• duderium [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      ‘In the report, the scholars estimated that India suffered 165 million excess deaths due to British colonialism between 1880 and 1920. “This figure is larger than the combined number of deaths from both World Wars, including the Nazi holocaust,” they noted.’

      https://mronline.org/2022/12/14/british-empire-killed-165-million-indians-in-40-years/

      That’s just the British in India for a forty-year period. Do you want to talk about how many people the USA has killed since 9/11?

        • AlkaliMarxist@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, Feudal China is not relevant to a discussion on the relative violence and oppression done by capitalist and socialist states, because it is neither.

            • AlkaliMarxist@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              1 year ago

              The point other people are making though is that you’re selectively emphasizing stories of brutality from socialist countries while discounting the brutality that exists under capitalism in order to draw a false equivalence between the two systems; an equivalence that needs to exist in order to justify your position that it doesn’t matter whether a state is socialist or capitalist.

              The fact is that the violence done by capitalist states is far greater than that done by socialist states. In any time frame. The violence of colonialism belongs to capitalism, the violence of fascism belongs to capitalism, the violence of gunboat diplomacy - of wars fought by private contractors for the bottom line of arms manufactures and mineral exploitation companies - is the violence of capitalism. This doesn’t even cover the internal, inherent violence of capitalism. To dispose of food while people starve, because feeding them is not profitable, is violence. To deny lifesaving medical treatment, because it cannot be supplied at a profit, that is violence. To spill poison into drinking water to save money, then when people protest, to lock them away and force them to labour, that is violence. Strike-breakers, Pinkertons, McCarthyism, police killings of activists, funding of right-wing militia to coup socialist governments, embargos denying medicine and food to socialist countries. All of this is violence, done by capitalists, to protect the rights of capital.

              You are told that these things are not capitalist violence, they are just society functioning as normal. However you are flooded with rumour, conspiracy theories and propaganda about the violence in socialist countries, so you come to the conclusion that both are bad and that it isn’t worth understanding the difference.

                • CyborgMarx [any, any]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Capitalism is being able to accumulate capital and use them to your benefits

                  You know what really benefits capitalists, taking over the state, and you know what makes that easy, having lots of capital

                  In other words a systemic incentive for capitalism to degard into capitalist oppression because of an inherent feature specific to capitalism

                  You literally dont know what capitalism is or how power manifests in the world

            • CyborgMarx [any, any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              Capitalism is what causes that power imbalance, how anyone can sit there and pretend the mode of production that reproduces all human civilization doesn’t effect the balance of power is beyond brain broken, you are literally arguing with reality dumbass

              Keep coping

                • s0ykaf [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  So you’re saying there is no power imbalance of similar scale in socialist or communist societies?

                  of similar scale? there absolutely isn’t, especially when you get off your own head and realize your country (meaning the main tool of your dominant classes) doesn’t exist in isolation. and the fact you’re talking about “socialist or communist” societies really shows you have no idea what you’re talking about, despite all your unwarranted certainty

                  • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Well, there necessarily is still a power imbalance on an individual or per-capita basis, but that’s what the DotP is meant to counteract on an absolute basis.

            • CyborgMarx [any, any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              lmao holy shit you’re a dumbass, you’re comment and the haphazard comparison you were trying to make is irrelevant because we don’t live under feudalism, we live under capitalism, try to keep up

        • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Your social democratic circlejerk country of choice only exists and can only exist at the moment based on the actions of the US. It simply isn’t escapable when discussing the present state of things. It is like disparaging the crassness of a hog when you are a flee on its back; The thing you are insulting is the very basis of the thing you’re praising continuing to exist, so you cannot coherently grandstand about it.