PugJesusHonestly, being in hell right now would explain a lot
FiniteBanjoThey did starve a lot of people to death and made a lot of people work to death as slaves, though. And I mean, like, a lot. Like the most people ever murdered by leaders, even including the Holocaust, though maybe not per capita?
compastFirst of all, every nation is a capitalism, so technically yes.
Second, the USA in it’s 250 year history has never had a famine, much less ones on the scale caused by the USSR and Mao Zedong.
The communist dictatorships, as direct results of changes in policy and management, make up half the lists of famines total. If you have some secret data that proves tens of millions of people per year die in every democracy, please present it.
The US just exports the famines to other countries, but the principle is the exact same. Deny people access to food in order to force them to align with you politically.
Ah yes, the war in Iraq, famously so that we could take away all their saffron. /sarcasm
Did you know North America exports a third of all food globally, up from a fourth in the 1990s?
Gaza, Cuba, North Korea and Somalia come to mind.
You think the USA is stealing North Korea’s food? That’s a fucking new one, lmfao.
Have you ever heard the term “economic sanctions”?
Economic sanctions as a result of their own aggression, and they still have trade partners like China.
as a result of their own aggression
I didn’t know they bombed the US back to the iron age in the Korean War, I thought it was the other way around.
Do you have any source?
I wonder what the major difference is between North and South Korea. Hmmmm. Gorsh, I really wonder. Regardless, the sanctions exist now as a result of current behavior.
The South Korean dictatorship was propped up by the US, and had the chance to develop economically, which lead to a gradual democratization.
The North Korean dictatorship was sanctioned to starvation levels, which historically always leads to more authoritarian leadership.
The North Korean dictatorship was sanctioned to starvation levels, which historically always leads to more authoritarian leadership.
First of all there is no democracy in capitalist countries. Its dictatorship of capital.
You are calling famines under communist nations as man made and blaming it on certain leaders, however people starving in capitalism is natural? wfp.org/…/world-wealth-9-million-people-die-every…
Capitalism, as a direct result of its design and functioning (food grown by exploiting peasants and made for profit of the bourgeosie instead of feeding the hungry) make up way more death toll than all supposed communist famines in human history.
Thats why we waste tonnes of food every year despite millions of people dying of hunger. Is that fault of capitalism and capitalist leadership or not?
In world of wealth, 9 million people die every year from hunger, WFP Chief tells Food System Summit | World Food Programme
NEW YORK – The United Nations World Food Programme Executive Director, David Beasley, has called on world leaders to make food security a reality for all and to build a stronger, healthier planet through better food systems.
So to clarify, when you combined the stats from every nation on earth, you come up with less deaths than from singular famines in communist dictatorship and still call that about equal?
My point is, those “communist dictatorships” had no one die due to starvation after one famine and those countries had history of periodic famines that stopped under communism, theres nuance to everything. My point is simple, if people dying under communism is due to communism, apply same logic to capitalist democracy.
You mean state capitalist dictatorships. What most people call communism including Stalinists and MLs is actually just state capitalism and couldn’t be further away from communism.
No its not state capitalism. Go read marx. The basis of capitalism is surplus extraction which went to bourgeosie. In soviet union and other ML states surplus either went to the worker or the govt which then used it for public purposes (sure there was corruption). Many aspects of ML states werent communist but they were the closest weve gotten to socialism.
The surplus filled the pockets of party elites. Don’t fool yourself. ML states were barely even socialist to begin with. They were basically just state capitalist states with a thin layer of red coating. The party didn’t care about the worker. The party only cared about it’s own hold on power and loyalty of it’s subjects.
And I have read Marx and it is quite a huge leap from Marx to whatever MLs are trying to do.
Thats just a whole lot of oversimplification painting those who were in party leadership as having no ideology or empathy whatsoever. They did care about workers (best worker rights in history were in ML states).
rockerface🇺🇦Like fuck they did. MLs only ever cared about staying in power.
Thats your personal opinion and is devoid of logic and historical evidences. Good luck.
You mean it disagrees with what your Good Camp preaches. Naturally there isn’t going to be any evidence good enough for you.