Forums → WEPR → Poor people and Rich people.
| 143 | 23492 |
I have seen in tv many shows ( news ) about poor people and rich people.
And i think to myself:"How come rich people get more rich and poor people get more poor?".
It is a situation a little bit strange.
I think that it should not be rich and poor people.
Everyone should be fine (relative to money).
People say that money does not bring health and other things.
It is true but it helps.
Tell me what you think about this.
- 143 Replies
while there being enough resources to feed and I believe shelter everyone.
20% of the world has 80% of its resources, and still there is poverty in these developed nations. How you think, with a drastically increasing world population, that equal distribution of resources would lead to everyone being fed and sheltered is beyond me. Any statistics to back up this point of view either?
A hierarchical society cannot be natural as it is not something of material. Hierarchy is a concept. There are no natural laws that would have us killed if we tried to alter it. >_>
Hierachy is a natural form of human behaviour, communism would eliminate this therefore communism is socially unnatural in the developed world.
And on the contrary, primitive societies have had the basic principles of communism
The spcieties that have achived this have been in harsh environments where the sharing of everything is nescessary for survival, not out of choice, indeed in the vast majority of primitive societies hierachy and unequality of wealth is abundant. My grandfather was from the Igbo tribe in Nigeria and absolutely EVERYTHING is based on status and power be it the amount of yams you own,the soze of your barn the number of wives you had etc. It is the same all over West Africa, showing that primitive communist societies are in the minority.
There are also a number of anarchist societies that functioned well.
Anarcho syndicalists are not a microcosm of societies around the world. Their harmony is accounted to the fact they share the same political ideologies as one another, not because it is a good system. I doubt it would owrk well with peope who did not beleive or want that way of life.
20% of the world has 80% of its resources, and still there is poverty in these developed nations.
Isn't this the reason for poverty !?!?
Hierachy is a natural form of human behaviour, communism would eliminate this therefore communism is socially unnatural in the developed world.
How can it be a nature of humans? Hierarchy is much more then ones mind. One cannot think "HIERARCHY!" and thus hierarchy is formed...
It is a concept that has formed and developed class system. If people were to live in a classless society, what would happen?...
"OH NO ITS A CLASSLESS SOCIETY!! MY NATURE CANNOT COEXIST! *kills self*"
It is the same all over West Africa, showing that primitive communist societies are in the minority.
Primitive as in wayyyyyy back then...
Domestication of animals and plants following the Neolithic Revolution through herding and agriculture was seen as the turning point from primitive communism to class society as it was followed by private ownership and slavery, with the inequality that it entailed. In addition, parts of the population specialized in different activities, such as manufacturing, culture, philosophy, and science. This stratification is said to lead to the development of social classes.
I doubt it would owrk well with peope who did not beleive or want that way of life.
What way of life? Its not a cult here. Life under no government is not another life style. The anarchist success just has shown to be economically and socially stable. People don't care less as long as they have their good life.
Primitive as in wayyyyyy back then...
What are you even trying to say here?
Isn't this the reason for poverty !?!?
You seem to have missed my point completely, even with this high disproportionality there isnt enough wealth in these developed countries let alone spread over the entire worlds population which is increasing dramatically. Under the communist system as population rises, which it is rapidly, you get less and less.
How can it be a nature of humans? Hierarchy is much more then ones mind. One cannot think "HIERARCHY!" and thus hierarchy is formed...
It is a concept that has formed and developed class system. If people were to live in a classless society, what would happen?...
"OH NO ITS A CLASSLESS SOCIETY!! MY NATURE CANNOT COEXIST! *kills self*"
Hierachy is more than just a concept it is a way of life. The opposite of hierachy is anarchy. Something no one would want. The whole point of communism is that it is led by the working classes, many of whom depend upon govt benefits. Descending into anarchy would take this away meaning they would have to do more work and receive less pay. So how on earth do you expect communism to take place if people do not want it in the first place?
What way of life? Its not a cult here. Life under no government is not another life style. The anarchist success just has shown to be economically and socially stable. People don't care less as long as they have their good life.
Anarcho syndicalism was particularly big in the 60s. People going off and forming communities in the middle of the Amazon. Sounds pretty culty to me. In addition you keep saying how these communities were sociallly and economically stable. That doesnt prove a thing. One tiny village in the middle of the rainforest is not comparable to a densely populated urban area.
People don't care less as long as they have their good life.
Which is exactly why communism will never take place, and rightly so. It is an unnatural state of existense. There hasnt been successful communist state in the whole of human history let alone a single purely communist state, the closest there has been is marxist leninism. Under this system no one would have a good life everyone would have a below average one. Imagine living in a world where you had no oppurtunity to show your abilities and innovate.
money helps but if in that case... i think that the situation is bad if poor people gets even more poor
=(
woody_7007[/b/] by far has been making the strongest points here, and for the most part, I support him. But unlike him, I'm not slightly leftist, but rather, slightly rightist. I do think capitalism is good, and you can quote me on this, in a capitalist society poverty is a necessary means. Why? Because no matter what, a percentage of the population will always at the bottom, by definition. There's no way around that.
They question I ask you [b]woody_7007 is, sure progressive taxation is good (it's what we use in the US), but isn't how the government uses that money more important?
Hierachy is more than just a concept it is a way of life. The opposite of hierachy is anarchy. Something no one would want. The whole point of communism is that it is led by the working classes, many of whom depend upon govt benefits. Descending into anarchy would take this away meaning they would have to do more work and receive less pay. So how on earth do you expect communism to take place if people do not want it in the first place?
This has nothing to do with nature.
Your argument is just that it does not suit human preference. This is a bs of an argument unless you want to get into the rest...
I got to go for now.
Anarcho syndicalism was particularly big in the 60s. People going off and forming communities in the middle of the Amazon. Sounds pretty culty to me. In addition you keep saying how these communities were sociallly and economically stable. That doesnt prove a thing. One tiny village in the middle of the rainforest is not comparable to a densely populated urban area.
Im talking about real anarchist societies on a larger scale..
Which is exactly why communism will never take place, and rightly so. It is an unnatural state of existense. There hasnt been successful communist state in the whole of human history let alone a single purely communist state, the closest there has been is marxist leninism. Under this system no one would have a good life everyone would have a below average one. Imagine living in a world where you had no oppurtunity to show your abilities and innovate.
??
Your trying to argue that communism won't work economically. And connecting this to "People won't like that".
Its much more of a complicated thing I don't even want to get into.
I wanted to say something, but when I get into political stuff, I act way different than when I'm sane! =)
Under this system no one would have a good life everyone would have a below average one. Imagine living in a world where you had no oppurtunity to show your abilities and innovate.
Have you ever watched star trek? Gene Roddenberry created the true perfect communist state. People working according to their abilities no real currency because everyone gets everything they need. Perfect equality.
My question is why would peoples lives be necessarily bad or below average? I don't think communism is possible because humans are generally stupid. But in a perfect world, in a perfect state of equality, why would it automatically turn bad for everyone?
My question is why would peoples lives be necessarily bad or below average? I don't think communism is possible because humans are generally stupid. But in a perfect world, in a perfect state of equality, why would it automatically turn bad for everyone?
Because there simply arent enough resources to ensure that everyone has a decent standard of living. Its the basic economic problem, infinite wants and finite resources.
Its not even that. In a communist society, one guy or group of people get to be in charge, while the rest of the nation is stuck where they are, at mediocre wages, getting the same things. If you knew that no matter how much effort you put it, or how much time and studying you put in, you would make as much as the guy next, you wouldn't care to work hard. Not only will your country get stuck behind in innovation, this would cause it to get stuck behind in comparison to other countries, worsening your economy, and thus worsening the quality of life of all of your people. If people don't have the possibility to surpass others on the money scale then they won't have an incentive to work hard, and this will lead to the rest of the country failing.
Communism won't work. Capitalism on the other hand might be seen as unfair because some have a lot, some have a little. But at least everyone has the opportunity to do better. Its just up to you to do what you can with it. Yes these opportunities are not equal, but they are becoming more and more equal as we work on it. Nothing will ever be perfect.
And crazy made a good point. There is a natural bell curve in everything, including wealth distribution. There will always be a few far ahead, and there will always be a few far below. The best we can do is to try to distribute the wealth a little. Yes someone might be successful and deserve the wealth, but once they start making ridiculously large amounts, they have no need for that much money, and it should be distributed to those who had worse opportunities. It should obviously not go directly to them, but to the government so that it is controlled, as programs to help the disadvantaged, but this is also difficult, because some might abuse this system to live for free.
No matter what there will always be poor people. Some might be because they are lazy etc, other might be because they are genuinely disadvantaged.
Also the definition of poverty is the absence of wealth. Wealth is gained by getting ahead in a capitalist market. Wealth isn't completely important to life, YOu don't need to have $ to be happy and healthy though. IF you wish you can live on a ranch, a hut, etc. And make and grow your own food, and build your own necessities. But I don't think life would be as fun.
Its not even that. In a communist society, one guy or group of people get to be in charge, while the rest of the nation is stuck where they are, at mediocre wages, getting the same things.
The first paragraph shows complete misunderstanding of communism and I'm not going to bother to respond to it.
Just a quick skim reveals more of your ignorance.
Communism won't work. Capitalism on the other hand might be seen as unfair because some have a lot, some have a little
But at least everyone has the opportunity to do better. Its just up to you to do what you can with it
Some? Opportunity to do better?
2.6 billion people in the world live under $2 a day.
Its not just being lazy or disadvantaged.
Yes someone might be successful and deserve the wealth, but once they start making ridiculously large amounts, they have no need for that much money, and it should be distributed to those who had worse opportunities.
Whos gonna take away the rich's money when they are the ones in control? The government?
Wealth isn't completely important to life,
Oh no money doesn't buy education, shelter, food, clothes...
Obviously you have a complete misunderstanding of communist history. If you attempt an idealistic plan just as many have done in the past without looking at our past we will end up the same way. Would you rather have the whole population living in poverty with no positive outlook on life, or would you rather have a scattered wealth distribution where the population has hope, and there is a government willing to help you out in times of need so that you can get up there in the money scale.
2.6 billion people in the world live under $2 a day.
And how many of those people live in underdeveloped countries in Africa, or communist countries such as China, etc. Most of them.
If you have a successful capitalist state such as the United states, where the poor are encouraged and helped, this isn't as big of a problem. The best a government can do is to help as many as possible without completely ruining the system, and so far they have been doing a fairly good job of it.
Its not just being lazy or disadvantaged.
Actually that is the definition of being disadvantaged. The people in poor African countries are disadvantaged to gaining wealth because they live in a horrible market, and horrible living conditions. Therefore they are disadvantaged.
Whos gonna take away the rich's money when they are the ones in control? The government?
I agree, there are many wealthy in charge, but because it is a democracy, overtime things will change and people will vote for someone to redistribute the wealth, as they have with Obama.
And in all of the Communist regimes in the past, the rules have been wealthy, living amazingly, while the population is depressed, and going nowhere but down.
You need to read up on some history, instead of expressing idealistic views.
Obviously you have a complete misunderstanding of communist history. If you attempt an idealistic plan just as many have done in the past without looking at our past we will end up the same way.
You failed to even understand what communism is and your telling me I have a false view of its history? I have not even presented such information.
Would you rather have the whole population living in poverty with no positive outlook on life, or would you rather have a scattered wealth distribution where the population has hope, and there is a government willing to help you out in times of need so that you can get up there in the money scale.
Do you seriously think that the definition of communism is "evil"???
Yea as a communist I totally believe thats what Im trying to achieve.
All of a sudden life is about f'in everyone over so you can make money. Great.
nd how many of those people live in underdeveloped countries in Africa, or communist countries such as China, etc. Most of them.
Undeveloped countries are the result of capitalism and the profit driven imperialism. And its not just Africa and China. Pretty much all of exploited Latin America.
China has barely any socialist policies and is profit driven. And might I tell you many Chinese workers work for Western factories.
If you have a successful capitalist state such as the United states, where the poor are encouraged and helped, this isn't as big of a problem.
A successful capitalist state is an imperialist one. If you think the government is doing good and that the US is a freedom fighter, I'm not going to bother.
Actually that is the definition of being disadvantaged. The people in poor African countries are disadvantaged to gaining wealth because they live in a horrible market, and horrible living conditions. Therefore they are disadvantaged.
Thought you must meant that they were physically disadvantaged.
I agree, there are many wealthy in charge, but because it is a democracy, overtime things will change and people will vote for someone to redistribute the wealth, as they have with Obama.
LOL. Obama isn't going to do squat. This is a "democracy" run by rich bourgeoisie.
And in all of the Communist regimes in the past, the rules have been wealthy, living amazingly, while the population is depressed, and going nowhere but down.
Any ruler is going to live nicely, duh. And this isn't true. Soviet living standards was increasing all the way until its end. Now its declining in Russia.
You need to read up on some history, instead of expressing idealistic views.
Again, I have not made one statement regarding history, nor have I said anything idealistic. Im just refuting your false premises of Capitalism being so wonderful.
What kind of world would it be if everyone was middle class? We'd have to start dividing the middle class into middle middle low class or middle high low class. And what kind of world would that be? A stupid kind.
On a more serious note. To woody, the 20% is fueled by the other 80%. Right now we're making a fat guy smoking a Cuban and wearing a fedora richer. Energy, computer, advertisements, everything is about money. The rich get richer because we get poorer. You're either on the bottom side of the seesaw, the top or the one in the middle. The unstable part with no handles. Then you fall and bust your neck. But you don't have insurance so The Man screws you over. Like dominoes. You knock down, or you get knocked down, or you keep standing. Which is irrelevant. If you're still reading this you don't know me well enough. Pillsbury Pancakes Piked Percy Productively.
Thread is locked!