If this is Communism, where do I sign?
Jan. 10th, 2006 09:39 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyI've been debating over on ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
raggedhalo's journal (again) about politics and economic theory. No surprises there; when one of the basic contentions being made is that the public sector is wildly corrupt and inefficient but it is better to raise taxes to cover the ensuing shortfall than to deal with the corruption and inefficiency you can expect my blood pressure to go up dramatically.
During the course of the debating, the old Communist Manifesto line about "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" was trotted out as 'basic social contract'. On the face of it, the statement seems quite unexceptionable - but when you try and pin it down, it becomes quite a slippy concept indeed. You see the question I ask is: whose definition of the word 'need' are we going to accept? Certainly nobody I asked in the debate who supported the idea that we have a moral requirement to support the needs of others was prepared to define 'need' in absolute terms, instead prevaricating furiously whenever I really asked the question.
So I set out to look elsewhere for definitions of human needs. What are human needs, and who defines them?
The United Nations defines poverty thus: They state that any person lacking any two of the following list is, according to the UN, living in poverty: Access to adequate food, access to potable water, access to shelter, access to healthcare and access to education. I think there's a basic definition of 'need' there which we can all get behind, although a definition of what level of education (am I in poverty if I can't get to postgraduate education?) counts is still needed.
Looking closer to home, I checked out Oxfam and the Government's Social Exclusion unit.
Oxfam make a big deal about how 1 person in 4 in the UK lives in Poverty. This is a staggering number - more than 15 million people. The front page of their website makes quite a to-do about eradicating poverty. But what is "poverty" in those terms? Digging through their website, we find that Oxfam defines poverty as: "Poverty is measured here as below 60 per cent of contemporary median net disposable income in 2000/01."
Go back and read that again, and think about what it means.
It means that, according to Oxfam, who are leading a poverty eradication campaign, poverty itself can never be eradicated. Simple maths tells us that a proportion of the population will always live under a set point of the median income, because that's what the median means. In other words, if you're working for Oxfam in poverty reduction, then you've got a job for life. I'm sure it's only the cynic in me that suggests this thought might have crossed the mind of whoever set this somewhat arbitary standard of 'poverty'.
But what of the Social Exclusion unit? They too are trying to end poverty - but finding how they define 'poverty' is bloody hard. Anyone would think they didn't want you to know. Eventually, I tracked down some studies (carried out by the Joseph Rowntree foundation) they were basing their statistics of poverty on, and found some of their definitions. They, like the UN, set a list of criteria of what poverty 'is'. However, their criteria differ quite markedly from the UN; their list includes things like 'Not owning or having access to a car' and 'not owning your own home'.
What is most striking about both the Oxfam and SEU definitions of poverty (and thus 'need') is that I, personally, meet their criteria for poverty. When Oxfam or government statistics are trotted out to tell you how many people live in poverty in this country, their criteria are so broad that they catch me in there.
So, the next time an Oxfam worker collars you in the street and demands you set up a standing order to help them eradicate poverty in the UK because (adopts meaningful and portentious tone of voice) "One person in four lives in poverty", just remember what the true face of poverty in the UK looks like. It looks like mine, and I'm stuffing a jammy Wagon Wheel into it whilst I'm typing this.
As I'm in poverty, can I have a handout now, please?
These catch-all, broad definitions of 'need' and 'poverty' only serve to undermine the genuine problems of a very small proportion of the population and instead all they tell me is that when people say 'from each according to his needs', those 'needs' are a very moveable concept indeed, and the definitions given seem more designed to keep the people doing the defining in comfy jobs than to actually solve any genuine problems.
What strikes me even more is that the definitions are being defined completely arbitarily; I can make up any definition to 'need' and 'poverty' and then tell you that I want to do something about them - and most people, because they never consider the assumtions being made and the definitions being used, will go along quite happily, unaware that they're being bilked.
So; if socialists can make up their own definitions of 'need', then two can play at that game:
it strikes me that what most people need is a firm kick up the arse and, thanks to my kickboxing, I have the ability to give it to them. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs indeed.
So if you'd all line up and bend over, I've got some percussive rectal encouragement to get on with.
Why did nobody ever tell me before that Communism could be this much fun?
raggedhalo's journal (again) about politics and economic theory. No surprises there; when one of the basic contentions being made is that the public sector is wildly corrupt and inefficient but it is better to raise taxes to cover the ensuing shortfall than to deal with the corruption and inefficiency you can expect my blood pressure to go up dramatically.During the course of the debating, the old Communist Manifesto line about "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" was trotted out as 'basic social contract'. On the face of it, the statement seems quite unexceptionable - but when you try and pin it down, it becomes quite a slippy concept indeed. You see the question I ask is: whose definition of the word 'need' are we going to accept? Certainly nobody I asked in the debate who supported the idea that we have a moral requirement to support the needs of others was prepared to define 'need' in absolute terms, instead prevaricating furiously whenever I really asked the question.
So I set out to look elsewhere for definitions of human needs. What are human needs, and who defines them?
The United Nations defines poverty thus: They state that any person lacking any two of the following list is, according to the UN, living in poverty: Access to adequate food, access to potable water, access to shelter, access to healthcare and access to education. I think there's a basic definition of 'need' there which we can all get behind, although a definition of what level of education (am I in poverty if I can't get to postgraduate education?) counts is still needed.
Looking closer to home, I checked out Oxfam and the Government's Social Exclusion unit.
Oxfam make a big deal about how 1 person in 4 in the UK lives in Poverty. This is a staggering number - more than 15 million people. The front page of their website makes quite a to-do about eradicating poverty. But what is "poverty" in those terms? Digging through their website, we find that Oxfam defines poverty as: "Poverty is measured here as below 60 per cent of contemporary median net disposable income in 2000/01."
Go back and read that again, and think about what it means.
It means that, according to Oxfam, who are leading a poverty eradication campaign, poverty itself can never be eradicated. Simple maths tells us that a proportion of the population will always live under a set point of the median income, because that's what the median means. In other words, if you're working for Oxfam in poverty reduction, then you've got a job for life. I'm sure it's only the cynic in me that suggests this thought might have crossed the mind of whoever set this somewhat arbitary standard of 'poverty'.
But what of the Social Exclusion unit? They too are trying to end poverty - but finding how they define 'poverty' is bloody hard. Anyone would think they didn't want you to know. Eventually, I tracked down some studies (carried out by the Joseph Rowntree foundation) they were basing their statistics of poverty on, and found some of their definitions. They, like the UN, set a list of criteria of what poverty 'is'. However, their criteria differ quite markedly from the UN; their list includes things like 'Not owning or having access to a car' and 'not owning your own home'.
What is most striking about both the Oxfam and SEU definitions of poverty (and thus 'need') is that I, personally, meet their criteria for poverty. When Oxfam or government statistics are trotted out to tell you how many people live in poverty in this country, their criteria are so broad that they catch me in there.
So, the next time an Oxfam worker collars you in the street and demands you set up a standing order to help them eradicate poverty in the UK because (adopts meaningful and portentious tone of voice) "One person in four lives in poverty", just remember what the true face of poverty in the UK looks like. It looks like mine, and I'm stuffing a jammy Wagon Wheel into it whilst I'm typing this.
As I'm in poverty, can I have a handout now, please?
These catch-all, broad definitions of 'need' and 'poverty' only serve to undermine the genuine problems of a very small proportion of the population and instead all they tell me is that when people say 'from each according to his needs', those 'needs' are a very moveable concept indeed, and the definitions given seem more designed to keep the people doing the defining in comfy jobs than to actually solve any genuine problems.
What strikes me even more is that the definitions are being defined completely arbitarily; I can make up any definition to 'need' and 'poverty' and then tell you that I want to do something about them - and most people, because they never consider the assumtions being made and the definitions being used, will go along quite happily, unaware that they're being bilked.
So; if socialists can make up their own definitions of 'need', then two can play at that game:
it strikes me that what most people need is a firm kick up the arse and, thanks to my kickboxing, I have the ability to give it to them. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs indeed.
So if you'd all line up and bend over, I've got some percussive rectal encouragement to get on with.
Why did nobody ever tell me before that Communism could be this much fun?
Re: Maths clarification
Date: 2006-01-10 02:23 pm (UTC)It is theoretically possible to eradicate poverty under this definition, but, bearing in mind that no human society has ever done so and it is not forseeable that any will, it is profoundly unlikely. The definition of 'poverty' using those terms means that in all likelihood 'poverty' will never be eradicated irrespective of how wealthy society ever becomes.
As such, this definition of 'poverty' is false because it does not take into account the actual standards of living within society, or the actual wealth of individuals within it. It is an arbitary and relative scale which is meaningless except inasmuch as it means nobody working at Oxfam is going to have to look for a job any time soon. And David is still counted as living in poverty within this system despite not doing so, and he's not the only one.
Better?
Re: Maths clarification
Date: 2006-01-10 05:45 pm (UTC)Re: Maths clarification
Date: 2006-01-11 09:43 am (UTC)What's even more interesting is that the National Statistics people count the 60% of median line as being 'low income', whilst Oxfam count it as 'poverty'. Why do Oxfam call it poverty when others don't? Is it cynical marketing?
I expect adverts to subvert meansing and play with words to sell products to me - I can deal with that and I even enjoy playing the game. What I don't like is charities and government agencies, who claim the moral high ground, doing the same.
I've said I wholeheartedly agree with the UN definition of poverty - I've posted it elsewhere. However, the number of people who live in actual, as defined, poverty in this country is a vanishingly small proportion of the population. There are a number of people who are bloody skint (including me), but that's not poverty and saying it is is downright untruthful.
Re: Maths clarification
Date: 2006-01-11 09:44 am (UTC)Re: Maths clarification
Date: 2006-02-23 04:20 pm (UTC)It is really again down to the extent to which one sits on the range from an entirely equitable society to one where if you fail to provide for yourself for any reason no help is given.
Have you considered that you might actually be poor? That not possessing any significant assets at your age means you are relatively poor?(Assuming that you don't have millions in a Swiss bank account or similar, which of course I wouldn't know about!)
Re: Maths clarification
Date: 2006-02-23 04:23 pm (UTC)I mean, a private island and a sports car might be nice and all, but they're not essentials.
Re: Maths clarification
Date: 2006-02-23 04:58 pm (UTC)2 - Since, on average, you should have a reasonable capital base by now, maybe you're being exploited and you aren't recognising it. Do you actually have a fair share of resources given the effort you put in?
Re: Maths clarification
Date: 2006-02-23 10:55 pm (UTC)2) What is 'fair'? I don't need more than I have, so I can't see why I would want to punish people who are lucky/hard working enough to have more than me. If, by social definitions I'm 'poor', then that's a very strong argument to reduce the tax burden across society, because it simply demonstrates that 'poor' is a state of comfort and happiness and there's no need for socially funded initiatives to relieve me of my burden of poverty.
I am responsible for my own life and the success or failure thereof. Punishing others because they have more than me wouldn't make me happier or more content. It would simply be unfair to them for no real gain to anyone.
Why would I consider myself 'exploited'? I'm healthy, happy, enjoying myself and have all the material comforts any person could ask for the above to continue. Exploited is slave labourers on Columbian Cocaine plantations, not dedadent wessterners like me or you. Why should I be automatically granted a greater share of resources simply based on effort I put in? What would you consider to be a 'fair' share for me? If you think that you've got too much and I have too little relative to our 'effort', feel free to send me a cheque, but if you do I'll just laugh at you for being fool enough to think that my financial situation warrants it, and then buy another few acres of rainforest to put into public trust for future generations, which is what I usually do with spare cash.
Re: Maths clarification
Date: 2006-02-23 10:59 pm (UTC)If you think I don't have enough resources based on the effort I put in, the quickest solution would be to reduce the tax burden on my company which lost in excess of £100,000 last year into Iron Broon's pockets. Were it not for that I would have made a profit for the 2005 financial year and would undoubtedly own a fast car by now, thus giving me a much fairer share of resources based upon my effort.
Re: Maths clarification
Date: 2006-02-26 12:34 pm (UTC)As for losing money:
1 - That's what new companies do. 5 years is a fair average by which point a new firm should be making real money. Without knowing the specific market, I can't really comment further on your business plan or current position.
2 - You certainly shouldn't have paid corporation tax - if you did I'd get a better accountant!
3 - Most NI and all Income Tax are taxes on individuals, not on companies, so you shouldn't be including them in the company's tax payment total (I don't know if you are).
4 - VAT should have been passed on to end-users so you shouldn't have paid anything there.
I'd be interested to know your tax breakdown actually was.