History Channel
submitted by
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/d49e951f-0f7f-4fb3-bb70-835f0fad031b.png
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/d49e951f-0f7f-4fb3-bb70-835f0fad031b.png
"So you're telling me my legacy has forever been entwined with these massive militaristic dictatorships?"
"Well hold on a moment. Don't get it twisted. One of them failed and dissolved in 1991-ish, theres just the one major power now."
The one with billionaires that lets Tesla win a lawsuit against a woman saying their defective product killed her dad after Tesla's defective product killed her dad.
That said, this is roughly the same argument monarchists use against democracy.
Why is "Dr. Obama" working on that Bigfoot?
If only...
Thanks Obama!
Well, US could use a little Karl. Things have been getting ridiculous for a while now.
Trump is very occupied by thoughts of Carlos Marcos
Also, pope Leo Trotsky
I feel like self-identifying Marxists are pretty aligned with the Trump agenda, tbh.
they don't wanna hear it, but both of them want authoritarianism
Fuck communism all my homies hate communism
You also hate capitalism right?
I dislike both.
No. Capitalism is the primary engine for human development. Thanks to capitalism, fewer people now live in extreme poverty than don't. This means that, starting in the 1970s and accelerating today, less than half the world (and the number continues to decrease) lives in extreme poverty.
What do you think most younger people not ever being able to afford their own property? Or the fact that grocery costs have been skyrocketing to unaffordable levels even if you make good money? All while billionaires are hoarding unfathomable amounts of wealth? Extreme poverty might not be as high globally but regular poverty is gaining traction at record speeds.
You might say that the inequality can be fixed with more regulations, but we started with more regulations (in Canada and the US at least) and they’ve been slowly torn apart by the wealthy over time. How do you guard against that when having vast wealth enables you to trick people into voting against their best interests?
I wouldn’t call myself a communist but capitalism ends in the extreme poverty that you say it solves.
Housing prices are extremely expensive because of government intervention in the market. Local governments have artificially restricted the supply of new housing in order to intentionally make it more expensive. Unironically: the free market would make housing less expensive, like it did when our parents' generation were buying houses.
Food inflation would not be solved by state intervention. I don't think there's any serious economist who will tell you that food inflation is caused by unfettered capitalism.
Wealth inequality is gaining traction. The standard of living of the average poor American is better today than it was in the 1960s. What has changed is how we feel about it. Wealth inequality makes us mad, but it has not resulted in worse overall living standards on an absolute scale.
I think we should solve specific problems. Some problems can be solved with more regulation (dismantling monopolies, safeguarding elections) and others can be solved by reducing regulation (taking away authority from local zoning boards, reducing the amount of legal hurdles for building public transportation).
But none of these problems are caused intrinsically by the existence of private property. Various European liberal democracies manage to provide high quality of life for their people without resorting to socialism
There is no evidence to support your claim. To the contrary, the evidence suggests that since 3rd world countries began liberalizing their markets from the 1970s/80s onward, it has resulted in huge increases in quality of life for their poorest citizens.
The same cannot be said of socialism, which experienced a worldwide delegitimization from the 70s onward as it collapsed under its own inherent contradictions and failed to provide for the people living under it.
You should look into the Pinkerton's and a lot of the horsecrap that was going on in the 1800s in a more purely capitalist system. There are systems that mix "socialism" with "capitalism" that work out pretty well. Socialist systems brought the broken capitalist systems out of the destitute poverty people were in, systems like Unions, New Deal policies and so many others. Regulation saved children's lives in the early 20th century.
I agree that socialism has never worked, but neither has capitalism. It has ALWAYS been a mixed system that flourishes.
How you can manage to speak with your head so far up your own ass is an amazing magic trick. Wealth has been decoupled from productivity for more than 50 years now. That's just facts.
Conclusions
In sum, the narrative that the rise of capitalism drove progress against extreme poverty is not supported by empirical evidence. On the contrary, the rise of capitalism was associated with a notable decline in human welfare, a trend that was only reversed around the twentieth century, when radical and progressive social movements sought to gain some control over production and organize it more around meeting human needs.
As for the condition of extreme poverty, it cannot legitimately be used as a benchmark for measuring progress. Extreme poverty is not a natural condition, but an effect of dispossession, enclosure, and exploitation. It need not exist anywhere, and certainly should not exist in any just and humane society. It can and must be abolished immediately.
If our goal is to achieve substantive improvements in human welfare, progress should be measured against decent living standards and access to modern amenities. Capitalism currently shows no signs of ever meeting this objective, and imperialist dynamics in the world economy seem actively to prevent it.
As we have seen, the historical record is clear that public planning and socialist policy can be effective at delivering rapid economic, technological, and social development. Rediscovering the power of this approach will be essential if Global South governments are to increase their economic sovereignty and mobilize production to ensure decent lives for all.48 Achieving this objective requires building political movements of the Southern working classes and peasantries powerful enough to replace governments that currently are captured by political factions aligned with national or international capital; reducing reliance on core creditors, currencies, and imports; and establishing South-South alliances capable of withstanding any retaliation. Progressive formations in the core should be prepared to support and defend these movements.
Wow, it's horrible that so many people live in extreme poverty. It's also fantastic that, since the 1970s, most people (92%!) on earth no longer live in extreme poverty, thanks to capitalism and free trade!
Capitalism is "normal conditions", so I'm not sure what this rag of an article considers to be "normal conditions". Is the government arresting people for running their own business or owning property "normal conditions"?
Well there's Marxism, Leninism and whatever monsterous fuck that was circling in Stalins noggin.
Fascism. It was Fascism.
It's funny how extreme left and extreme right end up in very similar end result. Corrupt elite controlling the flow of information, wealth and industry while purging the undesired.
Stalinism was no extreme left. It was fascism, but with Marxist aesthetics.
Fascists are con men, and cons work on what's popular with the masses. You can build an arbitrary dogma and cult of personality around anything, even Marxism.
I'd argue that Marxism is actually great for that purpose: it gets a lot of stuff right so it's close to reality, there's an us vs them dynamic already built in, and it's just complicated enough to the average person that it makes it easy for an authoritarian con man to disingenuously simplify it, distort it and dogmatize it into basically a state religion. Then it's just about pointing fingers to identify the enemy, i.e. who is burgeois/reactionary/etc and needs to go.
The common denominator is greed.
The official state religion of the Soviet Union was called "Marxism-Leninism"
Yes, and ISIS brobably calls themselves islamists, but I wouldn't wanna define islam by those fuckwits.
Bolsheviks were the taleban of marxism.
Do you also count every Bolshevik, like Trotsky, Bukharin, Lenin and Rykov?
And that's how we got zombie Marx.