For the next time some dipshit lib tries to argue with you about owning a fucking microwave. Jason Hickel is a beast.
The common notion that extreme poverty is the “natural” condition of humanity and only declined with the rise of capitalism rests on income data that do not adequately capture access to essential goods.
Data on real wages suggests that, historically, extreme poverty was uncommon and arose primarily during periods of severe social and economic dislocation, particularly under colonialism.
The rise of capitalism from the long 16th century onward is associated with a decline in wages to below subsistence, a deterioration in human stature, and an upturn in premature mortality.
In parts of South Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, wages and/or height have still not recovered.
Where progress has occurred, significant improvements in human welfare began only around the 20th century. These gains coincide with the rise of anti-colonial and socialist political movements.
Abstract
The evidence we review here points to three conclusions.
(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.
(2) The rise of capitalism caused a dramatic deterioration of human welfare. In all regions studied here, incorporation into the capitalist world-system was associated with a decline in wages to below subsistence, a deterioration in human stature, and an upturn in premature mortality. In parts of South Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America, key welfare metrics have still not recovered.
(3) Where progress has occurred, significant improvements in human welfare began several centuries after the rise of capitalism. In the core regions of Northwest Europe, progress began in the 1880s, while in the periphery and semi-periphery it began in the mid-20th century, a period characterized by the rise of anti-colonial and socialist political movements that redistributed incomes and established public provisioning systems.
Overall this is an amazing paper, I recommend reading in full to debunk so much common shit about colonial capitalism.
Also there is an excess death chart for Africa, overall 1880-1920 saw a total 20% population decline.
Also
Indian life expectancy did not reach the level of early modern England (35.8 years) until 1950, after decolonization.
Your point about Brazil/Bolsonaro is just nonsense. Maybe you're not at all familiar with Brazilian politics so thats fine but while we may debate adventurism, the idea that Bolsonaro when only because of that attempt is absolutely crazy in and of itself.
Bolsonaro won after the Dilma coup in 2016, 4 years of a massive campaign to demonize Lula over the Petrobras corruption scandal. A massive campaign to portray himself as a savior from the corrupt left etc.
But you know what is even funnier? Armed Attack on ex Brazilian President Lula’s Caravan in Paraná
Please don't mistake the shitty conditions of garbage American politics and extrapolate. Lula was in jail and then was almost killed. If Bolsonaro had actualy died? Pretty sure he would not have had a successor and nobody would give a shit. Its unlikely Lula would have won because Haddad is a fucking idiot anyway.
The problem with the left is we take punches, we get sent to jail, and the only conclusion we ever take is "maybe we shouldn't even bother" lol.
This Trump incident got nothing to do with Bolsonaro. Brazil is not a two party "democracy". A country that had an actual military dictatorship literaly less than 50 years ago doesn't need excuses to persecute and kill leftists if they want to.