Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 thekingofkings wrote:

If communism is so great, how come it is always imposed by violence? It has wrecked every country it has come to. Its nothing more than compulsion and terror.

Really? *looks around* not that I've noticed, though corruption is a thing. Though, you can go down to South America and see what capitalism does to people on a daily basis. Then tell me about Communist violence.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

If communism is so great, how come it is always imposed by violence? It has wrecked every country it has come to. Its nothing more than compulsion and terror.

Really? *looks around* not that I've noticed, though corruption is a thing. Though, you can go down to South America and see what capitalism does to people on a daily basis. Then tell me about Communist violence.

Yeah, right shame what's happening in Venezuela.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

Yeah, right shame what's happening in Venezuela.

I was actually thinking of Brazil, where 500 odd villagers are killed in the name of capitalism every year, on average, so that the soya farms can seize their land.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

Yeah, right shame what's happening in Venezuela.

I was actually thinking of Brazil, where 500 odd villagers are killed in the name of capitalism every year, on average, so that the soya farms can seize their land.

So, in 14 000 years they'll have caught up.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

If communism is so great, how come it is always imposed by violence? It has wrecked every country it has come to. Its nothing more than compulsion and terror.

Really? *looks around* not that I've noticed, though corruption is a thing. Though, you can go down to South America and see what capitalism does to people on a daily basis. Then tell me about Communist violence.

Yeah, right shame what's happening in Venezuela.

Problem is, what's happening in Venezuela has nothing to do with communism or socialism, its just plain old overdependence on a single resource and a run of the mill dictatorship.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

If communism is so great, how come it is always imposed by violence? It has wrecked every country it has come to. Its nothing more than compulsion and terror.

Really? *looks around* not that I've noticed, though corruption is a thing. Though, you can go down to South America and see what capitalism does to people on a daily basis. Then tell me about Communist violence.

I must admit, you just won the first prize in "the most jaw droping case of history denial" I ever saw in socialism/communism vs capitalism debates... Mao+Stalin communist regimes alone are estimated to be directly responsible for 70mln deaths and there are couple of millions more to be added from smaller regimes like Khmer Rouge Cambodia or Fidel's Cuba, not even counting those 7mln casualties of Bolshevik Revolution and subsequent russian wars that Crazy_Carnifex mentioned above. Seriously, I get that people from US have poor knowledge about realities of communisms and socialisms as you were never a subject of those systems, but man, you should really educate yourself better if you want to be taken even remotely seriously...

nou wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

If communism is so great, how come it is always imposed by violence? It has wrecked every country it has come to. Its nothing more than compulsion and terror.

Really? *looks around* not that I've noticed, though corruption is a thing. Though, you can go down to South America and see what capitalism does to people on a daily basis. Then tell me about Communist violence.

I must admit, you just won the first prize in "the most jaw droping case of history denial" I ever saw in socialism/communism vs capitalism debates... Mao+Stalin communist regimes alone are estimated to be directly responsible for 70mln deaths and there are couple of millions more to be added from smaller regimes like Khmer Rouge Cambodia or Fidel's Cuba, not even counting those 7mln casualties of Bolshevik Revolution and subsequent russian wars that Crazy_Carnifex mentioned above. Seriously, I get that people from US have poor knowledge about realities of communisms and socialisms as you were never a subject of those systems, but man, you should really educate yourself better if you want to be taken even remotely seriously...

Nou, he's replying to the notion that every country has been wrecked by communism. Baron is from the Seneca Nation of Indians, that he is heavily implying in his post to have a form of communism and isn't wrecked by it like "every country". Maybe tone it down with the poor knowledge and educate yourself stuff?

Capitalism has been directly or indirectly responsible for a huge death toll as well.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

nou wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

If communism is so great, how come it is always imposed by violence? It has wrecked every country it has come to. Its nothing more than compulsion and terror.

Really? *looks around* not that I've noticed, though corruption is a thing. Though, you can go down to South America and see what capitalism does to people on a daily basis. Then tell me about Communist violence.

I must admit, you just won the first prize in "the most jaw droping case of history denial" I ever saw in socialism/communism vs capitalism debates... Mao+Stalin communist regimes alone are estimated to be directly responsible for 70mln deaths and there are couple of millions more to be added from smaller regimes like Khmer Rouge Cambodia or Fidel's Cuba, not even counting those 7mln casualties of Bolshevik Revolution and subsequent russian wars that Crazy_Carnifex mentioned above. Seriously, I get that people from US have poor knowledge about realities of communisms and socialisms as you were never a subject of those systems, but man, you should really educate yourself better if you want to be taken even remotely seriously...

Nou, he's replying to the notion that every country has been wrecked by communism. Baron is from the Seneca Nation of Indians, that he is heavily implying in his post to have a form of communism and isn't wrecked by it like "every country". Maybe tone it down with the poor knowledge and educate yourself stuff?

Capitalism has been directly or indirectly responsible for a huge death toll as well.

And how exactly is Seneca Nation of Indians a sovereign, communist ruled country in this context?

nou wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

nou wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

If communism is so great, how come it is always imposed by violence? It has wrecked every country it has come to. Its nothing more than compulsion and terror.

Really? *looks around* not that I've noticed, though corruption is a thing. Though, you can go down to South America and see what capitalism does to people on a daily basis. Then tell me about Communist violence.

I must admit, you just won the first prize in "the most jaw droping case of history denial" I ever saw in socialism/communism vs capitalism debates... Mao+Stalin communist regimes alone are estimated to be directly responsible for 70mln deaths and there are couple of millions more to be added from smaller regimes like Khmer Rouge Cambodia or Fidel's Cuba, not even counting those 7mln casualties of Bolshevik Revolution and subsequent russian wars that Crazy_Carnifex mentioned above. Seriously, I get that people from US have poor knowledge about realities of communisms and socialisms as you were never a subject of those systems, but man, you should really educate yourself better if you want to be taken even remotely seriously...

Nou, he's replying to the notion that every country has been wrecked by communism. Baron is from the Seneca Nation of Indians, that he is heavily implying in his post to have a form of communism and isn't wrecked by it like "every country". Maybe tone it down with the poor knowledge and educate yourself stuff?

Capitalism has been directly or indirectly responsible for a huge death toll as well.

And how exactly is Seneca Nation of Indians a sovereign, communist ruled country in this context?

Well Baron could explain perfectly well for you what he meant, although if he is, that is going to make that "you should really educate yourself better" comment pretty awkward I imagine.

With all due respect, 8000 souls commune living off a casino monopoly granted by U.S. Federal Government does not constitute a valid succesfull, non-terror driven communist country example.

Ah I see, so when people say every country they don't mean every country? Mighty confusing

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Ah I see, so when people say every country they don't mean every country? Mighty confusing

Ok, I get it now where the source of confusion is - I'm not a native english speaker and english word 'country' encompasses a broader spectrum of entities than polish equivalent 'państwo' (used almost exclusively as 'a sovereign state recognised by UN'). By your dictionary Seneca Nation is a country, by mine it is only a limited autonomy within a 'proper' country, for which, in some cases, we use a word 'kraj' (e.g. Kraj Basków means Basque Country).

Still, 8000 souls in artificial casino-based economy is not a valid counter example for anything written in this thread about communism nor capitalism as political/economical systems. If you think it is, then please, show me how this successfull "communism" could be applied to any UN recognised sovereign state in the world...

nou wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Ah I see, so when people say every country they don't mean every country? Mighty confusing

Ok, I get it now where the source of confusion is - I'm not a native english speaker and english word 'country' encompasses a broader spectrum of entities than polish equivalent 'państwo' (used almost exclusively as 'a sovereign state recognised by UN'). By your dictionary Seneca Nation is a country, by mine it is only a limited autonomy within a 'proper' country, for which, in some cases, we use a word 'kraj' (e.g. Kraj Basków means Basque Country).

Still, 8000 souls in artificial casino-based economy is not a valid counter example for anything written in this thread about communism nor capitalism as political/economical systems. If you think it is, then please, show me how this successfull "communism" could be applied to any UN recognised sovereign state in the world...

The problem is being recognized by the UN has zero meaning. There are countries smaller in population than the Seneca Nation in the UN. Hell, Taiwan isn't even recognized as a state by the UN!

No, for the record I don't think communism as practiced in te 20th century can work, because at its most basic its just a dictatorship wrapped up in a fancy message. At the same time people keep bringing up Stalin and Mao for their mass murders. Conveniently forgetting that for example in Central America military dictatorships supported by the capitalist US during the Cold War killed almost as many people as Stalin and Mao when looking at the amount of deaths in proportion to the population. Yet those deaths are easily glossed over in favor of throwing bigger numbers around. Communism had a relatively short and violent 20th century history, only North Korea being the last true hardcore holdout. Meanwhile lives are still being lost in pursuit of profits in a capitalist system, for example how many people die each year in Africa for control over resources that multinationals use to make our phones? It just a useless exercise. Neither 20th century communism or purer capitalism are great.

I think in the interest of the discussion on UBI we have to move away from the 20th century idea of the concept of communism. 20th century communism failed because it was formed in some of the poorest and badly run countries, introduced by violence and force. Then it just stagnated until it couldn't move forward anymore. Plenty of other Asian, South American and African countries have gone through political collapses like former communist countries. The question for the future is if well developed Western nations will start moving more towards communism/socialism, not out of political conviction but because of technological advancement making it a societal necessity. Not by force, but political motivation. UBI could represent a significant step towards a more socialist policy.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

nou wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Ah I see, so when people say every country they don't mean every country? Mighty confusing

Ok, I get it now where the source of confusion is - I'm not a native english speaker and english word 'country' encompasses a broader spectrum of entities than polish equivalent 'państwo' (used almost exclusively as 'a sovereign state recognised by UN'). By your dictionary Seneca Nation is a country, by mine it is only a limited autonomy within a 'proper' country, for which, in some cases, we use a word 'kraj' (e.g. Kraj Basków means Basque Country).

Still, 8000 souls in artificial casino-based economy is not a valid counter example for anything written in this thread about communism nor capitalism as political/economical systems. If you think it is, then please, show me how this successfull "communism" could be applied to any UN recognised sovereign state in the world...

The problem is being recognized by the UN has zero meaning. There are countries smaller in population than the Seneca Nation in the UN. Hell, Taiwan isn't even recognized as a state by the UN!

No, for the record I don't think communism as practiced in te 20th century can work, because at its most basic its just a dictatorship wrapped up in a fancy message. At the same time people keep bringing up Stalin and Mao for their mass murders. Conveniently forgetting that for example in Central America military dictatorships supported by the capitalist US during the Cold War killed almost as many people as Stalin and Mao when looking at the amount of deaths in proportion to the population. Yet those deaths are easily glossed over in favor of throwing bigger numbers around. Communism had a relatively short and violent 20th century history, only North Korea being the last true hardcore holdout. Meanwhile lives are still being lost in pursuit of profits in a capitalist system, for example how many people die each year in Africa for control over resources that multinationals use to make our phones? It just a useless exercise. Neither 20th century communism or purer capitalism are great.

I think in the interest of the discussion on UBI we have to move away from the 20th century idea of the concept of communism. 20th century communism failed because it was formed in some of the poorest and badly run countries, introduced by violence and force. Then it just stagnated until it couldn't move forward anymore. Plenty of other Asian, South American and African countries have gone through political collapses like former communist countries. The question for the future is if well developed Western nations will start moving more towards communism/socialism, not out of political conviction but because of technological advancement making it a societal necessity. Not by force, but political motivation. UBI could represent a significant step towards a more socialist policy.

The Kmer Rouge killed 25% of Cambodia's population.

You say that socialism only failed because it occurred in already impoverished states- ignoring that the not-impoverished countries tended to be capitalist.

People are using Socialism and Communism interchangeably. They are not the same thing.

The USA is a socialist country but not a communist country. Western Europe is even more socialist countries but not communist in any way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, on capitalism's death toll, you have to add all the people who died because they couldn't afford their medication or because they exhausted themselves working two or more jobs to survive.

To be crystal clear - I do not attack communism as a way of defending capitalism. I am perfectly aware of all flaws of capitalistic systems and by no means I think that any iteration of capitalism was even remotely perfect nor even sustainable. And I would rather stick to the word socialism as a descriptor of wealth redistribution/common ownership systems, because from what I see in this thread many people from western countries really, really do not understand what exactly 20th century communism was and in pretty much all cases in this thread what people really mean instead when using word communism in positive context is socialdemocracy. This Seneca Nation example triggered me so much exactly because it is a perfect example of confusing use of terminology that has a strict historical and political meaning and a heavy death toll burden.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

nou wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Ah I see, so when people say every country they don't mean every country? Mighty confusing

Ok, I get it now where the source of confusion is - I'm not a native english speaker and english word 'country' encompasses a broader spectrum of entities than polish equivalent 'państwo' (used almost exclusively as 'a sovereign state recognised by UN'). By your dictionary Seneca Nation is a country, by mine it is only a limited autonomy within a 'proper' country, for which, in some cases, we use a word 'kraj' (e.g. Kraj Basków means Basque Country).

Still, 8000 souls in artificial casino-based economy is not a valid counter example for anything written in this thread about communism nor capitalism as political/economical systems. If you think it is, then please, show me how this successfull "communism" could be applied to any UN recognised sovereign state in the world...

The problem is being recognized by the UN has zero meaning. There are countries smaller in population than the Seneca Nation in the UN. Hell, Taiwan isn't even recognized as a state by the UN!

No, for the record I don't think communism as practiced in te 20th century can work, because at its most basic its just a dictatorship wrapped up in a fancy message. At the same time people keep bringing up Stalin and Mao for their mass murders. Conveniently forgetting that for example in Central America military dictatorships supported by the capitalist US during the Cold War killed almost as many people as Stalin and Mao when looking at the amount of deaths in proportion to the population. Yet those deaths are easily glossed over in favor of throwing bigger numbers around. Communism had a relatively short and violent 20th century history, only North Korea being the last true hardcore holdout. Meanwhile lives are still being lost in pursuit of profits in a capitalist system, for example how many people die each year in Africa for control over resources that multinationals use to make our phones? It just a useless exercise. Neither 20th century communism or purer capitalism are great.

I think in the interest of the discussion on UBI we have to move away from the 20th century idea of the concept of communism. 20th century communism failed because it was formed in some of the poorest and badly run countries, introduced by violence and force. Then it just stagnated until it couldn't move forward anymore. Plenty of other Asian, South American and African countries have gone through political collapses like former communist countries. The question for the future is if well developed Western nations will start moving more towards communism/socialism, not out of political conviction but because of technological advancement making it a societal necessity. Not by force, but political motivation. UBI could represent a significant step towards a more socialist policy.

The Kmer Rouge killed 25% of Cambodia's population.

You say that socialism only failed because it occurred in already impoverished states- ignoring that the not-impoverished countries tended to be capitalist.

I could counter that Khmer Rouge statement by positing that the only reason the Khmer Rouge got in power is because of the domino effect of the US Vietnam War in US action destabilizing Cambodia and Laos. If the US hadn't committed to their coup or bombardments in Cambodia then the Khmer Rouge might have never gotten into power. Ironic isn't it? A war started by a capitalist country to prevent the spread of communism, drags in neutral countries that fall to communism and horrific atrocities, but then capitalism can walk away without a scratch on the historical record. Woops!

I'm not saying socialism (you mean communism) only failed because it occurred in poor states. I said poor is part of the equation. There are plenty of poor capitalist countries that also kept collapsing. And socialism is doing great in Europe btw.

The hilarity is that the non-impoverished countries got rich oppressing and exploiting the rest of the world. Even now the Washington consensus is heavily in favor of the West. We keep others poor because it suits us,because we don't want to pay more. Most non-impoverished countries are also a mix mix of capitalist and socialist. Why do you think all those conservative Americans are calling us in Europe commies?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:
People are using Socialism and Communism interchangeably. They are not the same thing.

The USA is a socialist country but not a communist country. Western Europe is even more socialist countries but not communist in any way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, on capitalism's death toll, you have to add all the people who died because they couldn't afford their medication or because they exhausted themselves working two or more jobs to survive.

I think the stupidity of the counting game is that its way to easy to pile it on the socialist side, but then people make up excuses for the capitalist side. So Assad, he isn't a communist, so do those go on the capitalist pile then? What about Myanmar? Capitalism can easily wash its hands in the excuse that its an economic and not a political system, but then shouldn't we include all deaths from anywhere with a vaguely capitalist economy? Going to require quite a bit of counting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
To be crystal clear - I do not attack communism as a way of defending capitalism. I am perfectly aware of all flaws of capitalistic systems and by no means I think that any iteration of capitalism was even remotely perfect nor even sustainable. And I would rather stick to the word socialism as a descriptor of wealth redistribution/common ownership systems, because from what I see in this thread many people from western countries really, really do not understand what exactly 20th century communism was and in pretty much all cases in this thread what people really mean instead when using word communism in positive context is socialdemocracy. This Seneca Nation example triggered me so much exactly because it is a perfect example of confusing use of terminology that has a strict historical and political meaning and a heavy death toll burden.

I think communism as a theoretical term has become tainted by association. But 20th century communism, in the cliche of the day, wasn't 'real' communism as in the theoretical concept/definition. All these communist leaders knew their respective countries weren't ready for the theoretical path, but instead of waiting they just thought a lot of violence would solve the gap between theory and practice. Socialism and communism are two sides of the same end goal, except communists wanted to achieve it through popular revolution, while socialists wanted to do it within the system. Turns out 20th century communism didn't really have the popular part down to a T.

As a concept the word communism is perfectly valid to use in the sense of Marx or the French Enlightenment. As such communism doesn't have a strict historical definition, because we also have Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Marxism, Trotskyism. 20th century communism has co-opted and tainted communism from the theoretical terminology. Communism by force is just never going to happen, because force is only going to be able to keep a system together for so long. That's why its interesting if we will edge towards communism in the non-20th century sense because of technological advancement in the 21st.

 skyth wrote:

Also, on capitalism's death toll, you have to add all the people who died because they couldn't afford their medication or because they exhausted themselves working two or more jobs to survive.

Alright, we'll do that. In return, you add all of the deaths that occurred in communist countries that were caused by a shortage of medication due to communist states never having enough of anything (other than T-34's), and all the people worked to death in order to fulfill the latest quotas.

nou wrote:
and a heavy death toll burden.

*TRIGGER WARNING*

Look, let me ask you a question: Why do you think there's ONLY 8,000 of us left? Take a stab at it. I'll give you a hint: it wasn't just smallpox.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 skyth wrote:

Also, on capitalism's death toll, you have to add all the people who died because they couldn't afford their medication or because they exhausted themselves working two or more jobs to survive.

Alright, we'll do that. In return, you add all of the deaths that occurred in communist countries that were caused by a shortage of medication due to communist states never having enough of anything (other than T-34's), and all the people worked to death in order to fulfill the latest quotas.

It wouldn't matter. Even Mao and Stalin Combined don't come close to what religion, capitalism, and nationalism did to my people. 60m dead. That's ten holocausts on top each other.

Every time we have a thread about world economics I love how people jump on to fight the communist straw men. Nobody here was saying Stalin or Mao were the #1 coolest guyz in the universe. Were discussing socialism/communism in the non 20th century definition of the word as a possible future shift due to significant economic and technological changes. Nobody is arguing to build a time machine to enjoy those 1930's Gulags.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Every time we have a thread about world economics I love how people jump on to fight the communist straw men. Nobody here was saying Stalin or Mao were the #1 coolest guyz in the universe. Were discussing socialism/communism in the non 20th century definition of the word as a possible future shift due to significant economic and technological changes. Nobody is arguing to build a time machine to enjoy those 1930's Gulags.

Because many of them would rather die. And will.

Fairly soon democracy will die. Not because it's wrong, but because under the sort of stresses we're going to see coming in the next century or so, it will start failing to function. The US is a good example now, as factionalism starts to rear it's ugly head because there are so many poor and so few rich. Because democracy is based on compromise, and if the people can't compromise with each other, inevitably come your dictators.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Every time we have a thread about world economics I love how people jump on to fight the communist straw men. Nobody here was saying Stalin or Mao were the #1 coolest guyz in the universe. Were discussing socialism/communism in the non 20th century definition of the word as a possible future shift due to significant economic and technological changes. Nobody is arguing to build a time machine to enjoy those 1930's Gulags.

Because many of them would rather die. And will.

Fairly soon democracy will die. Not because it's wrong, but because under the sort of stresses we're going to see coming in the next century or so, it will start failing to function. The US is a good example now, as factionalism starts to rear it's ugly head because there are so many poor and so few rich. Because democracy is based on compromise, and if the people can't compromise with each other, inevitably come your dictators.

I think its certainly going to be hard for democracy to survive. Over here because of social welfare the young are being squeezed dry to provide for an ever growing number of old people. They are the richest group in society, yet constantly moan about being the victim. Democracy just doesn't function properly on this issue anymore, because old people literally outnumber the young in amount of votes. They are imposing an incredibly harsh future on us so they can enjoy all the undeserved fruits of their labor and mismanagement. Most highly educated people I know have throw the emigration idea around, because most of us feel trapped in a political system that is ruled by the elderly who view us as retirement pinatas. So its already taking place here, because Dutch babyboomers refuse to recognize economic reality, they are going to go down kicking and screaming and taking the entire social system with them once they die. The voices of young people no longer have any value in elections on this issue, because to respect our voice means to loose the elections.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

nou wrote:
and a heavy death toll burden.

*TRIGGER WARNING*

Look, let me ask you a question: Why do you think there's ONLY 8,000 of us left? Take a stab at it. I'll give you a hint: it wasn't just smallpox.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 skyth wrote:

Also, on capitalism's death toll, you have to add all the people who died because they couldn't afford their medication or because they exhausted themselves working two or more jobs to survive.

Alright, we'll do that. In return, you add all of the deaths that occurred in communist countries that were caused by a shortage of medication due to communist states never having enough of anything (other than T-34's), and all the people worked to death in order to fulfill the latest quotas.

It wouldn't matter. Even Mao and Stalin Combined don't come close to what religion, capitalism, and nationalism did to my people. 60m dead. That's ten holocausts on top each other.

The Great Leap Foreward, according to Wikipedia, resulted in 18-55.6 million dead.
The Holodomor resulted in 1.8-12 million dead. Also cannibalism.

That's only two incidents, which are a sizable chunk of your 60 million estimate unless you use the absolute minimum number possible.

And you know what the real difference is? No-one is saying that we should go back to colonialism (at least, no-one worth considering seriously). People do still seem to think communism is a good idea.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

nou wrote:
and a heavy death toll burden.

*TRIGGER WARNING*

Look, let me ask you a question: Why do you think there's ONLY 8,000 of us left? Take a stab at it. I'll give you a hint: it wasn't just smallpox.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 skyth wrote:

Also, on capitalism's death toll, you have to add all the people who died because they couldn't afford their medication or because they exhausted themselves working two or more jobs to survive.

Alright, we'll do that. In return, you add all of the deaths that occurred in communist countries that were caused by a shortage of medication due to communist states never having enough of anything (other than T-34's), and all the people worked to death in order to fulfill the latest quotas.

there were never 60 million in north America prior to the 1800s
It wouldn't matter. Even Mao and Stalin Combined don't come close to what religion, capitalism, and nationalism did to my people. 60m dead. That's ten holocausts on top each other.

The Great Leap Foreward, according to Wikipedia, resulted in 18-55.6 million dead.
The Holodomor resulted in 1.8-12 million dead. Also cannibalism.

That's only two incidents, which are a sizable chunk of your 60 million estimate unless you use the absolute minimum number possible.

And you know what the real difference is? No-one is saying that we should go back to colonialism (at least, no-one worth considering seriously). People do still seem to think communism is a good idea.

Stop with the straw man. Nobody wants 20th century communism. The matter around which communism is discussed is that through technological advancement a majority of people will become unemployed. Societal pressure would dictate a shift towards a more socialist/communist policy because otherwise all those people would suffer in poverty. Nobody here is saying lets storm Congress and build some Gulags. When you say you want capitalism should I just assume you want child labor back next time too, because scary socialism ended that practice.

(I'm on mobile and I can't muliquote adequately, so apologies for a single block of text, undivided and unadressed properly by nicks)

It's not fighting strawmen, people... You reinvent the word communism to suit your needs and literaly every modern communist uses the same arguments, that all Eastern Block countries had a catch phrase for during USSR era (translated from polish: ) "yes to communism, no to it's perversions". Communism in any of it's form won't ever be stable because it's goes against human psychology and whomever thinks otherwise should at least listen to some of Robert Sapolsky lectures (a great LEFTIST neuroscientist, with huge court practice, his lectures are available on YT). And socialism has already won the historical battle of systems, there is no purely capitalistic country in the world and all developed countries struggle only with a question of "how much socialism is healthy and where's the line where it hinders society".

Most of the death toll put on the shoulders of capitalism in this thread (including native americans holocaust) is either a result of state driven colonisation era or corporporationism (and historically, the biggest offender in 'corporation death toll' category was East India Company, by huge margin). 'Pure enough' capitalism to be called that name realy existed in a brief period of mid- to late- XIX century because stable capitalism cannot be ever achieved as natural attractors of capitalism (concentration of capital, monopolisation and corporationism) are perversing it within first few decades of any "fresh start" that occured in history. (It is also important to remember that all of the western developed countries were fouded on colonialism spoils and further fueled by neocolonialism and modern poverty export to asian "factory states", so perpetual wealth generation in pure capitalism is a myth also). Capitalism as a system is as flawed as communism, that is why pretty much every developed country ends up in a more or less a mixed system of wealth tredistribution. The strongest virtue of capitalism is that it's emergent phenomenon occuring wherever mutual transactions happen and because of that it cannot be got rid of, ever. That is another reason why pure communism without repression or deep, deep brainwashing of entire population (at least as deep as North Korea) won't happen, ever. Both systems in their pure forms are fairytales, with just different fatal flaws.

Despite me explicitly writing, that I do not defend capitalism many of posters above replied in a dychotomic manner - I'm really not on neither side. Even in my very first post I wrote about UBI as a one of possible solutions to work based systems becoming obsolete in light of automatisation and globalisation, yet I'm thrown at with anti-capitalistic arguments, that I'm really mostly agreing with.

Last but not least, I really wrote in this thread only because "communism glorification" in the west (especially amongst "millenials" even here in Poland) is becoming really frightening and from what I gather all 'pro communism' arguments given are really anti-capitalism arguments and have nothing to do with deep political/economical systems analysis... Even "DIEM 25" manifesto is just a conglomerate of wishfull thinkink and empty slogans while being considered as one of the greatest achievements of modern socialist think tanks...

Getting back to UBI - the biggest flaw of this concept is that it's trying to invent economic perpetuum mobile, as all but few countries in the world are running on perpetual and increasing debt. Apart from Norway oil fund reserves or Saudi Arabia or Qadafi Libia oil based welfare/state funded benefits or similiar funds there is nothing to UNIVERSALLY grant basic income from. I have yet to see a single leftist organisation/party to provide a detailed calculation of how to fund all those leftist ideals (even DIEM25 manifesto mentioned above fails to deliver anything else than "take from the obscenely rich" which doesn't cut it as detailed calculation...) Apple's cash reserves, which are a result of two decades of profit and are currently the biggest corporate reserves, are now estimated at 285 bln$, which lasts for less than one month of 1000$ UBI program for all US citizens. Moreover, if we calculate global redistribution nowadays then the average wealth per capita is pretty damn low - global gross product per capita (as of 2014) is estimated at 16k$, that is lower than polish average income and we are at the very end of what is considered developed country (we have ascended from developing to developed last year).

I agree, that in order to move civilisation forward we have to come up with new, global political and economical system, but it most certainly won't be communism nor capitalism as neither has a comprehensive set of answers to all our problems and both create fatal problems of their own whenever and wherever implemented.

I hope this time I wrote my stance clearly enough so that I won't be directly or indirectly called capitalist nor socialist anymore.

We aren't reinventing the word communism. Communism at its most basic theoretical concept is just that, a concept. You can't say a form of progression towards more communism can never be stable, because you have no idea what the future looks like (note I'm not arguing for implementing communism now, just that society might move more gradually towards it). When the vast majority of people in the future might be unemployed with no way of earning a paycheck, keeping in the capitalism at all cost will go against human psychology. Why? Because people really do not enjoy suffering and wallowing in poverty just because people in the 20th century did bad things in the name of communism. Why not just abolish capitalism then, slavery and child labor came from capitalism!

The tired old excuse of excusing capitalism because it wasn't exactly capitalism is no better than the excuse to excuse communism because it wasn't exactly communism. Why do colonisation and corporatism not fall under capitalism, the end goal was still making money. Hell the East India Company had stock holders. Colonisation started off as a way to find more advantageous trade routes and alternative ways of making money on new products. How isn't that capitalism?

Capitalism works fine when most of us have it relatively well. But there might come a time in the future where that isn't the case. So societal pressure might lead to a move towards a more socialist government with capitalist elements. That isn't glorifying communism or forgetting about its horrific atrocity. Its the recognition that we can't just declare all forms of communism unworkable when we don't even know if capitalism has a viable future for the common man on the street. Nobody is arguing a return to dictatorships or police states.

As for UBI, sure its unworkable now because most of us work and with that work taxes for UBI would be paid. So its people working to pay taxes to give themselves UBI. But there might be a moment where most people are no longer employed because of advancement in robotics. But then the government also makes little in tax money because its tax base is gone. You can't make a detailed calculation of something that hasn't even happened yet, because that just means fudging the numbers. What is clear is that in a future of fewer jobs, tax rate on business will need to make up for that shortfall in income tax, because companies will make more anyway from the reduction in labor costs. Your Apple example is bad, Apple employees pay taxes to the government with their paycheck from Apple. When those employees are out on their asses Apple gets to keep their whole paycheck, which is where the money from UBI would come from.

I don't think there will be an entire new political system,that would be like reinventing the wheel. What is likely is a technocracy that leans more heavily towards socialism to provide for the majority of the population while capitalism can be allowed to go on as it does currently, except with higher taxes.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
And you know what the real difference is? No-one is saying that we should go back to colonialism (at least, no-one worth considering seriously).

I think they take Putin seriously, and that's what he's been up to, even if he hasn't been calling it that.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
And you know what the real difference is? No-one is saying that we should go back to colonialism (at least, no-one worth considering seriously).

I think they take Putin seriously, and that's what he's been up to, even if he hasn't been calling it that.

The hilarity of the matter is that Western capitalism has given rise to what people in the business call Neo-Colonialism, why go back when you can go Neo?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The hilarity of the matter is that Western capitalism has given rise to what people in the business call Neo-Colonialism, why go back when you can go Neo?

"Once you've gone Neo, you don't go back!' - Trinity