From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
Communism doesn’t argue people are all equal in abilities: but instead it argues that people’s needs should be met, regardless.
This doesn’t mean we all should live in the same identical brick huts, either. We just shouldn’t be so barbaric that we let people starve to death in a gutter, even if it’s because of their own failures.
Nowhere in my comment did I suggest that, because it would be a silly way to deal with such a big problem. It takes a lot of training to help people in crisis, and a lot of infrastructure to get people on their feet.
It’s not your responsibility alone, it’s not my responsibility alone. If you’d like to discuss any of the points I actually made, great. Otherwise you can try to oversimplify the discussion and I won’t respond anymore
What if the road to becoming “functional” requires, at least in a plurality of cases, help from those that can afford it?
That “free shit” might be what helps them turn their life around. Do you think they have a better chance to improve their station in life if they don’t have access to support from the public?
I wholly reject that it’s somehow dehumanizing to give folks food and shelter during the worst moments in their lives.
Is there a succinct way of articulating why we can’t do both? (e.g. vote for the lesser evil while also doing all the mutual aid and whatnot that we can?) Does it boil down to the argument that voting makes people less likely to build said alternative power structures?
I’ll watch the video when I have time, but communicating an actionable strategy I think is essential to folks in crisis.