100 million deaths due to capitalism in the 20th century.

[trustbutverify]

...that's not what i meant at all.
globalization is a direct result of capitalism, so is slavery.

History isn't your strong point.

 

[trustbutverify]

gee, that is almost a coherent phrase....
you and hume's fork seem rather incoherent your last couple of posts.
actually, fundamentally, as an ideology, communism is very democratic.

I'm curious, what type of punishment, in a fundamental and ideologically pure communist society, would be appropriate for those who engage in market activities? Re-education camps?

In such a society (real communism as opposed to the fake variety which keeps cropping up) would there be secret ballot elections? Could capatalists run?

 

[bikerdruid]

I'm curious, what type of punishment, in a fundamental and ideologically pure communist society, would be appropriate for those who engage in market activities? Re-education camps?

In such a society (real communism as opposed to the fake variety which keeps cropping up) would there be secret ballot elections? Could capatalists run?

dude...read marx.

 

[trustbutverify]

dude...read marx.

I have. Are you going to answer the questions?

 

[Virus]

I have. Are you going to answer the questions?

Bikerdruid doesn't do questions.

 

[bit_pattern]

I had no idea cannibals were so prevalent in the 20th Century


... Oh, wait ...

 

[HoverBoarder]

There's people who call themselves National Socialists that haven't personally killed anyone. Big whoop. I meant that all communist states were mass-murderers.

Which technically is correct. The issue is in the semantics of what to call the people who are not part of Communist States, but refer to themselves as Communists.

The main problem is that Communism as was envisioned by Marx-Engels, is an inherently undemocratic, authoritarian, and oppressive system. The original communist system required the creation of authoritarian dictators and oppressive police states in order to achieve the State control aims as laid out by Marx. This requirement of what I would refer to as the early "classical authoritarian Communism" restricted the freedom and lives of the people under the State's control, which created the foundation of the inevitable mass murders that occurred under those regimes.

Restricting freedoms, allowing starvation, forcing slave labor, and the other components that are required to fulfill the aims laid out by Marx, meant that mass killings were inevitable and almost unavoidable for those States that adhered directly to the goals laid out in the Communist Manifesto.

New Democratic parties that call themselves "Communist," but do not adhere to the requirements of strict State control of all industry, child/slave labor, Police States, and the other components necessary for the function of a State that follow the goals laid out in the Communist Manifesto may call themselves "Communist," but have little in common with the fully Communist States like Communist China, the USSR, Cambodia, Vietnam, and China.

The question is what to call them. I think that they should be called "Reformed Democratic Communists." These reformed Communists, or NeoCommunists, or whatever they want to call themselves do adhere to some Communist principles, but they most certainly do not adhere to the main tenants set out in the Communist Manifesto that requires such a brutal, undemocratic, and deadly control of all politics and economics.

Communism by its very core function is inherently undemocratic. To ignore that fact as has been demonstrated time and time again in history is either just being purposefully naive, or purposefully dishonest.

However, that does not mean that Communism has to be strictly followed as it was created by Marx. Marx made some major mistakes in his original creation of the idea of Communism, and the hundreds of millions of people who have died as a result of those mistakes have caused the majority of the world to choose alternative forms of economic/political systems to live under than Communist authoritarianism. Some groups have tried however to keep what they have seen as the good and leave the bad. The are many faiths that do not follow the exact rules dictated by their holy books. If Christians did, we would have a bunch of homicidal insane maniacs running around the world, but the vast majority do not. It's the same with Communism.

Roboramma had one of the best responses to this:

It is a good point that we shouldn't lump all communists as somehow being the same people. How is one responsible for the deeds of another?

The argument, of course, is that communism is responsible: that the ideology inevitably leads to (or, at least in these real cases was the cause of) mass murder.

Is there truth in it? Certainly the ideology was used by those in power to both attain that power in the first place and to justify the actions that they undertook to cement it (including mass murder). In that case, should communism be blamed, or simply the desire for power? Was it, perhaps, the lack of democracy, rather than the presence of communism, that led to these horrendous deaths?

Those are all reasonable questions. Nevertheless, the logic that leads to "communism is responsible for 100 million deaths" or whatever the figure is, is very different from the logic presented in the OP for capitalism's death tool. Those deaths are much further removed from capitalism (if they are linked at all) than the deaths attributed to communism are from communism.
At the very least, for instance, communist governments were responsible for the deaths attributed to communism. The vast majority of the deaths attributed to capitalism can't be said to be directly committed by capitalist governments.

I don't see the hypocrisy: one claim is, if not entirely valid, at least reasonable. That is, there is a meaningful connection between communism and the deaths attributed to it. While we can (and have) discussed the degree to which that connection is meaningful, there is a clear connection.

On the other hand, the majority of the deaths you've ascribed to capitalism have no meaningful connection to it.

There's no hypocrisy in failing to see two things that aren't equivalent as equivalent. That's called being reasonable.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

An excellent sum-up, HoverBoarder. Can't say I disagree with you - one of the most fundamental problems of classic Marxism (and by extension Marxism-Leninism) is indeed the authoritarianism reguired.

 

[mortimer]

globalization is a direct result of capitalism, so is slavery.

 

[bikerdruid]

do you deny that children working in third world sweat shops is slave labour?

 

[Humes fork]

globalization is a direct result of capitalism, so is slavery.

As we all know, the gulags were capitalist enterprises.

 

[Ziggurat]

do you deny that children working in third world sweat shops is slave labour?

Depends. Are they free to leave? Do they earn money? If the answer is yes, then it's obviously not slavery, even if it's not particularly pleasant.

But it's funny to hear a communist decry sweatshops. The alternativein those third-world countries is subsistence farming, and THAT, my little Stalinist, is a far more brutal and unforgiving life than industrial sweatshops. You should know, your heroes have proven it time and time again, and at the cost of millions upon millions of lives.

 

[bikerdruid]

Depends. Are they free to leave? Do they earn money? If the answer is yes, then it's obviously not slavery, even if it's not particularly pleasant.

But it's funny to hear a communist decry sweatshops. The alternativein those third-world countries is subsistence farming, and THAT, my little Stalinist, is a far more brutal and unforgiving life than industrial sweatshops. You should know, your heroes have proven it time and time again, and at the cost of millions upon millions of lives.

fervent hand-waving noted.
the operant words in my question were:
do you deny that children... working in third world sweat shops is slave labour?

if you can, in any way, excuse this, you are clearly part of the problem.

now,
even if working children are paid, they are still children working.
children should be playing and learning.

in the days of the slaves on plantations, the slaves were fed, housed and clothed by their masters.
today, they are (all-too-often) paid pennies, house themselves in sub-human dwellings and go to bed hungry.

many were better off in the plantation/slave days.

multi-national corporate capitalism creates slavery.......and it sucks.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

As we all know, the gulags were capitalist enterprises.

Well, there's not a lot of risk capital...

 

[Ziggurat]

fervent hand-waving noted.
the operant words in my question were:
do you deny that children... working in third world sweat shops is slave labour?

I already answered your question. If they get paid and are free to leave, then it's not slavery. By definition.

if you can, in any way, excuse this, you are clearly part of the problem.

Who said anything about excusing anything? You asked it it was slavery, not whether or not it was right. And if they get paid and are free to leave, then obviously it's NOT slavery. That's a simple matter of the definition of words.

now,
even if working children are paid, they are still children working.
children should be playing and learning.

And donuts shouldn't make you fat. They're just so tasty, it's not fair.

Once again, bikerdruid, you didn't ask if it was right. You asked if it was slavery. And it isn't.

in the days of the slaves on plantations, the slaves were fed, housed and clothed by their masters.

But they were not paid, and they were not free to leave. Rather critical components to slavery.

today, they are (all-too-often) paid pennies, house themselves in sub-human dwellings and go to bed hungry.

I'm paid pennies too. A lot of pennies, but still pennies. That's not a useful descriptor. As for their dwellings and their nutrition, those don't make something slavery either. Living in a third-world country generally sucks. This isn't news, nor is it a result of sweatshops, nor is that even relevant to your original claim.

many were better off in the plantation/slave days.

Because freedom is worthless, only material comfort matters.

And thus the communist excuses his embrace of oppression.

multi-national corporate capitalism creates slavery.......and it sucks.

Except that it's not slavery, and you haven't demonstrated how these conditions were created by capitalism. Do you honestly think things were better before the sweatshops? What monumental ignorance.

 

[IDB87]

if you can, in any way, excuse this, you are clearly part of the problem.

Not if he doesn't buy air-Jordans.

even if working children are paid, they are still children working.
children should be playing and learning.

It's a different world in most cases. Are the children who are working in sweat-shops afforded the ability to play and to learn? I would say, in most cases, no. Work is the number 1 priority, and much to your chagrin, capitalism offers employment opportunity to people who would otherwise be unemployed or suffering the consequences of having no money.

today, they are (all-too-often) paid pennies, house themselves in sub-human dwellings and go to bed hungry.

Do you have no problem with the working conditions in China? However, to children in Africa pennies (or the amount they are actually paid) provides a great deal more than local currency.

multi-national corporate capitalism creates slavery.......and it sucks.

The alternative is subsistence farming with no capital and no money to invest. In other words, abject poverty.

And as Zigg pointed out, it is not slavery.

 

[bikerdruid]

Not if he doesn't buy air-Jordans.



It's a different world in most cases. Are the children who are working in sweat-shops afforded the ability to play and to learn? I would say, in most cases, no. Work is the number 1 priority, and much to your chagrin, capitalism offers employment opportunity to people who would otherwise be unemployed or suffering the consequences of having no money.



Do you have no problem with the working conditions in China? However, to children in Africa pennies (or the amount they are actually paid) provides a great deal more than local currency.



The alternative is subsistence farming with no capital and no money to invest. In other words, abject poverty.

And as Zigg pointed out, it is not slavery.

allow me to reiterate:

fervent hand-waving noted.
the operant words in my question were:
do you deny that children... working in third world sweat shops is slave labour?

if you can, in any way, excuse this, you are clearly part of the problem.

 

[IDB87]

do you deny that children... working in third world sweat shops is slave labour?[/I]

Yes. They are payed wages and are allowed to come and go as their financial situation allows.

If you're going for a neo-slave definition, one who is bound by money, then I'll entertain you and suggest that we're all slaves in that respect. The historic term slave, however is not applicable, as these children were not forced against their will into the employment of western industrial companies (and I would be in favor of emancipating those who were).

When I was very young I used to help bail hay at my Uncle's farm for the summer. I was given a room, fed, and a bit of cash to spend in town. Would you consider that slavery?

 

[Bill Thompson]

How is Capitalism guilty of slavery?
How is Communism innocent of slave labour?

Slavery existed in Ancient Greeck. Were they capitalists?
Slavery existed in precolonial Native American nations. Were they capitalists?

BikerDruid says the answer goes without saying. I think this means he does not have an answer or fears it will show him to be wrong. I think that is response is a cop-out.

 

[bikerdruid]

When I was very young I used to help bail hay at my Uncle's farm for the summer. I was given a room, fed, and a bit of cash to spend in town. Would you consider that slavery?

are you really that naive, or are you purposefully obtuse?
when you worked for your uncle, was your job essential in order for your family to eat?
i doubt it.
we are not talking about kids with paper routes here, but you knew that.