Are poor people responsible for their suffering?

[Mr Hyde]

Are poor people responsible for their condemnation, personal torment, and poverty?

It should be noted that every society has an ideal standard that they mark of what they deem as the good or appropiate citizen and should anyone be outside of it's measure of influence the choice is forfeit to them largely because of their own inability in their own will to conform with such practices.

So far I have come to the conclusion that the poor exist by others moral judgements of their industrial/specialized capabilities specifically the lack of where those same very judgements revolve around a envisionment of an ideal society where those that don't meet the conceived moral qualifications disguised under pragmatic economical utility are rooted out unto ridicule their entire lives by class based segregation and humiliation.

Does that seem accurate to everyone reading this thread?

My opinion of the poor class goes as the following:

The poor and the oppressed are collateral damage for someone elses convenience, pleasure, or happiness.

The state acts as insurance that such practices will have new bio-power of human beings to fill the demand and supply in each new generation.


People are not responsible for pre-existing exigencies that forces on them millions of demands upon birth of being.

( Althought the state would like us believe that every citizen is responsible.)

Responsibility is also a social construction having no bearing on the nature of reality. It is a clever deception on the part of governments and various ideologies to lure human beings into enslavement.

The state sees individuals as obsolete when they can no longer find luxory in their existence. They are seen as worthless anachronisms.

The state has everything indexed, categorized, and tagged with all deviants outside of the idealistic code reduced to confining enslavement.

The lower classes are seen to have no applicable function beyond servitude and consumerism.

Society can maim and kill. Indeed it is in the its power over life and death that it manifests its ultimate control over the individual.

Society determines the manner in which the human organism is used in activity; expressivity, gait and gesture.


Social existence depends upon the continuing subjugation of biologically grounded resistance in the individual, which entails legitimation as well as institutionalization.

The individual continues to expirience himself as an organism, apart from and sometimes set against the socially derived objectifications of himself.


Subjective appropiation of identity and subjective appropiation of the social world are merely different aspects of the same process of internalization, mediated by the same significant others who have control over individuals througout their lives.


Subjective appropiation of identity and subjective appropiation of the social world are merely different aspects of the same process of internalization, mediated by the same significant others who have control over individuals througout their lives.


Roles are forced upon people in state societies often by coercion or violent force if one doesn't get the opportunity to "choose" their lifestyle.


Institutions are there, external to people, persistent in their reality, whether they like it or not, they cannot wish them away.

They resist their attempts to change or evade them.

They have coercive power over people, both in themselves, by the sheer force of their facticity, and through the control mechanisms that are usually attached to the most important of them.

The objective realities of institutions is not diminished if the individual does not understand their purpose or their mode of operation.

People may expirience large sectors of the social world as incomprehensible, perhaps oppressive in their opaqueness, but real nonetheless.

Since institutions exist as external reality, the individual cannot understand them by introspection.

It is important to keep in mind that the objectivity of the institutional world, however massive it may appear to the individual, is a humanly produced, constructed objectivity.


The poor man is constantly punished for not living to the ideals of general society.

Through his labor of menial tasks he is punished.

Through his low wages and earnings he is punished.

Everywhere he goes there exists the penalty of his economical circumstance lead by idealistic perceptions that are socially constructed in origin.

Finally through his little to no access to social pleasures and gatherings he is punished physically in both mind and body.

The poor man becomes a living symbol of the unwanted, ridiculed, outcasted, and ill-disposed in the idealistic simulated reality of society.

The chimerical irony out of all this is the reality that poverty only manifests itself in the constructed simulated realities of men as it exists nowhere else since it entirely remains a by-product of society's inventions and desires.


The lower classes are made into the image of Sisyphus as punishment for their impurities in the face of accepted standardized ideal systems where they are forced to give themselves over to a life of purposeless work as punishment for the rest of their lives.

[motherhubbard]

I agree with what you are saying, somewhat. Poverty is more complex. I think this question is as old as time. In the book of Job, Job’s friends wanted to know what he had done to deserve such hardship. This thought equates to poor means undeserving, rich means deserving, super rich means super deserving. Crazy.

There are different kinds of poverty. The culture of each kind of poverty often determines the outcome. The culture of Generational poverty furthers generational poverty. But, the culture of situational poverty tends to lead people out of that situation. Sometimes people may choose to overcome this situation, some people really don’t have the choice. Then there are those who choose their poverty. I’m in this group. Well, just above poverty, but really stinking poor. My husband and I chose this course because we didn’t want to put the kids in daycare. I’m not sorry about that, but I am able to manage better than people who don’t have the land necessary to support a large family. And, there are people who find themselves thrust into poverty. This could be an illness or something like that, or It could be bad decisions like drug use.

I think we should all learn to see past class. Poverty is hard, but it’s not shameful. I have to look at what people do with their poverty and how they manage themselves and their children.

[Mr Hyde]

This thought equates to poor means undeserving, rich means deserving, super rich means super deserving. Crazy.

Crazy as that may seem to you the meanings of that ancient story hasn't changed much as that is the metanarrative we still use in modern economies too.

There are different kinds of poverty.

Sure.

The culture of each kind of poverty often determines the outcome. The culture of Generational poverty furthers generational poverty.

Sure.

But, the culture of situational poverty tends to lead people out of that situation.

If they are lucky.

Sometimes people may choose to overcome this situation, some people really don’t have the choice.

Sure.

Then there are those who choose their poverty.

Rare but I understand what you are saying here.

And, there are people who find themselves thrust into poverty. This could be an illness or something like that, or It could be bad decisions like drug use.

Trust me when I say there are more factors than just that.

I think we should all learn to see past class.

It hasn't happened yet and it never will.

Poverty is hard, but it’s not shameful.

Tell that to those living in poverty against their own will.

[AuntShecky]

The Supreme Being, it has been said, must love poor people because he made so many of them. There are hundreds of aphorisms about the plight of the poor, but two of them immediately come to mind. One from Balzac,
if I'm not mistaken: to paraphrase: the rich have as much right to sleep under bridges as the poor.
The other one comes from DeTocqueville, a French writer who reported on life in early America. He said "America is the worst country in which to be poor."

As far as I can tell, the premise of the posting which opened this thread posits whether the poor are responsible ( guilty?) of their own plight. By asking the question in this way presupposes that poverty is a matter of choice.
No matter the historical era or culture, I do not think anyone would deliberately choose to be poor. (Of course, I'm not counting members of various faiths who take voluntary vows of poverty upon entering religious orders.)

A person is poor only due to circumstances. In devastated
third world countries and regions such as Darfur, what does "poverty" mean? Just about every man, woman, and child faces death from starvation, illness, and violence at a level that defies the imagination of the Western World. In other countries of the world, as the original poster suggests, the poor are subject to oppressive governments which have a grip upon their respective economic systems that ordinary citizens are bereft of any opportunity to improve their lot in life. Other circumstances, such as illness, disability, and discrimination against age, racial, gender, or class can also stack the cards against an individual.

I'm not a historian, but I can't think of any society in centuries past in which poverty was non-existent. For instance, think of feudal Europe made of fiefdoms in which
the rulers exploited the work of serfs. The Industrial Revolution which started in England in the early nineteenth
century ostensibly provided employment for people, but
"employment" in that era merely meant that workers became just another commodity in the system. Despite the efforts of worldwide labor movements and experiments with different economic system, the fact remains that wealth tends to cling to a small percentage of the populace and very seldom "trickles down." Even casual readers of the literature of the time, especially Charles Dickens's novels, can understand the injustice of such economic systems.

There are also philosophical and religious beliefs that entrench poverty within societies. Religions that sprang
from the writings of John Calvin, for instance, tend to equate prosperity with blessedness. Those who frugally hang on to wealth, be it saved or invested are displaying a sign that they have been blessed. The converse of that
is that the Poor are not blessed; in fact, they are wicked or
damned. If a man is poor, the reasoning goes, he must be lazy, shiftless, dissolute. That's why readers of fairy tales will often see a line "he was poor, BUT honest--" -- as if poverty and dishonesty necessarily went hand in hand! So it is the Calvinist background of American Protestantism which gave poverty its immoral taint, and this may be why DeTocqueville made his observation.

Yet reality bears out that fact that "no one ever got rich by hard work." I read somewhere that in my country today
a very tiny percentage of the population (the ruling class, if you will) holds 90% of the wealth. That remaining 10%
really wears thin, the pieces of the pie mere slivers, when
it is spread down through the middle and lower classes.

It's not a disgrace to be poor, as has been said -- But it's no great honor either!

There is a spirit of optimism in America that if one gets a good education and works hard, he or she can climb out of poverty and make a better life for himself and his family. Certainly the dream works for some, but not all.
A person can have nearly all the elements required for economic success: education, a willingness to work hard, yet still may fail, still find himself unable to break out of poverty. So once again, the Poor, whether anyone wants to admit or not, are unwitting victims of circumstances, and should not, in most cases, be blamed for his miserable lot in life. Whether or not a person is rich or poor depends, ultimately, upon luck or chance.

[motherhubbard]

AuntShecky

[Mr Hyde]

The Supreme Being, it has been said,

I've never met a supreme being. Can I get their telephone# by chance?

(I wonder if the supreme being has caller I.D.)

must love poor people because he made so many of them.

If such a being ( grand assumption without merit) existed it must really hate humanity for all the suffering that it itself has created.

( Truely such a being must be a sadist.)

the rich have as much right to sleep under bridges as the poor.

But instead choose their ivory towers to watch them from above in mockery.

"America is the worst country in which to be poor."

Living in the United States I'm inclined to agree.

As far as I can tell, the premise of the posting which opened this thread posits whether the poor are responsible ( guilty?) of their own plight. By asking the question in this way presupposes that poverty is a matter of choice.

Sure.

No matter the historical era or culture, I do not think anyone would deliberately choose to be poor.

Agreed. Therefore it must be forced and coerced upon them.

Do you agree?

(Of course, I'm not counting members of various faiths who take voluntary vows of poverty upon entering religious orders.)

They don't count as far as I'm concerned.

A person is poor only due to circumstances.

Sure.

In devastated
third world countries and regions such as Darfur, what does "poverty" mean?

I'll take a shot at that one: Being segregated to a part of the country all the while being slaughtered through that of genocide.

Just about every man, woman, and child faces death from starvation, illness, and violence at a level that defies the imagination of the Western World.

Not really. The West let us not forget has enriched it's hands in it's own fair share of blood too.

And then you have casualties of war or collateral damage where non-participants are killed all the time in combat.

( The west is just really effective at concealing it.)

In other countries of the world, as the original poster suggests, the poor are subject to oppressive governments

Actually my post was meant to describe the entire world not one part of it.

There is more poverty and inequality in the west than what you think.

which have a grip upon their respective economic systems that ordinary citizens are bereft of any opportunity to improve their lot in life.

Happens all the time simultaneously while humanity in the background dances around calling itself moral and describing itself as a enlightened creature that aspires towards fairness.

Pretty laughable.

Other circumstances, such as illness, disability, and discrimination against age, racial, gender, or class can also stack the cards against an individual.

Sure.

I'm not a historian, but I can't think of any society in centuries past in which poverty was non-existent.

Sure.

For instance, think of feudal Europe made of fiefdoms in which
the rulers exploited the work of serfs. The Industrial Revolution which started in England in the early nineteenth
century ostensibly provided employment for people, but
"employment" in that era merely meant that workers became just another commodity in the system.

They still are considered commodities, tools and objects in today's world.

Despite the efforts of worldwide labor movements and experiments with different economic system, the fact remains that wealth tends to cling to a small percentage of the populace and very seldom "trickles down."

Making the word equality seem that much more useless.

Even casual readers of the literature of the time, especially Charles Dickens's novels, can understand the injustice of such economic systems.

Excellent example.

There are also philosophical and religious beliefs that entrench poverty within societies.

Definately. For instance judgements of seperating and segregating the pure from the impure in caste systems which I believe is the origin of classism.

Religions that sprang
from the writings of John Calvin, for instance, tend to equate prosperity with blessedness.

Exactly.

Those who frugally hang on to wealth, be it saved or invested are displaying a sign that they have been blessed. The converse of that
is that the Poor are not blessed; in fact, they are wicked or
damned.

Agreed.

It's not a disgrace to be poor, as has been said -- But it's no great honor either!

It is very conflicting, isn't it?

There is a spirit of optimism in America that if one gets a good education and works hard, he or she can climb out of poverty and make a better life for himself and his family.

Of course that optimism rests on random luck as far as I'm concerned since everyday I see people living damned lives in contrast. ( Myself included.)

Certainly the dream works for some, but not all.
A person can have nearly all the elements required for economic success: education, a willingness to work hard, yet still may fail, still find himself unable to break out of poverty. So once again, the Poor, whether anyone wants to admit or not, are unwitting victims of circumstances,

Agreed.

and should not, in most cases, be blamed for his miserable lot in life.

Pretty much.

[AuntShecky]

It occurred to me this morning, when I started thinking of this thread, that merely chalking up poverty as primarily the result of chance is a bit facile, and shouldn't be left at that. I need to clarify that statement, if I may.

I looked up Albert Camus's "The Myth of Sisyphus," to which the original poster, Mr. Hyde, alluded. The original story comes from Greek mythology. I'll try to paraphrase: Right before he died from a terminal illness, Sisyphus wished to test his wife's love by ordering her to cast his unburied body into the middle of the public square. Apparently he wanted to see if she would love him so much that she would refuse to do that unspeakable deed -- but for her obedience was more important than love.

Now in the underworld, Sisyphus asked and received permission from Pluto to return to earth and severely rebuke his wife. (This is the opposite of the Orpheus myth.)
But once he was back among the living, Sisyphus found that he loved life; as Camus tells us, "he no longer wanted to go back to the infernal darkness." Obviously, such a defiant sin angered the Gods. Mercury snatched up Sisyphus and plunged back into the underworld where he was damned with the eternal punishment of ceaselessly rolling an enormous boulder up a hill, only to watch it roll back down, over and over again.

Camus sees Sisyphus as a hero -- and not a tragic one. In his situation, so absurd and untenable, Sisyphus takes it upon himself to find dignity, uniqueness, humanity. Camus writes; "At each of those moments when he leaves the heights and gradually sinks toward the lairs of the gods, he is superior to his fate. He is stronger than his rock."

This is much like the situation of modern man, Camus believes: "The workman of today works every day of his life at the same tasks, and this fate is no less absurd. . .
Sisyphus, proletarian of the gods, powerless and rebellious, knows the whole extent of his wretched condition: it is what he thinks of during his descent. The lucidity that was to constitute his torture at the same time crowns his victory. There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.

If the descent is sometimes performed in sorrow, it can also take place in joy."

If there is anything that existentialists including Camus tell us, it is this: despite the absurdity of the human condition, the "nothingness" of existence, it is the individual's responsibility to fill that vacuum with meaning.
That "meaning" is freedom, from which a person can shape
his own life -- not through self-pity, but action. In this
way he can become "master of his days" -- his fate belongs to him.

So, going back to the original question, no, the poor are
not responsible for their own poverty, and they may never overcome it. But that doesn't mean that they should sit back and accept it. They don't have to "like" it. They can roll their own rocks up the hill, and even if it rolls down again, they can find meaning somewhere, somehow in their beleagured state.

We can sit around and philosophize and complain about injustice, or we can try to do something about it, in some small way. We can trickle a drop here and there into the
vast bucket. Even if we are poor ourselves and can't donate $ to various causes, we can still try to do something for somebody else:
--advocate for homeless people
--work for safe and affordable housing
--volunteer at food pantries
--tutor struggling kids, volunteer at GED programs.

Little gestures are not going to change the world, not even a little piece of it, but doing something infinitely better than doing nothing. Because one thing is sure, doing nothing will never change anything.