How many people have been killed by capitalism?

0
It doesn't count in capitalism because it's not a result of the system it's the result of lazy freeloaders sleeping in the bed they made

massive inflation of numbers, dubious sources, silly and meaningless inventions like "structural violence"

Many of these deaths happen for reasons that have plagued humanity since its beginning but are blamed on capitalism because, well, because the author feels like it and not much else. Many more happen in places that are not even close to capitalist.

Worst of all you have things like the Vietnam and Korean wars, which the author says were to "beat communism." "Defend from communism" would be much more accurate, considering both of those wars were initiated by communist invasions. You can hardly blame capitalism for that.

Attributing things like overt imperialism to capitalism is also questionable, since at that point your definition of capitalism is basically just "quest for profit" which is meaningless and could describe 99% of societies throughout history. When your definition of capitalism includes the medieval Arab slave trade, you might be missing the mark just slightly.

tl;dr this article is silly

You know, I like capitalism but people like you make me want to attack it. I can deconstruct your "argument" with 1 word.
>diamonds

>using the most uncapitalistic item in history as a metric for capitalism
Also wars were not fought over diamonds, nor were wars fought in the name of capitalism paid for with diamonds. Wars were paid for in diamonds by communists and dictators so feel free to do whatever you like with that.

>when your retarded system collapses but that's okay because it wasn't real communism

Are you implying that there are no wars that have been fought for capitalist interests?

So capitalism is not at all a system vulnerable to private-money lobbying in diplomacy which lead to bloody wars? Is that right?

>to private-money lobbying in diplomacy which lead to bloody wars
That's called cronyism and is distinctly uncapitalist

>petersaysstuff
>source: Huffington Post
21st century marxist are truly retarded

All of them soon enough
Talk about a maladaptaion on a systems level.

Picture related

...

And if this wasn't bad enough
We also have to deal with pic related

We are a wheel without an axle, it's all downhill from here.

Nope. In fact, it's nearly inevitable under capitalism.

>it's nearly inevitable under capitalism
Proofs

I am surprised by the fact-oriented approach of this blog.

HOWEVER

>The Genocide of the Native Americans

He seems to confuse the fact that states seek material gain with capitalism. It takes simple logic to disprove this. Naturally an autocrat in an oppressive state will want to preserve their private property, but they have little concern for the private property of others.

I ENJOY MEMES TOO I HAVE AUTISM THANKS FOR SHARING MY /POL/ BREATHERN

>both world wars were organized by big American businesses
>cold war era west aligned dictatorships
>us' military adventures in middle-east

Guess that it is gonna be a pretty big number.

>both world wars were organized by big American businesses
Since when did American businesses organize World War I. That was European autism at it's finest.

If you consider people defending their property "spreading capitalism" then you are right.

Otherwise is the state who did such executions and not the economic system.

>their property
Lmao, no.
Land ownership is a delusion, be it state or individual ownership. It's all connected and interdependent owning a part is owning the whole.
The human mind is a funny, maladapted thing. It's natural tendency for reductive symbolic thought that once helped us survive in the wild has destoryed the environment it adapted to. Turning itself into an evolutionary anachronism that now threatens our survival. Oh the irony.
Seriously, get with the times and learn systems already.

If this is the case then why is private property handled better from an environmental standpoint than public property? Why was this tragedy of the commons first described by economists who preached capitalism? Fucking hippie idiots I swear to Christ almighty.

>why is private property handled better from an environmental standpoint than public property?
It isn't as soon as we start looking at large scale agriculture, mining and drilling.

Said the guy eating wheat bix while typing on his Mac made with plastic using electricity that comes from coal.

You should stop.

>Land ownership is a delusion, be it state or individual ownership. It's all connected and interdependent owning a part is owning the whole.

Although the idea of property is as complicated as the idea behind human logic or hierarchy, the fact is that is not an old idea or not one that hasn't evolved to these new times hence why you can say that everything is conected or that someone can own a part of something.

So if you want to compare with our ancestors, that needed this symbolism to form hierarchies and complex societies you must realize that the idea of debt, market shares and rent are much more evolved to accept many levels of individual and colective property at the same time.

But the base persists, even when individual property has become much more symbolic through fiat money or eminent domain, what I own is mine and its administration is my responsability.

If its dehilusional or not doesn't matter because there is no diference, like there is no difference between calling a match a game.

Dude, where do you live?

It's an inherent flaw of the system. High level corruption and rogue agencies are not fiction in a world where the ultimate value is capital hoarding.

>it's all downhill from here.
Then we can never be stopped.

The tragedy of the commons is pseudoscientific nonsense lol. There is no causual relationship between common usage and "tragedy", what is happening is people are able to sell the natural capital they depend on for artificial capital to trade for natural capital of other socio-ecological systems, allowing them to temporally transcend the ecological limitations that used to regulate them, which leads to ecological overshoot.
Look at Bhutan and the Amerindians.
The only reason the tragedy of the commons happens is when common use happens in a market economy, it has to do with the incentive to sell resources, not the common usage or "ownership"

And you are insulting the intellegence of others.

Like he has a choice.
People are determined by the environment they are born into, which is why people are not human anymore.
The original poster you replied to happens to eat food he grows himself and generate his own energy.

I liked the debunking of homosexual and gypsy deaths under Hitler.

I like how there are no more protest like Occupy or when G8 gather.

Good little sheep just right for the slaughter

There is a huge difference, it creates an incongrency between society and the world society depends on, here is a copypasta of mine.

>It works but it isn't regulated
If you where to put Cyanobacteria and culture medium inside an Erwin-Myer flask and left it to grow it will eventually use up all the resources it needs to grow and go extinct. In it natural state it persists because it's population is regulated by predation and it's required environmental conditions are replenished by ecological processes.
This can be seen as a metaphor for when socio-economic systems emerged from socio-ecological systems(SES)
Human society initially emerged from ecological systems, what makes human societies special is the ability to support themselves on multiple ecological systems and of ecological systems to be exploited by multiple SES. All made possible by our adaptation for symbolic-self conscious thought(unfortunately it's reductionist)

Where it turned maladaptive is when that ability was used to monetize the products that were created from ecological systems, thus creating socio-economic systems.
Now economic systems are dangerous because value is taken from society and not the ecological systems that society depends to make that value. our ability to exploit multiple ecological systems coupled with this new connection of separate SES's made possible by the economy made it possible for an SES to destroy the ecosystems that it depends on because it can now buy resources from other SES's this means that the economy can grow unregulated by the ecological processes it depends on, that is, until there isn't anything left to exploit. And as SES become connected by an increasingly complex economic system, more and more is lost.
Giving us a delusion of prosperity while everything that supports us is eroding away.

Are you implying that the western world hasn't waged war and other horrors to defend capitalism?

I'm curious. What do you consider all the invasions and CIA operations in Latin America, Africa, South East Asia and the Arab world?

>and the Amerindians
The same ones who hunted their horses to extinction?

I'm not aware of this, possibly some may have done that to "their" horses
Reguardless, that's just regular human behavior.
The way they managed their exploitation of the land wasn't perfect but it was from a much more holistic perspective.
Which is why they never hunted themselves to extinction.

Where did this asshole get his statistics from?
>Operation Desert Storm (First Gulf War)
>– 75,000 US Soldiers dead from the War

>Wikipedia
>Coalition: 292 dead

>every working accident and every death is because of capitalism

Because capitalism gave them jobs :^)

About 600 milliin people are gonna die from cancer this year, so start with that figure.

Guys, Veeky Forums, come on now. The communist grab of power was always escorted by a bloody genocide.
The reason for it is that the people don't adhere to the communist ideals and the communists usually reason that the people must simply perish and a new human must be engineered in order for their system to work.

The edgyness of the American leftist is unbelievable

No one here mentioned communism

How do some posters get so triggered when someone talks about the flaws of capitalism?

But they had designated hunting grounds and would war other tribes that encroached on them. Hardly non-ownership like you're trying to claim.

the fact that communism kills people is the only thing i respect about your retarded ideology so stop forcing this

>Now economic systems are dangerous because value is taken from society and not the ecological systems that society depends to make that value.

Thats wrong, monetizing resources is an adaptation to complex societies where you need to know the value of a certain resource to the society as a whole, so in turn this allows for people to be more conected which results in more complex and adaptative societies that seeking individual profit will employ the extent of all their will and talent to overcome the lack of resources(progress).

So value was never taken from the enviroment, in fact, the enviroment became much bigger and accesible only afecting smaller populations that couldn't adapt to this new system or simply got eaten by it, and now people now how much of a certain resource is worth in a certain place wich lets them trade it into place where its scarce creating value where there wasn't none. This process of trade is followed by a set pieces of development around such activities that makes it more efficient and societies that are more productive and flexible(the bad desitions taken in how they develop its the fault of the people, not the system for the system as it is works and with very low effort for what it does).

So in the end, by creating value in those zones, developing them and having people recognizing problems and giving them the tools to solve it, societies can overcome the problem of resource overexploitation through optimization, technological inovation and recycling. So in the end there is no "zero sum game" and no society should be considered incapable of overcoming such obstacles, even when we talk about resource depletion the market regulates the value of the enviroment and as it becomes more scarce substitutes are found and culture adapts.

Even if such things don't happen, the value of the resources implied increases and the interest is lost, which would happen far before the depletition of resources.

your pic is for one is clearly an attempt at mocking critics of communist regimes and the blogpost contains some guy sperging about the black book of communism and native deaths among other things.

>What do you consider all the invasions and CIA operations in Latin America, Africa, South East Asia and the Arab world?

CIA invasions.

People tend to confuse nationalism and goverment interests with capitalism. Capitalism is a voluntary system of exchange, in fact what you quote falls more along the lines of defending the ideology behind liberal democracies than actual capitalism.

Ownership is a concept that requires an owner. Territory does not always imply property.
Instead of the belief that the land belonged to them, they believed that they belonged to the land, and those considered to not belong, were not wanted.
Two sides of the same coin, one reductive and the other holistic.

Semantic non-sense and a complete non-argument. You would call these people trespassers and trespassing implies ownership. They claimed the territory and they owned it which is why they removed trespassers from the premises. Go strangle yourself with your long hair, hippy.

>value of resource to society
>to society

I'll read the rest later, for now take what you said
>Even if such things don't happen, the value of the resources implied increases and the interest is lost, which would happen far before the depletition of resources.
And please explain thisOr the billion other cases of that happening

>meaning is nonsense
Pshhh, idiot.
Do lions believe that they own their territory when they chase out lions from outside their pride?
I don't belive lions are capable of that level of symbolic self-conscious thought, they are simply removing a competitor that does not belong.
Ownership, as an abstract concept, must be conceptualized in order to exist.

Yes, they do. They think: This is mine, fuck off.

Lol, no.
That would require linguistic capability, stop with your anthropomorphism please.
They get that the other lions are not a member of their group, they don't belong, and that is why they chase them away, not some abstract silliness about the land being their own.

But if the land is not theirs, then why not let them stay? Because it is their territory and not the "others" territory. Thus they OWN the territory and remove trespassers as they see fit.

You're litterally too dumb to understand.
Ownership isn't real, it's an abstract concept of the mind that must be understood to exist.
What the lions are understanding isn't ownership, it's belonging. Not belonging to them but belonging to the place where they live.
Lions simply do not have the ability for symbolic semiosis(sign transmits meaning that is in no way related to the signal being interpreted).

Nearly every species has concept of ownership. Solitary animals have the concept too, and there would be no sense of belonging because they are SOLITARY. Seriously, fuck off. Ownership is not some abstract concept, you dirty fucking hippie

It's called resource guarding. Territories, dens, objects, food, they all fall under resource guarding.

I'm going to argue that humans can surpass their innate instincts if it means adapting to a system that works better. Very general, I know, but I'm sure you understand what I'm saying.

>resource guarding
Which implies ownership.

>if it means adapting to a system that works better
Public ownership is shit though.

Every single capitalist state has been dominated by the interests of big business.

Proofs?

Thats more about enviromental isues than actual depletion of resources(which is what I thought we were discussing since you talked about socioecological niches and resource depletion).

Enviromental damage is another isue that falls along the lines of cheap manufacturing, autocratic enviroments(China or Vietnam) and a mix of lack of interest and inability by the general population to adress these issues directly.

No one.

How many have died from anti-capitalism? Hundreds of millions of people.

>Solitary animals have the concept too, and there would be no sense of belonging because they are SOLITARY.
>not belonging to them but belonging to the place where they live
Wew. This is what I was talking about when I said you are too dumb to understand.
>Ownership is not some abstract concept, you dirty fucking hippie
Let's see here
>ab·stract
>adjective
>abˈstrakt,ˈabˌstrakt/
>1.
>existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence. "abstract concepts such as love or beauty"
Hmmmm
So in order to form abstract concepts you need to be able to interpret meaning from signs that is not connected to the sign itself. Symbolic thought
Ownership, the act of owning property. Property is something that belongs to you but it is not part of you, that is abstract, and also self conscious. Self awareness is another quality that things that supposedly "own" like crustaceans do not have.
Ownership requires abstract self conscious thought.
It is you that belives they own something, you are anthropomorphically applying your own thoughts to animals that are not capable of them.
And you have the inability to seperate your own delusional concepts from the real world that you have interpreted them from.
You are a dumbass

Everybody who has starved to death under a capitalist regime has died of capitalism. Everybody killed in a war driven by profit has been killed by capitalism.

>The human mind is a funny, maladapted thing. It's natural tendency for reductive symbolic thought that once helped us survive in the wild has destoryed the environment it adapted to. Turning itself into an evolutionary anachronism that now threatens our survival. Oh the irony.

What a drama queen

>it's another communists don't understand what capitalism means and desperately try to deflect away from the appalling failure of their idiotic ideology by claiming every death ever is the fault of capitalism

capitalism is a social construct

No, a country is a social construct, a nation is a physical group of people.

Capitalism is an emergent phenomenon

It's like you don't realize that everything we have is dependent on the environment to exist.
>Thats wrong, monetizing resources is an adaptation to complex societies where you need to know the value of a certain resource to the society as a whole
>that ability was used to monetize the products that were created from ecological systems, thus creating socio-economic systems.
Saying the same thing.
>So value was never taken from the enviroment
That's the problem. Value is taken by society for resources that are created by the environment. This means that the less of something there is, the more it is worth. Litterally incentivizing overexploitation.
>this allows for people to be more conected which results in more complex and adaptative societies seeking individual profit will employ the extent of all their will to overcome the lack of resources(progress).
>as SES become connected by an increasingly complex economic system, more and more is lost. Giving us a delusion(You) of prosperity while everything that supports us is eroding away
>the enviroment became much bigger
*the economy became much bigger while the environment it exists in is shrinking at an exponential rate
FTFY
>place where its scarce creating value where there wasn't none.

again, thats the problem, incentivizing overexploitation and then being able to survive by exploiting somewhere else. Why we are losing everything we depend on and won't realize it until there is nothing left.
>this new connection of separate SES's made possible by the economt allows an SES to destroy the ecosystems that it depends on because it can now buy resources from other SES's this means that the economy can grow unregulated by the ecological processes it depends on, that is, until there isn't anything left to exploit.
TO BE CONTINUED

>Capitalism is an emergent phenomenon

It emerges from the interactions of social constructs like money and economic theory. Change the underlying constructs and the emergent phenomenon would change.

Money and 'economic theory' don't interact. Money is a physically inanimate object, it has no agency of it's own. People interact using money as a medium of exchange; money exists because it expedites the exchange of goods. Any sufficiently large economy needs a medium of exchange, it's existence is the result of the physical material limits of our world.

>Everybody killed in a war driven by profit has been killed by capitalism.
So even people killed by communist regimes driven to war by profit?

>citing a blog that cites huffpo as a souce
>commies and facists killing people to sustain their shit tier economic theory in anyway the same thing as counting the people killed by capitalist countries, even though capitalism is explicitly about the government and the economy being seperate

Capitalism is private control of the means of production. It's not difficult to understand. Your special snowflake definitions mean nothing outside of /r/anarchocapitalism

State your reasons for doubting. Have you gone and fact checked what have said? they do not need to spoon feed you every bit of info because you will just keep asking for proof because you dont go and read for your self.

This process of trade is followed by a set pieces of development around such activities that makes it more efficient and societies that are more productive and flexible(the bad desitions taken in how they develop its the fault of the people, not the system for the system as it is works and with very low effort for what it does).
again, that's the fucking problem more efficient at exploiting natural resources to produce goods,with no teleological regulation demanding self sufficiency and sustainability as in the living systems that it depends on, to the contrary, suitability is dencentivised as people need to make as much money as they can as fast as they can to live a better life and there is "always" "another" fishery to move to, more water for irrigation or more land to develop. "its the peoples fault, no, it's not. Victim blaming to the maxxx, they are literally getting paid to do it, and you need to get paid to live, especcially when some first worlder buys the land you live in and you need to exploit it, sell your resources to them for change or "be eaten" to live in a system that was previously doing fine. people need to eat, most people(You) have no idea whats going on, nobody is fully aware of the powers that be, and everyone's behavior is determined by the world around them. How can you blame people for doing what they need to do to survive in the world the were born into? TO BE CONTINUED,and the next part is where it gets good so pay attention

Fun fact : famines in the 20th happened in not-capitalist countries.

>Died by Heart attack because too fat.
>Death by capitalism.

Your point?

>Bengal in 43
>capitalist

Meanwhile in North Korea, the USSR, China, Ethiopia...

Are you really going to suggest that the British fucking Empire was not a capitalist institution?

British rule in India began in Bengal at the behest of the East India Company.

>pointing out flaws and failings of capitalism means you're a commie marxist

modern day capitalists sure are a sensitive bunch

Are you really going to suggest that you can fairly judge capitalism on the situation of a colonized country in the middle of WWII?

Are you really going to ignore the dozens of millions who died of hunger in China, Africa and Russia under communist regimes?

The British Raj was not at a battle front and was administered as its own country.

how many lives did it prolong? there is not useful metric to decide these things.

What does that have to do with capitalism being an "emergent phenomenon" vs. a "social construct?.

Also

>money and economic theory don't interact

That post is outlining how the entire basis for your argument of it being a social construct is nonsense. Capitalism is merely the phenomenon in which individuals freely exchange capital, labor, and goods.

Not an argument

As many as you want, depending on your definition of capitalism.

Terms and ideologies do not kill people. People kill people. By connecting real events to vague, subjectively defined ideas, I can then connect other real things to real things they had no part of.

If I said that, among people who believe the moon landing was a hoax, 40% were schizophrenic, which is 100 times the normal rate. Then I could say that a person who believes the moon landing is a hoax is schizophrenic without any further evidence. This would be wrong, but it's the same thing as this argument.

You could say that communism has resulted in the biggest slaughter in human history. Fine. Then what people do is say that all communists want to slaughter people. This is not fine. Not an argument.

The famine was brought on by external causes, but government inaction caused people to starve. It's almost identical in circumstance to the famines that arose in China and Ukraine.

Government negligence is almost as dangerous as government malice.

No.

That means the capitalism versus communism debate can only be fought in the arena of philosophical efficacy and moral righteousness, in which communists win.