So, I just randomly selected one of your examples that you vomited to see what it was, the 1878 Alaskan famine because wow, that’s a US state right, that’s definitely capitalist no doubt about it, a famine in Alaska? I’ve never heard of that, this guy must have a point…
It’s an oral tradition of the yupik people, a hunting tribe who lost ~1000 people due to “bad hunting conditions.” Capitalism? Why is it you guys always have to make arguments in bad faith? I personally think it’s because youre all full of shit, but maybe you have a different reason?
Famine isn’t a problem unique to communism, I never said it was, way to move the goalposts BTW, I only claimed that you won’t find a famine anywhere in the world due to capitalism. Famine is a problem almost always caused by governments interfering in the natural distribution of resources. So for example, pre communist China under an emperor. Famine is a problem solved by free markets and present wherever resource distribution is centrally controlled, for example in feudalism, inside colonies under imperialism, communism etc.
Yeah, I’d say famine in for example Vietnam during the civil war would’ve been due to the war. Cambodia under pol pot, no, holodomor no, north Korea is in a technical state of war but is not currently engaged in any fighting so no, can’t blame that ongoing famine on war when there hasn’t been fighting in 60 years. Yes, I’m consistent.
Okay, it’s pretty obvious you’re just a troll with too much time on his hands now that school is out for the summer (I suggest spending your time outside instead, maybe try making some friends).
But before I disengage, for the sake of anyone else reading this (because it’s clear you won’t take on board anything anyone else says) that.
A market economy is not unique to capitalism, socialism relies on a market economy and can even be the mythical “”“free”“” market capitalist like to rant about. As well as feudalism and basically any other economic system really.
A free market does not solve famine. Put 2 seconds of thought into it and you’ll see that. For example say after a bad harvest there is just enough food to feed everyone on rations, but the local rich guy doesn’t want to eat a ration amount, so he uses his boat loads of cash to buy shitload of food and has a luxurious feast for himself. The free market is perfectly happy with this, even though it now means some people are not going to starve to death as the rich man bought their share of the food.
This scales up to events like the great Irish famine, where food grown in Ireland was sold off to Britian despite people in Ireland literally starving to death, because the British had the money to pay for it and the Irish didn’t.
Or the same with the bengal famine. Where Britain was able to procure Australian grain due to go to India because they wanted it for the Greeks, so they used the free market, paid more for it than the Indians were going to and now it belongs to the UK instead of starving bengalis.
In times of famine, central distribution of food is by far the better option (assuming those in power actually want to help)
The number 2 point doesn’t hold water though, bad harvests happen but people are free to put their land to use remedying that, and incentivized with no administrative overhead.
The Irish potato famine was not the result of purchases, it was the result of planned food production not panning out, same in Bengal, I happen to have experience there, it’s (dare I say) the most fertile ground on earth, if they were reliant on food import it can only be due to mismanagement of land which again, doesnt occur without central planning.
Point 1, find me a communist country ever that had anything resembling a free market, or even a foundational communist writing that discusses them with anything but disdain.
So, I just randomly selected one of your examples that you vomited to see what it was, the 1878 Alaskan famine because wow, that’s a US state right, that’s definitely capitalist no doubt about it, a famine in Alaska? I’ve never heard of that, this guy must have a point…
It’s an oral tradition of the yupik people, a hunting tribe who lost ~1000 people due to “bad hunting conditions.” Capitalism? Why is it you guys always have to make arguments in bad faith? I personally think it’s because youre all full of shit, but maybe you have a different reason?
Famine isn’t a problem unique to communism, I never said it was, way to move the goalposts BTW, I only claimed that you won’t find a famine anywhere in the world due to capitalism. Famine is a problem almost always caused by governments interfering in the natural distribution of resources. So for example, pre communist China under an emperor. Famine is a problem solved by free markets and present wherever resource distribution is centrally controlled, for example in feudalism, inside colonies under imperialism, communism etc.
And there go those goalposts again.
Would you give these same excuses for a communist nation?
Would you say famine wouldn’t count because they were in a war?
Yeah, I’d say famine in for example Vietnam during the civil war would’ve been due to the war. Cambodia under pol pot, no, holodomor no, north Korea is in a technical state of war but is not currently engaged in any fighting so no, can’t blame that ongoing famine on war when there hasn’t been fighting in 60 years. Yes, I’m consistent.
Okay, it’s pretty obvious you’re just a troll with too much time on his hands now that school is out for the summer (I suggest spending your time outside instead, maybe try making some friends).
But before I disengage, for the sake of anyone else reading this (because it’s clear you won’t take on board anything anyone else says) that.
A market economy is not unique to capitalism, socialism relies on a market economy and can even be the mythical “”“free”“” market capitalist like to rant about. As well as feudalism and basically any other economic system really.
A free market does not solve famine. Put 2 seconds of thought into it and you’ll see that. For example say after a bad harvest there is just enough food to feed everyone on rations, but the local rich guy doesn’t want to eat a ration amount, so he uses his boat loads of cash to buy shitload of food and has a luxurious feast for himself. The free market is perfectly happy with this, even though it now means some people are not going to starve to death as the rich man bought their share of the food.
This scales up to events like the great Irish famine, where food grown in Ireland was sold off to Britian despite people in Ireland literally starving to death, because the British had the money to pay for it and the Irish didn’t.
Or the same with the bengal famine. Where Britain was able to procure Australian grain due to go to India because they wanted it for the Greeks, so they used the free market, paid more for it than the Indians were going to and now it belongs to the UK instead of starving bengalis.
In times of famine, central distribution of food is by far the better option (assuming those in power actually want to help)
The number 2 point doesn’t hold water though, bad harvests happen but people are free to put their land to use remedying that, and incentivized with no administrative overhead.
The Irish potato famine was not the result of purchases, it was the result of planned food production not panning out, same in Bengal, I happen to have experience there, it’s (dare I say) the most fertile ground on earth, if they were reliant on food import it can only be due to mismanagement of land which again, doesnt occur without central planning.
Point 1, find me a communist country ever that had anything resembling a free market, or even a foundational communist writing that discusses them with anything but disdain.