The Student Room Group

How can we abolish poverty?

Is there a way in which poverty and world hunger can be abolished?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Avatar for NHM713
NHM713
4
Yes.
Reply 2
Avatar for Niassuh
Niassuh
10
We'll have to start by abolishing capitalism. About world hunger, we actually produce enough food to feed the population and then some, the problem is distribution i.e that people can't afford it. If there are actual shortages in food production, sustainable farming methods like urban polyculture and high yield Aquaponics would be suitable for that method.

Capitalism was very progressive in abolishing feudalism, no doubt about it. It's outlived it's usefulness now.
define "poverty" so I can respond without telling you "you can't"
Original post by Niassuh
We'll have to start by abolishing capitalism. About world hunger, we actually produce enough food to feed the population and then some, the problem is distribution i.e that people can't afford it. If there are actual shortages in food production, sustainable farming methods like urban polyculture and high yield Aquaponics would be suitable for that method.

Capitalism was very progressive in abolishing feudalism, no doubt about it. It's outlived it's usefulness now.


What alternative do you propose? Communism? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihhCoJ72fQE "But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow...."
Keep system, reform banking sector, introduce Robin Hood Tax and reform tariff system.. plenty to go around
Reply 6
Avatar for Niassuh
Niassuh
10
Original post by mazzletazzle
What alternative do you propose? Communism? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihhCoJ72fQE "But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow...."


Mate, I live in Pakistan and can't be bothered to fire up the VPN. tell me what's in that YouTube vid (youtube's banned here).

Yes, I do propose Communism (classless, moneyless, stateless, post-scarcity society) and before that Socialism (the construction period of Communism, still has a state, still has money etc but is working towards abolishing them).
Original post by Niassuh
We'll have to start by abolishing capitalism. About world hunger, we actually produce enough food to feed the population and then some, the problem is distribution i.e that people can't afford it. If there are actual shortages in food production, sustainable farming methods like urban polyculture and high yield Aquaponics would be suitable for that method.

Capitalism was very progressive in abolishing feudalism, no doubt about it. It's outlived it's usefulness now.


if only socialism could work, but it doesn't. it causes production to lower based on irrelevance of rational incentives, it causes skilled workers to emigrate (taking their jobs and potential economic capital/value with them) based on higher inentives overseas, it causes businesses to pay workers more than the workers are actually worth (causing unemployment and bankruptcy), it causes bad management of the economy (based on monopolism of government operations and no competition, as politicians and bureaucrats aren't really accountable if they fail), it causes nothing but rationalities and contradictions between intentions and consequences. the only rational provision of goods and the only rational ownership of the means of production is capitalism. socialism is like swimming up a waterfall, if the waterfall is human-realism. whatever limitations capitalism has (based on human/societal imperfection) is far worse with a non-economically accountable government/socialist system.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Niassuh
Mate, I live in Pakistan and can't be bothered to fire up the VPN. tell me what's in that YouTube vid (youtube's banned here).

Yes, I do propose Communism (classless, moneyless, stateless, post-scarcity society) and before that Socialism (the construction period of Communism, still has a state, still has money etc but is working towards abolishing them).



Well my country had socialism for 40 years and it was the exact opposite of classlessness. Everyone was equal - equally poor. :smile: Except for the people "up high", in the Communist Party etc., they had everything.
Original post by Viridiana
Well my country had socialism for 40 years and it was the exact opposite of classlessness. Everyone was equal - equally poor. :smile: Except for the people "up high", in the Communist Party etc., they had everything.



Too true... without incentive to work hard, some didn't and everybody suffered (apart from the 'first among equals' at the top....) A nice idea but human greed gets in the way every time
Original post by zippity.doodah
if only socialism could work, but it doesn't. it causes production to lower based on irrelevance of rational incentives, it causes skilled workers to emigrate (taking their jobs and potential economic capital/value with them) based on higher inentives overseas, it causes businesses to pay workers more than the workers are actually worth (causing unemployment and bankruptcy), it causes bad management of the economy (based on monopolism of government operations and no competition, as politicians and bureaucrats aren't really accountable if they fail), it causes nothing but rationalities and contradictions between intentions and consequences. the only rational provision of goods and the only rational ownership of the means of production is capitalism. socialism is like swimming up a waterfall, if the waterfall is human-realism. whatever limitations capitalism has (based on human/societal imperfection) is far worse with a non-economically accountable government/socialist system.


Well said. Why is it doomed to failure? Indeed, the overly simplistic answer 'greed' rears its head occasionally, but does, in fact contain some truth. With neither a credible threat nor promise of reward to motivate staff, productivity in Communist countries stagnated. Coupled with the lack of incentives to innovate, Communism's greatest weakness was its failure to adapt... it is NOT the solution to our sh$%%y system.
firstly, how do you define poverty? Secondly poverty will always exist. if everyone we to become 'rich', those 'rich' people with less money that everyone else would be considered poor.

Poverty in Haiti and poverty in the UK, for example are too complete different things. To a Haitian person, a poor Brit is probably like a millionaire.
Original post by zippity.doodah
if only socialism could work, but it doesn't. it causes production to lower based on irrelevance of rational incentives, it causes skilled workers to emigrate (taking their jobs and potential economic capital/value with them) based on higher inentives overseas, it causes businesses to pay workers more than the workers are actually worth (causing unemployment and bankruptcy), it causes bad management of the economy (based on monopolism of government operations and no competition, as politicians and bureaucrats aren't really accountable if they fail), it causes nothing but rationalities and contradictions between intentions and consequences. the only rational provision of goods and the only rational ownership of the means of production is capitalism. socialism is like swimming up a waterfall, if the waterfall is human-realism. whatever limitations capitalism has (based on human/societal imperfection) is far worse with a non-economically accountable government/socialist system.


Ok. Lot's to unpack here. First off, the rational incentives you speak of came with the creation of capitalism. Was every man in it for himself in tribal societies? Hell even in feudalism? Human nature is not an innate thing but rather something shaped by our society and environment, in the capitalist mode of production we are taught to worship competition from the earliest stage, even in school where we fight over grades, for uni seats and eventually for jobs. If this competitive culture was destroyed, do you think the next generation would enjoy fighting over resources?

Your thinking is quite limited in saying workers will immigrate. Do you think I want socialism in one country? I am talking about world hunger and hence international socialism buddy.

Workers paid more than they're actually worth...what...technological advancements mean that workers nowadays are producing far above their wages. That's why businesses are able to profit. Regardless of whether you agree that the USSR was socialist or not, the USSR boasted 0% unemployment. Not saying that's entirely true but wouldn't a mode of production that enshrines the "right to work" be less likely to have unemployment than capitalism which has at no point in history ever had 0 unemployment?

As for bad management of the economy...this is laughable mate. Capitalism can produce 200 different brands of toothpaste but people ares still starving in Africa. There are certainly inefficiencies with central planning, as seen in the Soviet example, but planning in the 21st century will be remarkably different. You know why? We have the internet.

As for bureaucrats having no consequences for failure, that's referring to the Soviet example in particular, I think. Socialism would strictly mean workers management through trade unions, we already have an example of what happens when the party and state are merged and when the party is allowed to rule without the workers themselves. 21st century Marxists won't make the same mistake.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by TheTechN1304
firstly, how do you define poverty? Secondly poverty will always exist. if everyone we to become 'rich', those 'rich' people with less money that everyone else would be considered poor.

Poverty in Haiti and poverty in the UK, for example are too complete different things. To a Haitian person, a poor Brit is probably like a millionaire.



look up 'relative' and 'absolute' poverty... there are clear definitions that differentiate between say Haitian and British poverty
Original post by Niassuh
21st century Marxists won't make the same mistake.


sorry... where are these 21st Century Marxists? are they all at uni with pictures of Che Guevara on their wall and a passing knowledge of economics (but none of history)???
Original post by Viridiana
Well my country had socialism for 40 years and it was the exact opposite of classlessness. Everyone was equal - equally poor. :smile: Except for the people "up high", in the Communist Party etc., they had everything.


Which country was it? Poland?

As I said, socialism is the building period. It's communism that would be classless. I am no fan of the Soviets, I believe they ruled over people in the name of socialism with no accountability and no respect for national minorities such as Ukrainians and Kazakhs. The reason was because they merged the party and state and removed the authority of the Soviets/trade unions. But all socialism need not be the same, it is possible to learn from previous examples. I am sorry your people suffered that way.

Conversely, my country has been capitalist for over 40 years as well and all I've seen is misery.

Original post by mazzletazzle
sorry... where are these 21st Century Marxists? are they all at uni with pictures of Che Guevara on their wall and a passing knowledge of economics (but none of history)???


Haha, this reminds me of an amazon review I saw for Capital vol 1. It gave 1 star and said "I didn't know there were still Marxist around." Lol

Yes, there are still Communists. Look up the Naxalites or Naxalbari in India, the Kurdish Workers Party in Rojava and the Zapatistas in Chiapas. The Nepalese Communist Party is in government, I think.

Anyway, I'd love to chat more but must go to bed. Hopefully this thread won't be buried by tomorrow. Good night all!
Original post by mazzletazzle
look up 'relative' and 'absolute' poverty... there are clear definitions that differentiate between say Haitian and British poverty


poverty will always exist. if some people are rich, others will have to be poor.
Original post by TheTechN1304
poverty will always exist. if some people are rich, others will have to be poor.



not necessarily... people will be relatively poor but can live well (see the Nordic countries for this) ... narrowing the gap is a noble pursuit though
I can't answer without knowing which definition of poverty you want to use and whether your talking the UK or global.
Place a huge tax on the rich problem solved

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you