Actually, I've offered plenty of evidence against "the point"
What evidence have you provided, you have not given a single source for your claims. The only source you provided was your racist "packed like Mexicans ones".
Indeed, I misspoke. If this wasn't evident to you from context, here are some links to earlier posts in this thread where I didn't misspeak. The argument that you set forth (that I'm objecting to) is "there are fewer people farming then there was 600 years ago, this means fewer people are doing the farming for a larger population". This argument is invalid (despite both the antecedent and consequent being true), since "fewer people are doing the farming for a larger population" does not logically follow from the fact that "there are fewer people farming then [sic] there was [sic] 600 years ago". For example, the larger population could simply be eating less per person. The larger population could be turning to hunting or gathering. I never argued against the individual statements you made. I merely pointed out that the logic argument you form from them is not sound. Perhaps if you're not in the habit of engaging in formal rational discourse, this distinction may be lost on you. Feel free to write it off as me being pedantic, as you already seem to have done.
Here is what I said, "There are fewer people farming then there was 600 years ago, this means fewer people are doing the farming for a larger population". This statement was never about few farmers correlating to a larger population. I made the assumption that you would be able to grasp that there has been a population increase and that the statement was not about those two items but about the efficiency in production that made it possible. I did not think you were so simple that I had to spell every thing out so rigorously.
The French revolution actually predates the advent of socialism by a few decades, but don't let reality stop you from throwing around the "socialist" label as though it were a pejorative.
And when did I say Socialism predated the French Revolution. Here is a quote from your comrade Trotsky "The party that leans upon the workers but serves the bourgeoisie, in the period of the greatest sharpening of the class struggle, cannot but sense the smells wafted from the waiting grave." That is very similar to your quote, and I don't think you are even thick enough to say Trotsky was not a socialist revolutionary.
. Based on what Google's dictionary tells me, racism is "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races"
So the stereotype that Mexicans live in cramped quarters is not a negative attribute. That negative attribute applied to all Mexicans does not make them inferior? A racial stereotype with negative or positive connotations is racists.
I never suggested that a serfs [sic] life was better then [sic] a migrant workers [sic].
You certainly debated the fact that serfs had it better. Your quote.
Did serfs live in houses with 30+ others? Migrant workers do. Did serfs' diets consist of beans, rice, and water? Migrant workers' do. Regarding the hours-per-week claims, they seem totally disconnected from the realities I've seen. I've never seen a migrant worker that worked nice short days or took weekends off, but without reliable statistics, we'll just have to agree to disagree here.
Another quote
I was saying that a serf in the middle ages had it more or less equally good as modern migrant workers.
To make up for all the modern amenities a migrant worker has a serf would have to have it much better they did not. At least now faced with overwhelming evidence and common sense you concede this point even if it's just you claiming not to have made it.
My argument was merely that gains in efficiency of production would have resulted by now in a society where labor participation is not required for the basic needs of the human population to be met, if they weren't instead being pocketed by the wealthy. That you're now stuck on repeating a phrase that's at most tangential to my argument only goes to show that you're more interested in "winning" than in anything I have to say.
I have never denied that nor debated that the people that can not afford to buy the technology do not see most of the benefits of using that technology. The people that pay for the technology are the ones that see the majority of the benefits from that technology. I have asked you multiple times this same simple question which you can't seem to answer. Why should the person risking their capital forfeit the benefits?
Your only answer was to avoid socialists revolution. Migrant workers have seen benefits from technology, instead of working long hours plowing, seeding, weeding, and harvesting, they only work long hours harvesting, a seasonal job, a vast majority of their income is generated in 1/4 of the year. Even if you assume they worked 80 hours a week during that quarter of a year that's still only 20 hours a week averaged per year. Unless you think that migrant workers work 160 hours a week during the season they will be working less then 40 hours a week over the course of a year.