Poverty, Control, and Capitalism

in #politics7 years ago

Poverty is directly tied to the economic system, we will explore that in this post

The economic and political system is essentially the power structure of the society. Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production, otherwise known as capital. (The free trade aspect commonly quoted often comes from owners of capital fighting for the biggest profit, but that is not always the case.) In this post I will explain how poverty is a direct result of the system it is in, which happens to be capitalism in this case.




What is Poverty?


In this we start with poverty as a state of being extremely poor. Now we must answer what it means to be poor. To be poor is to lack the ability to have a standard of living that is considered comfortable to modern society. Now we must explore what this means. We will start with modern society. By modern society I assume it means the most prevalent society at the time. In different situations different parts of societies can be compared, so in that regard it can be relative. Next we will look at what standard living that is considered conformable to modern society is. This is more subjective, but people need food, water, shelter, clothing, and education to survive in modern society. Unlike past societies, these can be easily provided for all members of today's society, which makes it a good baseline.

Poverty is when members of a society lack the conditions stated above. Using food as an example. On average half of all food is thrown away before it even makes it to your plate. With one in nine people suffering from chronic undernourishment (essentially starvation), its easy to see the problem. We produce far more than enough food to feed everyone, the question is why. The simple answer is that those in poverty do not have enough money to afford it, so feeding them is not profitable. But that is not deep enough. [1][2]

The next questions are: why do they not have the money to pay and why does it matter that they can’t pay? Africa is a prime example of the first question. Every year around 40 billion more dollars leaves Africa than enters it. To put this in perspective, “solving” world hunger would cost an estimated 30 billion a year (which includes profit to the farm owners, so it is really far less). This is due to one major factor: Profit. This takes two forms, loans and regular business profit. The amount owed is actually increasing faster than the GDP of the country, making paying them back impossible. This profit from external countries with the extremely cheap labor of the third-world countries is often called super-profits. They help combat the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. This is needed to sustain capitalism. Aid to 3rd world countries is a lie, we are not helping them we are stealing from them. That’s not even the whole story. [3][4]





Production and Control of Resources


The control of resources is the most important element in defining the function and form of an economy. The answer to the question: “Why does it matter that they can’t pay” lies here.

According to Karl Marx the driving force in society is the development of productive forces. In other words to increase our knowledge and reduce socially necessary labor to produce. When this is stalled, employment, life, economic growth, and rising living standards can not be guaranteed.

In the beginning of capitalism was a force for progress. Any company that was too slow on the uptake of new technology was pushed out the market. As these markets expanded and capital became more concentrated, the economy ran into a problem. There were no new markets on every front to expand in, no new land and resources to divide up among the rich. That has lead into the stagnation we see today, it is a problem intrinsic to capitalism. It must always expand, and when it doesn’t it stagnates. By the 20th century major discoveries slowed to a crawl and the majority were not made of markets and capitalism, but of governments to use as weapons of war. This is only worse today. (Ignoring the so-called golden age of capitalism, which was a post war boom caused by the need to re-build infrastructure after the world wars.) During that time military spending outpaced R&D spending, making military industrial complex a bigger industry than progress. (The USSR on the other hand took 44 years to go from an agricultural 3rd world country to putting the first man in space, hundreds of years of capitalist progress in 44.)[5]

There is something that doesn’t intuitively make sense here, how can there be no new markets and 3rd world countries that are in need of development? This gets into the aspect of control. You can’t profit off of something you can’t control. The capitalists use loans and debt to keep the 3rd world country from building up their means of production. This keeps them dependent on exploiting their own workers for the west, just so they can survive. If the means of production were built up too much there is often a revolution to shake the fetters of capitalism. In this instance military force is needed to smash the country and break the means of production, just to prevent it from happening in other countries.





Poverty exists for a reason. This reason is not well hidden but people don’t seem to enjoy searching for it or learning of it. My goal is to at least share this knowledge widely enough that some begin to think.



Want to learn more science and economics? Subscribe and Upvote!

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Sort:  

I'm really glad I found your blog. Excellent post and a lot of terrible questions from people who call mainstream media and its propaganda "culture" and obviously don't read shit.

communication sciences and propaganda? That's actually really interesting

Poverty is the result of socialism, communism and crony capitalism. Most statist sheep can't distinguish between Free Market Capitalism and Crony Capitalism so they fall for the socialist and communist propaganda and think more government will give them handouts. In real life the only thing governments give for free is the bullet in the firing squads for idealistic dumb people.

#1 im an anarchist #2 capitalism is the system that cannot exist without a government #3 capitalism and democracy are incompatible #4 imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism and what it will always turn into, the free market is propaganda.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

If you have 1 dollar in your pocket, is the State commanding you to spend it in that shop? No. State first steal you. Then they steal again the enterprises for that same 1 dollar you just spend in that shop.

Problem is not capitalism. Problem is State.

Communism (socialists states, in general -but not "socialism" itself-) doesn0t allow anybody to create any opportunity. First the State must allow them to create it and of course they will not allow it on time and some other country without that kind of society will create that opportunity.

Not allowing anybody to create their own opportunities is an aggression.

Any entrepreneur will always prefer a free-market -a real one, not the one so common nowadays- than some other society where the State dictates what companies should exist or at what price should they sell their products.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/

entrepreneurs can die for all I care. The workers are the majority of society and the very act of wage labor is theft. You must work or starve to death, and when you work the majority of what you produce is stolen by the rich in return for an extremely small wage.

All profit comes from the workers.

If the worker begins to save money, one day it would be possible to to him/her to become a capitalist.

Not all capitalists were born rich, They started being workers. But they decided to save some money instead of spend all of it. The problem is not how you earn your money or how much do you earn. The real problem is what do you do with it.

It is much more easy to go always against the system instead of just getting profit of it. I am a libertarian so I am not telling that "the system" is the best of the world, I would like it to go down. But as a Libertarian I am against anti-capitalist reasoning.

"If the worker begins to save money, one day it would be possible to to him/her to become a capitalist."

if I was lucky enough I could win the lottery. Not everyone can become a capitalist, very few in fact. The rest are slaves.

And then you will give every single person in the street a 50$ note. All of them will thank you for that. An dyou will become a hero while you keep doing it. Until you realize there is no more money in yoiur pocket and you are poor.

socialism is worker control of the means of production, nice try in a political debate though. Next time try to read up on basic political systems so its a little longer

"I am a libertarian "

capitalism is inherently authoritarian

" But as a Libertarian I am against anti-capitalist reasoning."

that's because you don't understand it
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/

this is a nice start

"Not all capitalists were born rich, They started being workers. But they decided to save some money instead of spend all of it. The problem is not how you earn your money or how much do you earn. The real problem is what do you do with it.

"

Ah yes, I will go tell all the african iron miners they are poor by choice. Fucking retard

"It is much more easy to go always against the system instead of just getting profit of it."

I could sit here and upvote myself all day lmao

communism is worker ownership of the means of production please research stuff before you try to comment on it.

You call me idealistic but i agree with the materialisic analysis lmao retard

Do you kow how many idealistic statist sheep like you were shot in the firing squads in my native cuba once the castros took over? What makes you think you will be treated any different? I believe you are a confused anarchist, rather than looking to the state to solve your prblems you should look into yourself(the individual) and that makes you a libertarian or anarcocapitalist, not a statist communist. I totally understand you, I used to be just like you

anarchy is the destruction of all unjustified hierarchy and capitalism is a system of control over the workers through privatively owned means of production. Capitalism is not anarchist and to quote the first self-proclaimed anarchist, "Property is theft"

communism is common ownership and control of the means of production. The violence you are talking about it called revolution, its the only way to shake the control of the capitalists over the workers lmao. I will be a member of the firing squad, not the other way around.

Whatever you say William Alexander Morgan... Sure, you'll be shooting... sure sure. Just out of curiosity, how old are you? He made it till 32 Mark my words, you'll be a libertarian by age 40, if you are not shot first in a communist concentration camp by your most opportunistic comrades who are not idealistic, just practical

This is a interesting Post, really enjoyed reading on your intake as somewhat agree to most things mention here. Interesting how you take a Taboo Subject and still write about it, Steemit can be full of people who take everything so personal. Ignore some of the Comments, but yeah you addressing some real life problems here. Followed!

its only taboo to people who don't want to think about the implications of their lifestyle and choices. Sadly, people like that are far too common

Abject poverty is itself a function of the control mechanism. The modern manifestation of capitalism (there have been several different versions throughout history) almost exclusively rewards the very behavior causing the poverty. Supply and demand, and "let the free market decide", really means profit from the people, regardless of the damage to the people. There are exceptions, but very few that have been allowed to continue beyond local implementation. Something will always (corporation or government) seek to control and profit from any working system
Cool post - keep up the good work...

The exceptions are market socialism and mutualism, but those don't tend to work out well.

On a micro level they work (I hesitate to use this word) almost "perfectly". As soon as any attempt to expand becomes even remotely successful, the same powers working against capitalism tend to destroy them as well - greed, profit, lust, envy, etc. Steem on good sir... :)

Congratulations @anarchyhasnogods! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

Award for the number of comments received

Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here

If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

By upvoting this notification, you can help all Steemit users. Learn how here!

African peoples oppressed and very poor we must help them , thank's to share this post with us , I have followed you and upvoted your post !

I'm sorry, but I have to wholeheartedly disagree with pretty much everything you've written.
First of all, when you say that " [food, water, shelter, clothing and education] can easily be provided for all members of society", I honestly can't see how. To say that is to ignore what you call "the power structure of the society", which, as much we (mostly) ARE in a capitalist society, the power structure comes mainly from national states. Yes, they are intrinsically with private business, but those who are part of your "power structure" are there because they are friends with the rulers, and can enjoy their benefits.
All right, so how can this "power structure" be in the way of welfare distribution? First of all: National states limit free trade, which would alllow a better allocation of resources and [feed, shelter, clothe, educate] more people. Secondly: National States, specially in the third world countries that you say are "slaves because of their loans" (more on that later), cause inequality, first by being ditatorial (like many african states), and then some more with extremely high taxes that don't have any social investment as a result.Theses taxes take purchasing power away from the people, and only serve to finance the "friends of the king".
Even if those things weren't true, what are the logistics of providing welfare for all those people? Who would grow their food, without incentives? Who would teach them, without incentives? Who would clothe them, without incentives? Who would transport all those things around, without incentives? People would only do that if they had incentives, and thoses incentives mean one thing: Money. And freer markets would allow those incentives to be better allocated, giving people producing a reason to produce even more, and people consuming a reason to consume even more.

All that said, you lack the understanding of what "international loans" mean. You can't see national debt as a standalone measurement: They are a method of financing a country, and they MUST be analized by seeing what are the other alternatives. Governments can chose to finance themselves by basically three methods: Debt, Taxes and Money Emission. I won't get in so much details, and none of them are ideal, but I would say emitting debt is the "better" of them. You see, getting into debt do mean you have to pay interest to the loaners, but that's about it: apart from deteriorating your position to investors, your debt level "throw" your obligations to the future. And to quickly explain the other two: Taxes take money away from the population with little chance to see them pay-off socially, and money emission just generates inflation, it doesn't make anyone richer.
So, you are fundamentally wrong when you say that the 40 billion dollars leaving Africa could be used to solve world hunger: It wouldn't even exist hadn't the initial sum been loaned, money doesn't exist in a vacuum: They are going to people and companies who ARE creating value wherever they are located, and helping the world to be a better place by generating this value.

Also, "profits" do not exist in a vacuum. Profits exist to be an incentive to employers to employ people, they are not "opression". And I honestly don't know where you got this idea that 3rd world countries are not new markets to be explored, and "capitalists" don't want to give them power. News for you: Capitalism and technology haven't stagnated. This very platform is a proof of that: blockchain technology would not exist if what you are saying is real. Technologies and markets are evolving faster and faster. New markets are beeing explored, and the only reason it isn't happening faster is because investors are, generally speaking, risk-averse. And the governments in these 3rd world countries are what create most of that risk. Also, internal development is not that easy to do, it is IMPOSSIBLE and utterly ridiculous to blame it all on external debts. In a lot of the so called "3rd world", external debt is not even close to the amount of internal debt the countries have, and internal debts can: a) only be blamed on the government and b) depending on its level in relation to GDP, not even a big problem to begin with.

Also, how are you praising the USSR? Yes, it had and unprecedent industrial progress for its time, but it did it on the back of what you considered so important in the beggining of your text: Quality of life. Yes, you can increase your iron production tenfold when your population doens't even have shoes...

To finish this, I won't even start on how capitalism is, for the time being, the best system we can have, and for one simple reason: it's impossible to plan everything in an economy. Even small things are difficult enough, with lots of unintended consequences, and whole economies are a whole other beast. Take it to a "whole world" level, and oh boy do we have a lot of problems. No "central comitee" can plan what the daily interactions of billions of people determine. That's why free markets matter, that's why supply and demand matter, and that's why prices having the abilty to fluctuate matter.

Your text was pretty and well written, but, in my point of view, it's lacks a better understanding of a lot of concepts, and, by the end, just sounds like some crazy "conspiracy theory" stuff. No, poverty doesn't exist because of capitalism. It exists even though we live in a capitalist society, and its levels are lower because of that. Had we lived under any other system, it would be way higher.

"No, poverty doesn't exist because of capitalism. It exists even though we live in a capitalist society, and its levels are lower because of that. Had we lived under any other system, it would be way higher."

or we could look at historical facts

'Also, how are you praising the USSR? Yes, it had and unprecedent industrial progress for its time, but it did it on the back of what you considered so important in the beggining of your text: Quality of life. Yes, you can increase your iron production tenfold when your population doens't even have shoes...'

"reason it isn't happening faster is because investors are, generally speaking, risk-averse. And the governments in these 3rd world countries are what create most of that risk"

yes, that's why we haven't invaded any of them to open up oil markets because we are running out of places to invest in.

Oh wait....

First of all: Investors aren't necessarily countries, and not necessarily the US. And secondly, this goes into one of the main things I said: Governments are a huge problem. Or do you think the military is privately owned?

capitalism can not exist without the government. Under capitalism the government is essentially a business, so yes. It is privately owned.

statistics prove that under a planned economy far less people die, its that simple.

"Your text was pretty and well written, but, in my point of view, it's lacks a better understanding of a lot of concepts, and, by the end, just sounds like some crazy "conspiracy theory" stuff. "

https://espressostalinist.com/u-s-imperialism-page/

this is all I need to prove that point

'First of all, when you say that " [food, water, shelter, clothing and education] can easily be provided for all members of society", I honestly can't see how. "

we produce 30% more food than the world needs to survive and yet people are starving. Water is easy, we just need to clean it. Education is easy, we just need more teachers.

Where is this food located? Who is going to distribute it? How are they going to distribute it?
How are you going to clean the water? How are you going to distribute it?
Who is going to teach the teachers? Where? For how much time? Are you going to force people to be teachers by gunpoint?

None of those problems is easy. All of them take a lot of coordination and effort by a lot of people.

"Where is this food located? Who is going to distribute it? How are they going to distribute it?"

why do the specifics matter? #1 we throw away most of it, #2 whoever we want #3 probably vehicles designed to ship food

we have the resources, that's all that matters

Oh my fucking god hahahaha ok. Yes, the specifics DO matter, that's why we have a science called economics, also logistics. But given your answers, I won't bother your any further; there's no point.

I am not part of the design team. We have the resources, that has been proven and that's all I need to prove.

I do not need to figure out the specifics myself.

"How are you going to clean the water? How are you going to distribute it?
Who is going to teach the teachers? Where? For how much time? Are you going to force people to be teachers by gunpoint?"
#1 produce tools to clean the water, #2 use our fucking resources to make some

The ussr had more doctors per capita than the usa. It turns out if you give people the opportunity instead of just watching them starve to death or forcing them to work with inefficient machines we can get more done and people can do other stuff

and no, I will not do it at gun point. That's what you capitalists do. You hold every starving worker at gun point, just to keep him away from the food made for the higher classes in first world countries.

".Theses taxes take purchasing power away from the people, and only serve to finance the "friends of the king"."

the capitalist takes far more purchasing power from the worker than taxes

Can you please explain how are they taking purchasing power away from the workers?
I can explain what I said. "Capitalists" pay wages, people use those wages do consume. Taxes take way part of their wages, so they can consume less, and this lessens their quality of life.

A worker goes to work to produce resources for humanity. A capitalist controls the property, and thus demands everything the worker produces. He then gives the worker a portion of what he produces back in something you call a wage. To sum it up, the worker pays the capitalist to labor much like he pays the government to labor through taxes.

You have a deeply flawed view of how value is created. Despite what Marx wrote, value is not added through labor; it is subjective, and value is given through utility. Perhaps you should start trying to understand this. Try to look up "utility value".

value is the socially necessary labor needed to produce something. The utility value does not matter, for a very simple reason. We can fucking make more of something if we need more.

The value of an object is what it takes to create if we can create objects based on need instead of profit for the rich lmao

"Who would grow their food, without incentives?"

nobody, economy can not function without incentives, do you think I'm stupid?

I don't, but I do think you are wrong. Without a capitalist society, what would those incentives be if not a gun pointed to our heads by the rulers?

are you stupid? The incentive would be what the workers themselves produce, instead of the small scraps they are given today.

In capitalism the gun to the head is starvation, although in third world countries it often literally is a gun to the head.

"Also, "profits" do not exist in a vacuum. Profits exist to be an incentive to employers to employ people, "

other way around m8, the owners need the workers for a profit while the workers don't need the owner to work. (Under capitalism, all they need is the permission, they still have the ability either way)

I never said that owners don't need workers. I just said that the profits are the incentive they have to employ them. I think you misunderstood me. And yes, technically workers don't need owners to work. But then, how would they get paid?

'But then, how would they get paid?"

the money the capitalist pays the workers doesn't come out of nowhere, the workers themselves produce their own wage and a massive profit on top of that. Without an owner the workers would get what they produce, which is far more than their wage.

The owner is only paid because he has control. They are thieves and leeches

"To finish this, I won't even start on how capitalism is, for the time being, the best system we can have, and for one simple reason: it's impossible to plan everything in an economy. "

ah yes, because McDonalds can't predict how much meat to send to one of their stores. Our entire economy is planned already, the only difference is who gets the profit

Oh my god, are you really comparing the microeconomic level of a company with that of a COUNTRY, or the WORLD? Yes, McDonalds can do that because they have less stuff to worry about and in a way smaller scale than any country in the world. This kind of planning start to present a lot of problems on bigger scales.

"Oh my god, are you really comparing the microeconomic level of a company with that of a COUNTRY, or the WORLD? Yes, McDonalds can do that because they have less stuff to worry about and in a way smaller scale than any country in the world. This kind of planning start to present a lot of problems on bigger scales."

they have businesses over the entire world lmao are you stupid. Stuff can be planned at a local level.

"because they have less stuff to worry about "

and we have buisinesses making cloths, that's more for the captialist class to worry about, the world today can't exist according to you

Stuff is planned at a local level. That's called "market forces". Without them, you'll probably end up being ruled by some central comitee, like your beloved USSR.
And no, I don't think I'm stupid. However, I'm starting to think you are, given the levels of your answers and how you fail to go deeper than the surface level on any comment I make.

"you'll probably end up being ruled by some central comitee, like your beloved USSR"

"And no, I don't think I'm stupid. However, I'm starting to think you are, given the levels of your answers and how you fail to go deeper than the surface level on any comment I make."

you are the one who thinks wages to pay the workers magically come out of nowhere

"Stuff is planned at a local level. That's called "market forces""

delusional lmao.

"We need more x to do y" is planning

"I will pay x for y, if you happen to have it" is not planning, that's market forces.

I agree with most of what you replied. I wrote a response to the OP here: https://steemit.com/anarchy/@richhersey/my-live-thoughts-and-response-to-a-communist-post

Production and Control of Resources

Under my understanding, the problem is based in that power -and resources- is held by people that -of course- don't want to lose the differential power-situation in which they are. It is a very complicated situation that comes from before capitalism itself, but of course, capitalism is the current domination system, at least in western and colonized societies

class antagonisms

That´s the marxist simplification, yeah :P

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.16
TRX 0.15
JST 0.028
BTC 56835.87
ETH 2399.86
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.39