Poverty is the Default State

Adherents to Marxist ideology and proponents of socialist government systems contest that "capitalism creates poverty". An effective invalidation of this argument is the true statement that poverty is actually the starting point for individuals, phrased often as "poverty is the default state". This argument is immediately understandable and difficult to contest. This argument does not prove capitalism is good or bad, but rather that it simply cannot create poverty as poverty is the default, and all systems can either perpetuate poverty or create prosperity. Still, it is often argued against in a very roundabout way that attempts to redefine words or - perhaps intentionally - misunderstand the statement.

Let's clarify "poverty as the default state". This is not an economic argument, but a philosophical one. A default state is the bare basic starting point. It is entirely unaugmented, which is to say, when nothing is done to change it to a different state, it remains. If actions are taken but are then ceased, then things will revert back to this. It is a "resting state" so to speak. Poverty as the default state does not refer to an individual in society within society as it is now, but it refers to all of humanity and human society as a whole. Without actions by any given person or group of people, poverty follows for individuals. Poverty can be averted for one by the actions of others, but this necessitates that action is taken. Thus, inaction reverting to a default state of poverty is not felt just on individual levels, but society as a whole.

An applicable understanding of this is that a child born into a family not living in poverty is not impoverished, despite no actions taken by the individual. The child can descend into a state of poverty by actions outside of his control, and with few resources, skills, or innovative action may remain there. However, even then, yet other people can, by their actions, cause this child to be pulled out of poverty without action by the child. While it's unlikely that a child could pull himself out of poverty on his own, even that is a potential action. An individual who takes no action, possesses no resources, and/or is not given resources, will always be impoverished.

Arguments against poverty as the default state ignore this understanding and attempt to apply it differently. This is why it's always very important to define your words and arguments. The follow examples are arguments I've seen against "poverty as the default state".

"Poverty doesn't have to be the default state"

This argument fundamentally misunderstands the concept of a default state. This argument attempts to define the default state as the starting point for each individual within society contingent on factors present in that society. To understand this argument in practice, it refers to the default state in reference to individuals, with the idea that when others take actions to elevate an individual above poverty, it changes their default state. This argument's fallacy rests squarely on the fact that default states cannot change.

If, as a society, we all shared resources and wealth to a point where no one was in poverty, it does not change poverty as a default state. If the actions are stopped - the ones doing the work to provide resources to the ones who are not working - the default state returns. Thus the argument that posits "something else could be the default state" is fundamentally flawed. Nothing else can become the default state without the very rules of our universe changing. We must eat, thus we must work - or at least, someone must work. This means action of some kind must always be taken, by someone, somewhere, to leave the default state of "not having enough resources to survive", which is what poverty is.

"What really is poverty? [attempts to redefine poverty]"

This argument is similar to the previous argument, but instead of trying to redefine what a "default state" is, it attempts to redefine poverty itself. This argument is effective if unchallenged, as a nebulous, subjective concept cannot be a default state, as a default state demands consistency in any and every environment. I mentioned earlier that defining your terms is important, and I did, if you noticed, define poverty as "not having enough resources to survive". If this is not the definition of poverty, its position as the default state could be challenged. So, let's be more clear about what poverty really means.

The opposition tends most often to make the claim that poverty is relative, and it sure seems that way. In the United States, the federal poverty level is $12,000/year. By contrast, $12,000/year in some of the poorest countries is 3x their national GDP. Whether you think GDP is a valuable measure or not, its undeniable that what this shows is that the national poverty level in the USA is way higher compared to whatever one would be considered as being impoverished in these poor countries. This brings a strong argument against poverty as a default state if even a rich man in Uganda is impoverished according to the United States national poverty level.

The problem with the United States national poverty level being used to bring doubt upon poverty's ability to remain objective is that what has happened is merely a definition out of necessity. In the United States, we have socialist welfare programs that redistribute tax money taken from "well off" people and gives it to the poor. To do this requires a level considered "poor" within the standards of living in the United States. It would be worthless to base this number off of the world at large, as not only is the wealth disparity across nations very wide, but the resources of other countries does little to help us have resources in our country. What has happened here is that we take the real definition of poverty, "not having enough resources to survive", and narrow down resources to one particular resource - currency. The national definition of poverty, then, is the one that is wrong.

Let's apply this concept. Say an individual living in the United States on his own makes just $12,000 per year, but has family, many friends, and several other support systems providing resources to him. This accumulation of resources from sources other than his reported income on his W2 provides him enough to live comfortably. Is he impoverished? If you are tempted to argue that he is, you are being intellectually insincere. We already established that a child living with a well off family is not living in poverty, despite not producing any wealth himself. The only difference here is that the man is physically living "on his own" - but he is truly not living on his own. This voluntary redistribution of wealth by actors other than the government provide a way for this man to be lifted from the default state of poverty into a situation where he is not left wanting for anything. It does not matter who does the lifting - a large number of individuals, the individual himself, or the government - the result is the same. The default state has been left behind for the elevated state where enough resources for survival are present.

Thus someone can live simultaneously below any given "national poverty line" while still not "living in poverty" due to the actions of others, as previously established. Not only that, but someone could earn below what is considered impoverished while still having enough resources to survive due to possession of or access to resources that simply aren't taxable income. This means that measurements of poverty in any of the various nations cannot be the true definition of poverty. We understand poverty in this argument as an objective and consistent concept that can be applied without alteration to any person living anywhere in the world.

A less common argument in the attempts to redefine poverty challenges the concept of poverty as a lack of currency, which as we have already discussed, is valid. It, however, does nothing to challenge the argument of poverty as the default state, as should be clear from my apartment dwelling man example. Rebutting this argument is as simple as clarifying that the opposition is correct, lack of government issued currency is not by definition poverty, and then properly defining poverty. Remember, this is not an economic argument, but a philosophical one.

"The default state is having enough resources for everyone to live comfortably"

This argument attempts to redefine the default state. This is different from the "Poverty doesn't have to be the default state" argument, which posits the default state could change. This argument posits that the default state simply is not poverty.

This argument is that, if people did not claim private property, everyone would simply have enough resources to live comfortably. This person does not believe anyone can make claims to resources, whether it be wild blueberries, or electricity or oil to run machines that produce resources. This argument hinges on several ideals that are fundamentally flawed and is obviously based in the idea of "ideal communism" - that is, what the theory of communism would be if it ever worked (people willingly sharing resources to the benefit of everyone), and not what it always devolves into (a violent State that seizes and controls all resources).

Now, we could argue about the functional application of communism in rebuttal of this argument until we're blue in the face, but it would be to no avail as it doesn't actually refute the argument. The argument here is saying that, without people making claim of resources, there would simply be enough resources for everyone. However this ignores that the resources would not pop themselves up out of the ground and walk themselves into factories and homes. Work still must be done. The proper application of this idealistic communist operation - unclaimed resources going to everyone as they needed them without anyone hoarding them or charging others for them - still means that someone is doing work. This means that this argument can simply not be a "default state". Actions are being taken to elevate individuals above the default state.

This means, yes, a successful application of idealistic communist utopia would result in a lack of poverty. But that doesn't mean it's the default state. The idealistic communist utopia still requires application. Work must still be done. The argument that the default state is "plentiful resources for everyone" is flawed because it's a misclassification. "Plentiful resources for everyone" could be true, but it doesn't, by itself, remove poverty as the default state.

If you lived in a small village and there were enough wild resources around to feed everyone easily, then there are plentiful resources for everyone. But actions need to be taken to turn those resources into food and to bring them to each person. The village could still live in poverty if those resources are not distributed properly by workers. Half the village may work on gathering and refining resources into food and other valuable commodities while the other half does not, the former half still sharing those collected resources without charging for them, but this does not mean that the default state has changed. If the former half that gathered the resources stopped taking this action, the default state comes back unless counter-action is taken. Plentiful resources and poverty can exist simultaneously, thus, to argue that the default state is "plentiful resources" ignores the necessity of work, or action.

This argument, in fact, is a failed attempt to argue against a completely different premise. The argument in full was actually, "The default state is having enough resources for everyone to live comfortably, capitalism is the violent seizure of these resources". They were rebutting the concept of capitalism as the means of creation of prosperity, but managed to challenge the concept of the default state, perhaps merely due to naivety.

The statement of poverty as the default state rests hand in hand with the presentation of the important question, "what creates prosperity?" The presumed argument in full is thus, "Poverty is the default state, thus capitalism does not create poverty, as poverty by its very nature is not "created". What, then, creates prosperity?" The person speaking may vouch for it being capitalism, while the person who claims this argument I have refuted is vouching for communism. Thus, this is an all around failure to make a coherent argument. They do not actually need to argue against poverty as the default state, but are in fact arguing for communism as the answer to the question of what creates prosperity, or "having enough or more than enough resources to survive".

What I have argued here is not if capitalism creates prosperity or not, but that poverty is in fact the default state. The communist does not need to refute the true statement of poverty as the default state as it does not hurt his arguments. He should - if he were smart - embrace it, then move onto the explanation of how he believes communism most effectively elevates people above that default state.

A simplified answer to "what creates wealth," is, in fact, "work". The details of how this work is to be performed and by whom and under what regulations is thus the real debate to be had. Arguing against poverty as the default state does not help the communist promote his ideals, it simply makes it clear that he lacks the intellectual capacity to comprehend such concepts.