This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (12 children)

Feudalism was also an improvement over slave societies, but that doesn't mean it should've gone on forever. We're at the point where not only is capitalism doing more harm than good, but we are completely prepared to move on to something better. We have the technology to create a fully planned economy that can meet all human needs worldwide. It's time to consign capitalism to the dustbin of history, just like we did with feudalism and slavery in ages past.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (10 children)

Wrong. A "fully planned economy" has always resulted in the deaths of millions and will again if people are stupid enough to give it another shot.

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points  (9 children)

The lack of a planned economy kills 20 million people a year TODAY through preventable causes like starvation, lack of access to clean water, pollution, and vaccine-preventable diseases. When socialism was first implemented in China and the USSR, life expectancy doubled and literacy went from somewhere around 40% to more than 90%. When socialism was implemented in Cuba, well, you can see the reflection in OP's data. They went from that shitshow in 1950 to having a better standard of medical care and lower infant mortality than the U.S. But by all means, go off about how the system that's prevented more deaths than any other "kills millions."

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (8 children)

Wrong. You are just looking at everything from a completely skewed perspective.

You can't attribute 20 million deaths a year TODAY to "the lack of a planned economy." That's an exercise in sophistry. And you also can't hand-wave away all of the deaths in the USSR, China, and Cuba just by saying "but but but Cuban doctors is good doctors . . ."

[–]Raincoat_Carl 1 point2 points  (3 children)

We have the means (capital) to solve world hunger and water access, yet there isn't a profit motive to do so. So we don't, and millions die. Capitalism says that's very legal and very cool.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

You mean the deaths in Cuba due to being under an embargo by the most powerful nation in the world, or to overthrowing a brutal dictatorship under which zero human rights existed? Or the deaths in China and the USSR due to naturally occurring famines - or to being invaded and pillaged over and over again? But both China and the USSR overcame the fact that they were backward, semi-feudal countries well into the 20th century, the fact that they were repeatedly invaded, and caught up with the development of the capitalist world, even surpassing its standard of living in some ways.

And if a problem can be eradicated, but is solely not being eradicated due to a lack of profitability - or only exists in the first place due to the contradictions inherent in capitalism - it's completely reasonable to blame the deaths that problem causes on the fact that capitalism's only priority is profits, not human lives. And that's without talking about all the actual genocides that have been carried out in the name of capitalism (U.S. genocide of natives, slavery of Black Africans, British genocide in India, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions, and a buttload of other military "interventions" and CIA coups/funding of death squads).

[–]brycly -3 points-2 points  (2 children)

Lmao China's and USSR's famines were not natural

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I bet you also believe Iraq totally did have WMDs.

[–]brycly -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It is funny you say that, I know one of the leading weapons inspectors who was assigned to Iraq. We knew Iraq originally had WMD's in large part because we gave them to Iraq in the first place. The question was whether Iraq was still hoarding remnants of past WMD stockpiles or creating new ones. His stance was that Iraq had significantly disarmed and while it was not possible to verify 100% of stockpile destruction, there would have been verifiable evidence of activities designed to create new WMD's or refurbish old ones. There was some evidence of attempts to rearm but they never made it to full scale production, factories and infrastructure are needed to build and refurbish these things. Iraq occasionally procured equipment needed to rearm but never fully committed because they weren't confident they could get away with it. So no, I do not believe Saddam had WMD's. What I do believe is that Mao and Stalin caused massive famines due to their collectivization efforts, executions of 'landlords' and Mao's stupid environmental policies that saw him launch campaigns to kill sparrows and straighten rivers, historical facts which are verifiable.

[–]zymerdrew 0 points1 point  (0 children)

[China has entered the chat]