When ever someone starts going on about how "communism killed 60 Million people" remind them that 60 Million people...

>20 million people

Here is your pic.

economic systems are in part created by governments. haven't you heard of political economy?

This.

It wasn't real capitalism, it was under revisionist governments that did not follow the precepts of Adam Smith to the letter.

Is Communism suddenly going to somehow increase the carrying capacity of the world in terms of food and clean water, and somehow effectively distribute vaccines and medical care in a way that will bring these down to a level that makes the downsides of previous communist attempts worth it?

Pretty sure a lot of people died of dehydration, disease and starvation in communist countries too.

Do we want to cut the unintentional deaths out of the capitalist numbers, or add unintentional deaths to the communist ones?

Gotta even this out somehow.

Daily reminder that communists/socialists are just losers who came to the realization that they simply are not smart or talented enough to compete in a capitalistic society. It's like how r9k is becoming traditionalists now.

>the holodomor is CIA and nazi propaganda
stop

Socialists and Communists are almost entirely middle-class or above college students with no actual desire to fight for their beliefs, just as it's been since the ideology was invented.

did you read the picture senpai? it expliticly said that these were NOT natural phenomenon but as manmade as any famine created by Stalin. It's not to say that Stalin did no wrong, but it's to show that Free Market and Imperialist ideology in tandem with the very real exploitation of the Tropics to satiate the demand of Mass Markets in Europe, created structural conditions such that while European peoples were satisified if not inundated with raw materials from the tropics, the very process by which this was done created a monocultural agriculture and with it the disposession of native social structures and lands so as to create an environment where a natural disaster which, before that time might have been weathered because of experience and social cohesion of the former societies, created the conditions for a massive famine that lead to millions of deaths by starvation.

>add unintentional deaths to the communist ones?

When do people not?

I'm pretty sure most of them don't count mundane cases of people dying of malnutrition and disease, just the ones that have evidence of being manufactured famines.

> Capitalism causes malaria

They are saying that in the communist utopia, no one would die of the malaria, and only in a capitalist society would people die of diseases

So we don't count places where economic mismanagement results in deaths, only places where there was a formal plan to commit genocide.

What was the situation in the Ukraine in the thirties?

Was the holodomor the only time in the history of communism that people died of hunger in communist countries?

I'm not even necessarily against communism, my point is that these statistic vs statistic fights is that they never argue with a level playing field.

That infograph, specifically, is comparing (arguably) intentional deaths vs every single in capitalist society regardless of intent

>the most progressive country in the world, the homeland of working class rule, was as bad as British ruled India and Manchu ruled China

Is this supposed to make communism look better? Because it doesn't.

this is exactly my problem.

Even when people go out of their way to show communism wasn't as bad as people say, it's only, at best, on par with capitalist nations with middling or poor track records.

Why do we want to risk switching to something with only "we're not /that/ bad, only average at best! And we'd be perfect in a world with impossible changes!" as their selling point?

it doesn't. but you're making another mistake by assuming that British Imperialism is somehow detached from Britain itself. It wasn't though. China was beaten into submission by Britain for British interests, namely the importation of cheap tea and the correction of the British trade imbalance by buying this tea with opium. India was "ruled", if you can even call it that, to serve British interests, namely by using its best arable land to produce cash crops for the British home market and by dismantling India's historically huge textile industry which had rivaled Britain's own mass produced engine spun cloths so that the Indians became utterly dependent on British textiles and other manufactured goods. British misrule, in other words, was purposeful misrule to favor the British econonmy and people.

People have always been poor. The difference is that capitalim actually did something to change it.

So the British Empire was even more responsible.