[maybewhenthesun]

> There has never been a famine caused by new technologies creating unemployment

That's a bold statement. And depending on how you define famine it might even be true-ish. But I'm quite certain most poor people in the 1920s would disagree with you.

Which is why we got the russian revolution and both world wards at that time. All 3 were partially caused by 19th century industralisation creating an poor, hungry underclass.

[mike_hearn]

It's not particularly bold, it's just a fact. It only seems bold because our society is still flooded with Marx-era propaganda.

Poor people in 1920 would agree with me. We know this because in this era Marxist ideas were already quite old, well known and widespread. He argued for what was effectively a UBI or very generous welfare system under a different name. He predicted the poor would rise up as capitalism drove their wages to zero and "alienated" them, then they'd overthrow it. But Marx became bitterly disappointed in his lifetime when capitalism didn't fail, wages didn't fall to zero and the working classes rejected his call to revolution.

Technological progress hasn't caused famines, it's ended them. What has caused several famines, though, is left wing people reorganizing society via force to solve imagined problems. If you're worried about people not having enough to eat, you should be terrified of a UBI.

[flammafex]

As an Irish person, I want you to explain to me how "left wing" the British were when they had us export our food at gunpoint.

[mike_hearn]

You're misinterpreting what I wrote. I didn't say all famines were caused by left wing policies. Obviously historically most were caused by natural disaster, like the Irish potato blight. But when famines have been caused by social change, it wasn't due to the march of technology.

The British never forced anyone in Ireland to export food "at gunpoint".