Sir, this is a Wendy’s.
Only socialism and communism try to ensure everyone survives. This isn’t really an attack on capitalism. This is also the reason we have nationalism, racism etc, no?
In any case, technology and efficiency mean we could support more people being alive and with better lives if we really did want to. Plus there’s the potential of mining and colonisation of space. We’ve barely scratched the surface. Vertical farms might be the future.
But that wouldn’t generate as much profit, see! You gotta have Scarcity, otherwise ya cannot jack up the prices so high!
also: permaculture regenerative agriculture ecological stability dynamic equilibrium etc
also, news: India’s regenerative water permaculture development
The pitfalls of our current systems preclude us getting to the point of utilizing space to any meaningful extent. Better to forgo the hypothetical Star Trek romanticized fiction and just fix what we have here; then maybe we can think about that stuff.
At this stage, the mere mention of any such possibility is a distraction from the gravity of the situations we face. It’s a mere tool to keep the apple cart going, while people are literally dying from our own collective hubris.
Better to forgo the hypothetical Star Trek romanticized fiction
As old Star Wars EU fan, I agree.
Jokes aside, yes, anything done in space is for now much less efficient.
Vertical farms might be the future.
WDYM “might”, it’s already happening, just slowly. Not every modern city has lots of skyscrapers.
Plus there’s the potential of mining and colonisation of space.
Very limited. Though I like the idea of toroid stations with mirrors in L points, like Stanford torus, which is IIRC not considered cool now due to being expensive and complex to build.
Maybe not toroid, but asymmetric rotating pendulum-like thing, with another end being ballast. For gravity.
Anyway, you don’t realize how much less efficiency existing on Earth requires. It’s really easier to fix our shit here before going into space. Space is so cool that it’s worth the effort, but real colonization doesn’t make sense economically yet.
Only socialism and communism try to ensure everyone survives.
Except for the “enemies of the people” and the “bourgeoisie”, right?..
That might be the stated intent, but it seems plain that once the leaders are in positions of power and authority, they abuse their power. This is why, as fallible as is democracy, it is superior.
I would also contend that the outcomes for those living under communism are vastly inferior to those living under capitalism. I’ve always been bemused by arguments that all the repeated attempts “don’t count,” as though seventh time is the charm and suddenly the major issues will be worked out.
I would also contend that the outcomes for those living under communism are vastly inferior to those living under capitalism.
The notion that there are no corruption issues in capitalist countries is also bizarre. Are you perpetually anglo-brained in that you only think of the western imperial core when you think about “capitalism”? You are ignoring most of the world.
20million people die to easily preventable things under capitalism around the world every single year. Hunger, clean water, curable disease. Things that we can solve immediately with the resources we already have simply by having leadership that decides to do so. The fact you think this is reasonable is frankly disgusting.
You’re wrong. Socialism objectively provides a higher physical quality of life to its citizens when compared to capitalism at an equal level of development.
That’s a pretty big switcheroo there. Communism isn’t socialism, and the socialism as described in the link is called democratic socialism. I.e. democracy with redistribution. Which all Western countries practise. Your link reinforces my premise.
The notion that there are no corruption issues in capitalist countries is also bizarre.
Nobody claimed that. You keep making up straw men. We’d have a more productive discussion if you just replied to what I wrote.
20million people die to easily preventable things under capitalism around the world every single year.
That the rate of hunger has dropped precipitously while population has exploded in the most impoverished regions is testament to the incredible achievement of capitalism. Child mortality is at an all time low. You’re arguing that because things aren’t perfect, capitalism is bad. Clearly the world isn’t so black and white. No system of resource allocation is perfect, least of all communism.
But really this isn’t about capitalism. It’s about politics. We can choose to tax people more and redistribute locally and abroad. We choose that when we vote. Capitalism just ensures we have lots of resources and products and services.
That’s a pretty big switcheroo there. Communism isn’t socialism, and the socialism as described in the link is called democratic socialism. I.e. democracy with redistribution. Which all Western countries practise. Your link reinforces my premise.
This is ideological illiteracy. Socialism is the transitionary stage between capitalism and communism. All communist states have been socialist states because no society has progressed far enough to reach communism.
Nobody claimed that. You keep making up straw men. We’d have a more productive discussion if you just replied to what I wrote.
The implication was that it is worse in communist countries.
That the rate of hunger has dropped precipitously while population has exploded in the most impoverished regions is testament to the incredible achievement of capitalism. Child mortality is at an all time low. You’re arguing that because things aren’t perfect, capitalism is bad. Clearly the world isn’t so black and white. No system of resource allocation is perfect, least of all communism.
Take China out of that data and it practically flatlines. It has not improved in capitalist countries, China is responsible for almost all of it.
But really this isn’t about capitalism. It’s about politics. We can choose to tax people more and redistribute locally and abroad. We choose that when we vote. Capitalism just ensures we have lots of resources and products and services.
If that were fucking possible under capitalism it would ALREADY BE HAPPENING. The parties presented to you under BOURGEOISE DEMOCRACY are BOURGEOISE parties. They are not parties of the people, they are parties of the bourgeoisie and the entire system is designed to maintain that. When your only options are parties of the bourgeoisie the outcome is that the winner represents the bourgeoisie.
The only solution to this problem is to overthrow the existing bourgeoise democracy and install a proletarian democracy instead, the result of which being that all the parties under the proletarian democracy represent the proletariat. This is what a socialist state is institutionally. The antithesis of a capitalist state institutionally.
This is ideological illiteracy. Socialism is the transitionary stage between capitalism and communism. All communist states have been socialist states because no society has progressed far enough to reach communism.
You claim me to be “ideologically illiterate,” then go on to agree with me that socialism isn’t communism. That doesn’t speak well of your reading comprehension or intentions.
The implication was that it is worse in communist countries.
I didn’t make any claims about corruption. My claims are with outcomes, which I maintain are worse under communism.
Take China out of that data and it practically flatlines. It has not improved in capitalist countries, China is responsible for almost all of it.
Child mortality has trended down over the last century in almost every capitalist nation, not just China. Even the really corrupt African nations.
If that were fucking possible under capitalism it would ALREADY BE HAPPENING.
No, and this is the central argumentative failure under this dogma. Maybe people just don’t want mass redistribution? Maybe what you want isn’t what everyone else wants? Is that really so hard to accept as a possible reality? The Frankfurt School accepted this in the 1930s under the premise that “people’s lives are just too good under capitalism to ever want to move to communism.”
You claim me to be “ideologically illiterate,” then go on to agree with me that socialism isn’t communism. That doesn’t speak well of your reading comprehension or intentions.
Two sides of the same coin. Socialists all understand that socialism is the transitionary stage between capitalism and communism.
I didn’t make any claims about corruption. My claims are with outcomes, which I maintain are worse under communism.
Prove it. I cited research that shows you are wrong, you’re simply ignoring the facts.
Child mortality has trended down over the last century in almost every capitalist nation, not just China. Even the really corrupt African nations.
Wow one data point! Incredible. Now do deaths from starvation, lack of clean water and curable disease. 20million die per year.
No, and this is the central argumentative failure under this dogma. Maybe people just don’t want mass redistribution? Maybe what you want isn’t what everyone else wants? Is that really so hard to accept as a possible reality? The Frankfurt School accepted this in the 1930s under the premise that “people’s lives are just too good under capitalism to ever want to move to communism.”
Holy shit your argument is “I don’t want these people to live so it’s ok”. Colonial brained monster.
Two sides of the same coin. Socialists all understand that socialism is the transitionary stage between capitalism and communism.
We continue to agree: they are not the same. Particularly democratic socialism.
Prove it. I cited research that shows you are wrong, you’re simply ignoring the facts.
The cited research relied on national reported statistics in its methodology. North Korea just isn’t a reliable source. Neither is China; which, by the way, is also classified as a socialist country. Further, the researchers normalised income, which radically altered the conclusion. Without doing that, the capitalist countries win by a country mile. You would have known that had you actually read the study you cited.
To defend my premise, I would like like to cite all former and current communist countries, including:
Korea, Democratic Peoples Rep. (North Korea)
Armenia
Azerbaijan
China
Georgia
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Laos, Peoples Democratic Republic
Mongolia
Nepal
Tajikistan
Tibet
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Armenia
Azerbaijan
China
Georgia
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Laos, Peoples Democratic Republic
Mongolia
Nepal
Russia
Tajikistan
Tibet
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Europe
Albania
Belarus
Bosnia & Herzegovina (Yugoslavia)
Bulgaria
Croatia (Yugoslavia)
Czech Republic (Czechoslovakia)
Estonia
Finland
Germany (German Democratic Republic)
Greece
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia, FYR (Yugoslavia)
Moldova
Montenegro (Yugoslavia)
Poland
Romania
Serbia (Yugoslavia)
Slovakia (Czechoslovakia)
Slovenia (Yugoslavia)
Spain
Ukraine
Angola
Ethiopia
Mozambique
Colombia
Cuba
Nicaragua
PeruMost of these countries are doing much better since eliminating communism. The data is irrefutable.
Wow one data point! Incredible. Now do deaths from starvation, lack of clean water and curable disease. 20million die per year.
I literally cited global hunger rates. I encourage you to read my comments above to refresh your memory.
Global access to clean water has been trending up for more than a century.
Disease burden from communicable, maternal, neonatal & nutritional diseases.
I could do this all day, but you made the claim. Let’s see some evidence that capitalist nations do worse than communist nations.
Holy shit your argument is “I don’t want these people to live so it’s ok”. Colonial brained monster.
Once again, creating straw men. No one argued for killing anyone. Do you do his because your argument is weak? Does that normally work for you?
That might be the stated intent, but it seems plain that once the leaders are in positions of power and authority, they abuse their power. This is why, as fallible as is democracy, it is superior.
Do you think that socialism/communism is not a democratic system?
Under communism, no. Marx explicitly prescribed violent revolution to overthrow democracy. He prescribes implementing democracy after the glorious revolution, but previous attempts never progressed to that point. Communism is authoritarian in nature, as it seeks to disempower the individual and strip them of their property rights, in favour of the collective.
As for socialism, it depends what you mean. Democratic socialism, which is what Western countries practise, is democratic. Socialism is:
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
This is incompatible with democracy. Democracy requires rule of law and property rights as a foundation. Stripping people of their property rights is authoritarian. It cannot be maintained under a democracy as individuals in the West would vote for their liberty, as they do today. This necessitates authoritarian control.
Just wait till somebody comes and says that not all Communism is Marxism, and quotes Kropotkin or whatever.
Ah, I have a friend like that. We don’t invite him to parties anymore.
Ah, welcome to our NFT talk.
Lmao, alright alright… ya got me with this one. Just saying thanks for the little laugh
The shitpost communities have more (and better) memes than the meme communities…
Edit to pluralize.
Thanks unbearable abyss
ArEnT yOu fUn At PaRtIeS
