It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Define Socialism... IN YOUR OWN WORDS.

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MrVancityeagle


I dont know why it has become such a negative thing.


Probably because it has led to the deaths of millions.

It takes power and influence from the 99% as well. Some little farmer can’t eat from his own crops because it is owned by the “collective”.


this is the stock right wing response which is complete bull.

How many deaths has capitalism lead to ?

Got an answer ? It is far more than whatever you believe can be attritbuted to Socialism, if you want to play this game.


Stock, socialist piffle.

I’ll play that game. Collectivized farming under Stalin, for example. The cultural revolution under Mao, for example.


we can play this game. But since every war in history has been for resources and profit, and since capitalism is a system based on making profits, every single death from war in history is a result of Capitalism.

Every single war has been a capitalist war

That by far dwarfs any claims of deaths from Socialism


What? So all wars before Adam smith were capitalist?

Have you heard of the Cambodian killing fields? Kmer Rouge? Vietnam? the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?




posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

That is why democracy is a lie, and we live in an oligarchy. Rule by the rich.


Under socialism we'd still be ruled by the rich.

There'd just be different names on the banking accounts.


Just as an aside, name one nation that has been successfully ruled by the poor.


no we wouldn't be.

You wouldn't have a billionaire class who would not be able to lobby (bribe) politicians into voting for legislation that only benefits them.

I mean maybe you would be "ruled by the rich" but the rich would not be billionaires, they might be only millionaires, and thus would not be able to apply the amount of influence and power as they do today.

Whatever it would or would not be, it would certainly be BETTER than what we have currently for the vast majority of people, and that is why they (oligarchs) want to demonize socialism as much as possible, because it doesn't benefit THEM.



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

That is why democracy is a lie, and we live in an oligarchy. Rule by the rich.


Under socialism we'd still be ruled by the rich.

There'd just be different names on the banking accounts.


Just as an aside, name one nation that has been successfully ruled by the poor.


no we wouldn't be.

You wouldn't have a billionaire class who would not be able to lobby (bribe) politicians into voting for legislation that only benefits them.

I mean maybe you would be "ruled by the rich" but the rich would not be billionaires, they might be only millionaires, and thus would not be able to apply the amount of influence and power as they do today.

Whatever it would or would not be, it would certainly be BETTER than what we have currently for the vast majority of people, and that is why they (oligarchs) want to demonize socialism as much as possible, because it doesn't benefit THEM.


A monetary system that doesn't put in place a cap of how much monies can be hoarder will end in extreme inflation and eventually collapse. Money needs to move through the system as a tool. There is no room for hoarding money in a functioning and stable ecomoy. It's mathematically impossible.

People can hoard all the material wealth they chose but not the tool (money) that the system relies on.

edit on 3-7-2018 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

That is why democracy is a lie, and we live in an oligarchy. Rule by the rich.


Under socialism we'd still be ruled by the rich.

There'd just be different names on the banking accounts.


Just as an aside, name one nation that has been successfully ruled by the poor.


no we wouldn't be.

You wouldn't have a billionaire class who would not be able to lobby (bribe) politicians into voting for legislation that only benefits them.

I mean maybe you would be "ruled by the rich" but the rich would not be billionaires, they might be only millionaires, and thus would not be able to apply the amount of influence and power as they do today.

Whatever it would or would not be, it would certainly be BETTER than what we have currently for the vast majority of people, and that is why they (oligarchs) want to demonize socialism as much as possible, because it doesn't benefit THEM.






posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MrVancityeagle


I dont know why it has become such a negative thing.


Probably because it has led to the deaths of millions.

It takes power and influence from the 99% as well. Some little farmer can’t eat from his own crops because it is owned by the “collective”.


this is the stock right wing response which is complete bull.

How many deaths has capitalism lead to ?

Got an answer ? It is far more than whatever you believe can be attritbuted to Socialism, if you want to play this game.


Stock, socialist piffle.

I’ll play that game. Collectivized farming under Stalin, for example. The cultural revolution under Mao, for example.


we can play this game. But since every war in history has been for resources and profit, and since capitalism is a system based on making profits, every single death from war in history is a result of Capitalism.

Every single war has been a capitalist war

That by far dwarfs any claims of deaths from Socialism


What? So all wars before Adam smith were capitalist?

Have you heard of the Cambodian killing fields? Kmer Rouge? Vietnam? the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?


the wars in southeast Asia and Afghanistan were largely due to heroin. Golden Triangle and Golden Crescent

Drug wars are capitalist wars. Does that need to be spelled out for you ?

Where there is money to be made, there will be wars, and millions and millions of people will die.

Capitalism KILLS. Far more than Socialism. Deal with reality.



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I see "socialism" as an ideal that some think is better. That's.. intentionally vague. Probably.

The issue to me is that the means to achieve that perceived ideal hasn't really changed, advanced, or evolved since its inception.

To me, I see other options (like capitalist) as the "least worst" out of what we have come up with historically. That certainly doesn't mean that I believe it is the best we could ever hope to achieve.

I think the process should be creating an ideal to work towards, and then just as importantly, coming up with realistic courses of action towards those ideals. It seems most focus on one or the other, eschewing any of the steps in between.

That said, I'm not sure we have ever really had too many more options until the modern age of technology. With those advances, I actually do believe we can implement some ideals from systems like socialism, with immense success.

Very critically though, that needs to be pursued under the new, novel paradigms and NOT under the historic premise. So much so, that it may not even be prudent to invoke ye olde paradigms at all..



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MrVancityeagle


I dont know why it has become such a negative thing.


Probably because it has led to the deaths of millions.

It takes power and influence from the 99% as well. Some little farmer can’t eat from his own crops because it is owned by the “collective”.


this is the stock right wing response which is complete bull.

How many deaths has capitalism lead to ?

Got an answer ? It is far more than whatever you believe can be attritbuted to Socialism, if you want to play this game.


Stock, socialist piffle.

I’ll play that game. Collectivized farming under Stalin, for example. The cultural revolution under Mao, for example.


we can play this game. But since every war in history has been for resources and profit, and since capitalism is a system based on making profits, every single death from war in history is a result of Capitalism.

Every single war has been a capitalist war

That by far dwarfs any claims of deaths from Socialism


What? So all wars before Adam smith were capitalist?

Have you heard of the Cambodian killing fields? Kmer Rouge? Vietnam? the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?


the wars in southeast Asia and Afghanistan were largely due to heroin. Golden Triangle and Golden Crescent

Drug wars are capitalist wars. Does that need to be spelled out for you ?

Where there is money to be made, there will be wars, and millions and millions of people will die.

Capitalism KILLS. Far more than Socialism. Deal with reality.


You can’t spell it out because it’s nonsense. When socialist countries go to war, usually with their own people, it’s capitalism. That’s the worst socialist lie I have ever heard.



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

That is why democracy is a lie, and we live in an oligarchy. Rule by the rich.


Under socialism we'd still be ruled by the rich.

There'd just be different names on the banking accounts.


Just as an aside, name one nation that has been successfully ruled by the poor.


no we wouldn't be.

You wouldn't have a billionaire class who would not be able to lobby (bribe) politicians into voting for legislation that only benefits them.

I mean maybe you would be "ruled by the rich" but the rich would not be billionaires, they might be only millionaires, and thus would not be able to apply the amount of influence and power as they do today.

Whatever it would or would not be, it would certainly be BETTER than what we have currently for the vast majority of people, and that is why they (oligarchs) want to demonize socialism as much as possible, because it doesn't benefit THEM.


You are delusional...



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MrVancityeagle


I dont know why it has become such a negative thing.


Probably because it has led to the deaths of millions.

It takes power and influence from the 99% as well. Some little farmer can’t eat from his own crops because it is owned by the “collective”.


this is the stock right wing response which is complete bull.

How many deaths has capitalism lead to ?

Got an answer ? It is far more than whatever you believe can be attritbuted to Socialism, if you want to play this game.


Stock, socialist piffle.

I’ll play that game. Collectivized farming under Stalin, for example. The cultural revolution under Mao, for example.


we can play this game. But since every war in history has been for resources and profit, and since capitalism is a system based on making profits, every single death from war in history is a result of Capitalism.

Every single war has been a capitalist war

That by far dwarfs any claims of deaths from Socialism


What? So all wars before Adam smith were capitalist?

Have you heard of the Cambodian killing fields? Kmer Rouge? Vietnam? the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?


the wars in southeast Asia and Afghanistan were largely due to heroin. Golden Triangle and Golden Crescent

Drug wars are capitalist wars. Does that need to be spelled out for you ?

Where there is money to be made, there will be wars, and millions and millions of people will die.

Capitalism KILLS. Far more than Socialism. Deal with reality.


You can’t spell it out because it’s nonsense. When socialist countries go to war, usually with their own people, it’s capitalism. That’s the worst socialist lie I have ever heard.


those wars did not start in a vacuum. They were a continuation of wars that were started primarily because of the drug trade in the Golden Crescent and Golden Triangle.

Let us look at the Soviet "invasion" of Afghanistan.

What happened was that the USA backed Islamic terrorists (Osama Bin Laden) to try and take down the Soviet friendly Government of Afghanistan. They were selling raw Opium and working along with the CIA. Drug trade = Capitalism/profits. Make sense ? Also the US wanted to draw in the USSR and bleed their econimic/political opponent dry.

USSR was invited into Afghanistan by the legitimate government in order to fend off the US backed Islamic drug dealing rebels.

So in reality the USSR did not "invade" afghanistan, and the reality was that this war began because of US backed drug dealing rebels.

I know this may be too hard for you to understand, but try not to be so ignorant of history.
edit on 3-7-2018 by MrVancityeagle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MrVancityeagle


I dont know why it has become such a negative thing.


Probably because it has led to the deaths of millions.

It takes power and influence from the 99% as well. Some little farmer can’t eat from his own crops because it is owned by the “collective”.


this is the stock right wing response which is complete bull.

How many deaths has capitalism lead to ?

Got an answer ? It is far more than whatever you believe can be attritbuted to Socialism, if you want to play this game.


Stock, socialist piffle.

I’ll play that game. Collectivized farming under Stalin, for example. The cultural revolution under Mao, for example.


we can play this game. But since every war in history has been for resources and profit, and since capitalism is a system based on making profits, every single death from war in history is a result of Capitalism.

Every single war has been a capitalist war

That by far dwarfs any claims of deaths from Socialism


What? So all wars before Adam smith were capitalist?

Have you heard of the Cambodian killing fields? Kmer Rouge? Vietnam? the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?


the wars in southeast Asia and Afghanistan were largely due to heroin. Golden Triangle and Golden Crescent

Drug wars are capitalist wars. Does that need to be spelled out for you ?

Where there is money to be made, there will be wars, and millions and millions of people will die.

Capitalism KILLS. Far more than Socialism. Deal with reality.


You can’t spell it out because it’s nonsense. When socialist countries go to war, usually with their own people, it’s capitalism. That’s the worst socialist lie I have ever heard.


The British empire (and its private capitalist forerunners) probably chalked up more deaths than the combined total of socialist regimes.

I think the broader point is that trying to compare different economic systems by counting deaths caused by dictatorships is pretty pointless.
edit on 3-7-2018 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MrVancityeagle


I dont know why it has become such a negative thing.


Probably because it has led to the deaths of millions.

It takes power and influence from the 99% as well. Some little farmer can’t eat from his own crops because it is owned by the “collective”.


this is the stock right wing response which is complete bull.

How many deaths has capitalism lead to ?

Got an answer ? It is far more than whatever you believe can be attritbuted to Socialism, if you want to play this game.


Stock, socialist piffle.

I’ll play that game. Collectivized farming under Stalin, for example. The cultural revolution under Mao, for example.


we can play this game. But since every war in history has been for resources and profit, and since capitalism is a system based on making profits, every single death from war in history is a result of Capitalism.

Every single war has been a capitalist war

That by far dwarfs any claims of deaths from Socialism


What? So all wars before Adam smith were capitalist?

Have you heard of the Cambodian killing fields? Kmer Rouge? Vietnam? the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?


the wars in southeast Asia and Afghanistan were largely due to heroin. Golden Triangle and Golden Crescent

Drug wars are capitalist wars. Does that need to be spelled out for you ?

Where there is money to be made, there will be wars, and millions and millions of people will die.

Capitalism KILLS. Far more than Socialism. Deal with reality.


You can’t spell it out because it’s nonsense. When socialist countries go to war, usually with their own people, it’s capitalism. That’s the worst socialist lie I have ever heard.


The British empire (and its private capitalist forerunners) probably chalked up more deaths than the combined total of socialist regimes.

I think the broader point is that trying to compare different economic systems by counting deaths caused by dictatorships is pretty pointless.


yes all of that is pretty pointless.

but just to show how retarded these anti-socialist nutjobs are, they fail at their own silly game because capitalism has killed far more people than socialism.

The British Empire is responsible for something like over 50 million deaths alone in India, mostly starved to death from the British exporting large amounts of rice.

Like I am pointing out to our friend here, if they want to attribute all these deaths to socialism, well they will have to atone for the hundreds of millions dead from capitalist wars.

Of course they wont do that because these people are not honest people, they are hypocrites with double standards.

When you hear these people say things like "Socailism has killed millions" it is simply because they have no intelligent criticism and have to resort to the same old tired memes that were created by establishment shills. No substance, just stupid memes.
edit on 3-7-2018 by MrVancityeagle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot



The British empire (and its private capitalist forerunners) probably chalked up more deaths than the combined total of socialist regimes.


Not quite sure about that one mate, but one thing is certain; the Spanish killed a damn sight more than the British ever did.....strange no-one ever mentions that.

Hell, there's been numerous 'empires' and dynasties that killed more than the British!

But I guess that's a completely different discussion altogether.



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MrVancityeagle


I dont know why it has become such a negative thing.


Probably because it has led to the deaths of millions.

It takes power and influence from the 99% as well. Some little farmer can’t eat from his own crops because it is owned by the “collective”.


this is the stock right wing response which is complete bull.

How many deaths has capitalism lead to ?

Got an answer ? It is far more than whatever you believe can be attritbuted to Socialism, if you want to play this game.


Stock, socialist piffle.

I’ll play that game. Collectivized farming under Stalin, for example. The cultural revolution under Mao, for example.


we can play this game. But since every war in history has been for resources and profit, and since capitalism is a system based on making profits, every single death from war in history is a result of Capitalism.

Every single war has been a capitalist war

That by far dwarfs any claims of deaths from Socialism


What? So all wars before Adam smith were capitalist?

Have you heard of the Cambodian killing fields? Kmer Rouge? Vietnam? the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?


the wars in southeast Asia and Afghanistan were largely due to heroin. Golden Triangle and Golden Crescent

Drug wars are capitalist wars. Does that need to be spelled out for you ?

Where there is money to be made, there will be wars, and millions and millions of people will die.

Capitalism KILLS. Far more than Socialism. Deal with reality.


You can’t spell it out because it’s nonsense. When socialist countries go to war, usually with their own people, it’s capitalism. That’s the worst socialist lie I have ever heard.


The British empire (and its private capitalist forerunners) probably chalked up more deaths than the combined total of socialist regimes.

I think the broader point is that trying to compare different economic systems by counting deaths caused by dictatorships is pretty pointless.


But a body count directly related to governance isn’t pointless. If millions die due to famine as the result of a government policy, that is a direct effect of the system.



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MrVancityeagle


I dont know why it has become such a negative thing.


Probably because it has led to the deaths of millions.

It takes power and influence from the 99% as well. Some little farmer can’t eat from his own crops because it is owned by the “collective”.


this is the stock right wing response which is complete bull.

How many deaths has capitalism lead to ?

Got an answer ? It is far more than whatever you believe can be attritbuted to Socialism, if you want to play this game.


Stock, socialist piffle.

I’ll play that game. Collectivized farming under Stalin, for example. The cultural revolution under Mao, for example.


we can play this game. But since every war in history has been for resources and profit, and since capitalism is a system based on making profits, every single death from war in history is a result of Capitalism.

Every single war has been a capitalist war

That by far dwarfs any claims of deaths from Socialism


What? So all wars before Adam smith were capitalist?

Have you heard of the Cambodian killing fields? Kmer Rouge? Vietnam? the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?


the wars in southeast Asia and Afghanistan were largely due to heroin. Golden Triangle and Golden Crescent

Drug wars are capitalist wars. Does that need to be spelled out for you ?

Where there is money to be made, there will be wars, and millions and millions of people will die.

Capitalism KILLS. Far more than Socialism. Deal with reality.


You can’t spell it out because it’s nonsense. When socialist countries go to war, usually with their own people, it’s capitalism. That’s the worst socialist lie I have ever heard.


The British empire (and its private capitalist forerunners) probably chalked up more deaths than the combined total of socialist regimes.

I think the broader point is that trying to compare different economic systems by counting deaths caused by dictatorships is pretty pointless.


But a body count directly related to governance isn’t pointless. If millions die due to famine as the result of a government policy, that is a direct effect of the system.


and if tens of millions die as a direct result of a need to make profit and gain resources, then that is directly the effect of the capitalist system.

All wars are wars for profit.



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: MrVancityeagle

I love direct democracy!

Isn't that where my poor neighbor, my poor self and our billionaire neighbor get to vote on whether or not it's legal to have more than $100,000 dollars in personal holdings?

I'll bet I know who votes and how ...


Or to put it more bluntly, two wolves and one sheep voting on dinner.

Now, I'm not suggesting that my neighbor or I would *ever* vote to take our billionaire neighbor's money for *ourselves* ...
Oh, no! I *do* think government could take all that extra wealth no one really *needs* and put it to good use for the good of the collective people ...



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 01:56 PM
link   
I love how capitalism gets demagogued here.

Blame for 'death'.

And yet the single driving force behind the 21st century, and the push FORWARD(PROGRESSIVE).

Was a single thought behind it.

Create A THING to get rich off.

The betterment of lives is a by product.

Technology is the greatest example.

Radar,medicine,satellite, INTERNET( PRIVATE) has saved more lives, and created FIRST WORLD countries.


edit on 3-7-2018 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MrVancityeagle


I dont know why it has become such a negative thing.


Probably because it has led to the deaths of millions.

It takes power and influence from the 99% as well. Some little farmer can’t eat from his own crops because it is owned by the “collective”.


this is the stock right wing response which is complete bull.

How many deaths has capitalism lead to ?

Got an answer ? It is far more than whatever you believe can be attritbuted to Socialism, if you want to play this game.


Stock, socialist piffle.

I’ll play that game. Collectivized farming under Stalin, for example. The cultural revolution under Mao, for example.


we can play this game. But since every war in history has been for resources and profit, and since capitalism is a system based on making profits, every single death from war in history is a result of Capitalism.

Every single war has been a capitalist war

That by far dwarfs any claims of deaths from Socialism


What? So all wars before Adam smith were capitalist?

Have you heard of the Cambodian killing fields? Kmer Rouge? Vietnam? the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?


the wars in southeast Asia and Afghanistan were largely due to heroin. Golden Triangle and Golden Crescent

Drug wars are capitalist wars. Does that need to be spelled out for you ?

Where there is money to be made, there will be wars, and millions and millions of people will die.

Capitalism KILLS. Far more than Socialism. Deal with reality.


You can’t spell it out because it’s nonsense. When socialist countries go to war, usually with their own people, it’s capitalism. That’s the worst socialist lie I have ever heard.


The British empire (and its private capitalist forerunners) probably chalked up more deaths than the combined total of socialist regimes.

I think the broader point is that trying to compare different economic systems by counting deaths caused by dictatorships is pretty pointless.


But a body count directly related to governance isn’t pointless. If millions die due to famine as the result of a government policy, that is a direct effect of the system.


Pretty sure Capitalism wins in a straight famine body count.



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MrVancityeagle


I dont know why it has become such a negative thing.


Probably because it has led to the deaths of millions.

It takes power and influence from the 99% as well. Some little farmer can’t eat from his own crops because it is owned by the “collective”.


this is the stock right wing response which is complete bull.

How many deaths has capitalism lead to ?

Got an answer ? It is far more than whatever you believe can be attritbuted to Socialism, if you want to play this game.


Stock, socialist piffle.

I’ll play that game. Collectivized farming under Stalin, for example. The cultural revolution under Mao, for example.


we can play this game. But since every war in history has been for resources and profit, and since capitalism is a system based on making profits, every single death from war in history is a result of Capitalism.

Every single war has been a capitalist war

That by far dwarfs any claims of deaths from Socialism


What? So all wars before Adam smith were capitalist?

Have you heard of the Cambodian killing fields? Kmer Rouge? Vietnam? the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?


the wars in southeast Asia and Afghanistan were largely due to heroin. Golden Triangle and Golden Crescent

Drug wars are capitalist wars. Does that need to be spelled out for you ?

Where there is money to be made, there will be wars, and millions and millions of people will die.

Capitalism KILLS. Far more than Socialism. Deal with reality.


You can’t spell it out because it’s nonsense. When socialist countries go to war, usually with their own people, it’s capitalism. That’s the worst socialist lie I have ever heard.


The British empire (and its private capitalist forerunners) probably chalked up more deaths than the combined total of socialist regimes.

I think the broader point is that trying to compare different economic systems by counting deaths caused by dictatorships is pretty pointless.


But a body count directly related to governance isn’t pointless. If millions die due to famine as the result of a government policy, that is a direct effect of the system.


Pretty sure Capitalism wins in a straight famine body count.


exactly. I already cited British India.



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Sure if you ignore the hell out of Russia and China, and North Korea starving their citizens to death.

That's just a few decades out of the 20th century.



posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: MrVancityeagle

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MrVancityeagle


I dont know why it has become such a negative thing.


Probably because it has led to the deaths of millions.

It takes power and influence from the 99% as well. Some little farmer can’t eat from his own crops because it is owned by the “collective”.


this is the stock right wing response which is complete bull.

How many deaths has capitalism lead to ?

Got an answer ? It is far more than whatever you believe can be attritbuted to Socialism, if you want to play this game.


Stock, socialist piffle.

I’ll play that game. Collectivized farming under Stalin, for example. The cultural revolution under Mao, for example.


we can play this game. But since every war in history has been for resources and profit, and since capitalism is a system based on making profits, every single death from war in history is a result of Capitalism.

Every single war has been a capitalist war

That by far dwarfs any claims of deaths from Socialism


What? So all wars before Adam smith were capitalist?

Have you heard of the Cambodian killing fields? Kmer Rouge? Vietnam? the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?


the wars in southeast Asia and Afghanistan were largely due to heroin. Golden Triangle and Golden Crescent

Drug wars are capitalist wars. Does that need to be spelled out for you ?

Where there is money to be made, there will be wars, and millions and millions of people will die.

Capitalism KILLS. Far more than Socialism. Deal with reality.


You can’t spell it out because it’s nonsense. When socialist countries go to war, usually with their own people, it’s capitalism. That’s the worst socialist lie I have ever heard.


The British empire (and its private capitalist forerunners) probably chalked up more deaths than the combined total of socialist regimes.

I think the broader point is that trying to compare different economic systems by counting deaths caused by dictatorships is pretty pointless.


But a body count directly related to governance isn’t pointless. If millions die due to famine as the result of a government policy, that is a direct effect of the system.


Pretty sure Capitalism wins in a straight famine body count.


For instance?




top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join