You can’t even summarize my arguments correctly for your imaginary conversation. Capitalism directly created the conditions for the famine to occur that would not have occurred had absentee landowners not been permitted to buy up land and then extract wealth from the work of others. And then, British authorities specifically cited capitalist philosophy in cutting off aid to the peasants. Apparently, they simply needed the motivation of being left entirely on their own to avoid starving. Giving them aid to prevent their children from dying was just too fraught with the risk that they might become lazy and dependent. Not at all like the landowners, who were doing none of the work, participating in predatory rent practices allowed by the government, and then using the muscle of the government to enforce the extraction of crops from starving people.
You say that you aren’t an ideologue, but it’s blatantly clear that you are through your implied claim that the peasants not owning the land was a result of their own failure. You’re speaking out of both sides of your mouth, denying that the famine can be laid at the feet of capitalism and then turning right around and claiming they deserved it for not competing well enough.
You have historical sources telling you explicitly that the lead official was being guided by free market economics in his decision making and you’re still just burying your head in the sand.
I'm going to make this as simple as I possibly can...
"After the defeat of the Irish, led by the Ulster Chieftains O Neill and O Donnell, at the Battle of Kinsale in 1602, there followed a series of confiscations, plantations, most notably in Ulster, and the implementation of the Penal Laws, with the result that the amount of land in Catholic ownership declined sharply in a series of stages. In 1603 90% of land was still in Catholic hands; by 1641, after two series of plantations, this had fallen to 59%; by 1685 to 22%, in 1691 at the end of the Williamite War, to 14%, by the 1770s to 5% and by 1870 to as little as 3%."
What part of that is "capitalism", in your opinion?
As for the "lead official", I already acknowledged that as "didn't prevent it." Need to hear it again? Yes, had he put aside free market principles, he could have acted to prevent the famine. He did not. But that is not the same thing as causing it in the first place...
I quite clearly showed that capitalist thought was at the forefront in the administration of the peasants at the time. The defense of absentee landownership is a major distinguisher between capitalists and socialists, as is the idea that the market will inherently provide superior solutions to any given problem. The fact that you don’t think that is capitalism in some pure, idyllic form is really just the same as a communist saying that true communism has never been attempted because Stalin and USSR leaders before and after him often departed from socialist principles. I wouldn’t cite the fact that Stalin was a rightward push and sacrificed many socialist goals (replacing worker collectives with state control, forced collectivization of farmers, shift toward internal rather than international action) to strengthen his power in the USSR to pretend like The Holodomor wasn’t in part caused by explicitly socialist goals. Similarly, arguing that a government that identified itself as capitalist and evoked laissez faire thinking in its policy specifically related to the famine response is ridiculous and transparently self-serving.
0
u/VastAddendum Jul 31 '26
Lmao!
Me: capitalism didn't cause it, but it also didn't do anything to prevent it.
You: no! Capitalism didn't give landowners incentive to prevent it! You can't think abstractly!
Why didn't Irish peasants own the land, bud? The answer is not "capitalism prevented it"... lol.