Capitalism isn’t a magic antidote. Nor are all iterations of it successful. It really depends on the government keeping corruption under control, keeping monopolies from forming, keeping regulatory capture from occurring. Also, capitalism is just an economic system. There’s also political systems, legal systems, financial systems, military systems, all sorts of other government functions.
Capitalism is actually working pretty well in Asia. China is doing tremendously better since they introduced some capitalism into their socialist system, creating a mixed economy. Their growth has lifted a lot of people out of poverty. Other Asian economies have performed very well. Look at Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, and (at least prior to Chinese takeover) Hong Kong.
Latin America and Africa have a lot of complex problems, many stemming from years - or even centuries - of colonialism, military conflicts, social issues, endemic corruption, bad economic policy like “printing money” and trying to spend their way out of inflation, thereby creating hyperinflation, etc. Expecting an economic system to magically fix all the incredibly complex and even seemingly intractable issues in a society is quite unrealistic.
Great? Maybe not. The best we’ve found for economic development and continued economic growth? So far, yes.
All systems have strengths and weaknesses. All economic systems require intervention to prevent bad actors from exploiting them. If you think communism doesn’t, it’s because you aren’t actually familiar with it.
Again, I highly recommend that you read about twentieth century USSR and China, especially the early days of Mao, Lenin, and Stalin. Because you don’t seem very familiar with communism for someone named after Karl Marx.
Actually most of my knowledge comes from primary sources. People who lived it and wrote or talked about what it was really like. Since you got your hands on something describing “incredible successes” in the USSR and China than obviously you were the one reading propaganda. Or perhaps you consider starving millions of people in the Holodomer and Great Famine to be an incredible success? Killing the kulaks? Incredible success. Book burnings? Incredible success. Cultural revolution? Believe it or not, also incredible success.
Wow, you are full of nonsense. If you have to resort to comparing someone to the Nazis to show they’re not too bad, you’re already up shit creek without a paddle.
Funny, you mention Nazis multiple times in your apologia of Soviet democide, but what you fail to mention is that, rather than murdering “Nazi collaborators” during the de-kulakization period, Soviet leaders were not opposed to Nazism at any point until 1941, when the Nazi betrayed their non-aggression pact and invaded the USSR. Prior to that, they had been on rather cordial terms, dividing up their respective “spheres of influence” (ie deciding who got to raid which countries). The partition, invasion, and occupation of Poland by Nazis and Soviets is a perfect example of this, but there are many others.
No, the Kulaks did not deserve it, you filthy chekist. No more than the US middle class deserves to be brutally murdered. Or US farmers deserve to be brutally murdered (since they are land rich and cash poor). Nobody deserved that. That was not justice, that was an out of control murderous mob. Frequently the locals didn’t even support the murdering of their local landlords and farmers, but outsiders roaming the countryside pressured them to anyways. When even the outsiders wouldn’t murder enough people, the secret police took over and did a fantastic job committing democide.
The Soviets burned a lot more than antisemetic books. You seriously think they killed capitalists, but left the pro-capitalism books intact? That doesn’t even make sense. The USSR burned loads of books, started with “decadent” western authors, but quickly spreading to anyone critical of the regime. Funnily enough, one of the first people to organize book burnings in Soviet libraries later found his own writing was include in the list of works to be destroyed.
This isn’t a Gish gallop. You were welcome to respond with actual examples of the “incredible successes” of the communist countries. But instead you are godwining the thread, and bringing up the war on drugs, which is a wattabooutism - a deflection technique designed to derail the argument. I don’t consider the war on drugs to be an incredible success, so I’m not really sure how it’s relevant.
deleted by creator
Capitalism isn’t a magic antidote. Nor are all iterations of it successful. It really depends on the government keeping corruption under control, keeping monopolies from forming, keeping regulatory capture from occurring. Also, capitalism is just an economic system. There’s also political systems, legal systems, financial systems, military systems, all sorts of other government functions.
Capitalism is actually working pretty well in Asia. China is doing tremendously better since they introduced some capitalism into their socialist system, creating a mixed economy. Their growth has lifted a lot of people out of poverty. Other Asian economies have performed very well. Look at Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, and (at least prior to Chinese takeover) Hong Kong.
Latin America and Africa have a lot of complex problems, many stemming from years - or even centuries - of colonialism, military conflicts, social issues, endemic corruption, bad economic policy like “printing money” and trying to spend their way out of inflation, thereby creating hyperinflation, etc. Expecting an economic system to magically fix all the incredibly complex and even seemingly intractable issues in a society is quite unrealistic.
deleted by creator
Great? Maybe not. The best we’ve found for economic development and continued economic growth? So far, yes.
All systems have strengths and weaknesses. All economic systems require intervention to prevent bad actors from exploiting them. If you think communism doesn’t, it’s because you aren’t actually familiar with it.
Again, I highly recommend that you read about twentieth century USSR and China, especially the early days of Mao, Lenin, and Stalin. Because you don’t seem very familiar with communism for someone named after Karl Marx.
deleted by creator
Actually most of my knowledge comes from primary sources. People who lived it and wrote or talked about what it was really like. Since you got your hands on something describing “incredible successes” in the USSR and China than obviously you were the one reading propaganda. Or perhaps you consider starving millions of people in the Holodomer and Great Famine to be an incredible success? Killing the kulaks? Incredible success. Book burnings? Incredible success. Cultural revolution? Believe it or not, also incredible success.
deleted by creator
Wow, you are full of nonsense. If you have to resort to comparing someone to the Nazis to show they’re not too bad, you’re already up shit creek without a paddle.
Funny, you mention Nazis multiple times in your apologia of Soviet democide, but what you fail to mention is that, rather than murdering “Nazi collaborators” during the de-kulakization period, Soviet leaders were not opposed to Nazism at any point until 1941, when the Nazi betrayed their non-aggression pact and invaded the USSR. Prior to that, they had been on rather cordial terms, dividing up their respective “spheres of influence” (ie deciding who got to raid which countries). The partition, invasion, and occupation of Poland by Nazis and Soviets is a perfect example of this, but there are many others.
No, the Kulaks did not deserve it, you filthy chekist. No more than the US middle class deserves to be brutally murdered. Or US farmers deserve to be brutally murdered (since they are land rich and cash poor). Nobody deserved that. That was not justice, that was an out of control murderous mob. Frequently the locals didn’t even support the murdering of their local landlords and farmers, but outsiders roaming the countryside pressured them to anyways. When even the outsiders wouldn’t murder enough people, the secret police took over and did a fantastic job committing democide.
The Soviets burned a lot more than antisemetic books. You seriously think they killed capitalists, but left the pro-capitalism books intact? That doesn’t even make sense. The USSR burned loads of books, started with “decadent” western authors, but quickly spreading to anyone critical of the regime. Funnily enough, one of the first people to organize book burnings in Soviet libraries later found his own writing was include in the list of works to be destroyed.
This isn’t a Gish gallop. You were welcome to respond with actual examples of the “incredible successes” of the communist countries. But instead you are godwining the thread, and bringing up the war on drugs, which is a wattabooutism - a deflection technique designed to derail the argument. I don’t consider the war on drugs to be an incredible success, so I’m not really sure how it’s relevant.
deleted by creator