Could we classify the lives in tribes and villages prior to civilisation as "poverty"? Or did "poverty" begin with civilisation?
Are those tribes who are still living a secluded life in the forests of Amazon or say even those who are completely isolated like in Indian ocean islands considered poor? They've had everything they need and unless there's no external interference(Humans, Weather events e.g. Tsunami) they're living a successful life.
Also I have serious issues with the term 'Civilization', I don't know how tribes who have been co-existing with nature successfully for thousands of years could be called uncivilized where as we who have set in motion the likely destruction of vast majority of the species on the planet considered civilized?
I feel that mentality is a relic of colonial mindset, There are vast amount of written accounts of colonists calling the indigenous people 'Uncivilized'.
And there is nothing romantic about being poor and ignorant at the same time. Even if hot running water is now considered a colonial luxury.
If you romanticize them you are not doing them any good. You simply cannot understand what being in their position is like. Any slight inconvenient to a modern society is a very serious event for them, eg. disease, drought, famine, etc. while you have most conveniences in life and most problems solved.
As I said in a previous comment, if you consider yourself a Marxist or a leftist you really aren't. Societies do advance, humanity goes forward. Going back 200-1000 years is not progress and it surely isn't any good. Stagnating isn't either.
Practically every research study on happiness associates it with health, family, culture, friends, purpose, religion. Comfort, physical goods, wealth are always at the bottom.
Living in simple conditions doesn't mean forfeiting health or basic sanitation. The question is still valid: you have a home, clean water, a surplus of food, friends, family, sanitary conditions, access to healthcare; but no TV, Netflix, car, laptop. You'll never afford even a mobile phone. Are you poor?
If not having internet, a phone or computer has a detrimental impact on your quality of life - which it most likely does for the vast majority of people who live in the city, have a normal job and bills to pay - then the answer is yes. If you go homeless, hungry or sick because of not having one of these things, yes. But what if it doesn't? It's not as black and white as you imply. This is much more of a philosophical question than socioeconomics (or marxism).
I never mentioned modern day commodities or technologies, you are arguing against things I've never said, and are completely omitting my main points.
According to your own arguments and words, do "tribes living off-grid" have "a home, clean water, a surplus of food, friends, family, sanitary conditions, access to healthcare"? It seems like you're completely changing what you're saying on the go.
I'll just say this: that's precisely your error, it is not a philosophical question, it is a material one. It is not ideas we're talking about, it's people and their living conditions.
Modern examples of tribal living are after the vast majority of fertile lands have been colonized by "civilization".
Imagine judging the wealth of a place like America by its Indian reservations.
Anthropologists have gone to great lengths to study tribes that have had little to no interaction with the outside world so our understanding of their quality of life isn't as biased as you'd think.
It is an open-and-shut case. If people are given a choice, it would be a good day when 1 in 100 would choose to live a life in absolute poverty. If these hypothetical secluded tribes had a choice, they would say the equivalent of "wow, antibiotics! Reliable food! Houses! Sign me up for this please, I want to be a part of it! This will make my life better!" in their local language.
And people who voluntarily do that? Vanishingly rare.
For example the book explores the fact that much more europeans went into the indian tribal societies in colonial America than the other way around. As well as people longing for the times they were under siege (Saraevo) as they remember the closeness and belonging those situation caused. Fascinating really.
And it also has the virtue of being short - recommended.
We all were equaly poor and even if you had money there were few things you can buy anyway. You had a house (build by yourself) and food. If you were in good standing with government, you might get a chance to go to international holiday (in other eastern bloc country). Going anywhere in west would be totaly cost prohibitive even if they allowed to do it. Buying coffee in Vienna (closest big city) would easily cost 3 months of your paycheck.
So you were poor and you know you are poor, but it doesn't matter that much. 30 years later you can easily spot the difference in what does it means to be poor in developed economy: easily available loans and brain drain destroyed the periphery communities as whole. Now people are poor, they know it and they can compare to more well off everyday.
It is very different being poor in functioning community of similarly poor people, where people barther among themselves and being poor in developed country, where you are isolated from wide society or living in society with widespread drug/alcohol/mental illness problems in debt and no way out.
All the fantasy of cotagecore, simple life, #vanlife, home steading is basically trying to get into former type of being poor: not being stressed by work that much, having little societal asspiration, living with other similary minded people (even if that means watching each other posts on social media) and such.
If you consider yourself in any way a Marxist or a leftist, you _aren't_, you are pretty far from it. You are not making a rational analysis of society, humanity or reality based on historical materialism. Going back 200-1000 years is not progress. Period.
Clearly, underdeveloped tribes living primitive lives are poor in almost every sense of the word. They may not be poor spiritually, which is debatable, but that's it. There is no colonialism boo-hoo here. Their means, technologies and knowledge are primitive compared to most current day humans. You are romanticizing them based on tedious with current day lives, but if you analyze their situation they _are not_ in a good position compared to humans in more advanced places in the world.
If you think you would like being one of them just think what their average lifespan is, or what their access to drugs, medical treatment, etc is, or what happens to them when there is a drought.
There is nothing to romanticize about it. They have it very rough and they are poor. You shouldn't based your world view on the "noble savage" myth.
Hermit in the woods is an erroneous analogy to primitive tribes.
That doesn’t mean that modern society has nothing to learn from its antecedents, though.
It's far more complicated than that. How do you measure inflation across the world of disparate currencies and circumstances across a century? How do you measure it in hostile zones? Some warlord/dictator isn't going to report how much of their population is in poverty.
The error margins would be massive even if you could.
Then there's the complication of poverty vs extreme poverty.
Ultimately what we want to measure isn't 'do you have enough money' but rather 'do you satisfy your maslows heirachy of needs' or rather really how much?
If you look at a tribe, their physiological needs are met, their security needs are met, they most likely have friends and good social order, they very likely have a sense of accomplishment. So what's the problem?
Flipside, we in the rich world have created multiple planet wide problems and what if those tribe people are who have the solution? We want to get them connect to the internet as soon as possible.
I mean maybe we could have spent more time hunting, gathering, and birthing, but I don't begrudge the ancestors for just kicking back instead!
For the hunt gather nice times stuff to work out, I think theoretically there must also be some claims about the work being divided more evenly. Among other things, that could be some restrictions on how much pregnancy the nomadic band can deal with.
they have very helpful history in understanding how poverty is manufactured, within the context of colonial capitalism.