abolition of poverty/ neomercantilism, trade

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

David S.'s  reply to Charles:

I am still trying to think this through.  There are two concepts here.
First, we have the concept of poverty, or the absence of the basic
necessities of life.  However, as I think you agree, even this concept is
relative.  Is a stone-age man impoverished?  Is a bourgeois man living in
1848 impoverished, if he does not have a TV, telephone, indoor plumbing, air
conditioning, antibiotics, etc., all of which are enjoyed by the masses in
modern, industrial societes?  I mean, once you get past a couple thousand
calories of food a day and clean water, and sufficient clothing and shelter
to protect against the cold, what are the basic necessities of life?

((((((((

CB: Yes, there are the physiological minimums, necessary for avoiding immediate death , and then there are the many ways in which "man doeth not live by bread alone."

(((((((


Therefore, to the extent you argue that the elimination of "private
property" would eliminate "poverty," you appear to be arguing not that
"poverty" (in an absolute sense) would be eliminated (or even exists in
modern industrialized societies), but that relative economic inequality
would be eliminated, which appears to be a totally different point.

((((((((

CB: Well, there are still many people who die of starvation or lack of shelter in the world today, no ?  So, some of the relative poverty is also absolute , in the sense of falling below the physiological minimum for avoiding death in the short term. Then there are diseases that we can cure. So, disease and healing add another dimension to the physiological minimum. By eliminating poverty , I also mean universal health care at the standard of the day.

So, first of all, the institution of private property is also causing what you refer to as absolute poverty today, now ,as we speak.

((((((((


Second, I define "material want" as wanting material things.  Let's assume
that private property is eliminated (i.e. all are guaranteed the basic
necessities and there are no rich and no poor).  I am imagining this
scenario as a static point in time, a point of societal equilibrium.  You
seem to be saying that so long as "private property" is eliminated, the
equilibrium will be maintained, because the desire for (more) material
things requires the existence of private property.

(((((((((

CB: Not exactly.  I specifically said I do not mean by "material want"  just generally "wanting material things".  I mean by material want. material lack, poverty.

When you say "the desire for (more) material things" I am not sure if you are referring to unlimited acquisitiveness.  That unlimited acquisitiveness, the desire to be rich, wherein rich means having qualitatively more wealth than most other people, is what is integral to the institution of private property.

Perhaps you mean something like what you say below - "desire to improve one's condition ".  I would say this "continuous improvement" notion is culturally relative and somewhat specific to capitalism ( which is only one form of private property). I think most human societies and cultures have not had value systems in which individuals have a permanent and continuous desire to get more and more stuff.


The institution of private property is basically the power to expropriate the surplus values created by the work of other people. "Surplus" here is what individuals produce beyond their basic needs ( see discussion so far of basic needs).

(((((((

You
seem to be saying that so long as "private property" is eliminated, the
equilibrium will be maintained, because the desire for (more) material
things requires the existence of private property. But that is the
assumption that I think needs to be questioned.

(((((((((((

CB: I am not aiming so much for an equilibrium , but for the elimination of poverty.   The institution of private property includes by definition rich and poor classes. That's what private property is: the power of one class, the rich,  to expropriate the surplus product of another class , the poor. Recall the full phrase is "private property in the basic means of production of society."

Perhaps it will make more sense if I say by elimination of private property I mean abolition of private ownership of the basic means of production of society by a small minority , and of their power to expropriate the surplus product of others' labor. Elimination of this institution will be a major precondition for elimination of poverty.

(((((((


Obviously, material
acquisitiveness is not natural to all men -- how else could you explain
Lefties?  However, I think the desire to "improve one's condition" is part
of most persons' makeup -- especially if they are aware of alternatives to
their present condition.
And what about the desire for power, glory and other such immaterial wants?
Is that dependent on the existence of private property?

((((((((

CB: I would say the desire for power, in the sense of ability of an adult to control the conduct and especially the surplus products of other adults , is an integral part of the institution of private property ( see full defintion of private property above). In other words, I am not so sure "power" is an immaterial want.

Glory is sometimes had unrelated to individual material acquisition.

((((((((


 If not, they are
powerful forces that have the ability to disrupt your equilibrium.
Again, I am not convinced that you can maintain the equilibrium you could
theoretically create by eliminating private property.David Shemano