10 ms·
> Communism, no matter its form, only leads to slavery and poverty. I think you are confusing communism with capitalism... The nations that at any point had sl
by Volpe 14y ago
> Communism, no matter its form, only leads to slavery and poverty.
I think you are confusing communism with capitalism... The nations that at any point had slavery, were capitalist. Capitalism itself can only exist in "surplus value" scenario, meaning someone/thing is being exploited.
abject poverty, only exists because abject wealth exists. Abject wealth is a result of capitalism.
- raverbashing 14y ago"The nations that at any point had slavery, were capitalist" You're wrong. And missing about 5 thousand years of history. "abject poverty, only exists because abject wealth exists" Yes, that's why the "leaders" of North Korea are abjectly wealthy. Like the leaders of Romania, for example.
- obstacle1 14y ago>You're wrong Well, they certainly weren't communist, in any case. By definition slavery cannot exist in an actual communist society, since such societies are completely classless and the only form of ownership is common.
- Volpe 14y agoI agree I'm wrong in the context of history of the civilisation, but correct in terms of "the history of communism, and capitalism". If you want to include feudalism in there I'm happy to have the discussion on what feudalism is closer to: Communism or Capitalism.