Should we house the homeless and feed the hungry?

[Miken]

People are allowed to keep their stock and benefit financially from it but they cannot pass it on to others after they pass away. Marx proposed that, but I don't support it.

Instead, I prefer a different approach, namely that three parties make the decisions since all are affected: owners/CEO's, local/state/national representatives, and labor. This is similar to a process used in Japan that has been quite successful for decades.

The many government operated corporations in Japan are public service type monopolies. The trend in Japan in recent decades has been to privatize some corporations that had not been doing well as governmental entities. I am unaware of any significant worker owned corporations in Japan. In fact ownership is much like in the US, via stock ownership, except that in Japan financial institutions and keiretsu are overwhelming the stockholders. Keiretsu are conglomerates of theoretically independent corporations that own much of each others stocks, making profits a matter of collusion. Worker participation in decision making is a much touted but essentially non-existent myth. Here is a great deal of information on the subject.or corporate ownership in Japan.

 

[Twilight Hue]

But as I explained in my earlier post taxation and the state are a more effective means of assistance to the poor than the drop in the bucket that charity is.

As much as I laud taxes. I'd be more in support if tax money actually goes for a change to where its intended to go, with tangible direct results instead of somewhere else and in someone else's pockets.

 

[MNoBody]

give a man a fish and you may find they develop a dependency ... you will certainly find a constant lunch-time companion in any case,
but if you show man how to fish, and where they may do so without incurring other difficulties, then you have helped someone find their own equilibrium, or balance, where they may attend to their own needs confidently, perhaps even dare I SAY, ENJOYABLY...
wouldn't that be great...people helping people, rather than selfishly putting consideration in between each other at every turn.
what's in it for me.

some people are so poor all they have is money.

 

[metis]

The many government operated corporations in Japan are public service type monopolies. The trend in Japan in recent decades has been to privatize some corporations that had not been doing well as governmental entities. I am unaware of any significant worker owned corporations in Japan. In fact ownership is much like in the US, via stock ownership, except that in Japan financial institutions and keiretsu are overwhelming the stockholders. Keiretsu are conglomerates of theoretically independent corporations that own much of each others stocks, making profits a matter of collusion. Worker participation in decision making is a much touted but essentially non-existent myth. Here is a great deal of information on the subject.or corporate ownership in Japan.

Yes, I am aware of some of the differences, but it's the general association of these three elements that I believe is important enough to replicate as all three largely depend on the success of these business enterprises. And I don't advise we use the keiretsu model as it puts too much power in the hands of fewer people, whereas I prefer more people that are tied directly to the endeavors one way or another.

 

[Valjean]

Not Marxism, which is ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need’. That is not the Democratic Socialism I referenced. By ‘real’ socialist I meant those who in some form propose worker or government ownership of at least some businesses. Biden proposing a government sponsored alternate medical insurance facility is not socialism.

‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need’ sounds like family values, to me.
The socialism the left is proposing is not Marxian socialism.

Co-ops are the Mom and Pop corner stores writ large. I was talking about how existing corporations are to become worker owned. How is the transition to work, in detail?

How did 'socialist' police and fire departments develop? Then there's Mondragon. How did that develop?

FDR did not turn anything around overnight. The depression lasted until the US entered WW2. Sky high unemployment barely budged for years and actually peaked in 1936. The worst US stock market crash in history happened in 1933, not 1929. The situation was very complex and I am not going to offer any ideology-based analyses. But ‘overnight’ is simply not the case.

FDR practically halved unemployment in four years, from 15M in '33, when he took office; to 8.3M in '37. By '38 the Republicans' efforts to undermine his programs started yielding fruit, and unemployment went up again.

The New Deal's goals were to provide temporary relief for the millions who were out of work, to restore the public's faith in government and banks, and to restructure the economy so future depressions did not occur. It succeeded, it restructured practically everything, and stabilized the economy -- at least through the '70s.

FDR did transform things overnight. Every bank in in the country was closed his first day in office, and a blizzard of new regulations and programs appeared practically overnight. The New Deal transformed everything -- Social security, unions, pensions, collective bargaining, unemployment insurance, FDIC, FCIC, Glass-Steagall, infrastructure, &al.
It totally changed the whole role of government, and it's relationship to the people.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

There can also be areas or parks that are kept as "free zones" for people who actually are deliberately wanting to live in a "Free" and uncivilized manner or whatever the heck, where they can only be interfered with for doing other illegal things, but not for having no home or nice shelter.

I had a thread where I wrote an essay on why humans should live in a nomadic style, and outlined a plan for that. As a matter of fact, I really think it ought to be a human right. Ever since man's worship of the domicile, there have been problems that accrue, from disease to overpopulation. The only reason we are stratified like this, is because otherwise nations have little security. You might notice that people in the world who had a looser concept of property, often had the land they lived on turned into property. But humans probably really are physiologically geared to be nomadic, to travel with the herd animals, and sample a variety of landscapes. It engages the mind and body, and keeps them in check. So I guess where my plan conflicts with yours, is that a lot more realestate will be needed to create a serious paleolithic platform for the public

 

[amorphous_constellation]

We need to get to a situation where we can ethically make it so we don't have a lot of poor. I can't see how this can be done without some pretty radical changes. One involves subsidizing a culture of nomads, like I talk about in the above post and elsewhere. Another is probably restricting parenting rights. As it stands, there is no test to be taken, no license to be had, and you are allowed to have as many offspring as you want. Religions that believe in heaven chime in here, because they see heaven as the real world, and this world is but a road that you merely populate with souls which head in that direction, if they be 'good.'

Anyway, I recommend you check out the youtube channel 'soft white underbelly,' and listen to the npr interview there. Check out the rest of that channel as well, to get a feel for the american situation. I tend to believe what he says in that interview, that many of these people are broken, and that the better solution is to correct people as they are developing

 

[Valjean]

I had a thread where I wrote an essay on why humans should live in a nomadic style, and outlined a plan for that. As a matter of fact, I really think it ought to be a human right. Ever since man's worship of the domicile, there have been problems that accrue, from disease to overpopulation. The only reason we are stratified like this, is because otherwise nations have little security. You might notice that people in the world who had a looser concept of property, often had the land they lived on turned into property. But humans probably really are physiologically geared to be nomadic, to travel with the herd animals, and sample a variety of landscapes. It engages the mind and body, and keeps them in check. So I guess where my plan conflicts with yours, is that a lot more realestate will be needed to create a serious paleolithic platform for the public

The planet can support a nomadic, pastoralist or hunter-gatherer lifestyle for seven hundred thousand, but not seven billion. It takes many hectares to support one hunter-gatherer. Predator numbers cannot exceed the number of prey. Foraging acreage must be able to support the prey that hunter gatherers live on. Only a highly specialized and organized civilization can support our present numbers.

So unless your aim is to reduce our population to a tiny fraction of what it is, you're stuck with a society where we have to make concessions for one another and co-operate.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

I like your idea, its probably true even, its just that at this point it may be a little too difficult convincing everyone to do anything like that nomadism for all movement (no pun intended), and so its probably much easier to make laws and policies and secure properties and areas for the fewer than all numbers of people who can be sent off and away (out of sight, out of mind) because so many places I've lived now have in recent years turned to very scary and dangerous seeming trash piles because of the mixture of the housed and houseless.

Human beings seem to be designed for some things, but prone to others, for example, we like efficiency, ease, convenience, so to build a very permanent and secure structure against the elements, that will last a longer time so that we can live in it, and then to have ease in acquiring food, so creating farms and grocery stores and all that, sort of ultimately made sense for a people who were rewarded for their laziness with not only lots of problems, but a much longer life-span as well by living a life of luxury and convenience and basically barely moving around or risking oneself, now we're even able to just order food right to our doors and are living better than Kings ever did in many ways.

The only thorn in our flabby sides now is the local drunken "nomads" who are yelling and smashing bottles outside, which might end up injuring the feet of our delivery servitors.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

The planet can support a nomadic, pastoralist or hunter-gatherer lifestyle for seven hundred thousand, but not seven billion. It takes many hectares to support one hunter-gatherer. Predator numbers cannot exceed the number of prey. Foraging acreage must be able to support the prey that hunter gatherers live on. Only a highly specialized and organized civilization can support our present numbers.
So unless your aim is to reduce our population to a tiny fraction of what it is, you're stuck with a society where we have to make concessions for one another and co-operate.

I can imagine a lot of conflict as well now that there are so many people able to come into contact with one another.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

There's many more people struggling in our communities with the effects of a worldwide pandemic on the economy. Vulnerable populations are disproportionately affected.

Do we as individuals or a community have a responsibility for the welfare of those who are in dire need? Should we feed the hungry? Should we assist those without accommodation to find shelter? Do we have a duty of care?

Do we need a religion or ideology to respond to human need? Does religion or ideology make us more or less likely to care?

Dear adrian009

I know only of one universal way of helping in such aspects: In any and every situation; only ever take what you need and never, ever take more than so.

Always. Everywhere. In relation to any- and everything.

Humbly
Hermit

 

[Valjean]

I can imagine a lot of conflict as well now that there are so many people able to come into contact with one another.

This is true. However much we may 'celebreate' diversity, humans are not wired for it. We have the same, tribal psychology that served us so well during the Pleistocene. To exist harmoniously in supra-Dunbar groups we have to subvert our own, hard-wired psychology.
We've succeeded remarkably well, but the veneer of civilized tolerance is a thin one, and easily peeled away to reveal our underlying tribalism.
Even within 'civilized' societies, there are those xenophobic throwbacks who rebel and seek cultural homogeneity; who cannot co-operate and feel put-upon by 'government's' attempt to enforce co-operation.

 

[Miken]

‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need’ sounds like family values, to me.
The socialism the left is proposing is not Marxian socialism.

I realize and already stated that the socialist movement in the US today is not Marxist. The problem with trying to implement the Marxist dictum on a large scale, involving people that are outside the scope of perceived personal responsibility is that suddenly everyone has such limited abilities and enormous needs. Stalin realized that the only way to implement this was to scare the hell out of everyone by killing or imprisoning anyone who was seen as a potential threat to centralized authority or simply a convenient example.

How did 'socialist' police and fire departments develop? Then there's Mondragon. How did that develop?

Functions that cannot reasonably be done by competitive private industry but are done by government are not socialist. Socialism involves non-capitalist ownership and/or control (by government or workers etc.) of the means of production that could be performed effectively by competitive private industry.

Mondragon started from scratch. My question remains: How would an existing large stockholder-owned corporation be converted into a worker-owned corporation? What is the exact methodology for the transfer of ownership?

FDR practically halved unemployment in four years, from 15M in '33, when he took office; to 8.3M in '37. By '38 the Republicans' efforts to undermine his programs started yielding fruit, and unemployment went up again.

Depends on how you count. One method is to count the number of people unemployed that used to be employed compared to those still or again employed, including government programs. This yields a graph like this.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-W_cVcCKfe...AAI4/Wdb-795jCXo/s410/US+Unemployment+BLS.bmp

Assignment of ‘blame’ for the increase in unemployment varies with the teller of the tale. For example:

“The fundamental point is this: if Roosevelt had not turned to austerity in 1937 the US was on track for a return to full employment by 1939. Many of the public programs could have been reduced too as private sector demand for labour would have transferred people from the public to private sector.”
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: US Unemployment in the 1930s

A very significant reason for the need to return to austerity is that the private sector economy was simply not in good shape and unable to provide the tax revenues needed to support the government programs.

Looking at private industry employment alone yields a graph like this. This approach is based on the notion that the government sponsored programs did not arise from any real demand except that ‘invented’ by the government for the purpose of providing employment. That is, that in a free healthy economy these things would not have been done.

https://www.cbs.nl/-/media/imported...a=en-gb&hash=8645122219C587F02681DF7718EDCA0D

What would really have happened? As I said earlier, the situation was very complex and answers based on ideology may not be the real answers.and often are not.

The New Deal's goals were to provide temporary relief for the millions who were out of work, to restore the public's faith in government and banks, and to restructure the economy so future depressions did not occur. It succeeded, it restructured practically everything, and stabilized the economy -- at least through the '70s.

FDR did transform things overnight. Every bank in in the country was closed his first day in office, and a blizzard of new regulations and programs appeared practically overnight. The New Deal transformed everything -- Social security, unions, pensions, collective bargaining, unemployment insurance, FDIC, FCIC, Glass-Steagall, infrastructure, &al.
It totally changed the whole role of government, and it's relationship to the people.

744 banks failed in 1930. 4000 failed in 1933. The bank holiday did not really help anything.
Bank Failures during the 1930s Great Depression

The New Deal did provide quite a few safeguards that have definitely been beneficial. Unrestricted capitalism causes problems. Unrestricted socialism causes problems. Post-Stalin socialism still failed. Answers based on ideology do not work. Where is the proper middle ground? That requires paying attention to what is really happening in the real world and not just in the imagination.

My question still stands: How would an existing large stockholder-owned corporation be converted into a worker-owned corporation? What is the exact methodology for the transfer of ownership?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

There's many more people struggling in our communities with the effects of a worldwide pandemic on the economy. Vulnerable populations are disproportionately affected.

Do we as individuals or a community have a responsibility for the welfare of those who are in dire need? Should we feed the hungry? Should we assist those without accommodation to find shelter? Do we have a duty of care?

Do we need a religion or ideology to respond to human need? Does religion or ideology make us more or less likely to care?

It is a moral obligation both individually and socially. However, for anyone who prioritizes money over morals, it’s cheaper just to give them food and shelter.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Human beings seem to be designed for some things, but prone to others, for example, we like efficiency, ease, convenience, so to build a very permanent and secure structure against the elements, that will last a longer time so that we can live in it, and then to have ease in acquiring food, so creating farms and grocery stores and all that, sort of ultimately made sense for a people who were rewarded for their laziness with not only lots of problems, but a much longer life-span as well by living a life of luxury and convenience and basically barely moving around or risking oneself, now we're even able to just order food right to our doors and are living better than Kings ever did in many ways.

I don't know, I think the 'god' or spiritual force behind machines and technology might want these things, and it probably subverts or obscures our view of the grand picture, one in which you can see that mere nature is efficient, though it may look sloppy sometimes. To it, perhaps it likes that we are staying in one spot like battery cells, serving as junctions to propel the information which take the role of its life - blood. Maybe it does allow us to live longer in some cases, but does that correlate positively with health no matter what? A nomad on the other hand, is sure to be physically toned. However long he does live, he would be strong rather than anemic

The only thorn in our flabby sides now is the local drunken "nomads" who are yelling and smashing bottles outside, which might end up injuring the feet of our delivery servitors.

Well my inspiration in writing the thread I told you about, had a joe rogan conversation at its basis, which is joe rogan and someone named jordan jonas. He said that there was a certain culture of people in russia somewhere, and it was subdivided between town dwellers and nomads. Well it wasn't the nomads that are getting drunk, but it was the town that was rife with those problems, as the people were ripped away from what engages the mind and body best. Think about it though, who really just wants to stay in one spot? Who wants to really see the sun rise and set the same way every day, or be surrounded by the same unmoving world? Again I say, nomadism should be a human right. You seem to assume that this was would not change behavior

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

As much as I laud taxes. I'd be more in support if tax money actually goes for a change to where its intended to go, with tangible direct results instead of somewhere else and in someone else's pockets.

I feel the same about charity