Capitalism kills millions every yesr despite a surplus of resources and production to meet everyone's needs, but some right-wingers say it isn't true Capitalism because the state gets in the way.
when u point out the atrocities of capitalism to some libs they will say dumb shit like "its crony capitalism thats the problem" as if "crony capitalism" or whatever other excuse they come up with (like trying to separate colonialism and capitalism) was not an inevitable and intended result of what they call "real capitalism"
'Capitalism is the worst from of economy, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.' - modified Winston Churchill quote. While I know how I use the quote in my head isn't how Churchill intended, to me it means don't settle for something just because it's the best option that's currently available.
Wow amazing, industrialization lifts people out of poverty... never would have realized. The problem with China is that currently, akin to the later stages of the USSR, they're only redistributing the wealth insofar as that means reprivatizing and consolidating in new hands, not actually redistributing from the wealthy minority to the majority, but creating a new wealthy minority.
Weird how industrialization isn't lifting people out of poverty in places like India the same way. Wonder what might be different. Maybe a smarty pants such as yourself could enlighten us. 🤔
A far right corporatocratic government that makes exactly zero effort to help the people? I'm not saying China is exclusively bad. The USSR was the only 'country' able to successfully play catch up with the west industrially. The problem is when the authoritarian government get old, realize they don't own anything to secure their families' continued lavish lifestyle, and reprivatize. I literally went to school with a guy whose grandpa was pals with Mao. Guess whose family is now worth billions and lives a lavish lifestyle in a mansion in Northern China?
I'm not trying to argue socialism is bad, just that it can't be achieved by an authoritarian government to significant effect.
That's where the value of democratically achieved socialism comes in, but it would have to be somewhere with an incredibly secure democracy and secure economic status, as the capitalist (elite) forces from outside and within will always work to destroy/impede socialism.
The problem is when the authoritarian government get old, realize they don’t own anything to secure their families’ continued lavish lifestyle, and reprivatize.
Authoritarian is a nonsensical term, every government holds authority by virtue of having the monopoly on violence, the only question is whose interests the government serves.
I literally went to school with a guy whose grandpa was pals with Mao. Guess whose family is now worth billions and lives a lavish lifestyle in a mansion in Northern China?
That’s where the value of democratically achieved socialism comes in, but it would have to be somewhere with an incredibly secure democracy and secure economic status, as the capitalist (elite) forces from outside and within will always work to destroy/impede socialism.
China already has democratic socialism. Only westerners pretend otherwise.
Ok pal slow your roll. I'm on your side and you're right. I said what I took from his quote not what it actually means and definitely not how it's used in pop culture. I know what it means. You can call me lazy, cause I don't bother to really explain myself well online, but please don't call me ignorant. You come across as looking for a fight and that doesn't make me want to actually engage you in a serious discussion.
Going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing that's the original cartoon and this is a play on the irony of the post-modern revelation of many of capitalism's failures.
Not only that, this isn’t real X is just a bad road to go down in. You need to define what system you want and judge if you met the plan, not some ideal.
Dude, all you needed to be defined a "kulak" was to own your own homestead, they worked on their farms themselves. Serfdom had been over for more than a hundred years at that point.
During the first five-year plan, Joseph Stalin's all-out campaign to take land ownership and organisation away from the peasantry meant that, according to historian Robert Conquest, "peasants with a couple of cows or five or six acres [~2 ha] more than their neighbors" were labeled kulaks.
You make it sound so wholesome using your sanitized history from natopedia, meanwhile here's the reality, your grand grandparents were exploiting scumbags
Getting skinned alive by the men who ran these scumbag exploiter families. I love how even when presented with actual research proving how full of shit you are, you keep digging. I guess runs in the family.
Showing a paragraph with a nasty description does not really prove anything, I could find you endless paragraphs that say nasty things about communists.
Do you fathom, how little land 5ha actually is for farming? Especially considering, that even the Western Soviet Union is generally not densely populated.
Again, these were the people who exploited others in brutal conditions. Hence why they were called fists. The minimal size of the property these fucks had isn't really the counter point you seem to think it is. Keep digging buddy.
Notice the weight-bearing words "at first" in your own cited research? Etymology is not a valid argument when the definition of a term drastically changes, in this case becoming much broader. My point is, most "kulaks" deported by Stalin from the Baltics were new landowners with not a lot of land and at most a few paid workers. At least in the case of Latvia, these workers were commonly seasonal labourers from Poland (that came here willingly).
I really doubt that Moscow deported women and children out of either collective punishment or misidentification. It’s more reasonable that it was simply Soviet policy to keep families together as much as possible.
Of course, if Moscow did separate the relatives, then antisocialists would go from griping about ‘collective punishment’ to griping about ‘separating loved ones’ instead. In any case, antisocialists rarely attempt to understand their opponents’ motives, especially in detail. All that you need to know is that the Soviets committed atrocities against innocents and that’s it. They did it just ’cause.
Capitalism kills more people each decade than even the wildest numbers capitalist chuds have ascribed to communism, and yet here you are. A stable genius.
think of a number that u think communism killed between 1920 and 2020 just whatever u can imagine just add up all the made up numbers u have seen in all ur favorite propaganda and keep that number in mind and open the spoiler below.
spoiler
last year more than 20 million people died in capitalist countries from perfectly preventable causes such as starvation and disease and thats without even counting how many people were murdered by imperialist countries and their puppet around the world to maintain capitalism.
idk what number u came up with but i grantee u it was less than 2 billion. and ur number is an exaggeration while mine in an under estimation.
The issue is what is defined as capitalism and communism. If by capitalism you mean the most powerful countries with the best weapons and foreign policy that kills people, then I guess capitalism kills lots of people. The caveat is that if a communist governmnet ever got that same amount of power, they would kill even more people. The issue with communism is that you cant disagree with it, whereas you can be as communist as you want in a capitalist country, typically.
That's only an issue if you're illiterate. Capitalism is defined as a dictatorship of the capital owning class, and communism is defined as a dictatorship of the working class. It's not complicated. Meanwhile, disagreements that can't translate into tangible action are worthless. Capitalist countries regularly assassinate communists who actually gain political power. See Fred Hampton and MLK as primary examples of this.
true, i wast trying to say that capitalism killed that many people in that specific period of time just that over a period of a 100 years at the current rate of murder it would be way more than the ridiculous number of death attributed to communism during that time. but i totally see how it could be misunderstood
Considering the brits alone managed to kill 100 million people in India alone over a span of 30 years, I think you are mistaken. Capitalism is a mass murder machine.
Which 'Victims of Communism' number are you using for that? The one where they include all the Nazis killed, as well as their potential children and potential grandchildren who didn't even exist yet?
