Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

1

ziq wrote (edited )

You of course realize that millions of people in the world have starved to death because of capitalism and capitalist imperialism, right? You might be sitting happy high on your pedestal in your luxurious Western bubble, but the rest of the world has to suffer so you can enjoy that privilege.

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

So I say that your political system of doing business has lead to starvation. And that is something, because an economical system I don't necessarily endorse has also lead in some cases to starvation.

What is that something you were trying to say?

3

ziq wrote (edited )

My political system (anarchism) has never led to starvation. State capitalism has led to starvation. Capitalism has led to starvation. Neoliberalism has led to starvation. Feudalism has led to starvation. Monarchy has led to starvation. Anarchy has never denied food to anyone.

Quite the opposite in fact:

http://www.foodnotbombs.net/

2

ConfettiEggnog wrote

I checked. There is no action from those in Puerto Rico. But capitalists going for profits have sent food and water on ships built with the sole goal to make a profit.

I agree that your sort of anarchism has not lead directly to starvation. But that is the natural consequence. There are no roads, no big ships, medicine. I doubt there can be a med school in that sort of system. Or buildings more complex than some drafty wooden cabin.

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

Also you are trying real hard to express a christian point of view. So I should feel guilty because through mental gymnastics my luxurious throne bought by myself was made by "the rest of the world" in a magical process I doubt you'll be able to explain. And all my guilt should force me to mindlessly accept your point of view and repent.

1

ziq wrote

I didn't tell you to repent, I told you capitalism causes starvation (and genocide) more than any ideology in history. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

0

DeadClownBaby wrote

So have people under communism. In fact, way more.

But you're so enthralled with the idea of sharing resources, you don't seem to care about state party leaders hording everything while you have to "share."

3

ziq wrote

So have people under communism. In fact, way more.

Not even close. And it wasn't even communism if you're talking about the USSR, it was state capitalism.