Ending Poverty vs. Ending Capitalism

[CrazyMode]

Now my original question was quite simple. What would you rather end, if you had to choose, Capitalism or Poverty? Now I realize it is not so simple and the vast majority if not the entirety of the members believe that the only possible way to end Poverty is to end Capitalism. But still, I would like to know. What is more important to you? A solution to an economic problem (economic disparity and poverty) or a political problem (the state and/or capitalism)

Once again I will point out the fact that most here believe (or know or whatever you want to call it) that poverty can only end if capitalism ends. But in this fantasy scenario, lets say you can choose to end poverty but certain aspects of capitalism remain.

I also realize the complexities of the term poverty, and for the purposes of this discussion it means the inability to access certain material resources necessary for survival (shelter, health care, food, clean water etc.)

Please don't flame and freak out. If you want to take this seriously please read my whole post and respond intelligently. Express your opposition to the structure of my question but try to make the choice between the two as apparent as possible. Be nice, I am thin skinned.

[black magick hustla]

End Capitalism.

The question of poverty in the capitalist mode of production is also a question of emotional poverty. We don't want benevolent kings that give us sugar coated pills but not our lives.

We want to be in control.

[Raúl Duke]

The end of one leads to or requires the end of another. IMHO


We want to be in control.

I suppose I agree with Marmot (end capitalism); it's a question of control. Its not that we are cold heartless bastards in regards to poverty, but that communism/anarchism is about class struggle (the workers vs their exploiters), and the end of class society and hierarchy. We want the people in control; not an elite.


emotional poverty
Maybe another reason why to end capitalism....but sometimes I wonder if emotional poverty can be avoided in capitalism or if its actually caused by capitalism or/and "The Spectacle"....

[Janus]

A solution to an economic problem (economic disparity and poverty) or a political problem (the state and/or capitalism)
Capitalism is an economic system and thus an economic problem. Of course, with its demise, we will probably still see poverty in one form or another due to the different developmental status of various regions but it's not the mutually exclusive issue that you're presenting.

[yns_mr]

I think ending Capitalism means ending poverty so i will chose both of them to make much more profit :D

[Lark]

Great topic.

It reminds me of the Rawlsian dilemma, would you choose a more egalitarian society if in contrast to an unequal one the lowest orders of the society would be worse off.

I think that a lot of what is described as poverty, at least in the first world is squalor rather than poverty, there isnt any hunger conscription into jobs or armed services in the first world for instance.

Anyway, I think that irrespective of questions about poverty there are contradictions within capitalist economies and class societies, now any society can bare a measure of contradiction, the way any individual can but when it gets too much it breaks down, just like a really conflicted individual does.

A lot's happened already to change capitalism but conservative ideology is pushing for it all to be undone in a way that's likely to cause a return to the crisis' of yester year. It doesnt trouble the rich because they've always been of the opinion that they can pay one half of the poor to kill the other half, it doesnt bother politicians because they know that in a crisis people will want them to restore a sembalence of order, friendly fascism and protect rackets abound.

[la-troy]

There where two reasons why I fell in love with Marxism
1) I could prove his theory
2) It would end poverty

Two was more important to me. If you are a Marxist then you know that poverty can only really and truly be abolished under socialism.

However in regard to easing poverty outside of Marxism you have to be careful

Case in point the country that I live in.

During the years of our socialist experiment things where bad there was barely enough food and things like that. There was true poverty, people where suffering, It was real bad.

Then in came a conservative capitalist. He said he would alleviate poverty and he tried.
He negotiated with the World Bank, befriended Reagan and created interest in the country. Things looked good people had Jobs , money in there pocket, things just looked damn good.

Flash forward a couple of years. The tax holidays are up, factories start close down. Trade unions start asking for better conditions factories close down. Our environment
is getting screwed, we pushed to protect it, factories close down. People lose jobs their pissed poverty is back its pretty much as bad as in the socialist years. but there is now a additional problem at least then we owned our services, at least then there were social benefits. but now everything is foreign owned, We have a debt of over 130% to our GDP. life sucks under capitalism, prosperity never last only socialism can save us.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

While to many it would seem logical that the end of capitalism would immediatly also mean the end of poverty Im not sure if that would immediatly be the case. So to relate it back to these options (and assuming that the end of capitalism wouldnt immediatly be the end of poverty) I would pick "ending poverty".

If we believe Marx however the proletariat would only rise up when their situation becomes too worse, problem here would then be that whilst the situation of the workingclass isnt optimal it also isnt total shit so they would not rise up and start their communist revolution. For the revolution to burst open there would be need for more misery and oppression I guess, but then is sometihng we dont want. Argh...weird logic is affecting my brain :ph34r:

[Lark]

A.I. relative rather than absolute poverty or oppression is more likely to result in revolutionary sentiments, its like that song by James, the lyrics are "if I hadnt seen such riches I could live with being poor", likewise the obscenely rich living cheek to cheek with the obscenely poor is likely to result in something like the revolutionary terror during the french revolution, with people being guillotined for very little.

Marx thought, like all the early classical economists, that capitalism would in his day reach its limits and collapse, then it would either be a return to some sort of earlier development, kings, emperors, empire in general, or, the only people he thought were thinking about alternatives, that's socialists (or after he'd witnessed the paris commune/municipality, commun-ists, he invented the term, it was tabloid and scary) would be ready to try some thing else.

In his later years he corresponded with Russian friends on the topic of the Russian Mir or communal village farm, his books appeared to suggest he thought every society had to be capitalist before it could be anything else, that a linear path of development had to take place.

In those letters he seemed to be having a rethink and spent the intervening years between that and his death studying anthropology books about pre-capitalist societies, agarian societies, stuff like that because he couldnt think of how a socialist economy wouldnt break down too.

Marx once said that equality was bourgousie "cantor" Engels said the same, though Engels was a little more concerned about poverty and tried to improve things in his factories like how Owen had in his mills.

[Anarchovampire]

I'd go with ending poverty... I think the extreme wealth of the very rich would be slightly (albeit only slightly) more bearable if billions of people weren't starving to death everyday.

But in the end the fight is to end both. Because the hierarchy created by capitalism runs against the conscept of total equality within a Communist state. But if we work to eliviate poverty, instead of trying to attack the ruling structure, we gain more supporters, we gain loyal supporters. And we know that the low, empovershed millions of the world out number the rich and ruling classes probably close to 10,000:1.

We cannot always sit there and attack the rich, we must, inevitably, step up and lend a hand to our fellow humans, for that is the only way we will ever make progress.

[la-troy]

Ending poverty yes alleviate it but what is the use? it will just occur again.
Capitalism equals poverty. So help your fellow man by alleviating poverty both now and by ending capitalism.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Well, simply removing the already existing capitalist system might not be THE sollution either. If the question is "which one would you pick, ending capitalism or ending poverty" there is no mention of the alternatives or other factors. So you overthrow the existing capitalist situation, and then what? You assume we would then immediatly have a happy communist world where poverty is gone? I think its dangerously naive to simply believe that. Starting and succeeding in the revolution is only one step, in many cases it happens to be pretty fucking hard on what to do after the revolution is succesful, just look at Vietnam, Cuba or Nicaragua for example.

The capitalist are overthrown and there would be a powervoid, every jerk off will try to take over, its not that once the bourgeoise and existing system are overthrown that everybody in the world goes: "oh hey the cappies are overthrown, lets all share and be happy with each other" like a bunch of damn hippies. (damn those traitors...)

[la-troy]

I will never believe that. communism does not equal prosperity. but in a properly administrated socialist society poverty has a better chance of being alleviated.

Lets go back to my country. Our socialist leader instigated great polices and had great ideas. however he was undermined by US imperialism which took the form of political violence economic sanctions yada yada. also working against him was his own mismanagement and just the times. so i know firsthand that there is no quick fix and i was not suggesting one. but havening read about capitalism seen it in action, also read fascism also aligarchs and a lot of other political forms marxism is the most likely to effectively manage poverty of my people.
Marxism is not perfect and it needs to be adopted in some cases to suit the countries unique situation.

I myself lean towards Trotsky's ideas.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Now my original question was quite simple. What would you rather end, if you had to choose, Capitalism or Poverty? Now I realize it is not so simple and the vast majority if not the entirety of the members believe that the only possible way to end Poverty is to end Capitalism. But still, I would like to know. What is more important to you? A solution to an economic problem (economic disparity and poverty) or a political problem (the state and/or capitalism)


As Janus pointed out, capitalism itself results in wealth for a minority and poverty for the majority. Capitalism itself is an economic problem, and no solution to poverty is possible without ending capitalism itself.


Once again I will point out the fact that most here believe (or know or whatever you want to call it) that poverty can only end if capitalism ends. But in this fantasy scenario, lets say you can choose to end poverty but certain aspects of capitalism remain.


You see, the problem with your fantasy scenario is this: its not just impractical, its also illogical.

If poverty were "ended" worldwide, capitalism wouldn't/couldn't exist, and vice versa.



I also realize the complexities of the term poverty, and for the purposes of this discussion it means the inability to access certain material resources necessary for survival (shelter, health care, food, clean water etc.)

Hmmm...you've raised an interesting issue here.

Suppose you define "poverty" as the poverty-line as defined by the UNDP, for instance. So you're saying, everyone gets to have the material resources necessary for survival, and they are now above the "poverty line". But the capitalists get to have their wonderful exploitative system.

It would still mean that these people are being unfairly exploited by the capitalists, even if the cappies throw down more crumbs than before. Capitalism is exploitation, and we want an end to EXPLOITATION, not just an arbitrarily-defined "poverty-line" as stated by the UNDP.

Capitalism isn't a very stable economic system anyway. It has its continuous cycles and fluctuations. So, if the capitalists managed to raise everyone above the poverty-line (defined by the UNDP), you might have a Great Depression next decade, and voila... millions of people are poor again!

Also, there are other things to note.

If you look at the dynamics of the capitalist world system, and the way imperialism works, you can't really lift everyone above the poverty-line.

It may be possible to lift all workers in First-World countries above the poverty-line (while still keeping their lives pathetic), but that couldn't be done for the Third World masses simultaneously.

So, basically, the world might remain stuck under the brutal capitalist world system for another 1000 years, and we'd get no nearer to solving the problems of poverty.

In fact, as population growth continues, things are only going to get worse.



Please don't flame and freak out. If you want to take this seriously please read my whole post and respond intelligently. Express your opposition to the structure of my question but try to make the choice between the two as apparent as possible. Be nice, I am thin skinned.

Relax. All of us have the right to ask questions and learn. A Marxist is first and foremost a scientist and a student. We learn things every moment of our lives.

[Lark]

Well if you believe that capitalism is doomed to self-destruct then anti-poverty measures could amount to rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.

Although were capitalism to self-destruct tommorrow its likely that people would want capitalism plus anti-poverty measures than socialism and support whatever policy or party would deliver that, plus its easy to condemn capitalism on a full stomach.

I think the question gets more interesting when you could cut poverty the quickest by adopting capitalist reforms and open markets, the quickest way to a cash injection into African and southern hemisphere economies would be abandonment of the EU's common agricultural policy and the US equivalent, it would be a real form of poverty relief, consumerism trumphs charity.

BUT it would mean the developing world's only future would be as agri-businesses, the food security of the EU and US could be jeopardised and the northern hemisphere consuming more than the southern hemisphere (Malthus' idea was wrong population growth doesnt result in as much of an increase in consumption as riches) the south could end up exporting food its domestic population needs.

[Enragé]

poverty is relative, if one has 20 times as much as you, you are poor compared to him, regardless if you yourself have "alot" as well (yet how would you define this "alot"? there lies the problem!).

An essential part of capitalism is this devide in material wealth, if one group has more than the other, the first group is rich, the second is poor.
There is no objective "rich" and "poor", those only exist in relation to eachother.

Therefore, it is impossible to do away with poverty without doing away with capitalism.

[Lark]

Yeah but I think that most people think of extreme privation like lacking a proper diet or subsistence living when they use the word poverty, not relative poverty, I mean in all seriousness if your neighbour owns a hummer and you own a mini you're relatively poorer than they are, in conspiscious consumption terms, that's just a damn fool idea if you ask me.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

A Marxist is first and foremost a scientist and a student. We learn things every moment of our lives.

Social scientist, yes.

But to call marxists "scientists" in the traditional sense of the word is simply stretching it imo.

Scientists (the real ones) use spesific methods, spesific methodology in order to arrive to conclusions.


A marxist can be a scientist, but one is not automatically a scientist (in the traditional sense of the word) by simply being a marxist.

[luxemburg89]

A Marxist is first and foremost a scientist and a student. We learn things every moment of our lives.

I'm not a scientist, and I'm not scientific - but I am a marxist. Artists, poets and novelists have all been, are still are, marxists - they aren't scientists. Marx was a poet himself in his youth. Look do not believe Marxists are scientists. Picasso hated science but was, indeed, a marxist. Pablo Neruda was a marxist and a poet. A marxist is first and foremost a revolutionary. Marxism can be scientific but read the communist manifesto again and look at the poetic brilliance of the lines, I think it is a revolutionary theory that encompasses artists, poets and scientists, and gets them working together for society.

[Goatse]

The first would come as a result of the second.

[Lark]

Marx made all the assertions he did about science because the majority of socialists in his day were, like now, wanting to reinvent the religious and ethical values and norms of an earlier, simpler and more pastoral way of life and not having a lot of time for economics.

Marx saw himself as an economist like Smith, Ricardo et al who saw themselves as trying to introduce into the study of commerce the same principals as applied in the natural sciences like chemistry, biology, physics. I'm not sure that any of them would stand up to a strict definition as scientific, especially not the definition Popper came up with and I think is alright.

Though there arent any Smithists or Ricardoists or divisions and ideologues like that among capitalist economists which I think says something about the very nature of marxism, old and new.

[Lark]

The talk about revolution sounds very putschist or insurrectionist, it can be fatalist to invest to heavily in the idea that a certain level of industrialisation or economic profile would be a precondition for positive change in social relations but I dont think that Che's idea that the revolutionary creates the revolution like some triumph of will is accurate either.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 01:38 pm
Yeah but I think that most people think of extreme privation like lacking a proper diet or subsistence living when they use the word poverty, not relative poverty, I mean in all seriousness if your neighbour owns a hummer and you own a mini you're relatively poorer than they are, in conspiscious consumption terms, that's just a damn fool idea if you ask me.
Thats ignoring the fact that relative poverty, even if the lowest scale still has enough to sustain itself, leads to having less power (i.e the rich have more power than you have simply because they hold more economic sway, and the economy is the basis of any society) as well as social exclusion and deprivation.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 05:40 pm
The talk about revolution sounds very putschist or insurrectionist, it can be fatalist to invest to heavily in the idea that a certain level of industrialisation or economic profile would be a precondition for positive change in social relations but I dont think that Che's idea that the revolutionary creates the revolution like some triumph of will is accurate either.
its a mix of the two.
Obviously, you cannot have a succesful revolution without certain material circumstances, but without people wanting it, which starts invariably with small group propagating the idea of revolution, you cant have it either.

[anomee]

How?

And I don't mean rhetoric, I mean in the common terms that the common man can understand, how would one go about doing either [eliminating poverty or eliminating capitalism] And among other things what kind of time frame would we be talking about?

These are things I would want to know before I even attempted an answer.

What good are theoretical ideas and schemes if there is no freakin' way in reality in say a lifetime to carry them out?

I do not mean to be condescending nor a smartass, but the underlying questions run so deep, there are no simple answers to this question.

How would this be effected or work either way in real terms?

Just asking a question in response to one.

[sexyguy]

What good are theoretical ideas and schemes if there is no freakin' way in reality in say a lifetime to carry them out?

I do not mean to be condescending nor a smartass, but the underlying questions run so deep, there are no simple answers to this question.

How would this be effected or work either way in real terms?

Just asking a question in response to one.

Exactly, it’s all diversionary bollocks.

[anomee]

Well, alrightee then, so much for activism as part of the package, then! ;)

Thank... uhm... whatever fates may be (?)!

I thought we might actually have to do something to eliminate poverty...

Like, you know, creating to something like a Bill of Rights for ALL human beings -- that ALL have a right to the basic needs of life: food, shelter and medical care and then going out and making it happen.

*pshew!*

But since it's just a diversion, I think I'll take ending poverty, because something tells me we might need the capital from the capitalists to end poverty, before we overturn their desks and tables and drive them out of their grand, fancy temple-like buildings.

[cubist]

Long time no see.

IRT #1

poverty is an interesting one becuase to be impoverished socially and mentally is different to poverty say of the third world.

under Communism existing with capitalism we see little improvement on the poverty of man or mind, many will blame this on the fact it was near impossible to co exist along side such a demeaning and overbearing oppressor as capitalism.

There for to attempt true communism would be the only way we can find out if poverty can be eradicated both mentally and physically.


So yes ending capitalism is the only way it will work.

---------------

People talk about the failures of socialism but where are the successes of capitalism in Asia Africa or Latin America. -Fidel Castro

[Enragé]

Like, you know, creating to something like a Bill of Rights for ALL human beings -- that ALL have a right to the basic needs of life: food, shelter and medical care and then going out and making it happen.


been there, done that

most european (ex) social democracies have that, i think we (the dutch) even have it in our constitution (since '83 that would be then). They're called social [classical] rights, an addition to liberalist classical rights (freedom of speech etc)

[anomee]

Like, you know, creating to something like a Bill of Rights for ALL human beings -- that ALL have a right to the basic needs of life: food, shelter and medical care and then going out and making it happen.

---------------------

been there, done that

most european (ex) social democracies have that, i think we (the dutch) even have it in our constitution (since '83 that would be then). They're called social [classical] rights, an addition to liberalist classical rights (freedom of speech etc)

---------------------

Yes, I know the terminology and recognize that such a declaration of human rights has been attempted in various parts of the world.

But tell me, please, if you've "been there, done that" then why are there still people in the world without those basics?

In a way, that statement reminds me of the altitudes of some young parents -- especially fathers -- who seem to think if something in the line of parenting doesn't work completely or quickly, it should be abandoned.

No way is that productive thinking.