I hear the same arguments from people all the time that ending poverty is so complicated.
I like the answer Alan Maki has provided. Pay people real living wages and put everyone to work.
Lisa
Poverty
Several weeks ago I received a call from a lady in Redby on the Red Lake Indian Reservation.
She told me she had asked MNDFL State Representative Brita Sailer when the state legislature was going to do something about poverty on Indian Reservations. This lady and some of her friends were quite upset with Representative Sailer's answer.
It seems that Representative Sailer's response was that "poverty is a very complex and complicated issue that would take too much time to talk about."
I can understand people would be upset by this kind of racist and arrogant response.
As we talked, this lady asked me if I would be willing to come down to Redby and talk to her and a few friends about "poverty." I agreed.
When I arrived at her home it was quite apparent that she and her children were living in poverty as were most of her neighbors... at least they didn't have homes like the two-million dollar spread of John McCarthy who heads up the work of the Minnesota Indian Gaming Association and people in Redby weren't living the life of Riley like Rick Rothausen, Red Lake Gaming Enterprises' retired Chief Financial Officer.
This is what I said about "poverty" which contrary to Representative Brita Sailer is quite simple to talk about when you are on the Red Lake Indian Reservation because you are constantly surrounded by poverty.
What causes this poverty?
Poverty is caused by two things:
1. Unemployment causes poverty.
2. Low wages cause poverty.
There are two solutions to ending poverty:
1. Put people to work.
2. Pay people real living wages.
Talking about poverty is really very simple... racist politicians like Brita Sailer want to turn a discussion of poverty into a big complicated issue.
The reason Representative Brita Sailer and most of her colleagues in the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party have been told to tell poor people that poverty is too complex for them to understand is because the two solutions to ending poverty do not sit well with those like John McCarthy of the Minnesota Indian Gaming Association from whom these Democrats are reaping huge campaign contributions.
The casino operations are amongst the largest employers in northern Minnesota and today these casino operations employ more people than the iron ore mining and taconite industry.
Why is it so difficult for Representative Brita Sailer to talk about poverty to the very people whose votes she is asking for? The reason is, because Brita Sailer and her DFL colleagues would have to explain how it is that they reap huge campaign contributions distributed by a man like John McCarthy, the Executive Director of MIGA, who has a lavish two-million dollar spread with a mansion on a hill like some old Finnish feudal lord who lives a life of luxury because he has helped create a cheap labor pool for the casino industry. Poverty wages create poverty... why is this so difficult to understand. Casino managements pay all casino workers poverty wages... are we supposed to expect anything other than people living in poverty will be the result?
For many people living on the Red Lake Reservation the only jobs they can get are working in the casinos getting paid poverty wages; but, for even more people, unemployment is what they get as Tribal leaders allow non-tribal members to do most of the work on the reservation. One has to wonder why there are so many non-tribal members teaching in the schools and working at good-paying jobs in the Red Lake Department of Natural Resources or working on the new casino or installing cable equipment or working on the roads or installing sewers when Red Lake has an unemployment rate exceeding 50%. Why weren't tribal members given first chance at all casino jobs and paid real living wages?
Why are multi-million dollar government contracts going without the enforcement of affirmative action guidelines?
Poverty is very easy to talk about; the real reason why DFL'ers like Brita Sailer refuse to talk about poverty when asked questions is because they are not doing a damn thing about ending poverty.
You end poverty by putting people to work paying them real living wages supplemented with adequate governmental programs like socialized health care, government subsidized housing, quality educations and you enforce affirmative action in hiring.
First it was big agri-business that made excuses why it was impossible to pay people real living wages; then it was the forestry industry that always had an excuse why they treated their horses better than workers; then it was the iron ore mining industry with Carnegie and Rockefeller pleading poverty whenever living wages were the topic of discussion... now it is the casino industry who claims that they are just good people providing people with a little cash to tide them over until people "can get real jobs."
Big money has been made by these profiteers living high on the hog as a result of paying their employees poverty wages... what do we get in return for creating their wealth? From big agri-business we got contaminated ground water; from the forestry industry we got clear-cuts and tree plantations; from the mining industry we got pits and pollution; now, from the casino industry we get diddly-squat as the one-armed bandits rake in the loot faster than any other industry ever has and these mobsters still cry poverty when it comes to paying workers real living wages.
We live in a society where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Those like Representative Brita Sailer would rather not explain any of this when asked about poverty because they are getting a part of the spoils for allowing--- and enabling--- all of this to go on.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
My choice for Governor
Setting a new standard for politicians who aren't afraid to stand up for what is right... go Nicole!
Communist and Artist
Attending CPUSA rally in Madison Square Gardens
Being a bike rider and a photographer of sorts I just love this photo.
So disappointed with Barack Obama.
Mark Dayton
My choice for Governor
Nicole Beaulieu for MNDFL House District 4-A
Setting a new standard for politicians who aren't afraid to stand up for what is right... go Nicole!
This blog is proud to be a part of the ever growing and expanding People Before Profit network.
Blog Archive
A Little About Me
- Lisa Boucher
- Forest Lake, Minnesota, United States
- I live in Forest Lake, Minnesota just north of the Cities. I am 39 years old and live with my boyfriend. We have a 3 year old daughter. I am a Marxist and member of the small Hardwood Creek Trail Club of the Communist Party, USA with members from Forest Lake and Hugo. I am the Club's Educational Director. I consider myself an open-minded free spirit. I consider myself spiritual but not religious. I detest capitalism and war. I'm not really an activist but I try to share my views with others. Our country is in a real mess. I reluctantly voted for Barack Obama. Now I feel betrayed. I can't stand the Democrats and detest the Republicans even more. I can't wait for a new party offering an alternative to the Democrats and Republicans.
Alice Neel
Communist and Artist
Elizabeth Gurley Flynn and Earl Browder
Ella Reeve Bloor or "Mother Bloor"
Attending CPUSA rally in Madison Square Gardens
Albert Einstein
Being a bike rider and a photographer of sorts I just love this photo.
Why Socialism?
by Albert Einstein
This essay was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949).
Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.
Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has—as is well known—been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.
But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.
Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.
For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.
Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: "Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?"
I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?
It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.
Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”
It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.
Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.
If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time—which, looking back, seems so idyllic—is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.
I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.
The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.
For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.
Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.
The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.
Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.
This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?
Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service.
Where's the change?
