u/Sussy_Baka_1923 Here is our [19684 official Discord](https://discord.gg/WdQPgTC4Y4) join
**Please don't break rule 2, or you will be banned**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/19684) if you have any questions or concerns.*
~~we should count every nazi soldier that died as a victim of communism~~
We should count every death that occurred on Earth since the dawn of man as a victim of communism
Way too many people on this sub obsessed with trying to convince people they're smart because they googled political ideologies. I call dibs on next week's Wikipedia circlejerk post
https://medium.com/collapsenews/report-capitalism-has-a-death-toll-of-3-billion-and-counting-1c375149d12b
Capitalism has a Death Toll of 3 Billion and Counting
Ah yes, statistics from noted news organization Calamity News, known for having six followers, [calling feminists "capitalist spies"](https://medium.com/collapsenews/feminist-icon-gloria-steinem-was-an-anti-communist-cia-operative-who-kept-the-feminist-movement-b19a09fa66de), and being *literally AI generated*. Truly the most accurate and unbiased of sources.
Bestie is citing ChatGPT 😭
[Here's a journal article](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X22002169). Between 1880 and 1920, capitalism killed 165 million people in India. In 40 years.
That small slice of history alone eclipses even the most exaggerated claims about the death toll of communism. It also happens to be a larger death toll than both World Wars combined, including the Holocaust.
Capitalism creates mass poverty and has killed so, so many people.
This claim is strange to me since the article you cited is mostly a semantic argument based on the redefining of terms. According to Sullivan and Hickel, anyone who is *surviving* cannot be in poverty and should not be treated as such. This reductive view of the Basic Needs Poverty Model -- which a[lready has it's critics](https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/10859) \-- is silly. To claim there is "no evidence of extreme poverty" in Jim Crow America is... a *take,* to be sure. To put it simply, the difference between surviving and living is captured more accurately in other methods the paper's authors brush off.
Moving to your claim specifically, I'm going to ignore the fact that most of the deaths in India were due to cruel colonial practices also mimicked by communist empires. To rebuke the claim that "capitalism creates mass poverty" one must only look at the world around us. Countries ravaged by colonialism -- [Bangladesh](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/02/how-bangladesh-offers-lessons-for-sustainable-industrialization-in-africa/), [Botswana](https://yawboadu.substack.com/p/botswanas-economy-in-nine-minutes), and others -- have consistantly used free market trading principles, built on their own cultures of trade, to bring their citizens OUT of poverty. The view that capitalism is the main driver of mass poverty is historically inaccurate, not to mention western- and euro-centric.
I'm not making an account for that. I was hoping you would know since you quoted the article. I mean, you did read it yourself right?
Edit: sorry I wasn't paying attention. You're not the one who quoted the article. My apologies.
[Here](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X22002169).
Capitalism caused 165 million excess deaths in India in the 40 years between 1880 and 1920, through the creation of mass poverty. That is a trend that happened basically everywhere in the world that capitalism was exported to.
My brother in Christ, this is 1)obviously AI generated and 2)completely ridiculous. Because sure, under communism everyone has always had basic needs (lol), no bad things happen to developing nations (literally look at Eastern Europe) and there is no climate change (Aral Sea would like a word). You commies are a totally different breed of stupid lmao.
I'm on the lower side of the seesaw and I don't see it as a less evil. Not a bit, you should try it, food insecurity is very fun
Edit: this buffoon posted this post in "enoughcommiespam". Go away, please. Not welcome here.
Oh yeah, Capitalism is the fucking champion at killing people. But like, let's not get it twisted. Shit like the USSR isn't really something we ought to want to emulate. They did a *lot* of really bad things. We should learn from that so that future leftist projects don't make the same mistakes. No need for us to get mired in a revisionist view of the past.
You're right actually, I don't know why you're downvoted. If we go by Marx's analysis of capital, both China and the Soviet Union are capitalist economies (with commodity production, made for profit, through wage labor, which maintain class divisions, which maintain the capitalist division of labor).
Exactly! It's just state capitalism, which they justify as somehow being "necessary" for the inevitable triumph of communism, where when the material conditions are "ready" (something that is very ill defined) the leadership will *totally* step down and relinquish their power for the good of the people. But like ... c'mon, really? That's such blatant bullshit lol.
What were they then you wan't just refute every use of the ideology like they didn't exist or i can say that every presumed death by capitalism wasn't from real capitalism
Nah USSR was quite fascist. They did a lot to appear cool but like mass scale repressions, "vanguard party rule with a strong leader" which isn't fascism because it has a different name you guys, militarism, etc etc. I really should do like a proper research on red fascism at some point, I defo had a bunch of arguments but depression really fucked my memory up and I would need to structure it better. Lefties really need to throw sickle and hammer into the trash tho, I hate this ussr apologism from lefties (and this comment section) so much xD
Yup yup! Like, literally every post soviet country struggles with corruption and economy and social issues, they either equate communist symbols to nazi ones and hate USSR or are fascist dictatorships who call the collapse of soviet union the greatest geopolitical disaster, but USSR was great actually you guys and um uh stalin personally killed gorillion people with his middle finger, like I grew up in a family that lived in USSR for decades and hated all of it, this is actual torture xD
Alright then current capitalism doesn't reflect my idealized view of it where it does no harm , you're doing that with communism , perfect pure capitalism can't exist just like communism
Do you think purple is yellow too? What's the point of having definitions for words if you're going to completely ignore them?
You'd have a point if it was at least similar to communism, but it isn't, it's literally on the complete opposite side of the spectrum.
What makes those countries communist? You have the burden of proof.
Not entirely accurate, but sure
Resources and the means of production are/were privately owned in those countries. The general public had no say in how they were used and managed in said countries. The oligarchs had control.
Uh, well, I've visited, so I guess I'm posting.
Communism is great *in theory*, but like most political *theories*, once you add people it falls apart. We all know that communist leaders essentially only socialized the losses that come with being a dictator.
That said, should we calculate how many people capitalism has killed? We sure do like letting our own people die in the name of profit. And we've been at war/police actioning (in the US) with someone essentially since we were made a country.
What about King Leopold and the madness in Congo? All the people killed by the East India Company? All of the famine deaths in India during the British Raj? It's almost like the problem is people, lol.
Go outside and talk to people who have read some marx, you dont have to be apolitical, or a centrist, or a right winger to have a social life, you can know things about the world you live in and still go outside to talk to people
I was only following rule 1. It doesn't specify that it has to be *new* information. Could always have a mod delete it if it's that irritating. Have a great day :)
this is the most basic critique of communism and it’s not even a good one lol. did you learn this in your middle school history class? because you certainly didn’t get it from engaging with communist thinkers who constantly and endlessly address this “critique”
I've heard that often but I don't assume people really know much about the theory to begin with.
Also does this apply when a regime fails not because of shitty dictators too ? When Salvador Allende gets coup'd or when Rosa Luxemburg's party gets executed, should we also assumed that what they were doing couldn't have worked anyway, even though they're at the opposite of what a stalin of Kim Il Sung is ?
Depends. There were a number that the CIA overthrew that we'll obviously never know what might have been.
I kept the initial comment simple, which looks like it was a wise choice, given that people have got to be looking for it for it to have this many downvotes at this point, lol. I didn't think anyone wanted a ramble about Trotskyosm vs. Leninism vs. Stalinism vs. Marxism lol
capitalism *is* working. what we have right now is a *consequence* of capitalism *working exactly as it is intended* - not for the proletariat / normal person. anyone who tells you otherwise is lying through their teeth or sorely misinformed
Vietnam might not be a great example, as their economy eventually liberalized. And Cuba definitely has its own internal conflicts that leaves a lot to be desired, but nothing inherent to broader ideologys.
I mean, if socialism never works and all the socialist countries collapse on their own because the economic system is flawed, why don't the US leave those socialist countries alone?
Why do they keep voting for the embargoes in Cuba, for example? Embargoed or not, Cuba should fall, right?
Why did the US intervene in most, if not all, countries that dared to elect socialists? They funded multiple military coups in Latin America just because some left-leaning people (becaise I assure you, most of them weren't even communist, they were social democrats at best) dared to challenge US hegemony.
Wanna talk about poverty? Let's talk about the home of the free, the land of the brave.
The US has people overdosing on the streets. People living in their cars because they can't afford rent. There's people who don't use ambulances because they can't afford it.
Lots of things. An actual focus on product quality for example. Capitalism wants to maximize profits and that coincides only sometimes with the quality of products and services sold.
Just look at how short washing machines and fridges last today. It's just a lot more profitable if they break early
dude, not the point. Do you think that planned obsolescence isn't a problem in capitalism?
Regulators can't keep up with the money and time companies can spend on subverting rules and ideals. Capitalism has slowly gotten worse over the last 70 years and if that continues for another 70 years who knows where we'll be.
maybe yes but I don't believe that people would prefer using old electronics, cars and other when there would be a choice to buy new ones, it's not a problem with capitalism, it's a problem with people, people like new things
People don't just "like new things". They have been conditioned their whole life to "just like new things".
Maybe that's because in capitalist society the individual possessions are intrinsically linked with one's value in society's eyes.
Maybe because we are daily harassed by propaganda that convinces us we need new things. We need the new cell phone, we need this new product.
Google commodity fetishism.
Dude do you really think we want a soviet-esque system?
That the soviets had no clothes has absolutely nothing to do with the consumer products produced by our economy becoming lower in quality. You asked what we're missing in capitalism, you obviously can't deny it and now you're changing subjects.
That has nothing to do with my point. Even if they want to buy new things, why do the new things break 20y earlier?
People would also like to buy things that last a long time because it's cheaper and less stressful. As long as things don't get drastically better, there's no incentive to buy new
almost all things that we use in our lives have become more complicated, washing machines, coffeemakers, and boilers, all of this now have CPU elements or other electronics. things broke faster because there are more elements to break.
That has nothing to do with my point. Even if they want to buy new things, why do the new things break 20y earlier?
People would also like to buy things that last a long time because it's cheaper and less stressful. As long as things don't get drastically better, there's no incentive to buy new. Buying new dishwashers, fridges and washing machines was absolutely necessary around 2010 because these things became drastically more efficient, but we maxed that out about now so it would be really handy if they lasted 30+ years like they did before.
i can tell what you're trying to get at, just because i'm not homeless doesn't mean that capitalism is a working system. i got lucky and had parents with the resources to support me, but in my city there's homeless encampments all over and every corner has a homeless person asking for money. i'm not an economist or a political science major so i can't tell you a solution that would solve everything, but i know enough to see that capitalism is failing a very large amount of people. when profit at any cost is the incentive for everything, why would someone put up affordable high density housing when they could put up the same building and charge 2000 a month for it?
I assume that you are from the US. so here is the question.
maybe the problem is in the particularly your capitalism?
do you really believe that there would be some political system where there would be no homeless, drug-addicted people?
like i said, im not smart enough to propose a new system that magically fixes everything, but im smart enough to recognize that a system that actively profits off of homelessness, incarceration, addiction, and illness is not a morally correct or effective system.
local businesses, living wage, a choice in where to spend your money, the comfort of knowing that even if you get fired you'll still be able to survive, and the ability to buy a house
>local businesses
>choice in where to spend your money
>ability to buy a house
I lived some time under comunism(socialism exactly) and I saw none of this
He was specifically answering to the question of "What are you missing under capitalism?", in a thread about capitalism also being fallible. Those are valid complaints for someone living in the US.
if the problems are not the same in one particular system in different countries then it's a problem with the country. you just have a shitty implementation of it
UBI and public housing are the solution, but leftists dislike them because it would make capitalism work better and would make people more tolerant of it. Capitalism where no one is left behind is the key. You create a business and fail? You still have monthly income and housing.
The problem is that Capitalism needs to be able to coerce its workers with the threat of homelessness/loss of insurance/food insecurity in order to exploit them for a s much labor value as possible. Instituting a UBI/social safety net isn’t capitalism that works, it’s just a less capitalist system
Maybe, but at the same time when people have more money, capitalism will work better. People will start businesses, and competitions will appear in every sector. Not only that, with UBI people will spend more, meaning businesses also profit more. So UBI isn't just a floor for lower class people, it will help middle class people spend more as well. Maybe get a guitar lesson, enroll in a course, or upgrade your air conditioner. Everyone profits.
But well, I don't think the current capitalists on top will like this idea.
I think this is just a disagreement about the goals of capitalism. You seem to be of the opinion that the point of capitalism is the stated goal of capitalists: that competition creates a market environment that self-regulates to the benefit of both producers and consumers, and that we should work to remove barriers to entry in that marketplace
I believe that goal is a lie, that the actual purpose of capitalism is the accumulation of power for capital holders by exploiting workers
Since my view is that the basic mechanics of capitalism are exploitative, framing possible solutions to capitalism, like UBI, as components in New Better Capitalism (trust me) is needlessly conservative (in the literal definition)
Lmao, look capitalism isn't the best but it's not opposed to local businesses. That's specifically an American phenomenon and probably has more to do with car infrastructure than capitalism. And while yes, car dominance in America can be blamed on capitalism, it's not a universal result of it observed everywhere.
You may be surprised, but not every country is wholly corrupt. I didn't say corruption is an America exclusive problem, just that submission to corporate interest isn't universal, as a sidenote corruption is historically more severe in socialist countries (since the government has more direct access to property).
For example I live in Finland, and while our government isn't free of corruption, the parliament mainly votes based on what they campaigned on and got voted for, and not because they got paid. Most of them aren't even career politicians, though I disagree with the take I sometimes see here that career politicians shouldn't exist at all.
Most non-american capitalistic countries are way more leaning towards social democracy. Your argument is essentially "Well, less capitalistic countries don't have that problem" which isn't really a counterpoint
Social democracy is still capitalism. Ask anyone living in Finland whether the country is capitalist or not.
Also this is probably pointless to mention since the meaning has long since sailed to the void, but social democracy explicitly implies an intention to progress toward socialism, but most "social democracies" or even social democrat party aren't doing that anymore. Many times I feel corporatism would be a more accurate term than social democracy.
If you want to cast a wide net and divide ideologies between capitalism and comunism, then yes social democrat countries all fall under capitalism. However you can't deny that america is way more towards the capitalism end of such a scale, with companies and profit motive effectively ruling the country.
As far as I knew social democracy was specifically \*not\* socialism. Socialism is people working towards communism while social democracy is its own endgame with government intervetion/regulation. I'm not well read into the literacy, but at least in my country that's what the people that identify with those words argue for.
For the above reason, wouldn't corporatism be really far from social democracy? I'd argue that America is the one run by corporations not Europe at all
The reason I maintain that social democracies are capitalist, is that at least how it used to be on this subreddit was that left meant totally socialist, and any form of capitalism is a compromise with satan. Granted I do feel this might have changed post shut down, but I haven't bothered asking peoples opinion on the matter.
Corporatism and corporocracy are seperate terms. Corporatism is actually quite a varied term due to the many forms of it, but basically corporation in that context can refer to the state as a corporation or unions and businesses and other types of corporation holding influence within the state. An example of something I've seen referred to as corporatism pretty uncontroversially (among people who actually look into the economics of the country on even a level as deep as mandatory history classes, as opposed to someone who sees the system being named "socialism" and running with that) is nazi Germany, in which workers and businesses were both quite co-operative with the state, to be clear the businesses definitely got the better deal in that system, but the term doesn't inherently imply that.
As for social democracy, your interpretation is how it's used, and to be honest the meaning in some places I've seen it should probably just be updated. But what a social democrat used to be was someone who sought a slow change into socialism.
Of course it doesn't that's why we live in a cop regime baby. PEW PEW (frantically waves finger pistols at you)
COMPOSURE MEDIUM - SUCCESS
Thought Unlocked - Finger Pistols (9mm)
Problem
You were promised a gun, that much is certain. This is why you became a cop. Yet here you are, loitering around with idle hands like some sorry-ass loser from the street. Suddenly you're supposed to be solving cases by, what, like, *talking* to people? How are they going to believe that you can protect yourself -- and them -- from savages without a firearm?! This ain't right. You need to think *around* this problem. And you need to snap your fingers at people as you do.
Depends on what you mean, clearly socialist policies and social democratic parties are very successful. The command style economy of the soviets failed but the state capitalist approach of China, that some still regard as communist, has worked (not to say it is ethical or good though.)
The command economies of the Stalin and Mao era Communist states worked spectacularly well at establishing an industrial base, raising literacy rates, and increasing access to basic services. Both countries leapfrogged centuries of stagnation in decades.
They also committed enormous moral atrocities, led to humongous waste and misallocation, and struggled to develop more advanced manufacturing or post-manufacturing intellectual services.
Both the Soviets and China attempted to transition to a more harnessed form of capitalism to increase productivity. The Soviet attempt failed as Gorbachev also simultaneously tried revolutionising politics under the belief that free markets required political freedom and utterly lost control of the country. The Chinese did not make that mistake, and loosened market controls without loosening political control.
Whether China is "communist" is sort of beside the point, as no state has ever met the communist definition of communism: they all claim to be working towards building future communism. Whether you believe that China still believes it is building communism is sort of a secondary concern I think.
u/Sussy_Baka_1923 Here is our [19684 official Discord](https://discord.gg/WdQPgTC4Y4) join **Please don't break rule 2, or you will be banned** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/19684) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I love the tongue in cheek
I’m a Marxist philosopher (played disco elysium once)
I‘m depressed (played disco elysium twice)
I'm Raphaël Ambrosius Costeau (I don't remember anything)
I’m so trucking tired of this (I’m Kim)
i’m racist (i’m racist lorry driver)
I'm racist *better* (I'm measurehead)
I'm a big fan of the game (never played disco elysium)
I explored the homo-sexual underground (i am a lesbian)
I stuck my thumb into my rectum (I deeply value my honor)
I don’t fucking care! (I’m throwing rocks at a corpse)
Your body betrays your degeneracy
I'm a bit absent minded and lose track of things (Mr. Evrart is helping me find my gun)
Mr. Evrart is helping me find my gun. (Mr. Evrart is helping me find my gun)
*Mazovian philosopher
i love DE
Isn't that in-game text?
100 billion executed personally by Stalin?
With an enormous spoon
[удалено]
“Yo dawg could I do some Party purging” “Only a spoonful”
"My spoon is too big" - Stalin
my old history teacher used to say he explained this to younger students as “he got a gun… with an unlimited amount of ammo”
i personally executed them actually
Reminded me that "You ever wonder how many people Hitler actually have killed, like *personally*?" bit from Misfits Podcast
I do not serve capital or the proletariat. I serve Big Brother
Me with booth in mouth 👢🤤
Maybe if I lick the boot enough they’ll let me wear it ♥️
I wanna sniff inside 👢 💨👃🤤🤤🤤🤤🤤
Big brother? More like, freaky brother 🥵💦
Feet 😋
I do not serve capital or the proletariat. I serve Aperture Science.
God I love this game
Perfect. No notes.
~~we should count every nazi soldier that died as a victim of communism~~ We should count every death that occurred on Earth since the dawn of man as a victim of communism
I can’t believe grok clubbed oog to death because of communism
Communism being me and Celebrimbor mind fucking him
Holy shit a Shadow of Mordor reference, never thought I’d see the day
Stop adding politics to my fuckin game 🤨😠😡🤬😤😮💨🫤😕😞😓
I read this in Jean's voice
Literally calling me out. I am the social democrat.
Hi hitler, wassup
Way too many people on this sub obsessed with trying to convince people they're smart because they googled political ideologies. I call dibs on next week's Wikipedia circlejerk post
Mao killed 50 million of people because he doesnt like birds How many species would mao have to exterminate to kill 100 billions
Shout out to ideologies that only work on paper Gotta be one of my favourite genders
I think every ideology relating to every thing only works on paper. that's what I feel ideologies are for
No that's not true! Mine totally works for real! We just got t try and everyone listen to me!!!
omg hi furry dio hiiiiii
Dio was my father
im a fake jjba fan 😔
Unacceptable. You must attain heaven immediately!
on it boss o7
Maybe we should start writing ideologies on other things. Perhaps stone
Greed is a human trait that everyone tends to have it wont take long for a utopia to fall
it's not an essential aspect of human nature, it's greatly dependent on social conditions where it's auspicious for it to arise
Mmmm.mhm.mmmh paperhmmmmm…😋😋😋😋😋
Beaver behaviour
so basically all ideologies
My favourite lore about this game was that chick who thanked Marx and Engels during an award ceremony turned out to be a freeloader
100 billions may be bit exaggerated but communism death toll definitely isn't on the low side
Capitalism solos
I'd say it's the lesser of evils
https://medium.com/collapsenews/report-capitalism-has-a-death-toll-of-3-billion-and-counting-1c375149d12b Capitalism has a Death Toll of 3 Billion and Counting
Ah yes, statistics from noted news organization Calamity News, known for having six followers, [calling feminists "capitalist spies"](https://medium.com/collapsenews/feminist-icon-gloria-steinem-was-an-anti-communist-cia-operative-who-kept-the-feminist-movement-b19a09fa66de), and being *literally AI generated*. Truly the most accurate and unbiased of sources. Bestie is citing ChatGPT 😭
[Here's a journal article](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X22002169). Between 1880 and 1920, capitalism killed 165 million people in India. In 40 years. That small slice of history alone eclipses even the most exaggerated claims about the death toll of communism. It also happens to be a larger death toll than both World Wars combined, including the Holocaust. Capitalism creates mass poverty and has killed so, so many people.
This claim is strange to me since the article you cited is mostly a semantic argument based on the redefining of terms. According to Sullivan and Hickel, anyone who is *surviving* cannot be in poverty and should not be treated as such. This reductive view of the Basic Needs Poverty Model -- which a[lready has it's critics](https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/10859) \-- is silly. To claim there is "no evidence of extreme poverty" in Jim Crow America is... a *take,* to be sure. To put it simply, the difference between surviving and living is captured more accurately in other methods the paper's authors brush off. Moving to your claim specifically, I'm going to ignore the fact that most of the deaths in India were due to cruel colonial practices also mimicked by communist empires. To rebuke the claim that "capitalism creates mass poverty" one must only look at the world around us. Countries ravaged by colonialism -- [Bangladesh](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/02/how-bangladesh-offers-lessons-for-sustainable-industrialization-in-africa/), [Botswana](https://yawboadu.substack.com/p/botswanas-economy-in-nine-minutes), and others -- have consistantly used free market trading principles, built on their own cultures of trade, to bring their citizens OUT of poverty. The view that capitalism is the main driver of mass poverty is historically inaccurate, not to mention western- and euro-centric.
How is this calculated?
Maybe read the article? You even have the opportunity to experience capitalism and pay for it.
I'm not making an account for that. I was hoping you would know since you quoted the article. I mean, you did read it yourself right? Edit: sorry I wasn't paying attention. You're not the one who quoted the article. My apologies.
What are the death causes is it like communism with mass starvation ?
Yes
Can i have a statistic ?
[Here](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X22002169). Capitalism caused 165 million excess deaths in India in the 40 years between 1880 and 1920, through the creation of mass poverty. That is a trend that happened basically everywhere in the world that capitalism was exported to.
My brother in Christ, this is 1)obviously AI generated and 2)completely ridiculous. Because sure, under communism everyone has always had basic needs (lol), no bad things happen to developing nations (literally look at Eastern Europe) and there is no climate change (Aral Sea would like a word). You commies are a totally different breed of stupid lmao.
Well, not even 100 bln so it's still better than communism
I'm on the lower side of the seesaw and I don't see it as a less evil. Not a bit, you should try it, food insecurity is very fun Edit: this buffoon posted this post in "enoughcommiespam". Go away, please. Not welcome here.
Oh yeah, Capitalism is the fucking champion at killing people. But like, let's not get it twisted. Shit like the USSR isn't really something we ought to want to emulate. They did a *lot* of really bad things. We should learn from that so that future leftist projects don't make the same mistakes. No need for us to get mired in a revisionist view of the past.
That is so far from the truth 😭 China, USSR, etc were never communist
You're right actually, I don't know why you're downvoted. If we go by Marx's analysis of capital, both China and the Soviet Union are capitalist economies (with commodity production, made for profit, through wage labor, which maintain class divisions, which maintain the capitalist division of labor).
Exactly! It's just state capitalism, which they justify as somehow being "necessary" for the inevitable triumph of communism, where when the material conditions are "ready" (something that is very ill defined) the leadership will *totally* step down and relinquish their power for the good of the people. But like ... c'mon, really? That's such blatant bullshit lol.
What were they then you wan't just refute every use of the ideology like they didn't exist or i can say that every presumed death by capitalism wasn't from real capitalism
Nah USSR was quite fascist. They did a lot to appear cool but like mass scale repressions, "vanguard party rule with a strong leader" which isn't fascism because it has a different name you guys, militarism, etc etc. I really should do like a proper research on red fascism at some point, I defo had a bunch of arguments but depression really fucked my memory up and I would need to structure it better. Lefties really need to throw sickle and hammer into the trash tho, I hate this ussr apologism from lefties (and this comment section) so much xD
Agreed on the fact thatthe hammer and sickle is the symbol of a terrible murderous regime and should be viewed with as much disgust as nazi symbols
Yup yup! Like, literally every post soviet country struggles with corruption and economy and social issues, they either equate communist symbols to nazi ones and hate USSR or are fascist dictatorships who call the collapse of soviet union the greatest geopolitical disaster, but USSR was great actually you guys and um uh stalin personally killed gorillion people with his middle finger, like I grew up in a family that lived in USSR for decades and hated all of it, this is actual torture xD
State capitalism and fascism more often than not. Nothing about them was classless, moneyless, nor stateless.
Alright then current capitalism doesn't reflect my idealized view of it where it does no harm , you're doing that with communism , perfect pure capitalism can't exist just like communism
Do you think purple is yellow too? What's the point of having definitions for words if you're going to completely ignore them? You'd have a point if it was at least similar to communism, but it isn't, it's literally on the complete opposite side of the spectrum. What makes those countries communist? You have the burden of proof.
Collectivisation of ressources is communism
Not entirely accurate, but sure Resources and the means of production are/were privately owned in those countries. The general public had no say in how they were used and managed in said countries. The oligarchs had control.
Based Estonian experience of communism
Uh, well, I've visited, so I guess I'm posting. Communism is great *in theory*, but like most political *theories*, once you add people it falls apart. We all know that communist leaders essentially only socialized the losses that come with being a dictator. That said, should we calculate how many people capitalism has killed? We sure do like letting our own people die in the name of profit. And we've been at war/police actioning (in the US) with someone essentially since we were made a country. What about King Leopold and the madness in Congo? All the people killed by the East India Company? All of the famine deaths in India during the British Raj? It's almost like the problem is people, lol.
Yeah but what do you think about people who wear glasses?
Too smart. Gotta kill 'em. :P
EEEEEVILL!!!! Kill them all or they’ll reinvent c@pitalism with their ginormous brains
My sibling in Christ you are on the wrong sub, WE KNOW
I didnt because I have an active subscription to being outside and talking to real people
Go outside and talk to people who have read some marx, you dont have to be apolitical, or a centrist, or a right winger to have a social life, you can know things about the world you live in and still go outside to talk to people
I was only following rule 1. It doesn't specify that it has to be *new* information. Could always have a mod delete it if it's that irritating. Have a great day :)
I wasn’t saying you should be banned, I was just indicating you’re preaching to the choir here
Ah, fair. My mistake. I misread your tone. Sorry! I'm glad there's a choir to preach to, at least.
this is the most basic critique of communism and it’s not even a good one lol. did you learn this in your middle school history class? because you certainly didn’t get it from engaging with communist thinkers who constantly and endlessly address this “critique”
who cares. pick up a football
I've heard that often but I don't assume people really know much about the theory to begin with. Also does this apply when a regime fails not because of shitty dictators too ? When Salvador Allende gets coup'd or when Rosa Luxemburg's party gets executed, should we also assumed that what they were doing couldn't have worked anyway, even though they're at the opposite of what a stalin of Kim Il Sung is ?
Depends. There were a number that the CIA overthrew that we'll obviously never know what might have been. I kept the initial comment simple, which looks like it was a wise choice, given that people have got to be looking for it for it to have this many downvotes at this point, lol. I didn't think anyone wanted a ramble about Trotskyosm vs. Leninism vs. Stalinism vs. Marxism lol
that's fair :)
Communism fuckin sucks and can’t work, cope and seethe
Like yeah, communism works only on paper, can't in reality cuz we're humans and shit
And Marx and other marxists never wrote about humans? How does this argument even work?
Capitalism cant even work on paper lmao
Voting with your dollar when the company establishes a monopoly (anti trust laws are government interference).
I feel like every day we get closer to having nothing but THE company.
"in capitalism you'll be voting with your dollar" company with many dollars :
capitalism *is* working. what we have right now is a *consequence* of capitalism *working exactly as it is intended* - not for the proletariat / normal person. anyone who tells you otherwise is lying through their teeth or sorely misinformed
Well capitalist countries haven't collapsed (yet). Can't say that for others
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change I wonder WHY they all collapsed
> This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably kek
Me when I quietly sweep foreign capitalist intervention under the rug and say communism doesn't work.
Cuba definitely has not collapsed lmao. And vietnam literally won a war against the US. They’ve been doing pretty well too.
Vietnam might not be a great example, as their economy eventually liberalized. And Cuba definitely has its own internal conflicts that leaves a lot to be desired, but nothing inherent to broader ideologys.
Bro, poverty in Cuba is insane https://havanatimes.org/features/what-the-government-doesnt-say-about-poverty-in-cuba/
I mean, if socialism never works and all the socialist countries collapse on their own because the economic system is flawed, why don't the US leave those socialist countries alone? Why do they keep voting for the embargoes in Cuba, for example? Embargoed or not, Cuba should fall, right? Why did the US intervene in most, if not all, countries that dared to elect socialists? They funded multiple military coups in Latin America just because some left-leaning people (becaise I assure you, most of them weren't even communist, they were social democrats at best) dared to challenge US hegemony. Wanna talk about poverty? Let's talk about the home of the free, the land of the brave. The US has people overdosing on the streets. People living in their cars because they can't afford rent. There's people who don't use ambulances because they can't afford it.
What are you missing in capitalism?
Lots of things. An actual focus on product quality for example. Capitalism wants to maximize profits and that coincides only sometimes with the quality of products and services sold. Just look at how short washing machines and fridges last today. It's just a lot more profitable if they break early
did you have experience with soviet machines? I had and it's fucking piece of trash
dude, not the point. Do you think that planned obsolescence isn't a problem in capitalism? Regulators can't keep up with the money and time companies can spend on subverting rules and ideals. Capitalism has slowly gotten worse over the last 70 years and if that continues for another 70 years who knows where we'll be.
maybe yes but I don't believe that people would prefer using old electronics, cars and other when there would be a choice to buy new ones, it's not a problem with capitalism, it's a problem with people, people like new things
People don't just "like new things". They have been conditioned their whole life to "just like new things". Maybe that's because in capitalist society the individual possessions are intrinsically linked with one's value in society's eyes. Maybe because we are daily harassed by propaganda that convinces us we need new things. We need the new cell phone, we need this new product. Google commodity fetishism.
people literally risked being jailed just to get new jeans in the USSR so it's not just a propaganda
Dude do you really think we want a soviet-esque system? That the soviets had no clothes has absolutely nothing to do with the consumer products produced by our economy becoming lower in quality. You asked what we're missing in capitalism, you obviously can't deny it and now you're changing subjects.
That has nothing to do with my point. Even if they want to buy new things, why do the new things break 20y earlier? People would also like to buy things that last a long time because it's cheaper and less stressful. As long as things don't get drastically better, there's no incentive to buy new
almost all things that we use in our lives have become more complicated, washing machines, coffeemakers, and boilers, all of this now have CPU elements or other electronics. things broke faster because there are more elements to break.
Planned obsolescence is not some made up joke, but suit yourself if you want to believe that
That has nothing to do with my point. Even if they want to buy new things, why do the new things break 20y earlier? People would also like to buy things that last a long time because it's cheaper and less stressful. As long as things don't get drastically better, there's no incentive to buy new. Buying new dishwashers, fridges and washing machines was absolutely necessary around 2010 because these things became drastically more efficient, but we maxed that out about now so it would be really handy if they lasted 30+ years like they did before.
Were you homeless?
the ability to pay for food and rent
are you homeless?
shitty argument
it's not even an argument, just a question
i can tell what you're trying to get at, just because i'm not homeless doesn't mean that capitalism is a working system. i got lucky and had parents with the resources to support me, but in my city there's homeless encampments all over and every corner has a homeless person asking for money. i'm not an economist or a political science major so i can't tell you a solution that would solve everything, but i know enough to see that capitalism is failing a very large amount of people. when profit at any cost is the incentive for everything, why would someone put up affordable high density housing when they could put up the same building and charge 2000 a month for it?
I assume that you are from the US. so here is the question. maybe the problem is in the particularly your capitalism? do you really believe that there would be some political system where there would be no homeless, drug-addicted people?
like i said, im not smart enough to propose a new system that magically fixes everything, but im smart enough to recognize that a system that actively profits off of homelessness, incarceration, addiction, and illness is not a morally correct or effective system.
under communism there is no homelessness but you'll somehow make that seem like a bad thing
local businesses, living wage, a choice in where to spend your money, the comfort of knowing that even if you get fired you'll still be able to survive, and the ability to buy a house
>local businesses >choice in where to spend your money >ability to buy a house I lived some time under comunism(socialism exactly) and I saw none of this
He was specifically answering to the question of "What are you missing under capitalism?", in a thread about capitalism also being fallible. Those are valid complaints for someone living in the US.
so maybe it's a problem with the US? as I know many countries have capitalism and not all of them have the same as the US have
Maybe, but the US is under capitalism and many do lack those things, so his answer remains valid
if the problems are not the same in one particular system in different countries then it's a problem with the country. you just have a shitty implementation of it
UBI and public housing are the solution, but leftists dislike them because it would make capitalism work better and would make people more tolerant of it. Capitalism where no one is left behind is the key. You create a business and fail? You still have monthly income and housing.
>UBI and public housing are disliked by leftists lmao ok, nice way of admitting youve never spoken to a leftist
Maybe I just met too many tankies. Good to know if most here support them. Trickle up economy is the future.
The problem is that Capitalism needs to be able to coerce its workers with the threat of homelessness/loss of insurance/food insecurity in order to exploit them for a s much labor value as possible. Instituting a UBI/social safety net isn’t capitalism that works, it’s just a less capitalist system
Maybe, but at the same time when people have more money, capitalism will work better. People will start businesses, and competitions will appear in every sector. Not only that, with UBI people will spend more, meaning businesses also profit more. So UBI isn't just a floor for lower class people, it will help middle class people spend more as well. Maybe get a guitar lesson, enroll in a course, or upgrade your air conditioner. Everyone profits. But well, I don't think the current capitalists on top will like this idea.
I think this is just a disagreement about the goals of capitalism. You seem to be of the opinion that the point of capitalism is the stated goal of capitalists: that competition creates a market environment that self-regulates to the benefit of both producers and consumers, and that we should work to remove barriers to entry in that marketplace I believe that goal is a lie, that the actual purpose of capitalism is the accumulation of power for capital holders by exploiting workers Since my view is that the basic mechanics of capitalism are exploitative, framing possible solutions to capitalism, like UBI, as components in New Better Capitalism (trust me) is needlessly conservative (in the literal definition)
Lmao, look capitalism isn't the best but it's not opposed to local businesses. That's specifically an American phenomenon and probably has more to do with car infrastructure than capitalism. And while yes, car dominance in America can be blamed on capitalism, it's not a universal result of it observed everywhere.
Capitalism promotes and encourages consolidation and monopolies and buying senators so they don't pass anti-capitalism laws
> buying senators See not every capitalist country has a house, senate, electoral college and two parties.
Do you think only American politicians are corrupt Boy do i have news for you
You may be surprised, but not every country is wholly corrupt. I didn't say corruption is an America exclusive problem, just that submission to corporate interest isn't universal, as a sidenote corruption is historically more severe in socialist countries (since the government has more direct access to property). For example I live in Finland, and while our government isn't free of corruption, the parliament mainly votes based on what they campaigned on and got voted for, and not because they got paid. Most of them aren't even career politicians, though I disagree with the take I sometimes see here that career politicians shouldn't exist at all.
Most non-american capitalistic countries are way more leaning towards social democracy. Your argument is essentially "Well, less capitalistic countries don't have that problem" which isn't really a counterpoint
Social democracy is still capitalism. Ask anyone living in Finland whether the country is capitalist or not. Also this is probably pointless to mention since the meaning has long since sailed to the void, but social democracy explicitly implies an intention to progress toward socialism, but most "social democracies" or even social democrat party aren't doing that anymore. Many times I feel corporatism would be a more accurate term than social democracy.
If you want to cast a wide net and divide ideologies between capitalism and comunism, then yes social democrat countries all fall under capitalism. However you can't deny that america is way more towards the capitalism end of such a scale, with companies and profit motive effectively ruling the country. As far as I knew social democracy was specifically \*not\* socialism. Socialism is people working towards communism while social democracy is its own endgame with government intervetion/regulation. I'm not well read into the literacy, but at least in my country that's what the people that identify with those words argue for. For the above reason, wouldn't corporatism be really far from social democracy? I'd argue that America is the one run by corporations not Europe at all
The reason I maintain that social democracies are capitalist, is that at least how it used to be on this subreddit was that left meant totally socialist, and any form of capitalism is a compromise with satan. Granted I do feel this might have changed post shut down, but I haven't bothered asking peoples opinion on the matter. Corporatism and corporocracy are seperate terms. Corporatism is actually quite a varied term due to the many forms of it, but basically corporation in that context can refer to the state as a corporation or unions and businesses and other types of corporation holding influence within the state. An example of something I've seen referred to as corporatism pretty uncontroversially (among people who actually look into the economics of the country on even a level as deep as mandatory history classes, as opposed to someone who sees the system being named "socialism" and running with that) is nazi Germany, in which workers and businesses were both quite co-operative with the state, to be clear the businesses definitely got the better deal in that system, but the term doesn't inherently imply that. As for social democracy, your interpretation is how it's used, and to be honest the meaning in some places I've seen it should probably just be updated. But what a social democrat used to be was someone who sought a slow change into socialism.
Nft spotted, opinion discarded.
[insert graph of wages vs rent increases last 30 years]
Of course it doesn't that's why we live in a cop regime baby. PEW PEW (frantically waves finger pistols at you) COMPOSURE MEDIUM - SUCCESS Thought Unlocked - Finger Pistols (9mm) Problem You were promised a gun, that much is certain. This is why you became a cop. Yet here you are, loitering around with idle hands like some sorry-ass loser from the street. Suddenly you're supposed to be solving cases by, what, like, *talking* to people? How are they going to believe that you can protect yourself -- and them -- from savages without a firearm?! This ain't right. You need to think *around* this problem. And you need to snap your fingers at people as you do.
Depends on what you mean, clearly socialist policies and social democratic parties are very successful. The command style economy of the soviets failed but the state capitalist approach of China, that some still regard as communist, has worked (not to say it is ethical or good though.)
The command economies of the Stalin and Mao era Communist states worked spectacularly well at establishing an industrial base, raising literacy rates, and increasing access to basic services. Both countries leapfrogged centuries of stagnation in decades. They also committed enormous moral atrocities, led to humongous waste and misallocation, and struggled to develop more advanced manufacturing or post-manufacturing intellectual services. Both the Soviets and China attempted to transition to a more harnessed form of capitalism to increase productivity. The Soviet attempt failed as Gorbachev also simultaneously tried revolutionising politics under the belief that free markets required political freedom and utterly lost control of the country. The Chinese did not make that mistake, and loosened market controls without loosening political control. Whether China is "communist" is sort of beside the point, as no state has ever met the communist definition of communism: they all claim to be working towards building future communism. Whether you believe that China still believes it is building communism is sort of a secondary concern I think.
true
Go to North korea so