• 0 Posts
  • 47 Comments
Joined 8 months ago
cake
Cake day: December 25th, 2023

help-circle



  • I don’t think it’s the source. I think it’s a tool of social control that enables the powerful to create a bare minimum willingness to be ruled. For a long time the doctrine of Christianity was the Divine Right of Kings. Now it’s the Prosperity Gospel. The books did not change but the people with all the money and power ensured the church leaders who served their interest had most of the money and thus followers.

    If we didn’t have religion, some other social construct would arise, and I’d argue, has arisen to fulfill it’s role. Modern economic theory justifies the current power order in an unfalsifiable way that reminds me of religion.

    Religion could be a liberatory force in society. In fact it has been. The liberation theology movement in South America and numerous heretical movements in the late medieval period are both examples of progressive Christian social movements.





  • The original definition is a community where private property is not a thing. Private property is when an individual can control the land, tools, and knowledge people need to survive. Private property is factories, not your toothbrush.

    Most pro USSR, PRC, or Cuba leftists believe those countries governments controlling all or the vast majority of private property constitutes communism. Some think these countries are socialist and working their way to communism.

    Many anti-communist people don’t really understand how these countries work specifically. All their ideas of what communism is are based on how they view the above communist countries.

    Finally right wingers will describe California as communist because they have social programs and higher taxes than some states. Basically if the government is intervening in the market by supplying a service or good directly to a citizen that’s communism.

    From what I’ve observed most people lie somewhere on this spectrum of definition.









  • pearable@lemmy.mltoNo Stupid Questions@lemmy.worldXXX
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    One of the easiest ways to resolve this problem is artificially increasing supply. The government can subsidize the production of food, housing, medical care, and education. It doesn’t matter if people have more money if the supply of a good is always high. Having the government be a provider of these goods in monopolistic or inelastic markets would also be a good idea.

    I don’t think UBI should be implemented tomorrow. Subsidizing things today would be a much better first step. Several years of increasing supply and then starting UBI is a better bet.


  • pearable@lemmy.mltoAsklemmy@lemmy.mlIs "female" offensive?
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago
    Discussion of offensive racial language

    There’s a similar distinction with “black” in regards to race. Referring to someone as a black person or people as black folks is largely acceptable. Referring to someone as a “black” or people as “blacks” on the other hand sounds old fashioned at best and actively dehumanizing at worst.


  • This might be a regional thing. For reference I grew up in Oklahoma and “quite a bunch” seems natural and familiar. In British English quite has the opposite meaning so I could see why it wouldn’t make sense in that context. I wouldn’t be surprised if it didn’t sound right to other Americans due to regional linguistic differences.