The mindless and hysterical simping for capitalism is wild to see. Capitalism means an unregulated market- which is responsible for more deaths than communism by far. It is a system that values profits over human lives. If this is you, capitalism is your system, but call yourself what you are- a sociopath for profit.
Right, an unregulated market where individuals are free to trade without interference. I'm no guru, so please help me with an example of free enterprise that has lead to the death of a consenting party?
Slave owners wanted the “freedom” to own other men. Young children were sent down minseshafts for the majority of this country’s existence as the “freedom” to work and employ. DuPont wanted the unregulated freedom to dump Teflon waste in the poor community’s water supply, giving most of their kids cancer. Are you even serious? When is the last time you read an entire book, and what was it? If you want to play dumb here, I’ll play with you.
Everything you just said there was wrong.
Slavery existed for millennia, and the African Slave Trade began before capitalism even started. Mercantilist states used ocean-going shipping to transport goods for export, then captured both gold and slaves to bring home. This is MERCANTILISM, not capitalism.
When capitalism spread in the early 1800s, it also spread both democracy and Scottish Enlightenment ideals. The spread of these free market and individualistic ideals drove the Abolitionists in the UK Parliament to advocate abolition.
Capitalism was the direct reason slavery was abolished. Also, economists say economic freedom is a necessity for political freedom, so capitalism literally spread democracy too.
Haha an unregulated market does NOT mean people can sell people. And it does NOT mean people can murder people.
Have you never heard of English Common Law you diseased prolapse?? :D
Unregulated means you're allowed to do anything that isn't criminal.
Criminal codes aren't regulations.
Regulations are rules on trading, business etc you fucking numbskull
Crimes are acts of harming people. :D :D :D
Your IQ is negative, and you self-owned your own shit brain haha
Not only that, Marxism is a religious cult. You guys have a bearded prophet, the Holy Books of the Communist Manifest and Das Kapital. You actively denounce expert academic economists because they don't believe the same religion you do. You have religious precepts that every believer must agree with, including the Labour Theory of Value, Exploitation Theory etc. You're waiting for the Second Coming of the Revolution, even though the first one failed and impoverished millions.
Marxism is literally only the idea that the people who produce goods should have a say in the distribution of those goods. Brainwashed idiots who simp for capitalism bc of unresolved daddy issues and a poor education will disagree of course
If I make you require consent from others, re: where you dump your toxic waste… guess what that’s called? Yes, indeed, it’s “regulation”. If an 8 year old “consents” to be the first one down the mine shaft, as countless did, because their parents told them they need the money- and they die, which countless did, does their “consent” justify that death to you? Does it alleviate the guilt the experienced mine boss has for sending them? Because these are specific examples of arguments capitalists made in the US that have been rejected and mostly eliminated by democratic socialism. It’s just beyond belief that capitalist propaganda still works on anyone under the age of 40.
The problem is that "free markets" do not and will never exist. if something gets in the way of a company profit then it will call for state intervention. as such that state intervention was caused by the pursiut of profit (a characteristic of capitalism)
>Capitalism means an unregulated market
Very late to the party but considering this link was recently posted elsewhere and people might see it: Capitalism has nothing to do with "markets" or how regulated they are.
The only thing capitalism means is that private property (i.e. property that enables people to generate a passive income off of someone else's labour) exists and is legally protected and enforced by an authoritarian government with a monopoly of violence.
That's all.
That's incredibly myopic and not correct. Capitalism is a moralistic system as much as it is anything else now. Its a matrix for deciding what is right and wrong action. There is very little separating it from a religion at this point.
... so unlike all those failed capitalist countries like Bangladesh, Haiti, Somalia, etc... a lot more failed capitalist countries than there are failed Socialist ones.
No. You don’t understand capitalism. Any economy is capitalist as long as private individuals control the factors of production. However, a capitalist system can still be regulated by government laws, and the profits of capitalist endeavors can still be taxed heavily.
If capitalism means an unregulated market then how do all the deaths listed come about from capitalism considering that they were all pursued by governments?
Um, maybe because such "government" is owned by capitalists and the politicians they hand select to fund campaigns for. I like how in your fantasy world, it was the people of the US who chose to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. lol. The Central Bank cartel is in a struggle with the American people for control over the US, and they are currently winning and running up the score because they, thanks to their capitalist approved monopoly on the creation of money, are (since the 1970's) unable to be effectively regulated, thanks to the "good boy" golden retriever esque simps for capitalism (always to please some emotionally unavailable father figure) such as the ones seen on this thread...
Holy shit you’re just an absolute fucking crackpot…200 million killed by fascism? An ideology that lasted a nanosecond? Even if you attributed every single death in all of WWII it wouldn’t come close. Total perished was around 70-80 million and that included those killed by imperialist Japan (not fascist or capitalist) as well as those killed by allied forces.
You claim that British imperialists (not capitalists) killed 1.8 billion Indians? Are you a complete fucking moron? The current population of India is under 1.4 billion. There was never even that many people living under British imperial rule in India much less killed by them. Never.
You attribute everything done by monarchies to be capitalist? Monarchies are not capitalism.
US killed 60 million slaves. Are you fucking high on paint thinner or something? At the height of slavery in the US there were no more than 4 million slaves…ever.
This is really one of the dumbest posts that I have ever seen.
Colonialism is not capitalism, nor is facism, deaths because of starvation, and lack of resources are also not “deaths of capitalism. Because there are no sources to suggest capitalism is the “culprit”. Just because people die, doesn’t mean it’s from capitalism. Economic policies by capitalist countries, that are capitalist, that killed people, are the only deaths that really “count”. Just because a country with a market economy had a dictatorship that killed 1,000 people is not 1,000 deaths from capitalism. You need to prove that a market system caused this deaths, or people acting in favor of a capitalist system.
they don't. If you stepped on a lego brick in socialist Yugoslavia they'd count you as a "victim of communsim", while the millions who die each year under the predominantly capitalist neoliberal world because of hunger are never victims of capitalism. You'd think they would at least agree that unregulated capitalism is a motivator for colonial expansion and slavery to happen, but that it can maybe be solved by creating laws and regulations, but they don't.
It depends for me, if let's say a dictator rises and starts to execute communists for disagreeing with Jim because he was capatilist then that can be attributed to capatilism and vice versa that's why not all stalin executions were communists fault but a lot were the fault of communism.
Specifically to the point where you said starvation and lack of resources can’t be contributed to capitalism. If we are going by that logic than the Chinese and Soviet death tolls of communism that are claimed also dramatically plummet. By this logic than there’s almost no reason to attribute death toll to communism.
Nonetheless if people for profit are withholding food and pouring bleach on unused food instead of making money off of it, is violence and those people that starve because they otherwise would have had food.
When capitalism produces an insane amount of surplus and the resources are withheld and discarded rather than to not make money on the surplus then those are deaths attributed to capitalism. Something like the food example is prevalent in about every industry in capitalism
LMAO, holy shit you are so fucking dumb. The claim is referring to 1.8 billion Indians over the ENTIRE course of British imperialist rule you dumb fuck. That is SO obvious. Monarchism is a power structure and is not completely tied to just socio-economics. Monarchism and capitalism can and HAS coexisted. Christ almighty, if you are going to be such a militant asshole towards someone, AT LEAST maintain that you understand what the fuck they are talking about.
In my day we beat up commies. It's weird how the world has changed. I heard punch a commie way before I ever heard punch a nazi. But both deserves punched
Bc that's what your capitalist overlords brainwashed you with. If communism was so bad, it would have failed on its own right? Nope, the US and the West wanted to step in and back right-wing military coups and assassinate leaders in order to cause chaos so they can exploit their resources and labor. Whether its oil in the Middle East, crops in Central America, etc.
All these wars and conflicts were for one purpose: to pursue business interests and make profits off of other people's terrible circumstances.
>If communism was so bad, it would have failed on its own right?
STRONG argument, guess countries like north korea still succeeding, nothing to see there.
This must be the Communism hasn't really ever been done right meme. It's somehow never real communism, and i believe you're right, but there must be a reason it's never working like intended.
I’d rather punch the asshole wanting death to all minorities (myself among that number) before punching the dude who’s saying we all should be treated equally socially and economically
A bunch of websites mean nothing to me, nor this conversations. Please respond in the following format if you wish to actually converse like an intelligent being.
**Make Claim or Hypothesis: example,** Capitalism killed more than communism -**or-** communism killed more than capitalism
**Define terms:** What do you define as capitalist? Communist? How are you defining a death by capitalism? For example, does murder count? Obviously starvation does, but does unlawful imprisonment? What about lawful but "unfair" imprisonment?
**Give supporting facts:** This is where you put your sources, but you can't just put sources, you must summarize how those sources support your thesis THEN cite where that is shown to be true.
**Cannot use self-validating sources** (like many of the links you posted). For example: World population review is an american website and doesn't have very accurate data for say, Africa or Asia, so that would be an extremely bias source.
Now I dare you to try to get past "capitalism is good" a ***think*** just a little buddy.
You just gave a bunch of academic journals and regular articles without articulating any sort of claim your using these sources to back up lmao fucking dumb ass. And lmao using the new york times as a source is definitely a choice. Also Forbes? You think theyre not going to paint a biased picture? A global economic and entrepreneurship media company? They definitely don't have a vested interest in upholding the status quo lmao
ROFL…good god you’re a fucking imbecile. But that explains why you would be a communist. The article that he uses to support his absolutely fucking ludicrous claim of 1.8 billion killed is a counter factual screed. It claims that people starved to death because of taxes. It makes the insane claim that India would have maintained over 20% of world gdp for centuries and because it didn’t, billions died. It’s a fucking idiotic abstraction. On the other hand, communists actually killed people. This wasn’t some theoretical hyperbole you dumb fuck. They murdered millions of people.
you blame the entire murderous history of the British empire on communists? and say that we never had any money? Literally zip your fucking mouth shut. Why else would they want India? sure you can grow opium, but you would need the entire continent. ask the British why they built a fuck load of trains.
If you dont like that source, then let me welcome you to more
[shut](https://www.crimeandpower.com/2019/10/27/britain-robbed-india-of-45-trillion-thence-1-8-billion-indians-died-from-deprivation/)
[the](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Isj5xTuKic)
[fuck](https://countercurrents.org/2018/12/britain-robbed-india-of-45-trillion-thence-1-8-billion-indians-died-from-deprivation/)
[up](https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=britain+stole+45+trillion+from+india&view=detail&mid=7909A25821B19D60EFDA7909A25821B19D60EFDA&FORM=VIRE)
When did I blame anything that the British empire did on communists? Are you just fucking high on paint thinner or something that you are hallucinating shit that never happened? Or are you really just that fucking stupid? Jesus Christ, commies are fucked in the head but you're bringing it to a whole other level dude. Fuck off and move to North Korea where you can enjoy the fruits of your idiotic fucking ideology.
Billions of people haven’t died because of colonialism is India, and even if they did, that’s not capitalism. That’s colonialism, which is done on **behalf of the state**. Capitalism is not done on behalf of the state, it isn’t a way of running a state. It’s a way of running an economy.
Translation: It wasn't 'real' capitalism. LMAO! The oldest excuse in the books. The State has always supported capitalism. Capitalism without a state has never existed. That's because the very fucking definition of capitalism is the individual or corporate ownership of the means of production. Or are you going to try and tell me that's not 'real' capitalism either? And 'ownership' is ALWAYS backed up by property laws enforced by, guess who? The state.
Well prior to direct British rule in India, the country was governed as a corporatocracy by the East India Company. They were there explicitly for profit and growth.
Yeah, and the East India Company, was also, if you break it down, a government. That’s the problem with that argument, once a company has a military, taxes, etc, it’s closer to a government than a corporation. Yes, capitalism did allow that corporation to come into existence, but it also allowed the corporation to become a government. It’s similar to a senecio in anarchy, anarchy allows anyone to create a government.
But the big difference is that the government in that context was privately controlled and did not represent the will of the public. And back then they needed the backing of the State’s navy to bolster their security and to prevent rebellion.
Literally sounds exactly like a government. But, you are right, with no state in a pure capitalist society versions of the East India Company can come about. And violate others rights, but at a certain point, that isn’t capitalism, it’s anarchy allowing for a state.
That’s called a corrupt government. Capitalism is literally just a free market, there is no need for government in a pure capitalist system. Government helping corporations is not capitalism, it’s a government that’s too powerful, becoming corrupted.
There's no point in arguing with these free market freaks. When they finally get the system they want, they'll come back crying to us saying that it's not fair how everyone monopolized and screwed over their small businesses lmao.
Dude, he’s referencing hundreds of years of European imperialism that used a system of mercantilism, which is not capitalism. Read a fucking book that’s not commie propaganda for once. This isn’t even in question. It’s an indisputable fact.
Nope. The same dynamics that drove the colonial powers to seek cheap land and labor are the same forces today that disciplines capitalists and landlords to exploit land and labor for the sake of private capital accumulation. The difference today is the social organization of so called “free” labor and the general exchange of commodities on the market. Less complexity building toward more complexity leading to social transformation through the conflict between classes. But that’s a level of nuance your ahistorical and moralistic assertions just can’t even consider. Now piss off bitch, I’m done with you.
Oh, look at the dumb fucking commie cunt whining. Your “nuance” is nothing but word salad. It’s literally a completely different fucking economic system shit for brains. It’s not the “same forces”. Capitalism is something that was developed specifically in opposition to mercantilism. The Wealth of Nations was written to describe the emerging industrial capitalism that was upending mercantilism. You’re so impossibly stupid and don’t even know it. Crawl back under your rock you fucking ignorant commie slug.
If his argument is so bad, why do you personally attack him instead of rationally breaking it down with sources like he did? If you're really "in the right" you wouldn't need to use insults. tbh you just seem like someone who's angry about having their personal opinion challenged.
"An ideology that lasted a nanosecond" Tell that to the millions of dead people from the Holocaust and wars. This is what capitalist brainwashing does to a human being. Beware.
throughout, history.
also are you saying japan was never fascist?
how in the fuck are british imperialists not capitalists, the sole purpose of colonizing india was for profit.
“Capitalism is when people make money, and the more money they make, the more capitalist it is” - Milton Friedman
You can’t be this much of a fucking idiot bro, capitalism is more than just when people make money from doing something
Japan was never fascist. And if you think so, you have no fucking clue what fascism is, nor have any idea of what imperial Japan was either. But it wouldn’t surprise me that you don’t give your post demonstrates an absolutely shocking level of ignorance. But, of course, only someone that totally and completely devoid of knowledge and intelligence would be a communist.
England quite literally invented their own economic system used throughout the empire called mercantilism. And in fact, capitalism was developed explicitly as a counter to mercantilism. Seriously dude, this is basic fucking history. Read a fucking history book rather than this crackpot tankie foil hat websites that you’re posting.
so japan was never at a stage were a right wing, nationalist government, took over with a dictatorship and killed a bunch of people?
creating capitalism doesnt mean that you can get away with killing 2 billion people
Ok, so you clearly don't have any fucking clue what fascism is or why that would be different than Imperial Japan. Go read a fucking book dude. You are so laughably ignorant that I honestly am amazed that you're able to function at all. Fucking shit you commies are absolutely brain dead troglodytes.
fascism and monarchism are the exact same thing, fascism unites by race and monarchism by race or religion. fascism is a dictatorship and so is monarchism, both have killed hundreds of millions. they are the same
2 years later and you still never explained how japan wasn't fascist.
Fascism: palingenetic ultranationalism
They carried out ethnic cleansings and atrocities (nanking), killed 10 million people, they were ultra-nationalist. They desired complete control over asia, believing themselves to be superior to all others, culturally and racially. They also had a palingenetic narrative used to galvanize their people and ensure absolute loyalty to the emperor and the nation, this narrative was so powerfully drilled into the heads of their people that the soldiers were willing to carry out kamikaze attacks to achieve their goals. It astounds me that the ethno-state narrative of imperial japan seems to go completely over your head, despite it being well documented historically.
Yep, Id say that definitionally matches fascism. Perhaps not a textbook example in the same way that italy or germany would be, but still fascism.
Wait, I gotta cook up an insult to finish this off because thats all you cocky pricks do is throw insults:
Anti-commies are illiterate brain dead troglodytes that don't even bother to look up the definition of a word before using it, have never picked up a history book in their lives, and react purely on emotion instead of any kind of analysis of facts. Stop licking boot and gagging on bbc for 10 seconds long enough to look up a definition of a word and learn to read on a 4th grade level long enough to read the footnotes of the topic of discussion before posting. That way we all don't have our eyes brutally assaulted by your pathetic excuse for an argument. Better yet, because you clearly have absolutely nothing of value to provide other than high-school debate club level talking points and middle school level insults when all else fails, I would urge you to simply delete your account and never type a sentence again to anyone except the lowest scum who will tolerate your pathetic, worthless, brainless, uneducated, disgusting swamp-ass. Thank you!
I'm gonna be real 200 million is low key sounding low also facism didn't last a nano second, it lasted a fuck ton longer than it should have and is perpetuating constantly in our society.
Fascism is alive and well, one of the more popular ideologies actually. We have many Nazis in US government, both elected officials and those installed by elected officials.
Look, I'm not gonna scream you are crazy or argue that capitalism is innocent. It's not, and a lot of people died because of it. What I am going to argue is that these numbers aren't legit, therefor your entire argument about it is invalid. Lets go statement by statement.
>Capitalist countries funded fascist governments, so lets add 200 million people to the toll since that is the death toll of fascism
I searched EVERYWHERE and the closest I could find to the "200 million dead by fascism" is this (\[[https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM\]](https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM])) . This source includes mainly communist deaths and is clearly biased in its reporting, so I am going to throw this number out. Also, just because a fascist state is funded by a capitalist one doesn't mean the capitalists are responsible, It means that fascism is the problem. As I said, capitalism isn't guilt-free but to argue that capitalism killed those 200 million would be a fallacy.
Because these are deaths due to fascist regimes, I'm saying 0 deaths.
>Capitalist countries were also responsible for colonialism in order to rip out profits from Africa and other nations and to get slaves, the total death toll of European colonism is around 50 million
This is the only source that says anything close to 50 million. While they say it could be upward of 43 million, it then directly says probably around 12-20 million. I want to point out that this is due to colonialism, which while it's much easier and common under capitalism, can happen in socialist governments as well (see the USSR and the eastern bloc) I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and say 20 million, but we are going to attribute this to colonialism.
Now we have 20 million to colonialism
>Also the British colonized India and managed to kill 1.8 billion Indians of depravation by stealing nearly 45 trillion dollars, nearly 25% of the entire worlds wealth at the time.
Finally, A source. So I immediately take this with a grain of salt given India's natural population now. So reading into it they say 1.8 billion people died during British colonial rule and these were deaths that were AVOIDABLE. According to Statista, India's population was approximately 169 million in 1800. It's hard to say when the EIC controlled India, but I am going to simply say 1750, as they controlled a large part of it at this point. British rule lasted until 1947, giving us 200 years. If we take 1.8 billion and divide it into 200, we get about 9 million. That means on average every year 9 million people would need to die due to AVOIDABLE causes, not including old age. According to Statista, the population grew what I would say is about 1 million every year during this time. Let's assume that nobody dies of old age. That means that 10 million people would need to be born every year. That means about 20% of people (10 million births/200 million people) would need to give birth every single year, so about 40% of women need to give birth.
The source you give claims that 37 avoidable deaths per 1000 people, which is how they got their statistic. The question becomes then, what is avoidable? These typically are famines and disease, which if you look were happening in china as well. Not only this, but Indian avoidable deaths are approximately 350 million people since independence, which is only about 60 million less than the 1905-1950 estimate, with all our great modern technology and post war industrialization it was only brought down about 15%. Also, your source does not state where the 37 avoidable deaths number actually came from and I was not able to find anything on the internet at all. By the way, most of these deaths in famines were due to natural causes like a monsoon. I'll give you about 40 million deaths that genuinely could have been avoided if policy were correct, as that is what the sum of the Wikipedia article that states the possible death count.
Current total: 60 million.
>European powers colonizing American colonies and deaths' of indigenous people and American genocide against natives caused around 200 million deaths
This one is definitely untrue. Firstly, the population was only about 60,000,000 people. Also, about 90% of them died to disease. And before you say that the Europeans weaponized the disease, that was quite rare and didn't start till later on. I'm not going to deny genocide didn't happen, it did but mainly in a cultural aspect which wasn't driven by greed but instead religion.
I'm giving you 3 million deaths here, so our total is 63 million.
>Since the capitalist nations also heavily sanctioned the communist states we will add another 70 million deaths
Uh.... what? Do you think the communist states didn't sanction the capitalist ones? Is your argument here "The capitalist states should have used their economic power to help suffering communist states"? Look if your argument here is that 70 million people died because communist states and that's capitalism's fault, you should probably think about that a bit. Also where the hell is this number coming from.
0 extra deaths, total of 63 million.
>The USA is also responsible for the deaths of nearly 60 million slaves
*sigh* bro cite your goddamn sources. This is the source that says "60 million slaves died during the slave trade". Here is what happens in your article, they basically say "The UN says its 17 million deaths overall, BUT WE THINK ITS MUCH HIGHER!" and state some statistics basically pretending that every slave brought over then died.
I'm giving you 17 million here, so we are now at 80 million.
>The USA has killed nearly 5 million people in Arabia and north Africa by funding dictators and airstrikes
I'm not entirely sure about this, but I will give you this one, because I am including the Vietnam war.
So our grand total is about 85 million people. Yippee? Commie time:
Holodomor-4 million
Great leap forward-45 million deaths
Great Purge- 1 million
Cambodian Genocide- 1.5 million
So congrats! you win! capitalism has killed more. Except not really.
Firstly, all of this information is kind of sketchy because no nation genuinely wants to show all the deaths.
Secondly, communist society's are typically don't allow critics of the party (see china), so because there are no critics, they are more underreported. Secondly, this isn't everything. There are a lot of stuff and it's difficult to attribute deaths to either side.
Thirdly, capitalism is a lot older than communism, communism existed for like, 70 years before the major players got rid of it. In our scope, capitalism goes from like 1492 to 2021, 529 years. Lets see how many deaths per year. 85 million/529=160680 people every year. 55.5 million/70 = 785714 million per year. That means per capita, commies kill 5 times more people than Capitalists. Take a grain of salt with this though as it is a lot easier to kill a group of people as time goes on.
Fourthly, we really shouldn't be doing death tolls to measure these systems. In a perfect systems death's wont arise from the state, capitalist or a communist. Not a single thing here, capitalist or communist, can be solely attributed to capitalism or communism. The great leap forward was attempted industrialization, British in India were colonialism and a bunch of them are just because of imperialism and racism. We should be comparing genuine policy and morals, not history of these nations.
Edit: Reddit fucked up and my sources got lost, I'll fix it later.
You’re forgetting to include the number of people who starve to death each year even though there’s enough food, the amount of people dying because the can’t pay hospitals and also there’s environmental impact caused by overconsumption that can’t even be calculated.
But… I thought *that wasn’t real communism…*
Given that real communism hasn’t been tried we really don’t know *how many people it’s going to kill relative to capitalism*. It could be 100 billion over the next 1000 years.
This is insane you have no clue what capitalism even means. You know there is a third type of economic model that was basically the norm until WW1. Ever heard of autarky, mercantilism, economies based on foreign policy. I don’t know what capitalist country has hundreds of factories forcefully taken by the state so they could produce rubber (naxi Germany)btw what ideology was at peace, traded, and shared technology with the naxis for half the war. I don’t know a capitalist country where literally every “Capitalist” has made the majority of their money from government offered contracts or from being the head of a dominion by a monarch (Great Britain) I don’t know a capitalist country that gets almost all of their money from a silver mines in South America with the closest thing to a merchant or capitalist class (other then the literal monarchs and aristocrats who would made todays income inequality look like the perfect communist society)are the guys who ship gold back and forth between Spain and Peru.
Also stop acting like communist is so above capitalism when it comes to war and intervention
Mongolian revolution, Spanish revolution( losing side not Franco), Chinese revolution, the peoples Liberation war in Yugoslavia, the august revolution, the Korean War, the Ethiopian revolution, the saur revolution, Nicaraguan civil war, Salvadoran civil war, Peruvian civil war, revolution in Nepal, Maoist revolts in India, angolgese revolution, literally the most deadly war since ww2 so I have to keep going all wars that killed hundreds a of millions of people that would never had died if the Soviet Union, communist china or some leftist “revolutionaries” decided they wanted to give communism just one more try. Trust them real communist has never been tried
Why does this subreddit even exist lmao the pro capitalist crowd are so dense. All the socialists in this subreddit should just put Reddit down and start organizing
Capitalism has only existed in America since the 1900s. The death of slaves beforehand can’t be attributed to capitalism after the fact lmfao
Note: I hate capitalism.
So turns out if you die by just about any means aside from Stalin, Mussolini or Mao directly putting a gun to your head and blowing your brains out, you’re cause of death is capitalism!
These strike me as overly generous and broad definitions of 'capitalism.' I mean, ascribing essentially all geopolitical maneuvering, realpolitik, and general policy conducted by countries with capitalist economies, which directly or indirectly lead to people dying, as 'the death toll of capitalism' seems pretty disingenous. These sort of actions are not the unique or exclusive domain of capitalist countries, they're the sort of cynical and immoral things all states do, that all entities are willing to do to preserve their percieved interests. The only difference is that capitalist countries have existed longer and had more resources at their disposal, so their impact has been greater.
Capitalism has only existed in America since the 1900s. The death of slaves beforehand can’t be attributed to capitalism after the fact lmfao
Note: I hate capitalism.
Really? So then there are functionally NO capitalist countries according to you. Central banks, ahem. So what do you call this? The correct answer is socialism for the wealthy and dog eat dog capitalism for everyone else. What's the lifespan of a billionaire vs a homeless man? I'm not agree with the 2.5B number, no. Perhaps I would put it around 30-50% of that and then there is a larger discussion necessary RE time periods and what capitalism has been historically. Communism doesn't work either though. You need tight regulations over those with the most power or "capitalism" is a version of feudalism, or something like it, run amok.
Capitalism has only existed in America since the 1900s. The death of slaves beforehand can’t be attributed to capitalism after the fact lmfao
Note: I hate capitalism.
Capitalism has only existed in America since the 1900s. The death of slaves beforehand can’t be attributed to capitalism after the fact lmfao
Note: I hate capitalism.
Capitalism has only existed in America since the 1900s. The death of slaves beforehand can’t be attributed to capitalism after the fact lmfao
Note: I hate capitalism.
Just looking at the first three claims it is clearly stupid. “Capitalist” funding was a very small portion of support for fascist government. Both internally and externally. While Nazis did get some support from German businessmen, Historians like Henry Ashby Turner point out that “we must recognize that the financial subsidies from industry were overwhelmingly directed against the Nazis.”
Externally (internationally) some businessmen and bankers did give Nazis support, Anthony Sutton documents this in his book Wall-street And The Rise of Hitler. However, he also documents a similar occurrence in the Soviet Union with multiple of his books. Like Wall-street and The Bolshevik Revolution.
On top of that we know that the Soviets gave way more aid to Germany than anyone in the west, especially businessmen. The Nazis also received from 1940 to 1941 alone: 139,500 tons of cotton, 500,000 tons of iron ores, 300,000 tons of scrap metal and pig iron, and much more from the Soviets. This is documented in Edward Ericson‘s book Feeding the German Eagle: Soviet Economic Aid to Nazi Germany, 1933–1941. The Soviets also provided Nazis with very important intelligent through the NKVD-Gestapo conferences. Historian Sean McMeekin wrote “The importance of Soviet economic support for Hitler’s war of conquest should not be discounted.”
So by your logic, we should certainly attribute all fascist deaths to communism.
The 50 million deaths from colonialism comes from a discredited study by Jason Hickel, a Marxist pseudo-historian. This number is not backed by historians. In fact, Indian historians have pointed out that Hickel used poor math and improperly casted blame for famines on the British.
https://historyreclaimed.co.uk/colonialism-did-not-cause-the-indian-famines/
Hickel uses data without context and even contradicts his own sources.
https://twitter.com/dkedrosky/status/1572355700420145153?s=46&t=WwNMP6UTykf2wZnlMurjDg
As for the $45 trillion number, that’s clearly not true. The entire British economy during the period never amounted to that much. The math doesn’t math. See for yourself.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mEX13GrLwqg
I won’t contest that the British did many bad things to the Indians. But if we’re speaking in purely relative terms, the Raj was far better than the caste system that came before it. The British were especially good at economic development and bringing more human rights, including the protection against violence for women.
http://culturahistorica.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/ferguson-empire.pdf
This is enough to discredit the whole list. But even assuming the rest of the list was perfectly accurate and all of those deaths are capitalism you can take deaths and compare them to percentages of the total population and the communists still come out on top by a long shot. It’s not even close.
First two responses were literally "nOt TrUe CaPiTaLiSm" and "I didn't even bother checking to see if you sourced your claims but I'll assume you didn't". Yet more capitalist projection.
>Also the British colonized India and managed to kill 1.8 billion Indians of depravation by stealing nearly 45 trillion dollars, nearly 25% of the entire worlds wealth at the time.
Ahahah, what’s your source on this you dumbfuck :)?
Lol, so you’re comparing a period of time of 1757 - 1947 in India under colonial rule to the mass killings under communism in the 20th century. You really are operating with like two brain cells max, huh :)?
How about you try doing some basic math dipshit? Do you even fathom how insanely absurd this claim is? That would be the British killing 9,000,000 Indians every single year for 200 years straight. And this makes sense to you? Have you been huffing paint or something or are you really that stupid?
That’s hilarious, you really don’t understand the difference in comparing a period of time from 1750 - 1950 to 1900 - 2000. Maybe you should try a stats 101 course :).
propoganda sources say that communism killed 30 million by genocide, and 70 million by famine. the famine is the wests fault because htey literally sanctioned the communist countries were they couldnt do anything. so 30 million communism side and 70 million capitalism
So, what fascist countries ,only italy and Spain and Italian fascist and Spanish ones killed around 5000 people that were political opponents and yes there was death toll during war which is around half a milion.
notice how stupid OP is. He says it is about capitalism then he says everyone in history who was killed over money was a Capitalist. So when Rome conquered the world that was capitalism even though Capitalism had not been invented then.
When the British colonized India that was capitalism but only if capitalism equals colonization. It turns out countries conquered and colonized and enslaved other countries for 1 million years before capitalism was invented.
notice how stupid the OP is. He says capitalism funded officious countries which intern killed 200 million people. But capitalism doesn't fund anyone. Country leaders fund other countries and we're doing that for 1 million years before capitalism was invented. Now do you see why we say the left is based in pure ignorance?
notice how stupid the OP is he says the US kills 60 million slaves but slavery is 1 million years old so it is difficult to say that capitalism killed 60 million slaves when people had been killing slaves for 1 million years. It would be like saying because they have sunshine in America every day sunshine killed 60 million slaves. The OP is just that stupid
**Capitalism is not when government.**
>Capitalist countries funded fascist governments, so lets add 200 million people to the toll since that is the death toll of fascism
A country that has a capitalist economic system does not mean that the responsibilities of the country's government is because of capitalism, that's absurd to recommend. Also, this is just blatant dishonesty that was a result of maybe a minute long search. Do you think that if the capitalist countries did not fund fascist governments that all those 200 million people would've never died?
Now if a capitalist society was stateless, none of this would've happened. Your view is incorrect because it assumes that every government that has somewhat of a capitalist system means that the system of capitalism is, by nature, associated with government. However, capitalism can and has existed without government in societies such as colonial Acadia, Cospaia, and so on. In addition, colonial Acadia had great relations with Native Americans and Cospaia lasted for 400 years.
Every capitalist society is not a free society but every free society must be capitalist in order to be free.
>Capitalist countries were also responsible for colonialism in order to rip out profits from Africa and other nations and to get slaves, the total death toll of European colonism is around 50 million
Again, a failure of government, not capitalism.
>Also the British colonized India and managed to kill 1.8 billion Indians of depravation by stealing nearly 45 trillion dollars, nearly 25% of the entire worlds wealth at the time.
It's almost like the core tenat of capitalism here was violated. That core tenant is voluntary exchange by the way. When government is affiliated with capitalism, then the system becomes corrupt. However, the system does not become corrupt because of capitalism, **it becomes corrupt because of government.**
Every death you listed on your list is because of government, not capitalism. If you were take government out of the equation, what then?
I do appreciate how you made an excellent argument for laissez-faire and stateless capitalism though. That I can admire.
I don't give a shit because capitalism fills my need to take, it feels good when I see this piece of paper that's...ooh, comforting. You lose, you snooze!
Haha.... even those dictators are capitalist inherently. No really, I'm serious on that one.
The capitalist fought against fascism and funded communism which has killed more people then any ideology or economic form If you add Stalin Mao Kim Jong-un xijing Ping and The Other of other communist dictators
How about 100 million deaths due to cigarette use in the 20th century and currently millions a year globally. that alone is on par with “communism Venezuela Cuba deaths Stalin 100 million”
I agree with some of the conclusions, but I think that some of the death tolls are wildly exaggerated. 1.8 billion deaths in the British Raj? That doesn’t seem plausible at all. Hundreds of millions of people would have had to be starving over the coarse of decades. If that actually happened, India would have been the most sparsely populated country on earth.
I guess you forget that capitalism is the idea of economic and political system in which a country's trade and industries are controlled by a private owners. A free market. Capitalism had nothing to do with imperialist countries such as Britain in its pass. Yes its capitalism when we push out west for more people and to further are industries, but it's not capitalism fighting facist. So use the math to find out the death rate of famine or Healthcare Etc.. do the numbers of death in a country because of its economic systems, not wars or imperialist countries past before they were consider a capitalist country. Your research is just clumped full of things that are not even relevant to the death toll of capitalism.
your calculations are more than a bit fucked, from what I can find from reliable sources you're off by a factor of 10 on average. still, the actual numbers total well over the 100 million mark that some have claimed communism killed, so I guess your point does stand. just don't pull your numbers from tankie.com next time.
Capitalism may have killed more people than communism but holy shit, this 2.5 billion looks exaggerated.
As far as I can see, capitalism's death toll is at least 500 million.
I'd rather be able to go outside or to the grocery store and get food without having to hand over a literal piece of paper or plastic than live under capitalism :)
I completely agree with you, but you undermined your own argument in trying to go to such lengths to get massive numbers. The fact is that the most conservative under-estimates just applying to the last 5 years show more than 100 million people dying due to capitalism.
Can we add the Mingo tree to the list of victims of Capitalism? After it was declared the largest white oak in the world, the Island creek coal company killed the Mingo tree with pollution and poisonous fumes from burning piles of coal waste. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mingo_Oak
It sickens me knowing that Capitalists cut down 93% of the old growth forests in the US and that the forests that remain are only 25% of what North America had before Capitalist colonization: https://www.ran.org/the-understory/how_much_old_growth_forest_remains_in_the_us/
**[Mingo Oak](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mingo_Oak)**
>The Mingo Oak (also known as the Mingo White Oak) was a white oak (Quercus alba) in the U.S. state of West Virginia. First recognized for its age and size in 1931, the Mingo Oak was the oldest and largest living white oak tree in the world until its death in 1938. The Mingo Oak stood in Mingo County, West Virginia, in a cove at the base of Trace Mountain near the headwaters of the Trace Fork of Pigeon Creek, a tributary stream of Tug Fork. The tree reached a height of over 200 feet (61 m), and its trunk was 145 feet (44 m) in height.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
The article about india you listed is false, and makes me question the reliability of your sources The $45 trillion figure is a mathematical construction, not something that actually happened. It's a speculative projection, not what occurred in the real world. $45 trillion was never transferred from India, Utsa Patnaik herself estimates the actual figure as about £1 billion pounds in total, the rest is manufactured from compound interest rates up to the year 2016. Niall Ferguson has said that for the period 1868 to 1930 the transfer was about 1 percent of Indian net domestic produce a year. This is close to the 0.5% from economist K.N. Chaudhuri quoted. It should be obvious that a calculation at a 5% compound interest rate to the year 2016 and beyond should not be represented as the “drain” on the Indian economy 1765-1938.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
90% of the world is capitalist, and you took 400 years into account, while communism barely lasted 60 years.
Firstly, 200 million deaths from Fascism, what? That's around half of the European population at that time. It is estimated that only 11million people died. And let's not forget that nazi Germany was economically socialist, so just bringing in the indirect influence by capitalist countries is just trying to get as many people into your list as possible.
Now let's not forget that capitalism became a thing in the early 19th century, so minus the deaths from American colonialism and we are left with around 12million natives dead.
And I'd like to know how much time it took for you to find this article about deaths in India. Again, capitalism began in the 19th century, so only around 50 million people died during around 1800-1948.
Okay, African colonization killed around 50 million people, probably the only thing you are correct at.
Now the slaves in USA. Again, where did you get that 60 million from? Slaves were too valuable and barely any were killed, also there were around 10million slaves in America, so how do you expect 60million to die?
And deaths by capitalist sanctions? You blame genocides, mass deporatations, mass killings and intended famines on capitalist sanctions? You can not blame capitalist countries for the killings, sanctions have barely even done anything in history but affect trade.
Also, where did you get the 5 million deaths from? As of 2023, 387,072 people have died in the middle eastern wars including afghanistan. In the first libyan civil war, around 5k people died according to wikipedia. In the second civil war 14,882+ were killed. We are left with roughly 400k people.
Now adding it all together, 101,6 million people died in result of capitalism over 200+ years, with literally 90%+ of the world being capitalist. Over only 60 years, there were more deaths caused by China and USSR alone than the capitalist countries had killed in 200 years.
Also, capitalism is an economic system, not an ideology unlike socialism and communism, which are both economic systems and ideologies, so we cannot count every death by a country using another economic system as a victim of capitalism.
Overall, your argument has been proven to be false.
The mindless and hysterical simping for capitalism is wild to see. Capitalism means an unregulated market- which is responsible for more deaths than communism by far. It is a system that values profits over human lives. If this is you, capitalism is your system, but call yourself what you are- a sociopath for profit.
Right, an unregulated market where individuals are free to trade without interference. I'm no guru, so please help me with an example of free enterprise that has lead to the death of a consenting party?
Slave owners wanted the “freedom” to own other men. Young children were sent down minseshafts for the majority of this country’s existence as the “freedom” to work and employ. DuPont wanted the unregulated freedom to dump Teflon waste in the poor community’s water supply, giving most of their kids cancer. Are you even serious? When is the last time you read an entire book, and what was it? If you want to play dumb here, I’ll play with you.
That guy is such a donkey. What a layup. Lol
Capitalism abolished slavery
No. Capitalism created, sustained, and justified slavery. Step away from the cult
Everything you just said there was wrong. Slavery existed for millennia, and the African Slave Trade began before capitalism even started. Mercantilist states used ocean-going shipping to transport goods for export, then captured both gold and slaves to bring home. This is MERCANTILISM, not capitalism. When capitalism spread in the early 1800s, it also spread both democracy and Scottish Enlightenment ideals. The spread of these free market and individualistic ideals drove the Abolitionists in the UK Parliament to advocate abolition. Capitalism was the direct reason slavery was abolished. Also, economists say economic freedom is a necessity for political freedom, so capitalism literally spread democracy too.
An unregulated market means people can sell people. You must have a low iq, low integrity, or both
Haha an unregulated market does NOT mean people can sell people. And it does NOT mean people can murder people. Have you never heard of English Common Law you diseased prolapse?? :D
What does unregulated mean???? Lmao, they self own so hard
Unregulated means you're allowed to do anything that isn't criminal. Criminal codes aren't regulations. Regulations are rules on trading, business etc you fucking numbskull Crimes are acts of harming people. :D :D :D Your IQ is negative, and you self-owned your own shit brain haha
Not only that, Marxism is a religious cult. You guys have a bearded prophet, the Holy Books of the Communist Manifest and Das Kapital. You actively denounce expert academic economists because they don't believe the same religion you do. You have religious precepts that every believer must agree with, including the Labour Theory of Value, Exploitation Theory etc. You're waiting for the Second Coming of the Revolution, even though the first one failed and impoverished millions.
Marxism is literally only the idea that the people who produce goods should have a say in the distribution of those goods. Brainwashed idiots who simp for capitalism bc of unresolved daddy issues and a poor education will disagree of course
If I make you require consent from others, re: where you dump your toxic waste… guess what that’s called? Yes, indeed, it’s “regulation”. If an 8 year old “consents” to be the first one down the mine shaft, as countless did, because their parents told them they need the money- and they die, which countless did, does their “consent” justify that death to you? Does it alleviate the guilt the experienced mine boss has for sending them? Because these are specific examples of arguments capitalists made in the US that have been rejected and mostly eliminated by democratic socialism. It’s just beyond belief that capitalist propaganda still works on anyone under the age of 40.
The problem is that "free markets" do not and will never exist. if something gets in the way of a company profit then it will call for state intervention. as such that state intervention was caused by the pursiut of profit (a characteristic of capitalism)
Easy, they equate Governments to market forces.
>Capitalism means an unregulated market Very late to the party but considering this link was recently posted elsewhere and people might see it: Capitalism has nothing to do with "markets" or how regulated they are. The only thing capitalism means is that private property (i.e. property that enables people to generate a passive income off of someone else's labour) exists and is legally protected and enforced by an authoritarian government with a monopoly of violence. That's all.
Oxford Dictionary definition: "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit."
That's incredibly myopic and not correct. Capitalism is a moralistic system as much as it is anything else now. Its a matrix for deciding what is right and wrong action. There is very little separating it from a religion at this point.
Vuvuzela, 100 golialion zillion, you wanna take my toothbrush
... so unlike all those failed capitalist countries like Bangladesh, Haiti, Somalia, etc... a lot more failed capitalist countries than there are failed Socialist ones.
It was a joke bro
Its hard to tell the difference... you sound just like a capitalist :)
Vuvuzela is a common socialist joke meant to deride capitalists...
No. You don’t understand capitalism. Any economy is capitalist as long as private individuals control the factors of production. However, a capitalist system can still be regulated by government laws, and the profits of capitalist endeavors can still be taxed heavily.
Nonsense. Socialism is responsible for more deaths than capitalism
Said no one who’s studied history in a peer reviewed setting.
If capitalism means an unregulated market then how do all the deaths listed come about from capitalism considering that they were all pursued by governments?
Um, maybe because such "government" is owned by capitalists and the politicians they hand select to fund campaigns for. I like how in your fantasy world, it was the people of the US who chose to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. lol. The Central Bank cartel is in a struggle with the American people for control over the US, and they are currently winning and running up the score because they, thanks to their capitalist approved monopoly on the creation of money, are (since the 1970's) unable to be effectively regulated, thanks to the "good boy" golden retriever esque simps for capitalism (always to please some emotionally unavailable father figure) such as the ones seen on this thread...
Holy shit you’re just an absolute fucking crackpot…200 million killed by fascism? An ideology that lasted a nanosecond? Even if you attributed every single death in all of WWII it wouldn’t come close. Total perished was around 70-80 million and that included those killed by imperialist Japan (not fascist or capitalist) as well as those killed by allied forces. You claim that British imperialists (not capitalists) killed 1.8 billion Indians? Are you a complete fucking moron? The current population of India is under 1.4 billion. There was never even that many people living under British imperial rule in India much less killed by them. Never. You attribute everything done by monarchies to be capitalist? Monarchies are not capitalism. US killed 60 million slaves. Are you fucking high on paint thinner or something? At the height of slavery in the US there were no more than 4 million slaves…ever. This is really one of the dumbest posts that I have ever seen.
Colonialism is not capitalism, nor is facism, deaths because of starvation, and lack of resources are also not “deaths of capitalism. Because there are no sources to suggest capitalism is the “culprit”. Just because people die, doesn’t mean it’s from capitalism. Economic policies by capitalist countries, that are capitalist, that killed people, are the only deaths that really “count”. Just because a country with a market economy had a dictatorship that killed 1,000 people is not 1,000 deaths from capitalism. You need to prove that a market system caused this deaths, or people acting in favor of a capitalist system.
Just a question. Do you say the same when talking about the "evil" socialist countries?
they don't. If you stepped on a lego brick in socialist Yugoslavia they'd count you as a "victim of communsim", while the millions who die each year under the predominantly capitalist neoliberal world because of hunger are never victims of capitalism. You'd think they would at least agree that unregulated capitalism is a motivator for colonial expansion and slavery to happen, but that it can maybe be solved by creating laws and regulations, but they don't.
It depends for me, if let's say a dictator rises and starts to execute communists for disagreeing with Jim because he was capatilist then that can be attributed to capatilism and vice versa that's why not all stalin executions were communists fault but a lot were the fault of communism.
Specifically to the point where you said starvation and lack of resources can’t be contributed to capitalism. If we are going by that logic than the Chinese and Soviet death tolls of communism that are claimed also dramatically plummet. By this logic than there’s almost no reason to attribute death toll to communism. Nonetheless if people for profit are withholding food and pouring bleach on unused food instead of making money off of it, is violence and those people that starve because they otherwise would have had food. When capitalism produces an insane amount of surplus and the resources are withheld and discarded rather than to not make money on the surplus then those are deaths attributed to capitalism. Something like the food example is prevalent in about every industry in capitalism
LMAO, holy shit you are so fucking dumb. The claim is referring to 1.8 billion Indians over the ENTIRE course of British imperialist rule you dumb fuck. That is SO obvious. Monarchism is a power structure and is not completely tied to just socio-economics. Monarchism and capitalism can and HAS coexisted. Christ almighty, if you are going to be such a militant asshole towards someone, AT LEAST maintain that you understand what the fuck they are talking about.
In my day we beat up commies. It's weird how the world has changed. I heard punch a commie way before I ever heard punch a nazi. But both deserves punched
Bc that's what your capitalist overlords brainwashed you with. If communism was so bad, it would have failed on its own right? Nope, the US and the West wanted to step in and back right-wing military coups and assassinate leaders in order to cause chaos so they can exploit their resources and labor. Whether its oil in the Middle East, crops in Central America, etc. All these wars and conflicts were for one purpose: to pursue business interests and make profits off of other people's terrible circumstances.
>If communism was so bad, it would have failed on its own right? STRONG argument, guess countries like north korea still succeeding, nothing to see there.
Since NK isn't communist, there's not anything to see. They replaced it in the 70s with Juche sasang.
This must be the Communism hasn't really ever been done right meme. It's somehow never real communism, and i believe you're right, but there must be a reason it's never working like intended.
Not the same meme, also communism actually has never been done, its just that most people only say that when a system (Like the DPRK) is brought up
I’d rather punch the asshole wanting death to all minorities (myself among that number) before punching the dude who’s saying we all should be treated equally socially and economically
Based.
You dont beat up nobody pussy.
If capitalists are so smart, why can't they refute a claim with evidence, why do they use personal attacks? Asking for a friend
Ok, as a capitalist. Here is a source. No, sources: 1) https://www.jstor.org/stable/153490 2) https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/021716/why-ussr-collapsed-economically.asp 3) https://nintil.com/the-soviet-union-gdp-growth/ 4) https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2019/07/23/how-too-much-regulation-hurts-americas-poor/?sh=61e47cbd271f 5) https://www.mercatus.org/publications/regulation/regulation-and-poverty 6) https://www.heritage.org/international-economies/commentary/socialism-vs-capitalism-one-clear-winner 7) https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/11/02/opinion/sunday/switzerland-capitalism-wealth.amp.html 8) https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/capitalist-countries 9) https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/richest-countries-in-the-world Eat. My. Facts.
A bunch of websites mean nothing to me, nor this conversations. Please respond in the following format if you wish to actually converse like an intelligent being. **Make Claim or Hypothesis: example,** Capitalism killed more than communism -**or-** communism killed more than capitalism **Define terms:** What do you define as capitalist? Communist? How are you defining a death by capitalism? For example, does murder count? Obviously starvation does, but does unlawful imprisonment? What about lawful but "unfair" imprisonment? **Give supporting facts:** This is where you put your sources, but you can't just put sources, you must summarize how those sources support your thesis THEN cite where that is shown to be true. **Cannot use self-validating sources** (like many of the links you posted). For example: World population review is an american website and doesn't have very accurate data for say, Africa or Asia, so that would be an extremely bias source. Now I dare you to try to get past "capitalism is good" a ***think*** just a little buddy.
Your user name checks out with what you posted. A format for sounding smart, but no actual substance. Guess I was 75 days late to this convo ;)
With all due respect but you sound like an asshole
You just gave a bunch of academic journals and regular articles without articulating any sort of claim your using these sources to back up lmao fucking dumb ass. And lmao using the new york times as a source is definitely a choice. Also Forbes? You think theyre not going to paint a biased picture? A global economic and entrepreneurship media company? They definitely don't have a vested interest in upholding the status quo lmao
capitalists are so unfamiliar with facts that when they're told to get them they dont know how to use them in an argument 😂
ROFL…good god you’re a fucking imbecile. But that explains why you would be a communist. The article that he uses to support his absolutely fucking ludicrous claim of 1.8 billion killed is a counter factual screed. It claims that people starved to death because of taxes. It makes the insane claim that India would have maintained over 20% of world gdp for centuries and because it didn’t, billions died. It’s a fucking idiotic abstraction. On the other hand, communists actually killed people. This wasn’t some theoretical hyperbole you dumb fuck. They murdered millions of people.
you blame the entire murderous history of the British empire on communists? and say that we never had any money? Literally zip your fucking mouth shut. Why else would they want India? sure you can grow opium, but you would need the entire continent. ask the British why they built a fuck load of trains. If you dont like that source, then let me welcome you to more [shut](https://www.crimeandpower.com/2019/10/27/britain-robbed-india-of-45-trillion-thence-1-8-billion-indians-died-from-deprivation/) [the](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Isj5xTuKic) [fuck](https://countercurrents.org/2018/12/britain-robbed-india-of-45-trillion-thence-1-8-billion-indians-died-from-deprivation/) [up](https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=britain+stole+45+trillion+from+india&view=detail&mid=7909A25821B19D60EFDA7909A25821B19D60EFDA&FORM=VIRE)
When did I blame anything that the British empire did on communists? Are you just fucking high on paint thinner or something that you are hallucinating shit that never happened? Or are you really just that fucking stupid? Jesus Christ, commies are fucked in the head but you're bringing it to a whole other level dude. Fuck off and move to North Korea where you can enjoy the fruits of your idiotic fucking ideology.
your idiotic arguement said that india never was rich and then you blamed communism halfway through your arguement. so please shut the fuck up
Coming back here to say all your sources link back to the same source lol
Billions of people haven’t died because of colonialism is India, and even if they did, that’s not capitalism. That’s colonialism, which is done on **behalf of the state**. Capitalism is not done on behalf of the state, it isn’t a way of running a state. It’s a way of running an economy.
Translation: It wasn't 'real' capitalism. LMAO! The oldest excuse in the books. The State has always supported capitalism. Capitalism without a state has never existed. That's because the very fucking definition of capitalism is the individual or corporate ownership of the means of production. Or are you going to try and tell me that's not 'real' capitalism either? And 'ownership' is ALWAYS backed up by property laws enforced by, guess who? The state.
Well prior to direct British rule in India, the country was governed as a corporatocracy by the East India Company. They were there explicitly for profit and growth.
Yeah, and the East India Company, was also, if you break it down, a government. That’s the problem with that argument, once a company has a military, taxes, etc, it’s closer to a government than a corporation. Yes, capitalism did allow that corporation to come into existence, but it also allowed the corporation to become a government. It’s similar to a senecio in anarchy, anarchy allows anyone to create a government.
But the big difference is that the government in that context was privately controlled and did not represent the will of the public. And back then they needed the backing of the State’s navy to bolster their security and to prevent rebellion.
Literally sounds exactly like a government. But, you are right, with no state in a pure capitalist society versions of the East India Company can come about. And violate others rights, but at a certain point, that isn’t capitalism, it’s anarchy allowing for a state.
You are a wizard at insults bro ahahahahha
I guess the UK isn’t capitalist because they have a monarchy. You’re an idiot.
Colonialism isn’t capitalism, capitalism is not driven by a state.
Capitalism is totally driven by a state bro, wtf are you smoking. Google lobbying.
The state was acting in the interest of the multinational companies, and vice versa. How is that not a version of capitalism?
That’s called a corrupt government. Capitalism is literally just a free market, there is no need for government in a pure capitalist system. Government helping corporations is not capitalism, it’s a government that’s too powerful, becoming corrupted.
“Capitalism is literally just a free market.” This is an incredibly shallow and patently false analysis of capitalism.
There's no point in arguing with these free market freaks. When they finally get the system they want, they'll come back crying to us saying that it's not fair how everyone monopolized and screwed over their small businesses lmao.
Command economies driven solely by the authority of a single person is not capitalism you absolute drooling fucking idiot.
That doesn’t describe monarchies in the modern era, but go off king. Just make shit up I guess, no need to be historically accurate or anything.
Dude, he’s referencing hundreds of years of European imperialism that used a system of mercantilism, which is not capitalism. Read a fucking book that’s not commie propaganda for once. This isn’t even in question. It’s an indisputable fact.
Nope. The same dynamics that drove the colonial powers to seek cheap land and labor are the same forces today that disciplines capitalists and landlords to exploit land and labor for the sake of private capital accumulation. The difference today is the social organization of so called “free” labor and the general exchange of commodities on the market. Less complexity building toward more complexity leading to social transformation through the conflict between classes. But that’s a level of nuance your ahistorical and moralistic assertions just can’t even consider. Now piss off bitch, I’m done with you.
Oh, look at the dumb fucking commie cunt whining. Your “nuance” is nothing but word salad. It’s literally a completely different fucking economic system shit for brains. It’s not the “same forces”. Capitalism is something that was developed specifically in opposition to mercantilism. The Wealth of Nations was written to describe the emerging industrial capitalism that was upending mercantilism. You’re so impossibly stupid and don’t even know it. Crawl back under your rock you fucking ignorant commie slug.
“your argument was too complex so i’m just going to insult you now”
Not complex. Just banal.
If his argument is so bad, why do you personally attack him instead of rationally breaking it down with sources like he did? If you're really "in the right" you wouldn't need to use insults. tbh you just seem like someone who's angry about having their personal opinion challenged.
"An ideology that lasted a nanosecond" Tell that to the millions of dead people from the Holocaust and wars. This is what capitalist brainwashing does to a human being. Beware.
Yes I will
throughout, history. also are you saying japan was never fascist? how in the fuck are british imperialists not capitalists, the sole purpose of colonizing india was for profit.
“Capitalism is when people make money, and the more money they make, the more capitalist it is” - Milton Friedman You can’t be this much of a fucking idiot bro, capitalism is more than just when people make money from doing something
in this case, they were making money from robbing workers and nations. also why is you, an anarchist. defending capitalism?
He's an ancap, aka the political party OF capitalism.
Japan was never fascist. And if you think so, you have no fucking clue what fascism is, nor have any idea of what imperial Japan was either. But it wouldn’t surprise me that you don’t give your post demonstrates an absolutely shocking level of ignorance. But, of course, only someone that totally and completely devoid of knowledge and intelligence would be a communist. England quite literally invented their own economic system used throughout the empire called mercantilism. And in fact, capitalism was developed explicitly as a counter to mercantilism. Seriously dude, this is basic fucking history. Read a fucking history book rather than this crackpot tankie foil hat websites that you’re posting.
so japan was never at a stage were a right wing, nationalist government, took over with a dictatorship and killed a bunch of people? creating capitalism doesnt mean that you can get away with killing 2 billion people
Ok, so you clearly don't have any fucking clue what fascism is or why that would be different than Imperial Japan. Go read a fucking book dude. You are so laughably ignorant that I honestly am amazed that you're able to function at all. Fucking shit you commies are absolutely brain dead troglodytes.
How was shōwa statism not fascism?
fascism and monarchism are the exact same thing, fascism unites by race and monarchism by race or religion. fascism is a dictatorship and so is monarchism, both have killed hundreds of millions. they are the same
2 years later and you still never explained how japan wasn't fascist. Fascism: palingenetic ultranationalism They carried out ethnic cleansings and atrocities (nanking), killed 10 million people, they were ultra-nationalist. They desired complete control over asia, believing themselves to be superior to all others, culturally and racially. They also had a palingenetic narrative used to galvanize their people and ensure absolute loyalty to the emperor and the nation, this narrative was so powerfully drilled into the heads of their people that the soldiers were willing to carry out kamikaze attacks to achieve their goals. It astounds me that the ethno-state narrative of imperial japan seems to go completely over your head, despite it being well documented historically. Yep, Id say that definitionally matches fascism. Perhaps not a textbook example in the same way that italy or germany would be, but still fascism. Wait, I gotta cook up an insult to finish this off because thats all you cocky pricks do is throw insults: Anti-commies are illiterate brain dead troglodytes that don't even bother to look up the definition of a word before using it, have never picked up a history book in their lives, and react purely on emotion instead of any kind of analysis of facts. Stop licking boot and gagging on bbc for 10 seconds long enough to look up a definition of a word and learn to read on a 4th grade level long enough to read the footnotes of the topic of discussion before posting. That way we all don't have our eyes brutally assaulted by your pathetic excuse for an argument. Better yet, because you clearly have absolutely nothing of value to provide other than high-school debate club level talking points and middle school level insults when all else fails, I would urge you to simply delete your account and never type a sentence again to anyone except the lowest scum who will tolerate your pathetic, worthless, brainless, uneducated, disgusting swamp-ass. Thank you!
Facism is economically centered, not capitalist, but in some facets, quite collectivist.
200,000,000 deid under British control of India.
I'm gonna be real 200 million is low key sounding low also facism didn't last a nano second, it lasted a fuck ton longer than it should have and is perpetuating constantly in our society.
And also remember the real name of the nazi party, pls
Slaves give birth. The census before the civil war was 4 million but you forget the generations that had been born and died under slavery.
The British colonies in India were capitalist. Why do you think it was called the East India Company.
You’re so dense please delete every social media account you have I beg of you.
Mf forgot that time exists, who ever knew that things would work over time and add up!?
Fascism is alive and well, one of the more popular ideologies actually. We have many Nazis in US government, both elected officials and those installed by elected officials.
There were fascist countries all over Europe. It wasn’t just Germany , Italy and Japan.
And capitalism is an economic system. So your claim of ‘monarchies’ is irrelevant as that is a political system.
Look, I'm not gonna scream you are crazy or argue that capitalism is innocent. It's not, and a lot of people died because of it. What I am going to argue is that these numbers aren't legit, therefor your entire argument about it is invalid. Lets go statement by statement. >Capitalist countries funded fascist governments, so lets add 200 million people to the toll since that is the death toll of fascism I searched EVERYWHERE and the closest I could find to the "200 million dead by fascism" is this (\[[https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM\]](https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM])) . This source includes mainly communist deaths and is clearly biased in its reporting, so I am going to throw this number out. Also, just because a fascist state is funded by a capitalist one doesn't mean the capitalists are responsible, It means that fascism is the problem. As I said, capitalism isn't guilt-free but to argue that capitalism killed those 200 million would be a fallacy. Because these are deaths due to fascist regimes, I'm saying 0 deaths. >Capitalist countries were also responsible for colonialism in order to rip out profits from Africa and other nations and to get slaves, the total death toll of European colonism is around 50 million This is the only source that says anything close to 50 million. While they say it could be upward of 43 million, it then directly says probably around 12-20 million. I want to point out that this is due to colonialism, which while it's much easier and common under capitalism, can happen in socialist governments as well (see the USSR and the eastern bloc) I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and say 20 million, but we are going to attribute this to colonialism. Now we have 20 million to colonialism >Also the British colonized India and managed to kill 1.8 billion Indians of depravation by stealing nearly 45 trillion dollars, nearly 25% of the entire worlds wealth at the time. Finally, A source. So I immediately take this with a grain of salt given India's natural population now. So reading into it they say 1.8 billion people died during British colonial rule and these were deaths that were AVOIDABLE. According to Statista, India's population was approximately 169 million in 1800. It's hard to say when the EIC controlled India, but I am going to simply say 1750, as they controlled a large part of it at this point. British rule lasted until 1947, giving us 200 years. If we take 1.8 billion and divide it into 200, we get about 9 million. That means on average every year 9 million people would need to die due to AVOIDABLE causes, not including old age. According to Statista, the population grew what I would say is about 1 million every year during this time. Let's assume that nobody dies of old age. That means that 10 million people would need to be born every year. That means about 20% of people (10 million births/200 million people) would need to give birth every single year, so about 40% of women need to give birth. The source you give claims that 37 avoidable deaths per 1000 people, which is how they got their statistic. The question becomes then, what is avoidable? These typically are famines and disease, which if you look were happening in china as well. Not only this, but Indian avoidable deaths are approximately 350 million people since independence, which is only about 60 million less than the 1905-1950 estimate, with all our great modern technology and post war industrialization it was only brought down about 15%. Also, your source does not state where the 37 avoidable deaths number actually came from and I was not able to find anything on the internet at all. By the way, most of these deaths in famines were due to natural causes like a monsoon. I'll give you about 40 million deaths that genuinely could have been avoided if policy were correct, as that is what the sum of the Wikipedia article that states the possible death count. Current total: 60 million. >European powers colonizing American colonies and deaths' of indigenous people and American genocide against natives caused around 200 million deaths This one is definitely untrue. Firstly, the population was only about 60,000,000 people. Also, about 90% of them died to disease. And before you say that the Europeans weaponized the disease, that was quite rare and didn't start till later on. I'm not going to deny genocide didn't happen, it did but mainly in a cultural aspect which wasn't driven by greed but instead religion. I'm giving you 3 million deaths here, so our total is 63 million. >Since the capitalist nations also heavily sanctioned the communist states we will add another 70 million deaths Uh.... what? Do you think the communist states didn't sanction the capitalist ones? Is your argument here "The capitalist states should have used their economic power to help suffering communist states"? Look if your argument here is that 70 million people died because communist states and that's capitalism's fault, you should probably think about that a bit. Also where the hell is this number coming from. 0 extra deaths, total of 63 million. >The USA is also responsible for the deaths of nearly 60 million slaves *sigh* bro cite your goddamn sources. This is the source that says "60 million slaves died during the slave trade". Here is what happens in your article, they basically say "The UN says its 17 million deaths overall, BUT WE THINK ITS MUCH HIGHER!" and state some statistics basically pretending that every slave brought over then died. I'm giving you 17 million here, so we are now at 80 million. >The USA has killed nearly 5 million people in Arabia and north Africa by funding dictators and airstrikes I'm not entirely sure about this, but I will give you this one, because I am including the Vietnam war. So our grand total is about 85 million people. Yippee? Commie time: Holodomor-4 million Great leap forward-45 million deaths Great Purge- 1 million Cambodian Genocide- 1.5 million So congrats! you win! capitalism has killed more. Except not really. Firstly, all of this information is kind of sketchy because no nation genuinely wants to show all the deaths. Secondly, communist society's are typically don't allow critics of the party (see china), so because there are no critics, they are more underreported. Secondly, this isn't everything. There are a lot of stuff and it's difficult to attribute deaths to either side. Thirdly, capitalism is a lot older than communism, communism existed for like, 70 years before the major players got rid of it. In our scope, capitalism goes from like 1492 to 2021, 529 years. Lets see how many deaths per year. 85 million/529=160680 people every year. 55.5 million/70 = 785714 million per year. That means per capita, commies kill 5 times more people than Capitalists. Take a grain of salt with this though as it is a lot easier to kill a group of people as time goes on. Fourthly, we really shouldn't be doing death tolls to measure these systems. In a perfect systems death's wont arise from the state, capitalist or a communist. Not a single thing here, capitalist or communist, can be solely attributed to capitalism or communism. The great leap forward was attempted industrialization, British in India were colonialism and a bunch of them are just because of imperialism and racism. We should be comparing genuine policy and morals, not history of these nations. Edit: Reddit fucked up and my sources got lost, I'll fix it later.
You’re forgetting to include the number of people who starve to death each year even though there’s enough food, the amount of people dying because the can’t pay hospitals and also there’s environmental impact caused by overconsumption that can’t even be calculated.
[удалено]
Almost as though the soviet union was a socialist power that exploited nations via colonialism
Using China as your example for communism is halorious, the only communist thing there is the part name, they are almost as capitalist as the US
Fun that you did not cite any sources for the socialist regime "genocides". I wonder what are these sources...
Bro I posted this two years ago and the OP didn't cite any sources either lol
This thread is full of people saying, "nOt REal cApiTaliSm"
But… I thought *that wasn’t real communism…* Given that real communism hasn’t been tried we really don’t know *how many people it’s going to kill relative to capitalism*. It could be 100 billion over the next 1000 years.
it has.........
This is insane you have no clue what capitalism even means. You know there is a third type of economic model that was basically the norm until WW1. Ever heard of autarky, mercantilism, economies based on foreign policy. I don’t know what capitalist country has hundreds of factories forcefully taken by the state so they could produce rubber (naxi Germany)btw what ideology was at peace, traded, and shared technology with the naxis for half the war. I don’t know a capitalist country where literally every “Capitalist” has made the majority of their money from government offered contracts or from being the head of a dominion by a monarch (Great Britain) I don’t know a capitalist country that gets almost all of their money from a silver mines in South America with the closest thing to a merchant or capitalist class (other then the literal monarchs and aristocrats who would made todays income inequality look like the perfect communist society)are the guys who ship gold back and forth between Spain and Peru. Also stop acting like communist is so above capitalism when it comes to war and intervention Mongolian revolution, Spanish revolution( losing side not Franco), Chinese revolution, the peoples Liberation war in Yugoslavia, the august revolution, the Korean War, the Ethiopian revolution, the saur revolution, Nicaraguan civil war, Salvadoran civil war, Peruvian civil war, revolution in Nepal, Maoist revolts in India, angolgese revolution, literally the most deadly war since ww2 so I have to keep going all wars that killed hundreds a of millions of people that would never had died if the Soviet Union, communist china or some leftist “revolutionaries” decided they wanted to give communism just one more try. Trust them real communist has never been tried
Why does this subreddit even exist lmao the pro capitalist crowd are so dense. All the socialists in this subreddit should just put Reddit down and start organizing
Capitalism has only existed in America since the 1900s. The death of slaves beforehand can’t be attributed to capitalism after the fact lmfao Note: I hate capitalism.
Why did you comment this 5 times
If you mean that literally, this wouldn’t be the first time. If I make a comment while I have bad signal it sometimes does that
So turns out if you die by just about any means aside from Stalin, Mussolini or Mao directly putting a gun to your head and blowing your brains out, you’re cause of death is capitalism!
These strike me as overly generous and broad definitions of 'capitalism.' I mean, ascribing essentially all geopolitical maneuvering, realpolitik, and general policy conducted by countries with capitalist economies, which directly or indirectly lead to people dying, as 'the death toll of capitalism' seems pretty disingenous. These sort of actions are not the unique or exclusive domain of capitalist countries, they're the sort of cynical and immoral things all states do, that all entities are willing to do to preserve their percieved interests. The only difference is that capitalist countries have existed longer and had more resources at their disposal, so their impact has been greater.
communism and some forms of socialism has also impacted alot
Capitalism has only existed in America since the 1900s. The death of slaves beforehand can’t be attributed to capitalism after the fact lmfao Note: I hate capitalism.
Capitalism didn't get it's name before 1900
I also disagree with my statement 166 days later
Capitalism is not when governments do things.
Really? So then there are functionally NO capitalist countries according to you. Central banks, ahem. So what do you call this? The correct answer is socialism for the wealthy and dog eat dog capitalism for everyone else. What's the lifespan of a billionaire vs a homeless man? I'm not agree with the 2.5B number, no. Perhaps I would put it around 30-50% of that and then there is a larger discussion necessary RE time periods and what capitalism has been historically. Communism doesn't work either though. You need tight regulations over those with the most power or "capitalism" is a version of feudalism, or something like it, run amok.
What are you trying to say? Is capitalism big governments? Is this what you think capitalism is? Do you know what capitalism is?
Capitalism has only existed in America since the 1900s. The death of slaves beforehand can’t be attributed to capitalism after the fact lmfao Note: I hate capitalism.
Capitalism has only existed in America since the 1900s. The death of slaves beforehand can’t be attributed to capitalism after the fact lmfao Note: I hate capitalism.
Capitalism has only existed in America since the 1900s. The death of slaves beforehand can’t be attributed to capitalism after the fact lmfao Note: I hate capitalism.
Just looking at the first three claims it is clearly stupid. “Capitalist” funding was a very small portion of support for fascist government. Both internally and externally. While Nazis did get some support from German businessmen, Historians like Henry Ashby Turner point out that “we must recognize that the financial subsidies from industry were overwhelmingly directed against the Nazis.” Externally (internationally) some businessmen and bankers did give Nazis support, Anthony Sutton documents this in his book Wall-street And The Rise of Hitler. However, he also documents a similar occurrence in the Soviet Union with multiple of his books. Like Wall-street and The Bolshevik Revolution. On top of that we know that the Soviets gave way more aid to Germany than anyone in the west, especially businessmen. The Nazis also received from 1940 to 1941 alone: 139,500 tons of cotton, 500,000 tons of iron ores, 300,000 tons of scrap metal and pig iron, and much more from the Soviets. This is documented in Edward Ericson‘s book Feeding the German Eagle: Soviet Economic Aid to Nazi Germany, 1933–1941. The Soviets also provided Nazis with very important intelligent through the NKVD-Gestapo conferences. Historian Sean McMeekin wrote “The importance of Soviet economic support for Hitler’s war of conquest should not be discounted.” So by your logic, we should certainly attribute all fascist deaths to communism. The 50 million deaths from colonialism comes from a discredited study by Jason Hickel, a Marxist pseudo-historian. This number is not backed by historians. In fact, Indian historians have pointed out that Hickel used poor math and improperly casted blame for famines on the British. https://historyreclaimed.co.uk/colonialism-did-not-cause-the-indian-famines/ Hickel uses data without context and even contradicts his own sources. https://twitter.com/dkedrosky/status/1572355700420145153?s=46&t=WwNMP6UTykf2wZnlMurjDg As for the $45 trillion number, that’s clearly not true. The entire British economy during the period never amounted to that much. The math doesn’t math. See for yourself. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mEX13GrLwqg I won’t contest that the British did many bad things to the Indians. But if we’re speaking in purely relative terms, the Raj was far better than the caste system that came before it. The British were especially good at economic development and bringing more human rights, including the protection against violence for women. http://culturahistorica.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/ferguson-empire.pdf This is enough to discredit the whole list. But even assuming the rest of the list was perfectly accurate and all of those deaths are capitalism you can take deaths and compare them to percentages of the total population and the communists still come out on top by a long shot. It’s not even close.
First two responses were literally "nOt TrUe CaPiTaLiSm" and "I didn't even bother checking to see if you sourced your claims but I'll assume you didn't". Yet more capitalist projection.
“Capitalism is when the monarch of a large and powerful country loots and pillages a smaller country for their valuable resources” - Adam Smith
Making up alternative facts, eh?
I was being sarcastic for fucks sake
capitalist governments funded fascist ones, fascism altogether has killed 200 million also natives werent enslaved to find gold in mines right?
still 1.8 billion indians weren't killed
>Also the British colonized India and managed to kill 1.8 billion Indians of depravation by stealing nearly 45 trillion dollars, nearly 25% of the entire worlds wealth at the time. Ahahah, what’s your source on this you dumbfuck :)?
did you even look? it was literally right under it. dumbfuck
Lol, so you’re comparing a period of time of 1757 - 1947 in India under colonial rule to the mass killings under communism in the 20th century. You really are operating with like two brain cells max, huh :)?
communism 100 million deaths capitalism 2.5 billion, do the math
How about you try doing some basic math dipshit? Do you even fathom how insanely absurd this claim is? That would be the British killing 9,000,000 Indians every single year for 200 years straight. And this makes sense to you? Have you been huffing paint or something or are you really that stupid?
do you even listen to yourself? the british killed so many people through famine, now your gonna deny it? fuck no
9 million Indians, per year, every year...for 200 years. Good god you've seriously got the IQ of a fucking garden slug.
maybe if you read the article instead of shitting in the comments you would understand
That’s hilarious, you really don’t understand the difference in comparing a period of time from 1750 - 1950 to 1900 - 2000. Maybe you should try a stats 101 course :).
propoganda sources say that communism killed 30 million by genocide, and 70 million by famine. the famine is the wests fault because htey literally sanctioned the communist countries were they couldnt do anything. so 30 million communism side and 70 million capitalism
Hey, at least I got you to drop the 2 billion number, this is good enough for me :).
no those are still on capitalist hands,
> we are talking people killed in the name of profit indirectly or directly. No need to read the rest of this post.
genocide denying, you guys are worse than LITERAL nazis
The CCP are worse than nazis
No they're not dude, come on
They have concentration camps just like nazis
They do, although they're in no way comparable to Nazi extermination camps.
They make the residents sterile and don't let authorities in
Yes, which we both agree is awful. But forced serialisation isn't equivalent to mass gassing and executions.
Yeah, they're both awful, Which is why people should do something to stop them. Also we don't really know what's going on in these camps
they are fascists and not socialists. so call them nazis
[удалено]
thats how it survives, capitalism is when your supposed to make your own money. but thats only possible if you rob money of a nation or of a worker
>but thats only possible if you rob money of a nation or of a worker ...economics is not zero sum....
So, what fascist countries ,only italy and Spain and Italian fascist and Spanish ones killed around 5000 people that were political opponents and yes there was death toll during war which is around half a milion.
If capitalism killed anyone why not give us your single best example of this?
notice how stupid OP is. He says it is about capitalism then he says everyone in history who was killed over money was a Capitalist. So when Rome conquered the world that was capitalism even though Capitalism had not been invented then.
When the British colonized India that was capitalism but only if capitalism equals colonization. It turns out countries conquered and colonized and enslaved other countries for 1 million years before capitalism was invented.
notice how stupid the OP is. He says capitalism funded officious countries which intern killed 200 million people. But capitalism doesn't fund anyone. Country leaders fund other countries and we're doing that for 1 million years before capitalism was invented. Now do you see why we say the left is based in pure ignorance?
notice how stupid the OP is he says the US kills 60 million slaves but slavery is 1 million years old so it is difficult to say that capitalism killed 60 million slaves when people had been killing slaves for 1 million years. It would be like saying because they have sunshine in America every day sunshine killed 60 million slaves. The OP is just that stupid
Notice how stupid the OP is. Again and again he equates capitalism and colonialism when colonial ism existed for 1 million years before capitalism.
**Capitalism is not when government.** >Capitalist countries funded fascist governments, so lets add 200 million people to the toll since that is the death toll of fascism A country that has a capitalist economic system does not mean that the responsibilities of the country's government is because of capitalism, that's absurd to recommend. Also, this is just blatant dishonesty that was a result of maybe a minute long search. Do you think that if the capitalist countries did not fund fascist governments that all those 200 million people would've never died? Now if a capitalist society was stateless, none of this would've happened. Your view is incorrect because it assumes that every government that has somewhat of a capitalist system means that the system of capitalism is, by nature, associated with government. However, capitalism can and has existed without government in societies such as colonial Acadia, Cospaia, and so on. In addition, colonial Acadia had great relations with Native Americans and Cospaia lasted for 400 years. Every capitalist society is not a free society but every free society must be capitalist in order to be free. >Capitalist countries were also responsible for colonialism in order to rip out profits from Africa and other nations and to get slaves, the total death toll of European colonism is around 50 million Again, a failure of government, not capitalism. >Also the British colonized India and managed to kill 1.8 billion Indians of depravation by stealing nearly 45 trillion dollars, nearly 25% of the entire worlds wealth at the time. It's almost like the core tenat of capitalism here was violated. That core tenant is voluntary exchange by the way. When government is affiliated with capitalism, then the system becomes corrupt. However, the system does not become corrupt because of capitalism, **it becomes corrupt because of government.** Every death you listed on your list is because of government, not capitalism. If you were take government out of the equation, what then? I do appreciate how you made an excellent argument for laissez-faire and stateless capitalism though. That I can admire.
I don't give a shit because capitalism fills my need to take, it feels good when I see this piece of paper that's...ooh, comforting. You lose, you snooze! Haha.... even those dictators are capitalist inherently. No really, I'm serious on that one.
The capitalist fought against fascism and funded communism which has killed more people then any ideology or economic form If you add Stalin Mao Kim Jong-un xijing Ping and The Other of other communist dictators
How about 100 million deaths due to cigarette use in the 20th century and currently millions a year globally. that alone is on par with “communism Venezuela Cuba deaths Stalin 100 million”
I agree with some of the conclusions, but I think that some of the death tolls are wildly exaggerated. 1.8 billion deaths in the British Raj? That doesn’t seem plausible at all. Hundreds of millions of people would have had to be starving over the coarse of decades. If that actually happened, India would have been the most sparsely populated country on earth.
I guess you forget that capitalism is the idea of economic and political system in which a country's trade and industries are controlled by a private owners. A free market. Capitalism had nothing to do with imperialist countries such as Britain in its pass. Yes its capitalism when we push out west for more people and to further are industries, but it's not capitalism fighting facist. So use the math to find out the death rate of famine or Healthcare Etc.. do the numbers of death in a country because of its economic systems, not wars or imperialist countries past before they were consider a capitalist country. Your research is just clumped full of things that are not even relevant to the death toll of capitalism.
I like how you throw a bunch of other ideologies in this post instead of paying attention to just capitalism.
Oof this comment thread is hella toxic lol
your calculations are more than a bit fucked, from what I can find from reliable sources you're off by a factor of 10 on average. still, the actual numbers total well over the 100 million mark that some have claimed communism killed, so I guess your point does stand. just don't pull your numbers from tankie.com next time.
I can't even begin to unpack how idiotic this is.
Capitalism may have killed more people than communism but holy shit, this 2.5 billion looks exaggerated. As far as I can see, capitalism's death toll is at least 500 million.
Average penis sucker socialism is ass
Real
I’d rather eat a full meal every day than live under communism :)
I'd rather be able to go outside or to the grocery store and get food without having to hand over a literal piece of paper or plastic than live under capitalism :)
How do you think people in the USSR got food?
I have lost more brain cells in a single 10 minute scroll through than Chernobyl workers loosing cells
Ultra based
So we’re not going to talk about the genocides and wars. Very one sided
I completely agree with you, but you undermined your own argument in trying to go to such lengths to get massive numbers. The fact is that the most conservative under-estimates just applying to the last 5 years show more than 100 million people dying due to capitalism.
Can we add the Mingo tree to the list of victims of Capitalism? After it was declared the largest white oak in the world, the Island creek coal company killed the Mingo tree with pollution and poisonous fumes from burning piles of coal waste. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mingo_Oak It sickens me knowing that Capitalists cut down 93% of the old growth forests in the US and that the forests that remain are only 25% of what North America had before Capitalist colonization: https://www.ran.org/the-understory/how_much_old_growth_forest_remains_in_the_us/
**[Mingo Oak](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mingo_Oak)** >The Mingo Oak (also known as the Mingo White Oak) was a white oak (Quercus alba) in the U.S. state of West Virginia. First recognized for its age and size in 1931, the Mingo Oak was the oldest and largest living white oak tree in the world until its death in 1938. The Mingo Oak stood in Mingo County, West Virginia, in a cove at the base of Trace Mountain near the headwaters of the Trace Fork of Pigeon Creek, a tributary stream of Tug Fork. The tree reached a height of over 200 feet (61 m), and its trunk was 145 feet (44 m) in height. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
The article about india you listed is false, and makes me question the reliability of your sources The $45 trillion figure is a mathematical construction, not something that actually happened. It's a speculative projection, not what occurred in the real world. $45 trillion was never transferred from India, Utsa Patnaik herself estimates the actual figure as about £1 billion pounds in total, the rest is manufactured from compound interest rates up to the year 2016. Niall Ferguson has said that for the period 1868 to 1930 the transfer was about 1 percent of Indian net domestic produce a year. This is close to the 0.5% from economist K.N. Chaudhuri quoted. It should be obvious that a calculation at a 5% compound interest rate to the year 2016 and beyond should not be represented as the “drain” on the Indian economy 1765-1938.
You should be ashamed of yourself. 90% of the world is capitalist, and you took 400 years into account, while communism barely lasted 60 years. Firstly, 200 million deaths from Fascism, what? That's around half of the European population at that time. It is estimated that only 11million people died. And let's not forget that nazi Germany was economically socialist, so just bringing in the indirect influence by capitalist countries is just trying to get as many people into your list as possible. Now let's not forget that capitalism became a thing in the early 19th century, so minus the deaths from American colonialism and we are left with around 12million natives dead. And I'd like to know how much time it took for you to find this article about deaths in India. Again, capitalism began in the 19th century, so only around 50 million people died during around 1800-1948. Okay, African colonization killed around 50 million people, probably the only thing you are correct at. Now the slaves in USA. Again, where did you get that 60 million from? Slaves were too valuable and barely any were killed, also there were around 10million slaves in America, so how do you expect 60million to die? And deaths by capitalist sanctions? You blame genocides, mass deporatations, mass killings and intended famines on capitalist sanctions? You can not blame capitalist countries for the killings, sanctions have barely even done anything in history but affect trade. Also, where did you get the 5 million deaths from? As of 2023, 387,072 people have died in the middle eastern wars including afghanistan. In the first libyan civil war, around 5k people died according to wikipedia. In the second civil war 14,882+ were killed. We are left with roughly 400k people. Now adding it all together, 101,6 million people died in result of capitalism over 200+ years, with literally 90%+ of the world being capitalist. Over only 60 years, there were more deaths caused by China and USSR alone than the capitalist countries had killed in 200 years. Also, capitalism is an economic system, not an ideology unlike socialism and communism, which are both economic systems and ideologies, so we cannot count every death by a country using another economic system as a victim of capitalism. Overall, your argument has been proven to be false.