[sithadmin]

Is poverty really 'designed into our society'? It seems to me that the underlying aspects of poverty - particularly resource scarcity and insecurity - are inherent aspects of the 'state of nature', which are only escapable via the cooperative mechanisms associated with the formation of society and governance. Sure, these things aren't 100% effective at eliminating poverty, but the proposition that poverty is somehow an intentionally baked-in objective seems hyperbolic.

Further, the notion that the USSR failed because "they tried to make a better man" is an absurd whitewashing of Soviet history.

[_DeadFred_]

Yes, poverty really is 'designed into our society'. Huge parts of our economy are prerequisite on 'zero hour' jobs. Where you are guaranteed zero hours per week, and have to check your schedule at the start of every week. Those working these jobs often have to work multiple zero hour jobs just to survive and somehow juggle that neither job has a fixed, dependable schedule. These jobs then prevent them from being able to use their off time (because they can't schedule around their jobs) to improve their lot in life. It is designed to be chaotic and a trap paying not even enough for survival (hence needing multiple jobs) let alone get ahead.

[EndShell]

Zero hours contracts are likely the unintended consequence of other (employment) regulation. People / Organisations (this includes private businesses and organisation, as well as state owned organisation) will try to circumvent any limits placed on it.

You seem to be of the belief that if you "tweak the nobs" just right, things will be magically be fixed, this is naive. The law of unintended consequences has been observed countless times throughout history when people have tried to do exactly that. This is extremely naive.

Even Star Trek itself that you appear to be a fan of. The Earth is post scarcity, they show that the Federation isn't the benevolent force that they pretend to be (This is hinted multiple times in TNG and shown outright in DS9) and that there are others that are negatively affected by the Federation and its policies e.g the Marquis.

[BoxOfRain]

>Further, the notion that the USSR failed because "they tried to make a better man" is an absurd whitewashing of Soviet history.

Isn't he referring specifically to the notion of the 'New Soviet Man' here, the idea that a communist economic model would produce fundamentally different humans as a result? I can see why he would describe that as a flawed approach, but you're right that it'd be an odd thing to blame for the fall of the Soviet Union over the other factors which contributed to it.

[rbanffy]

I don't think Gorbachev was trying to be precise on that moment. It is, however, a failure of the project that such "New Soviet Man" was not created, and it makes me ask myself what environment would be to create a person with these attitudes.