Primitive accumulation is a bad term. It works if you've read the theory behind it, but otherwise it sounds like someone saving up a bunch of money then starting a successful business compared to what it is which was colonial genocide, enclosure of the commons, and mass starvation as people were ripped from agricultural labor and cast into the factories and mines to work for feudal lords turned industrial capitalists.
Damn this third person never heard about the reserve army of labor, the tendency for the rate of profit to fall, and like all of American history showing the hollowing out of working class power. JUST INVEST YOUR NON-EXISTENT SAVINGS INTO NEW COMPANIES ITS SO EASY. And please how will your worker coop survive in this hellscape with a bourgeois state over it? It will be outcompeted and swallowed immediately by corporations who have no qualms over worker or environmental rights. This isn't china, Huawei (a worker coop) is villified and attacked at every turn here. You know maybe you have a point, let's be more like China.
There is no point in engaging with someone playing such games. They're not going to be convinced when they're already putting words in the opposition's mouth.
Markets have brought more people out of poverty than anything.
Yes, just like the Irish people who were "helped" by the free market in the 1840s. Or the Indian people who were "helped" by the free market in the late 1800s. You might be interested in this book by the late, great Mike Davis which completely refutes your ideas with hard evidence that the free market can be used (and has been used) as a tool of genocide: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/7859
The maoist uprising against the landlords was the largest and most comprehensive proletarian revolution in history, and led to almost totally-equal redistribution of land among the peasantry
I think it is important to take a critical look at past tragedies and mistakes, and work hard to avoid them in the future. Unfortunately I fear that many people would repeat them if given the opportunity and it served their idealogical and/or selfish interests, unless it was more convenient to do the right thing.
They eliminated famine in their own borders ... after causing famine in their own borders. Congratulations, I guess?
International efforts to deliver food aid to those most in need are typically hampered by war, not by a lack of food. Real supply & demand issues caused by poor yields, conflicts & other supply chain disruptions often drive up prices which hits the poor the hardest, but we haven't had a global food shortage in a long time.
There are A LOT of problems out there, I agree. There is, however, a difference between destroying a country/regions ability to produce essential and strategic goods (like food, which has very immediate effect) through reckless decisions by authoritarian regimes (then throw in the Holodomor for fun), and inequality & a lack of social safety nets.
Right now, the whole world has, through various efforts, has solved the global food production issue. That the soviets and china managed to solve this aspect of it too is not a win for socialism, especially given the mass starvation that accompanied their efforts, but I see (and correct me if I have misunderstood) you and others holding this up as some kind of tenuous proof of superiority.
Social inequality and the denial of what I believe are basic human rights (food, housing, safety, access to healthcare, and freedom of expression), OTOH, are a continuing problem world-wide. I am much more interested in efforts here - both local, regional, and global.
The holodomor was the famine you doofus. It was also not an action taken deliberately by the Soviet government, and historians and scholars agree that the holodomor didn't target Ukraine specifically - it was instead a famine that.hit the Soviet Union as a result of years of war. Do you not know your hostory?
Here is where a disagreement starts. Yes, there was a widespread famine (and not just in Ukraine).. but it was, as recognised by many scholars, made far more deadly in parts of Ukraine by decrees from above. Collectivisation caused the wider famine, and callous decisions resulted in deliberate starvation of some. This is not something anyone should celebrate or diminish, even though the situation vastly improved in later years.
Note: I'm travelling today, so most responses will have to wait. Have a good one.
edit long after the fact: For future readers, here is a ukrainian viewpoint of the Holodomor: https://www.rferl.org/a/historican-anne-applebaum-interview-ukraine-holodomor-famine-stalin/28756181.html
Thanks for the links. I've been reading. It is not far off my understanding. It's novel to me that anyone claims that the famine itself was deliberate. I've never heard anyone claiming that before.
Anyway, I noticed that https://lb.ua/news/2010/01/14/19793_nalivaychenko_nazval_kolichestvo_zh.html says 10 million, while https://hexbear.net/post/20004 links to it and claims it says 4 million. I guess the wayback machine should be checked.
My day was long, I'm tired, and there is more to read. I'll have to re-read your previous comments to find the Q that interests you.
I engage with an upvote. If there's something more to be said, I'll say it. An unfortunate side effect is that those good comments get drowned out by nonsense initiated by ... hexbears, and then further upvoted by hexbears. It doesn't seem like an effective strategy to me, but if that is what y'all want to do, you can. It will probably lead to more of the same, along with more complaints, instances defederating, and personal user & instance blocks.
And now you turn to name calling and making further assumptions about me? Sigh.
There are threads that end with good comments or arguments, either because they are solid (eg. class struggle is never ending) or funny. They don't need me to pat them on the head.
"you libs", "you smuglords".. do you really think that pluralizing an assumption or insult makes it less of one? This could be some weird use of the English language that I'm not familiar with, but it reads the same to me, and comes across as rude and dismissive. I have engaged extensively with you here and elsewhere ... in good faith. I have not resorted to insults. I've left open the possibility for simple misunderstandings, giving you the possibility to explain. I don't think you are arguing in bad faith, but I suspect that you have reached some limit and are falling back to bad habits.
An observation of mine: You and some other hexbears seem to throw around the term "libs" as an insult whenever someone doesn't agree with you, and often prematurely. To me, this comes across as a cop-out, and as a way of stroking your own egos without adding value.
I also think that you have developed your own "common knowledge" in relative isolation, and often have trouble explaining/justifying it outside of the hexbear community. Instead, a lot seems meme-ified and is repeated without thought.
I will continue to encourage people to explain or argue their case. I will also continue trying to be open and inclusive, and advocating for dialogue.
If we were talking amongst ourselves you'd be right but here we're responding to a liberal OP who doesn't know what words mean and purposefully worded their intent to avoid the word "capitalism"
Obviously it is a counterfactual but no serious leftist would say that China without market reforms wouldn't have eradicated poverty, and moreover done it faster and more completely. The seeds of poverty alleviation were planted during the Maoist era; improvement in health, education improvement, and industrialization.
To corroborate your point you can just look at life expectancy in rural communities to see that it rose steadily throughout the Maoist period and then froze during the Dengist reforms
Did you know that China is responsible for 75% of the global poverty reduction over the last 40 years?
Over the past 40 years, the number of people in China with incomes below $1.90 per day – the International Poverty Line as defined by the World Bank to track global extreme poverty– has fallen by close to 800 million. With this, China has contributed close to three-quarters of the global reduction in the number of people living in extreme poverty. At China’s current national poverty line, the number of poor fell by 770 million over the same period.
Do you know how China got such a huge poverty by the 1980s? Do you know how China got the wealth to start impacting it's poverty?
Hint: the CCP took power in 1949. The Maoist era ended 30 years later, and massive economic liberalisation reforms started.
China today is a world trade powerhouse governed by an elite class (The CCP) with the proles given just enough to keep them where they are. It's lifted them out of poverty, but it is the shining example of a totalitarian capitist state. If anybody thinks the proletariat have power in China, and it is therefore a socialist state...or that it's classless with no elite and a communist state... well... You need to talk to some Chinese people.
Nuh, uh. Markets controlled by Oligarchs who spend billions to erode social safety nets do. A market socialist economy with strong regulations and systems like a UBI wouldn't create poverty, while still being a market (albeit a very different one to what we have today). Albeit I do think that for many things (like healthcare) having a market of any kind is just dumb.
I said market socialist. In a market socialist economy there would be no billionaires. Also housing is an absolute necessity, which means it shouldn't be governed by a market at all, no matter the economic system. Only things outside of staple foods, a roof over your head, utilities, drinking water, healthcare and other things absolutely necessary for your continued survival, can (not should) be governed by a market, and one that doesn't funnel money upwards.
Capitalism in any form is absolutely horrible and should not exist.
Also, creating artificial demand should be banned.
The bias is justified. The left is correct. Markets don't create wealth without necessarily simultaneously creating poverty
For more information, research "surplus army of labor", "primitive accumulation", and "accumulation by dispossession".
Primitive accumulation is a bad term. It works if you've read the theory behind it, but otherwise it sounds like someone saving up a bunch of money then starting a successful business compared to what it is which was colonial genocide, enclosure of the commons, and mass starvation as people were ripped from agricultural labor and cast into the factories and mines to work for feudal lords turned industrial capitalists.
I agree but in this context I'm literally telling them to read about it.
I was just summarizing for the people who are too lazy to go read anything and will just stop here
Ah gotcha
Well that's just bullshit. Markets have brought more people out of poverty than anything.
Capitalism literally requires poverty to even function.
Lib - "Markets make everything cheaper, which is good."
Leftist - "But if there is a labor market, won't that make labor cheaper?"
Lib - "Yes, and that is good."
Leftist - "How is that good?"
Lib - "It leads to more profits."
Leftist - "But why is it good to have more profits?"
Lib - "Because a good country is when corporations make profits, and the more profits the corporations make, the gooder the country is."
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Damn this third person never heard about the reserve army of labor, the tendency for the rate of profit to fall, and like all of American history showing the hollowing out of working class power. JUST INVEST YOUR NON-EXISTENT SAVINGS INTO NEW COMPANIES ITS SO EASY. And please how will your worker coop survive in this hellscape with a bourgeois state over it? It will be outcompeted and swallowed immediately by corporations who have no qualms over worker or environmental rights. This isn't china, Huawei (a worker coop) is villified and attacked at every turn here.
You know maybe you have a point, let's be more like China.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Kid: "Mommy, what's a strawman?"
Mother: "Take a look a this post here. See how they speak for both sides of the argument?"
Kid: "Yes, they're arguing with themselves."
Mother: "Exactly, and they can make their opponent say what they want."
Kid: "That seems like an easy way to make your argument look good"
Mother: "Yes. It's like fighting someone who can't put up any resistance. They could be made of straw. A strawman. "
Kid: "Oh, I see."
deleted by creator
There is no point in engaging with someone playing such games. They're not going to be convinced when they're already putting words in the opposition's mouth.
deleted by creator
Yes, just like the Irish people who were "helped" by the free market in the 1840s. Or the Indian people who were "helped" by the free market in the late 1800s. You might be interested in this book by the late, great Mike Davis which completely refutes your ideas with hard evidence that the free market can be used (and has been used) as a tool of genocide: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/7859
deleted by creator
liberals DESTROYED by FACTS and LOGIC
The maoist uprising against the landlords was the largest and most comprehensive proletarian revolution in history, and led to almost totally-equal redistribution of land among the peasantry
In that case, it was totally worth the deadliest famine in history. :-P
deleted by creator
If only the dead could argue their case...
I think it is important to take a critical look at past tragedies and mistakes, and work hard to avoid them in the future. Unfortunately I fear that many people would repeat them if given the opportunity and it served their idealogical and/or selfish interests, unless it was more convenient to do the right thing.
deleted by creator
They eliminated famine in their own borders ... after causing famine in their own borders. Congratulations, I guess?
International efforts to deliver food aid to those most in need are typically hampered by war, not by a lack of food. Real supply & demand issues caused by poor yields, conflicts & other supply chain disruptions often drive up prices which hits the poor the hardest, but we haven't had a global food shortage in a long time.
deleted by creator
There are A LOT of problems out there, I agree. There is, however, a difference between destroying a country/regions ability to produce essential and strategic goods (like food, which has very immediate effect) through reckless decisions by authoritarian regimes (then throw in the Holodomor for fun), and inequality & a lack of social safety nets.
Right now, the whole world has, through various efforts, has solved the global food production issue. That the soviets and china managed to solve this aspect of it too is not a win for socialism, especially given the mass starvation that accompanied their efforts, but I see (and correct me if I have misunderstood) you and others holding this up as some kind of tenuous proof of superiority.
Social inequality and the denial of what I believe are basic human rights (food, housing, safety, access to healthcare, and freedom of expression), OTOH, are a continuing problem world-wide. I am much more interested in efforts here - both local, regional, and global.
deleted by creator
Here is where a disagreement starts. Yes, there was a widespread famine (and not just in Ukraine).. but it was, as recognised by many scholars, made far more deadly in parts of Ukraine by decrees from above. Collectivisation caused the wider famine, and callous decisions resulted in deliberate starvation of some. This is not something anyone should celebrate or diminish, even though the situation vastly improved in later years.
Note: I'm travelling today, so most responses will have to wait. Have a good one.
edit long after the fact: For future readers, here is a ukrainian viewpoint of the Holodomor: https://www.rferl.org/a/historican-anne-applebaum-interview-ukraine-holodomor-famine-stalin/28756181.html
deleted by creator
Thanks for the links. I've been reading. It is not far off my understanding. It's novel to me that anyone claims that the famine itself was deliberate. I've never heard anyone claiming that before.
Anyway, I noticed that https://lb.ua/news/2010/01/14/19793_nalivaychenko_nazval_kolichestvo_zh.html says 10 million, while https://hexbear.net/post/20004 links to it and claims it says 4 million. I guess the wayback machine should be checked.
My day was long, I'm tired, and there is more to read. I'll have to re-read your previous comments to find the Q that interests you.
deleted by creator
Those who care more about past tragedies than current tragedies don't care at all. They're just looking for some excuse to feel self-righteous.
Thanks for the quotable quote, but I didn't say nor imply that.
gottem
Is that another circle-jerk response? Say something useful (ie. that has significance outside of your circle), please.
deleted by creator
I engage with an upvote. If there's something more to be said, I'll say it. An unfortunate side effect is that those good comments get drowned out by nonsense initiated by ... hexbears, and then further upvoted by hexbears. It doesn't seem like an effective strategy to me, but if that is what y'all want to do, you can. It will probably lead to more of the same, along with more complaints, instances defederating, and personal user & instance blocks.
deleted by creator
And now you turn to name calling and making further assumptions about me? Sigh.
There are threads that end with good comments or arguments, either because they are solid (eg. class struggle is never ending) or funny. They don't need me to pat them on the head.
deleted by creator
"you libs", "you smuglords".. do you really think that pluralizing an assumption or insult makes it less of one? This could be some weird use of the English language that I'm not familiar with, but it reads the same to me, and comes across as rude and dismissive. I have engaged extensively with you here and elsewhere ... in good faith. I have not resorted to insults. I've left open the possibility for simple misunderstandings, giving you the possibility to explain. I don't think you are arguing in bad faith, but I suspect that you have reached some limit and are falling back to bad habits.
An observation of mine: You and some other hexbears seem to throw around the term "libs" as an insult whenever someone doesn't agree with you, and often prematurely. To me, this comes across as a cop-out, and as a way of stroking your own egos without adding value.
I also think that you have developed your own "common knowledge" in relative isolation, and often have trouble explaining/justifying it outside of the hexbear community. Instead, a lot seems meme-ified and is repeated without thought.
I will continue to encourage people to explain or argue their case. I will also continue trying to be open and inclusive, and advocating for dialogue.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Wrong, that would be China, under the direction of the CPC
Deng literally introduced market reforms to do so. This is not the own you think it is
For the sake of simplicity, please enjoy the following meme:
If we were talking amongst ourselves you'd be right but here we're responding to a liberal OP who doesn't know what words mean and purposefully worded their intent to avoid the word "capitalism"
Fair point
Obviously it is a counterfactual but no serious leftist would say that China without market reforms wouldn't have eradicated poverty, and moreover done it faster and more completely. The seeds of poverty alleviation were planted during the Maoist era; improvement in health, education improvement, and industrialization.
To corroborate your point you can just look at life expectancy in rural communities to see that it rose steadily throughout the Maoist period and then froze during the Dengist reforms
deleted by creator
Did you know that China is responsible for 75% of the global poverty reduction over the last 40 years?
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/lifting-800-million-people-out-of-poverty-new-report-looks-at-lessons-from-china-s-experience
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/e9a5bc3c-718d-57d8-9558-ce325407f737/content
This is the correct response. Practically all of global poverty reduction is being done by central planning, right now.
Do you know how China got such a huge poverty by the 1980s? Do you know how China got the wealth to start impacting it's poverty?
Hint: the CCP took power in 1949. The Maoist era ended 30 years later, and massive economic liberalisation reforms started.
China today is a world trade powerhouse governed by an elite class (The CCP) with the proles given just enough to keep them where they are. It's lifted them out of poverty, but it is the shining example of a totalitarian capitist state. If anybody thinks the proletariat have power in China, and it is therefore a socialist state...or that it's classless with no elite and a communist state... well... You need to talk to some Chinese people.
Glad to see Liberals busting out the good old “it’s not real socialism!!111!!” to cope with China’s success :’)
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
"Chinese people mostly like being animals"
...being treated like animals by their government, rather than the humans they are.
"Chinese people mostly like being treated like animals by their government"
Anything?
No it hasn't, socialist agitation in the teeth of capitalist opposition did that
Without it westerners would still be working 16 hour days seven days a week without any safety nets while dying of lead poisoning
Yeah, but please don't say that too much, we don't want to carry water for the CCP
deleted by creator
I don't think you got the joke
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Nuh, uh. Markets controlled by Oligarchs who spend billions to erode social safety nets do. A market socialist economy with strong regulations and systems like a UBI wouldn't create poverty, while still being a market (albeit a very different one to what we have today). Albeit I do think that for many things (like healthcare) having a market of any kind is just dumb.
deleted by creator
I said market socialist. In a market socialist economy there would be no billionaires. Also housing is an absolute necessity, which means it shouldn't be governed by a market at all, no matter the economic system. Only things outside of staple foods, a roof over your head, utilities, drinking water, healthcare and other things absolutely necessary for your continued survival, can (not should) be governed by a market, and one that doesn't funnel money upwards.
Capitalism in any form is absolutely horrible and should not exist.
Also, creating artificial demand should be banned.
deleted by creator
*Correction: an unregulated market with UBI would.
In a regulated market, those corporations can either follow the guidelines or fuck off the market.
Or just change the regulations
deleted by creator