Bobbie En Tejas wrote:Ionns, just as it is a blanket statement to say poverty is the fault of the poor, it is also a blanket statement to say that it isn't.
I can't speak for poverty in Scotland or other first world countries outside of the US, as opportunities and rights may be different there, but in the US, in most places if the child is living in poverty, take a good look at the parents.
Chances are extremely high - that if you look at the parents - then they will be poor people too. Then again look at a middle class kids parents - surprise surprise middle class. Upper class kid upper class parent.
We as a society accept unquestionably the transfer of inherited wealth, children born into a middle class background will receive the wealth of the parents - when the parents die. In many ways these kids have a distinct advantage over those born poor - chiefly the collective lifetime wealth of their parents. The existence of Three main classes proves the point. I personally received nothing but grief when my Dad died. Nothing to pass on - hey though what's new - he received nothing from his dead Dad - so on and so on - I come from a poor family.
Poverty as wealth - is an inherited condition - why baulk at the prospect that takes blame firmly out of the equation. You cant blame your father or mother - for the colour of your eyes.
The values your class embrace collectively be they - low middle high - are distinct to that particular class.
The battle cry of the more progressive elements of the middle class is opportunity and rights. They perceive society to be in some way fair - full of opportunity . By implication the poor who have obviously failed to grasp these mantels are at fault.
It is extremely difficult to explain experience - one has to experience experience. You can tell a child till your blue in the face - not to put their finger on the fire - as it burns. The child who burned their finger understands more than the child who hasn't.
The greatest artists - would paint an apple to visual perfection - however if negative circumstances prevailed - and they failed to taste the fruit - then in essence they have limited understanding -through sheer lack of experience.
As far as the structure of the Three main economic classes are concerned , one has to question the urban myth that their is freedom of movement between the classes. This is the lie that we take as truth - Orwellian by nature. What you have is movement within each sub class - no more no less. Each class has three main distinctions of wealth. The working class - class ranges from those who enjoy the benefits of their labours to those that Marx described as the lumpen proletariat. Some movement between these sub classes exists - however movement between the main sections rarely occurs - at least not without some form of catalyst .
I cant help thinking that some of the posts - are clearly influenced by a ruthless streak of puritan Calvinism - that took such a firm hold in the west. Have I been labouring under delusion - that human compassion for justice - would include the liberation from a life of strife and want ?.Wake up hear the cries of the poor.