Log in

View Full Version : The question of poverty



Scottish_Militant
9th February 2005, 10:00
Poverty is defined as "The state of being poor; lack of the means of providing material needs or comforts."

The question of why poverty exists is a good way of engaging in a political discussion with someone.

If you ask someone why poverty exists, what sort of answers do you feel you would get, and how would you then go on to demonstrate that the cause of poverty was capitalism.

Of course, to make a critique of something is the easy part, to provide a good explanation of the alternative, which is socialism, and how it can be achieved, is always that bit harder.

captain donald
9th February 2005, 13:53
I have gotten the response from a republican that "poor people just smoke weed and be lazy". Poverty truly exists nnot due to drugs or poor labor habits, although in some cases this may be true, but it comes from the bourgeouis refusing to pay for labor in a capitalist society. Man can no longer live off his own labor, so he MUST turn to the employer, who will find a way to offer pay below the line of average living needs, therefore putting them in a bad environment. In a socialist nation, poverty would not be a problem becasue there will not be that intention of becoming more powerful (in society money = power) and everyone will reviece the needs, and commodities will come after needs for everyone are reached. Poverty can never be completely destroyed, but fighting it will be a higher priority.

"theres always enough money to fight a war, but never enough to feed the poor"

Abstrakt
9th February 2005, 20:55
Hey, could you tell me who stated that quote above please? I'm interested.

But, anyways. It would be hard telling a rich asshole that socialism would work, because the rich asshole would have to give up his money that his father gave him, that he got from his father, that he got from his father, and so on.

Ligeia
10th February 2005, 05:09
I once asked such a question and the answer I got was something like "the rich and the most people who have enough money dont care about what is going on around them and just want their own lives to be better by the means of money,so the poor dont interest them and as it is human to be greedy and selfish there will always exist poverty."Something like that did she said.

Well,and I dont think that this problem lies in human nature.As written in my signature ,one human quality is the one to change.And studies of psycology and pedagogy have shown us that peoples on this world are differnet in their way of thinking.So there exist people who where educated not to be greedy and selfish but the contrary and so can the western minds be educated,too.It is a question of education,too because if people would have been educated to live together in harmony and dont take but give then the economical systems of today would have looked different and poverty may have not existed,at least not at this extend.

Domingo
10th February 2005, 16:18
Regardless of what yall believe, Capitalism didn't start poverty.

Look back to the days of Christ: Serfs and Slaves. That was their form of poverty.

It is around today only because it has a sort of pass-down affect through familys.

Capitalism IS an asset of poverty and a strong supporter, but not the creator.

Scottish_Militant
10th February 2005, 17:30
Capitalism did not start poverty no, but it maintains it. Current day poverty is caused by capitalism because feudalism/slavery etc do not exist. The only way poverty can be abolished is to replace the capitalist system with a socialist one, a global plan of production, common ownership and workers control.

Intifada
10th February 2005, 20:31
It makes me laugh when I see people supporting the "Make Poverty History" campaign, by wearing the white wristbands.

You cannot "make poverty history" unless you destroy capitalism.

captain donald
10th February 2005, 22:34
Hey, could you tell me who stated that quote above please? I'm interested.

I saw it on a Reagan Youth shirt my friend had. Not sure what song though...or if they just took it from someone else, just caught my attention

Hiero
11th February 2005, 06:22
It would be hard telling a rich asshole that socialism would work, because the rich asshole would have to give up his money that his father gave him, that he got from his father, that he got from his father, and so on.


If its a revolution we are taking his money and means of production.

Domingo
11th February 2005, 13:10
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 08:31 PM

You cannot "make poverty history" unless you destroy capitalism.
That means they have to loss their economy for power which people arent willing to do.