I have a school project on world hunger, whom it affects and why, and how to solve it...

I have a school project on world hunger, whom it affects and why, and how to solve it. Why do the statistics show that less and less people are hungry when capitalism is supposed to make everything worse?

Attached: Screenshot_2018-05-14-09-50-36-1.png (1280x446, 55.57K)

Other urls found in this thread:


You've never read Marx have you?

Attached: socialist-eyes.jpg (362x218, 26.74K)

Do they, really?


And if they do, can they really be attributed to capitalism?

Attached: chomsky does growth justify the system.webm (640x360, 11.17M)

You might have missed it, OP, but our civilization is undergoing constant technological progress. Food production is now easier, cheaper and more efficient than ever before. The real question is, why is there still hunger at all.

We have the resources to end this. What we don't have is a functioning system of distribution.

That sounds really fucking familiar. Are you studying French?

Because facts are bourgeois,duh.

Yes, the aljazeera link merely contests the methodology of the Millennium Development Campaign.
If you're a marxist who sees all economic developments as capitalism, it would be to dishonest not to attribute the reduction of poverty to capitalism.

Systems of distribution never work very well.

norwegian here with a project in science

I know you're not going to, but read a fucking book, please.
Of course we have great technological advancement. As a stage of history, capitalism is supposed to cause that.

Markets are a system of distribution. It's just very decentralized and distributes based on how much money you have to spend on it, not based on any real "need". Very vulnerable to speculation, which does not fulfill any need.

And no, we're not talking about economic developments here. The reduction in hunger is quite obviously caused by technological advancements and social democratic band-aids.

It seems you have a very distorted view of our ideology if you think we hate technological progress if it happens under capitalism (because it is not directly caused by it, in our view. scientists make science, not capitalists)
reading a book could help remedy that.


While wearing thick-rimmed glasses and a turtleneck sweater of course, and only hard cover. Also, my book case is bigger than yours and your mother reads from it, in my armchair. So suck it up, nerd.
You are assuming that there is a fundamental difference between what is bought, sold, invented, innovated and produced and the way they change hands, that there is a pile of stuff over which only rests the question how to divide it. This is simply false, markets are what are best described as rizomes, they allow a multitude of needs and abilities to confer in a way a distributive system can never do; how many footballs to produce, how many fishing lures, how will they be divided, how can new ideas about them be turned into production? "Markets" are not some alien "system", just like the world is not the book you read, just like Russia isn't made out of pink paper because that's how it looks like in the world atlas.
Which is inseparable from what you call capitalism, technology isn't just something that pops up randomly, unconnected to the economy.
I'm hoping reading pic related will help me understand how some people's ideology never develops beyond the methodically stacking of their toys.

Attached: 81wv9OlyxCL.jpg (1575x1971, 409.53K)

We're hitting pure ideology levels that shouldn't be possible!


Go to Norway, draw a line in the sand, put the socdem on one side and the capitalism on the other side. Make sure to post a timestamped picture of this separation.

Actually, yes it is. Obviously they're connected, but for the most part economy is downstream from technology, not the other way around.

That's not an incorrect statement in your greentext, actually.

Earth is heterogeneous. Use nations not the world.

I don't think there is just a pile of stuff to be dirtibuted. There is also the labor power that needs distribution, there is the capital that needs allocation, etc etc.
The problem I have with markets is that they do not distribute to fulfill as much use-value as possible, but an abstract idea of "demand" that is based on the amount of money they have.
Furthermore, they are almost never properly free, as they are often in control of an oligopoly or worse, can't be entered by anyone because of entry costs (which isn't how meritocracy works obviously), usually suffer from many negative external effects (pollution for example) and reward behaviour to control the market from outside more than just acting inside of it (cartels, marketing, etc.), which means even less demand is fulfilled.

Markets work sorta on paper, until you include the idea of corporate owned property. Then you start having all these problems. Then markets are not used as a vehicle of people to bring production to consumption, but one of capitalists to profit as much as possible by hampering that process with the unreasonable amount of power they have over it. They are rich, and we know money is power. It is only in their interest.
The deadweight loss triangle isn't only caused by taxation, you know. It is also caused by monopoly. By maximizing profit. Even regular economics recognizes that.

And thanks for calling me a nerd. Is knowing stuff a bad thing now?

Uhuh. don't even Conservative economists show that something like 90% of new wealth being made goes to the top 1%? it's really mind boggling that conservatives think there is no possible way to improve this. you'd think it would be self apparent that a system that gives 6.930.000.000 Billion people 10% isn't the best way to go about reducing poverty, especially when
which you're supposed to not even acknowledge, or say it was all a side effect of capitalism.

sauce? big if true

You realize that markets are a system of distribution, right?

oxfam money.cnn.com/2018/01/21/news/economy/davos-oxfam-inequality-wealth/index.html


Yeah it really is. Technological development really has no connection to the economy beyond the fact that it serves as a material point from which to begin development. After that the economy can only hinder development.
This is fucking autism

I kinda' doubt the regulatory and welfare reforms that prevented the entire system from imploding in the 1930s come from the capitalist half of that equation

Read the fucking book!
Everything is explained there, yet people ask the same dumb questions over and over again.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (800x1349, 2.43M)