Motivational Speakers And The Poverty of Philosophy

“The Poverty of Philosophy” is an 1847 book which Karl Marx wrote in response to a work, “The Philosophy of Poverty,” written by famous French socialist, Joseph Pierre Proudhon, and published the previous year, 1846. Proudhon had tried to explain why the masses are poor and how that perennial problem of mass deprivation can be solved. However, his explanation and solution did not impress Marx, who was convinced that no accurate account of poverty can be given if one’s explanation is not rooted in “scientific socialism”, a pattern of thinking that sees poverty – and indeed other societal phenomena – as an inevitable outcome of dialectical evolution of history. This is what is known in Marxism as “historical materialism” or “dialectical materialism”. Since Proudhon failed to explain poverty from this perspective, Marx saw his philosophy as a poor one; in other words, rather than espouse a “philosophy of poverty” Proudhon’s book espoused “poverty of philosophy”.

While the debate over who – between Proudhon and Marx – was right will continue for a long time to come, we are witnessing today another form of explanation of poverty that bears all semblance of poverty of philosophy. This brand of philosophy is coming from motivational speakers who have now populated the social media and the Christian pulpit. Recently, I watched a Facebook video where a popular pastor was giving an explanation of poverty, and the summary of all that he said was that people are poor simply because of their mentality – poverty mentality. He kept emphasising that since “most people are poor”, to be rich one has to think differently from how most people think.

Poverty can be defined in diverse ways. When it comes to what the United Nations defined as “extreme poverty” (living on less than 1.90 dollars a day), about 8.8 per cent of the world’s population is extremely poor. Beyond extreme poverty, other dimensions of poverty exist. However, when poverty is defined in terms of absence of opulence – the sort of abundance that enables one acquire all the luxuries they may want, such as houses, cars, expensive wears, holiday tours, sea cruises etc. – then most people in the world are poor. The few that are exempted will range from billionaires like Elon Musk and Aliko Dangote to the lower-profile millionaires at the other end of the spectrum. These are the people we usually describe as wealthy persons, and they constitute a very small percentage of the world’s population. They have not just enough money to solve their basic needs, but a lot more to fund their luxuries. This is what the pastor had in mind when he stated that “most people are poor” – in other words, most people do not live in opulence. This preacher heads one of the largest evangelical churches in Nigeria, so he is lucky to be among the very few rich that he was referring to.

While this pastor cum motivational speaker was right in observing that most people are poor (when poverty is viewed in terms of absence of opulence), his diagnosis of why it is so is faulty. He was out to give us a philosophy of poverty but obviously ended up with poverty of philosophy. To begin with, there is no way all of us, or at least most people, can get rich in that sense given the realities of our economic space. The amount of wealth created in the world is limited by a lot of factors including the market size. Taking the market size as an example, wealth is created through production of goods and services, but these goods and services will end up as wealth or waste depending on the availability of market i.e. consumers who will pay for the particular good or service. The number of consumers is limited by human population, hence the amount of wealth that can be created is always limited. For instance, those who create wealth through manufacture of shoes cannot continue to create wealth infinitely since they are servicing a market that is not infinite. Even though population is increasing and the market is expanding, more manufacturers will also be joining to compete for the same market such that elastic limit will be reached at some point and diminishing returns set in.

So since there is a limit to the amount of wealth that we can create as humans, there is no way all of us can become Musks and Dangotes based on this limited pool of wealth. Some will have to possess much less so that others will have much more. Therefore, the few who get so rich achieve this just because wealth is not equally distributed given that capitalism makes unequal distribution of wealth possible, nay it promotes it. If wealth is equally distributed, no one will become wealthy in the sense of opulence. Statistics lends credence to this. For instance, the total amount of private wealth that exists in the world currently is 229 trillion dollars. If this sum is equally distributed among the world’s population, it will amount to 28, 943 dollars per person. But the dynamics of capitalism forbids equal distribution as illustrated by the fact that the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, with the other top 19 global billionaires hold between 1.1 and 1.4 per cent of this whole wealth, even as a whooping 38 per cent is in the hands of just 1 per cent of the whole global population!

In Africa, the figures are no less instructive. If the total of 2.1 trillion private wealth in the continent is equally divided among its entire population, each person will get 1, 531 dollars. But then the reality of capitalist inequality is such that Africa’s richest man, Aliko Dangote, has alone taken 13.5 billion dollars of this continental wealth. By the time you add the amounts in possession of other billionaires in the continent, the widespread poverty afflicting millions in the region becomes better explained.

In Nigeria, private wealth amounts to about 2.1 trillion dollars, and if distributed equally among the citizens, each person gets 9, 722 dollars (about 16 million naira based on the current official exchange rate). This still will not make all of us to live in affluence as seen, for instance, in the fact that 16 million naira cannot build a modest house and can barely buy two fairly used cars (of a modest grade) for the earner and their spouse (at 8 million naira for one). But then, it is the nation’s GDP per capita, which stands at 1, 621 dollars, that more reliably reflects the futility of the belief that there is enough for all of us to live in affluence. This figure will amount to less than a 300 thousand naira monthly income for everyone.

The point being made here is this: those motivational speakers who tell every individual that they can become Elon Musk and Dangote by merely thinking and acting based on certain purported principles are clearly overlooking the fact that there is no way every individual can become affluent given the limited wealth that is available. Assuming what these speakers prescribe is really the way to get rich, and every individual then goes on to implement these prescriptions with equal efficiency, each of us (barring other intervening factors) will, at best, only get some modest share of the available wealth. No one will become affluent given that the wealth will have become equally distributed.

However, there is a familiar argument that one who wants to be wealthy must create wealth (value) to add to the existing societal pool. But this argument labours under the weight of the fact that the amount of wealth humans can create is always limited by certain natural and social factors including market size. So the above figures on the amount of wealth existing in society also roughly reflects the current wealth-creating capabilities of society. This is what Karl Marx called forces of production – a society’s wealth-creating capacity. This differs from society to society. This is why America will have wealthier billionaires and more comfortable middle-class persons than Nigeria given its vastly superior wealth-creating capabilities.

Therefore, when motivational speakers, such as the pastor I referenced earlier, put the blame of poverty on individuals, they are definitely erring. The error is an alarming one as it completely reverses the swing of the pendulum of blame from the society to the individual. Rather than point out the limitations of the system, the speakers vilify the individual for their alleged poverty mentality – whatever that means.

While it is impossible for all of us to become affluent, it is very possible for all to live a decent life free from deprivations of essentials of life. So, any motivational speaker suggesting that everyone of us will, with appropriate attitude, attain so much wealth is merely refusing to be realistic. And vilifying the individual for failing to attain such wealth, or at least suffering deprivation of the basic needs of life (as widespread in developing countries like ours) due to “poverty mentality” is akin to blaming the victim. The influence of environment on the individual’s socio-economic wellbeing is immense. It is no coincidence that individuals in developed countries are much likely to live a socio-economically fulfilling life than their counterparts in developing countries. Little wonder the massive migrations from those poor regions of the world to the more economically vibrant Europe and North America have never shown any signs of ceasing.

But despite all this evidence, motivational speakers are always bent on making it seem as though the individual is absolutely in control of their socio-economic fate. This is not surprising because admitting that the individual lacks such total control will do considerable damage to the trade of these professional speakers. Thus, when they rehash motivational lines like “attitude is everything”, “nothing can stop you from succeeding except yourself” etc., they are just refusing to face the fact that those of us that migrate to developed countries and become better off there do basically nothing different from what they did when they were here. Truth is that while they were here, it was their environment – and not their attitude – that hindered their self-development!

Yes, no one can deny the place of hard work, persistence and intelligence in life’s success. However, these alone cannot guarantee success. Being that individuals are inextricably embedded in their society, the workings of society, to a large extent, determine the extent the individual thrives or fails to thrive in all aspects of life.

So, even as motivational speakers should go on with their counseling and encouragements (which are still needed in human society), they should avoid being unrealistic. For Christian preachers who also do motivational speaking, they should not place the entire burden of socio-economic wellbeing on the individual who are suffering under the impact of society’s limitations. Like biblical prophets, such as Amos and Isaiah, they should also speak out about the structural imperfections that create and sustain social inequalities. They should stand for social justice in line with the principles of Liberation Theology – that theological movement that started in Latin America which aim is to espouse social justice based on the Christian principles of love and human dignity. This is one vital way of avoiding propagating “poverty of philosophy” in the name of “philosophy of poverty”.

Henry Chigozie Duru, PhD, teaches journalism and mass communication at Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria.