Is poverty a form of terrorism?

[greatauntoftriplets]

And what do we do about it? Years ago in my extreme youth, LBJ launched a "War Against Poverty". It still exists. Is this the way of the "War on Terrorism"?

It leads people to do desperate things.

And Martin Luther King was killed 36 years ago today. He has inspired this post.

[kiahzero]

1. By definition, no.

The definition of terrorism is the use of violence against civilians for political or ideological aims.

Poverty is not violence, and in all but the most extreme case, it is not a intended political or ideological goal (unintended consequence, perhaps, but not the actual goal).

[Selwynn]

23. Violence doesn't have to be physical -

The actual definition of terrorism is the use force for the purposes of intimidation and coersion. That can be physical agressive violence, phsyical passive violence (i.e. starvation, abuse, etc.), psycholigcal violence, etc.

You can use poverty as a weapon against the people, and governments frequently do so. Anyone who says that poverty is not an political goal is tragically naieve. There are many situations in which the political goal is the keep the poor poor, for the very reason that it keeps the rich rich.

[SoCalDem]

28. Poor people live at the ragged edge of society

they often have little "safe" water to drink, their children often have no schools, or are needed to work on their subsistance farms...

if they live in "most" poor countries, their children are always in danger... daughters in danger of child-rape and/or marriage at age 13.. sons and husbands , in danger of consription into military..rebel or government, the result is the same.. an impoverished family left behind to fend for themselves..

housing is marginal at best, usually made from scraps, and vulnerable to pests of all kinds and weather damage..

Even in the 21st century, most of the world's people live a hand-to-mouth existence.. they spend large parts of each day, just finding and carrying food and water. They have no access to "paid work".. They have no health care, no real schools,no commerce at all , except for barter..

Some see their "salvation" . in moving to the city, where they believe that they will be better off...they are not...They are poor no matter where they go..

---

I have lived abroad, and this is the way it really is.. Americans who have never seen foreign poverty , cannot imagine it.. Our poor people are underserved because we CAN afford to help them, but choose not to.

---

[brokensymmetry]

2. More a form of control.

The poor have few options, and thus can be controlled more easily. They generally have no means of resistance - access to lawyers, for example.

[x-g.o.p.er]

4. The poor DO have control over their future

I grew up dirt-poor, but I enlisted, used my GI Bill (a wonderful government program to help those who need it) and tuition assitance, got my degree, became an officer, and am in a position where I have never used welfare (my mom and I were on it when I was growing up), and my children will never need it--unless I am such a terrible parent I have infused absolutely no values or work ethic in them whatsoever, or such a catastrophe befalls them that I am unable to fathom.

My point is, there are programs available to those that want to break the cycle. It's very hard work, and the programs available for tuition assistance, child care, etc., are not easy to find, but they are there.

You can't choose the circumstances that you were in when you were born, but everything else is up to you, IMHO.

[Union Thug]

5. problem is..

...the exception proves the rule. Most do not experience this mobility.

[brokensymmetry]

6. Sure. However...

it seems I presented my point poorly. The highly motivated poor can - like you - rise above their beginnings. This is the classic American dream.

That being said, once one is trapped in the cycle of poverty, escaping it can be quite difficult. You chose the military as a path out (and thank you for your service to America!), and the GI Bill provided a boost. For those living paycheck to paycheck, perhaps with a child, the problem may be more daunting.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. Sadly,

many of these fine programs are in danger of being eliminated. Even as I speak, PEL grants are way down.

-from someone who grew up poor and went to college on scholarship.

[strategery blunder]

14. Poor people should be subjected to an economic draft?

Is serving bu$hco the way to get out of poverty?

[x-g.o.p.er]

39. I just used the military as an example...

There are many ways to better oneself, and education, IMHO, is the key to bettering yourself economically. The gov't is vital in that chain, but the individual person can't just sit and wait for fortune to smile on them.

[strategery blunder]

41. Often, the only way that poor people can realistically afford college

is through the military/GI Bill. I would like to think Peace Corps and Americorps would be peaceful alternatives, but their budgets have been cut to the bone, IIRC.

I agree that individuals shouldn't "have to wait for fortune to smile on them," however, they should have oppurtunities to get an education without selling out to PNAC.

I support free college education. I would not quibble with anyone who argues for a Civilian Conservation Corps-style agency to implement community service requirements to get such an education, but such a program would have to be WELL-FUNDED and well-advertised so anyone who wanted to join could (unlike Americorps today)

[sweetheart]

24. Who paid for your escape from poverty?

Military service is a form of welfare. You sponged off the state
and got out of poverty.

Your story implies that all americans deserve the public investment
that went in to *you*.

Hellen Keller has a similar, even more difficult story than yours and
she was an intense socialist, by her realization that not all people
are so lucky to have had the ladder "out" so readily available as
her.

We owe it to all people, to offer a hand up, rather than kicking
away the ladder and saying "i made it without help." Bollocks.
You got plenty of help from the state, and it obliges you to consider
offering a similar hand up to others.

I agree that it is incumbent upon the individual to make their own
way in life, and to expect no free hand, yet in saying that, we all
take a free hand from our mother, or we would not be alive today.

Given the basis of life, that *ALL* people are helpless and need
support at some point in their life, it would be wise to realize
this truth... and that you can't say what the future will bring.
Many folks, before they die, are again reduced to the dependency they
had at infancy.

[Selwynn]

27. That was very touching for me, thank you.

[x-g.o.p.er]

35. I absolutely agree...

I just used the military as one example as a way to change your circumstances. To be able to break the cycle of poverty, I think a person needs some motivation, a supportive family, and/or help from somewhere, be it the government with aid or tuition programs, or some sort of private charities.

I agree that no one pulls themselves up without any kind of assistance of some kind. But no one can expect to improve their circumstances if they just sit back and wait for it to happen, because it won't.

[Selwynn]

26. So if you're poor its because your lazy? Where have I heard that before

On behalf of my bankrupt parents, one of which had a stroke at 50 from busting his ass all his life, I hoist my middle finger salute to you.

[x-g.o.p.er]

37. No, it's not...

My point was, and is, that if you want to succeed you will, you just can't sit back and wait for it to happen.

[Selwynn]

44. So.... my parents havent "succeeded" ....they must be bastards.

Who just aren't "working" hard enough. Or am I misunderstanding you...

[x-g.o.p.er]

53. Yeah, you are....

and put your middle finger down...it's unsightly. And very mature.

Your parents are in circumstances that are beyond their control. Obviously when someone works himself to a point where he suffers a stroke, he's not lazy or irresonsible, and I am truly sorry to hear that your parents are going through such an ordeal. And situations like that are quite different than those who are healthy, able, and willing to work to do better.

I think you completely misunderstood my point. If you can work, are able to work, and want to work hard to improve your economic conditions, you will. But you will need some form of help from somewhere, whether you realize it or not. Not everyone will become Bill Gates, but you can move prom lower class to the middle class.

[bread_and_roses]

33. You worked hard, and deserve admiration for that, but

...for one thing, the system is set up ensure surplus, disposable labor. If every poor person suddenly tried to do all the things you did, there would simply be no room for them. If every minimum wage worker suddenly had a college degree, there would be no jobs for them. And in large swaths of the country, there aren't enough jobs , period, at any wage.

And varios social/racial/ethnic/physical/geographical etc. factors can over-come the strongest will.

I once saw a chart showing the rate at which people moved out of poverty in different (Western, industrial) countries. The US and UK were at the bottom. I believe the Netherlands were at the top. But the real shocker was not that the US was at the bottom (ie, moving fewer people out of poverty) but by how much.

My point is two-fold: the systems you reference are there, but are not funded to serve the number who need them, and that there are larger socio/economic factors at work that cannot be ignored.

[The Lone Liberal]

34. There is only so much room

and so much wealth. The masses are always going to be at the edge of subsidence and are kept there by the elite. The rich want to stay rich and to do so they must terrorize the masses.

Regardless of how much you want out of your class or how hard you work to escape your class the chance of you doing that are almost nil. That is fact! When someone states that fact everyone acts as if they were whining or envious. It is one of those unspoken truths that cannot be talked about, or, even acknowledged that it cannot talk about.

History is replete with examples where the elite and the wealthy have terrorized the masses in the name of economics. The Free Market is in and of itself a form of terror.

[angryinoville]

3. According to Kucinich...

poverty is a weapon of mass destruction. I agree

[ulysses]

22. that's a good point.

Like to see that become a regular talking point.

[GreenPartyVoter]

52. I agree with him too.

Arranging the world so that a segment of the population are deprived of education, healthcare, and the financial means to survive is definitely class warfare, but since that segment doesn't have much of way to fight back then yes, I'd say the one-sidedness of it all makes it terrorist in nature.

[ConcernedCanuk]

7. Absolutely

.
.
.

The way the poor are treated, even here in Canada, is "controlling" them with fear.

Fear that they will be cut off: prevents some couples from living together, keeping their children and so on

Welfare recipients in Ontario are prohibited from belonging, or affiliating with a group that is just welfare people. They don't want welfare people to organize or know their rights.

Many welfare people can't get off the welfare merry-go-round just because the administrators won't help them. People making $40,000+ a year telling people how to live on $6,000 a year -

right, - like THEY know.

They want you to take your pittance and shut the hell up!

Poor people are all lazy, stupid, alcoholic, drug abusers -

Dincha know???

[Union Thug]

9. The answer is..

Public funding of university education for EVERYONE... retroactive, as well (for us 40 year olds that never had a chance to finish our degrees).

Oh wait... That won't change the economy.. it will..just.. well.. educate people, which will make them more likely to turn on the bastards in charge.. and this would create 1917 anxiety among the rich, who know in their heart of hearts know that 1917 was just a beta version of what's to come once people become educated...

Forget it.. never going to happen.

[camero]

10. Has anybody here heard of the Irish Potato Famine?

That in itself was a form of terrorism. Letting the populace starve is something I would say is violence.

[sweetheart]

29. An interesting form of disenfranchisement that.

Those hungry were offered small money for their farms and became
disenfranchised poor by the "solution". We don't starve in modern
poverty, rather we don't vote. We don't live very long. We have
no home and no safety for our person... that when you accept the
total poverty of homelessness, your very body is violated without
sanctuary anywhere... human rubbish.

I'd say rather, that extreme poverty is closer to slavery in its
attributes, more so than terrorism. It is not "terror" as much as
hopelessness and apathy.

Throw a 4 month old baby on the street and watch it die. That is
inhumane. Do it to an 80 year old woman and it kills her off as
well. Put her in 2 jobs until she dies, so at least she can serve
fast food to the master. Maybe you can pack her off in to a bus and
have her pick apples until she dies.

When your through with her, dump her on the street. Not terror, but
an inhumanity of disgusting proportions.

[camero]

38. The person of means may see it as merely hopelessness

But the person with nothing or very little sees it as economic terrorism. When the few have the vast amount of resources and the ones without being forced into a form of slavery then that is terrorism. Just a different form.

[greatauntoftriplets]

31. Queen Victoria gave a certain amount of money to famine relief.

And to prove her generosity, she donated the same amount to the Battersea Dogs Home.

Read that years ago in Cecil Woodham Smith's wonderful book "The Great Hunger".

My ancestors survived the famine, they were lucky.

[JanMichael]

11. If systemic exploitation, and expropriation, is terrorism...

...Then yes.

This is a surplus labor question?

[greatauntoftriplets]

20. Not a surplus labor question.

Just inspired by a quote from MLK on today's news, and I wanted people's opinions. Made me think of the "War on Poverty" and what an abject failure that has been. Same way I see the "War on Terra" headed, though that is throwing shitloads more good money after bad. We should have stayed with fighting poverty, then I think we would have less terrorism in the world. Not that I am advocating globalization, of course. <shuddering at the thought>

[Cuban_Liberal]

12. It is a weapon of mass destruction.

Congressman Kucinich got that right, because it not only breaks the body, but it grinds the soul into dust... :(

[NNN0LHI]

13. Yes, but occupation is the worst form of terrorism

It kills you but you don't die. Its like death that never ends.

Don

[maddezmom]

15. yes and is a root cause for terrorism

it's all a cycle and until we can combat poverty and what it entails...terrorism as we know it will always exist.

[SoCalDem]

16. I once read (somewhere) that it costs $40K per family

to administer "aid" and goodness knows how much it costs per person to incarcerate them for drug/property crimes..

Wouldn't it really be more cost effective, and a boost to the economy to just "eliminate the middle man" altogether??

Contrary to the rightwing notion of the "welfare queen in the furcoat, behind the wheel of a cadillac", most downtrodden people do not even get welfare.. Most are probably too proud, or not quite poor enough to qualify..

Consider also, that the "help" is very much like the carrot on the stick, dangled in front of the draft horse.. Almost reachable,but never gonna get it..

If a family (or individual) gets $100 less per month than they "need" to live on, they will NEVER ...EVER... get ahead..

.. Poverty reduction is nibbled to death by gnats, and nothing bold enough to make a difference will ever be done..

[Ysabel]

17. yes...

and contrary to what one poster said - i believe that it definitely IS the intent of some governments...

...governments which first create and / or continue to promote the condition/s of poverty - and which use it as a weapon of mass destruction...

yes - it is a form of terrorism...

[gottaB]

51. If you mean government in the sense of "the Republican government"

I'm inclined to agree.

Maybe I'm inclined to agree anyway.

You start with the premise that deprivation, through ideological manipulations, can be made to carry meanings beyond simple lack of material goods. Deprivation can be politicized, weaponized, targetted, and used as an instrument of terror. Examples are legion.

As for the US government, I think you see that impulse to terrorize through impoverishment coming mainly from the right. Some Democrats, it must be said, have acquiesced, exploited the situation for political gain, or even themselves actively sought to terrorize the poor. In the main, however, I don't believe the Democrats endorse poor-sploitation, and many are adamantly opposed to such things.

[SoCalDem]

18. Feudalism/Capitalism REQUIRES poverty

Everyone cannot be the CEO/Prince/King/Lord and Master..

It takes a lot of serfs/slaves/"willing employees" to get the actual work done.. If people were paid commensurate with their labor,the big guys would not be able to be as rich as they are..

Underlings must be kept "hungry, eager, compliant,and quiet".. It's the way things are done....In order to feel superior, there MUST be an "inferior".. Which one wins?? One guess :(

[Cursive_Knives512]

19. Bread and circus, eh?

That's an interesting thought! I like your comparison of feudalism and capitalism.

[Ysabel]

21. yes - i agree...

...and the u.s. government creates and promotes this - and always has...

[SarahB]

40. If this Capitalism goes much farther

We will be living in a Feudalistic society. In a sense we already are because so much is in the hands of so few.

[Selwynn]

25. You can use poverty as a weapon - to intimidate or coerce - that's terror

That is the goal of terrorism. To use physical or psycological violence to intimidate or coerce.

[buddhamama]

30. it is a form mass destruction and distraction

it causes terror. Unless you are one of the lucky few who are so well off money in not a concern, poverty has reached your consciousness and terrorized you. anyone can fall victim to poverty.

It is used as a weapon to pit citizen against citizen re:welfare etc.

It is used to exploit citizens; physically and mentally detroying them.

YES, it is a form of terrorism.

The ideas and means to end this terror have long been known,
but, the WILL is not there.

And please let's not hear talk, "if people wanted to work they could"
because 1) as far as i know there has never been 0 unemployment and 2)in case someone hasn't been paying attention; working at Walmart does not provide a person a livable wage. So yes, there's work to be found, maybe, but too many will still be living in poverty.

[sweetheart]

32. Terrorism no, but slavery yes

The cold war was a civil war about the search for happiness though
material progress disseminated by the Industrial Revolution.

The soviet variant suffered from shortages and lack of freedom. The
american neo-liberal version suffers unemployment and social
exclusion. These pressures enslave the "work unit" to the system
and force them, more effectively than any whip, in to the master's
kitchens.

Many people say that most slaves were well treated, and it is similar
today, that most of the new-slaves are well treated and will even
go about endorsing what great slaves they have become having mastered
the system of work on the master's plantation. Yet we condemn
slavery, not for those well treated, but for those who were broken
and taken of their very humanity. In this regard, poverty is no
different than slavery, and a society that has supportd this
disgusting practice, has reinterpreted abolition. Yet we are today
on the cusp of a new civil war to win the right not to be a slave
again, in a new century, from a new-slave-economy.

[The Lone Liberal]

36. Would you call the Ludlow Massacre a Terrorist Act

I think I would.

[buddhamama]

50. i would too

and that is but one example. The early twentieth century saw many "Ludlows".

For a more Modern perspective one could look to the Civil Rights movement.

[LWolf]

42. Poverty is a weapon,

according to Dennis Kucinich:

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/poverty.php

Once again the hopes of people of two nations are being smashed by weapons in the name of eliminating weapons. Let us abolish weapons of mass destruction at home. I am from the inner city. I have inspected these weapons.

Joblessness is a weapon of mass destruction.
Poverty is a weapon of mass destruction.
Hunger is a weapon of mass destruction.
Poor health care is a weapon of mass destruction.
Poor education is a weapon of mass destruction.
Discrimination is a weapon of mass destruction.

Let us abolish such weapons of mass destruction here at home. Eight and a half million Americans are unemployed. Bankruptcies are up. The number of uninsured without health care is up. The price of prescription drugs is up. Poverty is up. Crime is up. Homelessness is up. Hopelessness is up. Fear is up. Let us use the trillion dollars which some would cast upon Iraq in bombs and warring troops, instead for the restoration of the American dream, to rebuild our economy, to rebuild our cities and to expand opportunities for all.

Those who say we can have guns and butter do not know the cost of guns and do not know the bread you would put your butter on is being stolen. America may spend over a trillion dollars for war in Iraq. America can give a trillion dollar tax cut to the rich, spend a trillion dollars to put weapons in space, but not a dime more for temporary assistance to needy families.

[dpbrown]

43. Poverty is a Weapon of Mass Destruction

So we need to find it where it exists and root it out.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[maggrwaggr]

45. Good God, it's notions like this that gave liberalism a bad name

Define "poverty".

American poverty? Mexican poverty? Calcutta poverty?

Just because people can't afford satellite television and two BMW's sitting in their front yards does not make them victims of "terrorism".

Most poor people in America still live better than most of the people on earth.

And the fact of the situation is that the earth doesn't have the resources to let EVERYbody live like Americans. We already consume 25% of the earth's resources.

So you ask is "poverty" a form of terrorism?

That is a gross misuse of the word "terrorism". It's an insult to anyone who has ever actually suffered the results of terrorism.

And it's an insult to my intelligence.

[rman]

47. "...earth doesn't have the resources..."

"...to let EVERYbody live like Americans"

Define "American way of life".

Is it when you can afford satellite television and two BMW's?
Is it when you can barely pay the rent, only by not having health ensurance?
Or is it living in a cardboard box?

"We already consume 25% of the earth's resources."

And that's exactly the problem;
Just because 6% of the world population (America) has 50% of the worlds wealth, much of the other 94% of the world population is coming up short.

So poverty exsists at least in part because a wealthy influential minority uses its influence to hoard resources at the expense those who already have far less wealth and influence.
Whether or not that is terrorism is debatable, but it sure is immoral.

[maggrwaggr]

57. "barely afford to pay the rent"

on a house or apartment that actually has windows, running water, a toilet that works, gas and electricity?

That's living like a fucking KING compared to most of the people on the planet.

[buddhamama]

60. can't pay rent, is more appropriate

they're called the working poor and their numbers keep growing.

any guesses as to why this might be?

because they government has this little formula for determining 'poverty', one problem with that formula though, it hasn't changed since the 1960s.

markets have changed since the 60s though, haven't they?
a significant one being the Housing Market.
with Clinton's economic boom came skyrocketing rents.
the job market went up with Clinton too, but a major fallacy
that still exists is that, everyone benefited- living the silicon valley dream, nope. a large percentage of jobs created were low paying jobs.
again i'll use the example of Walmart.
try making $6.25 an hour and finding a rent in the housing market of the middle-late 90s to the present; in addition to other responsibilities.

[The Lone Liberal]

48. Calcutta poverty exist in the United States

Calcutta poverty exist in the United States for the most part it has become invisible because we are told it doesn't exist. There are people going to bed under bridges, families going to bed hungry, there are people starving to death in the U.S.

We have been fed a myth and we accept it, for if we did not accept it we would be forced to admit the society of the free market has failed.

[maggrwaggr]

55. show me

the only place I've seen that kind of poverty is among the homeless. And believe me there's plenty of that right here in downtown LA.

Most of these people have serious mental problems and need to be put in a mental hospital. Which is a whole 'nuther argument.

There has always been poverty and there always will be poverty.

If you take all the wealth in the world and divide it evenly between every person on the planet, everybody would have about twenty bucks.

And then where would you be?

The biggest problem facing the world, and the human population, is too many goddamn people. Overpopulation.

[buddhamama]

49. i want to live in your America

n/t

[maggrwaggr]

56. why don't you travel to a third world country and see what real poverty

looks like.

People here whine about not having health insurance, well drive through the slums of Chihuahua some night and see how the people are living in cinderblock shacks with no running water and no electricity.

Then tell me the poor in America are victims of economic "terrorism"

Give me a break.

[buddhamama]

58. drive through the streets of Washington, D.C.

give me a break.

do you realize that in most states they no longer take names for housing assistance because waiting lists are, in some places, over four yrs long.

where the hell do you think those people go?
there aren't enough shelters to accommodate everyone.
those stricken by poverty may not run in your circles, but let me assure you, we have `em.

liberal elitists give liberalism a bad name.

btw, people here at DU or other Internet sites bitching about health care etc are probably not among the impoverished.
one bad occurrence and they could be though.


pretty myopic view you got there.

[maggrwaggr]

59. so you're ready to call it "terrorism". Fine, go ahead

n/t

[Yupster]

46. Poverty will always exist because

poverty is such a relative term.

It means the poorest.

No matter how well we do there will always be some poorer than others.

In my town, the poor section of town really is south of the tracks. The homes are awful. It is truly a place of poverty. However, every house has air conditioning and a color tv. I grew up without either of those things.

In one generation things like air conditioning went from a great luxury to a complete necessity.

That's why we'll always have poverty.

[rman]

54. poverty isn't that relative

There will always be people who make less then anyone else.

However, depending on their income and the cost of living, these people may in fact not be poor.

As long as people can afford housing with the basic comforts (clean water, heating, electricity), and sufficient transportation, and as long as people can afford decent food (including vegetables), and as long as people can afford basic insurance, health insurance and a pension - then these people are not poor even though they have the lowest income.

In the US however there are many people who cannot afford one or more of these basic necessities in spite of the fact that they do have a job. Suppose you have to choose between either a home to live in, or health insurance, what would you choose? More often then not a minimum wage forces you to make that choice. So, the fact that these people do have a home to live in doesn't mean they are not poor.

There is such a thing as a minimum standard of living.
Maybe we should ask the wealthy elite what they consider to be "minimum standard of living", and wether or not they think that standard applies or should apply to everyone.

[ulysses]

63. relative? Depends.

;-)

Seriously, though, I think we can objectively define "poverty", at least for a given time and place. A lot of creature comforts like a/c get much cheaper over time, so that you may not be less poor than your parents, but you're still able to afford things that they couldn't.

Not that I have that objective definition handy, mind you, but I think it's entirely possible to draw a line and make the case, based on a lot of things.

[Ysabel]

61. levels of poverty...

there are various levels of poverty...

as there are levels of CLASS...

many living in poverty are answerable to some authority over them - many are in debt to others "above" them (other levels) - this assumes that certain poor people have at least some source of livelihood and because of their debts and servitude - they are not truly free...

then there are some who are destitute - the homeless people - some who may have no ties left at all - if they ever had any ties - homeless people are in debt to none...

homeless people - may be the only ones of us who are truly free...

the homeless people are the very people who you know who embraced and the homeless people are the very people who you know who claimed would inherit the earth...

would that all - BE LIKE AS EQUAL - (with / as) - homeless people...

Let ( >> it is time << ) us rid ourselves of class distinctions...

[Ysabel]

62. hey - that was my last post...

of the 700 club...

Forward...! :)

[maggrwaggr]

64. the point that is all-too-easy to miss

is that many people who we Americans consider "poor" and "poverty stricken" are actually pretty happy.

Yet I know plenty of people who are absolutely rich, who are absolutely miserable.

I find it interesting that Americans assume that if you're poor, you're utterly miserable.

I think it's a bias based on our culture of capitalism.