Equality of outcome is something you should never shoot for because it can't be achieved unless it's placed under an authoritarian rule where decisions for the individual is made by the government. The thing with equality of opportunity things will never have an equal outcome because everyone's values and idea are in fact NOT the same.
Not everyone wants prestige, not everyone wants to be a CEO, not everyone wants authority, and not everyone wants wealth. With that said, natural division do arise showing that specific people based on a variety of factors do gravitate to others of similar or like minds creating what looks like unfair divisions. NFL and NBA being black dominated, social fields such as nursing and teaching being female dominated and so on.
It seems that she is very focused on trying to destruct what she feels drives the meritocracy argument and very little in trying to build up her own argument. No, I am not convinced.
Equality of outcome is something you should never shoot for because it can't be achieved unless it's placed under an authoritarian rule where decisions for the individual is made by the government.
Communists have tried, and made everyone equally miserable as a result.
Correciton: communists made everyone equally miserable (with some exceptions like politicians) and some ended up dead.
I suppose the counterpoint for capitalism is that it never attempted to make people equal, and a lot of people have ended up dead?
I'm not a socialist, nor a communist - but history shows us that Capitalism isnt any better/worse than they are. Capitalism has created just as much (arguably, more - but only because there are more capitalist economies) extreme poverty and death as Communism did.
Correciton: communists made everyone equally miserable (with some exceptions like politicians) and some ended up dead.
I suppose the counterpoint for capitalism is that it never attempted to make people equal, and a lot of people have ended up dead?
I'm not a socialist, nor a communist - but history shows us that Capitalism isnt any better/worse than they are. Capitalism has created just as much (arguably, more - but only because there are more capitalist economies) extreme poverty and death as Communism did.
Really?
Would you care to give some examples where the death toll ends up in the tens of millions and it was caused deliberately.
I realize I'm late, but @smeagolheart that is a total mischaracterization by David Pakman. The interview is almost 3 hours long, but the overall clip shown is 6-7 minutes of Peterson and Rogan. If you watch the entire interview, the solution being proposed is CULTURALLY ENFORCED monogamy. If taken into complete context, what he's calling for is for men to be better. Better can mean many different things, but that whole clip by Pakman is a strawman. Completely within Pakman's right to post the video, and within your's to share it, but it is not an accurate representation of the viewpoint being discussed.
So what you're saying is...
The short clips from a lot of those opposed to JP are attempts to present "gotcha" moments. And of course to pull traffic to their YT channels
You would think they would have learnt after Kathy Newman.
@UnderstandMouseMagic I suppose it would depend on how you define "capitalism" some people argue that the current state of the economy and health standards in the US is a case of failure of capitalism. Others aregue that what we have isn't "true" capitalism. And that is the extent of my knowledge on "capitalism".
As for deaths resulting from it? I don't think it would have to be intentional to count. Deaths resulting from negligence or from accesibility not being a concern should count. For example, the healthcare system in the US. Third party Insurance agencies act as a go between with doctors and patients. Because these companies make more money for not providing the services that people are paying them for, insurance companies try to provide as little as they can, while taking as much money as possible from people. Hospitals will also inflate their bills when they know someone is insured to try and get more money from the company. Because of the prohibitive cost of healthcare as a result of this system, a lot of people die from things that really shouldn't kill them because they can't afford care.
@UnderstandMouseMagic I suppose it would depend on how you define "capitalism" some people argue that the current state of the economy and health standards in the US is a case of failure of capitalism. Others aregue that what we have isn't "true" capitalism. And that is the extent of my knowledge on "capitalism".
As for deaths resulting from it? I don't think it would have to be intentional to count. Deaths resulting from negligence or from accesibility not being a concern should count. For example, the healthcare system in the US. Third party Insurance agencies act as a go between with doctors and patients. Because these companies make more money for not providing the services that people are paying them for, insurance companies try to provide as little as they can, while taking as much money as possible from people. Hospitals will also inflate their bills when they know someone is insured to try and get more money from the company. Because of the prohibitive cost of healthcare as a result of this system, a lot of people die from things that really shouldn't kill them because they can't afford care.
Which is substantially different from confiscating all food and deliberately starving 30+ million to death.
You also seem to assume that under a communist regime, if a person has survived the purges and the mass starvations, the state honestly treats them fairly when it comes to healthcare. And within a communist regime, nobody is ever denied medical treatment for any reason.
Why?
I understand the US has problems with healthcare, but then in the UK we have the NHS and there's no denying that people die because the medical care isn't adequate.
Are you actually suggesting that under a communist regime, a person labeled as an "enemy of the state" for whatever reason, gets good medical care? So they can shove them in a gulag later.
Or within the gulags/prisons, first rate medical care is available 24/7. Strange then that so many died wouldn't you think?
Correciton: communists made everyone equally miserable (with some exceptions like politicians) and some ended up dead.
I suppose the counterpoint for capitalism is that it never attempted to make people equal, and a lot of people have ended up dead?
I'm not a socialist, nor a communist - but history shows us that Capitalism isnt any better/worse than they are. Capitalism has created just as much (arguably, more - but only because there are more capitalist economies) extreme poverty and death as Communism did.
I know exactly one communist on this forum, she isn't @ThacoBell, and I have yet to hear either her or @ThacoBell defend gulags or famine. If you want to argue with someone who holds a ridiculous viewpoint, go find them and argue with them instead.
Don't make assumptions about people's belief systems. It's possible to criticize capitalism without supporting communism.
Which is substantially different from confiscating all food and deliberately starving 30+ million to death.
You also seem to assume that under a communist regime, if a person has survived the purges and the mass starvations, the state honestly treats them fairly when it comes to healthcare. And within a communist regime, nobody is ever denied medical treatment for any reason.
Why?
I understand the US has problems with healthcare, but then in the UK we have the NHS and there's no denying that people die because the medical care isn't adequate.
Are you actually suggesting that under a communist regime, a person labeled as an "enemy of the state" for whatever reason, gets good medical care? So they can shove them in a gulag later.
Or within the gulags/prisons, first rate medical care is available 24/7. Strange then that so many died wouldn't you think?
You realize you're not making an argument against communism, but against atrocities, right? There's nothing inherent in communism (or socialism) that requires "purges" or any kind of murder. Correlation is not causation.
All of that isnt the fault of communism (or socialism), but of awful people that happened to be communists. I'll play your game, though - Chattel slavery as an institution in the United States was driven by capitalistic forces. So that would be an excellent example of horrific, widespread murder. Or look at the Belgian Congo, which was ruthlessly exploited by a capitalist society and resulted in the deaths of millions upon millions. Some call this the "forgotten" genocide. Consider Pinochet in chile - he was kept in place to oppose the growth of socialism in South America, and he did approximately the same things you decry in the Soviet Union or China.
Is slavery a "requirement" of capitalism? Obviously not. Is exploiting a population to the verge of genocide a "requirement" of capitalism? Nope. They were done to make money in capitalist societies. Just as gulags, purges and so forth were done in communist societies, not necessarily because they're doctrinal to communism.
Personally, I consider capitalism to be overwhelmingly superior to communism for various reasons. But that doesn't mean I view the ravages of communism as proof of the virtues of capitalism. As long as we have more than two choices for economic systems, they should be criticized separately.
Personally, I consider capitalism to be overwhelmingly superior to communism for various reasons. But that doesn't mean I view the ravages of communism as proof of the virtues of capitalism. As long as we have more than two choices for economic systems, they should be criticized separately.
On the whole, I think I agree with this. I think there's this idea that we must compare the two, because we (most of us, anyways - I assume) live in a capitalist society that has at some point in the past 50 years had a zero-sum cold-war confrontation with communism - that communism must be inherently bad as a result is misleading.
I dont think capitalism in its current incarnation is particularly great - and I actually think it's getting worse very quickly (the stratification of wealth is nigh unfathomable). I think one decent step to move away from that current trajectory is to abandon the idea that socialism is inherently bad, or that it cannot be made to work in some measure or that useful aspects of it cannot be applied to the economy.
I dont think full socialism is the answer. I also dont think laissez-faire capitalism is either.
FWIW I wasn't referring to gulags and famine. Even though they existed, there's a Russain joke about "billions of people personally executed by Stalin" to highlight that exaggeration.
In fact, the state also provided populace with free education, free healthcare, safe streets and a guaranteed work. Those were indeed the benefits of living in a communist state, and a lot of people rather enjoyed that they've been taken care of by the government.
However, at the same time private business wasn't allowed, as it would be an exploitation of workers for the enrichment of the owner. And while it sounds fine in theory, the net result was that bright and ambitious individuals weren't really able to realize their potential - who would be willing to dedicate all their time and effort towards creative work, if all the rewards were taken by state and shared with simple-minded laborers instead.
I was only five years old when USSR had dissolved, but I can remember the woefully pitiful and insipid assortments in the stores, and that was after perestroika.
And it's not like the nation was lacking the capability to build something if it wanted - in mere forty years the country has transformed from a largely agrarian state into space-faring nuclear superpower with vast imperial military ambition. No, if during the next thirty years it failed to reach the same level of prosperity as US, - despite it being the stated goal of the ideology - then it had to be due to something else.
When you buy a new iPhone or a new version of Windows, you don't just make CEOs of Apple and Microsoft richer than demigods, you also fund the development of newer, better iterations of their products, which in turn will increase your own productivity, allowing you to earn more than what you've spent on them.
It's more like a long term investment, and it's a big question if forced equality of outcome would really outweigh the immediate short term disadvantages. I rather doubt US would be able to afford minimal wage of $10 and a car in every household, if it followed the equality doctrine.
One might argue that this "investment" is also forced, but if I'm to be forced regardless, be it by state or by clique of influential individuals, I'd at least pick the option that improves my standards of living better.
PS Not sure if this post actually belongs in this thread, and not in politics...
@UnderstandMouseMagic I'm not making a statement about communism in any way. You asked for examples of people dying under a capitalistic system, and I provided what I think is the best modern example of such.
When you buy a new iPhone or a new version of Windows, you don't just make CEOs of Apple and Microsoft richer than demigods, you also fund the development of newer, better iterations of their products, which in turn will increase your own productivity, allowing you to earn more than what you've spent on them.
It's more like a long term investment, and it's a big question if forced equality of outcome would really outweigh the immediate short term disadvantages. I rather doubt US would be able to afford minimal wage of $10 and a car in every household, if it followed the equality doctrine.
One might argue that this "investment" is also forced, but if I'm to be forced regardless, be it by state or by clique of influential individuals, I'd at least pick the option that improves my standards of living better.
PS Not sure if this post actually belongs in this thread, and not in politics...
I appreciate the insights about the Soviet Union. I wont argue about it since I never had any first hand experience there. I will discuss the second part of your statement:
There are a tremendous number of people living in the US (and plenty of other places) that cannot afford a new IPhone (or an old one). There are plenty of people who do not make enough money to ever "invest" in themselves. The minimum wage here is 7:50, and plenty of households cannot afford a car. Those people - who's poverty is now institutionalized, cannot afford to invest in themselves to get out of the cycle of poverty. They're born in it, and statistics say - they'll die in it.
Capitalism thrives on the stories of a pair of friends that start a computer business in their garage and go on to make millions or billions. It casually ignores or disregards the stories of people who are born into a household of extreme debt and never manage to claw their way out of it.
I prefer capitalism to socialism, but I'd also like a stronger centralized government capable of ensuring the playing field is level.
I know exactly one communist on this forum, she isn't @ThacoBell, and I have yet to hear either her or @ThacoBell defend gulags or famine. If you want to argue with someone who holds a ridiculous viewpoint, go find them and argue with them instead.
Don't make assumptions about people's belief systems. It's possible to criticize capitalism without supporting communism.
My post was in response to this part of the post,
"As for deaths resulting from it? I don't think it would have to be intentional to count. Deaths resulting from negligence or from accesibility not being a concern should count."
And I was trying to make the argument, (which to me is obvious), that "unintentional deaths" still occur after the gulags/prisons/forced starvation. So you end up with the failures of the system plus the deliberate killings.
The "unintentional deaths" that resulted from the one child policy for instance, where baby girls in their thousands and thousands were killed and/or were sent to death farms.
Maybe the documentry "The Dying Rooms" never reached the US? I suggest a watch should anyone think communism doesn't slaughter people.
Or how about the Romanian orphanages? I mean come on, it wasn't that long ago.
And although I know that @ThacoBell is not a communist, how is it not a defence of communism, to put up failures of other systems as a comparison?
Which is substantially different from confiscating all food and deliberately starving 30+ million to death.
You also seem to assume that under a communist regime, if a person has survived the purges and the mass starvations, the state honestly treats them fairly when it comes to healthcare. And within a communist regime, nobody is ever denied medical treatment for any reason.
Why?
I understand the US has problems with healthcare, but then in the UK we have the NHS and there's no denying that people die because the medical care isn't adequate.
Are you actually suggesting that under a communist regime, a person labeled as an "enemy of the state" for whatever reason, gets good medical care? So they can shove them in a gulag later.
Or within the gulags/prisons, first rate medical care is available 24/7. Strange then that so many died wouldn't you think?
You realize you're not making an argument against communism, but against atrocities, right? There's nothing inherent in communism (or socialism) that requires "purges" or any kind of murder. Correlation is not causation.
All of that isnt the fault of communism (or socialism), but of awful people that happened to be communists. I'll play your game, though - Chattel slavery as an institution in the United States was driven by capitalistic forces. So that would be an excellent example of horrific, widespread murder. Or look at the Belgian Congo, which was ruthlessly exploited by a capitalist society and resulted in the deaths of millions upon millions. Some call this the "forgotten" genocide. Consider Pinochet in chile - he was kept in place to oppose the growth of socialism in South America, and he did approximately the same things you decry in the Soviet Union or China.
Is slavery a "requirement" of capitalism? Obviously not. Is exploiting a population to the verge of genocide a "requirement" of capitalism? Nope. They were done to make money in capitalist societies. Just as gulags, purges and so forth were done in communist societies, not necessarily because they're doctrinal to communism.
But they are doctrinal to communism because the success of the state must supersede all other concerns.
And as I pointed out above, that inevitably leads to things like "The Dying Rooms". The one child policy was driven by the state's attempt to contain the population growth at any cost. The people didn't matter.
@UnderstandMouseMagic: If you re-read @ThacoBell's comment, you'll see that the "As for deaths resulting from it" post was answering your question about deaths due to capitalism--it was not saying that accidental deaths were exclusive to capitalism, or that they would not happen in a communist system.
No one is defending communism. Criticizing capitalism is not a defense of communism any more than criticizing Paul is defending Harry. @ThacoBell did not bring up the failures of capitalism as a defense of communism.
Maybe the documentry "The Killing Rooms" never reached the US? I suggest a watch should anyone think communism doesn't slaughter people.
This is what I mean by putting words in other people's mouths. No one is this thread has claimed that communism hasn't killed people--or even implied that, or even suggested anything remotely similar to it--and it is NOT respectful behavior per the Site Rules to keep insisting that @ThacoBell, or any other forumite, believes something they don't actually believe.
If you want to argue with people who "think communism doesn't slaughter people," go find those people and argue with them instead.
But they are doctrinal to communism because the success of the state must supersede all other concerns.
And as I pointed out above, that inevitably leads to things like "The Killing Rooms". The one child policy was driven by the state's attempt to contain the population growth at any cost. The people didn't matter.
I dont see how that can be proven. There's nothing in a communist of socialist state that requires the purging or killing of its population.
Citing that it happened isnt proof that it was required. I alluded to that fact with my reference to slavery and the genocide in the Congo, where capitalist societies did horrible things, but were compelled only by their lack of morality and not their economic system.
To re-purpose your statement to apply to capitalism, I could try to argue that a capitalist society requires the exploitation of workers by capitalists because the only goal of capitalism is self-enrichment, and making money supersedes all goals.
I dont ascribe to that position because I cannot prove it, just as I do not think one can prove that communism requires murdering its population.
(I made an edit to try to be less direct in my language, since it is not needed).
@UnderstandMouseMagic I wasn't comparing anything. My post was specifically to answer your question as to what deaths are caused by capitalism. That's it. No arguments as to what killed more. No comparisons of one idealogy against another. Just answering a specific question.
But they are doctrinal to communism because the success of the state must supersede all other concerns.
And as I pointed out above, that inevitably leads to things like "The Killing Rooms". The one child policy was driven by the state's attempt to contain the population growth at any cost. The people didn't matter.
I dont see how that can be proven. There's nothing in a communist of socialist state that requires the purging or killing of its population.
I would disagree... but only on a semantic quibble. While there's no requirement that communist states must kill large portions of their general population--as in the Cultural Revolution/Great Leap Forward/gulags/famine-inducing economic policies/political executions/whatever--communism as defined by Marx does require the killing of a very small and very specific portion of the population, which is the ruling class. Marx was very explicit about killing the bourgeoisie and seizing their stuff (that is, the means of production).
But yes, Marx didn't command people to kill off counterrevolutionaries or political opponents, and he never predicted the economic catastrophes caused by communist economics. Those problems were incidental and probable rather than inherent and inevitable.
I would disagree... but only on a semantic quibble. While there's no requirement that communist states must kill large portions of their general population--as in the Cultural Revolution/Great Leap Forward/gulags/famine-inducing economic policies/political executions/whatever--communism as defined by Marx does require the killing of a very small and very specific portion of the population, which is the ruling class. Marx was very explicit about killing the bourgeoisie and seizing their stuff (that is, the means of production).
But yes, Marx didn't command people to kill off counterrevolutionaries or political opponents, and he never predicted the economic catastrophes caused by communist economics. Those problems were incidental and probable rather than inherent and inevitable.
I see what you're saying, and I take the point. My thought here is that Marx's idea of communism was only possible through his idea of a revolution. I think there's an inherent idea that any revolution such as this would come at a cost of human life.
I believe modern Marxism is less reliant on the idea of the bloody transition of the means of production
It's also worth noting that the conversation has sort of missed the mark a little (and I'm definitely partly to blame). One cannot compare capitalism and communism directly with each other, as they're not the same thing. Socialism and capitalism make more sense to compare. Moving the conversation more explicitly to Marxism makes more sense in that regard.
Communism and Marxism have changed a lot since Marx's day and Lenin's day. The old-school, Cold War, Leninist and original Marxist-style communist ideologies pretty much died with the Soviet Union. These days, communism really only exists as a reality in North Korea and a phony ideology in China. And, of course, some scattered nomads and such have some small economies without private property in the traditional sense. But that's more of a premodern village thing.
Marxism as a political theory has been reduced to a form of historical, political, or textual analysis. In less technical terms, a Marxist these days is somebody who criticizes something through a materialist lens. In my view, Marxist scholarship is just when you use Marxist terminology when talking about history or politics or whatever, and that's about it. A Marxist scholar might believe that the richest folks on the planet make money simply by controlling the means of production (which... yeah), and that this results in inequality (also yeah), and that profit is more of a zero-sum game than a mutually beneficial exchange (which is debatable), but not believe, like the old-school Marxists believed, that political violence is the solution, that revolution is inevitable, or that profit is entirely a zero-sum game.
Today's Marxists are basically just folks who have a slightly higher opinion of Marx as a thinker and are more cynical about capitalism than most people.
Today's Marxists are basically just folks who have a slightly higher opinion of Marx as a thinker and are more cynical about capitalism than most people.
But they are doctrinal to communism because the success of the state must supersede all other concerns.
And as I pointed out above, that inevitably leads to things like "The Killing Rooms". The one child policy was driven by the state's attempt to contain the population growth at any cost. The people didn't matter.
I dont see how that can be proven. There's nothing in a communist of socialist state that requires the purging or killing of its population.
I would disagree... but only on a semantic quibble. While there's no requirement that communist states must kill large portions of their general population--as in the Cultural Revolution/Great Leap Forward/gulags/famine-inducing economic policies/political executions/whatever--communism as defined by Marx does require the killing of a very small and very specific portion of the population, which is the ruling class. Marx was very explicit about killing the bourgeoisie and seizing their stuff (that is, the means of production).
But yes, Marx didn't command people to kill off counterrevolutionaries or political opponents, and he never predicted the economic catastrophes caused by communist economics. Those problems were incidental and probable rather than inherent and inevitable.
Are the "bourgoisie" as defined by Marx a very small and specific portion of the population?
Because I looked it up and judging by the Cambridge and Oxford definitions I reckon those included would run into the millions.
Comments
Not everyone wants prestige, not everyone wants to be a CEO, not everyone wants authority, and not everyone wants wealth. With that said, natural division do arise showing that specific people based on a variety of factors do gravitate to others of similar or like minds creating what looks like unfair divisions. NFL and NBA being black dominated, social fields such as nursing and teaching being female dominated and so on.
I'm not a socialist, nor a communist - but history shows us that Capitalism isnt any better/worse than they are. Capitalism has created just as much (arguably, more - but only because there are more capitalist economies) extreme poverty and death as Communism did.
Would you care to give some examples where the death toll ends up in the tens of millions and it was caused deliberately.
I'm all for understatement but some?
So what you're saying is...
The short clips from a lot of those opposed to JP are attempts to present "gotcha" moments.
And of course to pull traffic to their YT channels
You would think they would have learnt after Kathy Newman.
As for deaths resulting from it? I don't think it would have to be intentional to count. Deaths resulting from negligence or from accesibility not being a concern should count. For example, the healthcare system in the US. Third party Insurance agencies act as a go between with doctors and patients. Because these companies make more money for not providing the services that people are paying them for, insurance companies try to provide as little as they can, while taking as much money as possible from people. Hospitals will also inflate their bills when they know someone is insured to try and get more money from the company. Because of the prohibitive cost of healthcare as a result of this system, a lot of people die from things that really shouldn't kill them because they can't afford care.
You also seem to assume that under a communist regime, if a person has survived the purges and the mass starvations, the state honestly treats them fairly when it comes to healthcare.
And within a communist regime, nobody is ever denied medical treatment for any reason.
Why?
I understand the US has problems with healthcare, but then in the UK we have the NHS and there's no denying that people die because the medical care isn't adequate.
Are you actually suggesting that under a communist regime, a person labeled as an "enemy of the state" for whatever reason, gets good medical care?
So they can shove them in a gulag later.
Or within the gulags/prisons, first rate medical care is available 24/7.
Strange then that so many died wouldn't you think?
I know exactly one communist on this forum, she isn't @ThacoBell, and I have yet to hear either her or @ThacoBell defend gulags or famine. If you want to argue with someone who holds a ridiculous viewpoint, go find them and argue with them instead.
Don't make assumptions about people's belief systems. It's possible to criticize capitalism without supporting communism.
All of that isnt the fault of communism (or socialism), but of awful people that happened to be communists. I'll play your game, though - Chattel slavery as an institution in the United States was driven by capitalistic forces. So that would be an excellent example of horrific, widespread murder. Or look at the Belgian Congo, which was ruthlessly exploited by a capitalist society and resulted in the deaths of millions upon millions. Some call this the "forgotten" genocide. Consider Pinochet in chile - he was kept in place to oppose the growth of socialism in South America, and he did approximately the same things you decry in the Soviet Union or China.
Is slavery a "requirement" of capitalism? Obviously not. Is exploiting a population to the verge of genocide a "requirement" of capitalism? Nope. They were done to make money in capitalist societies. Just as gulags, purges and so forth were done in communist societies, not necessarily because they're doctrinal to communism.
I dont think capitalism in its current incarnation is particularly great - and I actually think it's getting worse very quickly (the stratification of wealth is nigh unfathomable). I think one decent step to move away from that current trajectory is to abandon the idea that socialism is inherently bad, or that it cannot be made to work in some measure or that useful aspects of it cannot be applied to the economy.
I dont think full socialism is the answer. I also dont think laissez-faire capitalism is either.
In fact, the state also provided populace with free education, free healthcare, safe streets and a guaranteed work. Those were indeed the benefits of living in a communist state, and a lot of people rather enjoyed that they've been taken care of by the government.
However, at the same time private business wasn't allowed, as it would be an exploitation of workers for the enrichment of the owner. And while it sounds fine in theory, the net result was that bright and ambitious individuals weren't really able to realize their potential - who would be willing to dedicate all their time and effort towards creative work, if all the rewards were taken by state and shared with simple-minded laborers instead.
I was only five years old when USSR had dissolved, but I can remember the woefully pitiful and insipid assortments in the stores, and that was after perestroika.
And it's not like the nation was lacking the capability to build something if it wanted - in mere forty years the country has transformed from a largely agrarian state into space-faring nuclear superpower with vast imperial military ambition. No, if during the next thirty years it failed to reach the same level of prosperity as US, - despite it being the stated goal of the ideology - then it had to be due to something else.
When you buy a new iPhone or a new version of Windows, you don't just make CEOs of Apple and Microsoft richer than demigods, you also fund the development of newer, better iterations of their products, which in turn will increase your own productivity, allowing you to earn more than what you've spent on them.
It's more like a long term investment, and it's a big question if forced equality of outcome would really outweigh the immediate short term disadvantages. I rather doubt US would be able to afford minimal wage of $10 and a car in every household, if it followed the equality doctrine.
One might argue that this "investment" is also forced, but if I'm to be forced regardless, be it by state or by clique of influential individuals, I'd at least pick the option that improves my standards of living better.
PS Not sure if this post actually belongs in this thread, and not in politics...
I appreciate the insights about the Soviet Union. I wont argue about it since I never had any first hand experience there. I will discuss the second part of your statement:
There are a tremendous number of people living in the US (and plenty of other places) that cannot afford a new IPhone (or an old one). There are plenty of people who do not make enough money to ever "invest" in themselves. The minimum wage here is 7:50, and plenty of households cannot afford a car. Those people - who's poverty is now institutionalized, cannot afford to invest in themselves to get out of the cycle of poverty. They're born in it, and statistics say - they'll die in it.
Capitalism thrives on the stories of a pair of friends that start a computer business in their garage and go on to make millions or billions. It casually ignores or disregards the stories of people who are born into a household of extreme debt and never manage to claw their way out of it.
I prefer capitalism to socialism, but I'd also like a stronger centralized government capable of ensuring the playing field is level.
"As for deaths resulting from it? I don't think it would have to be intentional to count. Deaths resulting from negligence or from accesibility not being a concern should count."
And I was trying to make the argument, (which to me is obvious), that "unintentional deaths" still occur after the gulags/prisons/forced starvation.
So you end up with the failures of the system plus the deliberate killings.
The "unintentional deaths" that resulted from the one child policy for instance, where baby girls in their thousands and thousands were killed and/or were sent to death farms.
Maybe the documentry "The Dying Rooms" never reached the US?
I suggest a watch should anyone think communism doesn't slaughter people.
Or how about the Romanian orphanages?
I mean come on, it wasn't that long ago.
And although I know that @ThacoBell is not a communist, how is it not a defence of communism, to put up failures of other systems as a comparison?
And as I pointed out above, that inevitably leads to things like "The Dying Rooms".
The one child policy was driven by the state's attempt to contain the population growth at any cost.
The people didn't matter.
No one is defending communism. Criticizing capitalism is not a defense of communism any more than criticizing Paul is defending Harry. @ThacoBell did not bring up the failures of capitalism as a defense of communism. This is what I mean by putting words in other people's mouths. No one is this thread has claimed that communism hasn't killed people--or even implied that, or even suggested anything remotely similar to it--and it is NOT respectful behavior per the Site Rules to keep insisting that @ThacoBell, or any other forumite, believes something they don't actually believe.
If you want to argue with people who "think communism doesn't slaughter people," go find those people and argue with them instead.
I dont see how that can be proven. There's nothing in a communist of socialist state that requires the purging or killing of its population.
Citing that it happened isnt proof that it was required. I alluded to that fact with my reference to slavery and the genocide in the Congo, where capitalist societies did horrible things, but were compelled only by their lack of morality and not their economic system.
To re-purpose your statement to apply to capitalism, I could try to argue that a capitalist society requires the exploitation of workers by capitalists because the only goal of capitalism is self-enrichment, and making money supersedes all goals.
I dont ascribe to that position because I cannot prove it, just as I do not think one can prove that communism requires murdering its population.
(I made an edit to try to be less direct in my language, since it is not needed).
Sorry but I have to make a correction, the name of the documentry I have referenced is called "The Dying Rooms".
I'll edit the posts but wanted to ensure people realised they had been edited.
Should anybody want to see the documentry it's available on YT, I won't post a link as it is not suitable for this forum.
But yes, Marx didn't command people to kill off counterrevolutionaries or political opponents, and he never predicted the economic catastrophes caused by communist economics. Those problems were incidental and probable rather than inherent and inevitable.
I believe modern Marxism is less reliant on the idea of the bloody transition of the means of production
It's also worth noting that the conversation has sort of missed the mark a little (and I'm definitely partly to blame). One cannot compare capitalism and communism directly with each other, as they're not the same thing. Socialism and capitalism make more sense to compare. Moving the conversation more explicitly to Marxism makes more sense in that regard.
Marxism as a political theory has been reduced to a form of historical, political, or textual analysis. In less technical terms, a Marxist these days is somebody who criticizes something through a materialist lens. In my view, Marxist scholarship is just when you use Marxist terminology when talking about history or politics or whatever, and that's about it. A Marxist scholar might believe that the richest folks on the planet make money simply by controlling the means of production (which... yeah), and that this results in inequality (also yeah), and that profit is more of a zero-sum game than a mutually beneficial exchange (which is debatable), but not believe, like the old-school Marxists believed, that political violence is the solution, that revolution is inevitable, or that profit is entirely a zero-sum game.
Today's Marxists are basically just folks who have a slightly higher opinion of Marx as a thinker and are more cynical about capitalism than most people.
Because I looked it up and judging by the Cambridge and Oxford definitions I reckon those included would run into the millions.
Just saying....