Poverty, Charity and Philosophical Wonderings

Something I’ve noticed recently, largely through the constant email appeals of my work colleagues, is that there are an awful lot of charities out there. Foundations supporting disadvantaged kids, cancer research, women’s’ rights, men’s health, the general poor… The list is virtually endless. It really makes you think about the numerous ills afflicting our society.
I mentioned this to a workmate – “there are so many charities out there, I can’t afford to donate to them all!” I complained. She agreed it was a shame that there needed to be so many – that there was so much wrong with the world, that we needed so many NGOs to help ease the pain. But, I thought, they say if all the world’s billionaires donated some of their wealth, they could eradicate extreme poverty…
A friend to whom I related the story thought differently. What if, she suggested, the world actually needs poverty in order to run as we know it? A ridiculous thought, was my initial response. But then she laid out her reasoning.
Economically, poverty makes sense as a source of cheap labour and cheap production. With the eradication of poverty, millions of people would suddenly find their cost of living rising – and no one wants that.
In addition, socially, it gives people something to strive for. After all, the eradication of poverty is a goal that many people ostensibly want to attain – if you want proof, simply look at the number of charities in operation around the world.
Politically, it gives governments something to have on the agenda. While it can be a source of shame in some countries (see what Beijing did in the lead up to the 2008 Olympic Games), it can also be a sort of weapon. Think pledges to increase aid budgets, thereby enhancing global reputation and giving the people back home a warm fuzzy feeling that at least they are doing something.
The reasoning behind this school of thought seemed both logical and selfish. Sure, I could see why people might subscribe to this worldview, but what about all those who were trampled on along the way? The 99%, sustaining the lifestyle of the other 1%. Unfortunately, as extreme poverty continues and the gap between each end of the spectrum widens, it seems that this viewpoint is the dominant one, at least for now.
You could say that this is simply the result of our capitalist society. Indeed, capitalism does allow for people to be richer than others. The alternative put forward by Karl Marx has been widely discredited. Does that mean there is no hope of eradicating poverty?
There are other ways, other methods. But until one is widely accepted and implemented, the world will keep turning as it does now – and my inbox will continue to overflow with the requests for charitable support that go at least some way to helping those living in poverty.