this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
1420 points (77.8% liked)
Memes
45911 readers
1504 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
comment section frustratingly filled with McCarthy-brained liberals who have never critically examined their preconceptions about communism
I guess I just really don't understand the draw. Communism is a nice thought, until actual people are involved. People are corruptible, which is why communism is seen as utopian. It's an ideal that only works under perfect circumstances.
Yes, I don't disagree, except far more people benefit from our form of capitalism, and you don't see the death numbers you do from the absolute rule that communism demands.
This isn't to say there isn't any death due to capitalism. Or any strife, just certainly not on the same scale. I would say out biggest death toll comes at the hands of our military-industrial-complex being capitolistic.
The problem is, there's nothing better yet.
Add up chattel slavery, Trail of Tears, proxy wars, not-so-proxy wars, the general condition of the M-I-C you've mentioned, the general plight of the Global South, etc etc etc, and get back to me. I'm not sure the advantage is so definitive as you assert. "Externalities", the economists call them.
It 100% does not even come close. Not saying those deaths weren't terrible or unavoidable, absolutely not.
But also, you can't blame a capitolistic society for trail of tears or any other mass genocide that came before that. We didn't become capitolistic until 10 years after Trail of Tears ended.
Edit to add: granted, that doesn't say much about how Native Americans were treated post TOT. Though, it's certainly through capitalism that Indian casinos have become so successful. 245 tribes own casinos today, all of which rake in the funds.
Firstly, I know you're not going to justify genocide by saying the survivors of that genocide get to have casinos. That's so outrageously, ghoulishly evil that you can't possibly have meant that and I must have misunderstood.
Secondly, where do you get the idea that capitalism started in America in 1860?
Thirdly, you ignored everything else I asked you to add up. You made no mention of slavery, or the Global South.
Fourthly, what's fundamentally different between the colonial exploitations of mercantilism and private exploitations of capitalism?
I call your arithmetical integrity, or more laughably your ability, into question.
Lol. You definitely misunderstood. I didn't say in my comment that TOT was okay because now they have cassinos. I'm not sure how you could possibly get that out of what I wrote. The claim I'm arguing against is that capitalism has caused more deaths than communism, which isn't the case. Especially since capitalism wasn't America's economic governing factor until - yup - the 1860. Capitalism wasn't the cause of the TOT, but it was the cause of the survivors ability to create wealth for their tribes.
Again, because you somehow twisted what I wrote into saying it's okay that all those people died because casinos, the TOT was horrific. It shouldn't have happened. Nothing can make up for that, even the wealth made by their survivors. But it wasn't caused by capitalism, which is the original claim.
And no, I wasn't ignoring everything else you pointed to in terms of deaths under capitalism, because slavery and other horrors certainly were due to capitalism here in America. Though, it has nothing against rhe numbers stacked under communist rule.
I also want to point out that there are going to be deaths under every form of economic governance, because that's just human nature. There will always be people that kill other people, for a variety of reasons. The goal, then, is to find the one governance that kills the least amount of people in total.
I'll also point out that it's not like capitalism was absent one day in America, and then suddenly it was governing the country. Capitalism, like most forms of economic rulings, was a slow creep. It happened in small stages until the 1860s, when it became the dominating force in America.
Let's see the numbers side by side then, since you're so confident
Bullshit take. Show me one instance of communism implemented in a democracy and I'll agree to your point, but you can't because there isn't one.
Pretty sure I explicitly struck out all references to communism so I don't know what you're talking about. My comment was about the fanciful idealism required to justify capitalism. Show me one instance of capitalism implemented in democracy (which didn't devolve into cronyism).
Switzerland? Netherlands? Hell, even France, Germany?
Invoking cronyism as a downside in itself is silly. It's not what matters, what matters is the quality of life. And just because US and a few other capitalist countries have drank from the neoliberal fountain and are unable to stop, it doesn't mean that that is the only way. In fact social democracies, of which there are quite a few examples around the world, are pretty much still capitalist democracies whit none of the crap neoliberal ideas lead to.
Every one of those four is a mixed economy with significant central economic planning and regulation. Without substantial oversight, capitalism tends to degrade into private monopolies with feudalistic tendencies over time. Like I said, it's an idealistic system which looks great until actual people are involved. Then you have to either modify it past anything but a spiritual similarity, or drown in the neoliberal fountain.
Every one of those four economies are democratic capitalist economies. What is mixed?
The fact that every successful "capitalist" economy is heavily regulated speaks to the efficacy of pure capitalism.
There is no such thing as pure capitalism. If you're talking about capitalism without regulations, that is called anarcho - capitalism and it doesn't actually exist anywhere at the moment.
Uh huh, the old "Real capitalism had never been tried" cliché
I am giving you examples of perfectly functioning nations under capitalism, you're replying one sentence nonsense. This conversation is over
I am responding to your points with the same logic you initiated. You won't acknowledge that you're operating on a double standard where communism is a fundamentally idealistic and flawed whenever actually implemented, but it's different for capitalism because reasons. This conversation never started.
what about involving corruptible people undermines communism? by what mechanism?