3 ms·

> Capitalism may have a higher demand in terms of hours worked in explicit employment, but I doubt many today would genuinely trade life in a capitalist country

by chewz 7y ago

> Capitalism may have a higher demand in terms of hours worked in explicit employment, but I doubt many today would genuinely trade life in a capitalist country for life in a pre-industrial society. You are projecting the circumstances of Northern Europe. But this is a tough place to get by. So is Northern China etc. On the other end of the spectrum on some islands in Indonesia people need no more then 7 days of work per year to put a food on a table (from sago palm). Naturaly people would rather live where resources are abundant and living is easy.

manfredo 7y ago
Poverty in Indonesia has been decreasing with less than 10% falling below the international poverty line (which is the minimum amount needed to get food and shelter)[1]. Using them as a poster child of impoverishment seems to draw more on stereotype rather than fact. And again, the baseline needs to be compared against pre-industrial circumstances: do you really think that the average Indonesian wants to turn back th clock to pre-industrial Indonesia? That would be disastrous, the islands likely could not even support its current population levels without industrialization. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Indonesia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Indonesia
- chewz 7y ago
  You missed my point. I have lived in Indonesia and traveled there a lot. The example is from book by Elisabeth Pisani [1]. My whole point is that you can still find places where living in preindustrial capitalism is fairly easy due to abundance of Nature. There were many more places like this ages ago maybe not like this particular example but without much hardship. Mediterraneans comes to mind. Thats it. http://indonesiaetc.com/ http://indonesiaetc.com/
  - manfredo 7y ago
    > My whole point is that you can still find places where living in preindustrial capitalism is fairly easy due to abundance of Nature. Any my point is, no you can't. No preindustrial society lives "fairly easy", at least not unless you have a very different conception of "fairly easy" living. Even in the pre-industrial Mediterranean, people lived on near-starvation diets and routinely died of easily treatable illnesses. Average adult male height was bewteen 5'2" and 5'4" in the ancient Mediterranean, based on skeletal evidence. Child mortality was in the 50% range. Most women had no opportunities besides child-rearing and domestic work. No amount of natural abundance can replace antibiotics and industrialized goods like contraceptives, communication, medicine, etc. If you have the conception that living off the abundance of Nature is at all easy, I highly suggest you dig deeper into this subject. During the 1960s to around the 1980s this idea that the state of nature is idyllic was popular. But as data on the lives of pre-industrial and pre-agricultural societies became more available all but the most ardent supporters of naturalistic idealism arrived at the conclusion that pre-industrial society is a lot worse than life in an industrialized society. Violence, and inability to provide for basic necessities is drastically lower in industrialized societies than it was in preindustrial societies.

by chewz 7y ago

manfredo 7y ago

Poverty in Indonesia has been decreasing with less than 10% falling below the international poverty line (which is the minimum amount needed to get food and shelter)[1]. Using them as a poster child of impoverishment seems to draw more on stereotype rather than fact. And again, the baseline needs to be compared against pre-industrial circumstances: do you really think that the average Indonesian wants to turn back th clock to pre-industrial Indonesia? That would be disastrous, the islands likely could not even support its current population levels without industrialization. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Indonesia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Indonesia

chewz 7y ago
You missed my point. I have lived in Indonesia and traveled there a lot. The example is from book by Elisabeth Pisani [1]. My whole point is that you can still find places where living in preindustrial capitalism is fairly easy due to abundance of Nature. There were many more places like this ages ago maybe not like this particular example but without much hardship. Mediterraneans comes to mind. Thats it. http://indonesiaetc.com/ http://indonesiaetc.com/
- manfredo 7y ago
  > My whole point is that you can still find places where living in preindustrial capitalism is fairly easy due to abundance of Nature. Any my point is, no you can't. No preindustrial society lives "fairly easy", at least not unless you have a very different conception of "fairly easy" living. Even in the pre-industrial Mediterranean, people lived on near-starvation diets and routinely died of easily treatable illnesses. Average adult male height was bewteen 5'2" and 5'4" in the ancient Mediterranean, based on skeletal evidence. Child mortality was in the 50% range. Most women had no opportunities besides child-rearing and domestic work. No amount of natural abundance can replace antibiotics and industrialized goods like contraceptives, communication, medicine, etc. If you have the conception that living off the abundance of Nature is at all easy, I highly suggest you dig deeper into this subject. During the 1960s to around the 1980s this idea that the state of nature is idyllic was popular. But as data on the lives of pre-industrial and pre-agricultural societies became more available all but the most ardent supporters of naturalistic idealism arrived at the conclusion that pre-industrial society is a lot worse than life in an industrialized society. Violence, and inability to provide for basic necessities is drastically lower in industrialized societies than it was in preindustrial societies.