Having almost reached the end of this Contradiction section, I am coming back to the necessary question raised before. It is possible to argue about the comparative advantages of capitalism and socialism till the end of time, but the ultimate arbiter must be the ethics of both, in comparison. We have heard a lot about “capitalism with a human face,” but the test of humaneness lies not in abstract words, but in concrete deeds. Being the richest nation on earth, has America with her rampant capitalism solved the problem of poverty, at least to the level to which it has been solved in the countries of Western Europe?
...One may still argue that poverty is a relative thing. What is poverty in a rich Western democracy, amounts to a comfortable living, say, in Bangladesh. However, it is demeaning for an industrialized Western nation to be compared to the poorest of the poor, and the comparative standards we are using must be sought within the top echelon of comparable nations, rather than among the bottom part of the world’s list of nations.
Bearing this in mind, let us look at the following summary statement from PennState’s Poverty in America Project (2006). It can be instantaneously accused of a liberal bias by every pro-capitalist demagogue, but, dismissing these defenders of America’s wealthiest class as hopelessly biased, we can glean certain facts and figures of the non-demagogical kind, from this unsettling PennState account:
“The United States of America is a nation pulling apart to a degree unknown in the last twenty-five years. A decade of strong national economic growth in the 1990’s left many of America’s communities falling far behind median national measures of economic health. Despite the investments in transportation and public facility infrastructures, massive movements of capital and people, and the expectations of most regional economists over the past forty years, the nation’s regional development patterns are becoming more uneven. Income inequality is on the rise. The number of communities falling behind the national economic average is increasing. This tendency has been most pronounced in recent years, when trade liberalization and globalization have greatly opened the American economy.
According to our estimates in 2003, almost 25% of the nation’s counties had low per-capita incomes below one half the national average, or less, high unemployment, low labor force participation rates, and a high dependency on government transfer payments,--- all measures of economic distress. These communities are located in timber, agricultural, and mineral and energy resource areas in the nation and in regions of the Deep South, including the Mississippi Delta, the eastern coal belt of Appalachia, historic New Mexican and Native American communities, and along our borders. More recently, newly distressed counties are experiencing the collapse of their post-war low-wage manufacturing economies. At a smaller spatial scale, communities in persistent poverty also are present in the nation’s cities, where long-term decline has left core urban areas of cities such as Washington, DC, Detroit, Michigan, and Los Angeles, California, with limited job opportunities, high levels of poverty, and populations with few effective means of economic advancement.
The problem of persistent poverty is a complex one that includes communities and individuals who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unable to make ends meet in this globalizing, information-intensive world. People at risk are women, children, and people of color, single-parent families and the elderly. Large numbers of the nation’s citizens live at or below the poverty threshold which means each month is a struggle to pay the bills and provide the basics, including food, clothing, and shelter, not to mention access to health care and simple comforts. (Bear in mind that America’s very high standard of living implies a higher cost of living, which puts a serious burden on the poor and makes their plight non-comparable to other much poorer countries where the cost of living is ridiculously low.) How can the richest country in the world still have more than 12% of its total population, and almost 20% of all children under the age of 18, unable to meet, let alone be guaranteed coverage of, basic needs? Today, as a nation, we are significantly different than we were in 1960, when more than 20% of the population was visibly poor and lacked basic goods, including food, clothing, proper shelter, clean water, heating, health care, and access to decent schools. We are a more diverse population and a more dispersed population; we are older and remain divided by race, income, and location. Certainly progress has been made over the intervening forty years in terms of an overall minimum standard of living as measured by material conditions. And yet the lived experience of poor people is starkly different from that of individuals and families who enjoy some degree of economic security as measured by income levels which provide comfortable and worry-free circumstances. If anything, the gap between the economically secure and the poor is more severe than it was four decades ago. Increasingly, the nation is composed of persons who look to a future in which circumstances include the expectation of more wealth, security, and opportunity; and the alternative: those who struggle to make ends meet. In many families today children cannot say that they expect to be better off than their parents. This is perhaps the greatest challenge now facing our society. Forty years ago, public officials took a stand against economic deprivation.(*) For a short period of time we made huge strides in reducing economic insecurity. Yet America is again facing this serious challenge. Once again we can make a difference if we choose to look this issue in the eye and invest in people and communities.”
(*Note for the underlined sentence: “Forty years ago” here refers to President Lyndon B. Johnson’s massive social program, historically known as the “Great Society.” [See my eponymous entry posted on July 4th, 2011.] It seems almost incredible that this great humanitarian role of attacking poverty on a large and comprehensive national scale fell upon ostensibly one of the least likable among all American Presidents, yet a home-grown Texan, and, therefore, unquestionably, a genuine article: no hillbillying, no pretense…)
It is certainly commendable to end this grim statement of fact on a somewhat positive note, but does it make the situation better? What the summary makes clear is that the gap between the rich and the poor has grown quite considerably in the past several decades, just as Karl Marx had predicted. It is thus an additional and a formidable challenge for the American humanitarians of today and tomorrow, to prove to an increasingly distrustful world that Karl Marx’s disturbing prediction can be overcome by “kinder and gentler” means than a world revolution.
...One may still argue that poverty is a relative thing. What is poverty in a rich Western democracy, amounts to a comfortable living, say, in Bangladesh. However, it is demeaning for an industrialized Western nation to be compared to the poorest of the poor, and the comparative standards we are using must be sought within the top echelon of comparable nations, rather than among the bottom part of the world’s list of nations.
Bearing this in mind, let us look at the following summary statement from PennState’s Poverty in America Project (2006). It can be instantaneously accused of a liberal bias by every pro-capitalist demagogue, but, dismissing these defenders of America’s wealthiest class as hopelessly biased, we can glean certain facts and figures of the non-demagogical kind, from this unsettling PennState account:
“The United States of America is a nation pulling apart to a degree unknown in the last twenty-five years. A decade of strong national economic growth in the 1990’s left many of America’s communities falling far behind median national measures of economic health. Despite the investments in transportation and public facility infrastructures, massive movements of capital and people, and the expectations of most regional economists over the past forty years, the nation’s regional development patterns are becoming more uneven. Income inequality is on the rise. The number of communities falling behind the national economic average is increasing. This tendency has been most pronounced in recent years, when trade liberalization and globalization have greatly opened the American economy.
According to our estimates in 2003, almost 25% of the nation’s counties had low per-capita incomes below one half the national average, or less, high unemployment, low labor force participation rates, and a high dependency on government transfer payments,--- all measures of economic distress. These communities are located in timber, agricultural, and mineral and energy resource areas in the nation and in regions of the Deep South, including the Mississippi Delta, the eastern coal belt of Appalachia, historic New Mexican and Native American communities, and along our borders. More recently, newly distressed counties are experiencing the collapse of their post-war low-wage manufacturing economies. At a smaller spatial scale, communities in persistent poverty also are present in the nation’s cities, where long-term decline has left core urban areas of cities such as Washington, DC, Detroit, Michigan, and Los Angeles, California, with limited job opportunities, high levels of poverty, and populations with few effective means of economic advancement.
The problem of persistent poverty is a complex one that includes communities and individuals who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unable to make ends meet in this globalizing, information-intensive world. People at risk are women, children, and people of color, single-parent families and the elderly. Large numbers of the nation’s citizens live at or below the poverty threshold which means each month is a struggle to pay the bills and provide the basics, including food, clothing, and shelter, not to mention access to health care and simple comforts. (Bear in mind that America’s very high standard of living implies a higher cost of living, which puts a serious burden on the poor and makes their plight non-comparable to other much poorer countries where the cost of living is ridiculously low.) How can the richest country in the world still have more than 12% of its total population, and almost 20% of all children under the age of 18, unable to meet, let alone be guaranteed coverage of, basic needs? Today, as a nation, we are significantly different than we were in 1960, when more than 20% of the population was visibly poor and lacked basic goods, including food, clothing, proper shelter, clean water, heating, health care, and access to decent schools. We are a more diverse population and a more dispersed population; we are older and remain divided by race, income, and location. Certainly progress has been made over the intervening forty years in terms of an overall minimum standard of living as measured by material conditions. And yet the lived experience of poor people is starkly different from that of individuals and families who enjoy some degree of economic security as measured by income levels which provide comfortable and worry-free circumstances. If anything, the gap between the economically secure and the poor is more severe than it was four decades ago. Increasingly, the nation is composed of persons who look to a future in which circumstances include the expectation of more wealth, security, and opportunity; and the alternative: those who struggle to make ends meet. In many families today children cannot say that they expect to be better off than their parents. This is perhaps the greatest challenge now facing our society. Forty years ago, public officials took a stand against economic deprivation.(*) For a short period of time we made huge strides in reducing economic insecurity. Yet America is again facing this serious challenge. Once again we can make a difference if we choose to look this issue in the eye and invest in people and communities.”
(*Note for the underlined sentence: “Forty years ago” here refers to President Lyndon B. Johnson’s massive social program, historically known as the “Great Society.” [See my eponymous entry posted on July 4th, 2011.] It seems almost incredible that this great humanitarian role of attacking poverty on a large and comprehensive national scale fell upon ostensibly one of the least likable among all American Presidents, yet a home-grown Texan, and, therefore, unquestionably, a genuine article: no hillbillying, no pretense…)
It is certainly commendable to end this grim statement of fact on a somewhat positive note, but does it make the situation better? What the summary makes clear is that the gap between the rich and the poor has grown quite considerably in the past several decades, just as Karl Marx had predicted. It is thus an additional and a formidable challenge for the American humanitarians of today and tomorrow, to prove to an increasingly distrustful world that Karl Marx’s disturbing prediction can be overcome by “kinder and gentler” means than a world revolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment