I want to share a disagreement with a respected peer about the nature of poverty. There are poor in the United States. However, our poor are not on a par with the poverty of India, Haiti or Latin America.
The question of how and why people remain poor is more complex than presented in the classic Communist guise of oppression. Moreover, the communist term includes group rights a concept that is by its nature totalitarian and unamerican. Yet this disagreement is with someone who really should no better. This person and I both want a better country and he is not a communist like Renagade Eye looking to create divisions.
The poor are poor for a variety of reasons. The primary reason is lack of educational and vocational skills. If one drops out of high school the options are very limited.
Realistic job training is an important part of combating poverty. Many of the poor suffer from issues ranging to poor life skills to deep psychological trauma. The life skills areas are often things that can be fixed at community level. There are some poor who suffer from severe mental illness. An example of this was "Billie Bogs" who
the ACLU sued and prevented her treatments for political reasons. Bogs ended up on the same street corner after the ACLU no longer needed her.
Classic liberalism notes that the causes of poverty are as varied as the poor themselves. The group rights Marxist mode attempts to add oppression for sheer political opportunism. Who oppresses the homeless person on the heating vent?
In response to this question we do hear about some rude Civil servants. Rude civil servants are no more oppressive than rude staff anywhere else. Those civil servants do not work for the poor they work for the tax payer. They are charged with enforcing
endless laws and procedures. There is also a lot of benefit fraud and they must be vigilant. The reality is that even the most dedicated civil servant can be sued for no reason. I have witnessed several of these frivolous lawsuits against dedicated professionals.
There are responsible groups that aid the poor every day. They do so for religious or humanitarian reasons without the Marxist political opportunism. In fact the historical record shows a direct line between applications of Marxism and human misery. There is a difference between flowery words, political opportunism and reality.
The social justice model is more similar to the Muslim concept of Zhakat which is mistranslated as charity. Charity is something that is voluntary, unlike zhakat. Under the social justice model land was stolen from farmers in Zimbabwe and the result was starvation. Were the poor helped by this theft? We can witness the shortages in Venezuela.
Moreover, who decided that the property rights of businessmen and farmers could be violated by imperial fiat. This social justice model looks more akin to classic feudalism than America.
The poor have serious needs, but the last thing they need is to have an army of political opportunists acting in their name.