Under capitalism

India under the Raj. Ireland under the UK.

Those were both feudalism, where the king owns all economic output and does wyat he wants with it, much like communism in practice.
- What do you think communism is? Cause it's not at all like feudalism - you're thinking of late stage capitalism that's like feudalism.
  
  I think communism is an economic system where resource distribution (including labor) is centrally controlled by the state. That's a lot like feudalism, except you don't call the supreme leader who became supreme by killing his rivals "king".
  
  What you think about communism is completely wrong.
  
  Ok well enlighten me then, because I was pretty certain communism is an economic system where resource distribution is centrally planned by the state. I wonder where I got that idea, tell me, what is communism?
  
  No, Communism is a political ideology that focuses on giving the means of production to the people doing the labor.
  What you just said is the right-wing capitalist propaganda definition of communism.
  In the context of this conversation it is about removing the Capitalist from business. Making it so everyone earns their fair share of the profits instead of one person at the top (like a King/feudalism) gets all the profits, while also making all the decisions. Instead the laborors gets a stake in the business - giving more incentive to help the business do well while giving the worker more power and take home money.
  
  So in such a system, distribution of resources wouldn't be centrally planned? Resources would be distributed in a free market? A farm owner for example who worked their own farm would be free to sell his produce how he sees fit?
  
  Yes.
  
  So what if, suppose, that farm owner had some neighbors that weren't fortunate enough to own a farm for whatever reason, let's say they were migrants from a less plentiful place, and decided it would be good for them and himself if he paid them so they wouldn't starve to help him out on his farm. An open market for labor you might say. Would he still be able to sell that produce how he sees fit?
- Baby doll you just described capitalism.
  
  Really? Capitalism is a system in which the king controls all economic resources and output?
  
  Yeth
- England has explicitly had a non-autocratic king since 1215, the idea that the King of England "owned everything" is ahistorical.
  Do some research on the British East India Company before you're so sure about how things worked in India. It was the first multinational, and it ran India as a profit center.
  One thing I find interesting about your comments is that you're using a very Marxist framework to talk about pre-capitalist modes of organization (which is reductionist and partly why he is not taken seriously as a sociologist in most settings).

https://www.wfpusa.org/articles/global-food-crisis-10-countries-suffering-the-most-from-hunger/

Seeing as how most countries are capitalist, googling "what countries are experiencing famine?" is a good start.

Not seeing any communists (or socialists) on there.

The literal first country on that list is DRC lol do you know the history of DRC?
Literally every other place on the list is in the midst of a civil war except Haiti and Afghanistan. Every single one of them by the way is not currently in a state of famine.
- "Famine is severe and prolonged hunger in a substantial proportion of the population of a region or country, resulting in widespread and acute malnutrition and death by starvation and disease."
  It seems like they are in a state of famine by the official definition.
  What does a civil war have to do with it being Capitalist or not?
  Just find a big list of countries that are currently experiencing famine and look for the ones that aren't at war, if that's a problem for you.
  I doubt their Capitalist status will be different.
  
  In the page you linked, it says that some states are "bordering on a state of famine", which would imply that they are not currently in a state of famine. Did you read what you linked?
  
  You didn't even ask which ones are CURRENTLY facing famine.
  You asked for example if famine in Capitalist nations.
  He over delivered. Stop moving the goalposts.
  
  If every example given of a (arguably) capitalist country in famine is not in famine, he most certainly didn't deliver.
  
  I'm mean, come on man. You can't be serious? You realize you're in denial right? You have to realize it.
  It's clearly right there. He clearly did what you asked. He clearly explained it to you.
  You keep making excuses. Trying to find ways to wiggle out of being wrong. When it is so plain as day, literally spelled out for you.
  Seek help man. Do some inward thinking. It's impossible to have a discussion when you just deny what is in front of you.

The Irish potato famine, the bengal famines, both under the rule of the UK, easily one of the most heavily capitalist countries at the time.

As well as Bangladesh, Biafra famine, Burma rice crisis, 1950 Canadian famine, Darfur famine, 1904 Spanish famine, 1878 Alaskan Famine, 1867 Swedish famine, 1816 European famine, 1811 Spanish famine, or the dozens of other massive famines in India that killed millions, or the dozen or so Austrian Galicia famines, or the dozen famines in pre communist China or the famines in pre communist Russia.

Anyone that actually believes famine is a problems that is unique to "communism" or doesn't exist in capitalism are either ignorant or just a troll.

So, I just randomly selected one of your examples that you vomited to see what it was, the 1878 Alaskan famine because wow, that's a US state right, that's definitely capitalist no doubt about it, a famine in Alaska? I've never heard of that, this guy must have a point...
It's an oral tradition of the yupik people, a hunting tribe who lost ~1000 people due to "bad hunting conditions." Capitalism? Why is it you guys always have to make arguments in bad faith? I personally think it's because youre all full of shit, but maybe you have a different reason?
Famine isn't a problem unique to communism, I never said it was, way to move the goalposts BTW, I only claimed that you won't find a famine anywhere in the world due to capitalism. Famine is a problem almost always caused by governments interfering in the natural distribution of resources. So for example, pre communist China under an emperor. Famine is a problem solved by free markets and present wherever resource distribution is centrally controlled, for example in feudalism, inside colonies under imperialism, communism etc.
- And there go those goalposts again.
  Would you give these same excuses for a communist nation?
  Would you say famine wouldn't count because they were in a war?
  
  Yeah, I'd say famine in for example Vietnam during the civil war would've been due to the war. Cambodia under pol pot, no, holodomor no, north Korea is in a technical state of war but is not currently engaged in any fighting so no, can't blame that ongoing famine on war when there hasn't been fighting in 60 years. Yes, I'm consistent.
- Okay, it's pretty obvious you're just a troll with too much time on his hands now that school is out for the summer (I suggest spending your time outside instead, maybe try making some friends).
  But before I disengage, for the sake of anyone else reading this (because it's clear you won't take on board anything anyone else says) that.
  A market economy is not unique to capitalism, socialism relies on a market economy and can even be the mythical """free""" market capitalist like to rant about. As well as feudalism and basically any other economic system really.
  A free market does not solve famine. Put 2 seconds of thought into it and you'll see that. For example say after a bad harvest there is just enough food to feed everyone on rations, but the local rich guy doesn't want to eat a ration amount, so he uses his boat loads of cash to buy shitload of food and has a luxurious feast for himself. The free market is perfectly happy with this, even though it now means some people are not going to starve to death as the rich man bought their share of the food.
  This scales up to events like the great Irish famine, where food grown in Ireland was sold off to Britian despite people in Ireland literally starving to death, because the British had the money to pay for it and the Irish didn't.
  Or the same with the bengal famine. Where Britain was able to procure Australian grain due to go to India because they wanted it for the Greeks, so they used the free market, paid more for it than the Indians were going to and now it belongs to the UK instead of starving bengalis.
  In times of famine, central distribution of food is by far the better option (assuming those in power actually want to help)
  
  The number 2 point doesn't hold water though, bad harvests happen but people are free to put their land to use remedying that, and incentivized with no administrative overhead.
  The Irish potato famine was not the result of purchases, it was the result of planned food production not panning out, same in Bengal, I happen to have experience there, it's (dare I say) the most fertile ground on earth, if they were reliant on food import it can only be due to mismanagement of land which again, doesnt occur without central planning.
  Point 1, find me a communist country ever that had anything resembling a free market, or even a foundational communist writing that discusses them with anything but disdain.

Does the term "dust bowl" mean anything to you, or?

Yep. Tell me about the dust bowl.