• PugJesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      (1) It is unlikely that 90% of the human population lived in extreme poverty prior to the 19th century. Historically, unskilled urban labourers in all regions tended to have wages high enough to support a family of four above the poverty line by working 250 days or 12 months a year, except during periods of severe social dislocation, such as famines, wars, and institutionalized dispossession – particularly under colonialism

      This is utterly insane and against every serious study of premodern economics I’m aware of.

      Capitalism directly causes poverty, and the starvation of at least 9 million people worldwide per year.

      Considering that most deaths by starvation and malnutrition are in areas where capitalism is weak to begin with…?

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Every serious study of pre modern economics that I have seen supports that premise. Homelessness and starvation when famine isn’t present didn’t exist anywhere before capitalism. Hell, even Adam Smith said that it would be necessary to switch off of capitalism to something more equitable once certain economic milestones had been achieved. We achieved those milestones in the mid 1850s to 1870s by the latest.

        • PugJesus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          Every serious study of pre modern economics that I have seen supports that premise. Homelessness and starvation when famine isn’t present didn’t exist anywhere before capitalism.

          Jesus fucking Christ.

            • PugJesus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              And he spoke to the ultra-impoverished, discussed hunger outside of the context of famines as a serious problem, and was homeless.

              But hey! Historical evidence doesn’t matter when there’s an ideological axe to grind. Facts are twisted to suit ideological conceptions, not ideological conceptions changed to suit facts, right?

              • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 days ago

                He spoke to the poor. There were no ultra impoverished. That category didn’t exist based on historical evidence. He spoke to hunger, not starvation outside of famine.

                We don’t know if he had a home, he probably did, but just kinda abandoned it.

                Try actually reading Adam Smith

                • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  He spoke to the poor. There were no ultra impoverished. He spoke to hunger, not starvation outside of famine.

                  People in the ancient world often sold themselves into slavery to stay alive.

                  People don’t sell themselves into fucking slavery because they’re only moderately impoverished and fear just being a little bit hungry.

                  The idea that there was no extreme poverty in the ancient world is utterly bizarre and against everything we know about ancient societies and economies.

                  We don’t know if he had a home, he probably did, but just kinda abandoned it.

                  “he probably did”

                  Jesus fucking Christ.

                  Try actually reading Adam Smith

                  I have read Adam Smith, ffs. Have you?

                  • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    Yes, I have. As well as Marx, and Trotsky. You seem to have missed the part where Smith would tell you to stop cockgobbling capitalism when it has served its intended purpose by the mid 1800s and move on.

                  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 days ago

                    People don’t sell themselves into fucking slavery because they’re only moderately impoverished and fear just being a little bit hungry.

                    Wacky declarations are no replacement for actual historical context and facts.