Bengal forced famine
Note: over 4 million died in this one forced famine alone!
4,000,000
Pretty racist to say a brown kid dying this way is any less evil than a jewish innocent biy being gassed.
This Forgotten holocaust committed by British imperialism, that will always happen under capitalism.
Just as tens of thousands starve every day despite the fact tonnes of food every year is dumped to keep prices up and avoid flooding the market, which would mean less profit.
Just as thousands die everyday from treatable disease despite mans ability to treat every person suffering from treatable disease, but private medical companies would rather dump huge amounts of medicine that give it to people for free.
Stalin killed thousands and implemented state capitalism centralised statist policies that lead to mass starvation in the millions, capitalist states opress their workers, sent millions to die in imperialist wars, killed millions through expansion, use the third world as a pool of slave labour, run a system that kills over twenty thousand a day from starvation.
Fascist restrict unions and workers the same as capitalist states, but with more transparent ruthlessness, they sometimes kill percieved enemies of their race/nation (aka nazi Germany) however nnot all fascxist states did this. Fascism is what the capitalists and nationalist do, meet a compromise to maintain the state and buisness and stop the workers from taking over the means of production, as happened in Germany.
NOW FOR THE ANARCHIST.
The Anarchists refused state power in Catalonia, they are not a faction, they are workers who organise themselves and co workers to take control of society to abolish class, wage slavery and bring about an egalitarian system, they were killed by Stalinists, capitalists and Fascists, they have never cause a famine, never restricted a union, Anarchists have never lead people to fight against their interests, there are no leaders in Anarchism who can sieze power from the people.
In catalonia when the people created an Anarchist section of spain that was without government control, production went up, everyone worked as work was not based on wage and capitalist profit but making things for themselves and the community to use, prostitution fell drastically as women were working alongside, fighting alongside and living alongside men as equals for the first time in spanish history. Catholic nuns and priests who had raped and starved children in their care could not be sent elsewhere by a pope, they were burnt to death, like pedophiles should be.
Crime was virtually non existant.
Then the capitalist republicans, the stalinists and fascists saw it in all their interests to make sure such a society was swiftly done away with, so the Stalinists gave guns, food and ammunition and advisors to the republicans and held back weapons and information from the Anarchists fighting the fascists on the front lines, meaning the Anarchists were crushed.
Anyway I got a tuna wrap here.
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
This Forgotten holocaust committed by British imperialism, that will always happen under capitalism.
Just as tens of thousands starve every day despite the fact tonnes of food every year is dumped to keep prices up and avoid flooding the market, which would mean less profit.
[/quote]
And yet, the last famine in a capitalist country was in Ireland when a blight destroyed their crops, meaning, it killed of potatoes.
Never in the history of mankind have so many people been so well fed.
If there is someone to blame that some countries are experiencing troubles it is the US and the EU whose governments buy up already subsidized crops and dump them on the world markets which makes competing almost impossible.
I would not call that a market failure.
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
Why do you keep posting Stalinist crimes, Stalinism is STATE CAPITALISM. On the issue of posting pictures of Nazi Germany and asking were there scenes like this in India under British rule.[/quote]
No. It’s not state capitalism.
And if you don’t like stalinism, how about leninism? Was it any better? Or maoism? Or maybe Trotsky was right, was he?
All were practical applications of marxism. Results were similar.
Also
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
Explain how it is not fair to compare them. How is the extermination of the Native American population, anywhere up to 100 million, the British colonizing of the world and the extermination of whole communities who dared resist any different to Hitlers crimes or Stalins?
[/quote]
And not all of the pictures showed Soviet crimes.
Bengal famine?
Terrible situation. Natural disaster leading to shortage of food, government actions (or lack thereof) not helping people in that region, actually causing even more victims.
How about one of the most fertile regions in the world, with decent yields? Too bad that yields were guarded by thousands of people with guns. Stealing even one ear was punishable by death. Why did so many millions of people starve to death in one of the most fertile regions in the world? Working classes needed money (yes, money), so they could buy technologies from the west. Bengal famine happened during war. Holodomor in Ukraine happened during peace. Compare the numbers of victims.
"Note: over 4 million died in this one forced famine alone!
4,000,000"
Which is still much lower than numbers I was talking about.
And yes, I do think there is a difference.
Marxism had it’s chance many times. Each time it ended up with deaths of thousands or millions of people, depending on the size of the country where it won/
If someone commits a crime, he usually goes to prison. Now he may get a second chance. What do you do if he commits even more crimes after he leaves the prison? Let’s say the judges somehow decided to give him yet another chance. But if he goes out again and starts raping and killing people, will he get a chance once more? No.
Why should marxism get it’s chance again then?
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
Catholic nuns and priests who had raped and starved children in their care could not be sent elsewhere by a pope, they were burnt to death,
[/quote]
Where is the proof? What I know is people getting brutally murdered for wearing a cross.
By the way. Have you ever seen empty shelves in shops? Where the only things you can usually buy are bread and cheap vinegar and sometimes vodka? Where you are allowed 1 kg of meat a MONTH, yet noone said you’ll be able to buy it at all? And if you somehow find it, it may have nothing to do with a real meat. Have you ever seen kilometer long queues that started forming at 3 am? Only because someone said that there could possibly be some meat or chocolate in the shop? Shop was opening at 8. Have you ever seen kilometer long queues after the fucking toilet paper?
Have ever seen ration stamps for anything other than bread? And I’m not talking about a situation during war. I’m talking about the situation FORTY fucking years after the war. And there was no real marxism or communism. It was just socialism. And the situation was way better than in the Soviet Union at the same time.
That’s what marxism brings. If you are extremely lucky and marxism ends up being actually socialism. Long time after the last war.
Oh, and all the money you make during the month would be worth less than 20 dollars. Would be, because it’s really hard to exchange it. Not in a third world country. In European country, where economy was in much better condition 50 years before. Just after the Great Depression.
Is it just me, or are you ignoring some of the responses you don’t like?
How can i debate with a man who does not understand politics lmao, Stalinism is Leninism, maoism is, they are forms of leninism, god its like talking to someone about brain surgery when they are not a brain surgeon.
Communism is a stateless, classless moneyless society, the USSR was a state, ran by a rulling class, in a nation, with a wage system HOW IS THIS COMMUNISM!!! fuark.
How could the last famine be in Ireland when the Indian famines were forced from the 30s and 40s, please, read up on things before you argue them.
So we should ignore the facts and keep trying to find our way to real communism.
Are you sure you understand what communism really is?
Communism IS control. Call it state, Party, Union, Federation, Association, doesn’t matter.
Only this way you can assure that the distribution is even, new elites don’t form, everyone is equal in poverty etc.
Leninism was practical application of communism. In one country only because it was stopped. By the way it was one country only because countries conquered by Bolsheviks were destroyed (for example Georgia, Petlura’s Ukraine). It was meant to be federation or union of all countries that existed before the revolution. Fortunately, they were stopped.
That’s where comes dialectical marxism.
Sorry, but if you call white “black”, it’ll still be white. You can call murders solving the problem or redistribution of goods, or the justice, you name it. Yet they’ll still be murders.
Yes, the goal of communism is to destroy states. Because communists want to conquer all of them and set 1 dictatorship all over the world. If they fail to do so, they’ll eventually fall.
If someone reassures you that he only wants peace and love and happiness all over the world, he may mean something different.
In fact, he may be just trying to stop you from suspecting what he really wants. If you knew what he wanted, you’d oppose him. But if he uses proper dialectic you’ll believe that all he wants is the good of humanity.
Do you believe in everything politicians say? Now do you believe dialectical marxists?
Tell me, what the dialectic is.
communism is a goal, a society without hierarchy, nations, states, government, wages, if you can not remember that for one bloody post your not worth wasting oxygen on.
Stalin, Lenin, Mao were all leninists who believed in socialism, socialism is a transition between free market capitalism and communism, it is capitalism with a centralized mode of production and a large militarized state.
This is a deviation from what Marx advocated and is the complete opposite of what Anarchism is.
Anarchism is no state, no nation, no wages. Leninism is massive state, nationalism, wage labour.
If you just want to be anti Anarchist for the sake of it fine, but for your own sake actually know what something is before you decide to be for or against it.
There can never be a communist government as communism is the goal of a stateless, nation-less, classless, non hierachal society
There can not be a communist country as communism is the goal of a stateless, nation-less classless, non hierachal society
there can never of been a communist dictator as as communism is the goal of a stateless, nation-less classless, non hierachal society
If any government, nation, leader claimed there were communist they were liars as communism is the goal of a stateless, nation-less classless, non hierachal society
SOCIALIST the likes of Lenin, Mao and Stalin were not COMMUNISTS, they advocated state capitalism, they advocated a state, they had communists and Anarchists killed because the Anarchists rightly called them tyrants and anti communists and advocated the people rebel against the party and state.
Now do you want to be rational and remember this or do I have to put you on the ignore list?
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
I am an Anarchist, so I take from Marx his Analysis of the current mode of production and class society, however I ultimately find that I differ from most self proclaimed marxists in that I do not see the state as a tool and argue for a dictatorship of the proletariat through a centralized state like Maoists and ML’s do.
I think the state is inherently exploitative and can not be used in the transitioning between capitalist class society to communism, the moneyless, nationless, classless, non hierachal society based on free association and the workers control over the means of production, I believe this has been proven by every so called vanguard that has taken state power has been reactionary, oppressive, murderous and has formed the new rulling elite.
I however am not some blackblock, hippy, occupy student, I believe Anarchism(communism) will be brought about only through the mass organisation of workers worldwide, the occupation and taking over of the means of production by us at work, in a strong anticapitalist union or federation, like the CNT/FAI in civil war spain, or nowadays in America and Europe the IWW.
So in other words Marx merely used the scientific method of dialectical Materialism to analyse society and draw conclusions so he will always be relevant, I do not follow Marx like a dogmatic student, I merely apply his tool, of Dialectical Materialism to render my own views of society and how to change it so it can offer a free and beautiful life for me and my class (working class)[/quote]
-
How can the “worker class” control the means of production without the capitalist-entrepreneur to tell him what to produce, in what quantity, and by what means to do it? Where does the “worker class” get the material resources to control the means of production?
-
Anarchism is stateless society brought about by peaceful, voluntary exchanges.
-
Dialectical Materialism: two incompatible metaphysical doctrines (Hegelian spiritualism and Marxian Materialism) that when combined somehow prove that socialism is a law of nature - that it is not the actions of man that determines his existence but rather his “social being” that does.
edited
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
Tell me good sir, what else is there but a materialist understanding of the universe, is this even debatable in 2012 lol??[/quote]
I prefer to take a narcissistic understanding of the universe.
Would you care to debate that?
[quote]Khazad wrote:
What about doctors? What about most engineers? What about the majority of lawyers? They aren’t your typical proletarians, yet they’re usually neither bosses in corporations nor politicians.
What about small, family business?
You want a classless society without any hierarchy.
It would mean that a doctor who spent most of his 20s studying most of the day (and night…), at the cost of his social life, with little free time, would be in the same position as someone who is now working at the lowest wage. Now, one of them works under huge stress, the smallest mistake he makes can cost someone life and cause incredible legal problems. On top of that, he has to keep learning until the retirement. The other one goes to work in the morning, spends there ~8 hours and comes back home. His position doesn’t require a lot of thinking. There is little stress related to his job. If he makes even a big mistake, even in the worst case he’ll just lose his job. Not be put in jail for many years along with a 6 figure+ fine.
When he comes back home, he can totally forget about his job. He doesn’t have to keep learning, maybe he has to participate in one, short and relatively easy course/training a year.
Now, how can these 2 jobs be compared? Do you really think there should be no difference between people holding those positions?
If you don’t like the example of doctors, what about computer scientists or electrical engineers? The stress and responsibility is much lower than in the case of doctors, but they still are there. Both jobs require many years of hard training and constant learning and improvements later.
Should they really be in the same position in the society as someone who is handing out flyers
Somebody who has what it takes to become a doctor or electrical engineer, should be granted a chance to become one, whether he comes from a rich or poor family. A chance. If he has what it takes.
Why someone who studies for years and then works on a demanding position requiring high skills, under huge responsibility, should be given the same position in the society as someone who doesn’t?
You don’t deserve a high position in the society just because you want it. You have to earn it.
By the way, I don’t live in America.[/quote]
Things must be different in Poland.
In the UK all the trainee doctors I know really want to be doctors to ‘be doctors’, all the doctors I know love their jobs and would do it for minimum wage.
Most students doing ‘years of hard training (doctors included)’ get selected on the basis of the hard work (lol) they did between ages 15-18. They also do it because they like it and are interested in it, and a large part of uni is that it is a lot of fun!
Nurses are a better example - they have loads of responsibility, essential to society, have to learn all their lives, and they get paid next to nothing and have very little respect! Or even care workers.
And tbh what do you think is more enjoyable - sitting in a comfy office designing electrical circuits or 12 hour days scrubbing the piss off public loo floors or caring full time for a disabled person (inc dressing them, wiping them etc)?
Who on the basis of the actual hardship and reality of their job deserves a high status in society - and who isn’t really deserving of that much?
[quote]Khazad wrote:
Communism IS control. Call it state, Party, Union, Federation, Association, doesn’t matter.
Only this way you can assure that the distribution is even, new elites don’t form, everyone is equal in poverty etc.
Leninism was practical application of communism. In one country only because it was stopped. By the way it was one country only because countries conquered by Bolsheviks were destroyed (for example Georgia, Petlura’s Ukraine). It was meant to be federation or union of all countries that existed before the revolution. Fortunately, they were stopped.
That’s where comes dialectical marxism.
Sorry, but if you call white “black”, it’ll still be white. You can call murders solving the problem or redistribution of goods, or the justice, you name it. Yet they’ll still be murders.
Yes, the goal of communism is to destroy states. Because communists want to conquer all of them and set 1 dictatorship all over the world. If they fail to do so, they’ll eventually fall.
If someone reassures you that he only wants peace and love and happiness all over the world, he may mean something different.
In fact, he may be just trying to stop you from suspecting what he really wants. If you knew what he wanted, you’d oppose him. But if he uses proper dialectic you’ll believe that all he wants is the good of humanity.
Do you believe in everything politicians say? Now do you believe dialectical marxists?
Tell me, what the dialectic is.[/quote]
Then why do numerous studies prove that the more unequal a society is the more unhappy and depressed people are, and the more crime there is. And the more equal the society, the happier people are, with less crime?
see ‘THe Spirit Level’.
[quote]Trocchi wrote:
[quote]Khazad wrote:
Communism IS control. Call it state, Party, Union, Federation, Association, doesn’t matter.
Only this way you can assure that the distribution is even, new elites don’t form, everyone is equal in poverty etc.
Leninism was practical application of communism. In one country only because it was stopped. By the way it was one country only because countries conquered by Bolsheviks were destroyed (for example Georgia, Petlura’s Ukraine). It was meant to be federation or union of all countries that existed before the revolution. Fortunately, they were stopped.
That’s where comes dialectical marxism.
Sorry, but if you call white “black”, it’ll still be white. You can call murders solving the problem or redistribution of goods, or the justice, you name it. Yet they’ll still be murders.
Yes, the goal of communism is to destroy states. Because communists want to conquer all of them and set 1 dictatorship all over the world. If they fail to do so, they’ll eventually fall.
If someone reassures you that he only wants peace and love and happiness all over the world, he may mean something different.
In fact, he may be just trying to stop you from suspecting what he really wants. If you knew what he wanted, you’d oppose him. But if he uses proper dialectic you’ll believe that all he wants is the good of humanity.
Do you believe in everything politicians say? Now do you believe dialectical marxists?
Tell me, what the dialectic is.[/quote]
Then why do numerous studies prove that the more unequal a society is the more unhappy and depressed people are, and the more crime there is. And the more equal the society, the happier people are, with less crime?
see ‘THe Spirit Level’.[/quote]
Because most people are stupid bastards who compare themselves to the people around them instead of realizing how good they actually have it.
The poorest of the poor in the US are still richer by any objective standard than 75% of the rest of the world.
If you oppose capitalism on the premise that it is based on “greed” you will replace it with a system based on envy and ignorance.
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
Communism is a stateless, classless moneyless society, the USSR was a state, ran by a rulling class, in a nation, with a wage system HOW IS THIS COMMUNISM!!! fuark.[/quote]
Imagine all the people…living life in peace…
And now imagine me, Zeb and Thunderbolt getting together, printing our own money, deciding democratically that each one of us gets to keep his own stuff and profits should there be any…
It would be kind of hard to compete with us, since we have the means to calculate a somewhat optimal mix of the factors of production while you dont.
And that assumes that the black markets that would immediately spring up in your little utopia, with some kind of commodity money no doubt would not immediately rot your system from within.
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
How could the last famine be in Ireland when the Indian famines were forced from the 30s and 40s, please, read up on things before you argue them.[/quote]
I was thing of the one in 1770, but I will give you the one in 1943.
I would like some sort of explanation though how a wartime economy and a fungus that kills of most of the rice are a problem unique to capitalism.
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
Bengal forced famine
Note: over 4 million died in this one forced famine alone!
4,000,000[/quote]
There was no such ‘forced’ famine. The Bengal famine of 1943 was caused by crop failures and speculation on rice after the Japanese invasion of Burma.
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
This Forgotten holocaust committed by British imperialism, that will always happen under capitalism.
[/quote]
BTW - Your source is “The Unknown Famine Holocaust” by Wolfgang Pfitzner from a Holocaust revisionist journal. Nice.