Argument for capitalism: decreasing poverty. What is our response?

[simras]

Hi,

That do you people think is the right response to the following argument made by supporters of the capitalist system:

"Capitalism clearly works! Just look at how many people worldwide that have been pulled out of poverty!"

[Blake's Baby]

In the middle ages, peasants in England had a higher standard of living (as a percentage of GDP) and better diet than the majority of people in the third world now.

So, no, by that measure, capitalism has impoverished 3 billion people. They'd have been better off in feudal economies, where at least they'd be peasants growing their own food, as opposed to farm labourers on multinational-owned cashcrop farms, or unemployed landless workers in the shanty towns. Those 'pulled out of poverty' are the super-rich of the third world, who let's face it were only 'poor' compared to the rich in the west. They're still bazillions of times richer than most of us.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Source for peasants in England? :confused:

[RebelDog]

As pointed out by Chomsky, slaves in 19th century United States had better conditions than those in the 18th century and that is no more an argument for slavery than any similar one is for capitalism or any system for that matter. Any economic system's legitimacy or morality should be gauged by its egalitarianism, its democracy, participation, distribution, environmental impact, etc. If it were simply a case of this or that system wins because it raises living standards then there are other historically proven totalitarian state systems that achieve faster economic growth than so called capitalist ones.

[Nox]

It's true that Capitalism has pulled people out of poverty - it is much better than feudalism.

It's true that Socialism will pull even more people out of poverty - it is much better than Capitalism.

[the Leftâ„¢]

Like Rebel Dog points out slave societies were much better off in the 19th century, but is that a justification for slavery? Just because people are afforded a standard of living does not legitimize an unethical economic system. If he wants to use the logic of capitalism pulling people out of poverty then you have to tell him it applies both ways and capitalism has put people into poverty as well. Therefore making his claim void

[Dimmu]

I dont really think that we need to use some "super" arguments to break this one.. Most people already see that this argument does not work in practice.

[CommunityBeliever]

"Capitalism clearly works! Just look at how many people worldwide that have been pulled out of poverty!" 3 billion people live on less then $2 USD/day well the bourgeoisie ride in luxury liners and own private jets.

[Tommy4ever]

Its pretty clear that during times of economic growth capitalism has indeed been very successful a decreasing poverty:

Look at the post war boom in the Western economies, the transformation of South Korea from a country on par in development with Africa after the war to one of Asia's strongest economies by the 1990s, or even China today.

There is no point arguing against this as it is clearly true. However, there does seem to be a limit to how far capitalism can continue to expand the economy - poverty rates have stagnated and even increased in the West over recent decades, whilst blatant inequality should make it obvious to everyone that even without an expansion in the economy a more equitable distribution of wealth would allow for a further decrease in poverty.

[GatesofLenin]

Capitalism works somewhat as long as there's a middle-class and the plutocrats are satisfied but for the past 30 years, these same plutos got feverishly hungry for more capital. Result = killed off the middle class and we're now left with poor workers versus few super-rich that control them.
Yeah, capitalism works. :rolleyes:

[tir1944]

What? 40 million people in the world's most powerful country live in poverty...

[simras]

It's true that Capitalism has pulled people out of poverty - it is much better than feudalism.

It's true that Socialism will pull even more people out of poverty - it is much better than Capitalism.

I see it the same way. :) Just read the beginning of the Communist Manifesto by Marx. He was a big "admire" of the activements of capitalism.... and subsequently he came with his critique of the same system.

[simras]

Put simply:

"Pure" capitalism generates wealth in the top of the society, leading to two classes namely super rich (capitalists) and very poor (workers). I think nobody would argue against that...

So called regulated captalism, which is essentially a capitalist system where the class war (which is present in every society... to more or less extend (unions etc.)) results in workers-rights, generates a third "class", a middle class (of workers). Poverty is absolutely not "history", inequity is still large, and the workers can easily slip out of the middle class, they only have to lose there job.
Regulated capitalism is still a "sick" system (seen from the workers,... and below, and the environment, from a democratic point of view etc...) and no matter how many pain killers you give to a sick patient, he is still sick. So if we wants to get rid of consequences of capitalism you have to get rid of the system, you have to get rid of the disease to cure the patient, you have to have a revolution!

[Catma]

Capitalism works somewhat as long as there's a middle-class and the plutocrats are satisfied but for the past 30 years, these same plutos got feverishly hungry for more capital.

It's not just that people got more greedy. Wealth and power continually concentrate in a capitalist society, allowing a larger expression of existing greed. Markets have reached saturation and growth cannot be maintained without cannibalizing the gains the working class has gained over the post-war period.

[MattShizzle]

Advocating Capitalism to reduce poverty is a bit like advocating smoking to reduce cancer.

[Tim Cornelis]

The ILO reports [1] that the proportions of world unemployment are steadily increasing.
Half of all workers in the world - some 1.4 billion working poor - currently live in families that survive on less than US$2 a day per person. They work in the vast informal sector - from farms to fishing, from agriculture to urban alleyways - without benefits, social security or health care. 633 million workers and their families were living on less than USD 1.25 per day in 2008, with as many as 215 million additional workers living on the margin and at risk of falling into poverty in 2009.

Unemployment in terms of actual people out of work is at its highest point ever and continues to rise. In the last ten years, official unemployment has grown by more than 25 % and now stands at 212 million worldwide, or 6.6% of the global workforce. Unemployed and under-employed together total about a billion people. "Underemployed" means generally that workers are unable to find enough paid work to earn sufficient money to live on, i.e. that they work part-time or in casual jobs. This is sometimes called precarious work or contingent labor. But some underemployment concerns skilled workers, who prefer to work less hours because their relatively high salary enables them to do so.
Among the world's unemployed, the ILO estimates that about half the global total are young people aged 15 to 24.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour

[Blake's Baby]

^^^ Source for peasants in England? :confused:

Research published last year from University of Warwick (I seem to remember, the same people the CPGB agreed with over the 'minimum weekly income' demand of £300 some 12 years or so ago), quoted for instance here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336143/Medieval-Britons-twice-rich-poor-Third-World-today.html