84
59

The moral "high ground" of Capitalism

27d 9h ago by lemmy.ml/u/Confidant6198 in memes@lemmy.ml from lemmy.ml

Sigh. (Not at you, dessalines). The USA is a fucking disgrace.

Another Dessalines list to save.
Thank you for your always valuable contributions.

Capitalism moral is an oximoron

Okay sure, but what about all those poor germans killed in the 1940s? And have you accounted for all the children they would have potentially had, but never had the chance? In actual fact every persons reproductive capacity far exceeds what a regular person could acheive under normal conditions, the sperm and egg count should also be included

And what about the people killed for being communists, have you accounted for them?

Yeh i didn't think so, adjust your graph, 666 quint-gorjillion, checkmate, I am very smart, 3D chess

this message is brought to you by the national endowment for democracy

This is unironically any interaction with some Fins or Balts here.

The slave trade alone, jayzus...

Easy to have moral high ground when you can just blame all the deaths for their "laziness"

Yeah, capitalism sucks

Capitalism is dominant and longer used than Communism. The total amount of deaths is naturally higher. It doesn't tell anything about the actual amount of deaths communism could have, if it is active in the same capacity and amount of time, this plot would be more interesting.

And just to make things clear, I am not taking a position for any of the two. I just think this argument is not representative.

They'll ignore this and just claim that the deaths were covered up.

0 Covid Deaths in North Korea, and your response is to laugh at people for not trusting the numbers??? Alright then buddy.

Do you think it's particularly difficult to shut off all incoming traffic in the DPRK?

The whole country is the size of like Colorado

Yep, that helps too

Sounds about right, thanks to the US they've been quarantining for decades lol covid was a walk in the fucking park

Fair point, but capitalism is broad and includes actions done in the 1600s by groups such as the East India Company. While communism is a small group of 20th/21st century countries

You can't have opinions like that. You have to choose sides. /S

Are we counting the deaths from the the famine caused by the Chinese Great Leap Forward lead by the communist party?

Communism sounds good but it depends on who leading to make good decisions. I would not want a communist system under Donald Trump

In communism the whole makes the individual. In capitalism the individual makes the whole

This is a bit silly. The famine in China was largely a result of natural disasters, the communists ended famine in a region that had them historically. Further, socialist systems are comprehensively democratic, and cannot be led by a single person unilaterally. Even with party leaders and whatnot, socialist governance is collective.

Are there any examples of democratic communism?

They both have one function and that is to spread resources best. Capitalism let the free market decide how much something is worth. Your labor is decided by how much someone will pay and you decide what you want to eat for dinner with the free market and decide what livestock or plants get planted in the following year based on what people will buy.

Communism relies on a central planner. Someone that could be hundreds of miles away from you. You think they will know what resources you need? What if that person was Donald Trump deciding for you?

Btw, communism and socialism are was more protective. So low immigration, less tolerance.

All socialist systems thus far have been democratic.

Regarding capitalism, you're referring to an idyllic, fantasy version of capitalism. In the real world, capitalists already control the means of production and distribution, so workers sell the only commodity they can: their labor-power. Since the capitalists hold all of the cards, the price of labor-power is pressed downward towards the customary social price of reproduction, ie as little as possible to prevent revolt while still taking up a full day of labor most days a week to survive.

As for socialism, central planning involves local planning as well. The idea of a single planner hand-planning an entire economy is a farce designed to strawman socialism. In reality, economic planning is already heavily employed in businesses like Amazon, who predict demand and plan production accordingly. Central planning isn't some pie in the sky idea, it worked in the USSR very well, and continues to work in socialist countries today.

The three communist/socialist countries I know is China, Vietnam and North Korea and the general public do NOT elect their president. They do vote for local representatives but don’t vote for president. It’s like voting for a city board member who then vote for city mayor who then votes for state governor who then gets to vote for president.

Labor is not the workers only commodity. Workers in USA own land, they own 401ks, they have private businesses that employ others. Which btw, you only lease land from the government in China. You do not own land. Also, China only saw prosperity after adopting capitalist style business models.

Who are the capitalist you’re talking about? Everyone in USA is a capitalist when we go grocery shopping or buy a new car. We the people decide market price.

Explain Moa, explain Kim Jung un.

The DPRK actually does have direct elections at all levels for government positions, but regardless, democracy is not "has direct elections," it's rule by the majority.

As for "workers" owning capital, this makes them petite bourgeoisie, in essence petty capitalists. The US Empire is an imperialist country, and so is able to bribe the working classes into siding with capital using the spoils from the global south. Having a business and paying others to work for you, without needing to labor yourself, is being a capitalist, not a worker.

As for the US, going to the store does not make you a capitalist, it makes you a consumer. The people do not decide the price, what decides the price of commodities is the socially necessary labor time going into the commodity, as well as factors like rent, supply and demand, and more that cause price to fluctuate around their values. People do not just think "I will pay 1 dollar for a car" and get it, cost of production is what has the biggest impact on price.

As for leasing land in China, this is why 90% of people own their home there.

I would not want a communist system under Donald Trump

But Trump is openly a Capitalist?
If current Trump could lead such a system, would that be a communist systne? Or would it remain as a communist system?

In communism the whole makes the individual. In capitalism the individual makes the whole

Wouldn't Communism have both, since it has dialectics?

Socialism/communism are systems, not individuals. Technically you could have, say, Cuba with Trump as president. It would be farcical, but one person alone is not the system.

As for communism having dialectics, that's not the right conception of dialectics. Dialectical materialism is the world outlook of communists, not a feature of socialist/communist systems.

Technically you could have, say, Cuba with Trump as president. It would be farcical, but one person alone is not the system.

If Trump, as he is now, becomes president of the system, then that means that the system is likely in great crisis or decay.

As for communism having dialectics, that's not the right conception of dialectics. Dialectical materialism is the world outlook of communists, not a feature of socialist/communist systems.

Well, if dialectical materialism is used to reach communism, it will still be taught to handle other issues and maintain communism, right?

Would it be less needed after class contradictions are resolved? But there maybe other contradictions remaining, right?

Regarding Trump over Cuba, yes, it would indeed be a great crisis. He wouldn't get elected in the first place.

As for dialectical materialism, it's universally applicable. It's used for science, historical analysis, etc. Even after the class struggle is resolved, there will still be contradictions, as all motion and development is caused by contradiction.

I mean both are bad

Communism is good, and necessary.

Both communism and capitalism led to famine. I.e the great leap forward

Communism led to the elimination of famine in areas where famine was historically common.

Oh like the genocidal holodomor

The 1930s famine wasn't a genocide, but yes, this was the last major famine outside of war time in a region where famine was common. Collectivizing agriculture and advancing in industrialization ended food insecurity.

Raphael lemkin the guy who initiated the genocide convention said

"is a classic example of the Soviet genocide, the longest and most extensive experiment in Russification, namely the extermination of the Ukrainian nation". Lemkin stated that it consisted of four steps:

Extermination of the Ukrainian national elite, "the brain of the nation", which took place in 1920, 1926 and 1930–1933

Liquidation of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church, "the soul of the nation", which occurred between 1926 and 1932 and during which 10,000 of its priests were killed. Lemkin highlighted that before liquidation, the Church was offered the opportunity to join the Russian Patriarchate, which Lemkin argues "indicates that the only goal of this action was Russification."

Extermination of a significant part of the Ukrainian peasantry as "custodians of traditions, folklore and music, national language and literature, and the national spirit" (the Holodomor itself)

Populating the territory with other nationalities with intent of mixing Ukrainians with them, which would eventually lead to the dissolution of the Ukrainian nation.

No, it was not. Once discovered that a famine was occuring, the soviets did what they could to prevent and alleviate it once it had started. The idea of an intentional famine is simply fringe among contemporary historians, same with claims of white genocide in South Africa. For example, serious bourgeois academic sources tend to say it was a failure of planning, rather than intentional and genocide. For instance, Mark Tauger wrote:

[data] indicate that the famine was real, the result of a failure of economic policy, of the 'revolution from above,' rather than of a 'successful' nationality policy against Ukrainians or other ethnic groups.

Tauger believes it was a failure of economic policy, not an intentional attack on ethnic Ukrainians. The 1930s famine was a combination of drought, flooding, and mismanagement. Further, the Kulaks, wealthy bourgeois farmers, magnified matters by killing their own crops in the midst of a famine rather than letting the Red Army collectivize them. The Politburo was also kept in the dark about how bad the famine was getting:

From: Archive of the President of the Russian Federation. Fond 3, Record Series 40, File 80, Page 58.

Excerpt from the protocol number of the meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist party (Bolsheviks) “Regarding Measures to Prevent Failure to Sow in Ukraine, March 16th, 1932.

The Political Bureau believes that shortage of seed grain in Ukraine is many times worse than what was described in comrade Kosior’s telegram; therefore, the Political Bureau recommends the Central Committee of the Communist party of Ukraine to take all measures within its reach to prevent the threat of failing to sow [field crops] in Ukraine.

Signed: Secretary of the Central Committee – J. STALIN

Letter to Joseph Stalin from Stanislaw Kosior, 1st secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine regarding the course and the perspectives of the sowing campaign in Ukraine, April 26th, 1932.

There are also isolated cases of starvation, and even whole villages [starving]; however, this is only the result of bungling on the local level, deviations [from the party line], especially in regard of kolkhozes. All rumours about “famine” in Ukraine must be unconditionally rejected. The crucial help that was provided for Ukraine will give us the opportunity to eradicate all such outbreaks [of starvation].

Letter from Joseph Stalin to Stanislaw Kosior, 1st secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, April 26th, 1932.

Comrade Kosior!

You must read attached summaries. Judging by this information, it looks like the Soviet authority has ceased to exist in some areas of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Can this be true? Is the situation in villages in Ukraine this bad? Where are the operatives of the OGPU [Joint Main Political Directorate], what are they doing?

Could you verify this information and inform the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist party about taken measures.

Sincerely, J. Stalin

Muggeridge and Jones reported on the famine. Völkischer Beobachter reported on it as intentional, and then spread the story around further. Why would the soviets try to starve their own people? It was because of the soviets and collectivization of agriculture that famine was ended, and that's why outside of wartime the 1930s famine was the final famine in those regions, with life expectancies doubling.

Overall, trying to hold on to red scare historiography does absolutely nothing to help the cause of socialism. The soviet archives have provided a wealth of knowledge largely affirming the communist narrative, and debunking liberal and fascist narratives about existing socialism.

Further, the Ukrainian nation was supported by the soviets, to the point that they were often accused of being biased! There was no Russification, instead the soviets promoted a Soviet identity alongside national identities, to protect the identities of the nations while also unifying them.

Returning to the 1930s famine, as I showed above the Central Committee was kept in the dark by the Ukrainian communists as to the famine. They tried to save face by telling the Central Committee that everything was fine and under control, but this was not the case. Drought, flooding, and kulaks burning their crops and killing their livestock as protest against collectivization had destroyed output, and the soviets were still exporting grain in order to trade for industrial equipment with the west (which is what the west wanted in exchange for industrial equipment).

Upon learning the truth of how bad it was getting, the Central Committee was furious. The officials responsible in Ukraine were held accountable, hundreds of tractors and other farming equipment was directed to Ukraine, as well as 17 million poods (14ish kg/pood) of grain were redirected towards Ukraine. The Central Committee had been deciding policy based on the reports they were recieving, and these reports were falsified to protect the Ukrainian communist party leadership.

Had famine been the goal, no aid would have been given at all, or perhaps token aid. Sending hundreds of millions of kg of grain to Ukraine is no petty tribute, and punishing Ukrainian party leaders that lied and facilitated famine was the correct course of action for such treason. Counter-revolutionary is correct! They had put their own skin above the peasantry.

In all of this, there was absolutely no reason to have intentionally created a famine. The USSR needed grain for industrial equipment and to feed its people, it would not have sabotaged output deliberately. On top of this, there was existing accusations of the soviets overly supporting Ukrainian national identity, Lenin had given them the Donbass region and in an effort to overturn the Tsar's oppression the soviets highly valued national identity and self-determination.

There is no real evidence of deliberate starvation or creation of famine. All that exists is evidence of tragedy, weather adversity, class conflict between kulaks and the peasantry, and mismanagement in part by the Ukrainian communists and in part caused by disinformation fed to the Central Committee, which changed how they treated Ukraine. Again, they needed grain for industrialization, which they saw as necessary for defense (and this was proven correct as the rapid industrialization in the 20s and 30s is what enabled soviet victory over the Nazis in the 40s).

Raphael Lemkin was a Zionist all his life

The biography of Raphael Lemkin has emerged of late as a highly contested lieu de memoire in charged political debates in Europe, the United States and the Middle East about the meaning, past and present, of the Holocaust and genocide. At the same time, scholars have attempted to demythologize Lemkin by reinscribing his life into its pre-World War II Polish context. Yet thus far no one has identified the precise political activities and affiliations that shaped Lemkin’s concept of genocide. In this article, I show that Lemkin, far from being a Jewish Bundist, a Polish nationalist or an apolitical cosmopolitan, was an active member of the interwar Polish Zionist movement, from which he drew the ideas that inspired his idea of the crime of genocide.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2017.1349645

The academic and popular fixation on Raphael Lemkin confuses biography with historical explanation of the genocide concept. An actual intellectual history of genocide needs to attend to his context rather than rely on his misleading autobiography, Totally Unofficial. His conception of humanity as comprising distinct nationalities did not originate in the liberal cosmopolitanism he postulated upon arriving in the USA, but in a lifelong Zionist commitment to Jewish statehood in Palestine.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/problems-of-genocide/many-types-of-destruction/0C2D5A99FDE59DC3912A148C23A7678E

LOL

The famine during the great leap forward wasn't due to communism though? It was due to China being a backward country thanks to the century of humiliation (caused by capitalism) leading to lacking the necessary technical knowledge (there's a reason it was the last famine China ever had).

It was a rapid industrialization attempt by the CPC

Ah I didn't realise industrialising was a communist policy or that industrialising caused famine.

The actual reasons for the famine in reality were natural causes mixed with agricultural plans made with poor agronomic knowledge due to the backwardness of the country coming from the century of humiliation and a degree of poor reporting tradition held over from the feudal and landlord years.

None of these are "communist policy".

I had a professor who explained this (as well as I can remember so long after) that the people over-reported yields because they wanted to please Mao (not out of fear of punishment, but out of gratitude). Is that what you mean by poor reporting, or was this professor off-base?

To say 0 of this happened would definitely be untrue but I would say that coming from a time of sadistic landlord/warlord rule and the Aristocracy before that who could and would torture and murder you and possibly your family if your reports displeased them was a larger contributing factor as habits and traditions built up around saving you from this fate would be incredibly hard to shake in such a short time. A beaten dog in a new loving home still flinches at sudden movements. But also if you think of the wider culture such necessity would foster, of reporting accurate information being entirely secondary to pleasing the one being reported (generally at threat of terrible painful torture and or death). This culture of pleasing the one being reported to being more important than the actual information feeds back into both points anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Red_Banners

This was directly linked to the great leap forward

Please actually read what I'm saying. I'm not denying famine happened but the actual causes were not issues with communism or even related to communism but a mix of natural issues and hold over problems from the preceding years that left the country lacking agronomic knowledge and with a tradition of poor reporting to please feudal lords and landlords due to risk of retribution rather than convey accurate information.

Also you should avoid linking NATOpedia it only serves to demean yourself.

The century of humiliation did play a part in it, but it was also a direct reaction to Soviet development polices and of the single party state. Also wikipedia is reliable and it doesn't worship N.A.T.O as you believe

wikipedia is reliable

I have seen them cite Radio Free Asia on multiple occasions. Alongside Epstein island visiting Ghislaine Maxwell best friend Sebag Montefiore also famous for lying about viewing soviet archives. If that's what you take to be reliable then honestly wow I have no words...

it was also a direct reaction to Soviet development polices and of the single party state.

Word salad. The industrialisation was but again industrialisation doesn't cause famine generally.

The 3 core factors were natural events, lack of knowledge due to backwardness, and poor reporting traditions.

And again none of these 3 things are communist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

They pushed for the creation of people's communes during the great leap forward. Which directly contributed to the famine.

"The early 1950s saw the establishment of agricultural cooperatives, yet these changes brought mixed outcomes. However, the push towards rapid industrialization and the establishment of people's communes in rural areas were central to the Great Leap Forward, reflecting the government's belief that collectivization and large-scale projects would boost agricultural and industrial outputs. The communes were meant to centralize farming and labor, supposedly leading to increased efficiency and output; still, in reality, and practice, these measures often disrupted traditional farming practices and led to decreased productivity. Dali Yang stated, "The initial stages of collectivization brought chaos and inefficiency, with agricultural productivity often declining"."

And since communes were meant to be a form of collectivization. The communes were infact communist

The fact you link Wikipedia to talk about how Wikipedia is reliable is genuinely amazing. "The CIA is so trustworthy they even told me themselves how they only use the best sources"/s. Entirely unserious person.

Again the communes were not the issue communal farming works as shown by it working post famine the issue was the implementation of new farming techniques while lacking the necessary agronomic knowledge to effectively do so. This failing was then worsened by natural disaster and poor reporting tradition as the actual material driving factors of famine. Have you considered actually thinking before posting?

That's their citation standards they also have a page that says Wikipedia should not cite itself. One time I vandalized a random article by changing how old a river was. I was banned from editing for 3 years

And still the one party state need to rapidly industrialize was a driving cause. We can't forget about the anti-intellectual polices can we?

That’s their citation standards they also have a page that says Wikipedia should not cite itself.

Again what they say about themselves is irrelevant. The fact is they constantly cite RFA, scumbag frauds like Montefiore and other entirely unreliable or dare I say dogshit sources. The fact they say they really don't doesn't change that.

We can’t forget about the anti-intellectual polices can we?

What do you think lacking agronomic knowledge means? Are you a complete fucking idiot or have you not been reading what I've been saying?

And still the one party state need to rapidly industrialize was a driving cause.

And still this is meaningless words salad that says nothing about what actually caused the famine. Which was again lacking agronomic knowledge, natural disaster and poor reporting traditions.

No it's that the party promoted anti intellectual polices not just a lack of knowledge.

The one party state, which was a byproduct of the revolution, led numerous terrible policies due to absolute authority of the party. I.e eliminate sparrows campaign, the four pest campaign in general, and overall inefficiency in a planned economy.

No it’s that the party promoted anti intellectual polices not just a lack of knowledge.

What do you think leads people to promoting anti intellectual policy? Maybe the fact they lacked the knowledge to promote effective policy at the time due to the country being mostly made up of illiterate peasants? How are you this much of an idiot? Do you not think anything through before you post?

inefficiency in a planned economy.

So inefficient it brought the USSR from backwater to superpower in under 50 years and did the same for China. Ronald Reagan is that you?

eliminate sparrows campaign, the four pest campaign

And again we're back to lacking agronomic knowledge etc etc. 🤦‍♂️ 😮‍💨

I understand you have an ideological conviction and years of western chauvinism that are forcing you to try twist this but genuinely the levels of idiocy you are going to is amazing.

Can it be called anti intellectual by not having the necessary knowledge?

The sparrow thing was a fiasco but was based on something no? They had a hypothesis and test it.

Honestly I don't think the semantics of it are overly important is it technically anti intellectual if you simply don't know better probably not but was the wide roll out without real testing anti intellectual possibly, but in the end it all comes down to the 3 core factors which were the natural disasters, immense lack of agronomic knowledge, and poor reporting traditions what exactly you call them is not as important I think.

Regardless of what Wikipedia says about itself, it favors imperial core perspectives, firstly because English-language Wikipedia is dominated by editors of the Five Eyes states, but also because of its funders and leadership.

Meet Wikipedia’s Ayn Rand-loving founder and Wikimedia Foundation’s regime-change operative CEO

Almost like English is the dominant language and I linked the English wikipedia.

Does your vague snark have an actual point?