Poor Compared to What?
Socialists criticize capitalism because it allegedly creates poor people, but they are only “poor” within the frame of a capitalist system. A “poor person” is extraordinarily rich compared to the default human state, that of a hunter-gather—a state of being which any human can return to at any time with or without capitalism.
It is actually quite elitist to call poor people “poor.” Poor compared to what? They are only “poor” compared to “the rich” in a capitalist system. But if the rich capitalists are so evil and greedy, why should the poor—or the socialists themselves—want those excess riches? Anything more than a hunter-gatherer needs for survival is unnecessary capitalist and consumeristic excess.
So, dear socialist, if you want poor people to have more wealth, you are in fact a capitalist because capitalism is the only way to create the wealth necessary to fund such modern marvels of civilization such as housing, education, and healthcare. Without capitalism, people would be forced to return to that primitive state of hunting and gathering whether they’d like it or not.
It is extremely funny to read this, I once had a debate with someone here about a year back and he told me that capitalism can only be considered capitalism for about two centuries, which I found out is what most people believe, anything before that is feudalism, monarchism etc, so according to what you write humans were in a primitive state until the last couple of centuries?