And theres the rub. You are willing to grant this system that HAS committed great evils every kinda leeway in the book. You’ll handwave away any kind of evils it has committed as “well those things just happen, and its not really capitalism as a systems fault” but when it comes to communism you will do away with those same excuses. So lets play the game where no system has excuses, count the bodies and then compare then? Or we excuse both for their human failings, count the bodies and compare. Either way you cut it, capitalism comes out worse, so you wont do that. You’ll excuse the one and not the other. It’s the only way you can see past your bodies.

Mmmm, that’s what you say. But take a step outside what you were taught all your life and it is soon revealed as an ideology that you bow down to worship, defend against any criticism, and demand all others bow down to it as well, no matter how they feel, on pain of their total subjugation.

Anything to excuse the white man ey wizard?

Life expectancy doubled under Stalin.

Except you know, no homelessness, by Stalin’s time no starvation, free healthcare, guaranteed days off, guaranteed vacation time, wages significantly higher than the majority of the population has ever seen, oh and free education.

Yeah, you couldn’t be a Nazi or other enemy of the state, how oppressive.

I haven’t missed the point, I’m already actively arguing against it. You’re attempting to hand-wave away examples on how capitalism is worse than the systems of exploitation that came before it.

There is nothing inherently different from capitalism, to any prior system, in the context of abuse of human rights, or however you wish to frame that particular problem.

This is entirely reductive and sets you up for a head-in-the-sand defense of capitalism, where you don’t have to engage with evidence because golly gee, people are just gonna always be evil and if you sorta squint at history, you can just smear a whole bunch stuff together and pretend that it’s basically the same.

This rambling paragraph about “…the problem that has plagued humanity…” is completely incoherent. You fail to even attempt to describe what this problem is, yet then proceed to assign all of our ills to it, before concluding that no solution for it will ever be found. Is it the fabled boogeyman who comes to visit us over and over, turning our best laid plans against us every time? I suspect it is your pessimism for humanity that is the problem in your understanding.

I don’t know enough about communism to talk about it, but I’ve been building a reading list to learn more this year. I do know that there have been serious atrocities committed by Communist forces. I’m sure there are lots of estimates and comparisons on body counts for both isms, but I also think that a number like “hundreds of millions” should have a little more evidence to support it other than vibes.

A simple Google search finds this entry about mass killings under communism. Estimates at the highest are 148 million for all communist regimes combined. I don’t think you know enough specifics to speak on this issue. When you bring numbers into a discussion they need to be grounded in something other than your feelings.

capitalism the idea to organise most economic activity around capital is in my understanding more recent

That’s a very literalist definition.

More broadly, capitalism is a system of private for-profit renting of capital for the purpose of using excess revenue to reinvest in new capital stock.

The main distinction between modern capitalism and traditional feudalism being that reinvestment aspect (feudal lords historically did a poor job of generating surplus or reinvesting in capital stocks). And the distinction between capitalism and socialism being private ownership versus public ownership of capital.

But all three were functionally “organized around capital”. Feudalist capital was just overwhelmingly real estate based, while the Dutch/English/French capitalists were more interested in industrial machinery (ships, mills, etc).

What not reading theory does to an mf.

Sorely lacking within the U.S. Left is any rational evaluation of the Soviet Union, a nation that endured a protracted civil war and a multinational foreign invasion in the very first years of its existence, and that two decades later threw back and destroyed the Nazi beast at enormous cost to itself. In the three decades after the Bolshevik revolution, the Soviets made industrial advances equal to what capitalism took a century to accomplish—while feeding and schooling their children rather than working them fourteen hours a day as capitalist industrialists did and still do in many parts of the world. And the Soviet Union, along with Bulgaria, the German Democratic Republic, and Cuba, provided vital assistance to national liberation movements in countries around the world, including Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress in South Africa.

Left anticommunists remained studiously unimpressed by the dramatic gains won by masses of previously impoverished people under communism. Some were even scornful of such accomplishments. I recall how in Burlington Vermont, in 1971, the noted anticommunist anarchist, Murray Bookchin, derisively referred to my concern for “the poor little children who got fed under communism” (his words).

Those of us who refused to join in the Soviet bashing were branded by left anticommunists as “Soviet apologists” and “Stalinists,” even if we disliked Stalin and his autocratic system of rule and believed there were things seriously wrong with existing Soviet society. Our real sin was that unlike many on the Left we refused to uncritically swallow U.S. media propaganda about communist societies. Instead, we maintained that, aside from the well-publicized deficiencies and injustices, there were positive features about existing communist systems that were worth preserving, that improved the lives of hundreds of millions of people in meaningful and humanizing ways. This claim had a decidedly unsettling effect on left anticommunists who themselves could not utter a positive word about any communist society (except possibly Cuba) and could not lend a tolerant or even courteous ear to anyone who did.

…

The upheavals in Eastern Europe did not constitute a defeat for socialism because socialism never existed in those countries, according to some U.S. leftists. They say that the communist states offered nothing more than bureaucratic, one-party “state capitalism” or some such thing. Whether we call the former communist countries “socialist” is a matter of definition. Suffice it to say, they constituted something different from what existed in the profit-driven capitalist world—as the capitalists themselves were not slow to recognize.

First, in communist countries there was less economic inequality than under capitalism. The perks enjoyed by party and government elites were modest by corporate CEO standards in the West, as were their personal incomes and life styles. Soviet leaders like Yuri Andropov and Leonid Brezhnev lived not in lavishly appointed mansions like the White House, but in relatively large apartments in a housing project near the Kremlin set aside for government leaders. They had limousines at their disposal (like most other heads of state) and access to large dachas where they entertained visiting dignitaries. But they had none of the immense personal wealth that most U.S. leaders possess.

The “lavish life” enjoyed by East Germany’s party leaders, as widely publicized in the U.S. press, included a $725 yearly allowance in hard currency, and housing in an exclusive settlement on the outskirts of Berlin that sported a sauna, an indoor pool, and a fitness center shared by all the residents. They also could shop in stores that carried Western goods such as bananas, jeans, and Japanese electronics. The U.S. press never pointed out that ordinary East Germans had access to public pools and gyms and could buy jeans and electronics (though usually not of the imported variety). Nor was the “lavish” consumption enjoyed by East German leaders contrasted to the truly opulent life style enjoyed by the Western plutocracy.

Second, in communist countries, productive forces were not organized for capital gain and private enrichment; public ownership of the means of production supplanted private ownership. Individuals could not hire other people and accumulate great personal wealth from their labor. Again, compared to Western standards, differences in earnings and savings among the populace were generally modest. The income spread between highest and lowest earners in the Soviet Union was about five to one. In the United States, the spread in yearly income between the top multibillionaires and the working poor is more like 10,000 to 1.

Third, priority was placed on human services. Though life under communism left a lot to be desired and the services themselves were rarely the best, communist countries did guarantee their citizens some minimal standard of economic survival and security, including guaranteed education, employment, housing, and medical assistance.

Fourth, communist countries did not pursue the capital penetration of other countries. Lacking a profit motive as their motor force and therefore having no need to constantly find new investment opportunities, they did not expropriate the lands, labor, markets, and natural resources of weaker nations, that is, they did not practice economic imperialism. The Soviet Union conducted trade and aid relations on terms that generally were favorable to the Eastern European nations and Mongolia, Cuba, and India.

All of the above were organizing principles for every communist system to one degree or another. None of the above apply to free- market countries like Honduras, Guatemala, Thailand, South Korea, Chile, Indonesia, Zaire, Germany, or the United States.

But a real socialism, it is argued, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic cabals of evil men who betray revolutions.

Unfortunately, this “pure socialism” view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage.

The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.

• Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds

I would like to hear your examples of it existing.

that is not authoritarian

all states are authoritarian the nature of the state is authority

So you’re not an anarchist.

Vanguardism is democratic.

Lol, the sheer irony of a self proclaimed anarchist saying that the Soviet were a “massive failure to build anything”.

Maybe you should actually read what I linked. Ohhh sorry, I forgot, anarchists think reading is authoritarian.

Communism is a stage of civilizational development

Removed comment: “ML moment”, with the top comment being about their comment being removed. ML moment lol

As opposed to the nothing that you offered.

A lot of credible sources at the bottom

Clearly by the downvotes I receive, no we can’t. We can’t talk about the atrocities of capitalism because omg a famine happened communism bad!

Yeah I can’t even do the math. Take all the native peoples killed worldwide, take all of the slavery since colonialism, and then of course all the proxy wars in the fight between the US and “communism”, and all of the pillaging by American multinationals in the third world countries for resources. It might even be a billion at this point.

I love when people talk about those killed by communism they love to gloss over who killed the Nazis and how that’s part of the numbers…

What centrists call anyone to the left of Netanyahu.

Yes, exactly; because tankie is a pejorative used by low information posters for anyone left of center.

I guarantee you have never read a page by Marx. Your understanding of capitalism and socialism is shocking.

I’m really not sure what your point is or how it is a response to my comment. I’ll respond to what I understand.

First, I agree, Phoenecian and ancient Greek societies would be classified as slave modes of production according to Marx. I wasn’t suggesting otherwise, just responding to OP’s comment that Roman society was capitalist.

I’m not quite sure what argument you’re building in the second paragraph, but there is a curious absence of proletariats in regards to subjects.

From here on our, I’m rather confused and I don’t think you have a clear grasp of what Marx means by capitalism. You seem to be most concerned with initial funding sources and not how one social group is able to exploit another through various economic means and subsequent social means as the capitalist class becomes the ruling class.

Again, how does any of this relate to my comment?