4 ms·

> That's just the branding decision I was speaking of. You chose to brand the sane modern version of capitalism - still capitalism, but sane modern version of c

> That's just the branding decision I was speaking of. You chose to brand the sane modern version of capitalism - still capitalism, but sane modern version of communism - socialism. That is not just branding. Communism had these tenets whenever it was tried. The only logical conclusion is that it's inevitable to get there. Capitalism had it's bad years, but now it's pretty good, it lifted billions out of poverty. Communism still did intentional famines well into the 1940s, after WWII. Pol Pot was even later. By then, capitalist countries are much more tame and humane. Blaming intentional famines on the lack of fertilizers is just arguing without good faith. It's much more because of 1. lack of regard for human life and 2. central decisions like exporting food in a drought. These 2 traits are so common in communism that I believe they're inseparable.

ajuc 5y ago
> By then, capitalist countries are much more tame and humane How would you classify the countries where starvation is common right now on the communism-capitalism spectrum? [1]. I'd say most of them are more on the capitalism side. > Communism still did intentional famines Introducing another variable (we only count "intentional" famines now) is just a way to distance the "capitalism" brand from famines in capitalist countries. BTW - there's a humanitarian crisis and possible famine in Afghanistan[2] which was recently destabilized by the tame and humane capitalist countries (including my own). It wasn't a great place to live before, but at this point it's hard to argue we improved things. But you can always say it wasn't intentional so it doesn't count. That's the issue with ideologically-motivated branding I was trying to convey. You choose examples and adjust definitions to fit your cause. I'm mostly fine with that, communism really sucked when it was introduced in my country, and I don't want to play the devil's advocate for much longer, but I hate it when people put their biases out there as objective truths. [1] https://www.scoopwhoop.com/world/countries-starving-to-death https://www.scoopwhoop.com/world/countries-starving-to-death [2] https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/11/11/afghanistan-facing-famine# https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/11/11/afghanistan-facing-famin...

ajuc 5y ago

> By then, capitalist countries are much more tame and humane How would you classify the countries where starvation is common right now on the communism-capitalism spectrum? [1]. I'd say most of them are more on the capitalism side. > Communism still did intentional famines Introducing another variable (we only count "intentional" famines now) is just a way to distance the "capitalism" brand from famines in capitalist countries. BTW - there's a humanitarian crisis and possible famine in Afghanistan[2] which was recently destabilized by the tame and humane capitalist countries (including my own). It wasn't a great place to live before, but at this point it's hard to argue we improved things. But you can always say it wasn't intentional so it doesn't count. That's the issue with ideologically-motivated branding I was trying to convey. You choose examples and adjust definitions to fit your cause. I'm mostly fine with that, communism really sucked when it was introduced in my country, and I don't want to play the devil's advocate for much longer, but I hate it when people put their biases out there as objective truths. [1] https://www.scoopwhoop.com/world/countries-starving-to-death https://www.scoopwhoop.com/world/countries-starving-to-death [2] https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/11/11/afghanistan-facing-famine# https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/11/11/afghanistan-facing-famin...