War on Want drools its idiocy onto the page

War on Want understands hunger, like all forms of poverty, to be the result of political decisions that are taken by national and international elites, and contested through political action.

Yup, poverty is something that is caused. Rather than it being not-poverty that is something that is caused by human action. Entire drooling idiocy of course.

The default state is indeed that scrub peasantry, that half an acre of maize to feed the family for the year. It\’s everything else that has been made, created, and which has pulled half the world up out of that state.

Meaning, of course, that if you wanted to pull the other half of the world up and out then you\’d copy what pulled the first half out.

This is a gross misrepresentation, seeing that the governments of the G8 have openly committed themselves to expanding the corporate-dominated food system that condemns hundreds of millions to hunger.

It\’s that corporate dominated food system that feeds half the world so much that we all pop from diabetes. It doesn\’t do this by nicking the food from the other half. It does it by making farming more efficient, more productive. Not least by stopping 50% of the food rotting between field and fork.

If we want to bring plentiful food to the starving we therefore want to expand exactly that corporate dominated food system. To deny this is to be despicably racist. Why isn\’t what feeds us pinkish people suitable for those of a darker hue? Why are we allowed to escape peasantry but not them?

And why in fuck are rich whities campaigning to keep the nigger down?

20 thoughts on “War on Want drools its idiocy onto the page”

  1. Some contentious language bro’, surely as night follows day; the ‘left’ and the middle class bleeding hearts brigade – will have their knickers in a twist. Though, the thrust of your piece is unerringly on the money and ‘fed up’ we all are.
    Indeed, some ask, why don’t the indigent peoples of Africa demand more help from their own government and local officials and the answer is – “why should we help you when the West is feeding you and filling our back pockets at the same time”?

    Plus, war on want and action on poverty, save the children etc, etc, should be campaigning to force and harangue the EU – to bin the CAP and therefore the problem would largely be solved.

  2. The language, Edward, as I’m sure you understand, is a vicious, sardonic impersonation of the Guardianista mind. For, as Tim points out, they are indeed the racist ones here.

  3. The world as I see and want it (so I can keep feeling good about doing my manufactured ‘job’) as opposed to reality.

    – Business people like crises ‘cos they can lay people off which is how they have fun.
    – A prime concern is screwing the poor because obviously that makes me richer.
    – If they are black and in Africa, oh, so much better.
    – Making people starve is a good priority too. – White, black no sweat, starve them all.
    They can’t help themselves poor little

    Why is it then that we have enough to eat, if all those shitty global corporations take the above attitudes?

    Is it really so difficult to analyse the real situation and learn a little about the economics of wealth creation?

    Or doesn’t it matter? because I care, I am right and oh so right on and down with whoever I have to be down with thses days.

  4. Scummy political/bureaucratic vermin DO cause poverty–or at least extend poverty past its time–and make all of us poorer than we could be. Poorer than we might be is not “poverty” here in the West–yet, but their antics around the world do hurt the poorest most. WoW is wrong about all poverty being political but some certainly is.
    The wording of the extract alone could be read as being anti-political, anti-socialistic in fact. I’m sure its an out of context quote but it might be a good one to use–“War on Want endorses Free Markets”.

  5. Tim, the evil corporate capitalist megafirms that dominate world agriculture create poverty among scrub peasants by making food so cheap that the scrub peasants can no longer make any money from selling their meagre surplus. Or something.

    Actually I can see the problem side here and it’s exactly the one the west had 100 years ago when agriculture started to seriously mechanise. The economy simply could not develop fast enough to absorb all the labour as it was being made redundant. And while we are all unbelievably better off for the change, being jobless in the middle of a depression is indeed somewhat problematic.

    I reckon the green revolution took about 50 years and two world wars to truly work through. That gives you an idea of the scale of problem facing peasant farmers in fucked up places with bad government and no infrastructure.

  6. just who is the redneck here?

    It’s got to be those ‘who don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground’ doesn’t it?

  7. Tim, the evil corporate capitalist megafirms that dominate world agriculture create poverty among scrub peasants by making food so cheap that the scrub peasants can no longer make any money from selling their meagre surplus. Or something.”

    I think you’re describing the EU CAP there… a truly evil outcome where African farmers are impoverished to support French farmers…

  8. “Some contentious language bro’, surely as night follows day; the ‘left’ and the middle class bleeding hearts brigade – will have their knickers in a twist”

    It would be quite a good thing to get some lefty hysteria (a la Ladyboygate) about the colourful language as the main point of the article is something that really needs to be heard.

    I reckon UKIP should run a publicity/billboard campaign on how the CAP kills people in developing countries. It would be fucking hillarious to see what the left do in reaction.

  9. Why are there no charities that promote development in poor countries through specialisation, the division of labour, capital investment and technological innovation? You know, all the stuff that has worked whenever it’s been tried honestly and competently.

  10. Manatbay, some have tried that. Installing capital projects even when not the best solution for the locals.
    And of course not budgeting for any upkeep.

    Build a road, all well and good. End up with a heavily potholed road. Build a powered well – and have machinery break down. Build a sewage system, without any way of dealing with blockage….
    Cosmos are capable of doing some serious damage with other people’s money.

  11. The quickest way to stop a man drowning is to take your foot off his head.

    Unfortunately war on want are not interested in actually helping.

  12. Do not forget that amongst the hungry and deprived are a great many old white people. While you are being righteous explain how this was allowed to happen.

  13. Martin, I accept that you’re perfectly correct that capital projects need maintenance, budgets etc. But that’s my point. Real development happens only when these things are factored in. Hence the need for an economic and technological system that is “sustainable” in the real sense of the word. The developed countries have learned how to do it. That’s why they are developed. I realise that’s a tautology. My point is that all the things that make up the “capitalist” economic system constitute the only proven way by which people can have better standards of living on a (that word again) sustainable, ie permanent basis.

  14. Manatbay, the reason charities don’t do capital projects and when they do, they fail, is because they don’t factor in profit. Profit allows them to keep getting money to keep paying for maintenance. Charities think that the project is the end when in fact it is only the beginning.

  15. SadBut… yes, of course, the charities in the field are naive and ignorant. Perhaps I wasn’t making myself clear in the first place. The point I was trying to make originally was that the charitable sector seems dominated by people and organisations that want to apply low tech, low impact solutions to poverty which don’t work. It’s clear what actually works in terms of development because we have the example of successful countries. Despite this it appears that the big name charities want to perpetuate socio-economic systems that perpetuate poverty and low or no-growth. By the same token nobody seems to want to start a charity/ NGO that promotes the processes that do work. Any offers from anyone who knows how to start these things?

  16. @Manatbay: Bill Gates runs his charities like a business. He actually measures performance.

    Shock! Horror!

  17. DrMakkajaz: why would “the left” care if you attack the CAP? Do you mean to in order to hold on to its many rural constituencies?

    The CAP is a lot less evil now than it was ten years ago.

  18. @PaulB ‘why would “the left” care if you attack the CAP?’

    Because the CAP is nothing to do with agriculture and is actually all about power and control, which is the speciality of all your leftie mates, you cheeky little statist drone-murder enthusiast you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *