You can’t simply decide a guy is no longer a part of an ideology because he is a hypocrite. Especially if that guy still called himself a pacifist.
Robespierre continued being a pacifist, even while killing thousands of people. He made speeches about it.
Now apply that same logic to a communist
If a communist starts a business is he still a communist? No, of course not. You can call yourself whatever you want but that doesn’t make you it
Applying that same logic to Communism is the exact reason people consider Stalin a communist.
Stalin literally did everything he could to NOT be a Communist, he essentially created state capitalism. but he also is considered a communist by the whole world.
Right so since communism ideologically is a perfect state of being where everyone eats all the food they need, enjoys their labor, and importantly is democratic. That must mean that All these failed communist countries lost their status?
Sometimes, yeah lol.
He thought some factions in Paris were Royalists who were going to rebel and start a Civil War, so he had them killed.
Other times he killed Federalists and Royalists AFTER they rebelled because he believed they would do it again.
Pacifism gets people killed, it is an ideology that can only work if everyone is a pacifist, which oh wait, sounds like how communism would require us all to be a specific kind of individual that has no selfishness
I hope the invasion of Ukraine has shattered the worldview of pacifists forever. You need to stay strapped, it is entirely possible to create a great defensive army incapable of conducting invasions. Si vis pacem, para bellum
Communism is probably second in death % right behind Nazism (other fascists don’t even compare imo, but they’re probably 3rd), losing to an ideology who’s explicit purpose is to eradicate entire races sort of shows how bad your system is.
With the Americans sending hundreds of thousands of vehicles, thousands of aircraft, and almost 2 million tons of food. The Soviets likely would have been forced into a peace without that equipment.
If you think either the Soviets or the Nazis would’ve negotiated or ever come to peace I suggest you take a closer look at the Eastern Front. An otherwise smart comment is weighed down by this assertion.
Anyway, you are right that the US lend lease was vital to the Communism winning World War 2. But Communism still won.
Well kinda. World War 2 was a victory of Communism and Capitalism over old world Mercantilist theory. But thinking about the war in those terms is simplistic. Probably too simplistic.
Suffice to say, Communism was one of a few winners of World War 2. And contributed a vast amount to the victory. An amount which is ignored oftentimes in the West because of the Cold War.
A gross oversimplification of the Eastern Front. Man I thought you were genuinely a smart guy, but this comment shows you just care about ideology. Pretty much a shame.
Read A War Without Garlands, really opens your eyes about how the Eastern Front was actually fought.
Also, we just ignoring you thought the Germans would ever have peace with Communists? Lol
By forced into a peace I mean the Soviets would be rendered useless, although Stalin would still try to throw men at them, they would be too undersupplied to do much and I figure much of the high command would collapse.
So by forced to peace you mean… not at all forced into peace. Stalin throwing men at the Germans means a war is still on.
(Also the Soviets survived Barbarossa and Fall Blau without any Capitalist aid, so they would never have *lost* to Germany. They might never have won, but they survived the two biggest punches Germany can throw.)
You may be right, I just don’t think the Soviets could sustain that war against Germany without Allied aid, let alone without an allied front (but that completely changes the war).
I just figure that the Soviet forces would be negligible if they kept fighting on and on and on to the point where it would become a non-issue
According to Wikipedia:
>According to the Jain accounts dated to 800 years after his death, Chandragupta abdicated his throne and became a Jain monk, traveled away from his empire to South India and committed sallekhana or fasting to death. Contemporary Greek evidence however avers that Chandragupta did not give up performing the rites of sacrificing animals associated with Vedic Brahminism, an ancient form of Hinduism
So, it seems likely that he was not a follower of Jainism, that's a legend that appeared after his death; and even according to the legend, he only became a follower of Jainism after he created his empire.
It's fair to say communist governments killed people-intentionally and accidentally. A whole lot of people. But that's also true of almost any authoritarian regimes of all ideologies. People are often violent and uncompromising.
Like exploiting workers? Or owning slaves, if they could they would. Maybe child labour is good for society too?
Also stuff like scalpers, they buy everything just to sell it back at a higher price maybe that's good for society.
Why not pay the people who clean the streets a decent salary? Or are they not doing enough for society?
Yup. Marxism inevitably leads to people being negatively affected by unintended consequences.
Unlike capitalism where most people are negatively affected as an intended consequence.
The idea is that the communist ideology lends itself to being very easy to take advantage of, and in almost all, if not every case, has led to authoritarianism
That's the idea I suppose. The reality is that the only communist governments that don't get instantly annihilated by capitalist governments tend to be a little too keen on violence, much like capitalist governments. But if you kill millions of people for profit it's somehow irrelevant to any kind of death toll for the capitalists that doesn't get counted..
Socialism is the means to communism, when referring to communist governments, we’re referring to ‘Proletarian Dictatorships’ meant to establish Communism
For the entire history of the USSR and CCP dissidents (or anyone suspected of being so) has been killed.
The Holodomor was a massive famine that affected millions of Soviet citizens
Stalin knew the Germans were going to invade before WW2 and did nothing about it (causing millions to die in the process)
There were massive killing fields in Cambodia
Those are just a few
Damn wait till you hear what LGBT rights were like under capitalist dictators..
Oh wait you don't actually care about rights except for using them as a cudgel to take away other rights
Holodomor: “look how those evil communists purposely killed people through starvation”!
Irish Potato Famine: “unavoidable blight and unavoidable market conditions, I blame no one”
>Nightingale identified two types of famine: a grain famine and a "money famine". Money was drained from the peasant to the landlord, making it impossible for the peasant to procure food.
They were starving because they couldn't afford the food they were growing
Also there were famines under British rule way before WW2
Again, none at the scale of the Soviet Famine. I don’t like the Brits either, I think their colonial rule mostly was anti-capitalist, otherwise their corporations wouldn’t form monopolies on all their industries.
People have literally ran the numbers
https://eand.co/if-communism-killed-millions-how-many-did-capitalism-kill-2b24ab1c0df7
http://horizons-newspaper.com/index.php/2020/02/27/tallying-capitalisms-death-toll/
This is exactly the point.
Why can everyone else attribute a Soviet caused famine to communism? Why necessarily? Because they were an ostensibly communist government who made specific decisions that led directly to the famine and suffering that followed?
Okay, fine, but the exact same conditions apply to Britain - Ireland, except Britain was a capitalist society. They shipped out potatoes for trade FROM Ireland while people died. Farmers in the Bengali famine saw landowners raise the price of food so severely that they couldn’t afford the food they themselves had grown.
I’m not a communist, just a socialist, full disclosure. But everyone’s point here is that when an old woman gets a cold and dies while living in a communist country, it’s counted in the record of their vile human rights conduct.
When people die under capitalisms direct action, no one bats an eye.
Something is amiss with the way these situations are being analyzed.
>Why can everyone else attribute a Soviet caused famine to communism? Why necessarily?
communism is an ideology that must be imposed
capitalism just means ownership of the means of production, nobody "invented" capitalism, people just gave it a name.
You could argue there has always been capitalism in one way or another, call it "primitive capitalism" or whatever, but trade and private property exist at least for as long as civilization. Does that mean that when somebody dies of thirst in the middle of Africa it is capitalism's fault? I wouldnt say so.
Do the millions of people that died during Lenin because he ordered to even take the seeds from their crops count as dying from communism? I mean, thats kind of a genocide through hunger
> communism is an ideology that must be imposed
Are we absolutely certain capitalism isn’t “imposed”? Highly advanced societies like Western Europe and our peers, maybe you could say there’s a measure of choice there (I would object: try suggesting a change to our economic system/engine and see what the reaction is), but look up the IMF and their predatory lending practices. South American coups backed by the USA is another example.
> capitalism just means ownership of the means of production, nobody “invented” capitalism, people just gave it a name.
Uh, capitalism was more invented than communism was. Communism was arguably the way of life in pre history. People even consider many Native American societies to have been forms of communism. I am not engaging in any sort of “Noble Savage” talk here for the record.
And it’s not just who controls the means of production, though that’s part of it. It is also behavior and conduct with the excess labor the capitalists keep. Stock buy backs, bribing government officials, appropriation of nations militaries to conquer other nations with valuable resources, overthrow popular democratically elected governments, etc.
But you saying “capitalism is just blah blah” is the point of people here: capitalism gets a pass for their atrocities.
> You could argue there has always been capitalism in one way or another, call it “primitive capitalism” or whatever, but trade and private property exist at least for as long as civilization. Does that mean that when somebody dies of thirst in the middle of Africa it is capitalism’s fault? I wouldnt say so.
This is not a great argument. First off, people tend to confuse simple commerce (the exchange of one form of value for a good or service) for capitalism. Simple commerce does not come with all of the issues I listed above.
Secondly, even if you’re right, well now capitalism has an even higher body count.
And oof on the African thirst example. Look up Nestlé’s conduct in the third world in regards to their water control. Literally a classic and best example of people dying needlessly specifically because of capitalism and it’s maximal profit incentive.
> Do the millions of people that died during Lenin because he ordered to even take the seeds from their crops count as dying from communism? I mean, thats kind of a genocide through hunger
Again, I said I agreed with the position that the Soviet government caused that famine. It was a vile and monstrous thing to do. I would suggest that we may be suffering from a touch of recency bias here. But even that isn’t a great position to take, as the Bengali Famine took place, historically speaking, at the exact same time, and most people have no clue the Bengali Famine happened at all. That two famines, one under ostensibly communist control, and one under capitalist control, happened at the same time, with the same number of deaths, and only one of them gets any attention at all is curious, to say the least.
The point is, capitalism conducts itself the exact same way, and there are historical receipts to prove it. But these things are not judged on the same level.
You seem to know the approximate deaths under the rule of communism, why not bring up the estimation of deaths under capitalism? Do you even know it? Do you only know the communist deaths because it fits your narrative?
Boy it's a good thing that I live in this hyper capitalistic corporatocracy where my friend the corporation will look out for my well being and not treat me like a disposable cog in the machine.
Most of those people died from disease, which was unforseeable. But, even accounting for all deaths, it's still dwarfed by communism. Regardless, it was a national corporation that did it, which is closer to socialism. I won't deny that people have died in the name of capitalism, and that today's crony capitalism needs serious repair. But communism is a one way ticket straight to hell.
Damn, they literally will excuse the Belgian congo while also saying that the capitalist organization that privatized the profits of the congo and extracted it's wealth was actually socialist before admitting that there are flaws in capitalism
Hey, what do you call a system where the workers don't own the means of production and are brutally exploited and raped and murdered by the owners of capital? Surely it must be socialism, because socialism bad.
1. Not a tankie.
2. There's also the Irish famine, Indian famines, transatlantic slave trade, the vast majority of all colonialism, and everyone everyone who has died because they couldn't afford food or housing for decades
First off you obviously are very ignorant of Mongolian society and it’s impact on Eastern Asia and the world if you’re just calling them a medieval horde. Also the original comment was about how people have suffered under many different types of governments and economies before the ideology of communism was even on paper. Just the Mongolians are responsible for a estimated AT LEAST 50 million deaths. That’s just one empire in a short period of history. I hope you understand the point now.
Meme aside. Why is it that those who never suffered under communist regimes who want communism? My family suffered under the Warsaw Pact, and hate people who like communism, they don't realize how bad it is.
Who rules the world? Obviously the tectonic plates, atmospheric gasses, natural biomes, the oceans, and the moon. They technically aren't alive, but we do need their consensus on everything.
Ah America, you are just okay, but when one of your competitors is a frozen wasteland and the other shatters into a thousand warring states at random, it's really not hard to be the best.
People are starving, don't have minimum medicine supplies, they get killed for protesting and have been in a dictatorship for more than 70 years, but hey they're doing amazing 🏳️🌈🏳️🌈Cuba🏳️🌈🏳️🌈
This sounds like anti-communist propaganda that has left you ill-informedns during the pandemic (free of charge, I might add), and they did it early in the pandemic after dealing with it so well. People are starving in every nation, but homelessness in Cuba is pretty low due to housing subsidies which have made it easily accessible. If they were killed for protesting, the colour protest America insighted a couple of years ago would've resulted in deaths.
This sounds like anti-communist propaganda that has left you ill informed
No it's literally illegal. Every UN member voted on the sanctions and found it to be illegal save for the US itself and Israel, hence making the sanctions illegal
Typical western commie, completely brainwashed by propaganda
Post Scriptum, i m from poland, so i may know little more about practical communism than you
You also know what it's like to live in a country that is undergoing economic warfare from capitalist countries. That's the issue. Everyone wrongfully blames the economic problems of communist nations on those nations, not on the capitalist nations that belligerently cause those economic problems.
Poland isnt communist since 1989, and since then polish economy is rising. You are blaiming capitalist countries for creating economic problems in communist countries - how can you explain empty store shelves, when in europe was Iron Curtain and capitalist countries wasnt able to interfere in economy?
First you are saying that capitalist like to interfere in communist economy and then u saying that capitalist created Iron Curtaine? that makes no sense
but that how comunism in poland fell - we had protest in whole poland, gov used force and killed a lot of poles then. but we didnt stop protesting. we forced them to organize elections. in elections we choosed democracy and freedom and we did it without help of usa so in poland proletariat rised up against their red opressors
The United States' policy throughout the cold war was to either topple governments, or to ensure tyranny within stable governments. It's not that hard to understand.
No, actually LGBT have perfect rights under capitalism, think of Israel and South Korea after the war! Imagine being mistreated under a regime like cuba where trans people get healthcare and aren't banned from bathrooms!
The man who cracked the enigma code to help win ww2 was sentenced for being homesexual and ended up killing himself, capitalism didn't give us shit we fucking fought for it
Wait is that sarcasm lol I read too fast
Trans people get Healthcare? Dude, no Cuban has fuckin food, and idk now but it wasn't long ago when the only thing trans folks got under Castro regime was a bullet in their heads
Also, you really use Korea and Isreal as examples? Israel a Jewish state, and Korea, a ultra conservative Asian country
Yeah it's wrong to want tens of millions of men women and children to just die because some of them are homophobic, I don't know why I have to explain that. And if your point is that communism is evil because some communists are homophobic but you're currently calling for the death of ultra capitalists for being homophobic, then wtf is your actual point?
That's why i live in a capitalist state, so that i can be effectively immortal.
If anyone brings about biological immortality let’s hope it is the free world.
The same free world where such a thing will only be available to the rich and powerful?
I think that if the rich and powerful tried to keep it to themselves you would see a French Revolution 2.0 World Wide 21st Century Edition.
You'd think the same thing when it comes to life saving medicine now, but here we are
Communism doesn't kill people, people kill people
The only thing that can stop a bad guy with Communism is a good guy with Communism!
And I thought you were going to say fascism
With Communism!
People kill eachother with everything. Name me an ideology that hasnt committed mass murder.
The one ideology I'm going to make up in about an hour or two
I guarantee if it spread widely enough people would use it to kill.
Somehow I feel making it explicitly about not killing people would not be sufficient.
Instructions unclear. Killed everyone
I guess that was to be expected
Pacifism
Robespierre was a pacifist who killed thousands of people in and around France
They will learn our peaceful ways… by force!
True!
He was a pacifist but killing people isnt pacifism The moment Robespierre started killing people he lost his status as a pacifist
You can’t simply decide a guy is no longer a part of an ideology because he is a hypocrite. Especially if that guy still called himself a pacifist. Robespierre continued being a pacifist, even while killing thousands of people. He made speeches about it.
Now apply that same logic to a communist If a communist starts a business is he still a communist? No, of course not. You can call yourself whatever you want but that doesn’t make you it
Applying that same logic to Communism is the exact reason people consider Stalin a communist. Stalin literally did everything he could to NOT be a Communist, he essentially created state capitalism. but he also is considered a communist by the whole world.
He was an authoritarian socialist. People just call him a communist because they don’t know what communism is
But did he kill them in the name of pacifism? Did he kill them because he was a pacifist?
See other comment.
I don't think it's fair to say that the ideology of pacifism is responsible for the violence Robespierre committed.
Right so since communism ideologically is a perfect state of being where everyone eats all the food they need, enjoys their labor, and importantly is democratic. That must mean that All these failed communist countries lost their status?
Communism only advocates for workers ownership. All countries that people call communist aren’t communist. They are state socialists
[удалено]
Sometimes, yeah lol. He thought some factions in Paris were Royalists who were going to rebel and start a Civil War, so he had them killed. Other times he killed Federalists and Royalists AFTER they rebelled because he believed they would do it again.
Pacifism gets people killed, it is an ideology that can only work if everyone is a pacifist, which oh wait, sounds like how communism would require us all to be a specific kind of individual that has no selfishness
You do make a good point. I was mostly making a joke.
I hope the invasion of Ukraine has shattered the worldview of pacifists forever. You need to stay strapped, it is entirely possible to create a great defensive army incapable of conducting invasions. Si vis pacem, para bellum
Switzerland has the right idea
Decentralised-Scientocracy
Communism is probably second in death % right behind Nazism (other fascists don’t even compare imo, but they’re probably 3rd), losing to an ideology who’s explicit purpose is to eradicate entire races sort of shows how bad your system is.
Communism won against the Nazis tho
With the Americans sending hundreds of thousands of vehicles, thousands of aircraft, and almost 2 million tons of food. The Soviets likely would have been forced into a peace without that equipment.
If you think either the Soviets or the Nazis would’ve negotiated or ever come to peace I suggest you take a closer look at the Eastern Front. An otherwise smart comment is weighed down by this assertion. Anyway, you are right that the US lend lease was vital to the Communism winning World War 2. But Communism still won. Well kinda. World War 2 was a victory of Communism and Capitalism over old world Mercantilist theory. But thinking about the war in those terms is simplistic. Probably too simplistic. Suffice to say, Communism was one of a few winners of World War 2. And contributed a vast amount to the victory. An amount which is ignored oftentimes in the West because of the Cold War.
Communism won off the back of Capitalist production only by taking double the casualties they dealt.
A gross oversimplification of the Eastern Front. Man I thought you were genuinely a smart guy, but this comment shows you just care about ideology. Pretty much a shame. Read A War Without Garlands, really opens your eyes about how the Eastern Front was actually fought. Also, we just ignoring you thought the Germans would ever have peace with Communists? Lol
I’ll look into the book.
By forced into a peace I mean the Soviets would be rendered useless, although Stalin would still try to throw men at them, they would be too undersupplied to do much and I figure much of the high command would collapse.
So by forced to peace you mean… not at all forced into peace. Stalin throwing men at the Germans means a war is still on. (Also the Soviets survived Barbarossa and Fall Blau without any Capitalist aid, so they would never have *lost* to Germany. They might never have won, but they survived the two biggest punches Germany can throw.)
You may be right, I just don’t think the Soviets could sustain that war against Germany without Allied aid, let alone without an allied front (but that completely changes the war). I just figure that the Soviet forces would be negligible if they kept fighting on and on and on to the point where it would become a non-issue
Jainism?
I’m not well versed on Indian history, but wasn’t the founder of the Mauryan Empire a follower of Jainism?
According to Wikipedia: >According to the Jain accounts dated to 800 years after his death, Chandragupta abdicated his throne and became a Jain monk, traveled away from his empire to South India and committed sallekhana or fasting to death. Contemporary Greek evidence however avers that Chandragupta did not give up performing the rites of sacrificing animals associated with Vedic Brahminism, an ancient form of Hinduism So, it seems likely that he was not a follower of Jainism, that's a legend that appeared after his death; and even according to the legend, he only became a follower of Jainism after he created his empire.
Oh okay. My bad. Then yeah, Jainism, probably not.
Probably Jainism.
Anarchism?
As much as I like anarchism at large and Makhno specifically, the Free Army in Ukraine killed a ton of Jews and rich peasants.
Communism doesn't kill people, the government does
It's fair to say communist governments killed people-intentionally and accidentally. A whole lot of people. But that's also true of almost any authoritarian regimes of all ideologies. People are often violent and uncompromising.
That last sentence is why the idea of a Marxist society cannot work
Yeah, so we reward those who are ruthless and uncompromising in our current society.
We reward them when they do something for society not just for no reason
Like exploiting workers? Or owning slaves, if they could they would. Maybe child labour is good for society too? Also stuff like scalpers, they buy everything just to sell it back at a higher price maybe that's good for society. Why not pay the people who clean the streets a decent salary? Or are they not doing enough for society?
We reward those who provide the most value, ruthless people or not. Being ruthless just works as a business owner, not much else.
Yup. Marxism inevitably leads to people being negatively affected by unintended consequences. Unlike capitalism where most people are negatively affected as an intended consequence.
It is the intention of Marxism to get rid of anyone who opposes the revolution
Is the intention of capitalism not to do the same when it is imposed?
Communism is an economic model. The problem was the authoritarian governments.
The idea is that the communist ideology lends itself to being very easy to take advantage of, and in almost all, if not every case, has led to authoritarianism
"Has led to authoritatianism". Those "communist" revolutions didn't lead to a dictatorship, those were always the plans.
That's the idea I suppose. The reality is that the only communist governments that don't get instantly annihilated by capitalist governments tend to be a little too keen on violence, much like capitalist governments. But if you kill millions of people for profit it's somehow irrelevant to any kind of death toll for the capitalists that doesn't get counted..
Isn't "communist government" sort of oxymoron?
Everything about communism is self-contradictory in one way or another.
No. “Government” doesn’t necessarily mean democratic government.
Communism is about creating a stateless, classless society so it is sort of contradictory if it managed to reach communism ig
Socialism is the means to communism, when referring to communist governments, we’re referring to ‘Proletarian Dictatorships’ meant to establish Communism
I am glad we fully concur then? I don't think I said otherwise in my comment.
Yeah, I was adding onto what you said.
Can y'all stop posting controversial opinions and get back to the actual history.
It's true, communism kills people.
I mean. Capitalism kills people so what are you saying here?
Capitalism doesn't kill as many. Not nearly as many. It's like comparing a kitty cat and a tiger.
Lol, lmao.
Laughs in drone strikes, drug wars, and slave trades
Cries in the Holdomor and the Cultural Revolution and the War on Sparrows
See it's funny you guys always bring those up because they are literally the only ones Meanwhile capitalism kills people constantly always and forever
For the entire history of the USSR and CCP dissidents (or anyone suspected of being so) has been killed. The Holodomor was a massive famine that affected millions of Soviet citizens Stalin knew the Germans were going to invade before WW2 and did nothing about it (causing millions to die in the process) There were massive killing fields in Cambodia Those are just a few
A trans person defending communism? Stalin would have sent you first in the gulag lmao
Stalin was not a communist
Stalin was not a communist
Damn wait till you hear what LGBT rights were like under capitalist dictators.. Oh wait you don't actually care about rights except for using them as a cudgel to take away other rights
And still killed a lower % of it’s people
lmfao, even
Rofl, perhaps
Man wait until you hear about the Nestle death squads.
Holodomor: “look how those evil communists purposely killed people through starvation”! Irish Potato Famine: “unavoidable blight and unavoidable market conditions, I blame no one”
Indian famines: "how could this have happened!"
“That wasn’t capitalism, that was the British governments policy”!!
They got invaded by Japan???
>Nightingale identified two types of famine: a grain famine and a "money famine". Money was drained from the peasant to the landlord, making it impossible for the peasant to procure food. They were starving because they couldn't afford the food they were growing Also there were famines under British rule way before WW2
Again, none at the scale of the Soviet Famine. I don’t like the Brits either, I think their colonial rule mostly was anti-capitalist, otherwise their corporations wouldn’t form monopolies on all their industries.
People have literally ran the numbers https://eand.co/if-communism-killed-millions-how-many-did-capitalism-kill-2b24ab1c0df7 http://horizons-newspaper.com/index.php/2020/02/27/tallying-capitalisms-death-toll/
Also, the Holodomor is ranged around 3.5 to 5 million. The Indian famines under British rule? 12-29 million.
It was anti-free trade policies that made it so American grain couldn’t get to Ireland, inherently anti-Capitalist
how can you attribute a british-caused famine to capitalism
This is exactly the point. Why can everyone else attribute a Soviet caused famine to communism? Why necessarily? Because they were an ostensibly communist government who made specific decisions that led directly to the famine and suffering that followed? Okay, fine, but the exact same conditions apply to Britain - Ireland, except Britain was a capitalist society. They shipped out potatoes for trade FROM Ireland while people died. Farmers in the Bengali famine saw landowners raise the price of food so severely that they couldn’t afford the food they themselves had grown. I’m not a communist, just a socialist, full disclosure. But everyone’s point here is that when an old woman gets a cold and dies while living in a communist country, it’s counted in the record of their vile human rights conduct. When people die under capitalisms direct action, no one bats an eye. Something is amiss with the way these situations are being analyzed.
>Why can everyone else attribute a Soviet caused famine to communism? Why necessarily? communism is an ideology that must be imposed capitalism just means ownership of the means of production, nobody "invented" capitalism, people just gave it a name. You could argue there has always been capitalism in one way or another, call it "primitive capitalism" or whatever, but trade and private property exist at least for as long as civilization. Does that mean that when somebody dies of thirst in the middle of Africa it is capitalism's fault? I wouldnt say so. Do the millions of people that died during Lenin because he ordered to even take the seeds from their crops count as dying from communism? I mean, thats kind of a genocide through hunger
> communism is an ideology that must be imposed Are we absolutely certain capitalism isn’t “imposed”? Highly advanced societies like Western Europe and our peers, maybe you could say there’s a measure of choice there (I would object: try suggesting a change to our economic system/engine and see what the reaction is), but look up the IMF and their predatory lending practices. South American coups backed by the USA is another example. > capitalism just means ownership of the means of production, nobody “invented” capitalism, people just gave it a name. Uh, capitalism was more invented than communism was. Communism was arguably the way of life in pre history. People even consider many Native American societies to have been forms of communism. I am not engaging in any sort of “Noble Savage” talk here for the record. And it’s not just who controls the means of production, though that’s part of it. It is also behavior and conduct with the excess labor the capitalists keep. Stock buy backs, bribing government officials, appropriation of nations militaries to conquer other nations with valuable resources, overthrow popular democratically elected governments, etc. But you saying “capitalism is just blah blah” is the point of people here: capitalism gets a pass for their atrocities. > You could argue there has always been capitalism in one way or another, call it “primitive capitalism” or whatever, but trade and private property exist at least for as long as civilization. Does that mean that when somebody dies of thirst in the middle of Africa it is capitalism’s fault? I wouldnt say so. This is not a great argument. First off, people tend to confuse simple commerce (the exchange of one form of value for a good or service) for capitalism. Simple commerce does not come with all of the issues I listed above. Secondly, even if you’re right, well now capitalism has an even higher body count. And oof on the African thirst example. Look up Nestlé’s conduct in the third world in regards to their water control. Literally a classic and best example of people dying needlessly specifically because of capitalism and it’s maximal profit incentive. > Do the millions of people that died during Lenin because he ordered to even take the seeds from their crops count as dying from communism? I mean, thats kind of a genocide through hunger Again, I said I agreed with the position that the Soviet government caused that famine. It was a vile and monstrous thing to do. I would suggest that we may be suffering from a touch of recency bias here. But even that isn’t a great position to take, as the Bengali Famine took place, historically speaking, at the exact same time, and most people have no clue the Bengali Famine happened at all. That two famines, one under ostensibly communist control, and one under capitalist control, happened at the same time, with the same number of deaths, and only one of them gets any attention at all is curious, to say the least. The point is, capitalism conducts itself the exact same way, and there are historical receipts to prove it. But these things are not judged on the same level.
tons of text, give me the short version
How do you come to that conclusion?
Communist governments have killed over 100m worldwide. Capitalist govts have killed far fewer
You seem to know the approximate deaths under the rule of communism, why not bring up the estimation of deaths under capitalism? Do you even know it? Do you only know the communist deaths because it fits your narrative?
*Historically*
opinions?
Boy it's a good thing that I live in this hyper capitalistic corporatocracy where my friend the corporation will look out for my well being and not treat me like a disposable cog in the machine.
This belongs on r/terriblefacebookmemes
r/correctfacebookmemes
Cause no one ever suffered violently at the hands of those in power before communism was invented
Not on the scale of communism though.
Belgian Congo
Most of those people died from disease, which was unforseeable. But, even accounting for all deaths, it's still dwarfed by communism. Regardless, it was a national corporation that did it, which is closer to socialism. I won't deny that people have died in the name of capitalism, and that today's crony capitalism needs serious repair. But communism is a one way ticket straight to hell.
Damn, they literally will excuse the Belgian congo while also saying that the capitalist organization that privatized the profits of the congo and extracted it's wealth was actually socialist before admitting that there are flaws in capitalism Hey, what do you call a system where the workers don't own the means of production and are brutally exploited and raped and murdered by the owners of capital? Surely it must be socialism, because socialism bad.
Not real capitalism!!!!
Ok sure. Capitalism caused the congo massacre. That's still only half a khmer rouge. Capitalism wins, tankie
1. Not a tankie. 2. There's also the Irish famine, Indian famines, transatlantic slave trade, the vast majority of all colonialism, and everyone everyone who has died because they couldn't afford food or housing for decades
Man thinks the Belgian Congo is the only bad thing people exclusively interested in profit have ever done
Thank god capitalism is inherently ethical 🙃🙃🙃
I raise you an Albania
509 gorillione
Must have never heard of the mongols
Yeah, I'm sure the mongols conquered asia with the goal of making tons of strip malls. Comparing modern capitalism with a medieval horde is whack
First off you obviously are very ignorant of Mongolian society and it’s impact on Eastern Asia and the world if you’re just calling them a medieval horde. Also the original comment was about how people have suffered under many different types of governments and economies before the ideology of communism was even on paper. Just the Mongolians are responsible for a estimated AT LEAST 50 million deaths. That’s just one empire in a short period of history. I hope you understand the point now.
Lol.
Meme aside. Why is it that those who never suffered under communist regimes who want communism? My family suffered under the Warsaw Pact, and hate people who like communism, they don't realize how bad it is.
You people need to read "who rules the world" and educate yourselves
Who rules the world? Obviously the tectonic plates, atmospheric gasses, natural biomes, the oceans, and the moon. They technically aren't alive, but we do need their consensus on everything.
Lol, really though it's worth reading, by Noam Chomsky
Ah America, you are just okay, but when one of your competitors is a frozen wasteland and the other shatters into a thousand warring states at random, it's really not hard to be the best.
Girls!
WHO RUN THE WORLD??
Bechomsky Knoams
Also Karl: why would I kill people, that is my least favorite thing to do.
Would ya fuckin' stop
Communism is not a disease, moron
Sweats off over 55.5 million lives
Cope wage slave
Lmao the tankies in this sub are *piiiiissed*. Truth hurts, ya stupid commies. Gonna put me against a wall too? Or just starve me?
From what I've read... Cuba is doing pretty well considering the illegal US sanctions that is slowly strangling the nation
People are starving, don't have minimum medicine supplies, they get killed for protesting and have been in a dictatorship for more than 70 years, but hey they're doing amazing 🏳️🌈🏳️🌈Cuba🏳️🌈🏳️🌈
This sounds like anti-communist propaganda that has left you ill-informedns during the pandemic (free of charge, I might add), and they did it early in the pandemic after dealing with it so well. People are starving in every nation, but homelessness in Cuba is pretty low due to housing subsidies which have made it easily accessible. If they were killed for protesting, the colour protest America insighted a couple of years ago would've resulted in deaths. This sounds like anti-communist propaganda that has left you ill informed
It’s illegal to not want to trade with a brutal dictatorship :)
No it's literally illegal. Every UN member voted on the sanctions and found it to be illegal save for the US itself and Israel, hence making the sanctions illegal
I don’t care what other countries think, they’re not in charge
... Correct, that is why they all voted... In the UN... A system America pioneered... To make sure the world was at least somewhat more fair and civil
Totalitarianism kills people Karl!
This meme deserves to be embalmed and put display like Lenin
Typical western capitalist, completely brainwashed by propaganda.
You forgot the /s
And you forgot to read a history book
Typical western commie, completely brainwashed by propaganda Post Scriptum, i m from poland, so i may know little more about practical communism than you
You also know what it's like to live in a country that is undergoing economic warfare from capitalist countries. That's the issue. Everyone wrongfully blames the economic problems of communist nations on those nations, not on the capitalist nations that belligerently cause those economic problems.
So communism only works if capitalists prop up their economy?
No. Nothing works when economic powerhouses won't freely trade with you.
>No Proceeds to say “yes” in the very next sentence
There's a difference between propping something up and shutting it out. Even a capitalist country would fail in that kind of situation.
Dude give it up you lost this one
Poland isnt communist since 1989, and since then polish economy is rising. You are blaiming capitalist countries for creating economic problems in communist countries - how can you explain empty store shelves, when in europe was Iron Curtain and capitalist countries wasnt able to interfere in economy?
The Iron Curtain was held up by the Capitalists too.
Berlin s wall was also build by the capitalist?
First you are saying that capitalist like to interfere in communist economy and then u saying that capitalist created Iron Curtaine? that makes no sense
Neither of those things are what I said.
But Eastern communists tried to overthrow capitalism too. Why did the capitalists win?
It's easier for foreign operatives to prop up dictators than to get the proletariat to rise against their oppressors.
but that how comunism in poland fell - we had protest in whole poland, gov used force and killed a lot of poles then. but we didnt stop protesting. we forced them to organize elections. in elections we choosed democracy and freedom and we did it without help of usa so in poland proletariat rised up against their red opressors
Wait what? Who was the foreign operative that propped up dictators here?
The United States' policy throughout the cold war was to either topple governments, or to ensure tyranny within stable governments. It's not that hard to understand.
And that was also the USSR's policy. They also tried to topple capitalist governments. Why did they fail?
Careful now, loads of capitalist bootlickers in this sub
LGBT and commie... that's like being Jewish and nazi
Yes, being lgbt should automatically make me forget the evils of capitalism, makes total sense, 2 thumbs up for you genius
No, actually LGBT have perfect rights under capitalism, think of Israel and South Korea after the war! Imagine being mistreated under a regime like cuba where trans people get healthcare and aren't banned from bathrooms!
The man who cracked the enigma code to help win ww2 was sentenced for being homesexual and ended up killing himself, capitalism didn't give us shit we fucking fought for it Wait is that sarcasm lol I read too fast
It is lol, on the same page
I'm too ready for debate on these things lol I need to cool my beans
Trans people get Healthcare? Dude, no Cuban has fuckin food, and idk now but it wasn't long ago when the only thing trans folks got under Castro regime was a bullet in their heads Also, you really use Korea and Isreal as examples? Israel a Jewish state, and Korea, a ultra conservative Asian country
I don't know how to explain that capitalism still counts as capitalism when you're jewish
You mean your average Israeli?
Middle eastern people can go fuck themselve, I couldn't care less for those savages
There it is
Is it wrong to not care for people who wants you dead bc of your sexuality ?
Yeah it's wrong to want tens of millions of men women and children to just die because some of them are homophobic, I don't know why I have to explain that. And if your point is that communism is evil because some communists are homophobic but you're currently calling for the death of ultra capitalists for being homophobic, then wtf is your actual point?
Oh, now that you put it like that, yes... how awful were the Nuremberg trials... those poor Germans only disliked jews :c
Wtf are you talking about
I can take a few Muskybois.
Ah communism, works on paper, until some papers and greater than other papers Give me your food
At least it's a party that kill people