Why is poverty not seen as a failure of Capitalism?

[Blackburn]

We are shown information about Communist Russia or North Korea where people are starving and that is shown as proof that Communism/Socialism fails.

But what about the starvation/homelessness/poverty etc that exists in countries like the USA? How is this given a free pass?

To me, I think it comes down to the myth of the protestant work ethic. You work hard and you get ahead. Ironically being rewarded for your labour in kind is a communist thing.

Or is it the fact that working people in Capitalist countries think they are 'temporary struggling millionaires' ?

[Ostrinski]

Poverty isn't really an indicator that capitalism is failing. If anything it shows capitalism's success in that shows massive capital accumulation. But it depends on how you measure the success of a given system. Historical materialists say that it's the prolonged efficiency of a given system that measures its success, while the idealist might say that a system's ability to meet people's needs measures its success.

But let's remember: Capitalism wasn't conceived as an ideal system to address the woes that people might have disdained, but it developed naturally out of the crumbling feudal society.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Also because according to the capitalists anyone who is living in poverty is just a lazy slacker who doesn't work hard enough. :laugh:

[Zav]

Poverty was around before Capitalism, so people tend to think it's ''just the way things are''.

[Robocommie]

There are staggeringly common double standards in place regarding Marxists and socialist history. We hear that Russia had a hard time producing consumer goods and had no free speech, and therefore it was a dystopian police state, in the US, poor working parents sometimes have to decide between buying either medicine or food for their children, and it's the land of the free. Che Guevara is said to have executed several thousand people during the Cuban Revolution, and for this we're told we have to see him as a monster, a serial killer, when Harry Truman gave the order to drop a bomb on two cities, knowing they were full of helpless civilians. People are willing to accept that Truman faced a hard decision that he made to try and save lives in the long run, they are not willing to entertain that possibility for Che, nor Lenin or Castro or anyone else who ever fought under the red banner. After all, in the US, it's publicly acceptable to venerate Thomas Jefferson, a man who owned other human beings as livestock even though he preached equality.

[Ostrinski]

After all, in the US, it's publicly acceptable to venerate Thomas Jefferson, a man who owned other human beings as livestock even though he preached equality.Not to mention is responsible for thousands of Native American deaths as well.

[Raúl Duke]

We are shown information about Communist Russia or North Korea where people are starving and that is shown as proof that Communism/Socialism fails.

But what about the starvation/homelessness/poverty etc that exists in countries like the USA? How is this given a free pass?

To me, I think it comes down to the myth of the protestant work ethic. You work hard and you get ahead. Ironically being rewarded for your labour in kind is a communist thing.

Or is it the fact that working people in Capitalist countries think they are 'temporary struggling millionaires' ?

There are a number of factors why (outside the whole "failing for whom" consideration).

For one the starvation rate may be lower here in the US than in North Korea. Therefore, seen in that light, capitalism is "a success."

However, North Korea ain't socialist or communist...but whatever; using relative examples of capitalist countries to non-quite "socialist" countries isn't useful in arguing about capitalism's "success."

I gather most radical leftists don't focus much on comparative examples to make an argument against capitalism (although they use them from time to time, I've seen; but they're kinda useless arguments since we don't seek to recreate the USSR, et.al) but rather focus on the "for whom" consideration and where power rests in capitalism. Anarchism, communism, and socialism focuses on the working class and its POV. Capitalism is a success, for the capitalist class; but not so for the working class in a variety of ways.

Even when it seems to "work" for everyone in society in boom times (and when there are social programs, etc), the fact that the capitalist (in this case, the financial capitalist) elite rule they manipulate things in their favor and this can have material disadvantages for the working class that will especially come to light in bad economic times like these. After all, the response from the elites in this "economic crisis" has been to stick the bill to the working class via austerity measures.

These 2 classes have competing interests. etc etc.

[Drosophila]

Poverty can be, and usually is in the developed world, a result of capitalism. However, I don't see any reason to blame the mass poverty and starvation in Africa for example on capitalism alone.

[Robocommie]

Poverty can be, and usually is in the developed world, a result of capitalism. However, I don't see any reason to blame the mass poverty and starvation in Africa for example on capitalism alone.

Why not? It's capitalism that caused European empires to carve Africa into spheres of influence, setting into motion the legacy of colonialism that would fuck African politics to the present day. It's capitalism that causes farmers to overwork the land, or misuse water resources, causing soil depletion and desertification. It's capitalism that has prevented the proper and sustainable development of African resources to serve African needs.

[Bostana]

Well it's not a success is it?

[CommunityBeliever]

Why is poverty not seen as a failure of Capitalism?

Those of us on the left known that poverty is a failure of capitalism. It is not profitable for capitalists to bring people out of poverty, so poverty persists over generations and it even grows. Of course, capitalists aren't going to blame themselves for the world's problems, so they make up ridiculous excuses and after those excuses are repeated enough times some people end up believing them.


We are shown information about Communist Russia or North Korea where people are starving and that is shown as proof that Communism/Socialism fails.

That information is all fabricated. You can tell anyone who says "Communist Russia" has no idea what he/she is talking about. There haven't been any communist societies yet because communism is a very high state of development where all the absurdities of class society become obsolete and then get eliminated. The actual reality is that 20th century Marxist-Leninist countries such as the DPRK and the USSR had much better living standards then other comparable countries because they focused on satisfying social needs rather then personal greed.

[Agent Ducky]

The argument I've heard most often is "Some people are better/more ambitious/work harder/*insert any superlative* than other people. Of course you're going to have some people at the top and others in poverty. That's how it's always been, that's an inherent part of life in any society."

[Ostrinski]

Well it's not a success is it?Capitalism is the greatest success in human history.

[Drosophila]

Why not? It's capitalism that caused European empires to carve Africa into spheres of influence, setting into motion the legacy of colonialism that would fuck African politics to the present day. It's capitalism that causes farmers to overwork the land, or misuse water resources, causing soil depletion and desertification. It's capitalism that has prevented the proper and sustainable development of African resources to serve African needs.

Good points, but I'm not well-versed in this area. I'd appreciate some works that explain these in detail.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Poverty isn't really an indicator that capitalism is failing. If anything it shows capitalism's success in that shows massive capital accumulation. But it depends on how you measure the success of a given system. Historical materialists say that it's the prolonged efficiency of a given system that measures its success, while the idealist might say that a system's ability to meet people's needs measures its success.

But let's remember: Capitalism wasn't conceived as an ideal system to address the woes that people might have disdained, but it developed naturally out of the crumbling feudal society.

Isn't the issue one of begging the question of the meaning of efficiency? I always figured that historical materialists see "efficiency" as having a different meaning in capitalism (increased efficiency as ability to make more profit etc.), as opposed to socialism/communism (increased efficiency as ability to actually meet the needs of the producers).

[Ostrinski]

Isn't the issue one of begging the question of the meaning of efficiency? I always figured that historical materialists see "efficiency" as having a different meaning in capitalism (increased efficiency as ability to make more profit etc.), as opposed to socialism/communism (increased efficiency as ability to actually meet the needs of the producers).Efficiency meaning the ability to sustain itself, regardless of what that would entail under any given mode of production.

[coda]

poverty, and the fear of... is the 'dangling carrot' in the engine of Capitalism.... we will work in such abject conditions (including circulating our meager paychecks back into the coffers of Capitalism via rent, food, tuition, daily costs of living) so as to not succumb to the fundamental drawbacks of poverty, which in almost all cases is horrendously cruel.

Capitalism is an utter failure and pretty much at the end of it's lifespan.

[TheGeekySocialist]

because Capitalists don't care about poverty...sad but true, they might pretend to when talking, but let's face it, when all is said and done, being Right Wing is admitting you lack compassion and humanity.

[Connolly Was There1916]

Poverty can be, and usually is in the developed world, a result of capitalism. However, I don't see any reason to blame the mass poverty and starvation in Africa for example on capitalism alone.

I think it should be blamed on Capitalism alone. Largely because Capitalism has caused a situation where 20% of the world's population have 80% of its wealth. This horrendously unequal balance means that in places like East Africa some children live no longer than a week due to their parents literally having no money to access medical care. Meanwhile big businesses are tuning over huge sums everyday. If there was a Socialist revolution in the West that aimed to redress the balance globally i.e create economic equality worldwide we could go along way to sorting out poverty. So for this reason I see it as purely the fault of Capitalism, because they have an unbelievable amount of money circulating in really pointless industries such as advertising, and hold on to it despite some of the horrific conditions some people live in.

[Rooster]

I have no idea who you are talking to or what you are reading, but poverty is commonly seen as a failure of capitalism. They problem is, is that most people who say that, be it in the media or just in general, are not able to articulate it in a Marxist way. So this is where you get the split into "good capitalism" and "bad capitalism", one of state control and one of free markets. This sort of leads onto people saying that Cuba, North Korea (or Sweden, UK), etc are good because they have free health care, everyone has employment, etc but it ignores the capitalism part.

[tachosomoza]

Not to mention is responsible for thousands of Native American deaths as well.

Thousands? Try hundreds of millions, comrade.

As for OP, it's because in the current system, success and the lack of it are handed down through the generations. If you see someone who's homeless, impoverished or incarcerated, or a lumpen, chances are their parents, grandparents, and great great grandparents were that way. The myth of the "pull yourself up by bootstraps man" is a shameless lie, spread by the bourgeoisie to build a blind, ignorant, yet hard working peasant/prole workforce. They work themselves to death in the hopes that they'll be like Rockefeller, or Carnegie, or Bush, but they never will be.

[Cheese Guevara]

Here's a good paper...

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.131.1901&rep=rep1&type=pdf

...pointing out just some of the false metrics used by the World Bank to erroneously "prove" that "capitalism solves poverty".

[The Jay]

We are shown information about Communist Russia or North Korea where people are starving and that is shown as proof that Communism/Socialism fails.

But what about the starvation/homelessness/poverty etc that exists in countries like the USA? How is this given a free pass?

To me, I think it comes down to the myth of the protestant work ethic. You work hard and you get ahead. Ironically being rewarded for your labour in kind is a communist thing.

Or is it the fact that working people in Capitalist countries think they are 'temporary struggling millionaires' ?

That sentiment is certainly present for some, and I think that it is more so in the middle class. On the whole though, the blame for the inequities is largely rested upon something like this: bad luck, bad birth, bad neighborhood, and government intervention. All of these things are said when talking about there being a poor population. There is another aspect of it though. When individuals are able to achieve success they see it as their actions as opposed to an alignment of the stars combined with perseverance; thus, they see those that didn't 'make it' as either unlucky or lazy. This is parroted in the media and hope for an easy out is presented as the lottery - a false hope of course. How many people do you know that say weekly, "I need to win this today." What they're actually saying is that they can't keep going how they are. I used to hear it constantly at the department store I used to work at.

[PhoenixAsh]

necroing old threads.

poverty is a necessity for capitalism to function as well as a consequence of it.

Poverty keeps wage demands low because it serves as a deterrent for the lower and middle class and keeps people complacent. Second it serves as a willing recruitment pool of cheap replacement labour. Third it functions as a scapegoat and draws attention away from real issues.

[The Jay]

necroing old threads.



Don't fucking judge me. :che:

[PhoenixAsh]

Don't fucking judge me. :che:

YOU weren't the one necroing it.

But I'll judge you if I like because I am an anarchist...and I can if I want to. :blackA:

[boiler]

Because in capitalism people choose to live in poverty. silly billy :rolleyes:

[Diirez]

Somehow, someway Capitalism has managed to convince people of the Right-wing that being poor means are lazy and therefore we should not help you at all. That somehow the lower-class is just living in luxury by sitting around doing nothing, despite the fact that poor people live in some of the worst, inhumane conditions and no one in their right mind would want to live like that if they didn't have to. I live in a primarily Conservative Right-wing area and everyday I hear: "Why should we help the poor? Why should I give my hard earned money to people who are too lazy to get a job?" One person in my English class wrote a persuasive essay on why we should end welfare, which resulted in a debate since I wrote my persuasive essay on why Communism would fix poverty and inequality.

For those on the left, Capitalism managed to convince the people that we should just mask the problem of poverty and not stop it at it's source.

[FSL]

Imagine a country with a planned economy where 10% or more of the people are not given jobs -just because- where many of the jobs are in areas covering advertising, public relations, legal disputes or even telling the future and where many homes remain vacant while any stroll through the capital's main squares will show you the number of homeless people is ever increasing.

Imagine how right-wing people would react to that "ah, but of course, the mismanagement is rampant, how can people accept these things, why, I'm baffled!"


I think the question raised in the op is a very serious one. People view the shortcomings of the socialist economies as a result of the way they are organized but don't recognize social problems in capitalism as such. Every capitalist economy has unemployment, wealth disparity, poor working conditions, periodical depressions etc. But these are either problems of the individual, problems cause by a bad government or problems cause by something specific like "greedy bankers".


Showing that all these problems do in fact stem from capitalism and are common throughout history and in all capitalist countries is pretty important. Don't care how bad the USSR was, there was never a plan that resulted in a 30% reduction in GDP. In fact, its economy was always growing. But in Greece we do have a 30% reduction in the GDP and people are kinda like "well, we/you did overspend in the past few years, meh" when they should be asking themselves just how crazy something like that is.


So I agree with the op in that this is an issue but I think we should make an effort to point out what causes poverty and that these causes are common everywhere (of course not all economies enter a crisis simultaneously but all do at some point and bosses everywhere demand flexible legislation).