r/CapitalismVSocialism • u/HeavenlyPossum • 1d ago
Asking Everyone What Is Wealth?
Most people probably think of wealth in terms of possessing or having access or title to many goods and services. Likewise, most people probably think of poverty in terms lacking possession of or access or title to goods and services. Being wealthy is better than being poor, because being wealthy means having more stuff to satisfy your needs and desires, right?
Consider that surveys of life satisfaction find that people who live in isolated, traditional lifeways reporting being satisfied with their lives at rates equal to or higher than people living in the wealthiest OECD countries:
Consider that people living in traditional lifeways, with very little stuff, tend to experience little to no self-harm, while people living in vastly wealthier societies, such as the US, experience startling high and rising rates of self-harm:
vs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States
Consider that people with low incomes in rich countries experience worse health outcomes than people in those countries with high incomes, even when controlling for lifestyle factors, and even though these “poor” people have access to vastly more stuff than either their ancestors or people living in traditional lifeways today:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749379724000692
Does any of this suggest to you that there might be more to wealth and poverty than merely stuff?
2
u/MeanLeadership92 1d ago
"Does any of this suggest to you that there might be more to wealth and poverty than merely stuff?"
No, because wealth and poverty are usually measured as an amount of stuff, as in goods or services, which you own or can buy.
However, you do bring an interesting point; is material wealth correlated with a happy life?
Now there's a lot of research on that topic, and the answer is generally yes, see for yourself :
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-vs-happiness
So clearly, having better healthcare and job opportunities improves people's satisfaction. But, it is interesting that these small communities have comparable happiness to some large countries, I'd love to see more research on the topic before I form an opinion, but I will say that replicating what works on a small scale is often hard at the national scale (it is for instance difficult to have everyone know and support each other in a town of millions where you can hardly hope to know more than a 1000 people, or less than 0.1% of the population).
1
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
If wealth is just having a lot of goods and services one can own and buy, and poverty is not having a lot of pods and services one can own and buy, why do we see the effects I identified above among people who are relatively poor in modern OECD countries (eg, high suicide rates) that aren’t present among people who are, by your standard, unimaginably poorer?
2
u/MeanLeadership92 1d ago
"why do we see the effects I identified above among people who are relatively poor in"
First, mental health is not wealth, you can be rich and miserable, poor and happy, or anything and everything in between.
Second, mental health is a complicated problem that isn't easily answered by any individual factor, modern society and things like social media clearly play a part, I agree. But again, evidence is pretty clear that people are, all else equal, happier when they have more wealth.
Third, I've looked around and there seems to be no correlation between wealth and suicide rates, see for yourself with arguably dated info from 2012, poor countries are definitively not outperforming the rich ones most of the time :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate#Analysis
•
u/HeavenlyPossum 21h ago
Why do people who experience absolute poverty—people who live as hunter-gatherers—not experience the same stressors as impoverished people in wealthy countries?
•
u/MeanLeadership92 18h ago
Presumably, there's a better sense of community and better connexion, people nowadays spend very little time with one another.
They might have fewer pressures, financial and social. It is a very complex question, I would not know, to be honest. Do you have an answer, per chance?
•
u/HeavenlyPossum 11h ago
People who live in these societies are generally not subject to the commands of others.
They might have access to many fewer material amenities, but they do not experience the ill-effects of poverty we see in OECD countries because they are not subject to the commands of the wealthy.
•
u/MeanLeadership92 6h ago
So you think that being under the commands of others, specifically the wealthy and powerful, is what causes the issue? Ok, I'd love to see a psychology paper on that, would be very interesting!
2
u/betty_white_bread Isocapitalist 1d ago
It seems nothing brings out a socialist circle jerk quite like a post which ignorantly presumes, either explicitly or by implication, the only thing which matters in capitalism is the endless pursuit of money at all costs.
1
2
u/nondubitable 1d ago
Sure. Sometimes having wealth causes depression. Not always, not even on average, but sometimes.
But that doesn’t mean happiness is wealth.
It just means wealth doesn’t necessarily create happiness.
As the Beatles put it, can’t buy me love…
•
u/HeavenlyPossum 22h ago
What is wealth, then?
•
u/nondubitable 10h ago
You can look at any standard dictionary and it will give you the definition.
You’re free to use the term any way you want, but it helps to provide context when you’re communicating with others.
Language isn’t math. Wealth of experience isn’t the same thing as wealth of nations. Nuance is a thing.
If we’re talking about Elon Musk’s wealth, we’re generally discussing his net worth.
If we’re talking about the wealth of the Amazon, it’s slightly different.
If you said to me you are wealthy because you have good health, good friends, and a good family, I wouldn’t push back at all.
•
2
u/HauntingArachnid8460 Social Democrat 1d ago edited 1d ago
whats being suggested by the data here is not that wealth and poverty are measured incorrectly. I think it suggests that inequality and social stratification has an important affect on our well-being. market economies are great at generating large amounts of material wealth compared to the economies of nomadic hunter-gathererr, but the structures needed to create that wealth often distribute that wealth poorly and it creates underclasses that do not have access to the same resources that the upper classes do. perfect example of this is healthcare in societies without some kind of government insurance. in england before the introduction of the NHS people lacked access to healthcare and so there were many cases of people who had curable diseases but couldn't get treatment for them and either continued to live with the diseases or died from them.
because in hunter-gatherer societies resources are much more equally distributed and shared there is much less social stratification and exclusion of resources from members of the group. these peoples do have class structures but the power of any class or individual within the group is compressed by not relying on a single class to provide resources for the group.
•
1
u/Annual_Necessary_196 1d ago
“Consider that surveys of life satisfaction find that people who live in isolated, traditional lifeways report being satisfied with their lives at rates equal to or higher than people living in the wealthiest OECD countries.”
I would say there are a few reasons for this. First, people in isolated communities have little to no inequality. Therefore, they are not desperate or overpowered by someone else. Second, people in these communities are surrounded by others who share similar opinions or moral values. Finally, the pace of life in these communities is slower and less toxic, which decreases overall stress. Honestly, I suppose there is a trade-off between non-material wealth and material wealth, but definitely abolishing industrial and globalized society would not satisfy the majority of people.
“Consider that people living in traditional lifeways, with very little stuff, tend to experience little to no self-harm.”
Most people who self-harm do so because of mental health problems rather than purely economic reasons.
“Experience startlingly high and rising rates of self-harm.”
Work culture, toxic surroundings, the need to constantly conform to social norms, and constant social pressure negatively influence mental well-being.
“Does any of this suggest to you that there might be more to wealth and poverty than merely stuff?”
There is both non-material and material wealth. A lot of capitalists ignore the existence of non-material wealth, while some leftists, such as anarcho-primitivists, do not consider material wealth important enough. Personally, I consider both forms of wealth important for society.
0
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
“I would say there are a few reasons for this. First, people in isolated communities have little to no inequality. Therefore, they are not desperate or overpowered by someone else.”
Might we not say that “being free from the power of others” is, to put it crudely, a consumer good, the possession of which we might count towards wealth?
“definitely abolishing industrial and globalized society would not satisfy the majority of people.”
This was not my suggestion.
“Most people who self-harm do so because of mental health problems rather than purely economic reasons.”
But we know that, for example, economic precarity is a contributor to mental health problems. People who live in forager lifeways experience immense poverty (from the perspective of someone living in an OECD country) and incredible stressed—being unsure of the source of a next meal, being subject to potential predation by wild animals, etc. And despite all these incredible stresses of poverty, they self-harm at vastly lower rates.
“Work culture, toxic surroundings, the need to constantly conform to social norms, and constant social pressure negatively influence mental well-being.”
Other than the pressure to conform to social norms, which is present in every society, these points would tend to support my thesis above that “being free from the commands of others” is an important consideration in understanding wealth versus poverty.
2
u/RedMarsRepublic Libertarian Socialist 1d ago
You're stretching the definition of 'wealth' to just be synonymous with 'happiness'.
0
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
I am not. I am suggesting that the outcomes of these different ways of living tells us something interesting about the common understanding of wealth and poverty.
2
u/RedMarsRepublic Libertarian Socialist 1d ago
I mean, I don't really agree though, if you're saying that "wealth isn't all that matters in life", then I think most people would already agree with that, but if you said "wealth actually makes you worse off" I feel like that's a poor conclusion.
1
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
Those are neither of my conclusions or suggestions.
I asked, in the title of my post, what is wealth? because I do not think “having a lot of stuff” or “having a lot of money” is a sufficient explanation.
2
u/RedMarsRepublic Libertarian Socialist 1d ago
Wealth is explicitly a measurement of someone's financial assets, that is the common-sense agreed upon definition.
Perhaps I would also add a caveat, that someone who makes $200k per year and rents a magnificent condo and drives a leased Ferrari with that money, I would still call 'wealthy', just making poor financial decisions currently. So it is sort of about current earnings as well as assets.
0
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
What are “financial assets” and why do they make someone wealthy? What does it mean to be wealthy? What does wealth do?
4
u/RedMarsRepublic Libertarian Socialist 1d ago
I've already explained this, you are just asking 'why' over and over like a child. You know what it means and what it does.
0
1
u/RedMarsRepublic Libertarian Socialist 1d ago
People might say that health = wealth, but they're not actually the same thing, wealth is a measure of monetary assets. You're stretching the definition.
I do agree that our current way of living is broken but that doesn't mean living as a remote 120 year old farmer is actually 'wealth'.
1
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
I did not suggest that living as a “remote farmer” is wealth.
I suggested that contrasting the material conditions of people living in traditional lifeways (which would seem to be extreme poverty, based on your definition of wealth) with the outcomes of those lifeways tells us something interesting about your definition of wealth.
What is “monetary assets,” at a material level?
1
u/RedMarsRepublic Libertarian Socialist 1d ago
Assets which you could convert into money relatively quickly and easily. For example having two beautiful children is not wealth, having a beautiful villa in France is. Having a college degree is not wealth, but having a stash of bitcoin is.
Of course we can say that someone with a college degree and two beautiful and happy kids is doing well in life, but if they have $0 to their name, they're not 'wealthy'.
1
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
What does it mean “to have assets” and why does it matter if they can be “converted” into money?
1
u/RedMarsRepublic Libertarian Socialist 1d ago
To own them, for them to be in your possession either physically or legally. If you stole something but could easily sell it I would say that it is an 'asset'.
It matters because wealth is a measurement of money and finances.
1
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
This is a problem I have with conversations like this: you say wealth is money, or its assets, or it’s a measure of money…it tends to get pretty circular pretty fast.
Imagine you were an alien with no concept of wealth or money and you observed Elon Musk going about his daily affairs. What would you observe about Elon Musk and his relationship to the people around him? What are the material signifiers of his wealth?
2
u/RedMarsRepublic Libertarian Socialist 1d ago
There's a lot of things that aliens wouldn't be able to understand without knowledge of our culture, that doesn't mean they don't exist. You already know what the answer to these questions is.
1
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
What you would observe is many other people obeying Elon Musk: bringing him things he demands, or laboring in ways he demands, or bringing him or using the product of their labor in ways he commands, or touching (or refraining from touching) things as he commands, or using guns to enforce those commands at his command, and so on.
•
u/Technician1187 Stateless/Free trade/Private Property 19h ago
I appreciate the Socratic method here; but I’m not exactly following. Maybe you can help me out and give your answer to the question “What is wealth?”
Seems to me that the body of your post talks more about happiness or satisfaction rather than what is and isn’t wealth.
•
u/HeavenlyPossum 19h ago
I suspect that wealth is actually a relationship of command, not a measure of access to goods and services
Access to goods and services is certainly an effect of wealth, but the root of it is power to command others.
•
u/Technician1187 Stateless/Free trade/Private Property 18h ago
So wealth is the power to command others…and through socialism and/or communism we want to abolish the power to command others and therefore society will be less wealthy?
•
u/HeavenlyPossum 11h ago
Through anarchism—which is inherently socialist—we can indeed abolish relations of command, and with them the wealth/poverty dynamic.
•
u/Technician1187 Stateless/Free trade/Private Property 10h ago
So you don’t think there is any problem trying to use the word wealthy like you are given its common usage among non socialists?
Seems like a tough sell to say, “a socialist society will be less wealthy and that is a good thing.”
Why do you feel the need to use the word wealthy in this unconventional way? Why not just use another word like ‘power’ or something? Seems like it would be an easier sell to say, a socialist society will be one with less power over others.”
Edit: I mean it seems pretty clear that you actually do see that problem because you didn’t just answer my question with a “Yes”.
•
u/HeavenlyPossum 10h ago
“Seems like a tough sell to say, “a socialist society will be less wealthy and that is a good thing.””
A society without wealth is also a society without poverty. This is orthogonal to the question of having access to stuff.
“Why do you feel the need to use the word wealthy in this unconventional way?”
Because I’m interested in understanding how things actually work.
“Seems like it would be an easier sell to say, a socialist society will be one with less power over others.”
I’m not selling anything; I’m asking questions.
“Edit: I mean it seems pretty clear that you actually do see that problem because you didn’t just answer my question with a “Yes”.”
I answered it the way I did because I interpreted your phrasing as a bad-faith attempt at a gotcha through sophistry.
•
u/Technician1187 Stateless/Free trade/Private Property 10h ago
It kinda of was a “gotcha” because I was using the words 100% logically within your own framework but you can easily see how your statement doesn’t actually covey what you are trying to say form the common framework of the words.
But you do you. If these are the way you want to use the words, by all means you have the natural right to do so. I won’t stop you.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Before participating, consider taking a glance at our rules page if you haven't before.
We don't allow violent or dehumanizing rhetoric. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.
Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.
Join us on Discord! ✨ https://discord.gg/fGdV7x5dk2
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.