Last Tuesday’s and today’s columns were a two-part essay on poverty; in particular, an attempt to understand its origin from an anthropological context, vis a vis the role of government in the development of poverty.
Tuesday‘s column:
Poverty and private property
Poverty is not a modern-day phenomenon. Of course, that is not the same as saying that poverty is old as man. On the contrary, based on anthropological data, there seems to have been a time when humans only cared about basic subsistence and human society was not as economically fragmented. So, what brought about poverty? Is it private property?
A good starting point for understanding private property is anthropologist Lewis H. Morgan’s “Ancient Society” which later on became the focal point in the treatise “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State” by Friedrich Engels which included the notes of Karl Marx. The focus of Morgan’s study is ancient Indian tribes, but the second half of his book includes discussions of ancient Greek and Roman societies.
In Part IV of Morgan’s book, he discusses what could have led to the concept of private property. He writes: “The earliest ideas of property were intimately associated with the procurement of subsistence, which was the primary need.” Morgan gives illustrations which can be summed up as, thus, the earliest forms of private property were objects necessary for subsistence–weapons to hunt and kill wild animals with, tools to create vessels to store and, later, to cook food. Land, however, was held in common.
It was cultivation of land that led to ownership of private property. Although land was communal property, the right to cultivate became a personal one and subject to inheritance. Combine that with the right to inherit tools and you have the basis for accumulation of quite a lot of private property.
It appears, therefore, that private property as we know it today evolved from kinship. As relationships became monogamous and more importance was placed on family, kins became more concerned about the survival of their immediate family rather than that of the community. Consequently, what a family possessed, it wanted to preserve and keep within the family. Inheritance, therefore, could be viewed as the real ancestor of the modern concept of private property.
Ergo, as communities grew, relationships became more complex and distribution of property became more unequal. Inheritance, especially when it became sanctioned by communal rules (law), gave way to a situation where private property was originally something that ensured the survival of the family, it became a birth right and quite detached from the notion that ownership of private property was simply an offshoot of survival. Even those who did not work could become wealthy.
So, extending Morgan’s observations, there evolved a situation whereby the accumulated private property was more than was necessary for a family’s survival. For brevity, I will call it “wealth.” Having experienced the ease and convenience that wealth brings, man developed the notion that more wealth equals an even easier and convenient life. And within the realities of a finite physical world, the accumulated wealth of some became the source of poverty of others. Therefore, neither the concept of private property itself nor inheritance gave way to poverty. They were the means, yes, but the cause is, and always will be, the human desire for “more.”
Going back to Morgan, although he admits that there are epochs that left very little data for study, he goes on to say that as communities grew, the earliest form of government (tribal leaders, elders or chieftains) started to sprout. For these people to do their tasks effectively, they were spared the requirement of contributing to the job of feeding and defending the community. They were allotted part of the produce without having to work for it.
Let me depart from Morgan once more. It reasonably follows that primitive government, with its entitlement to a portion of the commune’s collective property, accumulated wealth as well. Any party that keeps on “getting” without “giving” is bound to accumulate anything he does not consume. But, more significantly, as government’s status became more defined, its power grew. Because government dispensed the tribal laws and settled disputes, it had the lone power to define the extent of rights over private property and thereby securing its own wealth and how it should be preserved and dispensed. And, the way that monarchies later developed, it is not unreasonable to assume that, at some point in time, even the title of leader or chieftain, and the power that goes with it, became subject to inheritance as well.
That wealth is power cannot be denied. And as the political elite–government– became wealthier, they became more powerful and in a better position to ensure that the status quo was preserved. Even as leaders grew old and died, or assassinated in some cases, people from their own class replaced them without disturbing the setup whereby the wealthy remained few and the poor remained the majority but always–always–within the control of the rulers. How was that possible? Threat, of course, in the guise of exercising legitimate authority in order for society to function effectively –the threat of punishment and the means to impose it. The fear factor, as it were, being a necessary tool to preserve the status quo. That status quo has been preserved to this very day.
Although Morgan does not categorically state that poverty is an inevitable consequence of progress, it is a logical inference, following the reasoning that the accumulation of wealth was a necessary offshoot of progress. But is it really as simple as that?
Continued on page 2.
Pages: 1 2
Where we go from here? How about all of us not paying taxes for a month, or a year. Or all of us borrow money up to our credit limit, and not pay anything back, then declare bankruptcy. And stop giving money to churches too. Or, all of the above.
Sometimes, it seems that what we see as real is only apparent, and truly real. Like government. WE demand so much from it because we’re working under the assumption that it should work for all of us. But did it ever?
Blame it all on agriculture. When everyone was a hunter-gatherer, no one had time to be the king/president/chief cause they were too busy trying to catch their next meal.
The culprit was when we became monogamous. Because as cited, our behavior since then became contrived instead of when we were honest and true with the moment.
Plus agriculture allowed the setting up of armies and religions since not everyone had to forage for food any longer with all the attendant horrors those institutions have wrought throughout history.
The fact that in the regular course of history, different societies produce wealthy and poor state of people means that having wealthy and poor people is the “natural” state of this imperfect world. The goal of making all people rich (capitalism) or making them all poor (socialism) are two extremes that exist only in the mind and finds no counterpart in reality. Forcing these ideas on people by any means possible only produces more evil than the good that it seeks to achieve.
Extreme form of poverty is a relative evil that all of us must contribute to eradicate. But poverty, in a personal level, is in itself, a virtue that all of us must nurture. Root cause? I agree with Connie that it is rooted in our inordinate desire to have more for ourselves than what we really need. Will having a little less than what we really need be the answer?
Miguk, interestingly, that is the theory being spoused by Daniel Quinn’s “Ishmail” where the supposed teacher, a gorilla of all things, divided us into takers and leavers. I had been thinking about it as I read Connie’s article.
Miguk, the irony is that without agriculture, no civilization would have developed. The even bigger irony is that it is civilization that gave birth to social inequities. You know, while the “short, brutish life” in the state of nature sounds horrible, it does have its attractions. No government, no laws, no taxes, no man claiming to be a conduit to god…
Tom, I was thinking about the monogamy part of Morgan’s book… I mean, he had a focus of study (specific Indian tribes) and monogamy might have been a much, much later development in other cultures. I think that the formation of family (and the thrust to preserve it, ergo, accumulation of wealth etc) and monogamy did not necessarily go hand in hand. There were some points in Sumerian civilization (and this was long, long, looooong after the period of primitive societies) when polygamy was still practiced.
John, re “Will having a little less than what we really need be the answer?”
Ummm… But that will be anti-progress, won’t it, because it is the desire for more (eg., build stronger houses, create better tools, find better ways to get and store water…) that gives way to inventions and new discoveries.
Tito Rolly, I’m still looking for that book. Pretty Socratic in approach, don’t you think?
To put it a little extreme, weapons were developed as tool to secure ones interest. This brings to war. History is replete with wars. It is easy to look at it in the context of a country. In the 2003 memo of Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo states, “The decision to deploy military force in the defense of US interests is expressly placed under presidential authority by the Vesting Clause and by the commander-in-chief clause.”
The US president may launch pre-emptive war against any state or nonstate actor by his simple assertion that US interests require it. Venezuela or Iran could be invaded on the president’s say-so alone to secure adequate oil and gas supplies. That is to secure one interest over others. War is just only one option. Dictating the terms of economic and trading agreements is another.
Possessions translate to power. The power holders determines who has priority interest. Today, addressing poverty is elusive because giving up possessions diminishes power which is a key to survival.
d0d0ng, Morgan’s data validates that — he wrote about stockades and weapons for defense. War appears to be inextricably linked with the earliest form of private property.
One way we could rid ourselves of the vestiges of primitive societies is to recognize that we couldn’t be straddling the Ages. It’s either we remain in the Industrial Age or fully transition into the Information Age.
I read somewhere that if one is born poor, it’s not his fault; but if one dies poor, it’s his fault. All men are created equal in the sense that each one of us has exactly 24 hours each day. What one does with his twenty four hours determines his station in life…those that produce and maximize the use of their time get rich while those that squander their allotted time each day become poor.
re: “those that produce and maximize the use of their time get rich while those that squander their alloted time each day become poor.”
What an inspirational thought. My idea of maximizing the use of my time these days is campaigning to bring the income up an average of $100,000.00 a year. Because if the campaign succeeds we would be in a position to correct a lot of these financial situations we got ourselves in.
Never should we allow ourselves to remain quiet along the fringes while these characters connive at squandering our money and time.
Another inspirational thought from Napoleon Hill, “Remember, no more effort is required to aim high in life, to demand abundance and prosperity, than is required to accept misery and poverty.”
Yes, I will do it!!!