Social Poverty.

The idea for this thread came from another thread found here on this website:


Material scarcity and the lack of abundance is only half of what comprises poverty in society.

The major bulk of poverty is social poverty. What is social poverty?

It is the absence of having any real concrete voice of your own in society publicly or personally in acting on many of your own individual social and instinctual impulses in life while being directed by another person outside of your own mind and body who claims to have legislative title to own yourself biologically not to mention where they claim to have precedence over your existence socially altogether.

People assume poverty is merely a material manifestation like most modern economists.

Infact economics has less do with material things as it has more to do with sociality itself.

Modern economists cloud the public minds by focusing all their efforts on materialistic pursuits while they control and neglect the social ones where the general public remains distracted long enough in not noticing that anything has happened.

Material things are merely a social end.

Material objects do not dominate social relations. Social relations dominate material objects.

Modern poverty has more to do with social isolation, segragation, prejudice, privation,alienation,public ridicule and desensitization through forced public identical statuses against the will of another person by the state or by standardized intellectual associations who establish themselves as the representatives of the market status quo in symbolic technocratic collective.

As the state and standardized educational institutions establishes hegemony over all social or material transactions by claiming to have absolute sovereignty over such things exponentially, through the division of society with the effect of alienating social isolation social poverty occurs which then makes up the bulk of industrialized poverty in a post-modern world.

I explain poor people as being in a state of social depravity, isolation, ridicule, public shame, alienation, and social misery.

Although poor people are considerably payed less and have less materialistic things I particularly like to focus my aim on social poverty in public social relations as that is the major bulk of poverty itself.

Why isn’t social poverty eliminated? Economists since the very beginning of economics and market systemizations have assumed that the causes of poverty were a materialistic one where people not having the ability in order to get to material resources created a state of people becoming a poor social class.

By such an over-sweeping assumption they have completely ignored the social framework of people altogether.

The scarcity of materialistic resources only played a small part on poverty in individuals.

Since the bulk of poverty is infact social poverty throwing money and constructing mass consumerism where material objects are the center of attention will of course do nothing for poverty itself.

The root of poverty is not material objects but instead is social relations.

Yet I remain very pessimistic in that I look at the elimination of global poverty as an impossibility also considering that we are a predatory species and that we are all psychological egoists.

I agree 100% with these statements.

Thanks. :slight_smile: I had sort of an epiphany there for a moment in maming this thread. ( Gets those time to time.)

I would say poverty consists 30% of the material and 70% of the social.

( If I had to get technical.)

There are two kinds of poverty. The social kind and the material kind.

Pretty much.

The attempt of my thread is showing how the social kind outweighs the material.

Social status and ridicule is the bulk of poverty.

You need some of both. Some substitute one for the other.

Sociality dominates the material. Not the other way around.

That is the fundamental flaw of today’s markets and economics.

My guess is that most economists know this but also understand that perfect social equality is impossible so instead they ignore the social framework altogether and spend most of their emphasis on materialistic resources all the while they pretend to serve “moral” equality hoping that material abundance will somehow magically make all social conflict go away overtime.

( Just a guess of mine.)

( That sort of ideology most likely was the prime motivator for the industrial revolution which Polyani a excellent anthropological philosopher goes over in detail.)

The thing about poverty resides on how the “haves” treat the “have nots”. The “haves” don’t want the poor to have things, so they reject them socially. Thus, they are “have nots”.

It then comes down to this:

  1. Choose to work your 9-5 job at minimum wage and shut up.


  1. Be homeless or commit a crime and go to jail.

Either way, society doesn’t give a shit about the poor, because American society is based on capitalism above all else (money) and hypocrisy (say one thing about rights/good/happiness and do the exact opposite while laughing).

Studying the social is less of a money maker than studying the material. Apparently, it’s easier to make lots of friends than it is to make lots of money.

Exactly. But guess what the real irony of capitalism is, realunoriginal? :slight_smile:

Capitalism focuses more on materialistic resources over social relations because in capitalism materialistic resources is the so called magical device that is supposed to bring about social equilibrium somehow. :laughing:

( Although they never explain how.)

We are basically living in a doomed systemization.

Money and materialistic motives have begun to dominate all social aspects of our lives.

In the past century it is almost like economists are trying to re-write people’s nature in that they are trying to take the focus or attention from life away from social relational pursuits to full marketable materialistic ones instead.

America has always been about making money, first and foremost. That is why people come here and left their relatives and friends behind.

How mechanical and material.


I don’t know about ‘doomed’, but it definitely is flawed. We are doomed dependent on whether this social dynamic progresses or regresses. In either case, if things get to out of balance in one direction or the other, there will be revolts or revolutions. The current trend is one that exponentially devalues human life on a massive level and then proclaims absurd & assumed moral ideologies to fill the gaps.

It’s quite funny and ironic! :laughing:

Too much socialism or communism is bad for the country too though. People are lazy in general and won’t pull t heir own weight unless forced to by outside forces. It’s the law of conservation at work in living organisms.