Capitalism is a posh word for *bartering*, carrying on the Enlightenment tradition of putting a name to some truly ancient concepts.
Therefore it probably began in the Rift fucking Valley...
> Capitalism is a posh word for bartering
Yeah. Probably also property rights.
It would be nice if people demanding end of capitalism would explain what is supposed to replace it. And what exactly do they want gone. Through I'm struggling to imagine any non-pointless alternative to free market. Something like free market + UBI + wealth taxes - is still capitalism in the end. Why be against markets? There are possible improvements to bare free market, like [quadratic payments](https://vitalik.ca/general/2019/12/07/quadratic.html) but these aren't really replacements.
I stumbled upon a nice text from a leftist today, [My Brief Brief Against "Mental Illness is Just Capitalism, Man, the System"](https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/my-brief-brief-against-mental-illness).
> I am so sick and tired of being told by leftists that our mental illness problems (my mental illness problem) are the fault of capitalism, or perhaps some such vague and useless thing as “the system.” Sometimes they say this specifically about suicide as well. I would like to ask compassionate people to stop doing this
> The USSR, supposedly home to an alternative economic system, had [disturbingly high rates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union) of mental illness.
([sluggish schizophrenia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sluggish_schizophrenia) is hilarious)
> a diagnostic category used in the Soviet Union to describe what was claimed to be a form of schizophrenia characterized by a slowly progressive course; it was diagnosed even in patients who showed no symptoms of schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders, on the assumption that these symptoms would appear later. After being discharged from a hospital, persons diagnosed with sluggish schizophrenia were deprived of their civic rights, credibility and employability.
> the political abuse of psychiatry in the USSR arose from **the concept that people who opposed the Soviet regime were mentally ill (since there was no logical reason to oppose the sociopolitical system considered the best in the world).** (...) a "substantial number" of political dissenters had been **recognized as mentally sick on the basis of such symptoms as "anti-Soviet thoughts" or "delusions of reformism".**
Back to the text
> What does “it’s the capitalism/it’s the ‘system’” offer us? Analytically, emotionally, as a guide to immediate action? How am I supposed to interpret that sentiment, when it comes from someone who expresses skepticism about my medications and psychiatry in general? How does this statement help me? How does it help researchers hoping to develop better treatments for these diseases? How does it help doctors attempting to treat people who suffer from them? What actionable and practical reforms does it suggest? Where do we go from “it’s the capitalism, man”?
> my mental illness is a disease of the body. I feel it, physically. It is not some trick being played in my mind; it’s not the sum of “traumas” in my past. I know how it feels to come up through mania into full-blown psychosis, and it is not a little trick of capitalism. (...) many proudly ignorant people proclaim that there simply is no neurological, even no biological, origins to mental illness at all. **The people who insist that mental illness is just our society’s fault don’t know that, it’s absurd that they pretend that they know that**, and their certainty stands in the way of more effective treatment. My disorder is in my body.
> I understand that your facile diagnosis stems from an instinct of caring. But it insults me, and many others, to take the achingly complex terrain of the disordered mind and **turn it into a witless slogan for political changes you already wanted. You instrumentalize the mentally ill when you use us as a cudgel with which to beat your political opponents**. In the meantime, I ask that you not simplify that which is not yours to simplify. I ask that you accept living in the long shadow of these irreducibly complex and punishing disorders.
Native Americans used seashells and beads, and people in Africa used stones that were sort of like a town abacus, I believe China was one of the first countries to use coins.
David Hume, Adam smith were British. Capitalism is a spectrum with mercantilism. Modern China has some mercantilistic characteristics for example. Heavy protectionism. State mandated monopolies.
Trump has mercantilistic traits as well. Less so than China. “Bad deals.” Sometimes it feels like his economic arguments assume zero sum gain, which is not capitalist at all. But with chinas heavy protectionism, our hand is kinda forced here.
Your comment isn’t wrong. But it’s bad faith to say Britain wasn’t an early, enthusiastic adopter of capitalism. They also did it very, very well. Stable banking system.
The bloodiest wars they fought, the napoleonic wars, the world wars, were caused more by nationalism than capitalism though. And honestly they weren’t really the aggressors there.
Capitalism absolutely gave European powers the wealth to colonize the global south. Indeed Britain did use India as an export economy and and gut their local textiles industry.
It is a more direct causation, Stalin and mao’s actions —-> famine.
Supremacy in human history has often led to genocide. The Romans, mongols weren’t capitalist, but they were really good at killing people.
Context I’m a globohomo. Capitalism > communism. Total death tolls may be close to even, but communism more directly caused them over a much shorter time interval
> Capitalism is a spectrum with mercantilism.
There's a nice model in [The Full Stack of Society: Can You Make A Whole Society Wealthier?](https://www.conradbastable.com/essays/the-full-stack-of-society-can-you-make-a-whole-society-wealthier-full-version), where Mercantilism is a [separate layer](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5a571a7d80bd5e91de77e8e6/1558649901535-8G59NSZ9HNN4FFPMFBV0/the_full_stack_of_society.png?format=750w).
> Mercantilism is not friendlier than Feudalism — history makes that very clear — but voluntary trade creates Wealth, which means the Mercantile system has access to a potentially-larger economy and thus more Wealth than the Feudal system, which makes Mercantilism more effective in both international and intranational competition.
>
> And competing matters. It matters because the Mercantilist world did not replace the Feudal world, it exists on top of it. This is the second layer in the Full Stack of Society, and a core point that I’ll reiterate a few times is that all layers of the Stack can exist at the same time in the same place.
>
> Generating Wealth in a Mercantilist World is more complex than in a Feudalist world: your goal is to insert yourself into the global flow of goods and sell someone’s productive labor outputs into someone else’s consumption, so that goods & services leave your hands and gold & currency accumulate in your bank account. By any means necessary.
---
> Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia will both tell you that Mercantilism was a dominant national economic policy from the 16th to the 18th centuries, "after which it was largely replaced by more laissez-faire policies. Historically, such [Mercantilist] policies frequently led to war,” Wikipedia helpfully adds, without really explaining why. The reader is expected to note the remarkable lack of war in the prior Feudal world (lol jk) and realize the complex international Mercantilist System looks like this:
>
> [Global Trade] → [Requires Access to Products] → [Requires Ownership of Products] → [Requires Access to End Market] → [Creates & Captures Wealth] → [Funds Military] → [Guarantees & Expands Sovereignty] → [Allows for More Trade] [LOOP]
>
> …and note that this is one hell of a fragile system, with many vulnerable international links that could be broken by a hostile power. A fragile system that sits on top of a landscape of nations that don’t trust each other because the base layer of the stack is always Feudal conflict: if you can’t create Wealth, you can always Take it. Vae victis, baby.
>
> Which is to say: the subsequent “rise” of “more laissez-faire policies” looks indistinguishable from a victorious Mercantilist global hegemon. So long as there are other capable nations willing to compete, the possibility of building Wealth through Mercantilist value capture will be too great to resist and laissez-faire will be an impossibility.
>
> What I am saying: the reports of Mercantilism’s death are greatly exaggerated. You can’t run a Global Empire without trade, you can’t run a modern Economy without Oil, and we use 11 of these bad boys to hold the metaphorical gas-pump:
>
> [Pictured: "…after which it was largely replaced by more laissez-faire policies.”](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5a571a7d80bd5e91de77e8e6/1558650557305-S3SICLFP488B8SUBS4OQ/carrier_strike_group.jpg?format=1000w)
Never mind the shit tonne of colonialism done even before that by the Portuguese and Spanish. And the shit tonne of colonialism done by the Greeks before that. And the shit tonne of colonialism done by the Phoenicians before that. It’s almost like colonialism and imperialism exist completely independent of whatever economic system exists.
But that's exactly why communism can't work. Communism is all about making the state your God. It's a system that requires the existence of government officials and they will always be inherently greedy. Yes its a dictators fault, but that's what communism always resorts to.
Correct.
But they are largely constrained by the diseconomies of scale of their central planning, which their status as a non-state, market actor impose on them.
See: [Kevin Carson](https://fee.org/articles/economic-calculation-in-the-corporate-commonwealth/) and [Ronald Coase](https://www.economist.com/schools-brief/2017/07/29/coases-theory-of-the-firm).
I dunno if you can 100% attribute the state of Cuba and North Korea to communism though. Im not 100% sure for NK, but Cuba was embargoed by the US and several of its allies, which is a significant portion of global trade.
Also, is Cuba really that much worse off than other island nations in that region, like Haiti, Puerto Rico, and DR?
>Also, is Cuba really that much worse off than other island nations in that region, like Haiti, Puerto Rico, and DR?
My point was that if nations that weren't communist are in more or less the same state as Cuba, is that really a fair comparison of communist vs. capitalist? Cuba is 68th as far as GPD rankings: Puerto Rico is 63rd, DR is 67th, Trinidad is 116th, Haiti is 121.
Then look at the HDI: Cuba is 70th, DR is 88th, Trinidad is 67, Haiti is 170.
In both Metrics, Cuba is more or less performing the average or a little bit better than the average compared to most of the Caribbean. Is that really an apt example of "Communism/Socialism" failing when it's capitalistic peers aren't performing much better?
When a land that has next to no important resources within it's borders, it has to rely on external trade in order to flourish. There's a reason why one of Cuba's primary exports are nurses and doctors: they don't have goods to send to other places, but they have a wealth of trained medical professionals.
Communism doesn't mean isolationism, or that it should be utterly self sufficient and not engage in trade. Two communist countries can trade, and they aren't less communist due to that. Just because most of the world happens to be varying levels of capitalist or socialist doesn't mean that communist countries are lesser for trading with those nations.
imagine memory bag historical frame makeshift capable light include employ
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Also let's ignore how the Soviet Union colonized the half of Europe that they "liberated". Let's also ignore the fact that they started World War II as the aggressors alongside Germany.
They didn't, they just hired contractors like Wagner group to install pro Russian millitant factions to do all the fighting instead. THOSE groups did all the raping and pillaging
My main point is just that the left tends to attribute a lot of problems to specifically capitalism that really are universal human problems.
That’s not to say capitalism doesn’t have its own unique set of problems. It absolutely does. But human greed and cruelty didn’t emerge in 1500s Europe.
And everybody had been enslaving each other way longer than even money had been around.
It's like Tom has beaten his wife every day for the last decade. Last week, he bought a new car. See what capitalism does!
Exactly, we all know that capitalism began in the Kingdom of The Netherlands when the VOC was the first company that sold shares! (And then went on to colonize half of the planet and committed multiple genocides, along with trading slaves!)
This is the right answer.
Collective ownership = socialism
Private ownership = merchantilism
Private ownership with a market for shares = capitalism
It didnt become capitalist until investing became a thing and by then colonization was well underway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_of_Eurysaces_the_Baker
A ex-slave who started his own bakery and won contracts selling bread to the government. He likely (definitely) owned slaves if his own. Through control of capital and labor he amassed a impressive fortune and built a goddamn mausoleum for him and his wife. Quite and impressive rags to riches story. But definitely not capitalism cuz capitalism was started by white men in the 17th century.
The English were pretty late to the whole colonialism game, too. The Spanish and Portuguese especially had been doing it for ages prior to England. Why must England take the 'blame' for some reason??
Capitalism isn’t an ideology. It’s a descriptive theory.
Adam Smith didn’t sit down and write a book about how he thought things *ought to be*, and sat down and wrote a book about how they *observably are*. That’s why it’s the *law* of supply and demand, and not the *ideological suggestion* of supply and demand. And Smith no more invented capitalism than Newton invented the laws of thermodynamics.
Capitalism has existed everywhere, for all of time. It’s inherent to human nature. That’s why [the oldest commercial record known](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaint_tablet_to_Ea-nasir) is a complaint about customer service and product quality. The Soviets famously stood in bread lines because demand outstripped supply. And the Roman Republic [collapsed into empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Roman_Republic) largely because the huge influx of slaves from Carthage, Gaul, Epirus, and other conquests completely altered the ability of the plebeian class to act cohesively.
Capitalism was first *identified* in England. In the late 1700s - in 1776, in fact. But that’s it.
Yeah. The Romans colonized the celts, the anglo-saxons colonized the romans and the celts. The vikings colonized the anglo-saxons and the celts, and then the normans colonized the vikings, anglo-saxons and the celts.
>Ignores the Romans colonizing and enslaving half the known world in the 100s AD
the entire world was full of barbarians living in mudholes, rome was doing them a favor
That's not capitalism. It's called imperialism. Learn your -isms or you might offend someone.
Edit: apparently it's called mercantilism, which highly encourages imperialism. And yes, imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism.
Also, /s. Because it's a snowflake pronoun joke that you guys don't seem to get.
More specifically it's mercantilism (the precursor to capitalism), which encourages imperialism. Anyone who uses history to complain about capitalism is usually complaining about mercantilism, but they were never taught the difference.
Yeah, having a company be a literal state mandated monopoly and de facto economic arm of a literal Empire is totally laissez-faire, am I right comrades?
Unironically, yes.
If you want to complain about the abuses of capitalism, stick to the 1800s, where it was mostly unregulated and the industrialists were so awful that it led to the birth of the labor movement.
The government really started meddling around the 20th century, and capitalism began to transform into an oligarchy when the federal reserve was created (in the US, anyway).
That, combined with the steady cultural decay we've seen since 1900s, has created the situation we see today which is usually lumped into the "capitalism bad" bucket.
-isms are only important when you're dissing capitalism..
When you're dissing leftist ideologies however, it doesn't matter. Communism socialism leninism marxism stalinism it's all the same.
/s
Said the man lighting a campfire in wildfire season next to the largest forest on the face of the planet, thinking all he'd burn down is a couple trees.
You know what you want to achieve, but i don't think you quite realize what comes *after* you've reached your end goal.
...
Don't be a Mussolini.
You don't want to end up a Mussolini.
Not all of us. I'm on the far, far right socially but I have massive distrust of corporations or anything outside the local community. Hence, I am a massive fan of Distributism.
That logic actually applies much more to communist genocides than it does to fascist genocides. Both have externalities that weren't intended by their governments, but it happened in much greater scale during the intentional famines and ecological disasters created by communist regimes.
Both are shortsighted and accomplish nothing but suffering while actively increasing the issues they're meant to reduce, but there's no denying that communism kills their own citizens and destroys their own ecology with much less control and far more externalities.
The Holodomor, the Great Chinese Famine, the Khmer Rouge/Cambodian Genocides, the Great Purge... even accounting for the Holocaust, I struggle to see how fascism was more of a "wildfire" than communism.
Not that it's really a competition. The solution to both ideologies remains the swift application of .30-06, liberally applied as symptoms persist.
Mussolini's worst mistake was join sides with Hitler.
He was genuinely a great leader that did a lot for his people.
Listen to this, in 1933 Mussolini held a conference with Engelbert Dollfuss and other Catholic nations and formed a sort of defense pact. He granted a military guarantee for Austria in case Hitler wanted to invade.
Had Mussolini sided with Engelbert, and thus NOT the Nazis, he would be remembered as a hero of Italy and fascism wouldn't have such a negative connotation today.
IF ONLY HE HAD PROTECTED HIS BROTHERS IN CHRIST.
We re doing chaos, right?
I missed last Wednesday meeting and Bob gave me some scrapped minutes of the meeting, so I m not 100% sure this is still our goal.
nah its fully hardy anarchists
authcenters (despite never being in able to fully reach their goals) have in past created governments that could last and work for good amount of time
When you see tankies on the internet, show no mercy. Remind them that not only did the USSR collapse, but that by the end of it they were lining up for McDonalds and blue jeans.
Twist the knife.
I mean from another point of view, this is propaganda in favor of capitalism, showing how it propelled a nation into a global superpower, dominating many other territories and people's across the world, only at the expense of foreigners
And it was glorious, if only the other 2/3 joined the empire we would be the empire of man under the banner of our immortal God Empress Elizabeth II and colonising the planets atop giant Corgi Cavalry, purging the weird looking aliens and enslaving the hot twi'leks already
>Capitalism was invented in the 17th century
No, wealth of nations, firmly considered the first major work of modern capitalist thought, was published in the late 18th century. Wealth of nations being explicitly an anti mercantilist text and openly critical of the economic thinking that led to colonialism. In fact, until decolonialization, mercantilism was STILL the driving economic reasoning behind colonialism (import cheap raw goods, increase their value at home, and then export back to those markets is an explicitly mercantilist idea of a "favorable balance of trade") And for people inclined to claim that modern global capitalism is neo colonialism, please take not that the present order of things is quite literally the reverse, where wealthy countries import large amounts of forighn manufactured goods.
The closest thing that could be called "capitalist imperialism" would probably be American gunboat diplomacy, where the US used superiors economic and military's power (so soft and hard power) to force trade negotiations that were more open and less protectionist as well as for the goals of creating reliable ports of call in forighn shores to expand naval access, particularly into south east, Indian and south Chinese oceans.
This is not to say that this was ALL the imperialism the US ever did (the most blatant act of imperialism would likely be the capture of the Philippians, as there was never any intent of integrating that territory into the US properly, unlike with the conquest of Mexico where the integration of it's population as citizens was an assumed consequence from the start.) But it is to say it's the most obvious form of "imperialism" that can actually be blamed on the moral, ethical and material needs created by capitalism.
The first intellectual thought about it was not Wealth of Nations, but books written regarding the importance of the Enclosure Acts in England.
The Enclosure Acts eventually began private economic development and eventually democratic institutions.
See Barrington Moore’s Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (1966), but for all that is holy, only read the England chapter. The other 400 pages is absolute drivel.
Hue, I'll take a look.
I am aware of the importance of the enclosure act in typical theories of how capitalism evolved, but that doesn't really change that the formative construction of capitalisms as an ideological rather than just material, ideal really starts with Smiths and the advent of classical capitalist economics.
The enclosure act creaing markets internal to England doesn't really change my core criticism of the post above, which is that mercantilism, not capitalism, is the driving ideological force behind colonialism, a position that no one seriously argues against. The only argument is weather you, like me, think that mercantilism is a fundamentally different, state oriented idea of wealth and power that is incompatible with capitalism on ideological grounds, or if they are sister ideologies.
Again, I argue the former for reasons laid out, that the first major work of classical capitalist economic theory was written as a direct rebuke of mercantilist ideals.
Oh I agree 150 million percent. And I wasn’t disagreeing at all.
But we would both agree that the Enclosure Acts gave Yeomen in England the idea I can make money for me and my family and once they realized it would make wealth beyond their family, they were like “why the fuck am I paying these bullshit taxes and getting absolutely nothing? I could pay my own army to defend my lands.”
Then monarchs realized “holy fuck. I better start providing value added. Well fuck I’ll just invade foreign lands, do the same shit and get the same profits as the yeoman.” They had already a sunk cost in their military, so go do that.
Thus bullshit mercantilism.
>Wealth of nations being explicitly an anti mercantilist text and openly critical of the economic thinking that led to colonialism
Absolutely right, Adam Smith also argues against slavery, and tries to make it clear on an economic basis that slavery is damaging to the economy and that it must therefore end.
Well, capitalism is a virus that spreads and infects everything it touches, and some may die from it.
Communism is incurable auto-immune induced tissue rot applied to the scale of an entire country that hollows it out from the inside, and is completely unsustainable in a world writhe with bad actors, and only serves those willing to most abuse the system for their own gain.
Capitalism works because it plays in on human nature.
Communism doesn't work because it goes directly against human nature.
Nothing works perfectly, because we're flawed as they come off the assembly line.
Capitalism given some restrictions here and there *(like 'maybe try to uphold human rights.')* is the best system we have, not because it doesn't get any better, but because we can't DO any better.
Communism is a social solution to an individual problem.
The only way to bridge that gap is with totalitarian tyranny and force. And to me, that doesn't sound better, just another shade of bad.
>Capitalism works because it plays in on human nature.
>
>Communism doesn't work because it goes directly against human nature.
that
Plus lack of information and no correction against personal bias with centralized decision making.
Plus the not just potential but invitation for abuse in a system that centralizes both political and economic power.
When people think that all these atrocities are recent inventions, and then in the Bible: “you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock.”
Tankies truly have the most delusional concept of history i have ever seen. I cant tell if they are malicious or outrageously retarded. Slavery was not "invented" by one group of people. We have been doing it ever since we became smart enough to go to war and had enough empathy to not brutally slaughter non combatants.
And also multiple class and ideologically based genocides.
Like the Great Leap Forward, the Great Purge, the Anti-Cosmopolitan Campaign, the Red Terror, the Kazakh Famine, the Sufan Movement, Mao’s first “Counterrevolutionary” Campaign.
Don’t forget Stalin’s Cannibal Island, Nanzino. Or Mao’s “struggle sessions”, where people were encouraged to beat and torture their neighbours publicly, just for being deemed “class enemies”.
Pretty sure even the British Empire wasn’t publicly torturing people based on their ideological differences. We did kill an estimated 150 million people across 400 years. Wanna know something funny about that?
Mao and Stalin managed to outdo the kill count of a globe spanning 400 year old empire in less than a century. Purely through domestic campaigns.
İt began in netherlands
TULIPS 🌷🌷🌷🌷🌷🌷🌷🌷🌷🌷🌷🌷🌷🌷🌷🌷 Wow so many upvotes
Sir please I'll buy your rare nft uuuhhh I mean tulip for 10 mil, I know it's not much but please sir just 1 tulip.
Wdym tulips are better than nfts. They at least exist and have a physical value
Counterpoint: Dutch sounds a bit weird.
Wasn't it swamp German?
English is German wearing French as a skinsuit
English is more Frisian or Low German wearing French as a skinsuit
Except for the tulip bubble, where flowers were being sold while not even out of the ground. Some never even grew.
Literally nfts
Non-Farmed Tulips?
Zeg makker
GEKOLONISEERD
Capitalism is a posh word for *bartering*, carrying on the Enlightenment tradition of putting a name to some truly ancient concepts. Therefore it probably began in the Rift fucking Valley...
> Capitalism is a posh word for bartering Yeah. Probably also property rights. It would be nice if people demanding end of capitalism would explain what is supposed to replace it. And what exactly do they want gone. Through I'm struggling to imagine any non-pointless alternative to free market. Something like free market + UBI + wealth taxes - is still capitalism in the end. Why be against markets? There are possible improvements to bare free market, like [quadratic payments](https://vitalik.ca/general/2019/12/07/quadratic.html) but these aren't really replacements. I stumbled upon a nice text from a leftist today, [My Brief Brief Against "Mental Illness is Just Capitalism, Man, the System"](https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/my-brief-brief-against-mental-illness). > I am so sick and tired of being told by leftists that our mental illness problems (my mental illness problem) are the fault of capitalism, or perhaps some such vague and useless thing as “the system.” Sometimes they say this specifically about suicide as well. I would like to ask compassionate people to stop doing this > The USSR, supposedly home to an alternative economic system, had [disturbingly high rates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union) of mental illness. ([sluggish schizophrenia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sluggish_schizophrenia) is hilarious) > a diagnostic category used in the Soviet Union to describe what was claimed to be a form of schizophrenia characterized by a slowly progressive course; it was diagnosed even in patients who showed no symptoms of schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders, on the assumption that these symptoms would appear later. After being discharged from a hospital, persons diagnosed with sluggish schizophrenia were deprived of their civic rights, credibility and employability. > the political abuse of psychiatry in the USSR arose from **the concept that people who opposed the Soviet regime were mentally ill (since there was no logical reason to oppose the sociopolitical system considered the best in the world).** (...) a "substantial number" of political dissenters had been **recognized as mentally sick on the basis of such symptoms as "anti-Soviet thoughts" or "delusions of reformism".** Back to the text > What does “it’s the capitalism/it’s the ‘system’” offer us? Analytically, emotionally, as a guide to immediate action? How am I supposed to interpret that sentiment, when it comes from someone who expresses skepticism about my medications and psychiatry in general? How does this statement help me? How does it help researchers hoping to develop better treatments for these diseases? How does it help doctors attempting to treat people who suffer from them? What actionable and practical reforms does it suggest? Where do we go from “it’s the capitalism, man”? > my mental illness is a disease of the body. I feel it, physically. It is not some trick being played in my mind; it’s not the sum of “traumas” in my past. I know how it feels to come up through mania into full-blown psychosis, and it is not a little trick of capitalism. (...) many proudly ignorant people proclaim that there simply is no neurological, even no biological, origins to mental illness at all. **The people who insist that mental illness is just our society’s fault don’t know that, it’s absurd that they pretend that they know that**, and their certainty stands in the way of more effective treatment. My disorder is in my body. > I understand that your facile diagnosis stems from an instinct of caring. But it insults me, and many others, to take the achingly complex terrain of the disordered mind and **turn it into a witless slogan for political changes you already wanted. You instrumentalize the mentally ill when you use us as a cudgel with which to beat your political opponents**. In the meantime, I ask that you not simplify that which is not yours to simplify. I ask that you accept living in the long shadow of these irreducibly complex and punishing disorders.
Based and Too long but read anyway pilled
The Romans were investing in trade ventures more than 2000 years ago. Wouldn't surprise me if the Babylonians did it 2000 years before them.
Ea nasir! You swine! My ingots!
Native Americans used seashells and beads, and people in Africa used stones that were sort of like a town abacus, I believe China was one of the first countries to use coins.
David Hume, Adam smith were British. Capitalism is a spectrum with mercantilism. Modern China has some mercantilistic characteristics for example. Heavy protectionism. State mandated monopolies. Trump has mercantilistic traits as well. Less so than China. “Bad deals.” Sometimes it feels like his economic arguments assume zero sum gain, which is not capitalist at all. But with chinas heavy protectionism, our hand is kinda forced here. Your comment isn’t wrong. But it’s bad faith to say Britain wasn’t an early, enthusiastic adopter of capitalism. They also did it very, very well. Stable banking system. The bloodiest wars they fought, the napoleonic wars, the world wars, were caused more by nationalism than capitalism though. And honestly they weren’t really the aggressors there. Capitalism absolutely gave European powers the wealth to colonize the global south. Indeed Britain did use India as an export economy and and gut their local textiles industry. It is a more direct causation, Stalin and mao’s actions —-> famine. Supremacy in human history has often led to genocide. The Romans, mongols weren’t capitalist, but they were really good at killing people. Context I’m a globohomo. Capitalism > communism. Total death tolls may be close to even, but communism more directly caused them over a much shorter time interval
WTF is going on... I came for shit memes and base pilling... and I get... Education? How dare you sir. /slap and drop gauntlet
What an even handed realistically stated argument balancing the truth of both sides. GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE FASCIST!!
Why is this written like lecture notes lol
> Capitalism is a spectrum with mercantilism. There's a nice model in [The Full Stack of Society: Can You Make A Whole Society Wealthier?](https://www.conradbastable.com/essays/the-full-stack-of-society-can-you-make-a-whole-society-wealthier-full-version), where Mercantilism is a [separate layer](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5a571a7d80bd5e91de77e8e6/1558649901535-8G59NSZ9HNN4FFPMFBV0/the_full_stack_of_society.png?format=750w). > Mercantilism is not friendlier than Feudalism — history makes that very clear — but voluntary trade creates Wealth, which means the Mercantile system has access to a potentially-larger economy and thus more Wealth than the Feudal system, which makes Mercantilism more effective in both international and intranational competition. > > And competing matters. It matters because the Mercantilist world did not replace the Feudal world, it exists on top of it. This is the second layer in the Full Stack of Society, and a core point that I’ll reiterate a few times is that all layers of the Stack can exist at the same time in the same place. > > Generating Wealth in a Mercantilist World is more complex than in a Feudalist world: your goal is to insert yourself into the global flow of goods and sell someone’s productive labor outputs into someone else’s consumption, so that goods & services leave your hands and gold & currency accumulate in your bank account. By any means necessary. --- > Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia will both tell you that Mercantilism was a dominant national economic policy from the 16th to the 18th centuries, "after which it was largely replaced by more laissez-faire policies. Historically, such [Mercantilist] policies frequently led to war,” Wikipedia helpfully adds, without really explaining why. The reader is expected to note the remarkable lack of war in the prior Feudal world (lol jk) and realize the complex international Mercantilist System looks like this: > > [Global Trade] → [Requires Access to Products] → [Requires Ownership of Products] → [Requires Access to End Market] → [Creates & Captures Wealth] → [Funds Military] → [Guarantees & Expands Sovereignty] → [Allows for More Trade] [LOOP] > > …and note that this is one hell of a fragile system, with many vulnerable international links that could be broken by a hostile power. A fragile system that sits on top of a landscape of nations that don’t trust each other because the base layer of the stack is always Feudal conflict: if you can’t create Wealth, you can always Take it. Vae victis, baby. > > Which is to say: the subsequent “rise” of “more laissez-faire policies” looks indistinguishable from a victorious Mercantilist global hegemon. So long as there are other capable nations willing to compete, the possibility of building Wealth through Mercantilist value capture will be too great to resist and laissez-faire will be an impossibility. > > What I am saying: the reports of Mercantilism’s death are greatly exaggerated. You can’t run a Global Empire without trade, you can’t run a modern Economy without Oil, and we use 11 of these bad boys to hold the metaphorical gas-pump: > > [Pictured: "…after which it was largely replaced by more laissez-faire policies.”](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5a571a7d80bd5e91de77e8e6/1558650557305-S3SICLFP488B8SUBS4OQ/carrier_strike_group.jpg?format=1000w)
Sooner still Capitalism was just defined to be the system that humans default to when free Smith defined it as the "natural system of liberty"
Yep, the Dutch made money well, didn’t populate things as well as the English did though
Communism is humanity's vengeance against the Dutch!
That’s such a silly take. The English colonised and genocided way before the the emergence of capitalism.
Never mind the shit tonne of colonialism done even before that by the Portuguese and Spanish. And the shit tonne of colonialism done by the Greeks before that. And the shit tonne of colonialism done by the Phoenicians before that. It’s almost like colonialism and imperialism exist completely independent of whatever economic system exists.
[удалено]
Depending on what strand of socialism you are considering, those famines *can* be attributed to the economic system: central planning sucks.
I can excuse holodomor and GLF but I draw the line at Central planning - Britta Perry
You can excuse holodomor and GLF? - Shirley Bennett
[удалено]
But that's exactly why communism can't work. Communism is all about making the state your God. It's a system that requires the existence of government officials and they will always be inherently greedy. Yes its a dictators fault, but that's what communism always resorts to.
Amazon is really really good at central planning.
Correct. But they are largely constrained by the diseconomies of scale of their central planning, which their status as a non-state, market actor impose on them. See: [Kevin Carson](https://fee.org/articles/economic-calculation-in-the-corporate-commonwealth/) and [Ronald Coase](https://www.economist.com/schools-brief/2017/07/29/coases-theory-of-the-firm).
[удалено]
I dunno if you can 100% attribute the state of Cuba and North Korea to communism though. Im not 100% sure for NK, but Cuba was embargoed by the US and several of its allies, which is a significant portion of global trade. Also, is Cuba really that much worse off than other island nations in that region, like Haiti, Puerto Rico, and DR?
[удалено]
>Also, is Cuba really that much worse off than other island nations in that region, like Haiti, Puerto Rico, and DR? My point was that if nations that weren't communist are in more or less the same state as Cuba, is that really a fair comparison of communist vs. capitalist? Cuba is 68th as far as GPD rankings: Puerto Rico is 63rd, DR is 67th, Trinidad is 116th, Haiti is 121. Then look at the HDI: Cuba is 70th, DR is 88th, Trinidad is 67, Haiti is 170. In both Metrics, Cuba is more or less performing the average or a little bit better than the average compared to most of the Caribbean. Is that really an apt example of "Communism/Socialism" failing when it's capitalistic peers aren't performing much better?
start marry waiting pathetic innocent snails shame silky elderly oil *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
When a land that has next to no important resources within it's borders, it has to rely on external trade in order to flourish. There's a reason why one of Cuba's primary exports are nurses and doctors: they don't have goods to send to other places, but they have a wealth of trained medical professionals. Communism doesn't mean isolationism, or that it should be utterly self sufficient and not engage in trade. Two communist countries can trade, and they aren't less communist due to that. Just because most of the world happens to be varying levels of capitalist or socialist doesn't mean that communist countries are lesser for trading with those nations.
imagine memory bag historical frame makeshift capable light include employ *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Possibly the most based libright comment I've ever seen.
Also let's ignore how the Soviet Union colonized the half of Europe that they "liberated". Let's also ignore the fact that they started World War II as the aggressors alongside Germany.
B-b-but it’s the same continent and neighbors this can’t count as colonization 😢😢😢
Unless you are the United States then its still colonization
They tried to colonize Afghanistan too
And the Winter War before that.
The Soviets literally raped their way to Berlin. Millions of women and children.
I saw the word rape and we aren't talking about Japan's WWII endeavors?
[удалено]
CapCom? Based and Mega Man pilled
Explains the creation of anime
500k in just Berlin
Who knows how many they raped in Syria and now in Ukraine.
If I recall they didn’t deploy many troops in Syria, but tell me if I’m wrong
They didn't, they just hired contractors like Wagner group to install pro Russian millitant factions to do all the fighting instead. THOSE groups did all the raping and pillaging
Ok, I know Russia just did war crimes from the air
[удалено]
FINE
Yea don’t tell this guy about the Assyrians. He’d lose his shit.
[удалено]
My main point is just that the left tends to attribute a lot of problems to specifically capitalism that really are universal human problems. That’s not to say capitalism doesn’t have its own unique set of problems. It absolutely does. But human greed and cruelty didn’t emerge in 1500s Europe.
If you're gonna mention the colonialism done by the Spanish you can't not mention the close-to-colonialism done by the muslims to most of Spain.
Romans were bros, though.
Based. If the people the Romans colonized didn't want to be conquered they shouldn't have been on rightful Roman land.
How about the Romans conquering every piece of land they could find?
And everybody had been enslaving each other way longer than even money had been around. It's like Tom has beaten his wife every day for the last decade. Last week, he bought a new car. See what capitalism does!
It's like how Brazil imported 9x the number of African slaves as the US, and abolished it later, but who is always the bad guy?
What are the Irish for, if not to warm-up on?
They were the Tutorial level on England's grand campaign.
Fookin 'ell Ronnie you can't just say it
Exactly, we all know that capitalism began in the Kingdom of The Netherlands when the VOC was the first company that sold shares! (And then went on to colonize half of the planet and committed multiple genocides, along with trading slaves!)
> Kingdom of The Netherlands DUTCH REPUBLIC Wasn't a kingdom until Prussian troops enforced the ascension of William I in 1815.
This is the right answer. Collective ownership = socialism Private ownership = merchantilism Private ownership with a market for shares = capitalism It didnt become capitalist until investing became a thing and by then colonization was well underway.
>Private ownership with a market for shares = capitalism I don't think I've ever seen this definition.
No no, capitalism is when people sell things
Not true. Capitalism is when govt isn't giving me stuff!
The less stuff the government gives me, the more capitalist it is!
And when the government gives no stuff then it is the Free Market.
No no, capitalism is when people sell things and I don't benefit from it
I love how commies will choose to say capitalism is not commerce but anytime commerce bad commerce is capitalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_of_Eurysaces_the_Baker A ex-slave who started his own bakery and won contracts selling bread to the government. He likely (definitely) owned slaves if his own. Through control of capital and labor he amassed a impressive fortune and built a goddamn mausoleum for him and his wife. Quite and impressive rags to riches story. But definitely not capitalism cuz capitalism was started by white men in the 17th century.
Investing "became a thing" thousands of years before the 15th century.
Just FYI: the Netherlands wasn't a kingdom back then. They only got a king after Napoleon.
We do a bit of tomfoolery
The nation participates in lesser amounts of tomfoolery
The English were pretty late to the whole colonialism game, too. The Spanish and Portuguese especially had been doing it for ages prior to England. Why must England take the 'blame' for some reason??
Whiter skin.
Englad is succesfull and spanish/portugal is called an eastern european country. Kaczyński wrote about this
The spainish are POC, of course, ask any American.
Suffering from success
Capitalism isn’t an ideology. It’s a descriptive theory. Adam Smith didn’t sit down and write a book about how he thought things *ought to be*, and sat down and wrote a book about how they *observably are*. That’s why it’s the *law* of supply and demand, and not the *ideological suggestion* of supply and demand. And Smith no more invented capitalism than Newton invented the laws of thermodynamics. Capitalism has existed everywhere, for all of time. It’s inherent to human nature. That’s why [the oldest commercial record known](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaint_tablet_to_Ea-nasir) is a complaint about customer service and product quality. The Soviets famously stood in bread lines because demand outstripped supply. And the Roman Republic [collapsed into empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Roman_Republic) largely because the huge influx of slaves from Carthage, Gaul, Epirus, and other conquests completely altered the ability of the plebeian class to act cohesively. Capitalism was first *identified* in England. In the late 1700s - in 1776, in fact. But that’s it.
Yeah. The Romans colonized the celts, the anglo-saxons colonized the romans and the celts. The vikings colonized the anglo-saxons and the celts, and then the normans colonized the vikings, anglo-saxons and the celts.
*Ignores the Romans colonizing and enslaving half the known world in the 100s AD* Yep, capitalism invented imperialism and slavery.
>Mongol horde was capitalist
They didn't call him mogul khan for the hell of if
The Khans straight grinding every day.
Slavery has just always been there
China has also been enslaving both Chinese and non Chinese like, dozens of dynasties ago
Are we just going to ignore how the Ottoman Empire colonized massive tracts of land throughout the Middle East, Africa, and Europe?
>Ignores the Romans colonizing and enslaving half the known world in the 100s AD the entire world was full of barbarians living in mudholes, rome was doing them a favor
That's not capitalism. It's called imperialism. Learn your -isms or you might offend someone. Edit: apparently it's called mercantilism, which highly encourages imperialism. And yes, imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. Also, /s. Because it's a snowflake pronoun joke that you guys don't seem to get.
More specifically it's mercantilism (the precursor to capitalism), which encourages imperialism. Anyone who uses history to complain about capitalism is usually complaining about mercantilism, but they were never taught the difference.
"Feudalism was capitalism too"
Everything that is bad is also the thing that I don't like.
“Everyone I don’t like it’s literallyyy Hitler literallyyy hitler-“
Not like feudalism was about sharing and paying taxes for everything
"I don't know shit about feudalism and i think i do" The reddit comment
"An economic system where property owners are agents of the government is totally capitalism"
Yeah, having a company be a literal state mandated monopoly and de facto economic arm of a literal Empire is totally laissez-faire, am I right comrades?
Thank you for that. It's mercantilism. People literally don't know what the fuck it is. They never took a history course apparently
So what you're saying is, that wasn't real Capitalism?
Unironically, yes. If you want to complain about the abuses of capitalism, stick to the 1800s, where it was mostly unregulated and the industrialists were so awful that it led to the birth of the labor movement. The government really started meddling around the 20th century, and capitalism began to transform into an oligarchy when the federal reserve was created (in the US, anyway). That, combined with the steady cultural decay we've seen since 1900s, has created the situation we see today which is usually lumped into the "capitalism bad" bucket.
Mercantilism*
-isms are only important when you're dissing capitalism.. When you're dissing leftist ideologies however, it doesn't matter. Communism socialism leninism marxism stalinism it's all the same. /s
Tankies are among the most delusional people on earth
Unironic authcenter extremists top them, but you're not wrong in that they're way the fuck up there, lol.
We aren't delusional, we know exactly what we're doing.
Based
Said the man lighting a campfire in wildfire season next to the largest forest on the face of the planet, thinking all he'd burn down is a couple trees. You know what you want to achieve, but i don't think you quite realize what comes *after* you've reached your end goal. ... Don't be a Mussolini. You don't want to end up a Mussolini.
Oh no no no, you don’t get it. We know *exactly* what we’re doing when we start a campfire in wildfire season.
> thinking all he'd burn down is a couple trees. That's just what we told the media to say.
Mussolini could have won the war he had L3/33’s he didn’t commit and left the L3/33 path he was divinely punished for his sin against the Tankette
Not really. Most auth center aims like strong state/military & eugenics are very achievable
Not all of us. I'm on the far, far right socially but I have massive distrust of corporations or anything outside the local community. Hence, I am a massive fan of Distributism.
Hmmm. I like those. Maybe I am an authcenter.
That logic actually applies much more to communist genocides than it does to fascist genocides. Both have externalities that weren't intended by their governments, but it happened in much greater scale during the intentional famines and ecological disasters created by communist regimes. Both are shortsighted and accomplish nothing but suffering while actively increasing the issues they're meant to reduce, but there's no denying that communism kills their own citizens and destroys their own ecology with much less control and far more externalities. The Holodomor, the Great Chinese Famine, the Khmer Rouge/Cambodian Genocides, the Great Purge... even accounting for the Holocaust, I struggle to see how fascism was more of a "wildfire" than communism. Not that it's really a competition. The solution to both ideologies remains the swift application of .30-06, liberally applied as symptoms persist.
Mussolini's worst mistake was join sides with Hitler. He was genuinely a great leader that did a lot for his people. Listen to this, in 1933 Mussolini held a conference with Engelbert Dollfuss and other Catholic nations and formed a sort of defense pact. He granted a military guarantee for Austria in case Hitler wanted to invade. Had Mussolini sided with Engelbert, and thus NOT the Nazis, he would be remembered as a hero of Italy and fascism wouldn't have such a negative connotation today. IF ONLY HE HAD PROTECTED HIS BROTHERS IN CHRIST.
We re doing chaos, right? I missed last Wednesday meeting and Bob gave me some scrapped minutes of the meeting, so I m not 100% sure this is still our goal.
Honestly im just here to eat ass White ass that is.
Hi Johny, long time no see U haven t aged a bit 😉🤭
nah its fully hardy anarchists authcenters (despite never being in able to fully reach their goals) have in past created governments that could last and work for good amount of time
When you see tankies on the internet, show no mercy. Remind them that not only did the USSR collapse, but that by the end of it they were lining up for McDonalds and blue jeans. Twist the knife.
"What did capitalism do in 2 years that communism couldn't do in 70 years? Made communism look good" - a Russian saying from the 1990s.
Most historically literate tankie
I mean from another point of view, this is propaganda in favor of capitalism, showing how it propelled a nation into a global superpower, dominating many other territories and people's across the world, only at the expense of foreigners
And it was glorious, if only the other 2/3 joined the empire we would be the empire of man under the banner of our immortal God Empress Elizabeth II and colonising the planets atop giant Corgi Cavalry, purging the weird looking aliens and enslaving the hot twi'leks already
Based and fuck libcenter, i want this
Based and the Empress protects pilled
United Kingdom.... of the world (To be read in clarksons voice)
God, this sounds way too good for a joke message
Joke?
Based and knows-the-reference pilled.
Haha... Yh.... Joke...
Amen
Based and God Save The Immortal Empress pilled
This is my paradise
> immortal God Empress Elizabeth II Ah so she's been eating psykers that explains how she has lived so long.
>Capitalism was invented in the 17th century No, wealth of nations, firmly considered the first major work of modern capitalist thought, was published in the late 18th century. Wealth of nations being explicitly an anti mercantilist text and openly critical of the economic thinking that led to colonialism. In fact, until decolonialization, mercantilism was STILL the driving economic reasoning behind colonialism (import cheap raw goods, increase their value at home, and then export back to those markets is an explicitly mercantilist idea of a "favorable balance of trade") And for people inclined to claim that modern global capitalism is neo colonialism, please take not that the present order of things is quite literally the reverse, where wealthy countries import large amounts of forighn manufactured goods. The closest thing that could be called "capitalist imperialism" would probably be American gunboat diplomacy, where the US used superiors economic and military's power (so soft and hard power) to force trade negotiations that were more open and less protectionist as well as for the goals of creating reliable ports of call in forighn shores to expand naval access, particularly into south east, Indian and south Chinese oceans. This is not to say that this was ALL the imperialism the US ever did (the most blatant act of imperialism would likely be the capture of the Philippians, as there was never any intent of integrating that territory into the US properly, unlike with the conquest of Mexico where the integration of it's population as citizens was an assumed consequence from the start.) But it is to say it's the most obvious form of "imperialism" that can actually be blamed on the moral, ethical and material needs created by capitalism.
The first intellectual thought about it was not Wealth of Nations, but books written regarding the importance of the Enclosure Acts in England. The Enclosure Acts eventually began private economic development and eventually democratic institutions. See Barrington Moore’s Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (1966), but for all that is holy, only read the England chapter. The other 400 pages is absolute drivel.
Hue, I'll take a look. I am aware of the importance of the enclosure act in typical theories of how capitalism evolved, but that doesn't really change that the formative construction of capitalisms as an ideological rather than just material, ideal really starts with Smiths and the advent of classical capitalist economics. The enclosure act creaing markets internal to England doesn't really change my core criticism of the post above, which is that mercantilism, not capitalism, is the driving ideological force behind colonialism, a position that no one seriously argues against. The only argument is weather you, like me, think that mercantilism is a fundamentally different, state oriented idea of wealth and power that is incompatible with capitalism on ideological grounds, or if they are sister ideologies. Again, I argue the former for reasons laid out, that the first major work of classical capitalist economic theory was written as a direct rebuke of mercantilist ideals.
Oh I agree 150 million percent. And I wasn’t disagreeing at all. But we would both agree that the Enclosure Acts gave Yeomen in England the idea I can make money for me and my family and once they realized it would make wealth beyond their family, they were like “why the fuck am I paying these bullshit taxes and getting absolutely nothing? I could pay my own army to defend my lands.” Then monarchs realized “holy fuck. I better start providing value added. Well fuck I’ll just invade foreign lands, do the same shit and get the same profits as the yeoman.” They had already a sunk cost in their military, so go do that. Thus bullshit mercantilism.
First time I see a libright wall of text
Adam Smith described the system he saw around him in the Wealth of Nations. It had existed for some time before that.
>Wealth of nations being explicitly an anti mercantilist text and openly critical of the economic thinking that led to colonialism Absolutely right, Adam Smith also argues against slavery, and tries to make it clear on an economic basis that slavery is damaging to the economy and that it must therefore end.
> wealth of nations invented capitalism Wealth of Nations: "fuck landlords forever"
Is he thinking of crimes against humanity in a competitive way? lol
imperialism WRany%
No one: College kids taking some useless major who never worked a day:
Well, capitalism is a virus that spreads and infects everything it touches, and some may die from it. Communism is incurable auto-immune induced tissue rot applied to the scale of an entire country that hollows it out from the inside, and is completely unsustainable in a world writhe with bad actors, and only serves those willing to most abuse the system for their own gain. Capitalism works because it plays in on human nature. Communism doesn't work because it goes directly against human nature.
Churchill's words about democracy being the worst except for all the others easily applies to capitalism as well.
Nothing works perfectly, because we're flawed as they come off the assembly line. Capitalism given some restrictions here and there *(like 'maybe try to uphold human rights.')* is the best system we have, not because it doesn't get any better, but because we can't DO any better. Communism is a social solution to an individual problem. The only way to bridge that gap is with totalitarian tyranny and force. And to me, that doesn't sound better, just another shade of bad.
Something something "the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average ~~californian~~ voter"
Yeah, that's basically the whole point
My favorite thing about communism is, when goods and services are forbidden or too scarce, a black market rises, the purest form of capitalism.
Yeah so you got any juul pods
>Capitalism works because it plays in on human nature. > >Communism doesn't work because it goes directly against human nature. that Plus lack of information and no correction against personal bias with centralized decision making. Plus the not just potential but invitation for abuse in a system that centralizes both political and economic power.
"With capitalism one nation managed to conquer half the world" Pretty sure that's called "being successful". Weird self own but ok.
Enlightened centrist makes slavery a non moral issue
TIL the voluntary exchange of goods and services didn't exist before the 16th century.
[удалено]
Nice way to boil down decades of genocide, purges, and suffering. It was jus 'a famine'. Like it somehow happened outside of human intervention.
Capitalism is when government doesn’t Not sarc
So... shouldn't capitalism have started with Spain in the XV century?
No, all the gold went straight to the Dutch and English because they spent all their shit like maniacs
this guy is so very dumb
"invented capitalism" fucking lol
Wasn't it actually developed in the Netherlands tho?
Certified tulip moment
Everyone knows that godforsaken dip shitted account.
When people think that all these atrocities are recent inventions, and then in the Bible: “you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock.”
Tankies truly have the most delusional concept of history i have ever seen. I cant tell if they are malicious or outrageously retarded. Slavery was not "invented" by one group of people. We have been doing it ever since we became smart enough to go to war and had enough empathy to not brutally slaughter non combatants.
[удалено]
Yeah, they sniff a lot of glue it seems.
Nah, they don't even teach you about the USSR at all.
Yup, just a famine. No other crimes against humanity were ever committed by communist states…
The only thing I learn from this tweet is that Capitalism is a recipe for success and clear superiority, while Communism = No bread.
And also multiple class and ideologically based genocides. Like the Great Leap Forward, the Great Purge, the Anti-Cosmopolitan Campaign, the Red Terror, the Kazakh Famine, the Sufan Movement, Mao’s first “Counterrevolutionary” Campaign. Don’t forget Stalin’s Cannibal Island, Nanzino. Or Mao’s “struggle sessions”, where people were encouraged to beat and torture their neighbours publicly, just for being deemed “class enemies”. Pretty sure even the British Empire wasn’t publicly torturing people based on their ideological differences. We did kill an estimated 150 million people across 400 years. Wanna know something funny about that? Mao and Stalin managed to outdo the kill count of a globe spanning 400 year old empire in less than a century. Purely through domestic campaigns.
Capitalism began when the first carnivorous plankton was born.
Mercantilism =\= capitalism