• Leon_Grotsky [comrade/them]
    ·
    edit-2
    4 years ago

    Well again, this is where the splitting hairs comes in.

    You could argue that the inequal distribution of resources by international capital is violence against the domestic workforce/people outside of the imperial core which leads to ~9million (specifically hunger) deaths annually.

    A possible counter to this is "hunger existed prior to 2001"

    The counter-counter to that is "but productive forces have expanded greatly and increased overall efficiency and productivity in foodstuffs production; it's more possible than ever to reduce or eliminate these deaths and yet here we are."

    So if there is greater capacity to resolve this issue, but an equal will to just not do that (if not a greater resolve to not fix the issue due to a further need for economic anxiety as profitability falls), does this make it a MORE violent act?

    IDK like I said I think you can try to work this out, but I think it would be an.... unproductive use of time?

    • p_sharikov [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      The global starvation rate kills people at roughly the same rate as Mao's famine, so I guess you could say the worst crisis in communist history is just business as usual under capitalism. If Mao is to blame for his management of the famine, then the capitalists are definitely to blame for basically refusing to eliminate poverty even as productivity skyrockets.