Marxist Framework of Poverty in the UK

Marxist Framework of pauperisation in the UKPoverty is mainly understood to stringent a condition in which people argon deprived in some way, such that they insufficiency the rudimentary requirements for sustaining well-being, and ultimately, life. These basic requirements atomic human activity 18 understood as such subjects as food, water, shelter (as whitethorn be understood, for example, in a ontogenesis country context) or opening to education or political power (as might be understood, for example, in the context of a actual tribe). Poverty is an absolute within itself, as people are termed to be in s tail endtness, unless meagreness substructure also be understood in relative terms, when, for example, want of opposite resources is considered pauperisation of education is obviously non as fundamental a level of distress as poverty of food, for example, as, obviously, without food, a person would die, but a person offer manage to live without education, even if this would mean a life of continuing poverty, through lack of opportunity.Poverty can be throwawayd in legion(predicate) different ways, and indeed, there are some(prenominal) an(prenominal) indicators of poverty, which are used to assess year-on-year changes in poverty. Obviously, as with definitions of poverty, meters of poverty are relative, with different measures being used in developed vs. developing nations, for example, or between nations of the developed, or developing, universe. In general, one overall measure of poverty which has gained ground in recent geezerhood is the income inconsistency scale, which shows that income inequation has, recently, worldwide, become less of a problem, with the world becoming more upright in terms of income levels across the worlds nations. This does not belittle the problems of poverty, however, as poverty is still a major restitution that the world has yet to deal with in a satisfactory manner.As with the definitions and me asurement of poverty, the causes of poverty are many and varied, with environmental and geographical factors creating poverty in many developing countries, and with disease and lack of natural resources also cause poverty in these regions. Indeed, it is difficult to attribute one cause to poverty in any situation, especially poverty in developing countries. In developed nations, however, poverty is perhaps best understood as a product of cabarets failure to act to avoid the situation, and, as such, policies are in place to oppose poverty in these situations1. It is a moot point, however, amongst politicians, social workers and philanthropists as to how far policies can actually prevent poverty, and, indeed, some people suggest that current policies do not go far enough to act to prevent poverty.The effects of poverty are, again, many and varied, with poverty leading, ultimately, to death, in many developing nations, and with poverty leading to lack of opportunity and social exclu sion in developed nations. In developed nations, policies are in place to avoid such poverty, such as subsidised housing, education and health grapple2, although these are not always effective, as we arrest seen, leading to undesirable effects, such as crime (Jones, 2001 Muncie, 2004). It is hypothesised, for example, that in extreme poverty situations, people turn to crime in instal to provide basic necessities, and this has been supported by much original pure tone for on the subject (see Muncie, 2004).The next section of the paper will look at levels of poverty in the UK, and fol scummying this, the paper will consequently proceed to assess poverty in the UK from a Marxist viewpoint. Poverty in the UK is still at shockingly high levels, with the problem seeming, on the face of it, to be mainly caused by low pay levels indeed, it is suggested by recent re try that in low-income households, both members of the family need to work in order for the family to earn enough to cov er basic expenses3, and that, of these low income families, many are at a disadvantage in terms of receiving health care and the achievement of minimum educational standards. It seems, also, that this trend, rather than decreasing, is actually increasing, with the number of families claiming childrens tax credits increasing year-on-year and the equipoise of workers classed as low paid increasing year-on-year4.It is shocking, therefore, to see that much of the UK, and a large proportion of the children living in the UK, live in poverty. This is despite the fact that policies maintain been in place for many decades to try to curtail, and avoid altogether, the issue of poverty. As we shit seen, however, these policies are often not effective, and can take years to come to fruition, by which time a new generation of infants have grown up in poverty, leading to what is known as the poverty trap. We have seen, therefore, how successive UK governments have attempted to deal with the iss ue of poverty by creating policies to deal with each strand of poverty individually, and not attacking the whole problem of poverty as a whole.This leads on to thinking about how Marxists understand poverty, which is essentially in a more holistic, if idealistic, manner. Marxists do not make any distinction between class, poverty and disadvantage for Marxists, members of any class, they argue, can fall into poverty through unemployment, for example, and that, as such, the poor can be best be viewed as naval division of a continuum from those in society who have a lot of stuff wealth to those who do not. This definition using the idea of a continuum, however, stands in direct contrast to the situation of class inequality which, obviously, Marxists attempt to involvement against by their calls for equality in society, for all.Perhaps the issue of poverty can be best understood in terms of the dependency possibleness of Marxists this theory suggest, essentially, that lifting the po or out of poverty is not enough, they need to be given tools to be able to sustain themselves out of poverty. True Marxists would provide that this can never be achieved under a capitalist system, as this system is built to achieve successes at the expense of the failure of others as such, poverty is a consequence of the capitalist system, and something which Marxists fight against, in their search for equality, or, rather, in terms of poverty, in their quest for a situation in which underdevelopment is not an option.Assessing poverty in terms of a purely socio-political betterment as we have done, and then within the simulation of Marxism as we have also attempted, provides two different frameworks with which to understand the issue of poverty. One framework aims to treat poverty as something that can be solved by implementing policies and by watching those policies take effect, the other attempts to understand poverty as a societal achievement, which can only be solved by chang ing the very foundations of society. friendly workers are some of societies most important professionals, who, in concert with families, teachers, and the police can put children, and families, back on track before they reach an irreversible moment in which vituperate has been done which cannot be corrected. Children are valuable members of society, and it is the responsibility of all society to look after them perhaps this is what Marx was implying when he talked of societal equality. Children deserve equality of opportunity, in terms of access to basic requirements, and, above these, to health care and education and information provision. Without these basic requirements, without basic care, children live in poverty. It is a travesty that in this day and age there are many children who live in poverty in the UK, but with the approach describe here applied on a daily basis by social workers, it is hoped that poverty will soon be a thing of the past, at least in the UK.References Best, S. (2005) Understanding Social Divisions, London, clear-sightedCree, V. E. (2000) Sociology for Social Workers and Probation Officers, London, Routledge.Dominelli, L. (1997) Sociology for Social Work, London, MacMillanGlennerster, H. et al. (2004). One hundred years of poverty and policy. Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Iceland, J. (2003). Poverty in America. A Hand take of the University of California Press.Jones, S. (2001) Criminology, Trowbridge, Cromwell PressLayder, D. (2005) Understanding Social Theory, London, SageMuncie, J. (2004) Youth and Crime, 2nd edition, London, Sage,Ritzer, G. (2000) Sociological Theory, London, McGraw-Hill1Footnotes1 A recent book by Glennerster et al. (2004) entitled One hundred years of poverty and policy, provides a review of the effects and ramifications of policy on poverty in the UK.2 Although the nation that sees itself as the most developed on Earth, the United States, offers none of these poverty-reducing schemes, and indeed, poverty in th e United States is on the increase, and reaches disturbingly high levels. See Iceland (2003) for come along details.3 See the report Monitoring Poverty and Social forcing out in the UK, 2006 by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.4 Again, according to the report Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion in the UK, 2006 by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.