You’re right. There are definitely unsavory actors acting under the banner of communism, whom in an ideal world would be dealt with. Historically, many of thrm have been capitalists trying to secure an increase in profit, however.
I’m NOT a tankie, I’m an anarchist, in fact. However, all one has to do is look at history (real history, not propoganda. Actual numbers.) To see that communism’s infamous death toll is actually much, much lower than capitalism’s even when adjusted for whatever factor you can think of. For an accurate, well-researched piece with plenty of nuance and primary sources that deals with this matter explicitly, I reccomend the book ‘Blackshirts and Reds’. It’s a fascinating breakdown of how capitalist propoganda has deeply distorted our view of history, especially when it comes to both fascism and communism.
Not to defend capitalism (I would be more in favour of anarchism provided that certain conditions have to be met first), but I would say that communism only killed less because it is a newer ideology. It is only 150 years old, give or take, with it’s practical existence lasting for 76 years. If we are considering mercantilism as capitalism (both are still looking for maximising profits), then in over 300-400 hundred years it’s logical to say that capitalism killed more, by virtue of how long profit seeking has been part of human economic policies.
And since we are talking about economic policies, barring the death camps, practically speaking, if communism went for as long as capitalism has, it could catch up with the number on death tolls, considering that communist centralisation of agriculture and ignoring experts caused similarly human-induced famines. A lot of people kinda forgot about Lysenko and his deliberate sidelining of knowledge and experience of farmers and scientists, causing poor harvest and many people starving to death. And I probably don’t need to remind everyone what Mao’s war on sparrows caused on China’s agriculture. Moreover, even after Stalin’s death and Lysenko out of the picture, USSR-- and many Soviet satellite states-- have been on ration for many years. USSR struggled to up the agricultural production in spite of being a vast country with abundant fertile lands.
Those are both issues caused by issues that capitalism is subject to as well! Authoritarianism, stupidity and ignorance… Sadly, any working society must be capable of managing these issues. Statistically speaking, as far as the sources I’ve seen have showed me, capitalism tends to cause more death and suffering than communism. One needs only compare the state of Soviet countires before, after, and during the USSR to see that quite plainly represented.
If the very word ‘anarchism’ is outaide your comfort zone, then yes I suppose I won’t be able to be very productive for you.
If you do find yourself curious though, I’m always happy to talk politics, and always open to seriously considering and empathizing with other points of view from my own! Even capitalism 😆
If I had a dollar for every time I heard an anarchist cry for the police when things go south I’d have enough to buy a few books on how to avoid anarchy. I’ve seen and read enough. Thank you for offering.
The use of public facilities does not preclude critique of them. That’s the same argument as ‘capitalism made your iPhone’.
One can both believe that the police should be defunded, and be left with them as the only viable solution to resolve a conflict. The fact that anarchists must sometimes rely on the police, I assure you, is not pleasant for anyone involved 🤣
Except maybe those who profit from police activity somehow 🤷♀️
The foundation of anarchy is specifically based on the absence of authority. It would be unpleasant for everyone involved, but if, by your statement, an anarchist will have to swallow their pride to resolve a conflict with an authoritative entity, then they should perhaps think of another belief that will accept some level of authority. It may even be possible to come up with a whole new societal belief system. It is true that capitalism may not be credited with the direct creation of the iPhone, but it did foster an environment for competition to develop other products you have most likely used in your lifetime. These particular products did influence a culture in a more positive direction. For example, Nintendo’s Gameboy. That’s not to say I am gauging the success of a society by materialistic gains, but again, why not take the best of all worlds and make something new. Bonus points if you can solve for greed in a realistic manner and not in a vacuum.
You are mistaken from the first sentence! The purpose of anarchy is to dismantle unjust heirarchies, NOT to remove the existence of authority. It’s a common mistake, and one I used to make myself.
I don’t think anyone would disagree that capitalism’s competitive drive has in ways benefitted humanity, amd I’m grateful for those benefits. It’d be foolish to discard them. Howver, all one needs to do to see how it’s harming us more than helping, is to look at the weather.
‘Just make a new system’ is actually the point of most communist/socialist movements. Because the world is so defined by capitalism, communism right now basically just means ‘everything else’, but if you look at the history of communism in the world (which is as fascinating as it is heartbreaking) you can see that there is a huge variety in beliefs of how it should be instituted! Socialists, anarchists, tankies, environmentalists (yes, ecology is intend3d as that alternative system you suggest) all have to act as more or less the same movement because of the overwhelming success of capitalist propoganda
Alright well, it’s in the definition. I just can’t get onboard with those groups you just listed because I have not seen a practical application that didn’t end well for anarchists, communists, especially tankies, and environmentalists. Socialists as in what you see in places like Canada seems to work for them and that’s about as close as I would get to a new movement. This is primarily because each system does not scale very well with the size of the population. It all falls apart when you rely on a human to do the right thing and ultimately ends in gate keeping fueled by greed. Capitalism, which has its fatal flaw, has lasted so long because the idea that every person can jump in on a level playing feel is much more appealing to the greedy side of human nature. The “earn your own way and don’t rely on anyone” has been ingrained in countless cultures.
What you see today is capitalism run completely out of control. Again, if you trusted all humans to do the right thing in a capitalist system, they would reinvest all of their profits back into the company and share it amongst the employees of the organization in the form of livable wages to include disposable income, bonuses, or stocks, so they too can live comfortably by buying their own food, shelter, and water. In turn organizations profit off the people as they use goods and services and continue to reinvest for improvement and not focus strictly on share holders. Leisure time can also be factored in and you have a productive society.
This is called ethical capitalism. Think of it as the ideal counterpart to any of the ideal systems you stated. You see none of that today and the money is horded by the greediest person at the top of every organization. These billionaires only aim to please shareholders who also horde money by taking profits out of the organization and distributing it into their own personal wealth. The 1% of the population are too busy trying to be the richest person and killing everyone doing it. Oligopolies are the fatal flaw of capitalism, but then again greed is the fatal flaw of every system. Hence, my original comment of figuring out how to solve for the inherent evil nature of humans.
Yeah that’s way over simplifying it, but that’s the way I see it. Mitigate or eliminate greed and you’ll make any of those systems work as intended.
If capitalism truly was a level playing field, free of inheritance and prejudice… I would certainly agree with you. But it too, is imperfect. I would encourage you to compare, sometime, the results of a country being permitted to attempt communism. Modern day Vietnam is a lovely place, for example.
Regardless! The fact that you seek socialism makes us Comrades, because I do too. I’m actually a pacifist! While I have pretty radical beliefs, I have peaceful hopes for achieving them. Which means a road back through democracy, into social democracy, and hopefully one day direct democracy. We both want the same thing, less greed. I’m happy to fight (metaphorically) side-by-side with anyone who has that same goal.
You’re right. There are definitely unsavory actors acting under the banner of communism, whom in an ideal world would be dealt with. Historically, many of thrm have been capitalists trying to secure an increase in profit, however. I’m NOT a tankie, I’m an anarchist, in fact. However, all one has to do is look at history (real history, not propoganda. Actual numbers.) To see that communism’s infamous death toll is actually much, much lower than capitalism’s even when adjusted for whatever factor you can think of. For an accurate, well-researched piece with plenty of nuance and primary sources that deals with this matter explicitly, I reccomend the book ‘Blackshirts and Reds’. It’s a fascinating breakdown of how capitalist propoganda has deeply distorted our view of history, especially when it comes to both fascism and communism.
Not to defend capitalism (I would be more in favour of anarchism provided that certain conditions have to be met first), but I would say that communism only killed less because it is a newer ideology. It is only 150 years old, give or take, with it’s practical existence lasting for 76 years. If we are considering mercantilism as capitalism (both are still looking for maximising profits), then in over 300-400 hundred years it’s logical to say that capitalism killed more, by virtue of how long profit seeking has been part of human economic policies.
And since we are talking about economic policies, barring the death camps, practically speaking, if communism went for as long as capitalism has, it could catch up with the number on death tolls, considering that communist centralisation of agriculture and ignoring experts caused similarly human-induced famines. A lot of people kinda forgot about Lysenko and his deliberate sidelining of knowledge and experience of farmers and scientists, causing poor harvest and many people starving to death. And I probably don’t need to remind everyone what Mao’s war on sparrows caused on China’s agriculture. Moreover, even after Stalin’s death and Lysenko out of the picture, USSR-- and many Soviet satellite states-- have been on ration for many years. USSR struggled to up the agricultural production in spite of being a vast country with abundant fertile lands.
Those are both issues caused by issues that capitalism is subject to as well! Authoritarianism, stupidity and ignorance… Sadly, any working society must be capable of managing these issues. Statistically speaking, as far as the sources I’ve seen have showed me, capitalism tends to cause more death and suffering than communism. One needs only compare the state of Soviet countires before, after, and during the USSR to see that quite plainly represented.
Imma stop you right there …
If the very word ‘anarchism’ is outaide your comfort zone, then yes I suppose I won’t be able to be very productive for you.
If you do find yourself curious though, I’m always happy to talk politics, and always open to seriously considering and empathizing with other points of view from my own! Even capitalism 😆
If I had a dollar for every time I heard an anarchist cry for the police when things go south I’d have enough to buy a few books on how to avoid anarchy. I’ve seen and read enough. Thank you for offering.
The use of public facilities does not preclude critique of them. That’s the same argument as ‘capitalism made your iPhone’.
One can both believe that the police should be defunded, and be left with them as the only viable solution to resolve a conflict. The fact that anarchists must sometimes rely on the police, I assure you, is not pleasant for anyone involved 🤣
Except maybe those who profit from police activity somehow 🤷♀️
The foundation of anarchy is specifically based on the absence of authority. It would be unpleasant for everyone involved, but if, by your statement, an anarchist will have to swallow their pride to resolve a conflict with an authoritative entity, then they should perhaps think of another belief that will accept some level of authority. It may even be possible to come up with a whole new societal belief system. It is true that capitalism may not be credited with the direct creation of the iPhone, but it did foster an environment for competition to develop other products you have most likely used in your lifetime. These particular products did influence a culture in a more positive direction. For example, Nintendo’s Gameboy. That’s not to say I am gauging the success of a society by materialistic gains, but again, why not take the best of all worlds and make something new. Bonus points if you can solve for greed in a realistic manner and not in a vacuum.
You are mistaken from the first sentence! The purpose of anarchy is to dismantle unjust heirarchies, NOT to remove the existence of authority. It’s a common mistake, and one I used to make myself.
I don’t think anyone would disagree that capitalism’s competitive drive has in ways benefitted humanity, amd I’m grateful for those benefits. It’d be foolish to discard them. Howver, all one needs to do to see how it’s harming us more than helping, is to look at the weather.
‘Just make a new system’ is actually the point of most communist/socialist movements. Because the world is so defined by capitalism, communism right now basically just means ‘everything else’, but if you look at the history of communism in the world (which is as fascinating as it is heartbreaking) you can see that there is a huge variety in beliefs of how it should be instituted! Socialists, anarchists, tankies, environmentalists (yes, ecology is intend3d as that alternative system you suggest) all have to act as more or less the same movement because of the overwhelming success of capitalist propoganda
Alright well, it’s in the definition. I just can’t get onboard with those groups you just listed because I have not seen a practical application that didn’t end well for anarchists, communists, especially tankies, and environmentalists. Socialists as in what you see in places like Canada seems to work for them and that’s about as close as I would get to a new movement. This is primarily because each system does not scale very well with the size of the population. It all falls apart when you rely on a human to do the right thing and ultimately ends in gate keeping fueled by greed. Capitalism, which has its fatal flaw, has lasted so long because the idea that every person can jump in on a level playing feel is much more appealing to the greedy side of human nature. The “earn your own way and don’t rely on anyone” has been ingrained in countless cultures.
What you see today is capitalism run completely out of control. Again, if you trusted all humans to do the right thing in a capitalist system, they would reinvest all of their profits back into the company and share it amongst the employees of the organization in the form of livable wages to include disposable income, bonuses, or stocks, so they too can live comfortably by buying their own food, shelter, and water. In turn organizations profit off the people as they use goods and services and continue to reinvest for improvement and not focus strictly on share holders. Leisure time can also be factored in and you have a productive society.
This is called ethical capitalism. Think of it as the ideal counterpart to any of the ideal systems you stated. You see none of that today and the money is horded by the greediest person at the top of every organization. These billionaires only aim to please shareholders who also horde money by taking profits out of the organization and distributing it into their own personal wealth. The 1% of the population are too busy trying to be the richest person and killing everyone doing it. Oligopolies are the fatal flaw of capitalism, but then again greed is the fatal flaw of every system. Hence, my original comment of figuring out how to solve for the inherent evil nature of humans.
Yeah that’s way over simplifying it, but that’s the way I see it. Mitigate or eliminate greed and you’ll make any of those systems work as intended.
If capitalism truly was a level playing field, free of inheritance and prejudice… I would certainly agree with you. But it too, is imperfect. I would encourage you to compare, sometime, the results of a country being permitted to attempt communism. Modern day Vietnam is a lovely place, for example.
Regardless! The fact that you seek socialism makes us Comrades, because I do too. I’m actually a pacifist! While I have pretty radical beliefs, I have peaceful hopes for achieving them. Which means a road back through democracy, into social democracy, and hopefully one day direct democracy. We both want the same thing, less greed. I’m happy to fight (metaphorically) side-by-side with anyone who has that same goal.