How many have died from capitalism?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

So Communism have killed 100 million people, you say.

How many have capitalism killed? 500 million? 1 billion? 2 billion?

[Free Left]

Directly or indirectly?

[Raisa]

Its all direct.

They kill people everyday.

Bastards.

[Tower of Bebel]

You know what?! That's right. The European commission did a research to find out how many people died because of communist regimes and the EU wanted former communist countries to bring murderers to justice. I guess Europe forgot how many people died and still die in Africa, South America and Asia because of colonisation, oppression or in general: kapitalism.

[Clarksist]

Most anyone who has starved to death in the past 100 years could be blamed on capitalism. Anyone who has died from the elements do to poverty in the past 100 years could be blamed on capitalism. Anyone who has died from treatable illnesses in the past 100 years could be blamed on capitalism. Anyone dead in WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, Desert Storm, War in Iraq, all the conflict in the Gaza Strip, the current Isreali conflict, and most other wars in the past century are the direct fault of capitalists. Oh, and I forgot the millions of people who just "dissapear" that have been oppressed and murdered by brutal capitalist regimes.

Capitalism has killed a lot. And, its continuing to kill.

[rouchambeau]

Eight. Eight people.

But really. It doesn't matter. State/soviet/whatever Communism blows just as hard as capitalism, if not more.

[EwokUtopia]

Who can even count? When you kill one, it is a tragedy, when you kill one million, it is a statistic. Capitalism is far more statistical than any other idealogy, it has killed and continues to kill many millions through its apathy and enforcing of its system through wars (like Iraq and Lebanon for instance) but more importantly, it has enslaved the majority of the human race and rapes the planet we all need and should love and give respect to. In the end of the day, capitalism will perhaps be responsible for our extinction.

[Yamashita]

What i really want to know is the following, weren't there people in Africa dying of hunger before colonization? Or is it now that we see it more often because each family has like 20 damn kids!? So capitalism forces these families to have more kids? therefore "statistically" more deaths! Than stop having more kids dammit! Why? So that you can put your children to work! What for? So that we have people saying how terrible it is kids working in 3rd World countries? I for one would rather die before selling my kid to some sweatshop, although even so he would probably have a better income than he would in the rice paddies.

[Janus]

weren't there people in Africa dying of hunger before colonization
Yes, but due to the fact that imperialism practically halted African development, things are much worse now.


Than stop having more kids dammit
Raise this issue with the Church.


although even so he would probably have a better income than he would in the rice paddies.
A better income but not a better life. In the villages, he has a home, a job, and a family. In a city, he would be lucky to have just one of those.

[Yamashita]

Yes, but due to the fact that imperialism practically halted African development, things are much worse now

Im no supporter of imperialism, in fact i admit it's the reason for the civil wars in Africa. But development? :huh: Please , tell me which development you speak of that was halted by the colonizers in Africa? In fact , thats probably the only thing imperialism brought, western development. Or are you meaning to tell me that those tribes in the jungles would of developed by now? Heck, even in this day and age they live in huts trading cows as their main form of currency.


Raise this issue with the Church.

What do you mean?


A better income but not a better life. In the villages, he has a home, a job, and a family. In a city, he would be lucky to have just one of those.

Very sweet, but not sweet enought to the people who sell their kids to sweatshops. At least they know job is guaranteed. ;)

[rouchambeau]

Yamashta, there is a reason why people in underdevelped countries have many children: they need them as a source of labor. The fact that you would type something like "omg wtf is with these people and all their kids?!" seems very ignorant and possibly racist.

[Yamashita]

Yamashta, there is a reason why people in underdevelped countries have many children: they need them as a source of labor. The fact that you would type something like "omg wtf is with these people and all their kids?!" seems very ignorant and possibly racist.

What else do you want to label me? "Possibly sexist"? Homophobe? lol :rolleyes:

How am i racist? Anyways, i know it is as a source of labor, but that's because they are ignorant people without skills. Like i said i would rather die before selling my own kid to a sweatshop, and just creating babies for the sake of making them laborers, that's retarded. You know your life is miserable, why create another creature to make them even more miserable? To save your own skin? If anything it's the paren'ts fault.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 05:42 PM

Raise this issue with the Church.

What do you mean?
The church frowns on birth control, thus they frown on population reduction.

[Janus]

Please , tell me which development you speak of that was halted by the colonizers in Africa? In fact , thats probably the only thing imperialism brought, western development. Or are you meaning to tell me that those tribes in the jungles would of developed by now? Heck, even in this day and age they live in huts trading cows as their main form of currency.
Right, the "white man&#39;s burden". <_< You don&#39;t think the Africans were developing on their own?


What do you mean?
That&#39;s one of the reasons why some people have a lot of kids. The Church doesn&#39;t endorse family planning or abortion.


but not sweet enought to the people who sell their kids to sweatshops. At least they know job is guaranteed.
Kids go to the cities and find jobs there because they think that it is better than their lives in the country or because they&#39;re trying to support their family.

[Yamashita]

The church frowns on birth control, thus they frown on population control.

Yes, that&#39;s true good point. So how does the church connect to capitalism again? And plus christianity doesn&#39;t affect every people, there are also Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus, whatever. Ignorance, plays a very big role. For example with AIDS in Africa, the misinformation is a major force in the epidemic. It&#39;s really unfortunate. But at the end of the day it&#39;s the countries fault. After colonization , neo-colonization dependancy and civil wars, im sorry but you wanted to be free now fix your problems&#33; I know it&#39;s easier said than done, but with constant warfare you can&#39;t be blaming the west all the time, if you can&#39;t learn to work together and how to elect good leaders, that&#39;s not our fault either.

[loveme4whoiam]

Like i said i would rather die before selling my own kid to a sweatshop
If you lived in an undeveloped country, I imagine you would die if you lived by that ethos.


Anyways, i know it is as a source of labor, but that&#39;s because they are ignorant people without skills.
Oh, that makes it okay then <_< How about the fact that the vast, vast majority of these people have no access to the education necessary to stop being "ignorant people without skills"? I think you should think again about who is ignorant.



Raise this issue with the Church.
What do you mean?
He means, the Church opposes the use of contraceptives. Thus, whenever some randy bloke in a Third World country has sex, the possibility of the women become pregnant, or either of them contracting AIDS, is exponentially bigger than if they were given contraceptives.

[Yamashita]

Right, the "white man&#39;s burden". You don&#39;t think the Africans were developing on their own?

Funny, your more intelligent than i thought. But that&#39;s not a convincing anwser, you have to do better than to make a believable argument. It&#39;s the year 2006, like i said, people are still living the way they did hundreds of years ago, with the visible maybe nike shoes, or than some AK-47, but still trading cows and living in hut villages. If that&#39;s development, than there is something wrong with you, and it&#39;s obvious that if they were going to make development, they would have done so already, what kept them from doing so? Are you trying to say they would have been developed as , say, South Korea? :huh:



That&#39;s one of the reasons why some people have a lot of kids. The Church doesn&#39;t endorse family planning or abortion.

Yeah, thats true.


Kids go to the cities and find jobs there because they think that it is better than their lives in the country or because they&#39;re trying to support their family.

That is also true, and im in full agreement with you.

[Tetsuo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 12:21 AM
If you lived in an undeveloped country, I imagine you would die if you lived by that ethos.
The kid probably wouldn&#39;t last all that long, either.

[Yamashita]

If you lived in an undeveloped country, I imagine you would die if you lived by that ethos.

You think a child is just born ready to work? Here is my thinking, if im miserable, in a poor situation without hope, why would i want to bring a child into this setting? Don&#39;t we all want the best for our children? I don&#39;t care about me dying, that would be much easier to take than knowing im putting my own damn child into the same or even worst hardships i went through.



Oh, that makes it okay then How about the fact that the vast, vast majority of these people have no access to the education necessary to stop being "ignorant people without skills"? I think you should think again about who is ignorant.

I have to admit you have a point there. But how is it the US&#39;s fault or Europe&#39;s fault that Burkina Faso or some other country doesn&#39;t provide good eductation for all of it&#39;s citizens?

[Janus]

If that&#39;s development, than there is something wrong with you, and it&#39;s obvious that if they were going to make development, they would have done so already, what kept them from doing so? Are you trying to say they would have been developed as , say, South Korea?
Development is a gradual process. When the Europeans moved in and began systematically exploiting them and uprooting their lives, that development pretty much stopped.

Now, if these European powers had an actual incentive for helping Africa like the US did for South Korea, then yes, parts of Africa would probably be as if nor more developed than South Korea. However, that did not prove to be the case. The White Man&#39;s Burden was simply a sick justification for imperialism and the exploitation of the Africans.

[Yamashita]

Janus, the Native Americans lived the same way for thousands of years before the Spaniards came. I guess you still were giving them time huh? They were still in the process of development?

It&#39;s true that imperialism pretty much made you a slave to the colonizer&#39;s system. But the fact of the matter is even after the exposure to the more advanced Western civilization and development, even in this day and age, there are people living the same way they did 500 years ago&#33;&#33; What&#39;s the development you speak of? A new way to make a spear? Accept the truth, i still would like to know what this development was&#33;&#33; At least if you could name an example than iit would make more of an arguemnt.

[red team]

A rich visiting pedophile is more valuable than a poor local school teacher.

Enough said.

[Yamashita]

A rich visiting pedophile is more valuable than a poor local school teacher.

Enough said.

True, this is the example of Cuba. Any tourist is worth more than any Cuban citizen, accepted by the Cuban government might i add, actually it&#39;s the law. SICKENING&#33;

[Janus]

the Native Americans lived the same way for thousands of years before the Spaniards came. I guess you still were giving them time huh? They were still in the process of development?
What about the Aztecs or the Incas?


Accept the truth, i still would like to know what this development was&#33;&#33; At least if you could name an example than iit would make more of an arguemnt.
Much of the areas that the Europeans colonized had complex societies or civilizations beforehand particularly those in Asia.

As for Africa, it depends on the nation. Sometimes, isolation due to geography prevented much trade while it flourished in others. There were many flourishing societies in Africa when the Europeans came.

[Janus]

What&#39;s the development you speak of? A new way to make a spear? Accept the truth, i still would like to know what this development was&#33;&#33; At least if you could name an example than iit would make more of an arguemnt.
Your Eurocentric point of view shows here. Not all societies are patterned like the Europeans. Take the Pygmies, they have not developed because there isolation and society means that they have no need to.

However, there are plenty of African nations or kingdoms that were developing before the Europeans came: Benin, Mali, Zimbabwe, Ghana, etc.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

*YAWNS*

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 08:55 PM
Eight. Eight people.

You lie.

Everyone knows the actual number is seven....and that capitalism didn&#39;t kill Fred.

[Yamashita]

What about the Aztecs or the Incas?

I was actually refering to the Natives in the North American continent, mostly the USA and Canada, because yes i know about the Aztecs and Incas, same as i know about the Kingdom of Mali and so on.


Your Eurocentric point of view shows here. Not all societies are patterned like the Europeans. Take the Pygmies, they have not developed because there isolation and society means that they have no need to.

However, there are plenty of African nations or kingdoms that were developing before the Europeans came: Benin, Mali, Zimbabwe, Ghana, etc

Kingdoms of Mali and Zimbabwe or what not, just because they were kingdoms with a vast portion of land doesn&#39;t mean they were highly civilized and well developed. Take the Mongols, they were nomads for god&#39;s sake, living in yurts and they were nothing but isolated, they in fact had contact with pretty much everyone in the known world.

But here is my question, if Europeans had never even made contact with the Natives in both America and Africa, you think they would have been as developed as the Western civilization?

[Janus]

But here is my question, if Europeans had never even made contact with the Natives in both America and Africa, you think they would have been as developed as the Western civilization?
It would depend on their society and their values. For example, the Comanches or the Sioux would most likely not have changed all that much because they lived a nomadic existence.


Kingdoms of Mali and Zimbabwe or what not, just because they were kingdoms with a vast portion of land doesn&#39;t mean they were highly civilized and well developed
What about the other kingdoms that the Europeans carved up? China or Vietnam?

[red team]

True, this is the example of Cuba.

But, not exclusively. One of the members of the "Asian Tigers" economy of the late 90&#39;s, Thailand, is well known for child prostitution. What does that say about Capitalism when one of the rising star countries is known for this? It says a lot more about the failure of Capitalism when Thailand under no U.S. sponsored blockade and is free to trade with anybody to have this social evil prevalent in the country than it does Cuba which is under heavy economic sanctions to pressure it to give up all gains protecting the ordinary worker.

[Yamashita]

What about the other kingdoms that the Europeans carved up? China or Vietnam?

China is in a world of it&#39;s own. Vietnam, Cambodia and so on, you can&#39;t compare these to the highly superadvanced Chinese civilization, China is the only civilization i could think of that could rival the Western civilization somewhat in advancement in anything. It&#39;s not just building glorius brick cities, it&#39;s everything Janus. That&#39;s my point, sure some civilization was highly advanced with some sort of alphabet, but did they have an advanced maritime navy? What about a well equipped army? What about logistics? What about bureaucracy? What about the economy? What about an industry of some sort? The only civilization developing ahead of the others was the western civilization for better or worse. For example, how is it that the Chinese invented powder, yet the Westerners came and forced them to submit to trade with guns&#33; The Chinese had used powdered "granades" if you will, looooong ago, yet the Westerners had the advanced weapons. Who developed best? You tell me.



But, not exclusively. One of the members of the "Asian Tigers" economy of the late 90&#39;s, Thailand, is well known for child prostitution. What does that say about Capitalism when one of the rising star countries is known for this? It says a lot more about the failure of Capitalism when Thailand under no U.S. sponsored blockade and is free to trade with anybody to have this social evil prevalent in the country than it does Cuba which is under heavy economic sanctions to pressure it to give up all gains protecting the ordinary worker.

Thailand child prostitution has nothing to do with economics. Have you thought about poor laws and corrupt government officials? Has the Thai government done enough to crack down on this issue? What does this say about capitalism? Thailand is not one of the "raising star countries", that would be Malaysia, Singapore, Soth Korea, Japan and maybe Phillipines and China? whatever...if this prostiution is caused by capitalism, somehow it must be an issue in South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Japan , yet they aren&#39;t...which goes back to what i said about poor government laws , corrupt governments not doing much about it.

Cuba under huge economic sanctions? USA is not the only country Cuba can trade with, in fact it has like the rest of the world it does trade with. In fact Canada and Europe are major trading partners as well as China. Funny, because the so called blockade doesn&#39;t affect the tourists enjoying things they would enjoy wherever they come from, yet Cubans are made to watch and serve them as slaves. So much for the economic sanctions huh :rolleyes:

[Janus]

The Chinese had used powdered "granades" if you will, looooong ago, yet the Westerners had the advanced weapons. Who developed best? You tell me.
All civilizations have golden periods and static periods. Some fall behind while others rise ahead.

I still don&#39;t see what you&#39;re getting at here. It&#39;s one thing to help another country develop, it&#39;s totally something else to exploit that nation and subject the people to horrible conditions for your own benefit.

[Yamashita]

All civilizations have golden periods and static periods. Some fall behind while others rise ahead.

I still don&#39;t see what you&#39;re getting at here. It&#39;s one thing to help another country develop, it&#39;s totally something else to exploit that nation and subject the people to horrible conditions for your own benefit.

No doubt all civilizations have golden periods and static ones, but tell me which was the golden period of the countries colonized by Europeans? Do you fully understand my point? What im trying to say is, who would have developed a computer first? If they had never had contact with eachother, the Western developed or developing civilization or the civilizations of the Incas or the Zimbabwe as you said? I understand what you said about isolation, but yet again most of Africa and America WAS in isolation, so i don&#39;t know this development you speak of, like if it was some development to rival even the Chinese civilization?

What im trying to get at here is....well actuallyt this conversation has gone a little off lol. Basically it was the argument of Africa, that they pretty much became developed after the colonization, that is, "civilized" if you will or whatever. And you were saing that NO, the Africans were already becoming developed but it was imperialism that stagnated this African development.

Yes, i understand and agree 100% by what you say in your last paragraph. But we all know the European powers didn&#39;t give a shit about the Africans or other nations they colonized. So they defenitaly weren&#39;t there to help them develop (aha, so you accept they weren&#39;t developed, i know i would get you&#33; lol ;) ) they were like you said there to rape their resources and benefit for themselves.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 08:33 PM
You know what?&#33; That&#39;s right. The European commission did a research to find out how many people died because of communist regimes and the EU wanted former communist countries to bring murderers to justice. I guess Europe forgot how many people died and still die in Africa, South America and Asia because of colonisation, oppression or in general: kapitalism.
I hate all the leaders of the EU for that.

They got the nerve for form a union, but they forgot what they did to africa to get where they are. They got to nerve to criticise about human rights and violations, and anti semitism, they dont own up to what they do.

People still die over capitalism
We kill each other like stupid monkeys over things owned by capitalists that really already belong to us, and capitalism profits frmo the ignorance tha tmakes us do this.

[Janus]

No doubt all civilizations have golden periods and static ones, but tell me which was the golden period of the countries colonized by Europeans? Do you fully understand my point? What im trying to say is, who would have developed a computer first? If they had never had contact with eachother, the Western developed or developing civilization or the civilizations of the Incas or the Zimbabwe as you said? I understand what you said about isolation, but yet again most of Africa and America WAS in isolation, so i don&#39;t know this development you speak of, like if it was some development to rival even the Chinese civilization?

What im trying to get at here is....well actuallyt this conversation has gone a little off lol. Basically it was the argument of Africa, that they pretty much became developed after the colonization, that is, "civilized" if you will or whatever. And you were saing that NO, the Africans were already becoming developed but it was imperialism that stagnated this African development.

Yes, i understand and agree 100% by what you say in your last paragraph. But we all know the European powers didn&#39;t give a shit about the Africans or other nations they colonized. So they defenitaly weren&#39;t there to help them develop (aha, so you accept they weren&#39;t developed, i know i would get you&#33; lol ) they were like you said there to rape their resources and benefit for themselves.
I never said that Africa was actually developed but that certain parts of it could have developed without the intervention of European forces. I don&#39;t see where you&#39;re going with this or where "you got me" since I have never denied that although exposure to new ideas,etc is not inherently a bad thing but that exploitation particularly through force is.

[Janus]

Yes, i understand and agree 100% by what you say in your last paragraph. But we all know the European powers didn&#39;t give a shit about the Africans or other nations they colonized. So they defenitaly weren&#39;t there to help them develop (aha, so you accept they weren&#39;t developed, i know i would get you&#33; lol ) they were like you said there to rape their resources and benefit for themselves.
Right, so you agree with my main point there. If you reread my original post, you&#39;ll find that I did not say that Africa was truly on the same technological level as Europe. That&#39;s an easy observation there and I never denied it. But I do say that it is somewhat pointless and difficult to argue if&#39;s in history and in this case examine how developed African would be to this day without European intervention.

[Yamashita]

Fair enough Janus, i defenatily thought that&#39;s what you were saying.

But yeah, overall i guess we can agree , i mean i would have to be crazy to support "exploitation by force", as you yourself put it.

Although the only parts of Africa i can think of that could have been developed by themselves is North Africa in my opinion, basically because of their historical importance, even still i don&#39;t belive they could of rivaled Western civilization or even Asian. Im still convinced that the rest of Africa would have stayed relatively the same, specially those away from the coasts.

[Axel1917]

I have read somewhere that around 35 million people starve to death each year. If this is true, that is at least equal to or more than those that died under the Stalinist regime. So, this alone is far worse than what "communism" has committed. More dead in one year from capitalism than those dead under the Stalin regime.

[Yamashita]

I have read somewhere that around 35 million people starve to death each year. If this is true, that is at least equal to or more than those that died under the Stalinist regime. So, this alone is far worse than what "communism" has committed. More dead in one year from capitalism than those dead under the Stalin regime.

35 million a year&#33; WOW , that&#39;s staggering statistics. But how is this believable? How do we know for sure they died from pure starvation? How can you directly blame capitalism? One of the countries with most actually starving people is North Korea, i doubt capitalism has any influence there.

I understand the leftist point about poor nations. After all i just studied about the North South gap in my International Relations class. It&#39;s really a vicious cycle, in which the North is really always rich, and the South always poor. I understand why revolutionary feelings are then popular in poor nations like this. But it&#39;s not capitalism&#39;s fault all together, it&#39;s government relation&#39;s fault. It&#39;s how the North is a ***** to the South. If it was capitalism&#39;s fault then people in Western Europe or America would be starving as well. Plus, are most African countries capitalist?

Anyways, the vicious cycle is basically the South or poor nations of the world unable to create surplus. The North or rich nations have the skills the knowledge and technology, while the South has the raw materials. So the South imports raw materials for &#036;100, while the North buys it and makes a product out of that raw material and sells it back to the South for 10 times that price, who is making the profit? Obviously the North, and the South can&#39;t get out of this cycle. Some would say, "but then why won&#39;t South countries just sell their raw materials more expensively", well because they have competition amongst eachother. If Costa Rica sells banana&#39;s more expensively than Honduras, obviously Honduras will be the biggst seller. This is market competition, and this is when capitalism comes into place.

But, i ask, hasn&#39;t there always been a gap. Hasn&#39;t there always been a North South relation the same way we see it today. It&#39;s just that with globalization, with the information age we live on we get to know more about it. What im trying to say is, that starvation has always existed. Specially in places like Africa and South East Asia.

Plus, what exactly do leftists value? How much you sweat or how many boxes you picked up, or skills?

[chimx]

when my father&#39;s cousin was a child, a copy of wealth of nations fell off the bookshelf striking him in the head and killing him. whatever you decide to make the final count, don&#39;t forget to add one for poor little joey brehe.

[Janus]

But yeah, overall i guess we can agree , i mean i would have to be crazy to support "exploitation by force", as you yourself put it.
Good. You are pretty reasonable compared to some of the other restricted members.


Im still convinced that the rest of Africa would have stayed relatively the same, specially those away from the coasts.
Depending on their geography then yes especially if they were isolated in the tropical rainforest areas like the Pgymies.

[Janus]

when my father&#39;s cousin was a child, a copy of wealth of nations fell off the bookshelf striking him in the head and killing him. whatever you decide to make the final count, don&#39;t forget to add one for poor little joey brehe.
Now, if the Communist Manifesto had fallen on him, he would still be alive and well. Now that makes communism much better than capitalism. Absolute fact. :lol:

[ebeneezer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 05:45 AM

when my father&#39;s cousin was a child, a copy of wealth of nations fell off the bookshelf striking him in the head and killing him. whatever you decide to make the final count, don&#39;t forget to add one for poor little joey brehe.
Now, if the Communist Manifesto had fallen on him, he would still be alive and well. Now that makes communism much better than capitalism. Absolute fact. :lol:
lol communist manifesto is just a propaganda leaflet.

To the issue at hand: if you count billions of people as having died under capitalism, considering we don&#39;t even have cpaitalism as a politicla system, it means you can only be talking about humans being greedy right?

WHICH MEANS YOU HAVE JUST ADMITTED CAPTIALISM IS HUMAN NATURE&#33; :lol:
This is why it can never be defeated. That&#39;s an Absolute Fact &copy; TM*. You are all pwned once again by the Scroogster..

*(nb. Disclaimer: I have decided to tradmark and copyright my intellectual property considering the number of people here who seem to have been emulating my invention.)

[Janus]

communist manifesto is just a propaganda leaflet.
It was written to state a former communist organization&#39;s platform if that&#39;s what you mean.


considering we don&#39;t even have cpaitalism as a politicla system
In capitalism, economics and politics are entertwined.


*(nb. Disclaimer: I have decided to tradmark and copyright my intellectual property considering the number of people here who seem to have been emulating my invention.)
No one here is emulating your stupid statement, everyone here is poking fun at it. :lol: The fact that you consider that a trademark is even more ridiculous.

[Morag]

Originally posted by [email protected]g 9 2006, 04:12 AM
35 million a year&#33; WOW , that&#39;s staggering statistics. But how is this believable? How do we know for sure they died from pure starvation?

Pure starvation accounts for a lot of it; on the other hand, malnutrition, not exactly starvation, leads to susceptibility to disease, which leads to death as well. 35 million a year is kind of lowballing it, I think, since 26-30,000 children die a day of starvation. And that&#39;s a UN stat.


But it&#39;s not capitalism&#39;s fault all together, it&#39;s government relation&#39;s fault. It&#39;s how the North is a ***** to the South. If it was capitalism&#39;s fault then people in Western Europe or America would be starving as well. Plus, are most African countries capitalist?

Well, see, we lefties feel that the government is half the problem. Governments that have no fear of the people recalling them become corrupt. Like Canada&#39;s Liberals, the South Koreans, the Taiwanese, the American government, the Mexican governments (until 1994- I don&#39;t know about the situation since). That is why we believe that governments should be recallable by the people at the people&#39;s discretion. No six year terms, no fixed election dates. Pure democracy. Some see this as opposed to the communist system where it seems as if leaders stay in power for ever, but it&#39;s just a different form. And sometimes socialist leaders aren&#39;t really socialists, but careerists who have used the party to gain power. These people are not viewed kindly in our minds.

The reason why the blight of capitalism is more obvious in the South then the North is because, through imperialism, we have forced the South to subsidize our standard of living. It cannot be maintained at such high levels even in the North with out a change in the way things are produced and distributed. To spread and allow all people in the world to share equally in wealth requires a type of distribution that capitalism cannot allow; it requires that profits are not kept to those who own the means of production.

Most African nations, except for in the North, actually, are capitalist or were forced into capitalism through imperialist policies dictated by the IMF and World Bank.


Obviously the North, and the South can&#39;t get out of this cycle. Some would say, "but then why won&#39;t South countries just sell their raw materials more expensively", well because they have competition amongst eachother.

Which is why groups like Mercosur are starting up, to facilitate cooperation and development among underdeveloped nations without submitting to the exploitation of the imperialist countries.

[ebeneezer]

How many people have died from capitalism? Not enough. Oh not by a long shot...

[Janus]

How many people have died from capitalism? Not enough. Oh not by a long shot...
And you accuse communists of being "evil"? :rolleyes:

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 04:12 AM

I have read somewhere that around 35 million people starve to death each year. If this is true, that is at least equal to or more than those that died under the Stalinist regime. So, this alone is far worse than what "communism" has committed. More dead in one year from capitalism than those dead under the Stalin regime.

35 million a year&#33; WOW , that&#39;s staggering statistics. But how is this believable?

How is "OMGZ 100 MILLEON PEEPLE DIED FR0M COMMUNISM&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;111&#33;&#33;ONE&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;1 COMMUNISM IZ TEH_3VILZ&#33;" Beliavable to anyone who has any concept of communism?

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

I believe it&#39;s something like 30,000+ a day

[Karl Marx's Camel]

That&#39;s one of the reasons why some people have a lot of kids. The Church doesn&#39;t endorse family planning or abortion.

From what I have read/heard, it&#39;s not just the church, but lack of social security. Say a couple have 10 kids, then maybe half will die of starvation, malnutrition, thirst etc. but then the other 5 will provide for their elderly parents.


The children becomes a pension.



Funny, because the so called blockade doesn&#39;t affect the tourists enjoying things they would enjoy wherever they come from, yet Cubans are made to watch and serve them as slaves.

Tourists may have priviledges, but Cubans are not slaves.

Really, why not make a list of all those that have died from capitalism?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I would assume that it would be hard counting them all at once, and perhaps a bit confusing where in history to start, so why not start at the 20th century and work downwards?

How should we do this?

At least I thought we could establish a list of the wars capitalism/capitalist forces have created? Of course there are many others who have died from poverty, cureable diseases, malnutrition, thirst etc. I think that at least concluding with how many have been killed through capitalist wars in the 20th century alone would be a good start. So should we start with adding the wars of the 20th century and then add the losses together?

Feel free to add on.

World War 1
Rif war 1919-1926
The Spanish Civil War
World War 2
1948 Arab-Israeli War
U.S. war against Vietnam
Cenepa War
Six-Day War
War of Attrition
Falklands War
Iran-Iraq War
Gulf War
2003 invasion of Iraq

[Rollo]

Apparently some people trying to cross the mex-us border are shot. Berlin wall anybody?

[Tungsten]

Clarksist

Most anyone who has starved to death in the past 100 years could be blamed on capitalism. Anyone who has died from the elements do to poverty in the past 100 years could be blamed on capitalism. Anyone who has died from treatable illnesses in the past 100 years could be blamed on capitalism.
Would you care to explain the reasoning behind this accusation?
Janus

Development is a gradual process. When the Europeans moved in and began systematically exploiting them and uprooting their lives, that development pretty much stopped.
Europeans were exploiting and uprooting each other for thousands of years before "imperialism" but their development didn&#39;t stop.
NWOG

I think that at least concluding with how many have been killed through capitalist wars in the 20th century alone would be a good start.
And what&#39;s a "capitalist war"? What&#39;s a "non-capitalist war"?

[Yamashita]

Morag

Pure starvation accounts for a lot of it; on the other hand, malnutrition, not exactly starvation, leads to susceptibility to disease, which leads to death as well. 35 million a year is kind of lowballing it, I think, since 26-30,000 children die a day of starvation. And that&#39;s a UN stat.

Yes, well im going to quote my International Relations book:

"Starvation is dramatic and horrible, but it&#39;s not the most important aspect of poverty, because it affects few of the world&#39;s poor people. Starvation is generally caused by war or extreme drought or both. In most places, people who die from poverty do not starve but succumb to diseases after being weakened by malnutrition. A lack of adequate quality of nutrition kills many more people than outright starvation does-but less dramatically because people die in many locations day in and day out rather than all at once in one place. Hunger and malnutrition are sometimes caused by war but more often by other factors that displace people from farmable land to cities where many are unable to find other income.
People who die from malnutrition do not die because of a lack of food in the world, or usually a lack of food in their own state, but because they cannot afford to buy food. Likewise people lack water, shelter, health care, and other necessities because they can&#39;t afford them. The widespread, griding poverty of people who cannot afford necessities is more important than the dramatic examples of starvation triggered by war or drought, because chronic poverty affects many more people."


Pure democracy
I understand the feeling behind pure democracy, but have you really thought about what pure democracy would be like? You see, "pure" everything most likely never works, hell there doesnt even exist pure capitalism in the world. And what makes you think that in communism communities won&#39;t compete against eachothers? How would countries trade? Bananas would be valued the same as oil? What if democratically the whole world market prefers apples to bananas, if you were a country dependand on your banana you would be screwed&#33; Wouldn&#39;t you?


Which is why groups like Mercosur are starting up, to facilitate cooperation and development among underdeveloped nations without submitting to the exploitation of the imperialist countries.

I don&#39;t think Mercosur will help a great great deal.


How is "OMGZ 100 MILLEON PEEPLE DIED FR0M COMMUNISM&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;111&#33;&#33;ONE&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;1 COMMUNISM IZ TEH_3VILZ&#33;" Beliavable to anyone who has any concept of communism?

I think mathematics is farely simple, just add the millions up and 100 should be your anwser.


Tourists may have priviledges, but Cubans are not slaves.

Funny, the Cubans shouldn&#39;t be considered slaves, but i should be considered a slave because i have a boss. :rolleyes:


World War 1
Rif war 1919-1926
The Spanish Civil War
World War 2
1948 Arab-Israeli War
U.S. war against Vietnam
Cenepa War
Six-Day War
War of Attrition
Falklands War
Iran-Iraq War
Gulf War
2003 invasion of Iraq

Take out WW1 and WW2 , and Mao&#39;s agrarian and cultural reforms should crush numerically each of the examples above.

[Janus]

Europeans were exploiting and uprooting each other for thousands of years before "imperialism" but their development didn&#39;t stop.
It was not systematic and continual like their subjugation of Africa though unless you&#39;re talking about the Dark Ages in which development pretty much did stop.

Development didn&#39;t really even pick up untill the Renaissance.

[nickdlc]

I think the figure of 100 million dead from "communism" was taken from the black book of communism and the grand majority of these deaths apparently happened in china with 65 million dieing. I bet if communists used the same standards that the authors in the black book of communism used you could easily surpass the number of 100 million since capitalism has been around much longer. In fact us ultra left communists would say add that 100 million to capitalism since russia et al were really state capitalist anyway.

Communists answered back with the black book of capitalism but i didn&#39;t see a number figure. Would the mass death of millions of natives in north and south america count as a crime of capitalism? Infact some self described capitalists seem to say that capitalism has existed since roman times (or even before that) so wouldn&#39;t these deaths (from massacres and what not) also be attributed to capitalism :P :( ;)

[Ivory Apparition]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 07:50 PM
So Communism have killed 100 million people, you say.

How many have capitalism killed? 500 million? 1 billion? 2 billion?
An idiotic number perpetuated by an idiot. You are trying to have a "moral," argument, are you not? Saying that because human life was shed then the economic and or socio-political program and party in question must be wrong, which only points out that you have no real argument.

Capitalism is flawed from the start; it is a chaotic and corrosive system/ideology that sells out the State and its people. Example: look at the bloated pathetic swine that is America.

[Avtomatov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 10:30 PM
What i really want to know is the following, weren&#39;t there people in Africa dying of hunger before colonization? Or is it now that we see it more often because each family has like 20 damn kids&#33;? So capitalism forces these families to have more kids? therefore "statistically" more deaths&#33; Than stop having more kids dammit&#33; Why? So that you can put your children to work&#33; What for? So that we have people saying how terrible it is kids working in 3rd World countries? I for one would rather die before selling my kid to some sweatshop, although even so he would probably have a better income than he would in the rice paddies.
They have so many kids because it is likely most of them will die because they are so poor.

[red team]

What i really want to know is the following, weren&#39;t there people in Africa dying of hunger before colonization? Or is it now that we see it more often because each family has like 20 damn kids&#33;? So capitalism forces these families to have more kids? therefore "statistically" more deaths&#33; Than stop having more kids dammit&#33; Why? So that you can put your children to work&#33; What for? So that we have people saying how terrible it is kids working in 3rd World countries? I for one would rather die before selling my kid to some sweatshop, although even so he would probably have a better income than he would in the rice paddies.

It&#39;s irrelevant. If you want to live you rely on human muscles in an environment devoid of technology because money is only a species of debt. It doesn&#39;t matter if better methods can be employed. If a debt cannot be paid back to those invest in building a factory or mine or dam or whatever it doesn&#39;t get built. And even once it&#39;s built, employment rests on debt repayment to investors in the form of profit, not material production.

If the opposite was true there would never be this great emptying out of the American heartlland or its industrial infrastructure. Price system apologists would inevitably say that it just wasn&#39;t profitable anymore operate heavy industry in America anymore, but this really begs the question. What is wealth? As measured by money it&#39;s fictitious. It doesn&#39;t correspond to material output or potential material output, otherwise why shutdown materially productive assets? Shouldn&#39;t more factories equal more wealth? If you accept this then the opposite of closing factories equal the destruction of wealth must also be true. But, that&#39;s not the case is it? The investor class in America is enjoying a golden age in terms of purchasing power from accumulated money even though the industrial base is rapidly being offshored. This offshoring of industry is simply a larger scale version of the deliberate wasting of useful items like food and clothing that small retail businesses engages in regularly.

The lesson for today is money has nothing to do with wealth. It&#39;s entirely a confidence game that is infinitely manipulatable by those that have an controlling interest in the game. The rest of us just do whatever is necessary to survive.