While I would like that as well, I think inequality is easier to define than poverty (for inequality you can consider only wealth and income), easier to explain and easier to act on.
I think that even two like-minded people can spend too much time talking about what exactly is "basically access to food, housing, education and health", before doing anything.
> I think inequality is easier to define than poverty (for inequality you can consider only wealth and income), easier to explain and easier to act on.
Au contraire, I think inequality while easy to define is hard to act on, and it also merits the question if you should act at all, we have seen several experiments on forcing equality and millions died.
Defining food, housing, education and health is not hard. We have guidelines on being healthy already, so you need access to preventive care to do so. Education you would just need easier/less onerous access to university education.
Food requires a change of culture, which has been happening over the past 20 years.
Housing, at least a studio place should be enough.
> we have seen several experiments on forcing equality and millions died.
I've not heard of this. Which experiments "forced equality" and then as a result caused millions of deaths?
I'm aware of the experiment of capitalism failing in India to the tune of about 100 million dead, is that what you mean? With capitalism's attempts to equalize through meritocracy?
USSR and Maoist PRC indeed took actions that killed millions, but so did capitalist India or mercantilist Britain or hegemonic America. I don't see a correlation between "forcing equality," which I'm not really even sure those regimes did (since Party members were clearly unequal in their power and quality of life), and the deaths. Just politics.
I think that even two like-minded people can spend too much time talking about what exactly is "basically access to food, housing, education and health", before doing anything.