8 ms·
> 2. The federal government then later realized that free breakfast for poor kids was a good thing, and re-implemented it I have a more cynical worldview. they
by forevergreenyon 4y ago
> 2. The federal government then later realized that free breakfast for poor kids was a good thing, and re-implemented it
I have a more cynical worldview. they always knew that free breakfast was (indeed, is) a good thing, but it was more important for them back then to fuck over this rebellious group than feed some poor ol' kids.
Those poor malnourished children? a 'cost of policy' or some other rationalized argument with which to ignore the harsh truth, that we often prefer to keep our own power safe, than feed some other's 'poor' children.
- whitemary 4y ago[flagged]
- inkblotuniverse 4y agoThe government cynically deciding whether or not to feed people doens't seem exclusively or specially capitalist.
- runarberg 4y agoRecently leaked text messages between the Seattle mayor’s office and the Parks district during the Black Lives Matter protests suggests that people in power have no problems denying people basics things like water if it is politically convenient for them to do so.
- cardosof 4y agoPretty much all governments in all countries think way worse stuff. something something ultimate power ultimate corruption.
- whitemary 4y agoIt's what they do that matters, and there is no country in the world today which is responsible for nearly the amount of brutality, oppression, and exploitation as the United States. And child poverty is potentially the most alarming example. Despite being the richest nation, the domestic United States has proportionally more child poverty and child hunger than any other major nation in the world.
- luckylion 4y ago> It's what they do that matters, and there is no country in the world today which is responsible for nearly the amount of brutality, oppression, and exploitation as the United States. Are you aware that other countries than the US exist that aren't Canada or in Europe? Let's pick the obvious one: North Korea. There's less brutality, oppression, and exploitation in NK than in the US?
- avgcorrection 4y agoRead the post again: amount of those things. The US has over 300M people and it is the most advanced industrial nation (or perhaps China is now?), so of course it has way more impact than freaking North Korea.
- luckylion 4y agoThat's useless for comparisons though. Musk lost billions of dollars when Tesla's share price dropped, we should all pitch in and help him out, because we didn't lose billions of dollars and are therefore much better off, right? If only we were able to look at relative things to find out if that's true. I don't believe that was the intended message of the comment I replied to, but even if it was because strange ideas: China easily tops the US, and so does Russia.
- whitemary 4y agoCan you cite actual studies that show China tops the US in child poverty or child hunger? I highly doubt this is the case, but I'm quite confident we do not have any reason to believe one way or the other. The Soviet Union absolutely had less child poverty and hunger, but of course the (many) western definitions of poverty cannot apply. We do straightforwardly know, however, that the Soviet Union did not tolerate any homelessness while the United States has a growing child homelessness problem with no solution in sight.
- dmoy 4y ago
- lotsofpulp 4y agoIt is not about whether or not it is good for kids to have breakfast. It is about whether or not you want to redistribute wealth from your actual or perceived tribe to another actual or perceived tribe.
- abelsyed 4y agoIt is considered "woke" to admit that the federal government always had preferred racial tribes and is only now trying to rectify that.
- lliamander 4y agoTo say that it is "only now" trying to rectify racial disparities is to completely ignore the last 60 years at least.
- abelsyed 4y agoThe civil rights fight in the 60s and the following Nixon and Reagan administrations prove my point more strongly than yours.
- lliamander 4y agoThe civil rights fight is precisely what I am talking about. The civil rights act, and subsequent legislative and judicial decisions based on that, have fundamentally altered our legal system and our bureaucracy. That a couple presidents tried to undue those changes does not undermine the profound impact to federal policy.
- whitemary 4y agoIt's not a matter of so-called preferences. It's a matter of interests. The capitalist state, in aggregate, always serves the interests of capital. Chattel slavery was literally a system for producing commodities. Jim Crow laws were later enacted to undermine solidarity among workers in the south and maintain an official underclass ripe for exploitation by capital to produce commodities.
- stickfigure 4y ago[flagged]
- whitemary 4y agoWhat? Where did children get breakfast before capitalism? Even if there's truth to your claim, does making the breakfast then taking it away qualify as a virtue? Somehow I'm not convinced.
- darawk 4y agoMost children didn't eat nearly as well as they do today before capitalism.
- throw_away1525 4y agoAre you starting count from the beginnings of humanity or the beginnings of agriculture?
- justsomehnguy 4y agoBut with capitalism they could earn their food! Praise capitalism! https://www.history.com/news/child-labor-lewis-hine-photos https://www.history.com/news/child-labor-lewis-hine-photos
- orbital223 4y ago> Where did children get breakfast before capitalism? Historically speaking the vast majority of them just didn't.
- kxkdodpdl 4y agoChild mortality was much higher and famines were more common before capitalism, and starvation has been a common feature in every command economy as well
- whitemary 4y agoTechnology improves livelihoods. That much is straightforward. The role of capitalism, however, is more complicated. Capitalism is an extremely brutal state of affairs and the industrial revolution itself was responsible for an incomprehensible number of deaths (see: Primitive Accumulation). And in its more modern forms, capitalism maintains more poverty than it resolves. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_accumulation_of_capital https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_accumulation_of_ca...
- yesco 4y agoWhat does capitalism have to do with this? The two actors involved were the black panthers and the federal government, both of which were being motivated by politics. Not sure where supply & demand or private ownership had any influence.
- syzarian 4y agoMy cynical view is that I think our pursuit of profit is such that politicos would rather have taxpayers partially fund the school breakfast. That way a private company can get the contract and provide shitty meals in order to extract as much profit as possible. Capitalism comes into play by barely providing adequate service while suppressing wages so that a few can greatly profit at the expense of everyone else. In a society not attempting to implement the Ferengi society the school breakfast would employ people with decent wages and serve decent food.
- whitemary 4y agoEverything. It was the McCarthyist era. The Black Panthers were an explicitly Marxist organization and US state was the most powerful anti-communist organization the world had ever seen.
- input_sh 4y agoFor the more (most?) recent example, child tax credits reduced the number of US children living in poverty by 46%[0]. Late 2021, all 50 Senate Republicans + Joe Manchin opposed expanding it. In other words, 51 people decided to put 3.7 million children back into poverty. In one month between Dec 2021 and Jan 2022 the percentage increased from 12.1% to 17%[1]. Each and every one of those 51 people had the power to singlehandedly keep 4.9% of all children out of poverty. None of them did. Why? If you asked all 51 of them, the most common answer will most likely be a variation of "no handouts". [0] https://archive.is/3vZnb https://archive.is/3vZnb (census.gov link, using archive.is because census.gov blocks connections outside of the US) [1] https://www.povertycenter.columbia.edu/news-internal/monthly-poverty-january-2022 https://www.povertycenter.columbia.edu/news-internal/monthly...
- aaronbrethorst 4y agoIn Manchin’s case, he thought parents would use the money to buy drugs. In reality, “Studies have found…that parents have used the checks for essential items…like food, clothes and school-related expenses.” https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1286321 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1286321
- lotsofpulp 4y ago>In Manchin’s case, he thought parents would use the money to buy drugs. I assume he thought that was the excuse most likely to benefit his political ambitions.
- blfr 4y agoBizarre take. Capitalism is so insanely effective that 22% of US teenagers are obese, 25% of all black kids. It may be a disease but it certainly delivers breakfast. And then six more meals, apparently. https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/childhood.html https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/childhood.html
- whitemary 4y agoBoth can be true, especially under capitalism.
- avgcorrection 4y agoGood health is more effective than ill-health. Part of the deal with consumer capitalism is that there needs to be consumption. Which means that people have to consume a lot of their means on stuff. Gullet-stuff being one of them. Blacks are of course poorer than whites. Them being more obese is not a sign of overabundance among Blacks.
- blfr 4y agoYou cannot be obese without overabundance of calories.
- avgcorrection 4y agoBoring and useless point.
- blfr 4y agoI quite like an esoteric theory but it should at least sound plausible. There is no need for a convoluted explanation with power dynamics and economic system denying people access to food when Americans are clearly suffering no such problem.
- avgcorrection 4y ago> denying people access to food when Are you replying to someone else? I haven’t said that someone/some entity is starving people/denying access to food. Try to stay coherent/on track.
- goatlover 4y agoSo are the other economic systems who create even worse outcomes for kids. At least capitalism, for all it's faults (like democracy), has massively raised the standard of living over the past several centuries. Places with a lot of poverty have lacked access to free markets because of war, politics or the wrong economics.
- ves 4y agoYou might wanna check out some of jason hickel’s writings in the topic. As someone from such a “place with a lot of poverty” I’ve always chafed at the idea that capitalism (and thus colonialism) led to an improvement in living conditions, when really it meant mostly murder and looting.
- goatlover 4y agoCapitalism and colonialism aren't the same thing. Yes, capitalism can include exploitation. So can any system. But the world thankfully has moved beyond colonialism. And capitalism as an economic system has greatly improved standards of living in many parts of the world such as Asia since then.
- vorpalhex 4y agoThe federal government didn't like that a self declared insurrectionist group was spending a lot of time with young kids. Or put another way, would you support "OathKeepers Breakfast for Kids"?
- jrochkind1 4y agoI have a different and possibly more cynical (or not?) take. The government decision-makers actually had no opinion at all about whether free breakfast was a "good thing", and didn't particularly care about the welfare of poor Black children at all. They implemented government free breakfast only to undermine the possibility of the Black Panthers or a similar group getting support for implementing it themselves. The Panthers effectively forced the government to implement it, by showing them up, they never would have done it at all if the Panthers hadn't done it first, and did it only to take away the possibility of a group like the Panthers getting credit for doing it and using it to build support and power. Had nothing to do with the kids or whether it was a "good thing" at all.
- harvey9 4y agoHere's an alternate but still cynical take: Business / The Govt needs somewhat educated people in the modern economy and its easier to study when you had some breakfast.
- hourago 4y ago"The goverment" is composed of many different people. I assure you that some people cares a lot about what is better for children, and fight to get this kind of policies implemented. Others vote in favor just because it looks good on them. Some does not care and may vote against just because they can profit from it. So any cynical view will be true for a few politicians, but never for all.
- TeMPOraL 4y agoMy personal meta-cynical view is that politics is all about relationships: nobody gets anything done using their own power alone, and nobody has enough broad and direct influence to even try. Getting anything done requires aligning a lot of people, each holding either a direct ability to implement a part of the solution, or the connection and ability to influence someone that does. This includes not just outward-facing projects and decisions, but also politicians' own careers - whether you get in, and where you end up, is more to your colleagues than it is to you. As a result, the whole system strongly selects for people best able to navigate that complex web of relationship. Which means it selects against people with goals they're not willing to compromise on. This is why, I think, in modern (democratic) countries you can't really achieve anything specific by becoming a politician. If you come in with a concrete and inflexible goal (like, to reuse the example, making the government fund free food for children), you'll likely just wash out or get sidelined by your own colleagues: if you're not willing to help with whatever others need from you, even when it means compromising your principles or going against your initial goals, then nobody else will be willing to help you with your schemes. The rules of thumb thus are: - If you see someone going into politics to achieve a specific goal, you can assume they'll fail and the goal will not be achieved; - If you want the politicians to do something, you need to go about it indirectly, exploiting the incentives of the entire system - for example, as alleged upthread with the food for children, by setting things up so the government will lose face / influential politicians will lose public support if they don't implement the very thing you want them to. - Everything that's actually being achieved is achieved in a roundabout way, because the limiting factor isn't any politician's ethics, understanding, or budget - the limiting factor is the ability to align enough politicians and administrative workers to make something happen.