Skip Navigation

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
61 comments

  • There have been many elected socialist democracies, but the West undermined them

    We're getting into very biased reporting territory.

    Let's take Venezuela as an example. Here's the events as I understand them:

    1. Hugo Chavez takes power in 1999
    2. Venezuela becomes rich from oil (prices increased in early 2000s) and spends a ton on populist social programs (presumably to stay in power; corruption is rampant
    3. Rapid inflation and widespread shortages starting in 2010 due to over-reliance on imported goods and exported oil (oil prices started dropping in 2007) and no spending cuts after revenue shortfalls
    4. Maduro takes over in 2013 and is even more heavy handed and doesn't ease spending or improve anything economically
    5. Protests and unrest, which the government violently repressed, especially in 2015 when oil prices fell dramatically
    6. Sanctions due to human rights violations started in 2014-ish but really picked up steam from 2017-2019, which deepened the problems they already had, especially since the government refused to cut spending

    Western sanctions only became a thing years (more like a decade) after they were already in crisis. The crisis wasn't caused by western countries, it was caused by mismanagement and corruption. Venezuela was held as a model for socialism under Chavez, but things only worked because of oil money.

    I'm happy to discuss other countries as well.

    • America.

      Radical liberal George Washington and his gang of discovery daddies overthrow the just and fair and healthy rule of the king

      Now you know none of that is true, but that's how you sound defending capitalism. All the death and destruction capitalism caused but they try to sell you on socialism being much worse. Which it is not, Capitalism has absolutely caused far more harm.

      • All the death and destruction capitalism caused but they try to sell you on socialism being much worse.

        Then you're obviously ignoring the death and destruction socialism has caused. Socialism has only been a thing for 100 years or so, and yet it has caused nearly 100M deaths (source: a libertarian publication referencing an infographic based on WHO data):

        Curiously, all of the world's worst famines during the 20th century were in communist countries: China (twice!), the Soviet Union, and North Korea.

        • Lmfao

          Capitalism has killed no one then?

          The Atlantic slave trade, the human trafficking of today, the resource wars, the embargo and economic punishment of those who don't submit to capitalism, the imperialistic wars, violence from police states to uphold capitalism, drug overdoses, those dying of homelessness/lack of healthcare/food.

          Plus if we track the metric used that anyone who died under socialism died from socialism as you do, then let's see 3 million people die a year in America multiply that by 100.

          300,000,000 million deaths from capitalism in ONE single capitalist country over the last 100 years. (America). That's not factoring in the other nations or the actions they've caused outside of their country that also applies to this total.

          60 million people die globally a year. We live in a capitalist global economy so it's safe to claim most of that total but let's play it safe. Only 40 million die under capitalism a year. Multiply that by 100 and

          4 BILLION PEOPLE HAVE DIED FROM CAPITALISM OVER THE LAST 100 YEARS

          Wow sounds like socialism is the better option.

          • The Atlantic slave trade

            About 2M.

            human trafficking of today

            Socialist countries are near the top of the charts here, like N. Korea and Cambodia. The problem isn't due to any economic system, but the failure of law enforcement.

            resource wars... violence from police states to uphold capitalism...

            Not sure what you mean by this, specifically, and I'd prefer to not wade too far into vagaries.

            embargo and economic punishment of those who don’t submit to capitalism

            If you look at the actual reasons here, it's usually due to human rights violations, authoritarianism, or something along those lines (affiliation w/ the USSR, the US's main enemy, used to be sufficient). Russia has recently received massive economic punishment and they are absolutely capitalist, and they got those sanctions due to the aforementioned reasons.

            imperialistic wars

            You'll need to be a bit more specific to arrive at a number, but generally speaking, the death toll wasn't that high, and all combined is likely way less than the Great Chinese Famine, which was entirely man-made.

            drug overdoses

            What's interesting is that most of those deaths are from fentanyl, and China is the main manufacturer of the ingredients to make fentanyl. So production starts in China, gets distributed abroad, and then ends up in the US, probably because it's relatively easy to get drugs into the US due to the cartels' established networks.

            This isn't a failure of capitalism, unless you're blaming Americans for having enough money to buy drugs. Fentanyl production in the US is practically non-existent, so it's not like it's a failure of policy either.

            Here's the source I used for this.

            those dying of homelessness/lack of healthcare/food.

            China and the US have about the same homelessness rate, and the US has a lower rate than many other developed countries, like France and Germany (and quite notably New Zealand). That said, reporting varies by country, so these figures probably can't be fully trusted.

            These are generally more symptoms of the state of the economy and has little to do with the actual economic system in place, and most of the top countries here are quite poor generally and most of the countries with the least homelessness are generally wealthy, and their are outliers everywhere.

            if we track the metric used that anyone who died under socialism died from socialism as you do

            But I don't, those figures are deaths directly attributable to socialism, such as famines caused by poor central planning. Deaths due to natural causes and things not directly related to the regime in charge aren't included.

            • Insanity.

              My dude absolutely no. The entire premise was to point out this "100m died due to socialism" is a joke and people repeating it come off as completely foolish. The entire idea of attributing an economic system to death is ridiculous. Flipping that back onto any system you'll only see insane death tolls that are goofily interpreted to press a point not tell the truth.

              Second this over run point of socialism = famine and capitalism doesn't is fuckin SILLY.

              9 Million people a year from malnourishment now

              Over a century that's 900 million people. Ridiculous numbers goofy.

              The point is people want to fucking feed people. We both you and I wanna help people. Under this system now that rules globally we aren't doing it at least I and others like me do not. The points you're making is capitalist crap propaganda, unhelpful goalless and mostly soulless. Cherry picking death tolls by countries is an asinine way to judge government structure. How many died from the Military-Industrial complex or resource/land wars?

              Socialists in western democracies are looking to create food banks, free housing, and accessible healthcare. Help those literally dying from this. Why do you argue so hard against those people lol

              • The entire idea of attributing an economic system to death is ridiculous.

                They're not, they're attributing a political system to death, because that political system enabled and perhaps rewarded those in power to do it.

                Here's a Wikipedia article about it, which has plenty of sources and some criticism. There's no consensus on exact figures (which range from 10-20M all the way to 148M), but there does seem to be consensus that the number is high (definitely millions).

                If you have a scholarly alternative to those mentioned in the article, I'd be interested in reviewing it, especially if it makes a strong case for Stalin and Mao not being responsible for tens of millions of deaths by starvation. But just know, once someone puts themselves in charge of coordination of production and distribution of food, I will hold them accountable when that goes wrong.

                The capitalist system works around these issues by encouraging and rewarding over supply, since a famine in one area is an arbitrage opportunity in another. Communism, on the other hand, punishes over supply since that means workers aren't efficiently allocated. It also rewards hoarding because that means you're getting more than your fair share and is the closest thing to "profit" (and you can barter excess for other goods you want).

                9 Million people a year from malnourishment now

                And in most cases, the cause of that is corruption and authoritarianism. Western countries try to send aid to help solve hunger and malnourishment, but dictators take that aid so it doesn't reach the people, because hungry people don't have time to rise up.

                Most of the countries with the worst malnutrition are in Africa, and largely in areas known for poor rule of law and high corruption. That said, aside from the early 2020s so far, hunger has been on a consistent downward trend. I couldn't find the source I saw earlier, but this one shows a general downward trend since 2000, and the other report I saw before showed a downward trend since 1900.

                Under this system now that rules globally

                There isn't a system that rules globally. Malnutrition tends to be much less in areas with freer markets and less repressive governments. The real enemy here is autocracy, the economic system isn't the interesting factor when it comes to things like access to basic necessities.

                Why do you argue so hard against those people lol

                I'm only arguing against authoritarianism, and that is what pure socialism tends to devolve into. I have no problem with food banks and other charitable endeavors, in fact I actively support that type of thing. But I draw the line at "just trust me bro" when it comes to putting control of an entire economic system into the hands of a political party. I just don't trust human nature that much.

                • Roll my fuckin eyes

                  I'm only arguing against authoritarianism, and that is what pure socialism tends to devolve into.

                  Wonder how Gaza is doing.

                  The bros you are trusting are leading the corporations and the capitalist enabling governments they rule.

                  But just know, once someone puts themselves in charge of coordination of production and distribution of food, I will hold them accountable when that goes wrong

                  https://www.mercycorps.org/blog/facts-global-hunger

                  Food is thrown away under capitalism, locked in garbage bins. Most people who grow the food are the ones starving. 9 Million a year die of malnourishment. That's almost a billion people under capitalism in a century

                  You're a goon

                  • Most people who grow the food are the ones starving.

                    That's not capitalism, that's either feudalism or slavery.

                    Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia make up 2 percent of the world’s population, yet these three countries are home to 70 percent of the world’s most extreme food insecure.

                    What's special about those countries? They have a lot of corruption, poor economic policies in government, and barriers to foreign investment

                    And for Somalia, it's mostly civil war (ironically sparked by military dictatorship founded on Marxist principles) and now Islamist insurgency (against an Islamist government backed by Ethiopia).

                    That said, Western countries provide aid where possible (US aid to Kenya, US aid to Ethiopia). Also, here's aid by countries, funny how it's the capitalist countries that give the most favorable terms... There's also a number of charities that add to that aid.

                    But the problems in these countries have less to do with food distribution and more to do with corruption and poor economic development. They rely on agriculture in an area with poor land for agriculture, as well as poor investment into agriculture (as in modern farming technology). The governments in these areas are failing their people, so what they need is more capitalism (foreign investment to create jobs) and better political policy. Kenya is moving in the right direction while Ethiopia is floundering (though they are taking loans from China, so hopefully that ends up helping, but I have my doubts).

                    If these areas had stable governments based on capitalism, there would be more foreign and domestic investment, meaning more jobs, corporate tax revenue, and other local investment.

                    • If these areas had stable governments based on capitalism, there would be more foreign and domestic investment, meaning more jobs, corporate tax revenue, and other local investment.

                      So clueless. Back to step one with this kid. Capitalism doesn't let anything else live it subverts and uses violence to control. Tale as old as time. The famines in India because of the British, the famines in Ireland because of the British all in the name of capital and money making. Disgusting.

                      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic

                      • The famines in India because of the British

                        Not capitalism, that was imperialist mercantilism (source):

                        Nightingale identified two types of famine: a grain famine and a "money famine". Money was drained from the peasant to the landlord, making it impossible for the peasant to procure food. Money that should have been made available to the producers of food via public works projects and jobs was instead diverted to other uses. Nightingale pointed out that money needed to combat famine was being diverted towards activities like paying for the British military effort in Afghanistan in 1878–80.

                        The British took money from peasants and used it to fight in Afghanistan. That sounds a lot like feudalism or mercantilism to me, not capitalism. Capitalism doesn't funnel money into war, governments and warlords do.

                        famines in Ireland

                        This one is much closer to capitalism:

                        The proximate cause of the famine was the infection of potato crops by blight (Phytophthora infestans) throughout Europe during the 1840s. Blight infection caused 100,000 deaths outside Ireland and influenced much of the unrest that culminated in European Revolutions of 1848. Longer-term reasons for the massive impact of this particular famine included the system of absentee landlordism and single-crop dependence. Initial limited but constructive government actions to alleviate famine distress were ended by a new Whig administration in London, which pursued a laissez-faire economic doctrine, but also because some in power believed in divine providence or that the Irish lacked moral character, with aid only resuming to some degree later.

                        Basically, it seems to have started with a colonial mindset (absentee landlordism) and transitioned rather abruptly to laissez-faire capitalism, with a backdrop of racism. Basically, Protestant supporters of Elizabeth 1 were granted a lot of land, and they rented that out to the Irish people. It's a bit more complicated than that, but it absolutely didn't start out as capitalism, it started out with grants from the monarch, and then during the famine, London transitioned to more laissez-faire policies, which basically just cemented the position of those large land-owners.

                        Laissez-faire capitalism can absolutely help longer term, but there needs to be enough time for more productive owners to beat out entrenched owners, and that's just not possible in a famine, and it certainly doesn't happen overnight. The way this would work is some natives would pool up enough money to buy land outright (or accept foreign investment to do so), improve it, and get more profit than the absentee land-owners who didn't care to invest in their properties (and the farmers didn't care to improve land they're merely renting). Once land is producing more, that would lead to excess and opportunities to invest elsewhere (e.g. factories).

                        Great Britain completely mismanaged things though, especially the transition from crown handouts to laissez-faire economic policy. So I think the biggest explanatory factor here is racism ("divine providence" or whatever).

                        Yes, the reasoning in both is to make money, but neither was operating under a proper capitalist system, since both operated under the thumb of British aristocrats. If you want to see what can happen when people throw off the aristocracy, create a stable government, and actually let laissez-faire capitalism work, look at the northern United States after independence from Great Britain. They abolished slavery and progressed the economy very rapidly, to the point where they could largely hold their own against the British in the war of 1812 less than 50 years later.

                        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic

                        This is state capitalism, which is closer to whatever China is than laissez-faire capitalism. It's pretty much textbook cronyism, since the only ones allowed to actually operate in the economy are cronies of the state.

    • How about Guatemala.

      Democratically elected leftist president who enacted a minimum wage and was going to redistribute land owned by The United Fruit Company to the people, since they owned most of the nation's land.

      Couped with the support of the CIA and replaced by a dictator who went on to lead a genocide of the native people.

      For more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America

      • Arévalo wasn't socialist, he was actually anti-communist and generally pro-capitalist. He had way more overlap with FDR than Stalin or Castro.

        That wasn't "capitalists keeping the socialists down," it was cronyism and FUD from United Fruit Company, which Eisenhower bought into.

        • Hence why I said leftist, yes. It was an example of what happens to any leftist government, including but not limited to socialists.

          Anyone who goes against the interests of capitalists is scary to them. They say (similar to what you said) that they must always fail. If this were true, they wouldn't be so scared.

          • It's important to take the broader context into account. This happened at the start of the Cold War, so anything that looked remotely connected to the USSR was suspect. Árbenz legalized a communist party, and that seems to be what pushed Eisenhower over the edge.

            It had nothing to do with the actual ideology of the Guatamalan government, but suspected ties to USSR. At the time, "communism" meant "USSR," and anyone that was sympathetic to communism in any form was suspected of being in league with the USSR.

            If the Guatamalan Revolution happened just 10 years or so later, the US probably would've been an ally instead of an enemy of someone like Árbenz.

            • The justification doesn't really matter. The point is this is the situation the makes "all socialist countries are bad" a belief people hold. It's wrong. It's "the only socialist countries who could survive capitalist intervention also did bad things. The ones that didn't last are forgotten and we can't know how they'd fare."

              The reason why the Cold War was happening at all was because the US shoved themselves into a role of preventing "communism," which extended to any leftist government, from spreading. They needed to ensure socialism couldn't achieve its goals, because if it could then other capitalist countries would see the benefits and follow suit. Obviously the owner class in capitalist nations couldn't let that happen. You can even see it even within the US with the dismantling of leftist policy.

              Socialism isn't bad. It's what capitalists forced socialism to be in order to survive that's bad. Capitalists are the issue with socialism. To use it as an argument for capitalism seems pretty fucked up. It also ignores all the harm done by capitalism. This mostly happens outside of the rich countries though, so most of us don't interact with it.

            • Lol reread your comment and tell me you aren't at least slightly influenced by propaganda.

              You're literally giving a pass, an asterix to something you just don't wanna agree to.

              If socialism has only existed for a short time, and really only considered during the cold war then has it really ever been actually tried since outside powers kneecap it at every turn?

              Then I wanna ask, how many died from the introduction of capitalism/destruction of imperial European powers? We have no record of it but I'd bet my britches it's a lot of people

              • Lol reread your comment and tell me you aren’t at least slightly influenced by propaganda.

                It's impossible to escape, and I imagine you are also quite influenced by propaganda. The best I can do is look for multiple sources for information and avoid the worst offenders.

                You’re literally giving a pass, an asterix to something you just don’t wanna agree to.

                No, I'm just saying the situation in Guatamala is completely different because they weren't even socialist, and the elected President was openly capitalist. Eisenhower was an idiot here and gave in to United Fruit Company.

                has it really ever been actually tried since outside powers kneecap it at every turn?

                The context in the past 100 years was the USSR, which was the main rival and enemy of the US, so it absolutely makes sense for the US to attempt to stop any expansion by the USSR, and vice versa. Most of the interventions by the US into countries going through a socialist revolution were actually proxy wars w/ the USSR, like Korea and Vietnam. I don't think it would particularly matter if the USSR was socialist/communist or fascist, the they would butt heads over any expansion. Both the US and the USSR wanted to be the top superpower, and that's what all the interventionism was about.

                Look at socialist revolutions after the fall of the USSR, there are far fewer, and those that happen have little if any opposition by western powers. Why is that? The USSR doesn't exist, and China doesn't seem particularly interested in backing socialist/communist revolutions, so they're generally left to resolve themselves. One significant counter example is the revolution in Nepal, but China also opposed that regime change, so it has little to do with socialism and more to do with how friendly the new regime would be to our (or China's) interests.

                how many died from the introduction of capitalism/destruction of imperial European powers?

                The proper answer to this would have to be in percents, not absolute numbers, because populations at the time were much lower. But yeah, I don't have a good figure for this.

                One especially tricky part of this is that casualties of capitalism are much harder to associate with any particular group because capitalism is largely decentralized, whereas socialism/communism tends to be centralized. A failure under socialism/communism is much easier to assign a cause to than a failure under capitalism. The clearest examples are slavery in the Americas, but that actually started under mercantilism and was quickly abolished in the northern colonies after getting independence (i.e. the areas with higher development).

                That said, liberalism and capitalism together have done wonders to improve the lives of the average person. There's a good reason why China has pivoted from socialism/communism to capitalism in recent decades, and it's because it works. Socialism seems to work best when paired with a capitalist system, such as in most developed economies (i.e. a robust social safety net, support for unions, etc).

61 comments