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.
Love to spend insane amounts of resources on creating a phone that has the same tech and capabilities as all the other phones, but I can't just get access to their research and they can't just get access to mine.
Love to spend insane amount of time working up a cure to covid, but I can't share my research with others and they can't share it with me, yay this is awesome.
Love to spend insane amount of resources working out how to make people want to buy a sugary drink and then spend even more to make them want to buy my drink specifically.
Love to build empty houses and love to create 1.21 times more food than we need.
Love to do all this as the world is burning and people are starving.
Capitalism is the most efficient distribution of resources
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.
You didn't engage with their argument, but good try nonetheless. It's nice to see you cling to a fallacy rather than engage in good-faith discussion of an argument clearly illustrated for you to relate to.
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.
A good faith discussion is not about convincing another, but instead about having an open exchange of information.
They're not going to be convinced when they're already putting words in the opposition's mouth.
They're illustrating a point which you failed to engage with. In no way did it put words in your mouth. The fact that you choose to be insulted by the way they decided to illustrate that point rather than engage with them in good faith says a lot more about you.
To reiterate: You didn't engage with their argument, but good try nonetheless. It's nice to see you cling to a fallacy rather than engage in good-faith discussion of an argument clearly illustrated for you to relate to.
Do better.
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.
Yeah I also think we should look at the past and the present in order to create a better future, which is why I say one famine once is better than constant famines like we have now. How many millions die of hunger each year? How many have died at the hands of capitalism? How many are dying? While we have food available. This isn't even to count for the famines that were enacted on purpose like those the british did in Ireland and in India.
Meanwhile both the USSR and China managed to eliminate famine in regions that had been plagued by it since history could account for it. Were the countries perfect? Far from it. Pretending that they are somehow worse for eliminating famine while people are starving in countries with food on the shelves is ridiculous.
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.
Both imperial Russia and Qing China were plagued by frequent famines, I don't see how it is damnng that the PRC and the USSR had a famine in their early years of existence (after they'd fought long and drawn out wars), when they then never had famines again.
There a millions of people starving in the us today, in Europe, in africa, in south America, in the middle east, in India. There is more than enough food, but somehow these capitalist countries have millions starving. The us has kids missing lunch in school, despite food being available in cafeterias.
If one famine once in a region that used to be plagued by famines is too much for you, what does this ever-present famine then mean to you? What system do you suppose we make use of? Surely you cannot be a capitalist, since you are so staunchly against people starving
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?
Right now, the whole world has, through various efforts, has solved the global food production issue.
Right now millions are starving, despite there being more than enough food.
You still haven't answered the question.
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.
That the soviets and the Chinese managed to eliminate famine in a region that had been plagued by famine since history could account for it, is not an immense accomplishment? Cope. It most certainly is, especially when you bring up the discussion of starvation.
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.
Issues that the soviets and the Chinese made far greater dents I to, than anything modern capitalist governments do.
am much more interested in efforts here - both local, regional, and global.
So again, since you care so much about famines, and the current system has constant famines despite ha ing more than enough food available, and the soviets and the Chinese managed to eliminate famine, what system do you support? You surely cannot be a capitalist, since so many people are starving to death every day in capitalist countries. Millions are starving in the us alone. What do you think should be done?
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
Wow you managed to engage with one single point! Very good, though you still haven't answered my question. You also keep to debating the holodomor, as if I disagree there was a famine or something? I don't, we agree there was a famine. Answer my question.
It's also neat to see you continue to engage in holocaust denial by way of peddling double genocide theory. At no point did the Soviet government deliberately take actions with intent to starve it's population, implying this - and thereby equating it with the holocaust - trivialises the holocaust, as well as spreads misinformation about historical events.
Did the soviets make mistakes? Yes, many. Did the Soviet government intentionally starve it's citizens? No.
This is not a debate about the long-since debunked "deliberate" famine where Stalin personally went around with his big spoon and ate all the grain. What made the famine worse? If you are interested in such a discussion I'd recommend actually looking into the data and the historians interpretating it first. This thread has good and approachable information an excerpt:
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 appreciate you taking the time to look into the material I've provided you.
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.
Why should they? You do not engage with any of the responses of substance. When you choose not to engage in good-faith discussion, why you believe you deserve anything other than ridicule?
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.
You are already engaged in a discussion, which you engaged by posting and then responding to posts. Your responses are then show. To be in bad faith, since you are not willing to interact with the argumens other users present in good faith. This is typical of you libs, but it is an unfortunate side effect that good and educating discussion gets drowned out by you uneducated idiots that think a link to Wikipedia means anything... Good education is drowned out by you smuglords that fail to realise civility is a two-way street. These snide comments you make are then further expounded by other snide idiots, which further muddies the waters and ruins discussion, it doesn't seem like an effective strategy to me, because you get called out on it, that is what you all want to do and sadly the only thing that can be done in response is to not take you seriously until you either get too hurt that your idiotic comments results in similarly asinine responses or you get too hurt from the people calling you on your bullshit and you defederate
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.
I have yet to call you a name or make an assumption - I've pointed out the actions you've taken. "You smuglords" clearly being in the plural. Please work on your reading comprehension.
If you think having your behaviour pointed out to you is "name calling" consider wether you're just a piece of shit.
Also again you refuse to engage with argument presented to you. Since you refuse good faith discussion, why do you think you deserve anything other than ridicule? You're clearly a moron
"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.
Tell you what, you've come across as snide, dismissive smug and completely uninterested in an actual discussion, instead maintaining the superiorty of your own belief, and purely working towards convincing me on what is right.
But I've been in this thread quite a bit, I'm a bit on hair trigger, so I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and come back to you in a little while.
You're right, I called you a name last time and I'm sorry. That completely invalidates all the arguments put forth.
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.
Rehashing the same tired debunked argument time and again does get tiring. "Reverting" to calling you a lib is a way of highlighting the many thought-terminating cliches being spit out as a result of being uncritically enmenshed in propaganda.
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.
My experience is quite the reverse. Every time I interact with one of your opinions you revert to the same tired arguments using the same tired long-debunked "facts" - When you actually use facts. Most of the time you refuse to engage with the arguments put forth in the discussion you're having. Instead you choose condescenstion. You do this because you believe yourself to be correct and me to be misinformed - I simply haven't heard of the holodomor or whatever. I was once like you, but then I started investigating the things I thought I knew about. Consider wether you might be misinformed about things you consider to be true. Consider why you are misinformed on these things. Consider who misinformed you. Consider what you can do to work against this misinformation. Consider why you react as you do with people whose beliefs stride against your perception of reality. Consider why those people have those beliefs despite us all learning those simple things you hold to be true.
My experience of hexbear is that of a vibrant community sharing knowledge and critiquing each other when that knowledge is lacking or wrong. This leads to a community that shows humility towards learning new things, as well as staying critical towards that which it believes to "know". You do not experience this humility because you come in as an outsider expecting your tired long-since-debunked beliefs to somehow have any relevance or novelty. They are not new, they are not insightful and they have been shown time and again to be wrong. Which is fine - we're all wrong. The "bad habit" you experience is people being sick of arguing with obviously wrong libs that refuse to engage with new knowledge.
Asking questions is good, but posturing as if you are the purveyor of divine knowledge to be shared (and that knowledge being wrong) leads to you meeting the attitude you've met
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.
I am glad to hear that that is what you think you are doing. I would encourage you to investigate how you interact with those you disagree with, and reconsider how you are creating dialogue
You come into this with an ahistorical "point" about famines. There is no humility or invitation to an open dialogue, you are clearly being condescending and smug.
Your "point" gets argued by me in the way that I point out that famines were eliminated. Instead of engaging with this argument, you once again choose condescention talking vaguely about "if the dead could argue their case" and then vague speak of looking at past tragedies. I engage with this point and agree, which leads me to reiterate my argument - One famine once is better than constant famines. Once again you choose smugness and condescention instead of engaging with the argument. You the try to change the discussion to one of food aid? Instead of relating to the one that was present. This is so far typical bad-faith behaviour. You once again return to the question of starvation.
I then once again point out how historically famine had been an issue, and it was eliminated. I then point out how famine and starvation is still an issue in capitalist countries. You do not engage with this point, instead handwaving "there are a lot of problems" and you try to downplay the achievement by writing a lie (famine has been solved) which also still doesn't answer any of the questions I've asked. So far you're still being condescending, I've yet to call you a name.
I respond to every one of your arguments and point out how you are going against historical consensus on what happened in the soviet union wrt the famine in the soviet union. I refrained from pointing out how you've engaged in "double genocide theory" which was pushed by nazis to downplay the holocaust. I am however tired of your condescention and your tired arguments, so I am curt and I finish off with a rude picture.
You have yet to respond to this post, yet you continue the same argument elsewhere with both me and other users. It is clear you are not interested in a good-faith discussion. If you were you would have answered my questions, related to the arguments and asked questions where you were unsure. You didn't.
Elsewhere someone points out your absurdity and idiocy by responding your condescending ahistorical "famine" comment with a "gottem". You ask if that's a joke - thereby implying you think your comment in any way deserved to be validated, despite the fact that we've now all seen that it was right to disregard you and your opinions.
I point this out and I refer to your type of person with a derisive name - Indirectly calling you a name. This then becomes the crux of your new argument, instead of - once again - actually engaging in the arguments put forth in the discussion you're having. It is clear you are not willing to engage in an exchange of knowledge of opinions, instead looking for quick and easy ways to post smug and condescending comments.
Now we are here, you will have learned nothing. You will at best engage with the name calling or - once again - me making "assumptions" about you. Assumptions that have so far been proven true.
With this behaviour you've engaged in, why do you think you deserve anything other than ridicule?
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.
Funny, that's how I feel whenever I hear yanks talk about life in the us. Sounds like a hellscape.
I've only ever met Chinese people that seemed happy about the place.
AHAHAHAHAHHAAHA HAHAHAHHA AHHHH HAHAH.
Oh wait you're serious? That's even funnier.
Tell me where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America?
The recent decades trend of people being lifted out of poverty is solely due to China. America has more and more starving people, homeless and working sick.
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.
Markets controlled by Oligarchs who spend billions to erode social safety nets do.
And where do these billionaires come from? Do they just spring out of the ground?
Oligarchs are a feature of capitalism, not a flaw.
A market with a UBI would simply increase rent by the UBI amount. Markets in capitalism exist to extract wealth, it is what they encourage. Thus they will support those that are best at extracting wealth, which leads to the creation of those billionaires.
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.
Or they can enjoy the fact that they have regulatory capture and change the regulations, as has been seen historically.
For practical observance: Denmark pays a wage to university students. The function of this wage is to make sure the students can focus on their studies, instead of having to have a job that demands time from them, which would lower the quality of education.
Students also need housing, which the private sector provides in the form of "student housing", which requires you to be a student in order to live there. This "student housing" has a rent that is usually, approximately right around the student wage - thus meaning the student needs to take a job in order to afford things such as "food" and "electricity". This state of affairs occured despite regulations.
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."
Love to spend insane amounts of resources on creating a phone that has the same tech and capabilities as all the other phones, but I can't just get access to their research and they can't just get access to mine.
Love to spend insane amount of time working up a cure to covid, but I can't share my research with others and they can't share it with me, yay this is awesome.
Love to spend insane amount of resources working out how to make people want to buy a sugary drink and then spend even more to make them want to buy my drink specifically.
Love to build empty houses and love to create 1.21 times more food than we need.
Love to do all this as the world is burning and people are starving.
Capitalism is the most efficient distribution of resources
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."
You didn't engage with their argument, but good try nonetheless. It's nice to see you cling to a fallacy rather than engage in good-faith discussion of an argument clearly illustrated for you to relate to.
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.
A good faith discussion is not about convincing another, but instead about having an open exchange of information.
They're illustrating a point which you failed to engage with. In no way did it put words in your mouth. The fact that you choose to be insulted by the way they decided to illustrate that point rather than engage with them in good faith says a lot more about you.
To reiterate: You didn't engage with their argument, but good try nonetheless. It's nice to see you cling to a fallacy rather than engage in good-faith discussion of an argument clearly illustrated for you to relate to.
Do better.
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
One famine one time is definitely preferable to the constant famines that exist under capitalism
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.
Yeah I also think we should look at the past and the present in order to create a better future, which is why I say one famine once is better than constant famines like we have now. How many millions die of hunger each year? How many have died at the hands of capitalism? How many are dying? While we have food available. This isn't even to count for the famines that were enacted on purpose like those the british did in Ireland and in India.
Meanwhile both the USSR and China managed to eliminate famine in regions that had been plagued by it since history could account for it. Were the countries perfect? Far from it. Pretending that they are somehow worse for eliminating famine while people are starving in countries with food on the shelves is ridiculous.
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.
Both imperial Russia and Qing China were plagued by frequent famines, I don't see how it is damnng that the PRC and the USSR had a famine in their early years of existence (after they'd fought long and drawn out wars), when they then never had famines again.
There a millions of people starving in the us today, in Europe, in africa, in south America, in the middle east, in India. There is more than enough food, but somehow these capitalist countries have millions starving. The us has kids missing lunch in school, despite food being available in cafeterias.
If one famine once in a region that used to be plagued by famines is too much for you, what does this ever-present famine then mean to you? What system do you suppose we make use of? Surely you cannot be a capitalist, since you are so staunchly against people starving
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?
Right now millions are starving, despite there being more than enough food.
You still haven't answered the question.
That the soviets and the Chinese managed to eliminate famine in a region that had been plagued by famine since history could account for it, is not an immense accomplishment? Cope. It most certainly is, especially when you bring up the discussion of starvation.
Issues that the soviets and the Chinese made far greater dents I to, than anything modern capitalist governments do.
So again, since you care so much about famines, and the current system has constant famines despite ha ing more than enough food available, and the soviets and the Chinese managed to eliminate famine, what system do you support? You surely cannot be a capitalist, since so many people are starving to death every day in capitalist countries. Millions are starving in the us alone. What do you think should be done?
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
Wow you managed to engage with one single point! Very good, though you still haven't answered my question. You also keep to debating the holodomor, as if I disagree there was a famine or something? I don't, we agree there was a famine. Answer my question.
It's also neat to see you continue to engage in holocaust denial by way of peddling double genocide theory. At no point did the Soviet government deliberately take actions with intent to starve it's population, implying this - and thereby equating it with the holocaust - trivialises the holocaust, as well as spreads misinformation about historical events.
Did the soviets make mistakes? Yes, many. Did the Soviet government intentionally starve it's citizens? No.
This is not a debate about the long-since debunked "deliberate" famine where Stalin personally went around with his big spoon and ate all the grain. What made the famine worse? If you are interested in such a discussion I'd recommend actually looking into the data and the historians interpretating it first.
This thread has good and approachable information an excerpt:
I doubt you will look into it though, since you so far continue to be.more interested in condescending cheap shots.
Here's another one you won't engage with
Double genocide [1] [2]
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 appreciate you taking the time to look into the material I've provided you.
That's odd. Good catch!
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.
Why should they? You do not engage with any of the responses of substance. When you choose not to engage in good-faith discussion, why you believe you deserve anything other than ridicule?
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.
You are already engaged in a discussion, which you engaged by posting and then responding to posts. Your responses are then show. To be in bad faith, since you are not willing to interact with the argumens other users present in good faith. This is typical of you libs, but it is an unfortunate side effect that good and educating discussion gets drowned out by you uneducated idiots that think a link to Wikipedia means anything... Good education is drowned out by you smuglords that fail to realise civility is a two-way street. These snide comments you make are then further expounded by other snide idiots, which further muddies the waters and ruins discussion, it doesn't seem like an effective strategy to me, because you get called out on it, that is what you all want to do and sadly the only thing that can be done in response is to not take you seriously until you either get too hurt that your idiotic comments results in similarly asinine responses or you get too hurt from the people calling you on your bullshit and you defederate
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.
I have yet to call you a name or make an assumption - I've pointed out the actions you've taken. "You smuglords" clearly being in the plural. Please work on your reading comprehension.
If you think having your behaviour pointed out to you is "name calling" consider wether you're just a piece of shit.
Also again you refuse to engage with argument presented to you. Since you refuse good faith discussion, why do you think you deserve anything other than ridicule? You're clearly a moron
"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.
Tell you what, you've come across as snide, dismissive smug and completely uninterested in an actual discussion, instead maintaining the superiorty of your own belief, and purely working towards convincing me on what is right.
But I've been in this thread quite a bit, I'm a bit on hair trigger, so I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and come back to you in a little while.
You're right, I called you a name last time and I'm sorry. That completely invalidates all the arguments put forth.
Rehashing the same tired debunked argument time and again does get tiring. "Reverting" to calling you a lib is a way of highlighting the many thought-terminating cliches being spit out as a result of being uncritically enmenshed in propaganda.
My experience is quite the reverse. Every time I interact with one of your opinions you revert to the same tired arguments using the same tired long-debunked "facts" - When you actually use facts. Most of the time you refuse to engage with the arguments put forth in the discussion you're having. Instead you choose condescenstion. You do this because you believe yourself to be correct and me to be misinformed - I simply haven't heard of the holodomor or whatever. I was once like you, but then I started investigating the things I thought I knew about. Consider wether you might be misinformed about things you consider to be true. Consider why you are misinformed on these things. Consider who misinformed you. Consider what you can do to work against this misinformation. Consider why you react as you do with people whose beliefs stride against your perception of reality. Consider why those people have those beliefs despite us all learning those simple things you hold to be true.
My experience of hexbear is that of a vibrant community sharing knowledge and critiquing each other when that knowledge is lacking or wrong. This leads to a community that shows humility towards learning new things, as well as staying critical towards that which it believes to "know". You do not experience this humility because you come in as an outsider expecting your tired long-since-debunked beliefs to somehow have any relevance or novelty. They are not new, they are not insightful and they have been shown time and again to be wrong. Which is fine - we're all wrong. The "bad habit" you experience is people being sick of arguing with obviously wrong libs that refuse to engage with new knowledge.
Asking questions is good, but posturing as if you are the purveyor of divine knowledge to be shared (and that knowledge being wrong) leads to you meeting the attitude you've met
I am glad to hear that that is what you think you are doing. I would encourage you to investigate how you interact with those you disagree with, and reconsider how you are creating dialogue
Allright having looked at it again:
You come into this with an ahistorical "point" about famines. There is no humility or invitation to an open dialogue, you are clearly being condescending and smug.
Your "point" gets argued by me in the way that I point out that famines were eliminated. Instead of engaging with this argument, you once again choose condescention talking vaguely about "if the dead could argue their case" and then vague speak of looking at past tragedies. I engage with this point and agree, which leads me to reiterate my argument - One famine once is better than constant famines. Once again you choose smugness and condescention instead of engaging with the argument. You the try to change the discussion to one of food aid? Instead of relating to the one that was present. This is so far typical bad-faith behaviour. You once again return to the question of starvation.
I then once again point out how historically famine had been an issue, and it was eliminated. I then point out how famine and starvation is still an issue in capitalist countries. You do not engage with this point, instead handwaving "there are a lot of problems" and you try to downplay the achievement by writing a lie (famine has been solved) which also still doesn't answer any of the questions I've asked. So far you're still being condescending, I've yet to call you a name.
I respond to every one of your arguments and point out how you are going against historical consensus on what happened in the soviet union wrt the famine in the soviet union. I refrained from pointing out how you've engaged in "double genocide theory" which was pushed by nazis to downplay the holocaust. I am however tired of your condescention and your tired arguments, so I am curt and I finish off with a rude picture.
You have yet to respond to this post, yet you continue the same argument elsewhere with both me and other users. It is clear you are not interested in a good-faith discussion. If you were you would have answered my questions, related to the arguments and asked questions where you were unsure. You didn't.
Elsewhere someone points out your absurdity and idiocy by responding your condescending ahistorical "famine" comment with a "gottem". You ask if that's a joke - thereby implying you think your comment in any way deserved to be validated, despite the fact that we've now all seen that it was right to disregard you and your opinions.
I point this out and I refer to your type of person with a derisive name - Indirectly calling you a name. This then becomes the crux of your new argument, instead of - once again - actually engaging in the arguments put forth in the discussion you're having. It is clear you are not willing to engage in an exchange of knowledge of opinions, instead looking for quick and easy ways to post smug and condescending comments.
Now we are here, you will have learned nothing. You will at best engage with the name calling or - once again - me making "assumptions" about you. Assumptions that have so far been proven true.
With this behaviour you've engaged in, why do you think you deserve anything other than ridicule?
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
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
For the sake of simplicity, please enjoy the following meme:
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
Gotta develop the industrial capacity before you can seize it
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 :’)
You mean the Chinese people that overwhelmingly.support the CPC and their government? Ok
Removed by mod
Funny, that's how I feel whenever I hear yanks talk about life in the us. Sounds like a hellscape.
I've only ever met Chinese people that seemed happy about the place.
"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
*CPC
I don't think you got the joke
Yeah it completely wooshed over my head, I thought you were serious
AHAHAHAHAHHAAHA HAHAHAHHA AHHHH HAHAH.
Oh wait you're serious? That's even funnier.
Tell me where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America?
The recent decades trend of people being lifted out of poverty is solely due to China. America has more and more starving people, homeless and working sick.
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.
And where do these billionaires come from? Do they just spring out of the ground?
Oligarchs are a feature of capitalism, not a flaw.
A market with a UBI would simply increase rent by the UBI amount. Markets in capitalism exist to extract wealth, it is what they encourage. Thus they will support those that are best at extracting wealth, which leads to the creation of those billionaires.
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.
There's already one long-ass discussion about market socialism in this thread, so I'm not gonna start another, but glad to hear your perspective!
*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
Or they can enjoy the fact that they have regulatory capture and change the regulations, as has been seen historically.
For practical observance: Denmark pays a wage to university students. The function of this wage is to make sure the students can focus on their studies, instead of having to have a job that demands time from them, which would lower the quality of education.
Students also need housing, which the private sector provides in the form of "student housing", which requires you to be a student in order to live there. This "student housing" has a rent that is usually, approximately right around the student wage - thus meaning the student needs to take a job in order to afford things such as "food" and "electricity". This state of affairs occured despite regulations.