poverty is good. The real essense of the conversation is on what steps to take. Simply having a desire for an outcome doesn't bring it about, but, say, using a Socialist economy to target poverty as something to be eliminated via key infrastructure development, job creation, and social services, as China has done, does.
People need effective, enforced, predictable laws that target infrastructure development, job creation, and social services.
Americans are deeply indoctrinated against "socialism".
We're better of calling any planned reform a regulated law bound economy with targets for equitable opportunities.
The billionaires will hate it just as much, but the rest of the population might have an easier time considering it.
My point is that what should happen in an ideal world doesn't necessarily happen. We can't get the DNC to transition to a Socialist platform, their donors are the bourgeoisie. Even if 90% of USians support Socialism, ie an economy where public ownership is the principle aspect, without siezure of the state and replacing with a proletarian-run state, such a re-orientation of the economy is impossible. The policy in bourgeois republics reflects the will and needs of Capital, and by extension the acolytes that worship it, the bourgeoisie.