• Yawnder@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh, right. Then let’s look at the time of the Han dynasty and feudal china then, because that’s what’s relevant! /s

    • AlkaliMarxist [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, Feudal China is not relevant to a discussion on the relative violence and oppression done by capitalist and socialist states, because it is neither.

      • Yawnder@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not the point of that whole thing anyways, but people moving the goal posts lead to that. The whole point is that the problem is not capitalism, it’s the imbalance of power, and the people actually wielding that power.

        • AlkaliMarxist [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          The point other people are making though is that you’re selectively emphasizing stories of brutality from socialist countries while discounting the brutality that exists under capitalism in order to draw a false equivalence between the two systems; an equivalence that needs to exist in order to justify your position that it doesn’t matter whether a state is socialist or capitalist.

          The fact is that the violence done by capitalist states is far greater than that done by socialist states. In any time frame. The violence of colonialism belongs to capitalism, the violence of fascism belongs to capitalism, the violence of gunboat diplomacy - of wars fought by private contractors for the bottom line of arms manufactures and mineral exploitation companies - is the violence of capitalism. This doesn’t even cover the internal, inherent violence of capitalism. To dispose of food while people starve, because feeding them is not profitable, is violence. To deny lifesaving medical treatment, because it cannot be supplied at a profit, that is violence. To spill poison into drinking water to save money, then when people protest, to lock them away and force them to labour, that is violence. Strike-breakers, Pinkertons, McCarthyism, police killings of activists, funding of right-wing militia to coup socialist governments, embargos denying medicine and food to socialist countries. All of this is violence, done by capitalists, to protect the rights of capital.

          You are told that these things are not capitalist violence, they are just society functioning as normal. However you are flooded with rumour, conspiracy theories and propaganda about the violence in socialist countries, so you come to the conclusion that both are bad and that it isn’t worth understanding the difference.

          • Yawnder@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Again, the whole point I’m saying isn’t “there is nothing wrong with capitalism”. It’s that most of what’s wrong within capitalism is also wrong within other systems because they’re not proper to capitalism.

            Capitalism is being able to accumulate capital and use them to your benefits. This survey pretends that 51% of the youth are not individualistic, that they would prefer that whether or not they work hard or not shouldn’t benefit them individually, and that they’ll just be happy being provided whatever the people as a whole deem proper.

            That’s just plain false.

            Are people disillusioned about how things are? Of course. They’re unhappy because they are in a weak position, not because of the system itself.

            • CyborgMarx [any, any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              Capitalism is being able to accumulate capital and use them to your benefits

              You know what really benefits capitalists, taking over the state, and you know what makes that easy, having lots of capital

              In other words a systemic incentive for capitalism to degard into capitalist oppression because of an inherent feature specific to capitalism

              You literally dont know what capitalism is or how power manifests in the world

                • CyborgMarx [any, any]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah dumb fuck that’s definitely what I said lmao

                  You’re like a child who still thinks Santa is real, you welded some half-baked Tolkienian conception of power onto your brain, where power is some nebulous metaphysical, all-consuming entity that corrupts everything it touches, instead of what it really is which is a series of social relationships meditated thru the dominant mode of production and its environs

                  The first step in forming coherent political beliefs is recognizing you severely miseducated yourself with mass media and literary tropes, there’s a real world out there, and you should engage with it instead of shooting your mouth about concepts you don’t comprehend

        • CyborgMarx [any, any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Capitalism is what causes that power imbalance, how anyone can sit there and pretend the mode of production that reproduces all human civilization doesn’t effect the balance of power is beyond brain broken, you are literally arguing with reality dumbass

          Keep coping

          • Yawnder@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            So you’re saying there is no power imbalance of similar scale in socialist or communist societies? Funny man.

              • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Well, there necessarily is still a power imbalance on an individual or per-capita basis, but that’s what the DotP is meant to counteract on an absolute basis.

            • s0ykaf [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              So you’re saying there is no power imbalance of similar scale in socialist or communist societies?

              of similar scale? there absolutely isn’t, especially when you get off your own head and realize your country (meaning the main tool of your dominant classes) doesn’t exist in isolation. and the fact you’re talking about “socialist or communist” societies really shows you have no idea what you’re talking about, despite all your unwarranted certainty

      • Yawnder@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I replied with the same kind of stupidity as the comment I was replying to. The difference is that I marked it explicitly as sarcasm because I knew it was absurd, while the comment I was replying to was supposed to be serious.

        • CyborgMarx [any, any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          lmao holy shit you’re a dumbass, you’re comment and the haphazard comparison you were trying to make is irrelevant because we don’t live under feudalism, we live under capitalism, try to keep up