Communist Filth/Capitalist Filth

Fucking communist countries have killed how many millions of their own citizens?

Bruh, centuries of capitalist exploitation of its citizens and treating them like a disposable commodity would like to have a word on the whole 'citizens killed by their own country' topic.

How many thousands or millions of citizens die yearly because they can't afford to live in this fucked up system?

So whataboutism really is the only argument for communism lmao
- "I'm presented with a single argument that refutes this claim, better setup a strawman that this is the only argument available"
  Lmao, at least try to sound intelligent
- Lmfao nope. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/
  
  Asks for link that doesn’t say “hurr durr capitalism bad
  Gets a link from Marxists.org
  
  I made this comment without looking at the website but WHAT THE HELL IS THIS WEBSITE
  
  It's communist innovation (not innovative)(no incentive to update that UI from the 90s)(communists find lack of progress calming)
  
  A phenomenal resource.
  
  It actually is a decent resource as long as it is not your only context for history and political science.
  
  Lmfao not at all, the dude literally said whataboutisms are the only arguments for Communism, so i linked him a copy of Das Kapital. Unfortunately you clearly lack the reading comprehension to consume it.
  
  The state of commies, laughable
None? People don't starve to death in western countries. And where they do the issue is lack of infrastructure. A communist government couldn't conjure the resources needed to build that out of thin air either.
- None? People don’t starve to death in western countries. And where they do the issue is lack of infrastructure.
  "This thing doesn't happen, and when it does, it's not the fault of capitalism itself" is a monumentally stupid argument. Especially when talking about the homeless population, which absolutely does have people that starve.
  A communist government couldn’t conjure the resources needed to build that out of thin air either.
  And the capitalist economy chose not to build it because it wasn't profitable, or after it was built, it was too expensive to be used.
  
  I said it doesn't happen in the west, not that it doesn't happen anywhere. Please learn to read.
  
  Bullshit it doesn't happen in the west. 12.8% of US households were considered food insecure in 2022, with 5.1% of that being considered to have VERY low food security(Source). Over 20,000 Americans died of malnutrition in 2022, more than double the number in 2018(Source).
  There's also nearly 30 vacant homes for every 1 homeless person in the US, so there's plenty of room, too. Nobody needs a 2nd home when over half a million people don't even have one.
  
  Maybe you should have actually read that article before linking it. It discusses in detail the reasons for malnutrition being an issue, and none of those reasons is being unable to afford food. The problems are typically due to age and diseases.
  
  I’ve been unable to afford food before, and I didn’t go hungry. People just gave me tons of free food.
  
  Show me one photograph of a person starving in the west.
  
  In the west, the main cause of malnutrition isn't a lack of calories, but a difficulty in access (from availability or price or other factors) to healthy foods with the required nutrition for a healthy life or from an excess of certain nutrients. This is often manifested as conditions such a obesity and type II diabetes. So malnutrition does impact people in the west.
  
  Have you ever been outside your basement?
  
  They are on lemmy.world which AFAIK isn't federated with lemmygrad, so I don't think they can read you.
  
  echo chamber
  
  Not to mention that the people in the global south starve because their food production literally goes to the west. What a fucking moron.
  
  Where is your great communist country ?? Oh wait, it's not there. It doesn't exist and it never will. Capitalism works. Not perfect but it works. Your idealized version of communism is great but so is my idealized version of capitalism where everyone has a shot at the American dream!
- saying that "people don't starve to death in western countries" without understanding in the slightest the actual harms of food insecurity and how it leads to death is a very accurate representation of the scientific ignorance and sociopathic lack of empathy that capitalism supporters bring to the table in these kinds of discussions a hundred times out of a hundred

I’m still confused and alarmed that the only alternative brought up is communism, not socialism. So far as I know, the core difference is transfer of power - one is peaceful, one is violent.

So in communism, your home might be six feet underground because “It is necessary to achieve the revolution, comrade.” Absolutely zero chance of a leader that wants the best for their people, apparently.

That's incorrect.
Socialism is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production. There sre many, many forms, such as Anarcho-Syndicalism, Marxism-Leninism, Democratic Socialism, Market Socialism, Libertarian Socialism, Anarcho-Communism, Council Communism, Left Communism, and more.
Communism is a more specific form of Socialism, by which you have achieved a Stateless, Classless, moneyless society. Many Communist ideologies are transitional towards Communism, such as the USSR's Marxism-Leninism or China's Dengism and Maoism.
Whether by reform or Revolution, the form doesn't change.
- Personally Star Trek is my favorite form of Communism.
  
  Pretty sure that's everyone's ideal, across all forms of leftism, except perhaps Le Guin's Anarchist societies she writes about.
  
  Holy shit. That makes so much sense as to why I hated those books as a kid. Thanks for that insight. I knew something wasn't working properly in Earthsea.
  
  Wrong series though.
  Not to shit on child you, but that kid has terrible taste
- Which political ideology is Responsible for capitalizing random Words?
  
  German
  
  My phone's autocorrect, apparently.
Nationalise essential needs and create State corporations, let capitalism have fun with non essentials. If don't care if private producers make wine or funky clothing or big houses, the government should make sure everyone has food to eat, basic clothes to wear and a place to live.
On that last part, buildings with 8 living units or more should be ran by a non profit State corporation, charge people based on the cost of maintenance and the salaries required, send a check if people were charged too much at the end of the year.
- You left out, healthcare, education, higher education, and Internet access. While we are covering basic human rights, let's make sure we cover all the basic human rights.
  
  Outside of internet access these things are already nationalised in first world countries (I know exactly what's implied by what I'm saying). I didn't feel the need to enumerate every single thing.
- But we need free markets to handle the essentials because free markets consistently provide while governments consistently fail.
  We need the systems that work connected to the most critical needs.
  
  State corporations are private companies whose profit go to the government instead of an owner or investors. The place in North America that has the cheapest electricity is Quebec and that's because it's a State corporation producing it, it still makes billions in profit that is then reinvested by the government.
  So no, free markets isn't necessary. Heck, the free market is what makes it so the US government is the one that spends the most per capita for healthcare even if it only covers part of the population.
Real socialism leads to communism. I want to call what I am advocating for as cultural marxism, but unfortunately that term has antisemitic connotations, while also perfectly encapsulating the gradual shift in the publics perception of Marxist ideology I am advocating for with memes such as this. I am not advocating for a violent revolution, but I wont deny the fact that when the powers that be make a peaceful revolution impossible, a violent revolution is inevitable.
You’re also taking a snapshot of the most regulated industry in the US. Building high rises is illegal in huge swaths of urban areas. Before we say the free market isn’t providing an answer cab we actually try it? I’m talking removing exclusionary zoning, speeding up the permit process and reducing the power of local action committees, and reforming the broken heritage process that’s used by rich people to keep their areas from densifying.
The problem is that a leader who wants the best for their people isn’t sufficient to actually achieve that. What you need is for everyone to be making decisions about what’s best.

Remind me, how many capitalist countries have killed millions of their own citizens?

Germany, pre-communist China, Japan, Armenia, pre-USSR Russia, Pakistan...

Edit: if apparently this isn't the point, why so passionately call out the communist killcount?

See, this is what the fuck I'm talking about.
You're so dense. I'm not advocating or simping got capitalism here. That's what I'm trying to communicate, but you're too fucking dense to even see that when I lay it out.
Both are bad. Just because I say these turds who worship an imaginary and propagandized version of communism are dorks doesn't mean I'm arguing in favor of capitalism. For fucks sake learn to read
- You are 100% correct in your assertion, my anti Mario sex toy friend, and I love your passion. I worry that the minute you call someone's intelligence into question, they'll take a defensive posture and stop thinking critically. Critical thinking is what we need more than anything else in this world right now. That's what's in short supply. It's why the news is constantly being flooded with new things, and why there are so few media outlets that don't have a slant. If I can get you outraged at team blue, or team red, or team US, or team THEM, your anger overrides your reason and you stop thinking about who benefits from the distraction provided by us arguing over whatever this new bullshit thing is we're arguing over. Hopefully that last statement makes sense.
Not to mention all the fascist militaries supported by the US that regularly engaged on mass murders of "communists". Indonesia, brazil, chile, south korea, south vietnam, etc... Ultimately they dont care, they just want to discredit communism by whatever means possible.

This is not "one or the another" situation, communism is the next qualitative stage in development of society. It solves the primary contradiction that we experience in capitalism, that is socialized production being privatized by individuals, aka capitalists.

You can't just declare communism by signing a document, because it is a process of development in which small quantitative changes in production (socialism) lead to a qualitative change (communism), thus to achieve the communism stage you have to achieve a certain level of development.

This is why China is considered a communist country by marxists-leninist even though qualitatively it is a capitalist country. They are actively working to develop communism, this can be clearly seen throughout their rhetoric (i.e. "The Governance of China") and their material results.

The problem with China being that it's authoritarian, not that it's capitalist or communist. There's no choice other than the Communist Party, so when the party is wildly corrupt, you have no recourse at all short of revolution. And we all know what China does to counter-revolutionaries.
- If the party was corrupt they wouldn't be executing the rich and powerful whenever they did a financial crime. Come on.
  
  Funnily enough, this has been succesfully framed as a bad thing by media.
  
  Can you link to some of these trials where they tried these rich people for the financial crimes?
  
  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/05/china-sentences-top-banker-to-death-for-corruption-and-bigamy
  https://time.com/3700907/liu-han-execution-china/
  it happens a lot https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-07-23/china-executes-14-billionaires-in-8-years-culture-news-reports
- And that is a problem to whom? Every single state is authoritarian, the question is whose interests are they protecting.
  China is clearly a dictatorship of the proletariat and they use authority to protect the interests of the proletariat. Yes, sometimes their policy is wrong and does harm but ultimately they work to improve their policies, governing is a learning experience after all.
  
  It's a problem because people don't feel like stakeholders when they don't have a say and can't participate in their system of governance. This in turn means that they aren't incentivized to willingly participate and have to be forced or indoctrinated, both of which are violations of human rights.
  
  Do you think people there don't participate in elections? The party has literally 100 million members, people in China are politically involved.
  
  When was their last general election?
  
  Literally 2023
  
  And how many parties were they allowed to make selections from? Were there any candidates that weren't pre-approved by the leading party?
  
  One party where a basic platform is defined and differences are expressed vibrantly on top of that is better than two parties that brand themselves as different but only offer a couple of aesthetic differences and concessions to keep people mad at the opposing party and not the underlying structure
  
  ...You're really saying that one party where you have no functional choice is better than a multi-party system, just because you think that Republicans and Dems are too alike, while ignoriing the plethora of other parties that not only actually exist in the US, but hold office at local and state level?
  Shouldn't expect any more from a tankie though.
  
  People that want to participate in politics can join the CPC, in fact it has more than 100m official members. Also inside the CPC there are several factions with differents views, so no its not a monolithic entity.
  
  It is one party. It is the only party. It is monolithic.
- What does "authoritarian" mean? Shouldn't we reserve that word for the country with the largest police force, biggest military, and the highest prison population per capita in the world?
  
  And yet it's the Chinese that flock to the US and not the other way rounf
  
  I wonder, do you think that the people that are being "re-educated" are counted as prison population...?
  I suppose that when you simply kill or disappear people that are political dissenters that you don't have to worry about that prison population
- People don’t have much recourse in the US either. The two party system just obfuscates that reality. I’d actually argue that because revolution is the only alternative to the communist party in China, the government has to be more responsive to citizen demands than the US.

It's simple... If you convince the communists that the capitalists are trying to destroy them, (and vice versa), they fight each other, distracting them from the real enemy: the 1% with enough money to directly influence the folk that make the rules that keep them in the 1% club. We're fighting culture wars so we won't fight class wars, my friend.

... capitalism is the ideology that lets the 1% be the 1%.
This is like the one fight that isn't part of the culture war.
- The 1% exist in every form of government, my friend. Billionaire capitalists == Russian Oligarchs. The name changes based on the audience, but the idea is money influences politics. The folk with the most money to do so are the 1% who actually rule, not the interchangeable talking heads who take their money to live a comfortable life acting as the mouthpiece (or scapegoat) for that group.
  
  ...do you think Russia is still Socialist? The Russian oligarchs are Billionaire Capitalists.
  The USSR collapsed in the 90s, buddy.
  
  Exactly! This is exactly what I'm saying. The 1% is still the 1% calling the shots... No matter where they are or what you want to call the type of government they influence.
  
  The Russian Oligarchs you speak of are a result of the fall of Communism in Russia.
  
  Yes, so you're proving the Communists and Socialists in this thread correct. Across all Capitalist systems, the bourgeoisie are still the ones calling the shots. Therefore, a better system would be a more decentralized, worker owned system, perhaps along the lines of Socialism or Anarchism, to reach an eventual state of Communism in the far future.
  What exactly do you take issue with Socialism, Communism, and Anarchism here? You appear to be advocating for a more top-down system like Capitalism, than a bottom-up system. Your argument appears to uphold your criticism.
  
  Oh! I see. No...I'm only saying the minute you start talking any "-isms", you trigger feelings of tribalism that exist in all of humanity. We want to be on the "good team". No one wants to be on the bad team, and that feeling is what the Uber wealthy uses to keep us busy. Debating all of the "-isms" is the problem. Let's figure out how to take care of the masses so basic human needs are met, allowing humanity to prosper, and figure out what the hell to call it later. Otherwise, we just quibble over semantics and nothing gets done.
  
  I mean absolutely no offense by this, but that's a load of Utopian bullshit.
  People use "-isms" not to divide into tribalism, but to describe methods and structures. If you can identify problems with modern, Capitalist society, calling it "Capitalism" is not meant to divide anyone. Similarly, the various leftist strategies, such as Marxism-Leninism, Anarcho-Communism, Council Communism, Market Socialism, Anarcho-Syndiclaism, and so forth, are all different proposed ways of tackling the same problems.
  How do you propose people move towards a solution if nobody knows what the fuck everyone else is doing?
  
  First...I love this discussion. Thank you for it. It's what made me love Reddit in the early years, and why I'm so enamored with Lemmy. Secondly...You make an excellent point; one I can't refute. I don't know how we move towards a solution without having a way to succinctly describe an ideologic structure. I just hate how partisan the world becomes, and how much the media plays off of it to help the fuckers in charge sell ads, or maintain power, wherever you live and whatever ism you subscribe to. Maybe all I'm doing is just missing the point and muddying the waters...
  
  You're starting to get it. You should read Manufacturing Consent, by Noam Chomsky. He describes the very mechanisms by which the bourgeoisie use the media to control the people into doing their bidding.
  
  You should really read a copy of the Communist Manifesto, i dont think you are muddying the waters, you are merely trying to look through the clouds of sentiment that have been stirred up in front of you your whole life.
  
  Is there even a non-capitalist government in existence? Even the communist nations generally have a currency and tiered income based on position.
  
  Couple things: tiered income would likely exist in early stages of Communism, and certainly in almost all forms of Socialism. Marx makes it exceptionally clear that both intense and skilled labor are represented as condensed unskilled labor.
  Either way, there are examples of anti-capitalism. Chiapas and Rojava are more Libertarian Socialist. There's also countries like Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos, who appear to be attempting to reject Capitalism still and still operating on some basis of Marxism-Leninism Socialism. China relies on Capitalism as their dominant mode of production, but claims to be Socialist by 2050, though that remains to be seen.
  The nations you think of as "Communist" are typically Communist in ideology, but are building towards it through Socialism. Just as Feudalism gave way to Capitalism, so to do Marxists believe Capitalism is a necessary stage before Socialism, which is a necessary stage before Communism.
  
  Tiered income does not mean capitalism. Capitalism is not at all defined by inequality. It is defined by free market activity.
- No the 1% definitely exists in communism.
  
  How can a stateless, classless, moneyless society have a 1%?
- Do you think the Russian oligarchs, who by the way pen a FAR larger portion of the Russian economy than their American counterparts, appeared from nowhere after the collapse of the Soviet Union? The Soviets had an extremely wealthy and influential elite
The 1% are the Capitalist and they are trying to defeat the Communists and surpress/continue to exploit the Prolitariat with every tool at their vast disposal. The folks in the comments defending Capitalism are all members of the Prolitariat brainwashed into thinking they are down on their luck Millionaires.
- Look... It's all tribalism, in the end. We can argue semantics, but doing so it's exactly their point. It keeps us busy with pedantry, while they continue to enjoy their wealth from on high. I am not educated enough to debate the pros and cons of each group, but I am intelligent enough to smell an attempt to distract me from the point. To know there's some sleight of hand fuckery happening right in front of my face.
  
  Yes you are intelligent, and so close to getting it, the cultural warfare bullshit is all a distraction to keep you from noticing the class warfare being waged against the working class by the 1% who continues to rob value from us to horde weath far beyond our comprehension. I cant recommend Marx's writings enough, there is so much slight of hand fuxkery going on and it SHOULD rightfully piss you off!
  
  Help me understand how I'm close in what I'm saying, my friend. It feels like we're saying exactly the same thing.
  
  EXACTLY!!!
  
  But he has to be right, it's not about agreeing he has to be RIGHT and you have to be WRONG
  
  Bruh if I HAD to be right I would still be a devoted Libertarian simping for the free market. I love being proven wrong, its how people and ergo society are supposed to evolve and grow.
If you want to fight a class war, you're a communist
- Not even slightly
  
  What ideology is it, again, that champions working class people to take their power back? It's certainly not right wing.
  If you think the world is fucked because of the greed of the 1%, and you want those people to pay for their crimes through class war, you're communist.
  
  Take their power back and give it to the ruling class government you say?
  
  Lol no, I do not say. No ruling class. No government. That's communism.
  It's bonkers to me that you talk a big talk about class and class conflict, yet are opposed to left wing politics. Where do you think those terms come from?
  What's even more bonkers is that you seem to think communism has never said anything about the 1%, when that is the biggest problem communists won't shut up about!
  
  Now you're literally saying that I'm saying or thinking something
  Huge issues with that kind of projection
  
  I don't think you know what projection is. The comment I replied to literally said that the 1% and class are the problem, and that communists are distracted. Couldn't be more off base.
  
  Man you communists need to figure out how to cope with the existence of written records
  Here’s you:
  The comment I replied to literally said that the 1% and class are the problem, and that communists are distracted
  Actually it said this:
  Take their power back and give it to the ruling class government you say?
  
  This is the comment I replied to:
  It’s simple… If you convince the communists that the capitalists are trying to destroy them, (and vice versa), they fight each other, distracting them from the real enemy: the 1% with enough money to directly influence the folk that make the rules that keep them in the 1% club. We’re fighting culture wars so we won’t fight class wars, my friend.
  https://reddthat.com/comment/4678920
  
  What ideology is it, again, that champions working class people to take their power back?
  That sounds like a free market to me. When people have the power to determine their own fate, and how they engage with others for economic coordination.
  When everyone has the ability to choose how they engage, that’s called a free market. The economic system based on free markets is called capitalism.
  
  That sounds like a free market to me
  A free market means zero regulation, so I hope you like drinking poison because "ain't no gubmint telling me how to bottle my soda!"
  When people have the power to determine their own fate, and how they engage with others for economic coordination.
  This requires kicking capital out of the economy. That would be defeating capitalism.
  When everyone has the ability to choose how they engage, that’s called a free market
  No, it's called voluntary participation. Free markets inevitably trend toward monopolies and concentrations of power, because the supply side is not held to any standard.
  The economic system based on free markets is called capitalism.
  And look where it's gotten us - with a 1% bleeding the rest dry.

It's almost like there's a middle ground that's the best of both worlds.

Except there isn't. we tried that then the capitalists bought the weaker willed politicians and used them to undermine any regulation. Capitalism is a cancer and must be excised as such.
- I don't disagree that Capitalism doesn't work in its purest form, but we've hardly had a success with communism in its purest form either.
  
  We literally have. Look at the massive literacy, life expectancy, and political rights increases under literally every single communist government compared to what came before them instead of comparing them to some utopian ideal that capitalism compares even less favorably to.
  
  life expectancy, and political rights increases under literally every single communist government
  Are you not aware of the massive incarceration, labor camps, starvation, conscription, etc?
  Have you read about the Battle of Stalingrad? Do you seriously not know the stories of how life expectancy and political rights were totally and utterly squashed many times by communist governments?
  
  Are you not aware of the massive incarceration, labor camps, starvation, conscription, etc?
  Are you aware the gulags never reached the same scale as the current US prison system? Are you aware that under the Soviets and under the CPC previously periodic famines under the previous governments stopped after initial industrialization?
  I will leave you with this quote, ironically about a liberal revolution against monarchists
  THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.
The enlightened centrists never fail to amuse us. 😂

fucking communist countries have killed how many millions of their own citizens

Most of these articles cite the Black Book of Communism, which goes to absurd lengths to inflate the death toll of Communism, for example counting all the millions of nazi and soviet soldiers killed on the eastern front as victims of communism, counting the entire death toll of the Vietnam war, and even counting declining birth rates as deaths due to communism.

Noam Chomsky used the same methodology to argue that, according to Black Book logic, capitalism in India alone, from 1947–1979, could be blamed for more deaths than communism worldwide from 1917–1979.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160921084037/http://www.spectrezine.org/global/chomsky.htm

Right. Communism vs capitalism is just more centralization. There are plenty of decentralized options to balance things as too much centralization, no matter the political system leads to corruption.

What do you figure is centralized about capitalism?
- All the increasingly large corporations that are constantly buying their competition and making it hard for anyone else to compete.
  
  That is the death of capitalism. That’s capitalism (based on free markets) devolving into oligopoly (based on regulatory capture and tightly-restricted markets).
  Capitalism doesn’t last any better than any other institution. It degrades into something else. The thing it degrades into is a centrally-controlled market, similar to what you find in socialism.
  
  Agreed. Whether it is Capatalism, Communism, Socialism, democracy, dictatorship they all have centralizion in them even if their intent is otherwise. We need to support more decentralized services and governance as it balance the poor and returns it to the people. We just need more people to get on board, it it seems like we prefer to give our power to power hungry companies and regimes instead. Not saying we need to have zero centralization as it has its place, but it needs to be kept in check and the only to force to do so is decentralization. But it is all so much more complicated and above the human condition to manage. Hopefully AI will be able to help for better or for worse.

It's even worse than that. Most Lemmy commies are aggressive sectarians who cling to a very particular form of the ideology, while rejecting all forms of moderate leftism and Marxist revisionism. It's extremely obnoxious, and their bizarre, outdated philosophy is a primary reason why people are skeptical of leftist politics.