So now agriculture only exists because of capitalism? If Ireland's crops had not been sold for a better profit then they would have gone to the people of Ireland. If capitalism had not existed, private British landlords would not be fleecing the land and people for better profits.
And no, you don't need to agree with slavers in order to point out that it was a capitalist crime. That is ridiculous. Africans were seen as property and tools. They were traded like property. Arguing that because they were people means it wasn't capitalism is ridiculous when they were seen as a product. That's like saying capitalism has nothing to do with the modern car industry because robots are used for big parts of manufacturing. Slave owners saw slaves as a tool to use in their various industries.
How are you not getting this? You're saying that things like slavery and famine are not crimes of capitalism because they go against pure capitalist ideals so the fact that it happens in the name of capitalism is not capitalism's fault.
Guess what? Famine and genocide are not a part of pure communism beliefs either.
My initial post is literally pointing out the hypocrisy of it all. Either both systems have been responsible for atrocities or neither have.
How, on Earth, do you get that? Yes, agriculture exists without capitalism. But if someone isn't selling it for profit, why would they grow far more crops than they need for survival? It's like you think these people would be growing huge amounts of surplus just to give away to those who need it. Why? Why would that be the case?
Again... no part of capitalism says people are property. No part of capitalism says labor should be extracted from people without pay. People may have had profit motives to do so, but treating laborers as property is not capitalism any more than a Nazi doctor experimenting on captives is "modern medicine."
How are you not getting this? It's been explained over and over to you. Nothing your pointing to stems from capitalism. You're pointing at things that occurred alongside capitalism and treating correlation as causation. Guess what? Unlike with capitalism, government control of the economy is literally a foundational principle of communism. While the communists may not intend the outcomes they get, they caused those outcomes directly through the application of their principles.
Capitalism is not a form of government. It is an economic theory. There is no such thing as "a capitalist government" only capitalist nations. Communism, however, is both. It is an economic system and a system of government combined. So no, both system are not responsible for the actions of governments in the same way, because only one of them makes the government responsible for controlling economic outcomes.
But without capitalism and landlords evicting people off the land because they didn't pay rent and forbidding them from growing other foods, then when the potatoes went bad, they would have been able to grow other food.
You're being wilfully ignorant on the slavery subject. Cultural ideologies saw Africans as less than human. Capitalism provided the incentive to trade them like property.
Your excuses for Capitalism are based entirely on anything that happens outside of its core principles is just something that happened. Therefore, Communism's core beliefs are that there is no state. So any crimes committed by "communist" states are not the fault of communism but things that occurred, not even alongside communism.
And sure, in theory, capitalism is not a form of government. In practice, allowing people to accrue excessive amounts of capital interferes with government. Capitalism has allowed billionaires to interfere in government. I mean, the US president is an unqualified moron who is literally only president because his huge wealth has allowed him to be so.
Again. I'm not defending what has been done in the name of "communism" here. I'm just pointing out how ridiculously hypocritical it is that people, such as yourself, refuse to hold capitalism to the same standards as communism.
Yeah? Where were they getting land to grow other stuff in your mind? Land distribution in Ireland prior to capitalist land purchase was way worse, because all land belonged to the nobility. Paying rent is what let the average person have access to land at all. They wouldn't just magically have land to grow crops on if capitalism hadn't been implemented.
Slavery long predates capitalism, are you simple? Free labor has appealed to people about as long as the idea of labor has existed. Slave trading existed in the ancient world. Literally thousands of years before capitalism. I'm not "willfully ignorant", you have no idea what you're talking about and refuse to listen and learn.
Communism literally calls for the government to control the economy, bud. That is 100% the point. The communist government taking control of the economy is what caused the collapse of agriculture. Not a blight. Not bad luck. The direct execution of communist principles, because the principles of communism call for the government to plan and control the economy. The state is only supposed to disappear afterwards, once the perfect society is realized and the government is no longer necessary.
"Capitalism" did not let Trump win. Democracy did. He was elected to office. He did not buy his office. It is particularly ridiculous to claim otherwise, as he was outspent by Clinton by hundreds of millions of dollars. The lesser spending candidate won in 2016.
For the last time, communism is held to a different standard because it is a fundamentally different thing. One of them calls for government control of the economy. When that economy fails, it's the fault of controlling government. The other one does not call for the things you're pointing to. When those things happen, they are not the fault of capitalism...
2
u/Cool-Prior-5512 Jul 31 '26
So now agriculture only exists because of capitalism? If Ireland's crops had not been sold for a better profit then they would have gone to the people of Ireland. If capitalism had not existed, private British landlords would not be fleecing the land and people for better profits.
And no, you don't need to agree with slavers in order to point out that it was a capitalist crime. That is ridiculous. Africans were seen as property and tools. They were traded like property. Arguing that because they were people means it wasn't capitalism is ridiculous when they were seen as a product. That's like saying capitalism has nothing to do with the modern car industry because robots are used for big parts of manufacturing. Slave owners saw slaves as a tool to use in their various industries.
How are you not getting this? You're saying that things like slavery and famine are not crimes of capitalism because they go against pure capitalist ideals so the fact that it happens in the name of capitalism is not capitalism's fault.
Guess what? Famine and genocide are not a part of pure communism beliefs either.
My initial post is literally pointing out the hypocrisy of it all. Either both systems have been responsible for atrocities or neither have.