# Global issues - poverty

• News
Poverty is the state for the majority of the world’s people and nations. Why is this? Is it enough to blame poor people for their own predicament? Have they been lazy, made poor decisions, and been solely responsible for their plight? What about their government? Have they pursued policies that actually harm successful development? Such causes of poverty and inequality are no doubt real. But often less discussed are deeper and more global causes of poverty.

Behind the increasing interconnectedness promised by globalization, are global decisions, policies, and practices. These are typically influenced, driven, or formulated by the rich and powerful. These can be leaders of rich countries or other global actors such as multinational corporations, institutions, and influential people.

In the face of such enormous external influence, the governments of poor nations and their people are often powerless. As a result, in the global context, a few get wealthy while the majority struggle.

http://www.worldrevolution.org/article/1846

Last edited by a moderator:

## Answers and Replies

russ_watters
Mentor
Poverty is the state for the majority of the world’s people and nations.
How are you defining poverty and arriving at that factoid? It of course depends on who you ask, but a Google for "world poverty rate" turns up a lot of numbers a lot lower. The "official" labels and stats of the world bank are:
The World Bank defines extreme poverty for the purpose of looking at the species as a whole, and for some international comparisons, as the condition of living on less than US$(PPP) 1 per day; and moderate poverty as living on less than$2 a day. The World Bank has claimed that in 2001, 1.1 billion people lived on less than $1 a day and 2.7 billion on less than$2 a day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty

Anyway, using these definitions, it should be clear that poverty is almost exclusively a 3rd world problem. The conditions under which most "poor" people in developed nations live (as defined by politicians in those nations) would make most Africans and Chinese weep with joy. As a practical matter, it isn't possible to live on $2 a day in most developed countries and government support means few people even come close. Is it enough to blame poor people for their own predicament? Have they been lazy, made poor decisions, and been solely responsible for their plight? What about their government? Have they pursued policies that actually harm successful development? Such causes of poverty and inequality are no doubt real. But often less discussed are deeper and more global causes of poverty. Once you get an understanding of the definitions in use, the answer to those questions becomes very, very simple. The vast majority of those in poverty live in poverty because they live in nations that have not developed or have not developed fully. Applying the same questions to "poverty" in developed countries is much more complicated, but only because the far lower severity of the issue makes it necessary to split hairs on definitions and find more individual reasons for it. Behind the increasing interconnectedness promised by globalization, are global decisions, policies, and practices. These are typically influenced, driven, or formulated by the rich and powerful. These can be leaders of rich countries or other global actors such as multinational corporations, institutions, and influential people. In the face of such enormous external influence, the governments of poor nations and their people are often powerless. As a result, in the global context, a few get wealthy while the majority struggle. That is a view that is widely held and clearly false. Prosperty certainly doesn't affect everyone equally, but it does effect nearly everyone in prosperous countries. So much so that it is necessary (as I discussed above) to discuss two utterly different concepts of poverty for developed and undeveloped countries. And the importance of government and how prosperity pulls up everyone is shown clearly in China. With the fastest growing economy and until recently the largest number of poor people, China is almost soley responsible for the oft-cited stat that the world poverty rate has dropped by half in the last 20 years. BTW, the two links you cited are heavily biased and even contain some outright incorrect facts (the second link, for example, says 46% of the world lives on less than$1 a day, when actually that's $2 a day). It would be very helpful for your understanding of the subject if you would look at a broader and more moderate range of sources. Last edited: <edit for brevity>.... Once you get an understanding of the definitions in use, the answer to those questions becomes very, very simple. The vast majority of those in poverty live in poverty because they live in nations that have not developed or have not developed fully. Applying the same questions to "poverty" in developed countries is much more complicated, but only because the far lower severity of the issue makes it necessary to split hairs on definitions and find more individual reasons for it. But that "very, very simple answer" neglects the headstart then the West had, probably owing more to the philosophy of materialism and its guiding principle of reductionism that emerged during the Rennaisance than any other factor. Maybe western europeans were smarter, more motivated? Wasn't there, but fact of the matter, aided by this headstart, and more than sufficient willingness to exploit via imperialism whether Dutch, English, Spanish, Portuguese,(and later the US towards its indegenous peoples before looking elsewhere), every country they come across, its small wonder that there continues to be staggering differences, even where the countries in question had sizeable natural resources on which to build development. It remains so to this day, and whenever the little guy gets fanciful thinking about even getting a fair price for his goods, the heavy boot of the IMF/WB comes crushing down with usurial arrangements and insistence on privatization. When that fails, we get coups. If that fails, well look no further than Iraq. russ_watters Mentor Capitalism has used violence to take and uphold control over all production and distribution of material stuff like food, clothes, houses, land, etc.., And other countries don't? Hitler, Stalin, Mao? and uses the money system to control people. That's an odd way to see it, since by any fair measure of the word, capitalistic countries are more free than socialistic ones... In a socialist society everybody are guaranteed a fair (equal) share of all material stuff, and the freedom of the individual to decide for himself what to do is also guaranteed. Those two statements contradict each other. Even the relatively moderate European brand of socialism requires that people turn over a high fraction of their income to the government. That is the opposite of freedom. In addition, by turning around and giving the money to other people, they encourage people to choose laziness, again, interfering with freedom via negative social pressure. Also in a socialist system there will be no need to buy food from anyone because food will be collective property. Sounds great in theory. Reality is not so kind. Perhaps this is going to turn into yet another 'why-socialism-would-be-great' thread. Been there, done that - it is a useless discussion of a pipe dream. Half of all human effort today is wasted on administration of the capitalist system. Everybody who uses money, counts money, receives money, worries about money, steals money, catches the thieves, gambles for money, handles credit cards, handles other value papers, everybody who works in banks, half of all the people working in the supermarkets, are working with the administration of the money system. And that is a waste, how? People who do those things are not among the poor you mentioned in the OP. Seems to me like it works out pretty wel for them... So we are already today getting by fairly well, on average globally, with only a small part of the possible workforce actually producing anything useful. Seems to me based on the above that you have it backwards (though still, it is only a small fraction who are doing anything useful - the vast majority of the poor in Africa and Asia contribute virtually nothing to the economy). Last edited: How are you defining poverty and arriving at that factoid? It of course depends on who you ask, but a Google for "world poverty rate" turns up a lot of numbers a lot lower. The "official" labels and stats of the world bank are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty Anyway, using these definitions, it should be clear that poverty is almost exclusively a 3rd world problem. The conditions under which most "poor" people in developed nations live (as defined by politicians in those nations) would make most Africans and Chinese weep with joy. As a practical matter, it isn't possible to live on$2 a day in most developed countries and government support means few people even come close. Once you get an understanding of the definitions in use, the answer to those questions becomes very, very simple. The vast majority of those in poverty live in poverty because they live in nations that have not developed or have not developed fully. Applying the same questions to "poverty" in developed countries is much more complicated, but only because the far lower severity of the issue makes it necessary to split hairs on definitions and find more individual reasons for it. That is a view that is widely held and clearly false. Prosperty certainly doesn't affect everyone equally, but it does effect nearly everyone in prosperous countries. So much so that it is necessary (as I discussed above) to discuss two utterly different concepts of poverty for developed and undeveloped countries.

And the importance of government and how prosperity pulls up everyone is shown clearly in China. With the fastest growing economy and until recently the largest number of poor people, China is almost soley responsible for the oft-cited stat that the world poverty rate has dropped by half in the last 20 years.

BTW, the two links you cited are heavily biased and even contain some outright incorrect facts (the second link, for example, says 46% of the world lives on less than $1 a day, when actually that's$2 a day). It would be very helpful for your understanding of the subject if you would look at a broader and more moderate range of sources.

People are poor because they simply don't have the money to buy food, cars, homes, apartments, computers, telephones and stuff. There are not enough jobs in the labor market also and poor people don't have the necessary skills for the jobs offered.

http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cp/paper17.pdf

Poverty is the state for the majority of the world’s people and nations. Why is this?
Poverty is the natural state of human beings. A better question would be "Why are some people not poor?"

russ_watters
Mentor
But that "very, very simple answer" neglects the headstart then the West had, probably owing more to the philosophy of materialism and its guiding principle of reductionism that emerged during the Rennaisance than any other factor. Maybe western europeans were smarter, more motivated?
Two different discussions - I was talking immediate cause and you're talking history. At this point, I'm not sure the history is all that relevant except in discussing what each country had to work with when industrialization started. It is an interesting discussion, why China didn't industrialize before Europe, but it isn't terribly relevant. What is important is that China is industrializing and westernizing now and their economy is booming because of it.

Last edited:
Two different discussions - I was talking immediate cause and you're talking history. At this point, I'm not sure the history is all that relevant except in discussing what each country had to work with when industrialization started. It is an interesting discussion, why China didn't industrialize before Europe, but it isn't terribly relevant. What is important is that China is industrializing and westernizing now and their economy is booming because of it.

Once read an interesting book on the subject:

The Secret Of Western Domination, which highlighted different philosohical leanings as being the difference. Certainly China was very sophisticated in many ways, including those of warfare.

The economy is also blooming: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,461828,00.html

J

Evo
Mentor
Thread pruned of off topic posts.

russ_watters
Mentor
Ok, lets try this again....

Lets make sure we separate the two different kinds of "poor" - "poor" in developed countries vs "poor" in undeveloped ones. The difference is stark: "poor" in an undeveloped country means that your very survival is at risk on a daily basis. The poverty line in a developed country is drawn at as much as 10x the income as in an undeveloped one ($9800/yr for an individual in the US). The OP addresses both without differentiating and I really think they are separate subjects for separate threads. However.... People are poor because they simply don't have the money to buy food, cars, homes, apartments, computers, telephones and stuff. There are not enough jobs in the labor market also and poor people don't have the necessary skills for the jobs offered. http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cp/paper17.pdf Well, those are circular statements: 'poor is not having the means to buy things and people are poor beceause they don't have the means to buy things'. It isn't an explanation and it doesn't offer a solution. Your link discusses the issue (for the US) and it talks specifically about inner-city joblessness. It cites as a major cause, the drying-up of unskilled jobs (largely due to technology) and notes that since a high fraction of inner-city blacks are unskilled, they suffer most from it. Well that explains the problem and suggests a solution: they need to become more skilled to compete better in a modern economy. The place to start is by taking advantage of the education that the government provides all citizens. It is no coincidence that the vast majority of the poor in the US have failed to do that. A study by the US Census Bureau in 1999 shows the correlation between level of eduction and employment (vs. unemployment) and annual income. Professional degrees (medical doctors and lawyers, for example, both of which are technically doctorate degrees) have the highest payoffs in terms of both employment and income. Full Time Employment Education Annual Income 83.6% w/full-time jobs Professional degree$109,600
80.9% w/full-time jobs Doctoral degree $89,400 76.1% w/full-time jobs Master's degree$62,300
76.7% w/full-time jobs Bachelor's degree $52,200 74.9% w/full-time jobs Associate's degree$38,200
73.9% w/full-time jobs Some college $36,800 73.1% w/full-time jobs High school graduate$30,400
65.3% w/full-time jobs Not high school graduate: $23,400 http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art21690.asp [editorial rant: how can they say a law degree is equivalent to a phd when it is only 2 years?] The point here is that people with a high school diploma are much more likely to have full time employment and earn a full 30% more than those without. Now I've heard the argument that getting the diploma won't help if the jobs aren't there, but whether or not that is true in general, it is not true individually and because of that it is not a valid excuse. Ie, an influx of an extra million high school graduates would saturate the job market, but if only you (not you, specifically, just a general "you") got a diploma, it wouldn't and you'd be just as likely as anyone else with a diploma to find a job. Last edited: russ_watters Mentor Poverty is the natural state of human beings. A better question would be "Why are some people not poor?" I'm not entirely sure what you meant by that, but regardless, I like it and I'm going to use it for the other half of the discussion.... denverdoc is going into the history of why it is that the West developed and China didn't when by many measures of development, China was far ahead only a few hundred years ago. To me, though interesting, it isn't all that relevant - what is important is why there exists a difference today and how do we fix it? I can see no other reasonable explanation of the difference between East (and Africa) and west besides government/economic philosophy. And this doesn't need to be a capitalism vs communism/socialism discussion**, really it is a capitalism vs everything else issue. Capitalism is the only system that has shown the capability of sustained economic growth and prosperity. And as I said before, China is now in many ways following the lead of western development 150 years later. A lot of the problems they are dealing with, from pollution to sweat shops, are the same issues we dealt with - we got through it and they will too - but it may take 100 years if they choose to repeat our mistakes instead of learning from them to avoid the need to learn from their own. In the meantime, though, I take solace in the fact that China is developing and their rate of development has caused a 50% drop in the world's level of abject poverty in about the past 20 years. In Africa, development has never had a chance due to failed colonialism and the persistence of tribalism. Their lack of coherent governments (unlike China, for example) makes the problem much tougher to fix than for China. **It's your thread, X-34D, so we can discuss socialism if you want, but I don't think it is really necessary here. Last edited: I'm not entirely sure what you meant by that. As a species, we humans have spent most of our existence in a state in which there was no reliable source of food beyond the subsistence level. The invention of agriculture, relatively late in our biological history, fixed that problem and created the first wealth for a few. At the present time, half the world still lives in a state where the food source is unreliable. As such, they still live in a natural state. But how do you explain the fact that the other half (constituting 3.5 billion people) knows where its next meal is coming from? In other words, how did we get from a state in which only a tiny percentage of people ate regular, to one in which 50% do? Ok, lets try this again.... Lets make sure we separate the two different kinds of "poor" - "poor" in developed countries vs "poor" in undeveloped ones. The difference is stark: "poor" in an undeveloped country means that your very survival is at risk on a daily basis. The poverty line in a developed country is drawn at as much as 10x the income as in an undeveloped one ($9800/yr for an individual in the US). The OP addresses both without differentiating and I really think they are separate subjects for separate threads. However.... Well, those are circular statements: 'poor is not having the means to buy things and people are poor beceause they don't have the means to buy things'. It isn't an explanation and it doesn't offer a solution.

Your link discusses the issue (for the US) and it talks specifically about inner-city joblessness. It cites as a major cause, the drying-up of unskilled jobs (largely due to technology) and notes that since a high fraction of inner-city blacks are unskilled, they suffer most from it. Well that explains the problem and suggests a solution: they need to become more skilled to compete better in a modern economy. The place to start is by taking advantage of the education that the government provides all citizens. It is no coincidence that the vast majority of the poor in the US have failed to do that. http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art21690.asp

[editorial rant: how can they say a law degree is equivalent to a phd when it is only 2 years?]

The point here is that people with a high school diploma are much more likely to have full time employment and earn a full 30% more than those without.

Now I've heard the argument that getting the diploma won't help if the jobs aren't there, but whether or not that is true in general, it is not true individually and because of that it is not a valid excuse. Ie, an influx of an extra million high school graduates would saturate the job market, but if only you (not you, specifically, just a general "you") got a diploma, it wouldn't and you'd be just as likely as anyone else with a diploma to find a job.

In Nazism, Stalinism and Maoism it was government who was main cause of poverty and oppression. Government can be oppressive by enacting laws that limit access to the labor market, limit emigration, and implementing policies that harm seccessful development such as curtailing the right to education. Giving that education is the main road toward wealth, the uneducated have a much harder finding a well-paying job.

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

Last edited:
As a species, we humans have spent most of our existence in a state in which there was no reliable source of food beyond the subsistence level. The invention of agriculture, relatively late in our biological history, fixed that problem and created the first wealth for a few. At the present time, half the world still lives in a state where the food source is unreliable. As such, they still live in a natural state. But how do you explain the fact that the other half (constituting 3.5 billion people) knows where its next meal is coming from? In other words, how did we get from a state in which only a tiny percentage of people ate regular, to one in which 50% do?

Vast tracts of arable lands with great climate in some priveleged locations to start. Tehn, lots of petrochemicals to sustain, most recently GMO's to push yields higher. What happens when the petrol runs out?

Vast tracts of arable lands with great climate in some priveleged locations to start. Tehn, lots of petrochemicals to sustain, most recently GMO's to push yields higher. What happens when the petrol runs out?
If we had to go back to 19th century methods of farming, then I doubt 3.5 billion people could be provided with three squares a day. But I also doubt that we would go back. Humans are too ingenious for that. That is why so many of us eat so well now.

I agree with you that improvements in farm technology are the ultimate reason that so many people are wealthy (if that is what you are saying). The idea that technological progress has left people hungry is untenable. How would you feed 7 billion people, 3.5 billion of them well, without it?

Hey no doub't. I guess, maybe I misread something in the post. But you still need lots of arable land, with enough water. Many countries aren't so blessed as the US.

As an aside, if the US hadn't been discovered, there may be a whole lot fewer people on the planet--neutral comment here, we got what we got. How to feed the planet when the oil runs out is a big problem. Thats one good reason why we need to preserve the oil we have, even if climate isn't getting warmer, IMHO.

Hey no doub't. I guess, maybe I misread something in the post. But you still need lots of arable land, with enough water. Many countries aren't so blessed as the US.

As an aside, if the US hadn't been discovered, there may be a whole lot fewer people on the planet--neutral comment here, we got what we got. How to feed the planet when the oil runs out is a big problem. Thats one good reason why we need to preserve the oil we have, even if climate isn't getting warmer, IMHO.

I think you mean that it's not getting warmer because of CO2, it certainly is getting warmer. and I think you kind of got it by bringing over European disease and some other very dubious methods, but hey that's colonisation of the imperialists for you.

Since we have sattelite technology now, I'm sure someone would of found it eventually, and with England's spirit of exploration and Portugals and Spains and Frances and the Dutch and others, it would be unlikely if we never found it, after all the Vikings got there first.

Remember Erik The Red and Lief Erikson?

Last edited:
I think you mean that it's not getting warmer because of CO2, it certainly is getting warmer. and I think you kind of got it by bringing over European disease and some other very dubious methods, but hey that's colonisation of the imperialists for you.

Since we have sattelite technology now, I'm sure someone would of found it eventually, and with England's spirit of exploration and Portugals and Spains and Frances and the Dutch and others, it would be unlikely if we never found it, after all the Vikings got there first.

Remember Erik The Red and Lief Erikson?

Sure who could forget those intrepid seafarers with the horned hats. Landed right there in Minnesota. Some might argue that it had already been discovered what 30000 years (really don't recall) prior, by the first wave of several mass migrations coming by way of siberia, and later spreading both eastward and down into SA.

russ_watters
Mentor
In Nazism, Stalinism and Maoism it was government who was main cause of poverty and oppression.
Agreed, but does a lack of oppression automatically lead to prosperity? IMO, no - the government needs to be set up in such a way as to encourage, or at least get out of the way of, the economy.
Giving that education is the main road toward wealth, the uneducated have a much harder finding a well-paying job.
Agreed, but since in most developed nations, education through high school is provided by the government, doesn't that make the education gap an individual problem?

russ_watters
Mentor
As a species, we humans have spent most of our existence in a state in which there was no reliable source of food beyond the subsistence level. The invention of agriculture, relatively late in our biological history, fixed that problem and created the first wealth for a few. At the present time, half the world still lives in a state where the food source is unreliable. As such, they still live in a natural state. But how do you explain the fact that the other half (constituting 3.5 billion people) knows where its next meal is coming from? In other words, how did we get from a state in which only a tiny percentage of people ate regular, to one in which 50% do?
Ok, that's more or less what I figured you were after.

Agreed, but does a lack of oppression automatically lead to prosperity? IMO, no - the government needs to be set up in such a way as to encourage, or at least get out of the way of, the economy. Agreed, but since in most developed nations, education through high school is provided by the government, doesn't that make the education gap an individual problem?

No, it's more a government problem. The government gives certain priviliges to those individuals who perform good and pass all the tests and stuff.

russ_watters
Mentor
No, it's more a government problem. The government gives certain priviliges to those individuals who perform good and pass all the tests and stuff.
Huh? Two big problems with that statement. First, the government isn't the primary employer, so it primarily isn't the government who rewards academic success.

Second, are you suggesting that it is wrong for people who succeed in academics to be rewarded with good jobs? Should employers instead choose to give good jobs to people who have failed to show any qualifications?

Seems like a very odd thing to say, to me...

Agreed, but does a lack of oppression automatically lead to prosperity? IMO, no - the government needs to be set up in such a way as to encourage, or at least get out of the way of, the economy. Agreed, but since in most developed nations, education through high school is provided by the government, doesn't that make the education gap an individual problem?

A resounding no. This assumes that access and preparedness is constant. Whether you can take a sows ear and turn into silk is a question left to chemists, we do know is you can take a G Bush and make him presidential material. The point i'm making is pick your favorite idiot, political or otherwise.

Lets say to achieve success and break thru the surface, you have to swim up from the deep at a starting point D. We all have natural buoyancy depths determined by our birthright. IF one's family is well connected, has money to burn, and a reasonable genetic heritage, short swim w.o much turbulence. Now, maybe you got a dad in the slammer, a prostitite mom, living in the inner city, in a crummy school district where less attn is paid to SAT scores than whether you survived the last drive-by, you need lots more buoyancy.

Huh? Two big problems with that statement. First, the government isn't the primary employer, so it primarily isn't the government who rewards academic success.

Second, are you suggesting that it is wrong for people who succeed in academics to be rewarded with good jobs? Should employers instead choose to give good jobs to people who have failed to show any qualifications?

Seems like a very odd thing to say, to me...

In a meritocratic system, no. The best will win the best jobs.

russ_watters
Mentor
In a meritocratic system, no. The best will win the best jobs.
Ok.... so what do you really believe is right and why? You're not making a lot of sense and not being very descriptive of your point. You seem to be complaining about something that you understand is a perfectly reasonable for employers to expect.

Last edited:
Ok.... so what do you really believe is right and why? You're not making a lot of sense and not being very descriptive of your point. You seem to be complaining about something that you understand is a perfectly reasonable for employers to expect.

I believe that from each according to ability, to each according to needs. In socialism, everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/what_is_socialism.php
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/may98/moneyls.html [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator:
russ_watters
Mentor
I believe that from each according to ability, to each according to needs. In socialism, everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them.
Well, ok.... we don't live in a full-fledged socialistic society, and you didn't answer the question anyway - the question was about jobs, not pay. People still have to work in a socialistic utopia, regardless of whether or not they get paid. Food doesn't just grow itself (pun intended). So how do you think employers in a capitalistic democracy and a socialistic utopia should choose their employees? For my part, I'll answer the second, since I already answered the first:

Even in an ideal socialistic society, there is competition for work and that competition is still based on merit. Ie, not everyone can be an astronaut, even in a socialistic utopia. There is the caveat though, that since such a society isn't physically possible, you can make up any idea you want and say it'll work! Just a few minutes ago, I answered a similarly-minded question in General Physics about how a perfectly rigid pole would behave. So I guess you could say that in a socialist utopia, the best person to be an astronaut would know it and automatically gravitate toward it, while the janitors of the country would be perfectly happy being janitors. Everyone would get what they need, no one would want anything, so there'd be no reason to compete. I suppose mates would be chosen via lottery too.

By the way, it is nice that your links there acknowledge that their ideas are just meaningless daydreaming and not an actual system of government that could be put into place:
We cannot, of course, predict the exact form that would be taken by this future global democracy....

It is not possible unless a majority of people understand and want it. [majority? Well, no - it requires all to want it.]
It is such a useless waste of time to daydream about things that aren't physically possible.

Gawd, I read those pages all the way through and they are such utter crap. Everything in them is either nonsense, incorrect assertions about capitalism, or just plain not physically possible. Simple examples:
Decisions, apart from purely personal ones of preferences or interest, will be made after weighing the real advantages and disadvantages and real costs of alternatives in particular circumstances.
Oh, ok, sounds great. I have a personal preference to own a corvette, marry Jennifer Garner, and be an astronaut. So I get them, right? Socialism rules!
All work would be on a voluntary basis.
"Ya know what, boss [yeah, I know - there is no boss], I don't feel like working today."

It is also ironic how it says "Site updated on...", when most/all of the citations are of Marx. As I've said before, Marx can be forgiven for believing what he believed given the time in which he lived and for not being able to predict the direction the world would take, but people today cannot be forgiven for not understanding that his ideas are out of date. Two citations for a history and description of captialsim cite Marx. Besides the obvious conflict of interest issue, no serious person can expect to get a good account of the history of an evolving concept from a book that is 160 years old. I'll have to assume you actually know how different modern capitalism is from what it was then, but then considering that you believe this stuff, perhaps you don't.

Last edited:
Russ,
Let me butt in here as I think you're giving ole Karl the bum's rush. I first must admit I haven't waded thru Das Capital, only analyses, but given what he had at the time to work with is surely worthy of A Nobel Prize in economics.

None of us have first hand knowledge of the working conditions during the industrial revolution. But they would be mean by any of todays standards. And we owe todays standards in large part to his notions of social justice. Simply stated, becuz you owned the capital does not impart the right to exploit. Which is how it was and before when you look at feudalism all the way back to say Egypt, where you had a slave class working tirelessly just to put up a tomb for the king.

These insights gave momentum to the union movement, both here and abroad, which among other gains, led to the 40 hr work week and the abolition of child labor. Now maybe you want to work 80 hrs+/week. But to use existing capital which might well be inherited to enforce such servitude is fundamentally anti-american. Time and time again natural experiments gravitate towards such an extreme. Rand would argue that if weren't for the guy with the dough and the ideas, nothing get done. Maybe. But that doesn't excuse this type of exploitation which now is simply exported onto an even less fortunate class.

Into any economic system it would seem prima fascia that there needs to have some greater good for all term. Pure capitalism doesn't provide it. Whats especially nefarious about the present system is the invention of the corporation, which started (against fierce resistance) in the form of firefighters, etc. But these were always set up with the public good in mind.

It has devolved into an artificial structure where men and women are virtually immune to consequences. So they lay pillage to the planet, without any forethought re longterm consequences. And even when unsuccessful, there leaders collect obscene rewards. This is the perfect formula for sociopathy. And for the most part thats what we have. I think Marx understood this, much better than we do, having been brought up in the lap of luxury and fed propoganda from day 1 re the evils of socialism.

My plan is to introduce a national labour card instead of cash as payment.

Your labour whether it is brain, physical or sexual is your access to social goods and services.

Everyone would be some kind of a worker, there would be no owners or elites.

Your rights as worker would be as follow:

- The right to work
- The right to choose
- The right to change your place of employment
- The right to move
- The right to quit
- The right to be free from oppression

Work hours will be shorter because there would be no unemployment. Wages and money would be nonexistent and irrelevant. Your access to socially produced goods and services will be your labour not money.

People who choose not to work the minimum hours (20 to 30 hours a week) their services and goods would be limited. Just like in capitalism when you don't work you lose access to your services and the ability to purchase the goods you want and end up hungry and homeless.

Work hours will increase and decrease based on society's needs.

Last edited:
ShawnD
None of us have first hand knowledge of the working conditions during the industrial revolution. But they would be mean by any of todays standards. And we owe todays standards in large part to his notions of social justice. Simply stated, becuz you owned the capital does not impart the right to exploit.
Please keep in mind that socialism and working conditions are not in any way related to each other. America in the 1930s had working conditions just as bad as what you expect from a place like China or USSR, even though USA and USSR have opposing economic models. Working conditions are governed by supply and demand in the labour market (shortage of workers leads to better conditions), government regulations (OSHA in the US), and unions (mafia).

Countries like Canada and the US have pretty good working conditions because we were smart enough to get some government regulations and form unions wherever they were needed. These tactics do not work in socialist countries because:
-The government has a monopoly on the job market, which means the rules of supply and demand strongly favour the supply side (government). People will either deal with the bad conditions or not have a job.
-Unions are not effective against most kinds of government jobs because the government has no profit motive. Calling a strike against a private company is a big deal because it means all profits stop for that period. Calling a strike against the government isn't a big deal because the government doesn't care if it makes money. You want to strike? Go ahead. The government won't run out of money any time soon, but your family might die if you stop working for 6 months.

Please keep in mind that socialism and working conditions are not in any way related to each other. America in the 1930s had working conditions just as bad as what you expect from a place like China or USSR, even though USA and USSR have opposing economic models. Working conditions are governed by supply and demand in the labour market (shortage of workers leads to better conditions), government regulations (OSHA in the US), and unions (mafia).

Countries like Canada and the US have pretty good working conditions because we were smart enough to get some government regulations and form unions wherever they were needed. These tactics do not work in socialist countries because:
-The government has a monopoly on the job market, which means the rules of supply and demand strongly favour the supply side (government). People will either deal with the bad conditions or not have a job.
-Unions are not effective against most kinds of government jobs because the government has no profit motive. Calling a strike against a private company is a big deal because it means all profits stop for that period. Calling a strike against the government isn't a big deal because the government doesn't care if it makes money. You want to strike? Go ahead. The government won't run out of money any time soon, but your family might die if you stop working for 6 months.

Im not sure I agree. First of all no one had defines the brand of socialism being discussed which makes a big difference.

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

I tend to favor a more social democratic model, vs state ownership of everything, where policy can guide an economy in a more socially just manner than unfettered free market forces. But it doesn't matter, when teachers, or garbage collectors, or transit union members go on strike, the govt takes notice. Maybe notin Oaxaca Mexico, but in NYC they sure do. Also recall that the labor movement in the states that led to much better working conditions and more than a few fatalities in various skirmishes, was inspired by socialistic movements in Europe.

For true communism to work, first we need to have a cashless society. Everyone is part of the same whole. We all know that the love of money is the root of all evil.

The legal concept of private property is also debatable. In true communism some things will be private property (like clothes or watches) and other essential things will be collective property like food and farmland. Since no one labored to produce water, food and farmland, i think water, food and land should be collective property.

Capitalists did a good job in introducing a system of scarcity instead of a system of abundance. The truth is some things are really scarce like gasoline but other things are not like water, food or farmland. This means there is enough food to feed all the world's hungry. The problem is social injustice in the distribution of the earth's resources.

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

Last edited:
For true communism to work, first we need to have a cashless society. Everyone is part of the same whole. We all know that the love of money is the root of all evil.

The legal concept of private property is also debatable. In true communism some things will be private property (like clothes or watches) and other essential things will be collective property like food and farmland. Since no one labored to produce water, food and farmland, i think water, food and land should be collective property.

Capitalists did a good job in introducing a system of scarcity instead of a system of abundance. The truth is some things are really scarce like gasoline but other things are not like water, food or farmland. This means there is enough food to feed all the world's hungry. The problem is social injustice in the distribution of the earth's resources.

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

I'd be careful about using the c word around here, it's akin to sticking your hand in the Queens undies

I think capitalism is fine as a system but it seems there's just too much greed these days and not so much social responsibility. Communism tried and failed to redress the balance, not because it wasn't a good system but because humanity isn't ready for it.

We're too greedy, too acquisitive and too competitive to work for the greater good, it's often what do I get, what can I do to make my life better, it's their fault they're poor, maybe if they weren't so lazy, why should I feel guilty for the poor, they should get a job, etc, etc, which makes you laugh.

Next time you say this think about scraping by with enough money to buy food and clothes and send your kids to school, relying on handouts. Or think about your education. Think about whether it was tough to make ends meet or to be able to afford to buy books, or to have to work two part time jobs to put yourself through college; if it was good on you, but for those who had an easy ride, think about other people and how difficult it can be to drag yourself up out of poverty, and the next time someone calls and asks you to give to the red cross or whatever, give em a few bucks, it means nothing to you, but it helps.

No in fact what am I saying if people actually gave a damn about others in general we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Capitalism without responsibility is as bad as communism if not worse, at least with communism the idea was sound if not the means to achieve it, with capitalism the idea is dubious but the means to achieve it is simple, cater to the lowest common denominator.

A sense of social justice should be inherent in a system, if it isn't then it's no system I want any part of. I'm a liberal sort of person. neither left nor right, sort of border line communist to an American and I feel the healthiest balance a country can have is between social welfare and economics, if you can fine tune both then your population is happy, your business is happy and the rest is easier. That's the rub though. How do you do this?

Last edited:
Well said, SD. Its all about giving a damn for our collective welfare, and that means everyone and everything on this planet. Capitalism might be fine if there were not corporations to shield individual choices that are two often based on the need to grow profit in the short term at the expense of all else. Socialism, even communism might work, if you could prevent the corruption that tends to follow power, whether political or economic, and keep things decentralized so that there was the flexibility to respond rapidly to changing market forces.

I don't know that I could ever relegate completely the idea of individual ownership, I love my CD's, books, my computer, etc. But the earth belongs to us all, and when it comes to minerals, oil, the resources you speak of and which we all take for granted belong to us all, as well as the responsibility for their proper use.

Money is also power. For true communism to work, some things will need to be collectivized like water resources, farmland to labor on and transportation.