4 ms·

This is a very romantic account of poverty. Poverty, in general, in the abstract form, is not due the lack of philosophical questions on purpose, meaning or goa

This is a very romantic account of poverty. Poverty, in general, in the abstract form, is not due the lack of philosophical questions on purpose, meaning or goals, or even bad spending. Poverty in the here and now is a part of our social system. It will not be eradicated while capital rules societies because it depends on it. Loved ones killing themselves with crack cocaine can not be remembered fondly. Shitty emotional lives for children because of stressed out, alienated parents isn't either. Living in decay and not having basic necessities like a functioning sink met are not hot. The effects of poverty on self esteem are downright harrowing and saddening to even see.

misslibby 5y ago
Capitalism has lifted billions of people out of poverty.
- Atlas667 5y ago
  Yes, objectively the managing of production for profit has benefited the world in some very real ways, but there are irremediable contradictions in this system that harm the world in other ways. Production should not be for profit anymore and for that to happen production must be in control of the producers not the profiteers. Its about going forward, not back.
  - misslibby 5y ago
    Why should production not be for profit? Anybody who produces something useful should be rewarded for it.
- danny_codes 5y ago
  Of course. Capitalism is a useful tool, because markets are the best known tool for facilitating economic growth. However, capitalism is in itself an inherently broken system: because of the nature of capital, a perfectly capitalist society will approach a state where one actor owns everything, and everyone else owns nothing. As such, all countries practice a form of mediated capitalism: market functioning is limited by governmental action. Certain markets are not allowed to exist, while others are managed via regulation. There is no inherent reason why capitalism cannot be adapted to preserve the utility of markets while simultaneously eliminating poverty.
  - systemsignal 5y ago
    Idk how you can derive that as the optimal state of capitalism The optimal state of capitalism is where resources are being allocated so perfectly, any changes would be a net negative to society
JackFr 5y ago
Poverty on one’s own is difficult and disheartening but poverty with dependents is an order of magnitude harder.
sershe 5y ago
>It will not be eradicated while capital rules societies because it depends on it. Historically, the rule of capital has been the greatest reducer of poverty across centuries and countries. The rule of anything other than capital has been the most assured way to increase poverty.
analog31 5y ago
Going along with this, I think there's a very big difference between being poor, and being educated and poor, or being in a supportive tribe and poor. My parents grew up poor, during the Depression, but were either educated, or had at their disposal the resources of Catholic education, which was affordable and of high quality. My mom talks about how her family did OK, at least socially, and always had the nearby public library as a refuge. When the Depression and WWII ended, they were pretty much back on their feet. My mom's neighbors in the tenements couldn't even read, and had dramatically different prospects.

misslibby 5y ago

Capitalism has lifted billions of people out of poverty.

Atlas667 5y ago
Yes, objectively the managing of production for profit has benefited the world in some very real ways, but there are irremediable contradictions in this system that harm the world in other ways. Production should not be for profit anymore and for that to happen production must be in control of the producers not the profiteers. Its about going forward, not back.
- misslibby 5y ago
  Why should production not be for profit? Anybody who produces something useful should be rewarded for it.
danny_codes 5y ago
Of course. Capitalism is a useful tool, because markets are the best known tool for facilitating economic growth. However, capitalism is in itself an inherently broken system: because of the nature of capital, a perfectly capitalist society will approach a state where one actor owns everything, and everyone else owns nothing. As such, all countries practice a form of mediated capitalism: market functioning is limited by governmental action. Certain markets are not allowed to exist, while others are managed via regulation. There is no inherent reason why capitalism cannot be adapted to preserve the utility of markets while simultaneously eliminating poverty.
- systemsignal 5y ago
  Idk how you can derive that as the optimal state of capitalism The optimal state of capitalism is where resources are being allocated so perfectly, any changes would be a net negative to society

JackFr 5y ago

Poverty on one’s own is difficult and disheartening but poverty with dependents is an order of magnitude harder.

sershe 5y ago

>It will not be eradicated while capital rules societies because it depends on it. Historically, the rule of capital has been the greatest reducer of poverty across centuries and countries. The rule of anything other than capital has been the most assured way to increase poverty.

analog31 5y ago

Going along with this, I think there's a very big difference between being poor, and being educated and poor, or being in a supportive tribe and poor. My parents grew up poor, during the Depression, but were either educated, or had at their disposal the resources of Catholic education, which was affordable and of high quality. My mom talks about how her family did OK, at least socially, and always had the nearby public library as a refuge. When the Depression and WWII ended, they were pretty much back on their feet. My mom's neighbors in the tenements couldn't even read, and had dramatically different prospects.