• chaogomu@kbin.social
      11·
      1 year ago

      Oh, I switched from pro-communist arguments a while back, now I’m subtly mocking you because you have no fucking clue what your own position entails.

      You, without any knowledge of history, economics, or anything actually relevant, have picked the side of the bootlickers, hoping that one day you too can cast people out into the streets to starve because it’s more profitable to outsource their jobs to some third world village where you can pay rates that are almost, but not quite starvation wages.

        • chaogomu@kbin.social
          11·
          1 year ago

          See, there you go with your complete lack of historical knowledge.

          I already gave you two great examples of the classless, stateless societies that brave men and women built before outside forces attacked and murdered them all.

          You didn’t believe they existed at all because you have never opened an actual history book that doesn’t have an eagle on the cover.

          You also don’t seem to know that famines and starvation (Currently about 9 million deaths per year) are part and parcel of capitalism, because after all, if starving in the street wasn’t a threat, no one would slave away their lives to make money. This is especially true in the global south. Places where people lived in communities for thousands of years with only the occasional famine, now live in constant fear of starvation, all while they grow more food than ever, but have to ship that food to rich countries that throw half of it away. All because someone came in and forced them to pretend that money is real.

          Hell, if you want examples of communities coming together and saying that money is fake, just look at people on the ground during any sort of natural disaster. There are thousands of examples of human kindness triumphing over the petty greed of jackasses like yourself, because that’s what capitalism is at its core, greed made manifest.

          At the core of it all, communism is about communities coming together and sharing without reservation, and capitalism is the individual taking all for themselves, using force if they have to.

            • chaogomu@kbin.social
              11·
              1 year ago

              Yes, we’ve learned that defense from Nazis and reactionary agitators is key to the success of any left-wing movement. That’s why the Socialist Gun Club and John Brown Gun Society are gaining members.

              It’s sad that we have to protect ourselves, but as the poem goes;

              First they came for the communists…

              Because that’s how it always goes. The favorite targets of the right wing reactionary; communists, LGBT+, the marginalized, and anyone else who doesn’t quite fit into their capitalist hierarchies.

              The capitalist must use violence to enforce those hierarchies, or else people will ignore them, because money is just something we all made up. It’s not real.

              Actual wealth is much deeper than money, it’s time, it’s effort, it’s people’s lives, and people don’t want to slave away to make some other asshole richer, they want to live together in open communities where they can just live for themselves and raise a family.

              Capitalists robbed us all of this, and communism is the push to get it back.

                • chaogomu@kbin.social
                  11·
                  1 year ago

                  And again you show that you have no fucking clue what capitalism is.

                  We covered this already, here let me just quote myself from yesterday;

                  Okay, you’ve now told me that you don’t understand communism, or capitalism.

                  First is the lie that capitalism is some sort of ancient invention. This is a lie because it ignores what capitalism actually is. Capitalism is not just “trading things for money”. That’s a child’s understanding, and like more explanations for children, it’s fundamentally wrong while still having elements of the truth.

                  Capitalism requires the private investment, and re-investment, in production of goods in order to make more wealth. Most trade prior to the late middle ages was simply moving goods from a cheap market to an expensive market. Buying from one lord and selling to another.

                  An important point is that the lords used the power of the State, i.e. their military, to extract wealth from their lands. This was called feudalism, and was not capitalism.

                  In the wake of the Norman Conquest, the English state was unusually centralised. This gave aristocrats relatively limited powers to extract wealth directly from their feudal underlings through political means (not least the threat of violence). England’s centralisation also meant that an unusual number of English farmers were not peasants (with their own land and thus direct access to subsistence) but tenants (renting their land). These circumstances produced a market in leases. Landlords, lacking other ways to extract wealth, were motivated to rent to tenants who could pay the most, while tenants, lacking security of tenure, were motivated to farm as productively as possible to win leases in a competitive market. This led to a cascade of effects whereby successful tenant farmers became agrarian capitalists; unsuccessful ones became wage-labourers, required to sell their labour in order to live; and landlords promoted the privatisation and renting out of common land, not least through the enclosures.

                  Enclosure or inclosure[a] is a term, used in English landownership, that refers to the appropriation of “waste”[b] or “common land”[c] enclosing it and by doing so depriving commoners of their rights of access and privilege. Agreements to enclose land could be either through a formal or informal process.[3] The process could normally be accomplished in three ways. First there was the creation of “closes”,[d] taken out of larger common fields by their owners.[e] Secondly, there was enclosure by proprietors, owners who acted together, usually small farmers or squires, leading to the enclosure of whole parishes. Finally there were enclosures by Acts of Parliament.[5]

                  Did you know that prior to the Norman conquest, people in England just grew food wherever they wanted? Just so long as they gave most of it to their lord, they could do what they wanted with the land.

                  Anyway, capitalism then kicked into high gear after the bubonic plague. Suddenly you had a lot of land free, and mass migration to cities in the wake of the plague.

                  Then things really kicked off with what I like to call the official start, the formation of the Dutch East Indies Company. See, this was the first time that a company was formed without a built-in expiration date. Before this, you could make a company and sell shares, but at the end of the trade caravan or whatnot, the company was dissolved and everyone was paid out of the profit. The Dutch East Indies Company sold shares that paid dividends, with no expectation of the company dissolving. They actually had to get laws changed to make it possible.

                  And they were the most brutal, and violent organization to ever exist. They committed several genocides to seize islands from locals so that they could sell shit to Europeans. Particularly for nutmeg.

                  Now, another commenter pointed out that the system in place in the lead up to the formation of the Dutch East Indies Company was actually mercantilism. Which was sort of a State run proto-capitalism.

                  It’s kind of a gray area.