But there's enough jobs for everyone if the goal was fulfillment of the needs and wants of people. Need not Greed! Enough food, housing, medical care, education . . . This is what humane socialism aims to do but is thwarted by capitalisms' henchmen with the armies and economic sanctions. For those of you who think that socialism is inherently bad, LOL you have bought the lie presented by the predator class to deceive you. Yes, profound errors have been made, but they are not inherent, as they are with the present order. Time to reinvent a socialist order the avoids the major errors and creates an abundant world for free and loving people.
Great article. I really wish people discussed this more.
In his essay 'The World House', MLK Jr. cites the geologist Kirtley Mather . He wrote a book in the 1940s arguing that the world had the resources and means to feed the world. And that was over 80 years ago. Even with the massive population rise since then, we have the means to feed everyone.
Yet we're told to be happy that the current system has reduced poverty and hunger, as long as we accept an obscene poverty line of $3 a day. It's all so cruel, ridiculous, and backwards..
CJ>>"This happened because caring for everyone was never the goal of capitalism. The goal of capitalism is to extract labor from the working class and resources from the global south to sell goods and services at a rate that generates profit for the owners of the means of production. That’s it."
Actually Caitlin, there's more to Capitalism's goals than just the above. It's goals are to create ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY (to increase profits), to exploit anyone and everyone possible all over the globe (using imperialism, colonialism, different forms of slavery, etc.), to create and maintain a 'rigid hierarchy' of socio-economic classes - regardless of the costs to humanity or the planet.
We already have all the technology needed to solve the most important and pressing problems of humanity and the planet. We don't need AI for this, we don't need cryptocurriencies for this, and we definitely don't need Capitalism for this.
And in terms of AI technologies, there is an IMPORTANT distinction to be made between 'AI technologies as a technology/science' and 'AI technologies used in the system of capitalism' (which most people miss and get easily confused about). The SYSTEM is the problem. Any tool/technology used within this 'broken system' will make things worse (AI or not).
But as long as Capitalism is allowed to reign supreme, we won't be able to fix climate change, we won't be able to address the problem of rising inequalities globally, and we won't be able to solve problems like hunger, diseases, and miserable existences due to poverty, etc.
yeah, but she was really a patriarch in women's clothing. It is the system of patriarchy that is the problem so it doesn't matter who is heading it up. Patriarchy hurts everyone. Men, boys, women, girls. Old, young, white, people of colour: everyone.
Matriarchy MIGHT help if it is the right kind of matriarchy but really, I think we need to look to a person oriented system that does not favour any particular group of people
It probably would be different from a Patriarchy, but probably not be as Utopian as one would hope. It could be smothering in a "motherly" type of overly-protective way. But heck, I'd be willing to give it a try.
A long time ago, I read a book about different matriarchies that had existed in other countries (of course). I cannot remember the title or who wrote it. It did leave an impression with me though, that systems other than patriarchy had existed and could still exist. Patriarchy is pretty much just capitalism.
Won't really fix the things that really need fixing (like our system of capitalism - unless you are suggesting that a matrirchal system will overthrow capitalism). I suggest studying some anthropology to understand why.
If more people could better explain the horrible economic damage that military spending does, we would have overcome all the warmongering long ago. Please consider reading "Trump Keeps Delighting Osama Bin Laden: The Economics of Military Spending"
I think many of us want to see everyone have food, a roof over their head, and healthcare, but there's a small sector who don't want this and who advance capitalism.
Of course, there are those who are propagandized to believe these things, but we need to convince them otherwise.
People have been trying for centuries to achieve this, and I think with the internet we're actually getting closer by exposing what is really going on, and not just believing the narrative.
Which is problematic for the elite class who profit from all this suffering. Like Obama's speech writer who regrets the optics of the genocide, but not the genocide itself. It's like we're supposed to be able to be fed a narrative instead of developing our moral compasses and critical thinking skills.
We could end poverty but we don't. We could end inequality but we don't. We could end injustice but we don't. We could end war but we don't. We could end genocide but we don't. We could end ecocide but we don't. The list is long, but we keep on going like there's no tomorrow! What we do seem determined to end is life as we know it on this planet!
Even if just one country, one small country, implemented even a facsimile of what Caitlin is suggesting, a semblance of compassionate democracy, it could cause the dam to burst and change the world. So who's stepping up? Come on!
Duh! Why do you think the U.S. declares war on ANY country that challenges or poses a threat to its system of Capitalism? While the U.S. is in charge, it will NOT ALLOW any socialist alternatives (eg. Cuba, Venezuela, even China) to challenge its hegemony.
Take a look at all the wars the U.S. has been involved in over the last 100+ years. Now, attempt to understand many of the 'real' reasons behind such wars.
We must become more compassionate, we must stop racism, we must stop blaming the poor, we must stop blaming immigrants. We must change our taxation system so that making more than a set amount means so much taxation that it is no longer worth acquiring more money. Ending poverty isn't just not profitable, it means more taxes. It also means less stress on our environment. It could even make life better for the rich because our environment that they are destroying is also their environment. Same air. Same water.
>>"Ending poverty isn't just not profitable, it means more taxes."
Susan T, ending poverty is possible WITHOUT raising taxes (or more taxes). To understand how, I recommend understanding MMT (Modern Monetary Theory). Also, 'a lack of funds' is not what is stopping poverty from being eradicated. It is a 'lack of will' (as per Caitlin's article).
In brief, MMT can reduce poverty without raising taxes by using sovereign currency issuance to fund targeted public spending while managing inflation through non-tax tools. The two primary policy paths are a federally funded Job Guarantee (JG) and targeted transfers (including conditional cash programs or a modest Universal Basic Income). Key supporting measures are supply-side investments, monetary/fiscal coordination, and demand-management tools to prevent inflation.
Whatever. I like the idea of raising taxes of millionaires, billionaires and trillionaires. It would possibly make them re-think their strategy of acquiring money money and more money. There is nothing to say that we cannot take more than one approach to reducing wealth and right along with it, reducing poverty. Indiscriminate wealth is not only a problem because it helps to create poverty. It is destructive to the environment and destructive to our society as a whole. Anything that gets people away from the idea that being rich is a humanistic, decent goal would help.
>>"I like the idea of raising taxes of millionaires, billionaires and trillionaires."
I LOVE the idea of raising taxes on millionaires, billionaires and trillionaires. But that is a SEPARATE discussion, and is not needed to reduce poverty. In fact, the discussion you are alluding to is about 'decreasing inequality' which is similar (in some respects) but different from the discussion about 'reducing poverty'.
The reason MMT is an effective solution for this is because 'it does not threaten the wealth of billionaires, etc.' to achieve this. The challenge is in convincing people that 'reducing poverty' does NOT come at the expense of anyone else. This framing/explanation reduces any hurdles that the 'power elite' might throw into this process (and might even get their buy-in/support) as they have nothing to fear.
Of course, what I have in mind for these billionaires, etc. is a lot more EXTREME (as in wealth confiscations and transfers, wealth and hereditory taxes, wealth distrubution, laws to disallow the ability for ANYONE to become a billionaire in the first place, etc.). But this is a 'separate discussion' (though connected) to the discussion of 'reducing poverty'.
When I lived in Denmark, taxes were very high and got higher as more money was earned until it made no sense to acquire more. I don't know what the poverty situation was in Denmark at that time because that was many years ago before I was really aware of that poverty was such an inhumane and immoral situation. But there was healthcare and dental care for everyone. Also free daycare. That probably would not eliminate poverty, but it did mean that being poor did not prevent one from seeking health and dental care and if a person needed it, daycare was also free.
Yes, but your comment sidesteps the discussion that 'taxes don't need to be fiddled with' to 'reduce poverty'. This (MMT) applies to ALL countries that have sovereign monopolistic control over their currencies (Countries with their own central banks and currencies can implement MMT more effectively - less so for the EU, since the EU countries do not have their own currency - they share the Euro).
"Caring for everyone was never the goal of capitalism."
Exactly. Profits always come before people to capitalists. It's why I call it a mental illness. Capitalists can't see others as human beings--only as objects or tools to use to make profits from.
They are seriously sick people. And we're becoming sicker for allowing them to rule the world. Time for REVOLUTION!
We have had these dark moments or ages in human history often followed by periods of enlightenment triggered by the likes of Lao Tzu, Buddah, Zoroaster, Jesus etc. Let's hope the tide will turn before we extinguish ourselves. BTW it will turn thanks to the likes of Caitlyn, Max Blumenthal, Aaron Mathew and countless other contemporary prophets.
Depends how you define poverty. If it means having a roof over everyone's head and food on the table plus access to basic healthcare, you absolutely can eliminate it. If "poverty" means having no mansion and monster truck, then it's a different story
In short, we could have everyone live in dignity without hunger and lack of healthcare, but our societies chose not to do so, all just to make a few people richer than they can ever finish spending.
Really challenging piece! You’ve articulated a discomfort many of us feel but seldom voice: how absurd and tragic so much of the world’s accepted ‘normal’ seems when you really step back and examine it. I especially resonate with the point that what many call ‘just the way things are’ often masks massive moral and ethical contradictions. Your analysis forces me to ask: how much of my own worldview is shaped by propaganda, assumption, or inertia?
It’s scary and liberating to realise that sanity might look like rejecting consensus reality! Articles like this are vital not to hand out easy answers, but to provoke the kind of deep internal reckoning that precedes real change.
Thank you for putting the mirror up. Keep holding that space for clarity
My Starter List: Gifts to give this Holiday
Local Food bank
Doctors without Borders
Hind Rajab Foundation
I added UNRWA to this list. Also sending money to people in Gaza who run a soup kitchen for orphans under unimaginable circumstances.
Good additions. Thanks. Do you have a link for the soup kitchen?
Yes. She's an 80 year old Palestinian woman and activist, author who organizes from Canada. I'll ask her how to share. Stay tuned. Thanks, Vin.
Ending poverty is profitable just not to billionaires because it demonopolizes access to basics necessities and rights.
That makes sense.
But there's enough jobs for everyone if the goal was fulfillment of the needs and wants of people. Need not Greed! Enough food, housing, medical care, education . . . This is what humane socialism aims to do but is thwarted by capitalisms' henchmen with the armies and economic sanctions. For those of you who think that socialism is inherently bad, LOL you have bought the lie presented by the predator class to deceive you. Yes, profound errors have been made, but they are not inherent, as they are with the present order. Time to reinvent a socialist order the avoids the major errors and creates an abundant world for free and loving people.
Great article. I really wish people discussed this more.
In his essay 'The World House', MLK Jr. cites the geologist Kirtley Mather . He wrote a book in the 1940s arguing that the world had the resources and means to feed the world. And that was over 80 years ago. Even with the massive population rise since then, we have the means to feed everyone.
Yet we're told to be happy that the current system has reduced poverty and hunger, as long as we accept an obscene poverty line of $3 a day. It's all so cruel, ridiculous, and backwards..
Yes great article for sure. You don't get to read (near literary) writing like this every day.
CJ>>"This happened because caring for everyone was never the goal of capitalism. The goal of capitalism is to extract labor from the working class and resources from the global south to sell goods and services at a rate that generates profit for the owners of the means of production. That’s it."
Actually Caitlin, there's more to Capitalism's goals than just the above. It's goals are to create ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY (to increase profits), to exploit anyone and everyone possible all over the globe (using imperialism, colonialism, different forms of slavery, etc.), to create and maintain a 'rigid hierarchy' of socio-economic classes - regardless of the costs to humanity or the planet.
We already have all the technology needed to solve the most important and pressing problems of humanity and the planet. We don't need AI for this, we don't need cryptocurriencies for this, and we definitely don't need Capitalism for this.
And in terms of AI technologies, there is an IMPORTANT distinction to be made between 'AI technologies as a technology/science' and 'AI technologies used in the system of capitalism' (which most people miss and get easily confused about). The SYSTEM is the problem. Any tool/technology used within this 'broken system' will make things worse (AI or not).
But as long as Capitalism is allowed to reign supreme, we won't be able to fix climate change, we won't be able to address the problem of rising inequalities globally, and we won't be able to solve problems like hunger, diseases, and miserable existences due to poverty, etc.
Well stated Chang!
We need matriarchal system
I thought so too, until I became to know Hilary.
Don't forget Madeline Albright.
We need a system that doesn't reward sociopathy, dishonesty, cruelty and greed.
As Feral Finster always points out, power is to sociopaths what catnip is to cats.
Also remember Margaret Thatcher.
My immediate thought, and you already wrote it.
yeah, but she was really a patriarch in women's clothing. It is the system of patriarchy that is the problem so it doesn't matter who is heading it up. Patriarchy hurts everyone. Men, boys, women, girls. Old, young, white, people of colour: everyone.
And matriarchy will magically fix everything? This seems a little to black and white to me.
Matriarchy MIGHT help if it is the right kind of matriarchy but really, I think we need to look to a person oriented system that does not favour any particular group of people
It probably would be different from a Patriarchy, but probably not be as Utopian as one would hope. It could be smothering in a "motherly" type of overly-protective way. But heck, I'd be willing to give it a try.
A long time ago, I read a book about different matriarchies that had existed in other countries (of course). I cannot remember the title or who wrote it. It did leave an impression with me though, that systems other than patriarchy had existed and could still exist. Patriarchy is pretty much just capitalism.
You mean like Margaret Thatcher or Irma Grese?
Won't really fix the things that really need fixing (like our system of capitalism - unless you are suggesting that a matrirchal system will overthrow capitalism). I suggest studying some anthropology to understand why.
If we do the dividing, they'll do the conquering.
If more people could better explain the horrible economic damage that military spending does, we would have overcome all the warmongering long ago. Please consider reading "Trump Keeps Delighting Osama Bin Laden: The Economics of Military Spending"
https://www.unz.com/article/trump-keeps-delighting-osama-bin-laden-the-economics-of-military-spending/
I think many of us want to see everyone have food, a roof over their head, and healthcare, but there's a small sector who don't want this and who advance capitalism.
Of course, there are those who are propagandized to believe these things, but we need to convince them otherwise.
People have been trying for centuries to achieve this, and I think with the internet we're actually getting closer by exposing what is really going on, and not just believing the narrative.
Which is problematic for the elite class who profit from all this suffering. Like Obama's speech writer who regrets the optics of the genocide, but not the genocide itself. It's like we're supposed to be able to be fed a narrative instead of developing our moral compasses and critical thinking skills.
We could end poverty but we don't. We could end inequality but we don't. We could end injustice but we don't. We could end war but we don't. We could end genocide but we don't. We could end ecocide but we don't. The list is long, but we keep on going like there's no tomorrow! What we do seem determined to end is life as we know it on this planet!
Even if just one country, one small country, implemented even a facsimile of what Caitlin is suggesting, a semblance of compassionate democracy, it could cause the dam to burst and change the world. So who's stepping up? Come on!
Duh! Why do you think the U.S. declares war on ANY country that challenges or poses a threat to its system of Capitalism? While the U.S. is in charge, it will NOT ALLOW any socialist alternatives (eg. Cuba, Venezuela, even China) to challenge its hegemony.
Take a look at all the wars the U.S. has been involved in over the last 100+ years. Now, attempt to understand many of the 'real' reasons behind such wars.
Our owners decide how to manage their herds.
It's not really for us in the herd to decide, is it?
Are you talking about changing the system or something?
Get back in line...
;-(
Please Sir, can I have some more??
YOU WANT MORE!!!?
"Oliver Twist" ;-)
Charles Dickens!! A Tale of Two Cities!! As well!
Twas Oliver wut spoke it .;-)
We must become more compassionate, we must stop racism, we must stop blaming the poor, we must stop blaming immigrants. We must change our taxation system so that making more than a set amount means so much taxation that it is no longer worth acquiring more money. Ending poverty isn't just not profitable, it means more taxes. It also means less stress on our environment. It could even make life better for the rich because our environment that they are destroying is also their environment. Same air. Same water.
>>"Ending poverty isn't just not profitable, it means more taxes."
Susan T, ending poverty is possible WITHOUT raising taxes (or more taxes). To understand how, I recommend understanding MMT (Modern Monetary Theory). Also, 'a lack of funds' is not what is stopping poverty from being eradicated. It is a 'lack of will' (as per Caitlin's article).
In brief, MMT can reduce poverty without raising taxes by using sovereign currency issuance to fund targeted public spending while managing inflation through non-tax tools. The two primary policy paths are a federally funded Job Guarantee (JG) and targeted transfers (including conditional cash programs or a modest Universal Basic Income). Key supporting measures are supply-side investments, monetary/fiscal coordination, and demand-management tools to prevent inflation.
Whatever. I like the idea of raising taxes of millionaires, billionaires and trillionaires. It would possibly make them re-think their strategy of acquiring money money and more money. There is nothing to say that we cannot take more than one approach to reducing wealth and right along with it, reducing poverty. Indiscriminate wealth is not only a problem because it helps to create poverty. It is destructive to the environment and destructive to our society as a whole. Anything that gets people away from the idea that being rich is a humanistic, decent goal would help.
>>"I like the idea of raising taxes of millionaires, billionaires and trillionaires."
I LOVE the idea of raising taxes on millionaires, billionaires and trillionaires. But that is a SEPARATE discussion, and is not needed to reduce poverty. In fact, the discussion you are alluding to is about 'decreasing inequality' which is similar (in some respects) but different from the discussion about 'reducing poverty'.
The reason MMT is an effective solution for this is because 'it does not threaten the wealth of billionaires, etc.' to achieve this. The challenge is in convincing people that 'reducing poverty' does NOT come at the expense of anyone else. This framing/explanation reduces any hurdles that the 'power elite' might throw into this process (and might even get their buy-in/support) as they have nothing to fear.
Of course, what I have in mind for these billionaires, etc. is a lot more EXTREME (as in wealth confiscations and transfers, wealth and hereditory taxes, wealth distrubution, laws to disallow the ability for ANYONE to become a billionaire in the first place, etc.). But this is a 'separate discussion' (though connected) to the discussion of 'reducing poverty'.
When I lived in Denmark, taxes were very high and got higher as more money was earned until it made no sense to acquire more. I don't know what the poverty situation was in Denmark at that time because that was many years ago before I was really aware of that poverty was such an inhumane and immoral situation. But there was healthcare and dental care for everyone. Also free daycare. That probably would not eliminate poverty, but it did mean that being poor did not prevent one from seeking health and dental care and if a person needed it, daycare was also free.
Yes, but your comment sidesteps the discussion that 'taxes don't need to be fiddled with' to 'reduce poverty'. This (MMT) applies to ALL countries that have sovereign monopolistic control over their currencies (Countries with their own central banks and currencies can implement MMT more effectively - less so for the EU, since the EU countries do not have their own currency - they share the Euro).
Here is an article you can read for more info -> "How to pay for saving the world: Modern Monetary Theory for a degrowth transition" (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800923002318)
"Caring for everyone was never the goal of capitalism."
Exactly. Profits always come before people to capitalists. It's why I call it a mental illness. Capitalists can't see others as human beings--only as objects or tools to use to make profits from.
They are seriously sick people. And we're becoming sicker for allowing them to rule the world. Time for REVOLUTION!
We have had these dark moments or ages in human history often followed by periods of enlightenment triggered by the likes of Lao Tzu, Buddah, Zoroaster, Jesus etc. Let's hope the tide will turn before we extinguish ourselves. BTW it will turn thanks to the likes of Caitlyn, Max Blumenthal, Aaron Mathew and countless other contemporary prophets.
It's all because of Evil Capitalism, again. Actually, you can't eliminate poverty. But feel free to put your hypothesis to the test.
>>"But feel free to put your hypothesis to the test."
Hence why do you think the Capitalists have been fighting so hard, viciously, and terroristically against socialist principles?
Eliminating poverty and reducing inequality would mean the capitalists losing power. Now why would they want to do that?
Depends how you define poverty. If it means having a roof over everyone's head and food on the table plus access to basic healthcare, you absolutely can eliminate it. If "poverty" means having no mansion and monster truck, then it's a different story
In short, we could have everyone live in dignity without hunger and lack of healthcare, but our societies chose not to do so, all just to make a few people richer than they can ever finish spending.
Really challenging piece! You’ve articulated a discomfort many of us feel but seldom voice: how absurd and tragic so much of the world’s accepted ‘normal’ seems when you really step back and examine it. I especially resonate with the point that what many call ‘just the way things are’ often masks massive moral and ethical contradictions. Your analysis forces me to ask: how much of my own worldview is shaped by propaganda, assumption, or inertia?
It’s scary and liberating to realise that sanity might look like rejecting consensus reality! Articles like this are vital not to hand out easy answers, but to provoke the kind of deep internal reckoning that precedes real change.
Thank you for putting the mirror up. Keep holding that space for clarity
Perfectly stated, Catlin! Down with the Predator class. Enroll or allies Ridicule and Satire for help. Enough with moral retardation!
Meant OUR allies