see box below

Poverty - Marx

Poverty and the eternal struggle of the working class is a concept that has been debated for centuries. The reasons given for the existence of poverty have ranged through the years from the result of a character flaw in the poor class to a naturally occurring state of a capitalist economy. While some theorists choose to blame the poor, others choose to blame the wealthy for their extortion of the poor. This paper will discuss one theorist, Carl Marx, and his theories of poverty and the struggle of the working class. Additionally, this paper will compare Marx's theory to those of two other theorists, and will show that although other theories have some validity, the theory of Carl Marx is the most accurate.

To understand Marx's idea of poverty and capitalism, one must first understand Marx's breakdown of the social classes. In almost all Marxist theories, class struggle is the underlying factor in most social issues. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx states "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles" (Carl Marx, the Communist Manifesto, 5).

Generally, the social classes are broken into three basic groups: those who own capital, those who do not, and those who exist between the two. Those who own capital or the bourgeoisie have ownership, purchasing power, and power to exploit labor. According to Marxism, the bourgeoisie use their purchasing power to buy capital, which often requires a labor force. The capitalist then exploits that labor, and uses the surplus from that exploitation to accumulate more capital. Marx saw this class not in terms of wealth, but in terms of the pursuit of capital through labor force exploitation. The capitalists then use this wealth to influence society, according to Marx. The capital owned employs workers who create surplus, and this surplus is used to create more surpluses, either through more industry, or through interest or rent charges (Marx, online).

The second class in Marxism is that of the proletariat.

This class represents the working class, in modern thought. The proletariats own only their personal ability to work, and nothing else. They have no capital, and thus have no way to obtain an income to support themselves and their families other than to work for the capitalist (Marx, online).

Their relationship with the capital owner is exploitive, according to Marx, in that the worker works as the capitalist requires, not as he or she would normally choose to work. Additionally, if the capitalist is to continue to accumulate capital, he or she must continue to keep the wages of the proletariat low to maximize the surplus of the capital. This means that the proletariat works more time than needed to provide their own survival for wages that further the distance between the income and capital attainment of the two classes. While the proletariat does the labor to produce the surplus, that surplus is given to the capitalist, as are the initial products of the labor (Marx, online).

According to Marx, it is this relationship that results in the working class poor. The proletariat is forced to work the hours and for the wages that the capitalist deems required. This prevents the proletariat from pursuing his or her own accumulation of capital, since their wages are not high enough to give them purchasing power. Additionally, since their time outside the range of the capitalist is limited, and since the efforts of their exploited relationship are for the capitalist, there is not enough time or labor power left to pursue their own capital (Marx, online).

According to Marx, this relationship causes a contradiction for the proletariat. In essence, the relationship between these classes is completely contradictory. The capitalist attempts to keep wages low and still maintain high production and labor output, so that they may gain more surpluses for capital. The proletariat has no opportunity to acquire or increase their own capital, but instead further the accumulation of capital by the bourgeoisie. The result is a cycle of poverty, where the proletariats remain unable to access capital, and the capitalist continues to gain more, and thus create more labor, furthering their exploitive relationships (Marx, online).

Marx believed it was this conflict of self that caused the struggle of the working class. While the capitalist and the proletariats are in contradiction to one another in this exploitative relationship, they are also partners, in a sense. Without the proletariat, the capitalist has no labor, which means no surplus. Without the capitalist, the proletariat has no means of survival. The class conflict that results is built into the capitalist system, and it is this conflict that creates the working class struggle. Bursts of attempts by the proletariats to overthrow the capitalists, such as strikes, crime, and political struggle, often only further the gap between the capital owners and the non-owners (Marx, online).

This can lead to such conflict and animosity that some proletariats find themselves in Marx's lumpenproletariat class (Marx, online). This class represents, in modern times, the homeless or the underclass. To Marx, this group was the "ruined and adventurous offshoots of the bourgeoisie, vagabonds, discharged soldiers...pickpockets, brothel keepers, rag-pickers, beggars" (Tom Bottomore, a Dictionary of Marxist Thought, p.292). The emphasis on this group by Marx in his discussion of the working class is to show how the bourgeoisie misuses the proletariat, eventually leading to their demise (Marx, online).

It is important to note that Marx did not see poverty or the working class as a result of the distribution of income, or social status, or power. Poverty is not, according to Marx, a result of anything the proletariat class does. Poverty and the working class in the Marxist theory are an essential aspect of the process of production. The struggle of the working class to both provide for themselves and the capitalist for whom they work is the essential component to any production system (Marx, online).

Marx also pointed out that there was a solution to poverty, as a whole. In order to end poverty and the problems associated with it such as crime, homelessness, lack of food and medical supplies and other necessities, Marx noted that the proletariat class needed to realize its position in the production process. His theory stated that by knowing its position, the proletariat could act on their own behalf to further their positions, such as by creating trade unions and using political power to improve working wages, conditions, and labor legislation. Marx thought it was only through a collective consciousness and a subjective awareness of its own power and positions that the proletariat could effectively combat poverty (Marx, online).

Marx saw poverty as an integral part of the working class cycle, one which was caused not by individuals or by culture, but by a class system within the structure of society. Poverty and the working class poor serve a purpose in Marxist theory, that being to further the capitalist class. Poverty is not, according to Marxism, a result of laziness, but rather a result of a market-based capital economy structure.

In contrast with Marx, other theorists such as Herbert Spencer believed that poverty was caused by the individual failings of the class its self. These theories rely on the idea that it is the fault of the poor individual that he or she is in poverty, and that it is the morality and ethics of that individual that causes their poverty. Spencer, who believed in the "survival of the fittest" concept, said that the poor were vagrants and criminals who were good for nothing. Whereas Marx believed that all should be helped to accumulate capital, Spencer believed that the poor did not deserve help. Since they were immoral and lazy, they were poor and to assist them would be futile since they were criminal to begin with ("Spencer, Herbert," online).

Marx's theory explains poverty far better than those of the individualistic theorists. Many studies have shown that most of the working class poor are willing to work, and in fact, do work. Their wages are low, which results in the inability to attain their own source of income, so they continue to have to work for minimal wages. Without a higher income, they are unable to attain capital, or attend college to gain the knowledge for a higher position. Spencer and the other individualists' theories are illogical, in that those theorists blame the poor as a whole for their plight, without seeking outside sources of their poverty.