Anti-Socialism Thread

[Senkaku]

Millions of people still starve to death despite the capitalist world order. Your policies clearly play some hand in it cuz the USSR died decades ago and China has only recently begun any sort of real power projection.

You are creating a causal relationship that does not, for the most part, exist. You assume that the presence of poverty in the world is a direct result of capitalist policies, when it is not.

How on earth is it not? The imperialist exploitation of vast areas of the globe by capitalist empires has left billions in poverty; the structure of our political and economic system prevents resources which we have from being allocated equitably to help them. Capitalism is the prevailing world system, the flaws in resource allocation which occur are clearly a byproduct of it.

Nevermind the fact that under this so-called dreadful capitalist world order extreme poverty has declined to its lowest levels in history.

A phenomenon entirely attributable to our exploitation of fossil fuel energy reserves, rather than any particular economic system. For someone complaining about people inventing causal relationships out of thin air, you seem to be doing a lot of it yourself-- the fact that poverty is low is not necessarily a product of capitalism, nor does the fact it's lower than it has ever been mean that it could not be lower if we made different choices about how we structure our economies.

The presence of poverty under capitalism does not discredit capitalism. The same can actually be said for the presence of poverty under socialism.

And yet it seems to be one of your principal lines of attack against socialist regimes. I'm begging you for just a tiny crumb of consistency.

[Senkaku]

Did you know that India used to be one of the wealthiest places in the world, prior to its colonization? Bengal led the world in food and textile production and people enjoyed a standard of living pretty much unheard of in the premodern world. And I assume by "elsewhere" you're talking about the vast swathes of the global south which were also colonized and massively exploited through the 19th and 20th centuries?


This should tell you everything you need to know about the imperialism that fueled Britain's early capitalist economy, and by extension, about what capitalism has done to the world. It is not a point in capitalism's favor.

For one, your historical analysis is not sound. When the British East India Company arrived in India, it was in a state of economic and social disarray. These factors were set in by the decline of the Mughal Empire, which was to a great extent prosperous, but did not functionally exist during the early years of British rule.

Political disarray, sure. Conditions weren't as optimal as they could've been, but the economy was still notably developed compared to almost everywhere else in the world.

The Indian subcontinent only rose to economic preeminence under British rule.

My historical analysis is flawed? India has been one of the world's centers of economic gravity since the dawn of civilization and remained so right up until its colonization by Britain, around which point the capital flowing into Britain helped fuel the Industrial Revolution and move the center of the world's economy to Europe. You have no idea what you're talking about.

The colonisation of India was of course horrible and increbly exploitative, but it does not give you the excuse to present a historically infirm analysis.

The colonization of India was horrible, incredibly exploitative, and central to the development of British and global capitalism and industrialism. I'm pretty sure I'm on sound footing here, I think you should read some about how advanced the economy of Bengal in particular was at the dawn of British expansion into the region.

And for another, the topic of discussion was never the Indian economy under the British Raj, or colonialism for that matter. We are talking about India's economic development in the late 20th to early 21st centurty.

Which is directly influenced by its history under the Raj and by colonialism. You can't just pick and choose like this.

[-Ra-]

How on earth is it not? The imperialist exploitation of vast areas of the globe by capitalist empires has left billions in poverty; the structure of our political and economic system prevents resources which we have from being allocated equitably to help them. Capitalism is the prevailing world system, the flaws in resource allocation which occur are clearly a byproduct of it.

How on Earth is it? You have to be able to demonstrate a causal relationship between the ownership of property by private individuals and the economic privation of poor people. You are acting like a given when it is not.

A phenomenon entirely attributable to our exploitation of fossil fuel energy reserves, rather than any particular economic system.

This is false. And, as for the latter part of your comments, the reason I linked the report was to suggest that we indeed live in the most prosperous economic conditions in human history. Whether these conditions can entirely be attributed to the market is certainly debatable, but that wasn't the intention of the post.

nor does the fact it's lower than it has ever been mean that it could not be lower if we made different choices about how we structure our economies.

Given the fact that socialist regimes have in large part a tendency to at best maintain or at worst exacerbate poverty in the respective countries, I incline against it.

And yet it seems to be one of your principal lines of attack against socialist regimes. I'm begging you for just a tiny crumb of consistency.

You failed to read the final part of the paragraph, didn't you?

[The Hindustani State]

Did you know that India used to be one of the wealthiest places in the world, prior to its colonization? Bengal led the world in food and textile production and people enjoyed a standard of living pretty much unheard of in the premodern world. And I assume by "elsewhere" you're talking about the vast swathes of the global south which were also colonized and massively exploited through the 19th and 20th centuries?


This should tell you everything you need to know about the imperialism that fueled Britain's early capitalist economy, and by extension, about what capitalism has done to the world. It is not a point in capitalism's favor.

For one, your historical analysis is not sound. When the British East India Company arrived in India, it was in a state of economic and social disarray. These factors were set in by the decline of the Mughal Empire, which was to a great extent prosperous, but did not functionally exist during the early years of British rule. The Indian subcontinent only rose to economic preeminence under British rule. The colonisation of India was of course horrible and increbly exploitative, but it does not give you the excuse to present a historically infirm analysis.

And for another, the topic of discussion was never the Indian economy under the British Raj, or colonialism for that matter. We are talking about India's economic development in the late 20th to early 21st centurty.

And yet India suffered a great deal of famines while under the capitalist-imperialist rule of the British Empire, and was indeed considered by many to adhere to a fairly left-wing economic model following independence.

We had the fabian socialism model for a long time until 1997, there was some good and some bad. For example, rations were available to most people but due to how closed it was outside technology couldn’t get in and we remained backwards for a long time, as well as lots of corruption. When Manmohan Singh opened up the economy in 1997 under Rajiv Gandhi, that’s when India’s economic boom began, but we still have lots of poverty

I hope this is informative and clears up some confusion

[Kubra]

This is a false equivalence. Capitalist policies in places like India or elsewhere where people have been historically poor and states have been historically new have had famine in spite of, not because of, their capitalist policies. I will also point out that countries that adopt capitalist policies tend to see a decline in famine rates. India, for example, has not had a famine since its independence.

The deaths during the Great Famine occurred as a direct consequence of Mao's communist policies.

And yet India suffered a great deal of famines while under the capitalist-imperialist rule of the British Empire, and was indeed considered by many to adhere to a fairly left-wing economic model following independence.

In fairness, of all countries that did state-owned industry with five year plans India definitely did it the worst. Ain't much in their model to defend.

[The Hindustani State]

And yet India suffered a great deal of famines while under the capitalist-imperialist rule of the British Empire, and was indeed considered by many to adhere to a fairly left-wing economic model following independence.

In fairness, of all countries that did state-owned industry with five year plans India definitely did it the worst. Ain't much in their model to defend.

I agree, our biggest problem was and still is corruption. There is corruption everywhere, at every level of the massive bureaucracy. I think the main thing stopping us from becoming a booming economy is the insane bureaucracy. It is impossible to do any business in India without going through every level of the bureaucracy, and facing the corruption and bribery at each level

[The Reformed American Republic]

Whataboutism isn’t an argument. Unless you’re a tankie/Maoist, you don’t deny the systematic massacres committed by Mao and Stalin under their regimes?

then you in turn must acknowledge the amount of deaths caused by denial of medical care, food, housing and other necessities to poor people in the US.

I do. Not only is is whataboutism, it doesn't apply to my case. Sympathy for Mao perhaps?

[Senkaku]

then you in turn must acknowledge the amount of deaths caused by denial of medical care, food, housing and other necessities to poor people in the US.

I do. Not only is is whataboutism, it doesn't apply to my case.

Why is bringing up economic and political flaws that kill millions of people valid critique when applied to socialist regimes but whataboutism when applied to capitalist ones

perhaps we should just... openly acknowledge and discuss atrocities and mistakes committed by different political and economic systems and come to certain realizations about the limitations of human government

Sympathy for Mao perhaps?

Jesus. This is a GOP-level leap of logic. "Oh you're saying capitalist countries have flaws? I guess you're just a murderous Maoist!!" Is there ever anything else, at the end of the day? Any hint of deviation from the capitalist line being equated with apologism for dictatorship is such a fucking tired old trope

[The Reformed American Republic]

whataboutism when applied to capitalist ones

Attacking me like I don't criticize capitalism is whataboutism as it doesn't apply to what I'm talking about. In addition, it's actually wrong, as I am critical of capitalism, so it is even more out of place. If you don't get it, it's on you.

[Senkaku]

whataboutism when applied to capitalist ones

Attacking me like I don't criticize capitalism is whataboutism as it doesn't apply to what I'm talking about.

the only takeaway I have at this point is that you just learned a new word and are applying it to every interaction you have

In addition, it's actually wrong, as I am critical of capitalism, so it is even more out of place. If you don't get it, it's on you.

it doesn't apply to my case.

pick me, pick me!

then you in turn must acknowledge the amount of deaths caused by denial of medical care, food, housing and other necessities to poor people in the US.

Sympathy for Mao perhaps?

"the US kills people"
"that's whataboutism, are you denying Mao and Stalin killed people"
"no, but you should in turn acknowledge the US killed people too"
"SYMPATHY FOR MAO PERHAPS?"

yes, clearly a rational, good-faith critique of crimes against humanity, and not a myopic attempt to bludgeon an ideological foe with a body count until they shut up and let you continue to whitewash certain atrocities that don't fit with your worldview

[Crysuko]

then you in turn must acknowledge the amount of deaths caused by denial of medical care, food, housing and other necessities to poor people in the US.

I do. Not only is is whataboutism, it doesn't apply to my case. Sympathy for Mao perhaps?

so you're going to pretend capitalism is perfect and hide behind cries of whataboutism in the face of valid criticism?

[The Reformed American Republic]

My takeaway is that you didn't bother to read my post, misinterpreted it, and now are doubling down because you think you couldn't possibly be wrong.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

I do. Not only is is whataboutism, it doesn't apply to my case. Sympathy for Mao perhaps?

so you're going to pretend capitalism is perfect and hide behind cries of whataboutism in the face of valid criticism?

He just said he acknowledges it's problems

[The Reformed American Republic]

so you're going to pretend capitalism is perfect

No.

[The Reformed American Republic]

so you're going to pretend capitalism is perfect and hide behind cries of whataboutism in the face of valid criticism?

He just said he acknowledges it's problems

Some people here are deliberately obtuse.

[Crysuko]

so you're going to pretend capitalism is perfect and hide behind cries of whataboutism in the face of valid criticism?

He just said he acknowledges it's problems

he pretty clearly doesn't, he refuses to acknowledge the tendency to screw over people who can't afford food and healthcare, and keep them there.

He just said he acknowledges it's problems

Some people here are deliberately obtuse.

you should know

[Senkaku]

I do. Not only is is whataboutism, it doesn't apply to my case. Sympathy for Mao perhaps?

so you're going to pretend capitalism is perfect and hide behind cries of whataboutism in the face of valid criticism?

No, I think it's more of a "guys i already SAID capitalism isn't always PERFECT like fifty pages ago or whatever so stop YELLING at me abt it" approach

[The Reformed American Republic]

He just said he acknowledges it's problems

he pretty clearly doesn't, he refuses to acknowledge the tendency to screw over people who can't afford food and healthcare, and keep them there.

Yes I fucking did.

[Crysuko]

he pretty clearly doesn't, he refuses to acknowledge the tendency to screw over people who can't afford food and healthcare, and keep them there.

Yes I fucking did.

quote it

[The Reformed American Republic]

Yes I fucking did.

quote it

In addition, it's actually wrong, as I am critical of capitalism, so it is even more out of place. If you don't get it, it's on you.

Bother to read any post I have made in the healthcare thread or most other threads and you'd find I support single payer nationalized healthcare. I'm not very capitalistic.

[Kexholm Karelia]

I do. Not only is is whataboutism, it doesn't apply to my case. Sympathy for Mao perhaps?

so you're going to pretend capitalism is perfect and hide behind cries of whataboutism in the face of valid criticism?

I think The Reformed American Republic is anticapitalist too

[Senkaku]

quote it

In addition, it's actually wrong, as I am critical of capitalism, so it is even more out of place. If you don't get it, it's on you.

mfw saying "I am critical of this thing" is the same as actually criticizing the thing

outstanding work

Bother to read any post I have made in the healthcare thread

yes, how could we have failed to remember the new guy's weeks-old posts in some other thread when considering their one-sentence interjection in the present argument in this thread

and you'd find I support single payer nationalized healthcare. I'm not very capitalistic.

"single payer healthcare means I am not a capitalist" I'm going to lose my mind

[The Reformed American Republic]

so you're going to pretend capitalism is perfect and hide behind cries of whataboutism in the face of valid criticism?

I think The Reformed American Republic is anticapitalist too

Thank you. Yes, I am. Two obtuse people just cannot bother to read my post entirely and must double down because they're incapable of admitting they're wrong.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

so you're going to pretend capitalism is perfect and hide behind cries of whataboutism in the face of valid criticism?

I think The Reformed American Republic is anticapitalist too

Not everyone who doesn't like Trump is an anti-capitalist. He's a conservative social democrat I think.

[Senkaku]

I am critical of socialism. go through my posts and you'll find me be critical of socialism somewhere, at some point, about something. now, on to why Stalin was right about a lot of things, and none of you are allowed to attack me for it, because I said I was critical of socialism