The study of history is the study of struggle between classes.
I don’t really buy either
If you have another (or more) in mind it would have been more enlightening to the rest of us if you had named them.
And yet your first comment is asserting that Marxist historiography is the definition of the study of history:
> The study of history is the study of struggle between classes.
Marxism for the american academy refers to the liberal strand of it (e.g. the kind that John Bellamy Foster advocates for) rather than the authoritarian flavors.
The left-wing bias in parts of the academy is real.
Those 2 humans give birth to 6 children. 2 of them die because of a disease. Are the children who grew up to adulthood the rich class? Repeat this until there are 100 people. They organize, they build and invent things. The rich are born, not by nature but by society. Wealth is a product of society.
Not true. Our standards define poverty either as the inability to afford lower-tier living expenses, or as the inability to ensure an income higher than a certain quantille of the population's income distribution (typically around 60% of the median income )
Both interpretations of poverty imply that none of your hypothetical examples represent poverty.