One Billion are hungry. Socialism is better than capitalism

[AvanteRedGarde]

(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)

The global financial meltdown has had devastating effects for the world’s poor according to the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization. War, drought, political instability, high food prices are compounded by the financial meltdown. Today, according to the UN’s FAO, over one billion people go hungry. Hunger now affects one in six people.

Since last year, 100 million more people have slipped into hunger. The number of hungry people has risen 11 percent. The number of hungry people is estimated to have reached 1.02 billion according to a recent UN report. In addition, the hunger rate is rising. The number of hungry people is growing more quickly than the global population.

Asia and the Pacific have the largest number of hungry people at 642 million. Sub-Saharan Africa has 265 million hungry people. The entire “developed world” has, by comparison, 15 million hungry people. The vast majority of all the world’s hungry people exist in the Third World. These statistics once again point to the very concrete way that imperialism affects the lives of those in the Third World, driving them into extreme poverty and despair. And, it shows how imperialism affects the lives of those in the First World largely insulating them catastrophic hunger as experienced by the Third World.

Hunger, as defined by the UN’s FAO, is consuming less than 1,800 calories a day. This threshold is, on average, the number of calories that a person needs to maintain their body weight.

UN officials are worried that crossing this 1 billion milestone does not bode well for imperial stability. Josette Sheeran of the World Food Program, a UN agency based in Rome, pointed out that hungry people rioted in at least 30 countries last year. In one case, high food prices led to riots in Haiti that overthrew the prime minister. According to the FAO, on average, food prices were 24 percent higher in real terms at the end of 2008 compared to 2006. “A hungry world is a dangerous world,” Sheeran said. “Without food, people have only three options: They riot, they emigrate or they die. None of these are acceptable options.” Of course, there is another option: socialist revolution.

Those who think that capitalism has a better track record than socialism should take a closer look. Capitalism has never come close to solving the problem of hunger. Instead global capitalism has generated a situation where hunger is mostly eliminated for a minority of very wealthy countries, and massive hunger exists for the vast majority of poor countries. One billion people go hungry every day under global capitalism, almost all live in the Third World. Although socialist societies experienced famines as society was reorganized to try to eliminate oppression, eventually socialist societies were able to solve the food problem for the most part. When Mao came to power in China, a quarter of the world’s population lived under the threat of hunger and famine. And, sadly, China once again faces the problems of capitalism. However, by the end of the Mao era, this threat no longer existed. Socialism solved the food question for a quarter of humanity. And, unlike the imperialist countries of the First World, socialist China solved its food issue without exploiting other countries. Contrary to capitalism, socialism solves its food problems peacefully.

Sources

1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090619/ap_on_re_eu/eu_un_world_hunger

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

There's a reason the distinction "developed world" exists. Mainly, the third world hasn't completed capitalist development.

[AvanteRedGarde]

And why is that?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

And why is that?

What do you mean?

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

Why hasn't the third world completed capitalist development? Because the third world has been oppressed and exploited by the developed world for years.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Why hasn't the third world completed capitalist development? Because the third world has been oppressed and exploited by the developed world for years.

That really makes no sense at all. Capitalists exploit the third world by setting up means of production for workers there to labor with, which develops the economy. More exploited workers means more capitalist development.

[AvanteRedGarde]

More precisely, within most exploited nations, the comprador bourgeoisie, under imperialism, doesn't accumulate enough capital to pursue an independent capitalist course. This contradiction gives rise to a patriotic bourgeoisie, which seek to delink from imperialism as a way of accumulating more capital.

I disagreed with the first point entirely, that the Third World hasn't completed capitalist development. If by, "completed capitalist development" you mean an economy which consists almost entirely of selling things to one another, then sure. But this is indicative of imperialism, not capitalism.

The truth is, the Third World is developed only insofar as it is in the interests of First World finance capital, inevitably with devastating effects on Third World peoples.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

I didn't phrase that very well, SocialismOrBarbarism. I was referring to something different and a bit irrelevant to the actual discussion. I'll shut up now. ;)

But I meant something along the lines of this:


The truth is, the Third World is developed only insofar as it is in the interests of First World finance capital, inevitably with devastating effects on Third World peoples

[JammyDodger]

In a communist world, the production capacity of a recently sacrificed Detroit could fix this problem in large part.

Access to hi grade seed, medicine and the minds of first world farmers would fix the rest.

The capitalist/imperialist systems raped Africa, and has not thought twice about it since.

[( R )evolution]

That really makes no sense at all. Capitalists exploit the third world by setting up means of production for workers there to labor with, which develops the economy. More exploited workers means more capitalist development.

No they have only developed to the point which supports the imperialist 1st world bourgeois interests. Factories are setup to benefit the bourgeois within their own nations and other 1st world interest. This creates a state that only exists to be raped by the 1st world imperialism.

ARG said it perfectly "The truth is, the Third World is developed only insofar as it is in the interests of First World finance capital, inevitably with devastating effects on Third World peoples"

And when any leader within those Third World countries attempts to challenge the agenda of the imperialists and its own weak, native bourgeois they are killed or taken out of power. This is shown by the dozens of coup's organized and support by the CIA.

[Chapter 24]

ARG, the article itself I am in agreement with, that socialism's track record has been tainted by capitalists and their supporters. My question, however, is why Maoist-Third Worldists believe that first-worlders are somehow benefiting from capitalism as a whole through their "inherent" exploitation of those living in the third world. Of course those living mainly in the west benefit from cheap labor from the unregulated, developing nations of the third world; but do Third Worldists argue that revolution needs to happen in that part of the world first before those in the first world can carry out revolutions, or that first worlders are somehow immune to revolutionary theory and action and would benefit more from capitalism than socialism?
I would of course argue that workers in the first world are exploited. Naturally not to the same degree as those living in the third world. Also, how would one go about justifying their support of national liberation movements in which a local bourgeoisie is supported ABOVE the support toward first world workers carrying out a revolutionary movement?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

More precisely, within most exploited nations, the comprador bourgeoisie, under imperialism, doesn't accumulate enough capital to pursue an independent capitalist course. This contradiction gives rise to a patriotic bourgeoisie, which seek to delink from imperialism as a way of accumulating more capital.What nation isn't exploited? I'm not even sure of the accuracy of your statement concerning the capital that goes to indigenous capitalists. This isn't the 1920s or 1960s anymore. Do you have any statistics dealing with this? And what exactly do you mean by independent capitalist course?


I disagreed with the first point entirely, that the Third World hasn't completed capitalist development. If by, "completed capitalist development" you mean an economy which consists almost entirely of selling things to one another, then sure. But this is indicative of imperialism, not capitalism.No, I mean an economy where 80% of the workforce isn't employed in subsistence agriculture.


The truth is, the Third World is developed only insofar as it is in the interests of First World finance capital, inevitably with devastating effects on Third World peoples.Is it not true that any area will only be developed insofar as it is in the interests of the capitalist class? Why do you act like being exploited by domestic capitalists is somehow better than being exploited by foreign capitalists? Your posts reek of nationalist sentiments.