At no point in this meme or thread, has the argument ever been ‘We should never go to the 1st step’, it is entirely 'We should aim for the 2nd step, and don’t let the Libs stop you at the 1st.
The only people who reject anything, are the libs who reject the notion that you can work towards the 2nd step.
The only people who reject anything, are the libs who reject the notion that you can work towards the 2nd step.
Do they? In my short lived experience its us leftist that reject just about everything. We don’t engage in elections do we don’t change policy. I can’t even get people around my local DSA to shift toward open source. My pitch there is that we are moving to a parallel economy and independence from capital.
This meme is a microcosm of why we don’t have a real movement. The lib is broadly in agreement and gives us an angle for policy change, but the lefty, and echoed by fellow leftist in the comments, are flipping the table.
I think the point is nobody should live in poverty. Fullstop. Addendum to that, workers should be paid a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work.
But the first sentence is the core of everything.
Consider an example of a women, who does not work but raises childern and perform other chores to support her husband.
She is quite important in contribution to the society, but when we talk just about working people, we overlook her.
And I am sure there are many such people who are critical for the function of the society, but do not “make money” (i,e wage labor nor even owning capital for that matter)
This is why, IMO, this distinction of “people who work” is counter productive. Everyone should be able to live without poverty.
She is quite important in contribution to the society, but when we talk just about working people, we overlook her.
…even then, since her contribution is to her own household should that marriage collapse society decides that not only is she owed a share of their produced assets to date but also a share of his future production for her part in enhancing it to date (alimony), including the requirement that he must continue to produce at that level at a minimum (aka alimony is based on what a judge believes you can earn, not what you actually are earning). Sometimes this also includes a share of any future retirement income as well.
Everyone should be able to live without poverty.
Ultimately, what you would consider living without poverty requires the labor of some number of people to maintain, and eventually the question of why they do that labor for people who don’t do that labor will be asked, by them if not by you. Usually the answer is that those people are doing other labor which benefits the first group, usually abstracted out to some generalized representation of debt (aka money).
People are saying “no one should live in poverty,” not “no one should live in poverty, by which we mean no one should make money for their labor.” You’re tilting at windmills.
I think youre tilting at the windmills. To say a liberal doesnt believe every one deserves a basic standard of living just isn’t true and is not what was said in the first statment.
This misses the point. The point is no one, especially someone who has given back to society by preforming labor, should be left out in the cold.
It is called the Nirvana falacy: rejection of anything that is not an immediate perfect solution.
A road is crossed in many steps, not one giant leap.
Ironic.
At no point in this meme or thread, has the argument ever been ‘We should never go to the 1st step’, it is entirely 'We should aim for the 2nd step, and don’t let the Libs stop you at the 1st.
The only people who reject anything, are the libs who reject the notion that you can work towards the 2nd step.
Do they? In my short lived experience its us leftist that reject just about everything. We don’t engage in elections do we don’t change policy. I can’t even get people around my local DSA to shift toward open source. My pitch there is that we are moving to a parallel economy and independence from capital.
This meme is a microcosm of why we don’t have a real movement. The lib is broadly in agreement and gives us an angle for policy change, but the lefty, and echoed by fellow leftist in the comments, are flipping the table.
I think the point is nobody should live in poverty. Fullstop. Addendum to that, workers should be paid a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work. But the first sentence is the core of everything.
They don’t agree with that, they think that if you have a job you are more worthy of being allowed to live.
Consider an example of a women, who does not work but raises childern and perform other chores to support her husband.
She is quite important in contribution to the society, but when we talk just about working people, we overlook her.
And I am sure there are many such people who are critical for the function of the society, but do not “make money” (i,e wage labor nor even owning capital for that matter)
This is why, IMO, this distinction of “people who work” is counter productive. Everyone should be able to live without poverty.
…even then, since her contribution is to her own household should that marriage collapse society decides that not only is she owed a share of their produced assets to date but also a share of his future production for her part in enhancing it to date (alimony), including the requirement that he must continue to produce at that level at a minimum (aka alimony is based on what a judge believes you can earn, not what you actually are earning). Sometimes this also includes a share of any future retirement income as well.
Ultimately, what you would consider living without poverty requires the labor of some number of people to maintain, and eventually the question of why they do that labor for people who don’t do that labor will be asked, by them if not by you. Usually the answer is that those people are doing other labor which benefits the first group, usually abstracted out to some generalized representation of debt (aka money).
You missed their point.
No one, not only workers.
Still not getting it. These people have sacrificed a substantial part of their life and have nothing to show for it.
People are saying “no one should live in poverty,” not “no one should live in poverty, by which we mean no one should make money for their labor.” You’re tilting at windmills.
I think youre tilting at the windmills. To say a liberal doesnt believe every one deserves a basic standard of living just isn’t true and is not what was said in the first statment.
You don’t get it, you don’t have to sacrifice anything to have value as a human.
Why do Libs always have to dehumanise people?
If you work 100 or 0 hours a week, you have exactly the same right to basic life needs.
You dont get. Beyond your idea utopian society the society these people labor to build has forsaken them.