The Feminist Theory Of Inequality And Poverty In The Economy

1121 Words 5 Pages
Capitalism in our country has grown and expanded to such an extent that it has reached a point of invincibility almost. Capitalism has throughout the years created groups or even categories of social economic class within the population, which has dramatically changed the way we all view each other. Along with inequality, it has created a difficult structure for the people of lower classes to be able to climb up into a higher class to be able succeed in life, which many times fails because they are so tied down and being held back by the way they are viewed. Capitalism grows off what little the lower class has. Capitalist take them in and start producing their product pay them as little as they can a make their profit. As technology advances …show more content…
A white man and a black man could be within the same bracket of wealth but because of complexion the black man will always be inferior to the white man, and that is interclass inequality. There are various other classes that show and explain a capitals rise, but these are the main concepts, they feed on the people below them. The authors reason, Richard Peet, for this article is to synthesizing two concepts: the Marxist principle that inequality and poverty are inevitably produced by capitalist societies, and the social-geographic idea that inequality may be passed on from one generation to the next via the environment of opportunities and services into which each individual is implanted at birth. His goal is to show that Inequality and poverty cannot be eradicated without fundamental changes in the mode of production of industrial reserve army’s within cities. Peets reason for this article shows he agrees with marxist theory of inequality and poverty but felt that there was something missing to it, thats why he introduced the social geographic idea or theory to show that this correlates to Marx theory as well. To me, this is a very interesting article where I completely agree with Marx theory, but I 'm 75/25 on Peets social-geographical theory. I do agree with Peets arguments for the majority of the matter. Throughout the article he states various …show more content…
it is very true that to whom you come into this world to, and the social class you are automatically entered to you have no choice. parents always wish to provide their kids with the best of the best and what they did not have. that is a parents goal, to push their kids to be better than them, and provide them a positive environment so they can grow to be better than ever imagined. But Peets doesn 't see that way completely and this is where I disagree. Peets believes that a parents will give all they can to a child and that it will never be enough to move them up within social class, but thats not a parents job. A child is stuck within their parents demographic only for a certain time, once they are educated and grown adults I believe its their job to spread their wings and make something of themselves no matter what social class you 're in. All generations are not stuck at the bottom. You want something you have to earn it. You 're surrounding environment may be a complete a complete dump of negativity, but thats not what is necessarily holding you back. Fear is what holds you back the fear to really move up and fight against the bigger dogs of the pack and earn your place within that pack. Every generation should not be stuck for the rest of their life in the demographic they were born into they each should strive to improve what they came into. So yes, Peets is

Related Documents