Starving under a capitalist regime "accidental" the result of "faulty economics" or "poor people deserve it for their laziness" (because we all should be god fearing men)
Starvation under a communist regime "deliberate" "planned" "genocidal"
The hypocrisy of capitalists is only matched by their dogmatism.
Other urls found in this thread:
whyhunger.org
ourworldindata.org
twitter.com
communism never figured out commas
Take you religion placebo and shove it up your red ass.
who is starving under a capitalist regime
>npc face
>angry npc face
3.1 million children under 5 a year that is a genocide of epic proportions.
Oxford comma is not universally accepted.
>WORLD HUNGER
>There are 815 million hungry people in the world—one in every nine people2.*
> An estimated sixty percent of the world’s hungry are women or girls3.
>Every year, 3.1 million children under five die due to malnutrition.
you implying that niggers in africa live under a capitalist regime?
your god is capital
Money is flesh
The entire continent of Africa is a post colonial capitalist demograry. They live under the reign of foreign investment capital. Their economics are a direct result of white settler colonialism and the proceeding policies of austerity and exploitation.
Wasn't every single photo of Stalin heavily editted. He was a total crater face
I'm not buying into that bullshit. They were lowlife monkey people before europeans, they are lowlife monkey people after europeans. Don't lump white and black people together if you want accurate interpretation of statistics. Yule-Simpson effect
Maybe it's because under communism your economical activity is decided by eggheads who don't give a shit about you, and under capitalism you are free to succeed or fail.
Highly civilized highly advanced diverse collection of peoples with a geographic territory far greater than that of Europe and the Americas and its absolute mass being only paralled by Asia.
But starving! Amazing people people amazing diversity amazing land but UHHHHH STARVING
It's those god damn capitalists! Don't mind that white people under capitalist regimes don't starve. Shut your mind down and it all makes sense. Join with us today!
Maybe its because command economies attempt to mitigate economoc disasters and famines where as capitalism seeks to expropriate the poor as much as possible without consequence.
Doesn't make any sense Africa didn't struggle with issues of mass famine until colonialism. Also there are very serious economic advantages and natural resources that were limited to Europe as well as its geographic isolation allowong for a smooth conquest of the third world. The question I'm asking here is how you can selectively apply your sense of ethics to ideologies you disagree with but refuse to apply standards of ethics to your behavior or the behavior of white supremacists. Communism is bad because its unethical but its okay that capitalism is unethical. Complete double standard not to mention that communism has done more for people in its short 60 year existence than the 200 years of murderous conquest of nearly every indigenous civilization on every continent.
Can you really blatantly ignore the mass enslavement and exploitation of the third world that creates the conditions for poverty that allows a small minority of white european settlers hold such an endless amount of unchallenged power? You're repeating a blatantly racist piece of propaganda that has been refuted again and again by virtually any social scientist with a brain.
I don't understand how you can justifiably call yourself a meritocracy when someone who works everyday their entire lives will never see the amount of wealth as someone who merely inherited their fortune.
>Starvation under a communist regime "deliberate" "planned" "genocidal"
They have whats called "planned economy", so everything happening is planned centrally.
>Starving under a capitalist regime "accidental" the result of "faulty economics" or "poor people deserve it for their laziness"
Bitch where you see starving people under capitalism?
>Communism is bad because its unethical but its okay that capitalism is unethical.
Stop putting words in my mouth.
I'm not applying my sense of ethics to ideologies. I'm quite simply stating that white people don't starve under capitalist regimes, which is a truthful statement. And don't you fucking try to tell me that we didn't starve under USSR.
Africa was the same shithole after europeans as it was before.
>Can you really blatantly ignore the mass enslavement and exploitation of the third world that creates the conditions for poverty
Yes, I can, though I don't see how this is related.
>social scientist
дщд
whyhunger.org
3.1 million children dead a year under market economies. Capitalist economies. Not to mention the hunger problems that persist in america and first world nations.
Obviously you see me point here being that a feudal present economy in the midst of a civil war and an invasion of foreign powers totalizing most of the first world is to be held accountable for unavoidable patterns in weather and famine conditions as they were literally revamping society to correctly alleviate famine. That is what a centralized command economy is capable of. Avoiding critical disaster and resisting foreign and Nazi imperialism. Just because you say your market is free does not justify the amount of people who die as a result of the greed of the bourgeois. A economic and environmental crisis versus and almost deliberate hoarding of wealth and capital. Would seem that western democracies are the ones guilty of genocide and that communist countries are admonished of their deeds.
>Can you really blatantly ignore the mass enslavement and exploitation of the third world that creates the conditions for poverty that allows a small minority of white european settlers hold such an endless amount of unchallenged power?
What the fuck nigger africa was dragged over 5000 years ahead in civilization in couple of centuries and you bitch and whine? Without the white man, there would be low millions of people in 3rd world, not billions.
Exactly. You don't have a standards of ethics. To try to appeal to your ethics would be impossible as you are likely incapable of feeling empathy.
First world nations have to deal with hunger. People aren't starving to death but that's because we are the most powerful military superpowers on the planet whose entire existence is propped up by the suffering of the people you can't stop racistly demeaning. Africa was never a shithole. There are no sources that will compare Africa to a shithole. It was a prosperous multiethnic continent of many civilizations with a diversity greater than Europe than of the America's and for you to just generalize the entire thing is another racist remark you can't help but spewing to get a rise.
You don't see how completely leveling a continent to rubble and completely psychologically physically mentally materially destroying an entire continent of people isn't going to leave long lasting effects on the Socious that create irreconcilable contradictions that can only be solved by a popular communist uprising or heavy monetary aid from western nations? Don't you think the continued support of repressive regimes that target indigenous Africans and exploit the population for profit is just another example of the modern day continuation of colonial practices?
>Would seem that western democracies are the ones guilty of genocide and that communist countries are admonished of their deeds.
Thats some good weed man, the proletariat has nothing lose but their chains! The dialectic! Victory of the communist system inevitable!
Meanwhile
>USSR kills Australias worth of its own citizens
>Communist China kills more than Germanys worth of its own citizens
Oh look, another Russian slide thread to keep Jow Forums under tight GRU control.
makes no sense to me. Africa was not 5000 years behind. Industrialization was not all that great for society. Standard of living went down. Disease exploded die to increased population density. Massive wars with death tolls unseen before the technology capable of causing mass destruction ever existed. Seems as if Africa could have just developed on its own with european intervention sending the nation tumbling backwards and stagnating, or rather completely destroying, whatever growth had existed there. The psychological trauma of such a violent escapade is enough to completely plague the country for literal centuries. Mass executions mass enslavement unjustifiable wars. Incredible amounts of death and suffering. And the Europeans profited immensely from it all while Africa only regressed as a society. Indigenous populations have been getting by for literal hundreds of years without the help of any industry.
An anonymous source said the bomb had "eat this crooked Hillary" and russian codes in Donald Trump's hand writing
what a wall of text
White people don't starve under capitalism. Russia was under mongol occupation for how long? With razing, rape and murder. We're not starving under capitalism. White people don't starve under capitalism. Don't lump white and black people together if you want accurate interpretation of statistics. This is it from me, if you don't come up with something better than muh occupation, doin't expect a response.
Not historically accurate numbers and have been refuted by academic historians time and time again as Nazi era CIA propaganda. The CIA ran an overt disinformation campaign against the Soviet Union using Nazi propaganda and right wing disinformation tactics to instill the lie the Soviet union mass killed its own people when the vast majority of historical archives show the deliberate misconstruing of facts by paid CIA disinformation agents such as Robert Conquest.
Look at what the Mongols did to mesopotamia, their population took over half a millenia to recover.
Compared to actual genocide, and war in general, africa landed its self a comfy windfall going by population numbers
ourworldindata.org
Oops, looks like the data says otherwise. Capitalism has increased the standards of living of all.
Now you're going to change your statement that Africa is a "post colonial capitalist demograry" to something that better suits your distorted views of reality.
For every African country that you "think" is oppressed. I'll raise you an Asian country that has suffered under colonialism and still prospered.
We may not all be developed nations, but we've done a damn sight better than them. You guys still like to holiday here.
It's pretty easy to stop trying to invade your neighbours. Indonesia did it under a communist regime even.
>as Nazi era CIA propaganda.
Considering the CIA did not exist before NSDAP had been made illegal in Germany, I am going to say you're full of shit.
white people don't starve under capitalism? Anyone can starve under capitalism! If the goal of capitalism is equality of opportunity, then why is there inequality of opportunity?
He thinks the USA only started to exist after JFK got shot.
It's the only logical explanation for his complete disconnect from reality and the inability to read first hand accounts from Eastern Bloc countries with survivors of the regime.
Yes.
Put the ideological cart before the horse. DO IT.
That's incredibly racist for one. Not even going to seriously debate with a white supremacist. Your bigoted opinions belong in the dustbin of history. Africa is capitalist. Free market. Economy. E con o meee. Yes White Supremecist you are correct that in first world capitalist superpowers which use their stratrgic geographic accumulation of natural resources to kick start a plundering of the rest of the world that has never been seen before in history, you're correct that the colonizers who used their geographic exploitation of natural resources to loot and mame the entire third world, you're correct that this small minority of violent conquerors born with a natural geographic advantage do not have to worry about starving to death. Even the poorest most exploited get a meal. Hmm. I wonder if it has anything to do with the unrestrained conquest and looting of every other continent on the planet besides Europe ! That could explain why you have a breath of nations that expands multiple continents rapidly dying of disease and famine. The fact that everything they know was razed to the ground right in front of them. That could be it.
Capitalism didn't improve living standards of the rich beyond the technological progress. I mean relatively high quality mass produced clothing or furniture is something for the poor, the rich buy stuff crafted by artisans, the food has became worse, parties can't be as wild and perverted as they've used to be, they're under constant surveillance of paparazzi retards from tabloids and clickbait gossip sites and normally neutral word lobbyist because something of an insult. But they have lots of currency, not even in paper banknote but as a number online, which worth is backed by worthless fiat! Yay!
The entertainment went to shit as it started catering to plebes who now could afford to take part in it, the art had to degenerate since printing and photocopying made actually beautiful works of art into something available for the lowest scum on the planet which made ordinary patrons push for shitty contemporary art.
The rich are the biggest victims of capitalism.
>Africa was not 5000 years behind.
Agreed. Since they didn't have a wheel, make it ten thousand.
>Starving under a capitalist regime
Communists aren't human
show a tit
Yes modern technology has ended famine. Feudalism was a horrifying mess. I don't see what your point is. Sounds like it wasn't that bad before industrialization and sounds like it didn't get much better afterwards. Maps great leap forward also ended famine in China forever. Strange how going to war generates capital. I mean I don't know what else to say. You're just stupid. All that is just blatantly obvious. Africa is still oppressed. The people still aren't free. You realize the food to feed everyone in the world exists its just being withheld. Why calling communists genocidal is so ironic.
Have you ever stepped foot outside of your house?
Asian countries are higly suffering under the reign of foreign imperialism and has had overwhelmingly catastrophic consequences? Is working 15 hours for pennies and living in a literal favella type slum prosperity to you?
Quite literally the vast majority of food produced should be labeled unfit for human consumptions because of the amount of illnesses it creates. The idea of progress is a false idea.
No retard, it's not exactly "modern technology", it's capital accumulation. You save capital (by not consuming) to invest in better production processes (produce the same amount at a lower cost or produce more at the same cost). More goods and services like food for everyone.
Of course, you wouldn't know this since you're a commie nigger. You even live in America. A sheltered first world cuck telling me (I live in a third world socialist shithole) the benefits of a planned economy. Get fucked faggot.
>Marxist socialism
>utopian instead of scientific
>utopian means rational
oh look it's the same retard from earlier.
>I live in a third world socialist shithole
how is Argentina under socialism?
How is Argentina not under socialism?
there's private property.
are you legitimately retarded?
Are property rights absolute here? Do I have complete control over my property without third parties interfering? Are there no price controls?
Mongols killed about 40 million. 8 million died in the Congo alone. About 1/4 of a war spanning the entire continent of asia over a hundred year period, with casualties located in a nation about the size of California. Over the span of only a few years. You could say the killings in africa were far more brutal and unrestrained than the Khans.
>these mental gymnastics
you can strawman all you want, but Argentina is a capitalist country whether you like it or not, you retard.
Answer my questions faggot
why would I when it has nothing to do with what we were talking about, and you didn't answer my first question which was "how is Argentina under socialism"?
you just strawmaned like a mongoloid.
That's disgusting. I can't even begin to tackle how a historical everything you just said is. There is nothing about supply and demand economics or market theories that creates human prosperity. That's absurd. People didn't just change how they thought about commodities and the whole world changed. Idiot. Literally modern developments in agriculture. Not saving. Saving? Europeans are better because they save money. You are out of your Fucking mind
Yet Africa is filled with socialist parties, many of which being the leading governments of their nations.
OK... Argentina is under (I'll concede and say "soft") socialism because property rights are not absolute, I don't have complete control over my property and there are price controls.
Do I have to treat you like a retard and explain everything to you?
>There is nothing about supply and demand economics or market theories that creates human prosperity
And this is where I realize I'm wasting my time arguing with you. Let everyone see how much of a retard you are.
>I don't have complete control over my property and there are price controls.
what the fuck are you even talking about?
go spend some time in a Siberian Gulag and then report back to us how great communism is.
>muh gulag
it's just a prison, your country unironically the state with the biggest imprisoned population in the history of humanity
Hurr durr I have more of something so its less valuable. Hurr durr you want something a lot so its many valuables. Literally this shit is intuitive. A Fucking third grader could understand that. You're just a racist white supremacist trying to uphold the idea of an enlightened white man so you can project your white savior complex onto other races so as to make yourself feel less inferior to your likely more socially capable peers.
Africa isn't filled with socialist government's. By that logic Assad is socialist. Also none of these governments even claim socialism. Also if you want to undo apartheid you have to integrate property ownership and class ownership. You think affirmative action is why you can't get into a decent school when really you're just stupid and white trash.
Oh no I got caught premeditating a government employees murder and now I'm in a labor camp! But I swear I'm innocent !
If a company can be nationalized at any second, then property rights are not absolute.
If there are regulations that dictate how I dispose of my property, then property rights are not absolute.
If there are price controls, then property rights are also not absolute.
What does it mean to own property? It means that I can do whatever I want with it, with no third party interfering. I take decisions with my property.
I wanted you to mention it so that you could see my point, but since you never mentioned, I'm going to say it for you: socialism is defined as social ownership of the means of production. But that's just the cathphrase; if you think about it, how is that "ownership" manifested? How are decisions taken over property. In our country, we elect politicians to do it for us. These politicians then set up regulations and price controls that dictate how we use our porperty (so that now decisions over property are actually shared), or plainly have control over a whole industry (like services considered essential).
That's why I say Argentina is under (soft) socialism.
*catchphrase
There is no country where your right to property is absolute. By your logic every nation is socialist. I don't understand how disconnected you have to be to call Argentina socialist. Makes no sense. Complete nonsense. Literally not even a thing people say.
So how many millions of people this year starved to death under a capitalist regime?
The world, as you say, does not have a switch which is either "on" or "off. You have degrees of social ownership or not.
3.1 million children under 5 years old to be exact. Unless you're just regurgitating your white supremicst drivel. In that case I can't even level with you as a historian.
Obviously. What I am saying. Argentina is just a bad example.
>If a company can be nationalized at any second, then property rights are not absolute
this is just your opinion, as a company can be nationalized at any second in any country in the world.
>If there are regulations that dictate how I dispose of my property, then property rights are not absolute.
what are you talking about?
>If there are price controls, then property rights are also not absolute.
price controls on what? products? the only things that are price controled are like a couple of food articles.
>What does it mean to own property? It means that I can do whatever I want with it, with no third party interfering. I take decisions with my property.
this is literally just your opinion and nothing else.
having legal restrictions is the norm, everywhere.
you can't just go around killing people because you feel like using your gun.
>But that's just the cathphrase
no, it's the definition.
>if you think about it, how is that "ownership" manifested?
collective ownership just means there's no private ownership, and that means there's no private owner extracting surplus value from this property by exploiting a worker.
if you work using collective property, you get paid the full value of your labour, no private owner takes a cut of the value generated by you.
this is what it means, it's not ambiguous or a "catchphrase", it's very clear.
in Argentina there's private property, it's a capitalist country, there's no such thing as "soft socialism", whatever the fuck you even think you're saying.
>I got caught premeditating a government employees murder
You are fucking retarded aren't you
Hmm. A civil war. Between the entire western industrialized world and a semi feudal economy. You're right. Nobody would attempt the life of a communist.
why do people make posts like this one?
like seriously, what's the actual point? it's ok if you feel he's retarded and want to insult him, but do that after making a post with actual content, an actual argument.
According to him its unlikely someone could be found guilty of treason. During a civil war.
I think it's a good example.
>the only things that are price controled are like a couple of food articles.
Our money for starters. Not to mention minimum wage and prices of public services.
>you can't just go around killing people because you feel like using your gun.
Obviously. My rights end where the rights of others begin.
>it's very clear.
Not at all, this is where socialists fall short. How are decisions over collective property made? And also, what is the extent of the collective property?
Hence my point: private property = individual makes decisions over property. Socialism = society makes decisions over property. Here in Argentina, society elects representatives/politicians that make some decisions over property. If you say this is 100% private ownership you're simply wrong.
Literally every country does that. Stop contradicting yourself.
3.1 million children starved to death in russia? Can I see a source?
Ecuador and Venezuala social democracies with light economic reform. Argentina is just out of the blue nonsense. Use a real example at least.
No.. What ? Globally. Under capitalist regimes. The death toll after the collapse of the Soviet union was absurd but neither China nor Russia have dealt with famine since Stalin and Mao industrialized the nations.
World hunger. Globally. Educate yourself.
>Our money for starters. Not to mention minimum wage and prices of public services.
what the fuck does this have to do with private property?
>How are decisions over collective property made?
this is not addressed in the "socialism" bit, it's addressed in the specific ideology, in statist socialism (Marxism) it's through the state.
in anarchy the workplace is democratic, there's no hierarchy, no bosses, each company is run by the whole of its employees.
>private property = individual makes decisions over property. Socialism = society makes decisions over property
I already explained why this is wrong.
>Here in Argentina, society elects representatives/politicians that make some decisions over property.
no they don't, there's private property, this is not socialism, every fucking state has rulers, some are elected some aren't, there's no difference and it doesn't alter property rights.
according to you every country is communist, stop being retarded.
Only good commie is a dead commie.
Just to clarify Marxism stresses economic democracy and sees anarchism as valid just not as scientific as Marxism in its analysis of society.
Thinking you could use more dialectical analysis if you are serious about social change.
But your picture in OP is comparing Stalin to Putin, the implication being more people starve under Putin than Stalin? Oh I think I understand, you're using the problems in Africa, which are extremely complex and have been studied by thousands of people across entire ranges of academic fields to convince us that Communism is better than Capitalism despite the fact that in no instance has a Western European or Asian country reduced starvation by going from Capitalist to Communist, or conversely experienced more starvation by moving from Communist to Capitalist. You can understand my confusion, since your entire argument is predicated on the idea that a lack of Communism is responsible for the starvation of Africans.
You would think that a more logically rigorous way to draw a conclusion would be by comparing Capitalist vs Communist regimes WITHIN the country itself, as this means you'd be controlling for other variables which we do not conclusively know to play a role, including language, culture, and geography, of course such an approach, whilst more scientifically and logically sound, would not be ideologically expedient, so I understand why you'd refrain from taking that approach.
>Central planning
>Plan fails
>It's nobody's fault, especially not the central planners
Capitalism is democratic in consumption. It's the ideal arrangement.
It's not capital accumulation. Read some McCloskey
>what the fuck does this have to do with private property?
Now you're going to tell me you don't own money.
>in statist socialism (Marxism) it's through the state.
And we elect the state's representatives. That's how we manifest our decisions over property (in this case, the boundaries are the country's boundaries).
>in anarchy the workplace is democratic, there's no hierarchy, no bosses, each company is run by the whole of its employees.
Yes, here the workers collectively own the company by issuing democratic decisions. And the boundaries are the elements that form the company, in the sense that the workers of company A cannot make decisions over company B.
>I already explained why this is wrong.
You did not and you refuse to see my point, instead resorting to ad hominems and vomiting textbook definitions instead of thinking beyond them.
>no they don't, there's private property
But it fucking is, retard. Is your house truly yours if I go there and force you to paint the colors of your room for a color you don't really want? Ownership = power to make decisions, set by boundaries. Plain and simple. If the state dictates how I must use my property, then it's not completely my "own", whatever the fuck ownership would mean in this case.
It is capital accumulation. The same thing that would enable Robinson Crusoe better standards of living (saving food he gathers to give himself time to make better food-gathering tools) is the same process that enables modern farmers greater food production than their ancestors.
>DAS RAYCIS
Where the fuck are you people coming from. If you're incapable of arguing against someone who is openly racist then why are you on Jow Forums? I admitted to being racist few posts ago, funny how you ignored that at the time and only are mentioning it now that your argument about occupation is refuted.
At least I'm glad I got you to admit that communism is not needed in white countries, even if for a wrong reason.
I was on the way home from work at the time you made this post, so, yes, I have.
It is not Capital accumulation, it is innovation.
There has always been capital accumulation, since the caves. That never lead to an industrial revolution. Medieval savings rates were similar to today's.
There has always been capital accumulation, it never lead to an industrial revolution. Innovation, on the other hand, did. That's what changed, and that's how we escaped the Malthusian traps
>vomiting textbook definitions
I've explained you more than once every concept.
I'm not gonna address any more of your retarded points, only explain these NON AMBIGUOUS terms:
socialism (collective ownership of the means of production): you get paid the full value of your labour, no private owner gets a cut (surplus value)
capitalism: private ownership, this means whomever owns the means of production can make money off their employee's labour
whomever controls the means of production has nothing to do with the mode of production.
this is what you're not understanding, and you're defining socialism however the fuck you want, with the most retarded concepts that would mean literally everything socialist and every country is communist.
these concepts are not ambiguous, you cannot interpret them however you want.
stop being retarded.
seriously.
1. You need time to innovate. Actually some save capital and spend it in R&D
2. Ideas mean nothing without capital accumulation that enable them to materialize into physical existence.
Okay. Lets be purely utilitarian. The number of starving people is equivalent to the success of the regime. Under British Colonial rule in india about 55 million people died of famine. These numbers are more accepted and more academically unitary than your statistics on Communism. As if those would even matter from a utilitarian standpoint. If 55 million people died as a result of Britain's policies and colonial rule. Than that makes Winston Churchchill the biggest killer of them all inflicting the worst genocide in all of history. But in the history books he is the hero. Maybe figure it out for yourself.