You must log in or register to comment.
Also gotta remember about the Irish Potato Famine where the English just literally stood by and said “well yeah that’s just how it is” due to “free market” reasons. (In fact, they made everything worse by demanding that Ireland continue to export wheat)
The Irish Potato Famine killed approximately 1 million people due to “free market above all” ideology.
Don’t forget the, “no, you can’t grow what you used to eat, you have to grow potatoes” part.
The worst part is they could and did grow what they used to eat. It just was packed off to England while the Irish starved as their own potato crops (which they could afford to eat) failed.
There was no famine. It was a deliberate and political choice to let the people who grew the crops starve.
Capitalism didn’t invent slaves lol
No, but they created entire industries based on the sale if humans
Civilization is a product of slavery and it started in mesopotamia
Ye the world was a peaceful place before capitalism, there were no wars, no slaves and no …
checks history books
Oh no
Oh no no no no
Scale. It’s about scale and centralization. Sure there were slaves but capitalism made more than ever in human history. Sure there were wars but capitalism made them bigger and further away from the rich nations committing them’s population.
It’s about scale. It’s like comparing a single thief to a crime syndicate of organized thieves and saying “well there has always been thieving”
Yes. But never with so much damage.
sadfasfsadfd
Sure there were slaves but capitalism made more than ever in human history but capitalism made them bigger and further away from the rich nations committing them’s population
Wouldn’t completely agree here. There has simply been a massive technological advancement if we compare, for example, the “norse raids” with “european raids”. Europeans could transport more and travel further. Also, there have been way more people alive if we compare those timeframes. Global population has grown steadily.
Don’t get me wrong, capitalism certainly had a certain impact, but pretending like capitalism is the sole source is dishonest at best and stupid at worst. There have always been powerhungry people. Capitalism just gave everyone a chance to be power hungry instead of just the select few that were born into places of power.
Something I’d also like you to keep in mind that every communist regime that wasn’t 50 people on a deserted island has resulted in a disaster for the population and surrounding countries. The soviet union has waged more than 15 offensive wars, for example georgia, poland, finland, iran, czech etc., which is almost as much as the US which has existed for like 250 years at this point. So pretending that communism is completely free of the things you criticize capitalism for is pretty dumb tbh.
Yes. Capitalism is a tool that allows us to scale industry up. Good or bad. Just like fire is indispensable for our society, but if you don’t regulate it properly, it will burn things down.
Capitalism allowed for scaling things up. Assholes got a hold of it first and used it to scale up slavery and wars. Doesn’t mean it is inherently evil.
Sure, it is an imperfect and dangerous tool, but by far the best we have.
Mmmm, that’s what you say. But take a step outside what you were taught all your life and it is soon revealed as an ideology that you bow down to worship, defend against any criticism, and demand all others bow down to it as well, no matter how they feel, on pain of their total subjugation.
So you know nothing about the extent of pre-industrial slavery? Because it dwarfs the tiny bit they bought over to the Americas.
Anything to excuse the white man ey wizard?
guys, i think human society is just innately evil.
Like i hate to break it to you, but conquest and war has existed for a long ass fucking time.
You aren’t breaking anything with this basic view. Human society isn’t monolithic; there have been, and will continue to be, many different forms of it.
Conquest and wars occur throughout time, but corporate firms, investment banks, stock markets, ownership and commodification of land, and other hallmarks of capitalism are more recent.
This lazy argument shows a defeated attitude that we should just accept things as they are, or worse, that it is in our nature to be terrible to one another, when history actually shows more evidence of cooperation than strife.
but corporate firms, investment banks, stock markets, ownership and commodification of land, and other hallmarks of capitalism are more recent.
these are more recent, and the things they have done, are in fact, also more recent, HOWEVER. The point you entirely miss out on here, is that capitalism is ultimately just an extension of mankind. There is nothing inherently different from capitalism, to any prior system, in the context of abuse of human rights, or however you wish to frame that particular problem.
It’s merely an extension of the problem that has plagued humanity throughout history. I don’t think as the meme suggests, that this is a problem with capitalism, i think this is a problem with humanity, and capitalism just allows it to bleed through, as every other system throughout history has done, and every new system ever invented will continue to be vulnerable to. I do not think this is a problem that can be solved.
also to be fair, that meme is probably missing out on the hundreds of millions of human causalities that were had during the time period of the USSR. No system is immune to this problem.
I haven’t missed the point, I’m already actively arguing against it. You’re attempting to hand-wave away examples on how capitalism is worse than the systems of exploitation that came before it.
There is nothing inherently different from capitalism, to any prior system, in the context of abuse of human rights, or however you wish to frame that particular problem.
This is entirely reductive and sets you up for a head-in-the-sand defense of capitalism, where you don’t have to engage with evidence because golly gee, people are just gonna always be evil and if you sorta squint at history, you can just smear a whole bunch stuff together and pretend that it’s basically the same.
This rambling paragraph about “…the problem that has plagued humanity…” is completely incoherent. You fail to even attempt to describe what this problem is, yet then proceed to assign all of our ills to it, before concluding that no solution for it will ever be found. Is it the fabled boogeyman who comes to visit us over and over, turning our best laid plans against us every time? I suspect it is your pessimism for humanity that is the problem in your understanding.
I don’t know enough about communism to talk about it, but I’ve been building a reading list to learn more this year. I do know that there have been serious atrocities committed by Communist forces. I’m sure there are lots of estimates and comparisons on body counts for both isms, but I also think that a number like “hundreds of millions” should have a little more evidence to support it other than vibes.
A simple Google search finds this entry about mass killings under communism. Estimates at the highest are 148 million for all communist regimes combined. I don’t think you know enough specifics to speak on this issue. When you bring numbers into a discussion they need to be grounded in something other than your feelings.
You’re attempting to hand-wave away examples on how capitalism is worse than the systems of exploitation that came before it.
that’s literally not the argument here, you’re just arguing against a strawman right now. I don’t disagree that capitalism is explorative. I just think that all of human society is to some degree built on an exploitative system. It’s extremely difficult to establish a consistent means of defining what “exploitation” is throughout human society as well, mostly because history is really fucking hard.
my argument was that humans are innately exploitative of other humans given the means to exploit them, which seems to be supported throughout human history. And therefore, i don’t believe this is a problem specifically bound within the jurisdiction of capitalism, but merely an extension of the outside want to exploit, being pushed forward IN capitalism. Capitalism doesn’t do anything to stop this (yes it does) nor does it do anything to make it easier (you could probably argue it does, but you’re grasping at straws there) in fact it’s very easy to argument that it is the government overseeing the bounds of capitalism, that allows and in some cases, encourages exploitation of it’s labor pool.
This is entirely reductive and sets you up for a head-in-the-sand defense of capitalism, where you don’t have to engage with evidence because golly gee, people are just gonna always be evil and if you sorta squint at history, you can just smear a whole bunch stuff together and pretend that it’s basically the same.
i mean, unless you’re going to demonstrate this, have fun with that strawman.
I suspect it is your pessimism for humanity that is the problem in your understanding.
perhaps my pessimism is problematic, but being optimistic about the outlook of humanity doesn’t have any known effect on the exploitation of people, arguably the opposite in fact.
I’m sure there are lots of estimates and comparisons on body counts for both isms, but I also think that a number like “hundreds of millions” should have a little more evidence to support it other than vibes.
look at any of the wars the soviet union was involved in, especially under the leadership of stalin, not only did stalin have a penchant for murdering his own people for convenience reasons, he also did it on mass throughout ww2. The famines are notable, especially with how much exporting of grain they did, although there are arguments against this (it may be more economical to export grain, and then import other food)
100’s of millions is definitely quite a significant claim, it’s known that there is somewhere between 10-20 million for sure. From what i can recall, we don’t really have any good data on this unfortunately. 100’s of millions may have been a fat finger typo, it may not have, but it’s most definitely a bit unserious.
I don’t think you know enough specifics to speak on this issue. When you bring numbers into a discussion they need to be grounded in something other than your feelings.
in my defense, i didn’t list a specific number for that reason, i would’ve done so otherwise.
Again, I already understand what you’re saying, I simply don’t accept it. Why didn’t you just start with the unbounded market capitalism solves everything approach? Would’ve made it easier to spot bad faith.
It’s a good thing there were no genocides, slave grades, and constant wars before capitalism. Pheww
Scale. It’s about scale. Capitalism gave the economic incentive to take these historical evils and industrialize them to a scale not even imaginable before. A scale so large that even you, today, with the world at your fingertips are unable to comprehend, evidenced by the fact that you are currently failing to comprehend it.
Surely Rome wasn’t a warmongering, genocidal, capitalist-colonialist society with the rich elite hoarding untold wealth and trading in slaves 1500 years earlier, right?
The Roman mode of production wasn’t capitalist exploitation of wage earners who sold their labor, but through their exploration of slaves in an agregarian system. There’s some arguments to be made that capitalist systems start as early as 12th century Italy, but it becomes dominant in 1600s England and is able to radically transform that society.
I, eh, would think that Phoenician societies and a lot of Ancient Greece could be called that too.
In any case, if everything involving markets and mutually voluntary deals and trade is called capitalism, then everything is capitalism. But that doesn’t make any sense.
Capitalism is specifically what Marx was talking about - where the economic system is kinda free and equal, but to be a subject in it you have to own some capital, allowing you to create enterprises. You can’t do it with just your head and two hands, because it’s very expensive. So you need to ally with some generational wealth. Quite often that of aristocrats.
So-o things like VC and more recently crowdfunding and what not, which everybody blames for enshittification and such, are what ended the original capitalism in some sense. People who have some kind of a business plan and skills, and small capital (something realistic to assemble), can try. Also the startup incubators and all that.
A lot of it is BS, but in general you don’t have to make an appointment with some Victorian dude with a monocle, wait for him a few hours, then explain your whole idea to him a few more hours, and then - that dude will be very polite and knowledgeable and interested, by the way, - likely get a commendation letter to some acquaintances of the dude, his written commentary with advice on your ideas, and a polite refusal.
I guarantee you have never read a page by Marx. Your understanding of capitalism and socialism is shocking.
I guarantee you have never read a page by Marx.
I have read Capital in full. Is there anything else?
What is your guarantee worth?
Not a soul here believes that. Your post history is visible. You spell ‘bloc’ as “block” and your understanding of capitalism is that of a very young person’s. Not to mention, nobody would reply that they read Capital in full — they would say they’ve read Marx’s volume of Capital. You’re transparent.
Once again, I guarantee you’ve never read a page by Marx. You really should try it.
You spell ‘bloc’ as “block” and your understanding of capitalism is that of a very young person’s
How do we call a person ignorant of there being plenty of languages other than English, sometimes without such distinction between these words?
Anyway, spelling errors are indicative only of spelling errors.
My “understanding of capitalism” - ignorance and arrogance go together, and Marxists are a premier example of both.
Not to mention, nobody would reply that they read Capital in full — they would say they’ve read Marx’s volume of Capital.
Personal insults are forbidden here, but some time from now you might learn that people reply to all kinds of things differently.
Once again, I guarantee you’ve never read a page by Marx. You really should try it.
I have already told you that you’ve shat yourself and asked what is your guarantee supported with. You are wrong. What will you do?
Wrecked. Better luck next time, liberal.
I’m really not sure what your point is or how it is a response to my comment. I’ll respond to what I understand.
First, I agree, Phoenecian and ancient Greek societies would be classified as slave modes of production according to Marx. I wasn’t suggesting otherwise, just responding to OP’s comment that Roman society was capitalist.
I’m not quite sure what argument you’re building in the second paragraph, but there is a curious absence of proletariats in regards to subjects.
From here on our, I’m rather confused and I don’t think you have a clear grasp of what Marx means by capitalism. You seem to be most concerned with initial funding sources and not how one social group is able to exploit another through various economic means and subsequent social means as the capitalist class becomes the ruling class.
Again, how does any of this relate to my comment?
I’m rather confused and I don’t think you have a clear grasp of what Marx means by capitalism.
Do you?
You seem to be most concerned with initial funding sources and not how one social group is able to exploit another through various economic means and subsequent social means as the capitalist class becomes the ruling class.
I’m not most concerned with them, just look at them closely. The word “capital” is from there. If an ideology is functional, you may come from every its part to every other via logic.
And, of course, I have described how there’s less exploitation with more competition for labor between easily born small enterprises, which result from more agility in investment and capital, and that “middle class”.
Proletariat by Marx does not exist today in any notable capacity in Western countries. It, however, exists in poorer countries. It’s funny how right-wing types were fearmongering about globalization and left-wing types were optimistic, while in the end result globalization combined with Western labor protections resulted in both benefiting from oppression of Chinese, Bengali, Indian, Vietnamese etc proletariat.
First, I agree, Phoenecian and ancient Greek societies would be classified as slave modes of production according to Marx.
He kinda ignored that European colonial empires relied on slavery a lot and the transition from that to his capitalism wasn’t very noticeable. He wrote something that on the surface seemed applicable to Germany of his time.
Marx is atrociously reductionist with taking real world’s complexity and making some very rough approximations, which would be acceptable in some situations, but he doesn’t see how his approximations work one way only and builds a system based on them working both ways. Marx would be a bad mathematician or software architect or cryptographer or construction engineer, because everything he’d make would last less than clay huts in Somalia.
Again, how does any of this relate to my comment?
Asking the important questions, I see. Yep, I initially intended to answer another comment. Missed, then in process made some changes looking at yours (my head wasn’t too good then).
I don’t think you’ve read Capital. You haven’t displayed an understanding of what the proletariat is, what class and class relations are, how it functions in capitalism, or the role of slavery when it exists in a capitalist society. All of this is discussed in Capital.
You’re responses are filled with insinuations, ad hominens, tangents and non sequiturs. We won’t have a productive or interesting discussion.
Disagreement with its contents doesn’t mean I haven’t read Capital.
In any case nobody owes you a summary of its contents or some other way to persuade you, a statement is enough. You are taking too much upon yourself.
Also having a list of Latin buzzwords doesn’t help you one bit when you are unwilling to dispute honestly.
Tangent is Greek.<-- this is wrong, it is Latin.You display no working understanding of even the basic concepts. You haven’t read it. And you won’t.
Not to undermine the argument, but capitalism did not start in 16th century England.
I suppose you can try and pin this on the Dutch. But the economic practices of aggregating ownership around a legal business entity and organizing production towards the maximization of profit were quickly adopted by English shipping magnets from their Dutch peers.
Genocides, slavery, war - that’s literally instructed in the Judaic religious texts. Correlation does not mean causation.
Reducing widespread human rights abuses in the Soviet Union to “one famine” shows a heady mixture of deliberate ignorance with hubris that only a western university educated leftist can posess.
The sad thing is, famines weren’t that widespread after a while, unless your standard of “famine” is “not eating beef steaks in a country where beef aren’t that common”.
The ussr was infinitely better for human rights than what came before or after in Russia and the baltics, and was better than all “free nations” at the time until the late 1970s, when a few European nations decided to ignore France, the UK, and the US and write their own laws.
The WHAT?
Please explain to me how sending most of the Baltic intelligensia to die in Siberia and replacing them with Russian settlers who held most positions of power was better for my rights than what I have right now.
Please tell me how great my grandmother in law had it living in the outskirts of Archangelsk in a wooden barrack because she was sent there against her will, how much more rights and opportunities she had back then.
Please explain to me how great the industrial management in the USSR was, where they built a bunch of heavy industries in countries that had few mineral resources to support them locally, leading to plant closures in the 90s.
Before WWII, Estonia was a bit richer than Finland. Not it is lagging behind by decades.
Due to Ukrainian anti-soviet (nazi) influence in 1990s, the famine was upgraded to a genocide for Ukraine (Holomodor). “Stalin bad” is a welcome narrative for US/CIA.
There was a genuine global famine at the time, and the US demanded Stalin pay USSR debt in food. Most of those exports went through Ukraine, and so Ukraine had some agency in its own famine levels. Ukraine’s per capita food allotment was higher than most USSR states including non-nazi/non-antagonist Kazahkstan which had more deaths but did not declare famine a genocide.
The complex politics, like Syria’s famine/drought that sowed the seeds for ISIS/Israel takeover, meant not making everyone happy. Bourgeois farmers outside of Ukraine, the Kulaks, wanted extortion, famine market, pricing, and Stalin wanted to pay them less.
The Irish Potato famine, was an oligarchist driven famine, the US would approve Stalin of having chosen. There was plenty of Irish potato production, but the prices were too high for the Irish to pay, so they were exported more. Stalin’s “crime” was fighting extortion pricing.
