4 ms·

Honest question, what's the point being made here? Are you attempting to imply that because Stalin presided over a terrible famine his political ideals must be

by wsxcde 13y ago

Honest question, what's the point being made here? Are you attempting to imply that because Stalin presided over a terrible famine his political ideals must be flawed? Churchill and friends presided over the Bengal famine of the 1940s. Six million people died in a famine during which food was exported out of Bengal to aid the British war effort. Or what about the British East India company raising land taxes from 10% to 50% during the great Bengal famine of the 1770s. A famine which killed 1/3rd of the population of Bengal. Also a famine which saw the British East India company's profits increase from 15 million to 30 million (non-inflation adjusted) rupees. Do you think any of this counts against capitalism or do you have any reasons why we should disregard these anecdotes but count the Ukrainian famine against socialism?

cynicalkane 13y ago
There's no part of capitalism that requires the oppression of others, except in maybe some metaphorical economic sense. In communism the ability to oppress is a necessary feature of the system (and if you don't think so, read Marx). The world has seen many implementations of capitalism that don't involve forcing large numbers of people to starve. The same cannot be said of communism.
- wpietri 13y ago
  I think it depends on what you mean by capitalism. A common notion of it is the "increase shareholder value" version, where the only thing that matters to executives is profit. There, I don't think oppression is a necessary precondition, but it is a necessary outcome. You can see that in the company stores of yore, and the eternal reemergence of monopolies and oligopolies that will treat treat both their workers and their customers exactly as poorly as they can get away with. There are other approaches to capitalism, of course.
  - steveklabnik 12y ago
    It also depends on what you mean by 'oppression.' To make an analogy, Marxists also consider externalities oppressive, because they're talking about the system as a whole. Libertarian/liberal ethical systems tend to focus on individual actions. A transaction between two parties where one isn't pointing a gun at each other is categorically not oppressive to libertarians/liberals, but may still be an oppressive action to a Marxist.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  "the ability to oppress is a necessary feature of the system (and if you don't think so, read Marx)." That's not been in any of the Marx I've read, to my recollection, though that's nowhere near exhaustive and my recollection could certainly be flawed. Do you have something specific to point to?
- firstOrder 12y ago
  Tell me where in the world people did not live communistically prior to 10,000 years ago. So according to you, the entire world lived under a system that required the oppression of others prior to 10,000 years ago, when everyone lived in migrating hunter-gatherer bands where all wealth was shared. This was a system that forced people to starve, according to you.
  - tinco 12y ago
    Don't be naieve, you tell me that a band of hunter gatherers would hesitate to kill/oppress another tribe if they were strapped for resources? "According to you", the entire world lived in a system where everyone was picking daisies and being sweet to each other prior to 10,000 years ago? Also, how is communism like how people lived prior to 10,000 years ago?
    - firstOrder 12y ago
      What resources does a highly migratory hunter-gatherer band actually have to take? The whole point is there is no surplus production. Also, how exactly would one band of hunter gatherers continually oppress another band of hunter gatherers over a period of time? It's not really possible, for a variety of reasons. How is communism like how people lived 10,000+ years ago? Communism is how all people lived 10,000+ years ago.
      - tinco 12y ago
        > What resources does a highly migratory hunter-gatherer band actually have to take? Food. > how exactly would one band of hunter gatherers continually oppress another band of hunter gatherers over a period of time? They wouldn't, they'd just kill them before the need arises. But if they really wanted to, out of greed or laziness, they'd do what humans have done for thousands of years. Establish a hierarchy based on power and violence, and extort taxes.
        firstOrder 12y ago
        You need surplus to establish a hierarchy. A migratory hunter-gatherer band has no surplus - people collect enough food to feed themselves, their children, and perhaps some older people, and that's it. Once there is a hierarchy with taxes and such you no longer have a migratory hunter-gatherer band. So you're talking about what happened during the agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago. I am talking about what happened before that.
arethuza 13y ago
No - my point (as I mention below) was that I was surprised that Wells didn't ask anything about it even though he almost certainly had seen reports. My criticism is directed at Wells in this case. steve_benjamins points out below that this really wasn't that kind of interview, which is a good point.
opo 12y ago
Your description of the Bengal famine differs in many regards from that given in the wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943) If you have sources, can you update the wikipedia entry. (Honest question - I know very little of this famine so don't know which is the more accurate description.)
- e12e 12y ago
  You might find the following to be a valuable starting point: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/10/how_churchill_starved_india.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/thereporters/soutikbiswas/...
rat87 12y ago
> Churchill and friends presided over the Bengal famine of the 1940s. I don't see this as condemning capitalism but rather Imperialism. The Ukrainian famine was partially caused by forced Collectivization of farms and Dekulakization. I'm guessing that imperialism greatly contributed to the Bengali famine.

by wsxcde 13y ago

cynicalkane 13y ago

There's no part of capitalism that requires the oppression of others, except in maybe some metaphorical economic sense. In communism the ability to oppress is a necessary feature of the system (and if you don't think so, read Marx). The world has seen many implementations of capitalism that don't involve forcing large numbers of people to starve. The same cannot be said of communism.

wpietri 13y ago
I think it depends on what you mean by capitalism. A common notion of it is the "increase shareholder value" version, where the only thing that matters to executives is profit. There, I don't think oppression is a necessary precondition, but it is a necessary outcome. You can see that in the company stores of yore, and the eternal reemergence of monopolies and oligopolies that will treat treat both their workers and their customers exactly as poorly as they can get away with. There are other approaches to capitalism, of course.
- steveklabnik 12y ago
  It also depends on what you mean by 'oppression.' To make an analogy, Marxists also consider externalities oppressive, because they're talking about the system as a whole. Libertarian/liberal ethical systems tend to focus on individual actions. A transaction between two parties where one isn't pointing a gun at each other is categorically not oppressive to libertarians/liberals, but may still be an oppressive action to a Marxist.
dllthomas 12y ago
"the ability to oppress is a necessary feature of the system (and if you don't think so, read Marx)." That's not been in any of the Marx I've read, to my recollection, though that's nowhere near exhaustive and my recollection could certainly be flawed. Do you have something specific to point to?
firstOrder 12y ago
Tell me where in the world people did not live communistically prior to 10,000 years ago. So according to you, the entire world lived under a system that required the oppression of others prior to 10,000 years ago, when everyone lived in migrating hunter-gatherer bands where all wealth was shared. This was a system that forced people to starve, according to you.
- tinco 12y ago
  Don't be naieve, you tell me that a band of hunter gatherers would hesitate to kill/oppress another tribe if they were strapped for resources? "According to you", the entire world lived in a system where everyone was picking daisies and being sweet to each other prior to 10,000 years ago? Also, how is communism like how people lived prior to 10,000 years ago?
  - firstOrder 12y ago
    What resources does a highly migratory hunter-gatherer band actually have to take? The whole point is there is no surplus production. Also, how exactly would one band of hunter gatherers continually oppress another band of hunter gatherers over a period of time? It's not really possible, for a variety of reasons. How is communism like how people lived 10,000+ years ago? Communism is how all people lived 10,000+ years ago.
    - tinco 12y ago
      > What resources does a highly migratory hunter-gatherer band actually have to take? Food. > how exactly would one band of hunter gatherers continually oppress another band of hunter gatherers over a period of time? They wouldn't, they'd just kill them before the need arises. But if they really wanted to, out of greed or laziness, they'd do what humans have done for thousands of years. Establish a hierarchy based on power and violence, and extort taxes.
      - firstOrder 12y ago
        You need surplus to establish a hierarchy. A migratory hunter-gatherer band has no surplus - people collect enough food to feed themselves, their children, and perhaps some older people, and that's it. Once there is a hierarchy with taxes and such you no longer have a migratory hunter-gatherer band. So you're talking about what happened during the agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago. I am talking about what happened before that.

arethuza 13y ago

No - my point (as I mention below) was that I was surprised that Wells didn't ask anything about it even though he almost certainly had seen reports. My criticism is directed at Wells in this case. steve_benjamins points out below that this really wasn't that kind of interview, which is a good point.

opo 12y ago

Your description of the Bengal famine differs in many regards from that given in the wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943) If you have sources, can you update the wikipedia entry. (Honest question - I know very little of this famine so don't know which is the more accurate description.)

e12e 12y ago
You might find the following to be a valuable starting point: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/10/how_churchill_starved_india.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/thereporters/soutikbiswas/...

rat87 12y ago

> Churchill and friends presided over the Bengal famine of the 1940s. I don't see this as condemning capitalism but rather Imperialism. The Ukrainian famine was partially caused by forced Collectivization of farms and Dekulakization. I'm guessing that imperialism greatly contributed to the Bengali famine.