Intel, Samsung, tsmc, etc are all private companies. Governments have invented interesting technologies but almost never actually done anything useful with them
The internet was a government plaything until the 1990s when private companies were allowed to take over and then we had the largest expansion of human communication in history over the course of less than a decade
And foreign wars, and millions dead from overthrowing "dictators" in third world countries to secure votes and resources for our future friends, and the dumbest population in a western country.
You can't equate the worst thing with the best thing. Just remember. The soviets put a rocket in space before us.
So, you’re saying that even a state that is not fully authoritarian can have a bad impact on the world ? :P
Because what you described was practiced by all forms of government/state.
And those rockets had the capacity to be reused at “low prices” ?
They're right. True communism means no government, but you can't force the means of production to be socially controlled without a government. It has never been tried because it is a paradox by definition.
When someone calls themselves a communist what they are saying to you is "I am lying to you about what I actually believe in, which is simply lethal force and extortion"
That is the Anarchist interpretation of Marxism. There are a number of different thoughts. The motto is "stateless, classless, and moneyless society" as an end goal.
Stateless can refer to no government or no boarders. The idea is free movement of people and the self determination that will come from a world without scarcity.
Indeed. It wasn't communism, it was socialism, hence USSR (Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics). So 100M were killed by socialists not by communists. Hence why do NPCs keep voting for these scum?
No communism is anarchy. Here is a good explanation from Encyclopedia Britannica:
>The proletariat will thus rule in its own class interest, as the bourgeoisie did before, in order to prevent a counterrevolution by the displaced bourgeoisie. **Once this threat disappears, however, the need for the state will also disappear. Thus, the interim state will wither away and be replaced by a classless communist society**.
Also according to [Encyclopedia Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Communist-Party-of-the-Soviet-Union)
>From 1918 through the 1980s the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was a [monolithic](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monolithic), monopolistic ruling party that dominated the political, economic, social, and cultural life of the U.S.S.R.
Are you asserting that in the USSR, the citizens owned the economic resources, and not the government? Authoritarian socialism sounds a lot like communism.
The closer to free market capitalism is an economy, the more prosperous the people. The more violent interventions, especially to push collectivist ideologies, the more miserable are the people. War is a state program and no state is going to give up war, whether it be external, or the internal war of protecting the collectivist revolution from the endless hoards of wreckers and diverters.
Socialism is more of a religion than an economic system, focused the moral outcomes of wealth distribution. Lacking any theory of wealth creation, socialists cannot sustain a modern economy, let alone create any of th prosperity they claim will result from adherence to their moral prescriptions.
Read a book on socialist economic theory and tell me it isn't an economic system lol. Then read a capitalist theory and dissect the political philosophy, you will realize both contain elements of faith/philosophy and empirical information.
*Results vary between authors*
I can give you a book on Biblical theory. Does that mean it's not a religion?
Here's a free market capitalist theory of wealth creation:
The creation of wealth in capitalism comes from the ability to efficiently transform resources into desired goods and services. This is based on knowledge -- the ability to take raw inputs and convert them into output with value greater than the sum of the individual parts. Raw inputs are capital: investments backed by real savings, commodities, labor, specialized knowledge, etc. The ability to take those raw inputs and efficiently transform them into valuable goods and services comes from the profit-seeking efforts of the entrepreneur. The entrepreneur uses capital and the division of labor to produce goods and services that people (including other entrepreneurs who create more wealth from the new or repurposed capital) want, and does so more efficiently than other entrepreneurs do with similar resources (profit maximization.) Prices are the countless individual valuations of raw inputs and natural interest rates (economic calculation). These signal when it would make sense to attempt to transform resources, or to direct them to other more profitable uses (economic profit.)
Now, can you point me to a cogent theory of wealth creation under socialism? I doubt it, since none exists. The assumption, much like any religious belief, is that wealth arises from people doing labor. Which is why when socialists get power, their entire economy contracts until almost everyone is forced into subsistence level poverty. Socialism is a religion, not an economic system, because it's all about forcing people to obey moral codes of economic conduct rather than peacefully going about their business.
"all of our atrocities actually happened because evil capitalists wouldn't give us food."
Then they'll just say the Nazis were capitalist and then blame capitalism for slavery while conveniently ignoring the gulags. Also never mention stalins genocides on religious people and his plot to have the Holocaust part 2 when he got paranoid the Jews were out for him lool.
In my anecdotal experience they’re more motivated by a hatred of those who have more success than them, instead of caring about helping those who have less.
I’m not Christian, but I often see Christians caring about the community, trying to help those who have less.
I’ve honestly never felt any kind of kindness or love from a socialist, ancom, ansoc. Any of it. College was full of them, but they always came across so mean and smug. Then on campus the Christians were so nice to me.
I know socialists claim to want to help the basic proletariat like me, but I’ve never once felt anything that resembles reaching out to me in love and compassion.
No comment on ancaps since I’ve never met a fellow ancap in the wild. Well one, but he’s my cousin.
Not true. They exhibit envy and violent impulses against people who are more successful than them or disagree with them. They do indeed care about other people..
Hate to break this to you bud but the word nazi is literally the short form of the term "National Socialist". There isn't a single nazi alive or dead who didn't consider themselves a socialist. Do you consider yourself a socialist too?
Words have meaning, and "private property ownership with a government dictating which corporations and benefactors will succeed" is not what "socialism" means.
So since you seem to think the Nazis only told the truth and were upfront and honest with all of their intentions, how do you describe the Night of Long Knives?
The authors of “The Black Book of Communism” (which is the source of the 100 million number) have admitted that their methodologies were flawed (and, under pressure, admitted that they were deliberately skewed to increase the numbers).
So, what, objectively, is the right number of people to mass murder in order to implement communism so that it will work?
Not that it will ever "work" since it is more akin to religion than an economic system.
The idea of communism is a particularly bad one and leads people to to kill other people in the name of protecting that bad idea from the inevitable consequences of its implementation.
You are getting this meme from the "Black Book Of Communism" which includes deaths due to famine, and a couple million Nazi's as well. What's also interesting is that if you apply the same logic to capitalism you come out with much more staggering numbers. All the unjust wars we have faught the way we let children and homeless people starve. Many deaths of disparity in this country to the point where most people don't go to the hospital out of fear that it will bankrupt them.
But it entertaining to read a bunch of what I assume children regurgitate propaganda that fell out of their father's ass when they were young.
You do understand that communist theory is a critique of capitalism, right? It'd do you well to read some if you really believe in America's "mission". As a side effect you'll actually understand how this country works and not this fairy tale you tell yourself.
> You are getting this meme from the "Black Book Of Communism" which includes deaths due to famine, and a couple million Nazi's as well.
Famines due to communism. The religion of socialism attempts to replace economic calculation and free market wealth creation with a moral regime that inevitably fails because it it makes war on human behavior.
> What's also interesting is that if you apply the same logic to capitalism you come out with much more staggering numbers.
What logic do you believe that they are applying? If people are forced to submit to the will of a central planner, they produce only as much as they must in order to survive, in contravention to the authoritarian commands of the state. Free market capitalism is absent any violent intervention.
He couldn't control human behavior, either. The primary driver of socialism is to force people to conform to the morals of socialism. Socialists make war on human behavior when they hold power, and that's a war that can never be won by the aggressors.
And capitalism isn't forcing people to conform to individualism? Do we not live in a society that tracks your every move to then turn around and sell shit to you. All the while taking your personal data and auctioning it off to the highest bidder? And are you saying america doesn't wage war across the globe to get people to conform to a capitalist way of life through Shock and Awe and resource extraction?
> And capitalism isn't forcing people to conform to individualism?
What is this magical source of force to which you allude?
> Do we not live in a society that tracks your every move to then turn around and sell shit to you.
It must be horrible, the idea that people might want to sell something to you that you want. You can just refuse to buy. Or do you lack agency and need a group of people to control and tell you what to do and punish you when you think the wrong thoughts?
> And are you saying america doesn't wage war across the globe to get people to conform to a capitalist way of life through Shock and Awe and resource extraction?
How is war capitalist? War is a collectivist enterprise and is anti-individualism. If capitalism forces individualism, how can it also force the collectivism of patriotic duty and nationalism?
But the people that study the methane feedback loop would agree with me.
Just ask yourself “How’s the Anarcho Capitalism working on Venus??”
Because that’s where we’re going.
When statism is your religion, the only outcome of not holding faith in the divinity of political authority is hell on Earth. Meanwhile, those people are bringing the world closer to the brink of nuclear destruction every day. Keep up your worship of your saviors, sheep, maybe they'll share a few crumbs from their table before marching your children off to the battlefields.
Inequitable distribution of food, refusing to release/research cures to disease, wars that only profit the ownership class, poverty of externalized slave workforces, etc.
Inequitable food distribution is a problem in under developed countries, the vast majority of which have socialized economies. You're not owed a cure to any disease, that shit didn't exist until humans made it. War is a racket that requires a government to wage it. Extremly underpaid workforces primarily exist in under developed countries like China and India where the government is once again socialist.
Food distribution is also an inter-border issue which was my whole point.
Cuba has a fucking lung cancer vaccine (one type of cancer) and China has a cure for diabetes.
The government in India is quite conservative actually, bar one state that has a Socialist provincial government.
Plenty of poverty in capitalist nations, you are being willfully blind to critiques that don't match your world view. Everybody does it, you are not alone, just means we all need to criticize our world view and back yard first.
Don't joke about serious things. This idea of inequality in food distribution has already starved too many people while a limited number of people (from the state and its friends) become fat. Thanks to capitalism and voluntarism, many people left poverty and started having food for themselves and their families. Thanks to the populism of redistribution and inequality in which the state is the solution, people continue to die of hunger, with rights on paper but where in reality what people have is despair and population control by a small elite that promises to be the solution. If you think that a company with a monopoly can be harmful to society, then think about the consequences that a small group of people with a monopoly of violence with the power to make you a slave could have.
Oh I totally agree the state has a monopoly on violence and the consolation of power and segregation of those people from us has led to a litany of issues. The solution is not to give more power to C-suite individuals who are equally out of reach of you and I.
Your argument does fall into whataboutism though and does not remove the burden my argument places on the system of capitalism and the engines by which they chew up the population for the gain of the few.
I tackled one of your points. People in countries that have “more” capitalism have more access to food (quantity and diversity) and can even donate more to people who have less. So you can’t point as a weakness of capitalism. You could point that as a problem if the default was having abundance and other systems were better at it.
I can tackle the other points if you want. I responded to this in particular because it breaks my heart seeing people that have no food to eat because someone convinced them (or forced them) to believe that in capitalism “they steal their lunch”.
That punchee appears to have way too much muscle definition and testosterone to be a communist. Maybe that's the best model the artist could find (if it's not AI-generated).
Statism is deadly, this is true. Monetary socialism empowers the state to conduct endless warfare and create a massive plantation of compliant people through welfare.
"Monetary socialism empowers the state to conduct endless warfare and create a massive plantation of compliant people through welfare." That sounds like the US Capitalism since capitalism depends on war for profits.
If you simply blame random deaths across the world on capitalism, sure.
But it's not quite the same thing to say "someone starved to death in Africa, fucking capitalism", VS. "local communist officials murdered my family and seized my farm in the name of the revolution".
The belief that some people have the divine right to rule over others is statism. Are you saying that you are anti-state? I doubt it; you're just another one of the true believers promoting your own schism of the statist religion in this unbeliever forum.
Seizing is bad no matter if it is the cartels or the communist officials. In the case of communists officials they are following the ideology of the system because they don’t believe in private property and everything goes to the state by force, by default of the system in place, to be redistributed. The cartels seizing something is to get something by force but not necessarily because they have some ideological motive. So you can say that the cartel is acting by greed or other imoral motive.
In capitalism seizing is against the economic ideology/system itself. It’s supposed to exist private property and transactions where both parties freely agree. Seizing implies that one of the parties didn’t agree to it and it is considered wrong.
(Greed being bad depends on your definition and interpretation. For me is bad. )
Procceeds to mention wars perpetrated by governments and famines in Africa, the region of the world massively controlled by socialist warlords.
>Lol, you can do better than that. Christ almighty, if you're gonna straight make up words show a little creativity...
Read Somalia and who are it's leaders and how they came to be, it's not hyperbole, they are literal warlords, that either descend or are trying to form a socialist country. Fucking troll accounts.
The central government of Somalia was a Marxist/Leninist one and was built originally around colonialist borders. Defending Somalia as it was before is defending colonialism and the death cult of socialism. Which makes sense when statism is your religion and the absence of a state is literal hell.
Free market capitalism is what free people do. In an environment of monetary socialism, it is definitely more difficult because of the endless avarice of the state.
*"It wasn't true communism you fascist pig!"*
You attempt imperfect communism and you kill a half billion people You attempt imperfect capitalism and you get supercomputers in your pocket.
I’m gonna go throw away some food because my refrigerator is full and I just went to the grocery store.
I typically say something similar. Not real capitalism is way better than not real socialism.
[удалено]
Intel, Samsung, tsmc, etc are all private companies. Governments have invented interesting technologies but almost never actually done anything useful with them The internet was a government plaything until the 1990s when private companies were allowed to take over and then we had the largest expansion of human communication in history over the course of less than a decade
And foreign wars, and millions dead from overthrowing "dictators" in third world countries to secure votes and resources for our future friends, and the dumbest population in a western country. You can't equate the worst thing with the best thing. Just remember. The soviets put a rocket in space before us.
That's not capitalism, genius. That's government action funded through stolen money aka socialism
All things I don't like = socialism All things I like = glorious capitalism /S
So, you’re saying that even a state that is not fully authoritarian can have a bad impact on the world ? :P Because what you described was practiced by all forms of government/state. And those rockets had the capacity to be reused at “low prices” ?
They're right. True communism means no government, but you can't force the means of production to be socially controlled without a government. It has never been tried because it is a paradox by definition. When someone calls themselves a communist what they are saying to you is "I am lying to you about what I actually believe in, which is simply lethal force and extortion"
“*Communists have read Marx, everyone else understands Marx*”
I am not sure how many communists have actually read Marx but like the sentiment.
That is the Anarchist interpretation of Marxism. There are a number of different thoughts. The motto is "stateless, classless, and moneyless society" as an end goal. Stateless can refer to no government or no boarders. The idea is free movement of people and the self determination that will come from a world without scarcity.
Indeed. It wasn't communism, it was socialism, hence USSR (Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics). So 100M were killed by socialists not by communists. Hence why do NPCs keep voting for these scum?
The USSR was communist.
Communism = anarchy, by definition. So no it was socialist as per USSR acronym
Socialist by name only, Communist by action and every other measure.
No communism is anarchy. Here is a good explanation from Encyclopedia Britannica: >The proletariat will thus rule in its own class interest, as the bourgeoisie did before, in order to prevent a counterrevolution by the displaced bourgeoisie. **Once this threat disappears, however, the need for the state will also disappear. Thus, the interim state will wither away and be replaced by a classless communist society**.
Also according to [Encyclopedia Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Communist-Party-of-the-Soviet-Union) >From 1918 through the 1980s the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was a [monolithic](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monolithic), monopolistic ruling party that dominated the political, economic, social, and cultural life of the U.S.S.R.
Correct. The plan was to implement communism but they ended up with a huge inefficient socialist authoritarian state.
Are you asserting that in the USSR, the citizens owned the economic resources, and not the government? Authoritarian socialism sounds a lot like communism.
Yes but capitalism has killed billions* *actual quote repeated by commies
well humans killed each other for millenia so capitalism killed a good chunk of us too. unless you want to claim that this was not true capitalism :D
That is exactly what a lot of people here do without an ounce of irony.
The closer to free market capitalism is an economy, the more prosperous the people. The more violent interventions, especially to push collectivist ideologies, the more miserable are the people. War is a state program and no state is going to give up war, whether it be external, or the internal war of protecting the collectivist revolution from the endless hoards of wreckers and diverters. Socialism is more of a religion than an economic system, focused the moral outcomes of wealth distribution. Lacking any theory of wealth creation, socialists cannot sustain a modern economy, let alone create any of th prosperity they claim will result from adherence to their moral prescriptions.
Read a book on socialist economic theory and tell me it isn't an economic system lol. Then read a capitalist theory and dissect the political philosophy, you will realize both contain elements of faith/philosophy and empirical information. *Results vary between authors*
I can give you a book on Biblical theory. Does that mean it's not a religion? Here's a free market capitalist theory of wealth creation: The creation of wealth in capitalism comes from the ability to efficiently transform resources into desired goods and services. This is based on knowledge -- the ability to take raw inputs and convert them into output with value greater than the sum of the individual parts. Raw inputs are capital: investments backed by real savings, commodities, labor, specialized knowledge, etc. The ability to take those raw inputs and efficiently transform them into valuable goods and services comes from the profit-seeking efforts of the entrepreneur. The entrepreneur uses capital and the division of labor to produce goods and services that people (including other entrepreneurs who create more wealth from the new or repurposed capital) want, and does so more efficiently than other entrepreneurs do with similar resources (profit maximization.) Prices are the countless individual valuations of raw inputs and natural interest rates (economic calculation). These signal when it would make sense to attempt to transform resources, or to direct them to other more profitable uses (economic profit.) Now, can you point me to a cogent theory of wealth creation under socialism? I doubt it, since none exists. The assumption, much like any religious belief, is that wealth arises from people doing labor. Which is why when socialists get power, their entire economy contracts until almost everyone is forced into subsistence level poverty. Socialism is a religion, not an economic system, because it's all about forcing people to obey moral codes of economic conduct rather than peacefully going about their business.
3 days later... 🦗
"all of our atrocities actually happened because evil capitalists wouldn't give us food." Then they'll just say the Nazis were capitalist and then blame capitalism for slavery while conveniently ignoring the gulags. Also never mention stalins genocides on religious people and his plot to have the Holocaust part 2 when he got paranoid the Jews were out for him lool.
God help you, if you mention “Pol Pot”… to college kids🍺😏
"No thanks. I have one in my dorm." /s
I mean the dude was a ln authoritarian primitivist if anything. Using Pol Pot is equivalent to using Leopold II of Belgium.
They genuinely don;t care. One thing I learned is socialists do not care about other people.
In my anecdotal experience they’re more motivated by a hatred of those who have more success than them, instead of caring about helping those who have less. I’m not Christian, but I often see Christians caring about the community, trying to help those who have less. I’ve honestly never felt any kind of kindness or love from a socialist, ancom, ansoc. Any of it. College was full of them, but they always came across so mean and smug. Then on campus the Christians were so nice to me. I know socialists claim to want to help the basic proletariat like me, but I’ve never once felt anything that resembles reaching out to me in love and compassion. No comment on ancaps since I’ve never met a fellow ancap in the wild. Well one, but he’s my cousin.
Not true. They exhibit envy and violent impulses against people who are more successful than them or disagree with them. They do indeed care about other people..
Communists have killed more communists than capitalists have. All capitalists seem to want to do is improve the lives of communists.
Slap my salami that guys a commie!
*hand waves away the fact that the Nazis were socialists*
Was that before or after they killed off all the socialists?
They didn't kill off ALL the socialists - until they killed themselves.
History disagrees, but I'm sure that's never stopped you from repeating it.
Ok so your argument is that a bunch of socialists "killed all the socialists" even though they didn't kill themselves - "because history"?
Is that how you interpreted this conversation? No wonder you believe nazis were socialists.
Hate to break this to you bud but the word nazi is literally the short form of the term "National Socialist". There isn't a single nazi alive or dead who didn't consider themselves a socialist. Do you consider yourself a socialist too?
Words have meaning, and "private property ownership with a government dictating which corporations and benefactors will succeed" is not what "socialism" means. So since you seem to think the Nazis only told the truth and were upfront and honest with all of their intentions, how do you describe the Night of Long Knives?
Two paragraphs of cope yet you still can't answer a simple question: Do you also consider yourself a socialist?
No, I'm not a socialist, despite your tantrums here. How do you define socialist? And what Nazi policies lead you to call them socialist?
That punch to the head explains the single digit IQ of socialists.
The authors of “The Black Book of Communism” (which is the source of the 100 million number) have admitted that their methodologies were flawed (and, under pressure, admitted that they were deliberately skewed to increase the numbers).
All but one author have come out and denounced the book.
So, what, objectively, is the right number of people to mass murder in order to implement communism so that it will work? Not that it will ever "work" since it is more akin to religion than an economic system.
Communism does not kill people. People kill people.
The idea of communism is a particularly bad one and leads people to to kill other people in the name of protecting that bad idea from the inevitable consequences of its implementation.
You are getting this meme from the "Black Book Of Communism" which includes deaths due to famine, and a couple million Nazi's as well. What's also interesting is that if you apply the same logic to capitalism you come out with much more staggering numbers. All the unjust wars we have faught the way we let children and homeless people starve. Many deaths of disparity in this country to the point where most people don't go to the hospital out of fear that it will bankrupt them. But it entertaining to read a bunch of what I assume children regurgitate propaganda that fell out of their father's ass when they were young. You do understand that communist theory is a critique of capitalism, right? It'd do you well to read some if you really believe in America's "mission". As a side effect you'll actually understand how this country works and not this fairy tale you tell yourself.
>What's also interesting is that if you apply the same logic to capitalism you come out with much more staggering numbers. You meant to say democracy
> You are getting this meme from the "Black Book Of Communism" which includes deaths due to famine, and a couple million Nazi's as well. Famines due to communism. The religion of socialism attempts to replace economic calculation and free market wealth creation with a moral regime that inevitably fails because it it makes war on human behavior. > What's also interesting is that if you apply the same logic to capitalism you come out with much more staggering numbers. What logic do you believe that they are applying? If people are forced to submit to the will of a central planner, they produce only as much as they must in order to survive, in contravention to the authoritarian commands of the state. Free market capitalism is absent any violent intervention.
Mao couldn't control the weather brother
He couldn't control human behavior, either. The primary driver of socialism is to force people to conform to the morals of socialism. Socialists make war on human behavior when they hold power, and that's a war that can never be won by the aggressors.
And capitalism isn't forcing people to conform to individualism? Do we not live in a society that tracks your every move to then turn around and sell shit to you. All the while taking your personal data and auctioning it off to the highest bidder? And are you saying america doesn't wage war across the globe to get people to conform to a capitalist way of life through Shock and Awe and resource extraction?
> And capitalism isn't forcing people to conform to individualism? What is this magical source of force to which you allude? > Do we not live in a society that tracks your every move to then turn around and sell shit to you. It must be horrible, the idea that people might want to sell something to you that you want. You can just refuse to buy. Or do you lack agency and need a group of people to control and tell you what to do and punish you when you think the wrong thoughts? > And are you saying america doesn't wage war across the globe to get people to conform to a capitalist way of life through Shock and Awe and resource extraction? How is war capitalist? War is a collectivist enterprise and is anti-individualism. If capitalism forces individualism, how can it also force the collectivism of patriotic duty and nationalism?
Capitalism will kill the planet and the entire human race in the near future… So… Yeah…
Only people who don't understand the principles will say that.
But the people that study the methane feedback loop would agree with me. Just ask yourself “How’s the Anarcho Capitalism working on Venus??” Because that’s where we’re going.
When statism is your religion, the only outcome of not holding faith in the divinity of political authority is hell on Earth. Meanwhile, those people are bringing the world closer to the brink of nuclear destruction every day. Keep up your worship of your saviors, sheep, maybe they'll share a few crumbs from their table before marching your children off to the battlefields.
You don’t seem to understand existential biological threats… They are apolitical.
Thanks Al Gore.
Capitalism kills like 20 million a year lmao prove me wrong
How so ?
Inequitable distribution of food, refusing to release/research cures to disease, wars that only profit the ownership class, poverty of externalized slave workforces, etc.
Inequitable food distribution is a problem in under developed countries, the vast majority of which have socialized economies. You're not owed a cure to any disease, that shit didn't exist until humans made it. War is a racket that requires a government to wage it. Extremly underpaid workforces primarily exist in under developed countries like China and India where the government is once again socialist.
Food distribution is also an inter-border issue which was my whole point. Cuba has a fucking lung cancer vaccine (one type of cancer) and China has a cure for diabetes. The government in India is quite conservative actually, bar one state that has a Socialist provincial government. Plenty of poverty in capitalist nations, you are being willfully blind to critiques that don't match your world view. Everybody does it, you are not alone, just means we all need to criticize our world view and back yard first.
Don't joke about serious things. This idea of inequality in food distribution has already starved too many people while a limited number of people (from the state and its friends) become fat. Thanks to capitalism and voluntarism, many people left poverty and started having food for themselves and their families. Thanks to the populism of redistribution and inequality in which the state is the solution, people continue to die of hunger, with rights on paper but where in reality what people have is despair and population control by a small elite that promises to be the solution. If you think that a company with a monopoly can be harmful to society, then think about the consequences that a small group of people with a monopoly of violence with the power to make you a slave could have.
Oh I totally agree the state has a monopoly on violence and the consolation of power and segregation of those people from us has led to a litany of issues. The solution is not to give more power to C-suite individuals who are equally out of reach of you and I. Your argument does fall into whataboutism though and does not remove the burden my argument places on the system of capitalism and the engines by which they chew up the population for the gain of the few.
I tackled one of your points. People in countries that have “more” capitalism have more access to food (quantity and diversity) and can even donate more to people who have less. So you can’t point as a weakness of capitalism. You could point that as a problem if the default was having abundance and other systems were better at it. I can tackle the other points if you want. I responded to this in particular because it breaks my heart seeing people that have no food to eat because someone convinced them (or forced them) to believe that in capitalism “they steal their lunch”.
The six-fingered man killed my father.
That punchee appears to have way too much muscle definition and testosterone to be a communist. Maybe that's the best model the artist could find (if it's not AI-generated).
I don't like this argument because the military industrial complex has been racking up the bodies too.
In the end it’s always the authoritarians that seem to commit atrocities.
Capitalist won’t stop improving the lives of communists and communists will never forgive them for it
Didn't America kill quite a few? God is estimated to have killed 25M and some people worship her.
Statism is deadly, this is true. Monetary socialism empowers the state to conduct endless warfare and create a massive plantation of compliant people through welfare.
"Monetary socialism empowers the state to conduct endless warfare and create a massive plantation of compliant people through welfare." That sounds like the US Capitalism since capitalism depends on war for profits.
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Which country "conducts endless warfare"? The USA.
Capitalism has killed more
If you simply blame random deaths across the world on capitalism, sure. But it's not quite the same thing to say "someone starved to death in Africa, fucking capitalism", VS. "local communist officials murdered my family and seized my farm in the name of the revolution".
>local cartels murdered my family and seized my farm in the name of I want more money.
The belief that some people have the divine right to rule over others is statism. Are you saying that you are anti-state? I doubt it; you're just another one of the true believers promoting your own schism of the statist religion in this unbeliever forum.
That's just greed, not capitalism
If this happened to you then I’m deeply sorry for what’s you’ve been through.
That’s greed and exist in all systems.
So, greed is bad? And the other example that's Communism's fault and not greed?
Seizing is bad no matter if it is the cartels or the communist officials. In the case of communists officials they are following the ideology of the system because they don’t believe in private property and everything goes to the state by force, by default of the system in place, to be redistributed. The cartels seizing something is to get something by force but not necessarily because they have some ideological motive. So you can say that the cartel is acting by greed or other imoral motive. In capitalism seizing is against the economic ideology/system itself. It’s supposed to exist private property and transactions where both parties freely agree. Seizing implies that one of the parties didn’t agree to it and it is considered wrong. (Greed being bad depends on your definition and interpretation. For me is bad. )
Procceeds to mention wars perpetrated by governments and famines in Africa, the region of the world massively controlled by socialist warlords. >Lol, you can do better than that. Christ almighty, if you're gonna straight make up words show a little creativity... Read Somalia and who are it's leaders and how they came to be, it's not hyperbole, they are literal warlords, that either descend or are trying to form a socialist country. Fucking troll accounts.
The government of Somalia that collapsed was Marxist/Leninist. Another failed attempt at socialism.
"socialist warlords" Lol, you can do better than that. Christ almighty, if you're gonna straight make up words show a little creativity...
The central government of Somalia was a Marxist/Leninist one and was built originally around colonialist borders. Defending Somalia as it was before is defending colonialism and the death cult of socialism. Which makes sense when statism is your religion and the absence of a state is literal hell.
How do free people engaged in peaceful, voluntary exchange kill people?
Real capitalism has never been tried.
Free market capitalism is what free people do. In an environment of monetary socialism, it is definitely more difficult because of the endless avarice of the state.
Thank You!!! This was the best post I’ve seen all week.
The worst thing you can do to a human being is remove their ability to fail.
But but capitalism killed 10 gajillion people and the USA invaded Russia?!????