I'll wager he knows about that but just didn't mean to include it here because it wasn't really necessary, but I'm sure he knows all about the long legacy of blood due to colonialism.
"If we can talk about millions in that little corner of the empire, imagine if we had a census, no more would you hear death count be the way of comparing capitalism and socialism and communism." - Richard Wolff
Too bad there is no verification of that number...and 1.5 is not millions...and you have no proof or chain of evidence to prove your claim. FDR created famine...how many millions did that kill????
And then you start counting the deaths, both indigenous and non- indigenous, incurred at the hands of the ruling elite in the US and their numbers start to become overwhelmingly depressing.
Oh please ... Tell that to the Patients killed /treated in North Korean / Cuban/ USSR hospitals .... lol - Just add millions more killed by any dis-functional coercion based government lol.
Look into the history of leaded fuels. Decision makers at Du Pont decided to add lead compounds to gasoline *even though they knew the resulting emissions were extremely toxic*. If we use the same metrics for counting deaths as are often used for evaluating the body counts of supposedly "communist" regimes, the total attributable to that single capitalist enterprise is greater than the highest possible for Stalin and Mao combined.
Yup. The electric car was invented over 180 years ago. What if we went electric the past century and a half, instead of oil? Maybe fewer wars, maybe less or no climate change?
@@ExPwner By the metrics often used when counting the deaths of Stalinist regimes it is. We reject that vision of socialism too, but if you want to play the death count game, you're not gonna win no matter what metrics you use
Your explanation should be bolder. Give estimated figures of how many people were killed by the wars of East India Co., and then the combined European governments and afterwards by the US governments since 1600's. Billions of people were killed and or enslaved. Count also their own soldiers.
Imperialism was achieved in the name of mercantilism, not capitalism. The British banned colonial subjects from establishing their own capital good markets: instead the colonists were forced to sell their raw material to the British, who in return sold back to them finished goods like chairs or shirts (made of American cotton and timber). Imperialism made no economic sense whatsoever: free trade was illegal under this system; the colonial powers preferring instead protectionism or mercantilism. The object of these two is to limit imports at all costs, even at the risk of higher prices. This was supposedly 'sound', because economic theory during the era propagated that wealth was fixed, and that to acquire more of it nations needed to increase exports (trade was thought of as a zero sum game, whereby only one party (the seller) profited). Contrast this with free trade, in which economic choices are left to the individual consumer, and thus government has no say. This leads consumers to purchase the cheapest (yet of equal quality) products, domestic or otherwise. Free trade propagates that both parties profit from exchange; if they didn't, they wouldn't engage in it.
Just in British India, that after all was a private enterprise regulated by no state as it was the state in India, almost 2 billion people died from disease, famine, imperial brutality and so on. Such was the brutality of the English that there was no population growth between 1860 and 1934, despite the very high fertility rate. If you added similar casualties from Indonesia, Africa, China, Indochina and the Americas; I'd not be surprised if it got over 3 billion or 4 billion. Also worth considering that the largest bloodbaths witnessed by the humanity were directly or indirectly fruit of capitalist and imperialist interests. Be it the world wars, the civil wars happening in China after the Opium wars like the Taiping rebellion, the Congo genocide done by the rogue state of Belgium, etc.
In 1800, the population of the region of present-day India was approximately 169 million. The population would grow gradually throughout the 19th century, rising to over 240 million by 1900. Population growth would begin to increase in the 1920s, as a result of falling mortality rates, due to improvements in health, sanitation and infrastructure. However, the population of India would see it’s largest rate of growth in the years following the country’s independence from the British Empire in 1948, where the population would rise from 358 million to over one billion by the turn of the century, making India the second country to pass the billion person milestone. While the rate of growth has slowed somewhat as India begins a demographics shift, the country’s population has continued to grow dramatically throughout the 21st century, and in 2020, India is estimated to have a population of just under 1.4 billion, well over a billion more people than one century previously. Today, approximately 18% of the Earth’s population lives in India, and it is estimated that India will overtake China to become the most populous country in the world within the next five years. Looks like your understanding is somewhat less than accurate.
@@jgalt308 Looks like your understanding of cutting and pasting tons of irrelevant information to obfuscate and deflect from the topic at hand is somewhat ridiculous.
@@kevinschmidt2210 Yup, it's a shame that it directly contradicts the claims of the initial comment...but you are perfectly free to provide information that proves it's not true. The problem with making assertions without evidence...is that they are supported by nothing but FAITH. But you are more than welcome to provide a starting date for "capitalism" and then produce a before and after comparison growth rate for the relative increase in population. That you can demonstrate its negative effects is total nonsense...but go ahead, give it a shot, after all FAITH can move mountains...it just doesn't happen in the real world.
And the victims of the Viet Nam; Afghanistan; Iraq; Yemen; Syria wars and conflicts. It's estimated that half a million to one million civilians were murdered by Suharto-the most corrupt dictator in history-in Indonesia. Installed after overthrowing Sukarno in 1965. The country never recovered. And what of the death squads in Nicaragua and Chile? All fomented by the US.
The war of Vietnam was started by Soviets, both Soviets and Capitalists attacked Afghanistan, Iraq Syria and Yemen aswell were bombed by both Soviets and Capitalists.
Yes, the CIA actually described it as worst of the worst atrocities of the 20th century, although, of course, they absolved themselves of any responsibility...
2 books were written about. The first about the deaths caused by communism 1997. Then someone "responded" with one about capitalism 1999. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Livre_noir_du_capitalisme
@@lunarmodule6419 that book about the death "caused" by communism is so ridiculously flawed lmao. If we were to apply the standards used by that book to capitalism, then capitalism's "death toll" is much higher in that regards
@@jgalt308 they just gobble every left wing lie they get their hands on. Leftoids do not ever read sources. If they did then they would see that the census Wolff claimed to have used did not exist. Kirk Wilcox and Actual Justice Warrior detailed this like a year ago.
In the 24 months between 2010 and 2012 the uk saw 130k excess deaths directly attributed to cuts to services and targeting of ppl (austerity and punative sanctions, uk, tory party ). As of this year the excess death rate is 16% higher than the previous 5. These stats do not include covid. And austerity continues to this day. Do the math.
@@DJWESG1 But excess deaths are excess deaths...and these are based on "actuarial" tables by insurance companies based on claims...and the differences between various demographics from year to year, hence the term. The cause of these deaths gets a little murky and it seems difficult to believe that "austerity" would be listed. Also, that covid might be, is also questionable, in that dying with and dying from is also inaccurate, as these deaths are usually caused by co-morbidity factors, rather than covid. Under the circumstance..."doing the math"...is not as straightforward as you imply.
@@ExPwner But wait a minute let me guess - famines under Mao and Lenin can 100% be attributed to socialism. The inconvenient truth for you is these countries had been famine prone for centuries before "socialism" and only succeeded to escape this cycle through industrialization.. but I guess prior famines were caused by "bad crop yields"?
If Britain had been Communist since the 1700s, would this automatically mean that they wouldn't have formed a world empire? It's not Capitalism at fault here; it's the government, and its military, being too large.
@@lochnessmunster1189 Not true. Britain started it's empire building during Feudal and Slavery times. It didn't become capitalist until later. Also, socialist concepts didn't start being academically laid out until well into the English Empire days (Mid 1850's). That makes it nearly impossible for anyone to predict your chain of events. At the very least we could imagine that there would be a much greater internal push back against empire building. Empires don't actually benefit the nation at large, just a tiny minority of elites. Poor English people lost because of the empire. If there were a powerful socialist or communist movement in Britain at that time, then there would have at least been a significant faction utterly opposed to foreign interventions.
@@antimattv But how do you know that there WOULD have been a significant faction opposed to foreign interventions if Britain had been Socialist or Communist in the past? Communist countries have a history of foreign interventions throughout the 20th century. North Korea invaded the South. The USSR invaded Afghanistan. The USSR occupied Eastern Europe as satellite states and forced them to adopt their system. Britain has always had a certain degree of a Capitalist element even during feudal times. Thankfully, the transition to mainstream Capitalism was enormously beneficial to workers. But I do agree with you that the ordinary English people didn't benefit from the empire. This is why it's infuriating that reparations are being talked about now. People who have never owned any slaves, and like the vast majority of the British population, are not descended from any slave-owners and never made a penny from it, might now have to pay towards people who likely were never descended from any slaves themselves, and may have even provided slaves to the British empire.
@@lochnessmunster1189 Alright, Kato institute, I know there's a mid term coming up. I know how many trolls are paid by various groups to spread your propaganda. Honestly, you won't find much support around these parts. Whatever, though, fill your boots. If somebody wants to believe your Milton Friedman/McCarty Era hatred, then let them.
@@lochnessmunster1189 it's capitalism at fault due to the fact that the incentives for British colonialism was driven by the economic system of capitalism
Nice how he glossed over the deliberate starvation of those in the Ukraine under Stalin. If that's what he calls social change, well then I guess that excuses it. It's also interesting how he didnt even bother to tell you the numbers under Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Then he draws an obscure example from the English mercantile system, not capitalism. Then he tries to extrapilate that to the rest of the world. A very weak argument, and one that ignores facts.
"We want food, not PCR tests. We want freedom not lockdowns. We want respect not lies. We want reform not cultural revolutions. We want a vote not a leader. We want to be citizens not slaves." From a banner on the Sitong Bridge in the Haidan district of Beijing that was seen today 13 October 2022 and posted on social media ahead of the 20th CCP Congress in the capital.
I do not like these type of argument because it gives the impression that those deaths actually happened for communism, which is not true. The starvation in China in the 1950s had, as a main factor, an environmental disaster. (I can discuss more about it if you want me to do).
About deaths: poisoning with the use of phosgen gives symptoms similar as described as covid 19. If dose not lethal lung's function can be recorded in around 4 days. Phosgen is still in use by pharmaceutical companies. Nonlethal type of arm: electromagnetic beam if used damages lungs the way that they look like bloody sponge. The death comes in around 4 hours if overdosed. Recovery time is months llong.
How is it "violent and controlling"? You think that Socialism isn't? If the government mandates a healthcare program, do you have any power to resist? What happens when you don't?
@@lochnessmunster1189if you have no money under capitalism, you have little to no value so therefore no say on much. Socialism would allow you to have more say ("seize the means of production") and there's a pretty good chance any mandates that are put out are going to be in the people's favour instead of the privileged few.
That's an interesting question. The gold standard and the fiat system both have their problems. Can't we just use a FIAT system and just NOT print any money outside of bill replacements? From what I understand, it's best to just not meddle with the ammount of bills in circulation. The less you change it, the better. That way prices become more stable.
@@Anti-Parasite2023-pp8uu Refusing to print more outside of bill replacements doesn't stabilize prices, it causes deflation (if the economy is growing). If the economy is growing, it needs more money to adequately represent its value. Without increasing the amount in circulation, you now have more stuff chasing the same amount of money, which causes prices to fall. Deflation has its own problems, because those with money already become wealthier without doing anything with it, and so encourages hoarding money for the purpose of becoming wealthier (as opposed to saving money for lean times, or to have enough capital for a large expenditure)
I dont believe that socialism or communism are better than capitalism, but now I see how you can see "capitalism" in a bad light. I don't believe you can remove the unconsentual nature of socialism or communism and still have either. Whereas i do believe you can have only consentual interactions among people in a capitalist society.
So now you are comparing a country conquering another county which has happened for many years. Egypt, Persia, Greek, Roman, Mongolian ,China British empires are examples of countries dominating others. CCP and USSR are examples of governments doing things to their own people. Yes you can compare how the USA has done horrific things like deaths of Native Americans 12 million from the years 1492-1900 ( 408 years). But to think that you can brush off Mao 40-80million (during his time in office 18 years. I like how did that slight of hand
So like how there were famines in China before Mao and how there were Gulags in Russia before Lenin? Uh-oh, hypocrite much? :) Also, "to their own people" AKA mostly lower birth rates which are somehow counted as deaths, soldiers sacrificing their life against nazis and imperialist threats from capitalist countries forcing rapid industrialization and overmilitarization.
@@johnhatchel9681 That is yourself. You live in a world of fantasies and nonsense. In the real world, Capitalism kills billions. Communism is self defense.
It's not "brushing it off". It's the other way around. You parasites make false accusations and distorting information to distract from Capitalism's real atrocities, which are higher in numbers and much more barbaric. At least the Bolcheviks never tortured someone with a headcrusher. Or mutilated babies for profit.
It never ceases to irritate me when things like economic systems are only dealt with in absolutes. That is to say "It has to only be Socialism, or Communism or Capitalism". Anyone with a reasoning brain, that is a person who puts *facts before belief* will deduce that a hybrid, a system that takes the best of ALL and amalgamates them is the path society should be taking. Letting economic systems continue without oversight for centuries is counterintuitive. But economists tend to put on the mantle of High Priests of a particular sect of economic theory. Looking upon Marx or Lenin or Keynes as messiahs whose "bibles" are treated like *The True Word of God* hasn't worked out that well, just as most other religions based on messiahs and "belief". It's 2022 and the world has still not learned this lesson.
Economic systems sit beneath social systems. Thus the totality of the social system tends to be described in general terms. Though many economists often place the economy above the social.
@@DJWESG1 If you think the economic system of capitalism hasn't completely shaped the societies under its sway, then you are living in an alternate dimension.
@Miles ...: Have you lived in socialism? I guess not. I have and IT IS an amalgam. I haven't lived in communism so I can't say how it is...and in my opinion nobody had communism yet. So from my experience living in socialism and now in capitalism I can assure you that socialism is that amalgam you are talking about...a mixture of private and social ownership of the means of production and a result is so much better society than capitalism.
I think you really need to compare like for like. Not condoning or supporting a single fatality due to the greed and entitlement of capitalism. Just saying that British colonialism primarily affected N America. It was Empiricism ( from the 16th century to the present day) that resulted in as much as 24% of the global population being at the mercy of the crown. The last game I want to play now or ever is "compare the deatg tolls, uet when doing so, perhaps compare the duration of said Empire.. The🇬🇧 600 years needs to bemapped alongside 🇺🇲 Imperialism and exceptionalism plus every other nation that adopted the capitalist methodolgy in which it's not only condoned, but encoraged to trample over whatsoever and whomever to acquire the glory of wealth.
It is pretty clear that colonialism for capitalist profit has a legacy of blood, violence and death that's hard to fully quantify. Definitely in the billions all told. Not that violence never existed on the planet or in human society's prior to say, 1600, but colonialism for capitalist profit put it into rampant overdrive. While 20th century dictators were certainly not without blame, and they probably did cause millions of unnecessary deaths either through intention or incompetence, those numbers PALE in comparison to the last 500 years of colonialism for capitalist profit, or CFCP as I call it.
@@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999 you are the one with the false statement. Every single one of you weirdos cannot properly define the two terms. If you even bothered to properly define terms you would see that they are mutually exclusive.
@@ExPwner I don't see how. I'm not talking about basic exploration, or Euro people coming to North America to settle in the New World. I'm talking about the exploitation of mostly the Global South by European powers. Now this wasn't done for scientific research it was done for profit, a whole hell of a lot of profit to be specific for elite business interests. Sounds like "big" capitalism to me.
@@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999 what is the definition of colonialism? What is the definition of capitalism? Is capitalism “when people look to profit?” No, it is not. Try again.
I am living proof of how socialism stifles progress , just few years younger got more oppurtunities and reached better positions.You are m8ssing the point ,colonialism and capitalism are unrelated ,as the colonialism takes away decicion making .Go to a bet5er university and read
This is the equivalent of being on trial for rape and murder and then saying "Ted Bundy did way worse though!" Uhhhh, sorry if this reply isn't so intellectually sound - my brain cells are still recovering from this video... You've just equivocated capitalism with colonialism. Nobody is arguing that colonialism isn't incredibly deadly for those being colonized. But colonialism is older than the British or Americans. It's even older than human beings! What do you think plants are doing by trying to spread their pollen everywhere, they're trying to establish _colonies_ on new land to make use of that land's nutrients. If capitalism = colonialism then capitalism is over 300 million years old. Of if we're only talking about human colonialism, were the ancient Greeks capitalists as well? Were early hominid species also capitalists for warring with one another? You've made a good argument that colonialism is deadly, you haven't said anything about capitalism being deadly in this video.
Addressing solely the first sentence: It's not like that, because the issue being discussed when referring to the deaths caused by socialism/communism is which system is worse.
I’ve heard this kind of “debunking” before from “The Black Book of Capitalism” and “The Black Book of Imperialism.” You know the funny thing about both of those? Neither even attempts to provide numbers.
Sadly the history of human beings is pretty much a charnel house under all political systems but the average citizen does get a better chance at life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness over all in a democratic country.
No the higher standard of living is due to the circumstances of the country and its position in the capitalist hierarchy, until recently the us had an enviable standard of living and a sham democracy.
You just compared communism to imperialism and colonialism and called it comparison to capitalism. Colonialism and imperialism(land expansion policies)are traits associated with governments and monarchs in addition to communism or capitalism(economic policies) and have plagued countries that use capitalism or communism. That’s like saying let’s compare how our pastries turn out, you use milk and ill use water, then when my water pastry comes out worse than your milk pastry I blame it on the eggs that we both used. The real comparison the kill count argument makes is comparing 4 populations. Each one on its own island. Each island has 10 people on it. So one island of the 4 tries capitalism and no one on their island dies. But they also practiced colonialism and killed 1 person on each other island to take their resources. 1 island tries communism and 3 people on their island die. They also practice colonialism and kill 1 person on each other island for their resources. Now the two remaining islands have to decide which system they are going use. Which will it be? Extrapolate this to all modern day countries basked off the last 300 years of evidence. This is what we are talking about.
From feudalism quite a few but nowadays it's making things worse. Food is mega expensive now, more people are becoming homeless and the governments are ruled by oligarchs. You can't tell me that's capitalism being successful.
Industrialization was inevitable at some point, but it's a shame that it was forced through at such a violent speed because the elite certainly didn't value the lives of the poorest on whose backs it would be built on.
@@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999 "It was forced through at such a violent speed"- let's say you could have slowed down the industrial revolution. What would you have done?
Well I keep seeing people saying Mao killed tens of millions. But where does that number come from? It's not a figure published as a fact. There's an estimate (from the west) that the "Great Leap Forward" caused famine that caused tens of millions of deaths although that's not an credible / official number. It's also said that millions were persecuted during the "Cultural Revolution". But neither of them was intentional "killing". Mao is responsible for his mistakes in both events but he did not mean to kill the people. So it's extremely unfair to link the words "man slaughter", "mass murder" or even "genocide" with Mao's name. And those were not necessarily the fault of communism or socialism too.
Doesn't matter, left wing or right wing. Communism or capitalism. A dictator is a dictator in either system. Totalitarianism in any form under any system or ideology is horrible.
Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. Capitalism is the dictatorship of the Capitalist class. Sometimes explicit, with corporate-backed fascist dictators, and sometimes closed or hidden, with Liberal "democracies". Socialism is the proletariate class holding political and economic power. This "dictatorship" nonsense is Capitalist projection.
My great-grandfather was shot in 1937 for having an extra cow. My grandfather, when he received an amnesty for his father, cried all night in '93, although he was a very "harsh" man, he had several stab wounds and he worked at a shipyard. and then he died of cancer because he smoked i was a little boy
And what motivates and originates that imperialism? Oh, that's right, the need for corporations to get raw materials to mass produce for a certain market in demand, in other words, capitalism. It has always been like this, from British expansionism, to all of the bombings the US has been doing in the middle east. You libertarians sure love to do mental gymnastics.
the problem is that you conflate famine with socialism, if everyone that died on a socialist country counts as "deaths of communism" then why not do the same for capitalism?
@@HundredManSlayer- If you're talking about the Holodomir it was not just a famine there are plenty of sources that prove it was a deliberate and to deny that is just genocide denial. And for the record I don't know why you are trying toargue any of these countries were not communist they clearly were. And if you're wondering why people in general conflate famine with communism is because when you have a centrally planned economy all economic failures are the blame of the ones in control of said economy.
@@youmakenosense7437 Oh hello jackass the motivations for imperialism are separate from capitalism and to imply it is the source of imperialism is absurd. It predates such an economic system dating back to the times of Babylon and given the expansionism from the soviet union in Eastern Europe and elsewhere it is clear that imperialism can occur in nearly any economic system. I know you like to condescend towards libertarians because you probably know nothing about either the positions people like me hold you filth. You talk about mental gymnastics when you got the gold medal tanki
Stalin was not a socialist but a communist dictator. Hitler was technically socialist too by that dumb standard. The comparison is offensive to any real socialist.
😂name a socialist country that made poor people rich or protect free speech. How do you explaine that britain sent convict slave labour to australia and now with capitalism and democracy you have gold, skyscrapers and kerry packer?
Socialism is slavery. We see it in China, Russia and North Korea to this day. "Social transformations" invariably involve deaths -of course they do because they always have two sides and always involve violence, pitting aggressors against victims. The Chinese and Russian Revolutions are classic examples of violence heaped on class enemies. And we do know about death statistics because often socialist states are very adept at keeping records to prove to the tyrannt that the job has been done. Stalin for example had millions of people deported to the Russian East or incarcersted in Gulags far from "civilized" Moscow. Capitalism is a choice. Nobody ever got dragged off to a factory to work and capitalism provides people with an opportunity to better their individual circumatances. This is why Russia abandoned socialism and China adopted elements of it after the 1989 Tiannamen uprising which was a call for political and social freedoms and better economic ideas.
"Socialism is slavery"? What a stupid statement! There is a video by Prof. Wolff about 3 basic kinds of socialism, maybe you should start watching that before you talk about socialism in such a ridiculous way.
@@Azazin187 And here we have an example of the kind of intolerance that socialists tend to exhibit when they hear something they do not like. In a socialist country, this person would doubtless be reporting his neighbours for their beliefs and attending public floggings. Socialism is slavery and I really dont mind if you do not accept that because in a capitalist country, freedom of ideas and the rights of individuals to hold a wide variety of beliefs is protected in law.
@@Azazin187 In real Socialism, there is "common ownership" of the means of production. What power do you have, to "own" or "not own" something, in that system?
Medical insurance lobbies, preventing Americans from having universal healthcare causing a lot of death and suffering to make a profit for their boards and shareholders have a created a pretty large body count.
@@mor9n243 But is that the case with every business? If you treat your employees badly, and your arch-competitor treats them well, will this give you an advantage or disadvantage?
Not really understanding the stance here right out of the gate. Both governments under Stalin and Mao were authoritarian; not a true government for and by the people as socialist philosophy calls for. They murdered anyone who threatened their power, just like those in any authoritarian position does which includes capitalism. Did either of those countries truly implement the ideals of Marx? Or was it just a label to try and camouflage it's authoritarian natures; much as evangelical christians claim to follow Christ then cherry pick passages that they use to marginalize and kill others? Your defense of these particular "communist" regimes reminds me of what many do in the U.S. who choose party over actually helping people. There are several socialist democracies that are actually functional to hold up as positive examples. There is no defense for what Stalin, Mao, and other like them have done in the pursuit of power over people.
@@tubedon1000 O.k. That may be true. How is my observation and analysis of his statements unreasonable? Definition of authoritarian argument: "An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument." How does apply in this case?
@@biosphereisland5666 Argument from authority is a different thing than the "authoritarian argument" concerning communism/socialism. At the end of the day Stalin and Mao improved living conditions in their respective countries and set them on the path to industrialization. There obviously were costs, but it's very hard to imagine how the alternatives would have been any better. So-called "democratic" (if such a system even exists) leaders that try to implement any sort of socialist-ish policies end up mysteriously dying or getting overthrown. Empires can usually export the costs to the colonies and such. China and the USSR couldn't.
@@knowledgeanddefense1054 Your post inadvertently supports my argument. Clearly people traded goods and services since humans started walking upright. Free market economics today does not murder people. Whether market socialism exists or not, how is that relevant?
@@anthonymorris5084 "Free market economics today does not murder people."-hahahahaha... HAHAHAHAHA! 20 million people in third world who die due to a lack of profit motive to help them, though? "Whether market socialism exists or not, how is that relevant?"-*facepalm*
@@anthonymorris5084 Also, if you want to look at more direct murders I can point you to: hundreds of years of slavery ("oh, but existed before capitalism too!" so like how gulags existed in Russia before the USSR and famines existed in China before Mao?) the British colonial rule of India, other forms of imperialism by the US around the world, the native american genocide, unhealthy industry (including cigarettes and fast food) which has taken tens of millions at this point ("oh but it was their choice" and what manufactured the culture around that choice, which endlessly encourages consumerism? capitalism, because you're a product of your environment) and last but not least pollution and climate change - that's like 500 million, right there. Compare that to the accusation against communism, which is 100 million minus (and I'm going according to historians here who denounced the ways you twisted their words, look up the sourced wikipedia page) straight up lies like a million deaths in Vietnam, lower birth rates somehow counting as deaths, unavoidable famines as a result of preexisting starting conditions of a country desperate enough for a revolution in the first place as well sanctions embargoes and invasions from... certain other countries (*cough* capitalist ones *cough* so much for the free market *cough*) conflicts with nazis who the soviet union fought more than any other ally during WW2, natural disasters and droughts in China that were the result of a larger pattern... yeah, you get the point. The irony is that a worker has infinitely more freedom with unions, democratic co-ops and regulations that he could vote for and thus empowering him than what you're advocating for, which is the dictatorship of the top 1%
@@anthonymorris5084 Who do you know is being murdered in Cuba and Vietnam (China is a mixed economy so I don't know if that counts) right now? Also, social democratic countries using the nordic model in Scandinavian countries, while still capitalist, are the closest capitalism could get to socialism without a full transition - and it's the least free market, while doing the best in every area to maximize human happiness. Compare that to the United States of America, AKA the school shooting gallery. And no, this doesn't even prove that socialism needs a bit of capitalism in order to work, because a full transition to a proletarian run state would immediately be followed up with sanctions, embargoes and invasions by other capitalist countries.
yeah just point examples of nazi germany what WAs capitalist, as well as all collonial action inclusive opium war and inclusive todays capitalist russia actions
Switzerland is capitalist and hasn't been involved in a foreign war for more than two centuries. How do you explain this phenomenon according to your logic?
@@lmy2366 i was not talking about peaceful capitalist countries, actually Switzerland is social-democratic, what is not "pure" capitalist, howewer: The point of my logic is that capitalist country ALSO CAN do atrocities, what we see historically, so being a socialist country do not necessary makes it killing machine, and the answers WHY that happens lies in some OTHER aspects of political and social situation and NOT in the fact that a country "is a socialist".
@@cicik57 There is no such thing as varying capitalism. A system does or doesn't incorporate markets and private property, period. Switzerland is thus capitalist. My point was to provide an example of pacifist capitalist countries, of which Switzerland is among. Capitalism is not an innately jingoistic system (which you implied), much like any other economic system.
@@lmy2366 i agree, my point just was that the level of violence is influenced primary by OTHER factors and not by socialism/capitalism, what is also the theme of the video.
@@lmy2366 Switzerland is a parasitical state that engages in imperialism via its complicity as a tax haven, money launderer, arms dealer and escrow service for every mass murdering imperial project vomited forth by Europe's inbred ruling class for the last 700 years.
Don't you think it's disingenuous to make these comments - "mass death has always occurred during major social transition" - and then not be forthcoming about the acceptable level of death (and how you will prevent it) for your proposed major social change?
Not only that but he is lying about the census and in trying to tie capitalism to colonialism. They have nothing to do with each other and his claims about deaths from a census are lies because there was no such census. ua-cam.com/video/ehwDR-afg18/v-deo.html
@@need-to-know- The point I think he's trying to make is that it's wrong to haggle blood for any social change. Moreover what arbitrary line would be set that is an acceptable amount of blood for any cause?
The 22nd December 1989 is one of the most blessed dates in world history. It was the last gasp of the Ceausescu regime and the dissolution of the Socialist Republic of Romania. UA-cam has plenty of videos showing how the evil dictator and his evil old hag of a wife were shouted down by crowds of angry and unhappy citizens in Bucharest and the look of disbelief on the face of the old monster as he realizes that the people despise him is priceless. This is the reality of socialism. In 1989 there was a global rebellion against socialism. The Soviet Union collapsed, workers and students occupied Tiannamen Square in Beijing and the Berlin Wall was smashed down. It is not invincible. It has its inherent flaws and it can be destroyed.
BS. You're speaking Capitalist fiction. Capitalism finances dictatorships. Capitalism is broken and societies revot to overthrow it. Capitalists use violent state repression of protesters, such as the philadelphia genocide.
The USSR did not "collapse", that's a Cold War-propaganda word. The union was abolished by the party elite. It was only after 1991 that the economy almost collapsed in Russia
All nations on the planet with an advanced economy is a mixed one. If one can define socialism in some way, it would be "The public/workers own the means of production". A mixed economy means, elements of socialist and capitalist economic system working side by side. Meaning, *Prof Wolff lives/works/vacations in: a partially socialist nation. So do you.* The argument Wolff offers, is moving more of the shared infrastructure to public ownership, or worker owned democratic co-ops, of which would be competing with, but most likely out-competing purely capitalist enterprises. I agree with him. We'd be better off as a society, with a lot of stuff that's necessary for our everyday lives, to not be in the hands of artificial entities and hoarder, con-man, parasitic, sociopathic weirdoes who are out to take as much money offa me, as possible. Our roads, bridges, water, electricity, information technology, education and energy, food and mass transportation, should not be in the hands of multinational conglomerates who's only purpose is, seeking profit. I for one, don't like being blackmailed by monsters. _"Your money or your life?!"_ Its what stick-up men in the olden days used to say to their victims. Its what the capitalist class sez to us right now. But they say it in legaleze and financial instruments...also owning everything. Some of which they got for free and are subsidized by us. The taxpayers. Hope that helps.
@@k3v1n47 I have watched hundreds of video's by Prof Wolff. Prof Wolff admits he is a Marxist. He preaches Marx on a routine basis. What you identified above is NOT what Prof Wolff is advocating. Under socialism, the means of production are owned or controlled by the state for the benefit of all, an arrangement that is compatible with democracy and a peaceful transition from capitalism. Marxism justifies and predicts the emergence of a stateless and classless society without private property. Prof Wolff is promoting Marxism. Marxism is a social, political, and economic philosophy named after Karl Marx. It examines the effect of capitalism on labor, productivity, and economic development and argues for a worker revolution to overturn capitalism in favor of communism, repeat "Communism" Prof Wolff uses the term socialism loosely when he is promoting Marxism.
Well, not really. If you think of modern socialist countries you find Venezuela Cuba and China. Cuba has been embargoed by the US for as long as 99% of people can remember causing them to not be able to grow as the could of been able to. Venezuela follows the same path as Cuba, capitalist exploitation then american embargo. China isn't socialist, they are as socialist as Norway or Finland. Capitalism is the dominant economic system in all three of those countries. Regulated capitalism doesn't make it socialism.
@@demigod1230 Well, not really. If you think of modern socialist countries you find Venezuela Cuba and China. *All nations on the planet with an advanced economy is a mixed one. The people or public control the means of production and distribution, in some aspect in these society's economy. A socialist system by its nature.* *We identify things by their features. What is the description of a thing. A word points to the concept. It isn't he concept. Its merely a symbol of the concept.* *The degree of gov involvement, ie: control of markets, and means of production, varies in nation state to nation state.* *When the ostensible "people's representatives or government", intervenes in the economy on behalf of the greater good, then what do we call that idea? All nations with an advanced economy, their gov has some hand in how Capitalist enterprises behave in public.* *From banning them from certain aspects of the economy and managing the vast resources and production capabilities of their citizens. ie: **_"Public goods."_* *The US has a mixed economy. "Modern Socialist countries" is just a label. We identify things by their features.* Cuba has been embargoed by the US for as long as 99% of people can remember causing them to not be able to grow as the could of been able to. *As compared to their previous iteration, they've grown far beyond what the capitalist domination of their society gave the majority. The most effective time of the embargo on Cuba, was when the Soviet Union was dismantled. A disaster for Cuban prospects. The USSR was their largest trading partner.* *Economically they've been hurting as designed from the US' plans. Because of this collapse or dismantling of the USSR, the US now was in a better position to strangle Cuba. Now the Cubans seem to be actively seeking to join China's Belt and Road Initiative. An international infrastructure and trading pact, that bypasses the US economic and political bloc.* *I'm sure the DC weirdoes are sh¡++¡ng Their pants. Or maybe their too busy sniffing their own farts with sh¡t eating grins, to notice what's coming?* Venezuela follows the same path as Cuba, capitalist exploitation then american embargo. China isn't socialist, they are as socialist as Norway or Finland. *They are literally ruled by the communist party. They literally are more of a planned economy than any of the European and North American nations...with heavy redistributive policy. With heavy interference in the Capitalist arena. In the markets for everything.* Capitalism is the dominant economic system in all three of those countries. *How else would they operate in a world dominated by capitalist enterprises? They're not idiots. They can't fold their arms in ideological disagreement with the capitalist dominated states, pouting. Instead they're on the way to becoming the world's largest market. Taking the power that comes with it.* *Multinational corporations go where the money is. Instead of getting a free ride as they do in the Western political and economic bloc, non Chinese corporations are severely limited in their operations in China.* *Concessions unseen in the Western world have to be made with the communist government of China.* *With these policies within a few decades they pulled 300million people out of poverty. How? socialism. Redistribution via many state power means. That has an enormous political and symbolic example for the much of hte world.* *China, shares with the most resource rich parts of the world a commonality. They were colonized...by the Western bloc. There are many moving parts in this game we are mere observers in.* *Capitalists made a mess, over the 5 centuries they were in control of society. They are a small group.* Regulated capitalism doesn't make it socialism. *You just came up with a new thing you didn't mention. "Regulated Capitalism"? What is this? All over the world in every advanced economy, restrictions and limitations are placed on capitalist enterprises. This is so general its absurd.* _"Regulated capitalism doesn't make it socialism."_ *What is this?*
A typical example of a dishonest leftist: people die under capitalism - who knew? Obviously under socialism people are immortal. It's the same kind of dishonesty practiced by Irish Nationalists to argue that a 'million' people died in the Potato Famine, which is only achieved by counting every death in the 1840's as part of the famine - even though given the Irish population and the life expectancy at the time, you'd have expected about 100,000 deaths each year even if the famine had never occurred. Basically people who died of cancer, strokes, heart-attacks, diabetes, TB, and other diseases, three or four years before the famine even began are considered to be victims. Similarly, the 200,000 Irish people who moved to England and Scotland during the famine are also counted as 'dead' as they weren't in Ireland and didn't emigrate - because Ireland was part of the UK and moving from there to London or Glasgow was not considered emigration. That's socialist statistics for you.
I have no idea what are the accurate statistics about the Irish potato famine are, but it is our belief that the last of 500 years of hyperviolent and aggressive colonialism for capitalist profit are extreme and FAR in excess of anything misguided 20th century so called socialist dictators may have done.
He's not "dishonest", he is speaking facts. You're a typical example of a parasite making verbal malabarism. Just stop robbing the working class already.
However, tribes in Africa were efficient in killing each other with spears, stones and arrows even long before British Colonialism. And many European countries were very civilized before German EU-''liberation'' 1914 1941
Cool story bro. Now, you may not like this story and it may upset you, but I've lived, worked and studied in the USSR and traveled extensively in Communist Easten Europe as well as China and regardless of your body count games I saw for myself first hand over many years how utterly shitty, grim , desperate and hopeless life for people was under that system. Nothing takes the blinkers off one's eyes like seeing that, unless maybe seeing the miles of no man's land one had to cross at the frontier because they had to keep their own people from escaping that workers paradise. A far better metric than mere stacks of corpses.
It’s so ironic that you say “cool story bro” in response to a recounting of well-documented historical fact, then respond with “I lived communism and let me tell you it was harribbble!!!“ The rejoinder “cool story bro” was literally made to mock vague and non-credible anecdotes like yours
Not true, I was your next door neighbor your entire life, moving when you moved, and you never went to the Soviet Union, China, or even Cuba. I have photographic evidence of it too
@@abe8435 nothing in this video is “well recounted” or “historical fact.” Richard Wolff is straight up lying about his own doctoral dissertation because the census was not taken in that year.
Miles of no man's land? Can you please tell us which countries from your list had no crossborder trade and no settlements along the borders even in the most autocratic periods of their history?
One has the admire the restraint of our Professor, who is loathe to raise arguments regarding comparative deaths but does it anyway ( because capitalism ) but as usual, attempts to imply that the deaths he cites are all the result of "economics"...but he still can't get even close to the millions attributed to "socialism" in the "massive continent of Europe". ( more Asia than Europe ) In terms of size, the two are almost even, with Europe only slightly bigger than the US (10.2 million sq km vs 9.8 million sq km) but this includes large parts of Russia. The EU, which many people think of as Europe, has a population of 510 million people, in an area half the size of the US (4.3 million sq km). Damn those Brits for partitioning India and Pakistan...given that humans are naturally cooperative and caring, it is clear that if not for those nasty Brits, Hinduism and Islam would have gotten along splendidly...just like the Israelis and the Palestinians. One has to wonder, what motivates this historical revisionism, and the imposition of of the supposed moral superiority of the present upon the past...when nothing has really changed.
@@kevinschmidt2210 I know but the question is, why do you keep doing it? For Wolff EVERYTHING is capitalism...so he invents numbers... without any verification of the actual "cause"...of death. Certainly "millions" did not die in the period, of the Mau Mau revolution... was an uprising determined to "exterminate" their white oppressors, but as usual failed to hit their mark, much like the BLM movement. As for the deaths that occurred in the years cited 1895 thru 1930 the million and a half deaths is simply an assertion without explanation... or a chain of evidence. That you would accept any such presentation of history over such an extended period of time reduced to a summary of fewer than 25 minutes, or in this case less than 5. with any degree of credibility which reduces to "because capitalism"...can not be taken seriously except by a fool.
@@ExPwner Cry more. There is nothing to refute within his comment, except obfuscating and deflecting opinions asserted as facts, which is what I did! Those aspersions? LOL! That makes YOU the liar.
Dedunking? More like an acknowledgment that Stalin and Mao killed people and then a feeble attempt to make death count a competition. 2:02 "Maybe Stalin and Mao didn't sit for 2 or 3 centuries" That's right they were too busy ruling and killing people to be sitting. If you let "two or three or four centuries" go by it doesn't matter what economic system you are under. Generations of people are going to die of "old age." He doesn't quote any direct cause of death by capitalism. I hope he really didn't mean hey look 200-400 years went by and all those countries under capitalism died.😂 2:34 Wolff talks about British taking over Kenya as colonialism which is basically war or similar to pillaging. He later says that colonialism is the extension of Capitalism. Any Country, power, economic system can colonize. The Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics colonized the Baltic States, sending countless Russian nationals to Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia to displace the indigenous population. If we want to talk about deaths happening under rule by the economic system, Mao's "Great Leap Forward" caused millions of people to die in China, with estimates ranging from 15 to 55 million, making the Great Chinese Famine the largest or second-largest famine in human history. So what about Capitalism? Capitalism was never directly addressed in this video, but was put as the centered topic to be critiqued from the beginning of the video. 1:55 "The number of deaths is much much larger" sure no facts. 4:45 "imagine if we had a census" Yeah anything is possible with an imagination.😅
Those "estimates" have been debunked a long ago by social researchers and only propagated by western ideologues. For instance, the way these estimates work is that they count the number of unborn children based on some linear model for population growth, forgetting for instance that China implemented a one-child policy for the majority Han population. Moreover, it has been shown in countries around the world that an increase in life situation is the surest way to decrease number of children per family. But I guess those scientific facts have no weight against idiological arguments.
@@leroitiaks Let's assume the "estimate" is as you say. What is the actual death count? Do you have sources that you can share? Because apparently Wolff acknowledges that a lot of people died and Mao supposedly killed more people than Hitler and Stalin
@@jakeshota4050 A lot of people die whenever there is an overhaul of social organisation, but also when a harmful organisation is maintained. The point here is to ask why estimates on deaths under socialist governments are taken at face value and not those under other regimes. You yourself said "supposedly", something again challeneged among others by Naom Chomsky, no friend of socialism.
How about the 1 in 2 cancer rates seen around the world in various places in the 21st century. How about the 95% infant mortality rate in some workhouses in 19th century. Maybe let's discuss the systematic clearences of land in the 16th and 17th centuries (then onto colonies after).. Let's not talk about the constant risks capitalism is producing on a daily as a byproduct of growth. Let's just not.
@@leroitiaks Yes, I said supposedly because I acknowledge that sometimes "facts" could be a false opinion. The farther back you go in history, the more it becomes "his story" basically the victor may tell the history how they want it to be remembered. There is more transparency in the world today, but with the exception of China reporting 0 covid deaths😂 If "the point here is to ask why estimates on deaths under socialist governments are taken at face value and not those under other regimes." I guess the answer is that we are waiting to have someone actually explain how Capitalism has killed more people than socialist governments. Because it clearly wasn't addressed in this video above and that is why I posted my original comment. We already have some sort of consensus that socialist governments have killed a lot of people under its rule so that is why that part is being acknowledged.
He’s lying! If there’s some sort of coercion or force involved, then it’s not capitalism... Under capitalism there’s a mutual agreement between the people buying or selling a good or a service!
@@Synerco there’s no such thing as “real capitalism”. There’s the actual capitalism and whatever else economic system that requires force or coercion has nothing to do with capitalism!
This hypothesis is nonsensical. Advancement in technology is the primary force that shape the world. Economics has a far smaller influence to the way the world evolved. Prior to colonisation, it was the medieval age where war between nations are common. Not long later, the west discovered a way to learn about the universe. With each new discovery of science, new invention were made and west became the most advanced nation in the world. Colonialism is a result of the superior technology over the rest of the world. Nevertheless, it is still a world where might rules the weak with rivalry primarily between the western countries. The world wars have a huge impact that pushed towards a capitalism. Capitalism drives technological development and globalisation. There are winners and losers but in general the world is largely peaceful and progressive.
@bananaguard All other forms of systems will have inequality because no system is perfect and remains in the same state. Throughout the history of mankind, there are all forms of inequality. The worst outcome is when the world revert back to the mighty rules with force.
Capitalism is individual rights, which Marxists evade. Capitalism has no colonialism. _America_ had late-19th century colonialism, guided by the Progressive desire to "save our little, brown brothers." Occupying the Phillippines had zero benefit to the US. America is a nation, not the politics of individual rights. Individual rights are good. America has not been always consistent in application. That does not invalidate individual rights.
What the British did in Kenya is small potatoes compared to what Leopold did in the Congo
Yea, Professor Wolff isn't really a knockout artist, so to speak. He's more the 'constantly pepper your face with easy jabs' kinda guy.
I'll wager he knows about that but just didn't mean to include it here because it wasn't really necessary, but I'm sure he knows all about the long legacy of blood due to colonialism.
No shit
"If we can talk about millions in that little corner of the empire, imagine if we had a census, no more would you hear death count be the way of comparing capitalism and socialism and communism." - Richard Wolff
There wasn’t a census. He is lying.
ua-cam.com/video/ehwDR-afg18/v-deo.html
Too bad there is no verification of that number...and 1.5 is not millions...and you have no proof
or chain of evidence to prove your claim.
FDR created famine...how many millions did that kill????
And then you start counting the deaths, both indigenous and non- indigenous, incurred at the hands of the ruling elite in the US and their numbers start to become overwhelmingly depressing.
Oh please ... Tell that to the Patients killed /treated in North Korean / Cuban/ USSR hospitals .... lol - Just add millions more killed by any dis-functional coercion based government lol.
Look into the history of leaded fuels.
Decision makers at Du Pont decided to add lead compounds to gasoline *even though they knew the resulting emissions were extremely toxic*. If we use the same metrics for counting deaths as are often used for evaluating the body counts of supposedly "communist" regimes, the total attributable to that single capitalist enterprise is greater than the highest possible for Stalin and Mao combined.
Yup. The electric car was invented over 180 years ago. What if we went electric the past century and a half, instead of oil? Maybe fewer wars, maybe less or no climate change?
I include cancer as part of the social murder that is committed in capitals name.
Even assuming hysterically that your claim is true, gasoline, as fuel for transportation, has vastly benefited mans life. You drop the context.
No it isn’t
@@ExPwner By the metrics often used when counting the deaths of Stalinist regimes it is.
We reject that vision of socialism too, but if you want to play the death count game, you're not gonna win no matter what metrics you use
Your explanation should be bolder. Give estimated figures of how many people were killed by the wars of East India Co., and then the combined European governments and afterwards by the US governments since 1600's. Billions of people were killed and or enslaved. Count also their own soldiers.
Government doing stuff is not capitalism.
@@ExPwner you could also say government doing stuff is not socialism too. that's his point kkk member.
he just giving us a tip of the iceberg as his point. a million people just in one African country in less than 50 years.
... for the private ownership of a sovereign people's resources.
Imperialism was achieved in the name of mercantilism, not capitalism. The British banned colonial subjects from establishing their own capital good markets: instead the colonists were forced to sell their raw material to the British, who in return sold back to them finished goods like chairs or shirts (made of American cotton and timber). Imperialism made no economic sense whatsoever: free trade was illegal under this system; the colonial powers preferring instead protectionism or mercantilism. The object of these two is to limit imports at all costs, even at the risk of higher prices. This was supposedly 'sound', because economic theory during the era propagated that wealth was fixed, and that to acquire more of it nations needed to increase exports (trade was thought of as a zero sum game, whereby only one party (the seller) profited). Contrast this with free trade, in which economic choices are left to the individual consumer, and thus government has no say. This leads consumers to purchase the cheapest (yet of equal quality) products, domestic or otherwise. Free trade propagates that both parties profit from exchange; if they didn't, they wouldn't engage in it.
I’m Kenyan. I’m from the tribe that farmed the coffee
I hope that you people put that down into the history books and teach it to your children so that they don't forget.
Just in British India, that after all was a private enterprise regulated by no state as it was the state in India, almost 2 billion people died from disease, famine, imperial brutality and so on. Such was the brutality of the English that there was no population growth between 1860 and 1934, despite the very high fertility rate.
If you added similar casualties from Indonesia, Africa, China, Indochina and the Americas; I'd not be surprised if it got over 3 billion or 4 billion. Also worth considering that the largest bloodbaths witnessed by the humanity were directly or indirectly fruit of capitalist and imperialist interests. Be it the world wars, the civil wars happening in China after the Opium wars like the Taiping rebellion, the Congo genocide done by the rogue state of Belgium, etc.
And the british like to call it great empire or other eufemisms instead of fascism. Britain invented fascism.
@@DV-dt9sq Fascism is the logical conclusion of capitalism.
In 1800, the population of the region of present-day India was approximately 169 million. The population would grow gradually throughout the 19th century, rising to over 240 million by 1900. Population growth would begin to increase in the 1920s, as a result of falling mortality rates, due to improvements in health, sanitation and infrastructure. However, the population of India would see it’s largest rate of growth in the years following the country’s independence from the British Empire in 1948, where the population would rise from 358 million to over one billion by the turn of the century, making India the second country to pass the billion person milestone. While the rate of growth has slowed somewhat as India begins a demographics shift, the country’s population has continued to grow dramatically throughout the 21st century, and in 2020, India is estimated to have a population of just under 1.4 billion, well over a billion more people than one century previously. Today, approximately 18% of the Earth’s population lives in India, and it is estimated that India will overtake China to become the most populous country in the world within the next five years.
Looks like your understanding is somewhat less than accurate.
@@jgalt308 Looks like your understanding of cutting and pasting tons of irrelevant information to obfuscate and deflect from the topic at hand is somewhat ridiculous.
@@kevinschmidt2210 Yup, it's a shame that it directly contradicts the claims
of the initial comment...but you are perfectly free to provide information
that proves it's not true.
The problem with making assertions without evidence...is that they are supported by
nothing but FAITH.
But you are more than welcome to provide a starting date for "capitalism" and then produce
a before and after comparison growth rate for the relative increase in population.
That you can demonstrate its negative effects is total nonsense...but go ahead, give
it a shot, after all FAITH can move mountains...it just doesn't happen in the real world.
And the victims of the Viet Nam; Afghanistan; Iraq; Yemen; Syria wars and conflicts.
It's estimated that half a million to one million civilians were murdered by Suharto-the most corrupt dictator in history-in Indonesia. Installed after overthrowing Sukarno in 1965.
The country never recovered.
And what of the death squads in Nicaragua and Chile? All fomented by the US.
The war of Vietnam was started by Soviets, both Soviets and Capitalists attacked Afghanistan, Iraq Syria and Yemen aswell were bombed by both Soviets and Capitalists.
Yes, the CIA actually described it as worst of the worst atrocities of the 20th century, although, of course, they absolved themselves of any responsibility...
In a fraction of the time that the British Empire held sway.
Yes, great time to talk about this!
This is the first time I heard this argument and it's very convincing. Thank you Prof. Wolff.
2 books were written about. The first about the deaths caused by communism 1997. Then someone "responded" with one about capitalism 1999. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Livre_noir_du_capitalisme
It is not at all convincing. He is straight up lying.
ua-cam.com/video/vTqZOQtbtzQ/v-deo.html
That’s the point
@@tubedon1000 yup unchallenged and without evidence. That definitely IS...the POINT!
@@lunarmodule6419 that book about the death "caused" by communism is so ridiculously flawed lmao. If we were to apply the standards used by that book to capitalism, then capitalism's "death toll" is much higher in that regards
Yes. Well stated. Thank you!
It surely was a STATEMENT...without PROOF...it is a MEANINGLESS STATEMENT.
You must like those!!!!
@@jgalt308 they just gobble every left wing lie they get their hands on. Leftoids do not ever read sources. If they did then they would see that the census Wolff claimed to have used did not exist. Kirk Wilcox and Actual Justice Warrior detailed this like a year ago.
@@jgalt308геноциды и войны нуждаются в доказательствах? Вы в лесу живёте?
In the 24 months between 2010 and 2012 the uk saw 130k excess deaths directly attributed to cuts to services and targeting of ppl (austerity and punative sanctions, uk, tory party ).
As of this year the excess death rate is 16% higher than the previous 5.
These stats do not include covid. And austerity continues to this day. Do the math.
No there weren’t. “Directly attributed” means made up by a leftist without evidence to support it.
So what are they with covid and why would that figure not include it?
Governments create waste. Politicians only extend government provided services to win over votes, no matter the costs involved.
@@jgalt308 because austerity and covid are two different things. Austerity is specifically a result of the financial crash.
@@DJWESG1 But excess deaths are excess deaths...and these are based on "actuarial"
tables by insurance companies based on claims...and the differences between
various demographics from year to year, hence the term.
The cause of these deaths gets a little murky and it seems difficult to believe
that "austerity" would be listed. Also, that covid might be, is also questionable,
in that dying with and dying from is also inaccurate, as these deaths are usually
caused by co-morbidity factors, rather than covid.
Under the circumstance..."doing the math"...is not as straightforward as you imply.
All you have to do is look at famine deaths in India under the British occupation.
That has nothing to do with capitalism.
@@ExPwner But wait a minute let me guess - famines under Mao and Lenin can 100% be attributed to socialism. The inconvenient truth for you is these countries had been famine prone for centuries before "socialism" and only succeeded to escape this cycle through industrialization.. but I guess prior famines were caused by "bad crop yields"?
@@Master_ofReality wrong. The frequency and severity of famines was worse because of collectivism.
@@Master_ofReality Jalvesguitar: was the Chinese famine in the 1960s caused by a move away from a Communist central economy, or a move towards it?
@@lochnessmunster1189 Can’t really prove it either way
the history of banana republics
Excellent concept.
If Britain had been Communist since the 1700s, would this automatically mean that they wouldn't have formed a world empire? It's not Capitalism at fault here; it's the government, and its military, being too large.
@@lochnessmunster1189 Not true. Britain started it's empire building during Feudal and Slavery times. It didn't become capitalist until later. Also, socialist concepts didn't start being academically laid out until well into the English Empire days (Mid 1850's). That makes it nearly impossible for anyone to predict your chain of events. At the very least we could imagine that there would be a much greater internal push back against empire building. Empires don't actually benefit the nation at large, just a tiny minority of elites. Poor English people lost because of the empire. If there were a powerful socialist or communist movement in Britain at that time, then there would have at least been a significant faction utterly opposed to foreign interventions.
@@antimattv But how do you know that there WOULD have been a significant faction opposed to foreign interventions if Britain had been Socialist or Communist in the past?
Communist countries have a history of foreign interventions throughout the 20th century. North Korea invaded the South. The USSR invaded Afghanistan. The USSR occupied Eastern Europe as satellite states and forced them to adopt their system.
Britain has always had a certain degree of a Capitalist element even during feudal times. Thankfully, the transition to mainstream Capitalism was enormously beneficial to workers. But I do agree with you that the ordinary English people didn't benefit from the empire. This is why it's infuriating that reparations are being talked about now. People who have never owned any slaves, and like the vast majority of the British population, are not descended from any slave-owners and never made a penny from it, might now have to pay towards people who likely were never descended from any slaves themselves, and may have even provided slaves to the British empire.
@@lochnessmunster1189 Alright, Kato institute, I know there's a mid term coming up. I know how many trolls are paid by various groups to spread your propaganda. Honestly, you won't find much support around these parts. Whatever, though, fill your boots. If somebody wants to believe your Milton Friedman/McCarty Era hatred, then let them.
@@lochnessmunster1189 it's capitalism at fault due to the fact that the incentives for British colonialism was driven by the economic system of capitalism
Also, South África, Pakistán, Hong Kong, palestime, northern Ireland are reeling still.
What would you need to see in these countries, for you to decide that they are no longer "reeling"?
Nice how he glossed over the deliberate starvation of those in the Ukraine under Stalin. If that's what he calls social change, well then I guess that excuses it. It's also interesting how he didnt even bother to tell you the numbers under Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Then he draws an obscure example from the English mercantile system, not capitalism. Then he tries to extrapilate that to the rest of the world. A very weak argument, and one that ignores facts.
Yep and his claims about Kenya are lies too.
@stafusstate your sources for your bullshit cause i looked it up and nothing came up with your so called "facts"
@MAJORITY...RULE101no they did not starve their own people. Quit peddling genocide denial.
Regardless whether it is communism or capitalism both lies under materialism. Men are just numbers.
@@ExPwnerНе было геноцида. Был голод по всему СССР. Хватит врать, лжец!!
"We want food, not PCR tests. We want freedom not lockdowns. We want respect not lies. We want reform not cultural revolutions. We want a vote not a leader. We want to be citizens not slaves."
From a banner on the Sitong Bridge in the Haidan district of Beijing that was seen today 13 October 2022 and posted on social media ahead of the 20th CCP Congress in the capital.
How true.
Not true. He is lying about the census.
ua-cam.com/video/ehwDR-afg18/v-deo.html
I do not like these type of argument because it gives the impression that those deaths actually happened for communism, which is not true.
The starvation in China in the 1950s had, as a main factor, an environmental disaster. (I can discuss more about it if you want me to do).
About deaths: poisoning with the use of phosgen gives symptoms similar as described as covid 19. If dose not lethal lung's function can be recorded in around 4 days. Phosgen is still in use by pharmaceutical companies.
Nonlethal type of arm: electromagnetic beam if used damages lungs the way that they look like bloody sponge. The death comes in around 4 hours if overdosed. Recovery time is months llong.
I didn't realize how violent and controlling capitalism is. Pinkerton's.
How is it "violent and controlling"? You think that Socialism isn't? If the government mandates a healthcare program, do you have any power to resist? What happens when you don't?
@@lochnessmunster1189 capitalist hospitals still wouldnt give proper treatment to them still 😅 both systems have corruption
@@lochnessmunster1189 capitalism is freedom sure if you can afford it 😅
@@lochnessmunster1189if you have no money under capitalism, you have little to no value so therefore no say on much. Socialism would allow you to have more say ("seize the means of production") and there's a pretty good chance any mandates that are put out are going to be in the people's favour instead of the privileged few.
@@ElliotPorter65 why must the "means of production be seized"? And why just production, and not delivery? Or the means to clean and maintain things?
Hey Mr. Wolff,
Do you think dropping the gold standard was a mistake?
That's an interesting question.
The gold standard and the fiat system both have their problems.
Can't we just use a FIAT system and just NOT print any money outside of bill replacements?
From what I understand, it's best to just not meddle with the ammount of bills in circulation. The less you change it, the better. That way prices become more stable.
@@Anti-Parasite2023-pp8uu Refusing to print more outside of bill replacements doesn't stabilize prices, it causes deflation (if the economy is growing). If the economy is growing, it needs more money to adequately represent its value. Without increasing the amount in circulation, you now have more stuff chasing the same amount of money, which causes prices to fall. Deflation has its own problems, because those with money already become wealthier without doing anything with it, and so encourages hoarding money for the purpose of becoming wealthier (as opposed to saving money for lean times, or to have enough capital for a large expenditure)
I dont believe that socialism or communism are better than capitalism, but now I see how you can see "capitalism" in a bad light.
I don't believe you can remove the unconsentual nature of socialism or communism and still have either. Whereas i do believe you can have only consentual interactions among people in a capitalist society.
How is socialism non-consensual and how is capitalism consensual??
@stafusthen get a job
@stafus lol
So now you are comparing a country conquering another county which has happened for many years. Egypt, Persia, Greek, Roman, Mongolian ,China British empires are examples of countries dominating others.
CCP and USSR are examples of governments doing things to their own people. Yes you can compare how the USA has done horrific things like deaths of Native Americans 12 million from the years 1492-1900 ( 408 years). But to think that you can brush off Mao 40-80million (during his time in office 18 years. I like how did that slight of hand
So like how there were famines in China before Mao and how there were Gulags in Russia before Lenin? Uh-oh, hypocrite much? :)
Also, "to their own people" AKA mostly lower birth rates which are somehow counted as deaths, soldiers sacrificing their life against nazis and imperialist threats from capitalist countries forcing rapid industrialization and overmilitarization.
@@knowledgeanddefense1054 You live in a fantasy world of lies and nonsense.
@@johnhatchel9681 That is yourself. You live in a world of fantasies and nonsense.
In the real world, Capitalism kills billions.
Communism is self defense.
It's not "brushing it off". It's the other way around.
You parasites make false accusations and distorting information to distract from Capitalism's real atrocities, which are higher in numbers and much more barbaric.
At least the Bolcheviks never tortured someone with a headcrusher. Or mutilated babies for profit.
@@Anti-Parasite2023-pp8uucapitalism did not kill any. Quit lying
It never ceases to irritate me when things like economic systems are only dealt with in absolutes. That is to say "It has to only be Socialism, or Communism or Capitalism". Anyone with a reasoning brain, that is a person who puts *facts before belief* will deduce that a hybrid, a system that takes the best of ALL and amalgamates them is the path society should be taking. Letting economic systems continue without oversight for centuries is counterintuitive. But economists tend to put on the mantle of High Priests of a particular sect of economic theory. Looking upon Marx or Lenin or Keynes as messiahs whose "bibles" are treated like *The True Word of God* hasn't worked out that well, just as most other religions based on messiahs and "belief".
It's 2022 and the world has still not learned this lesson.
Economic systems sit beneath social systems. Thus the totality of the social system tends to be described in general terms.
Though many economists often place the economy above the social.
@@DJWESG1 If you think the economic system of capitalism hasn't completely shaped the societies under its sway, then you are living in an alternate dimension.
@Miles ...: Have you lived in socialism? I guess not. I have and IT IS an amalgam. I haven't lived in communism so I can't say how it is...and in my opinion nobody had communism yet. So from my experience living in socialism and now in capitalism I can assure you that socialism is that amalgam you are talking about...a mixture of private and social ownership of the means of production and a result is so much better society than capitalism.
@@DV-dt9sq Do you mind revealing where you lived under Socialism?
The theory by this professor is nothing but garbage.
I think you really need to compare like for like. Not condoning or supporting a single fatality due to the greed and entitlement of capitalism. Just saying that British colonialism primarily affected N America. It was Empiricism ( from the 16th century to the present day) that resulted in as much as 24% of the global population being at the mercy of the crown.
The last game I want to play now or ever is "compare the deatg tolls, uet when doing so, perhaps compare the duration of said Empire.. The🇬🇧 600 years needs to bemapped alongside 🇺🇲 Imperialism and exceptionalism plus every other nation that adopted the capitalist methodolgy in which it's not only condoned, but encoraged to trample over whatsoever and whomever to acquire the glory of wealth.
Interesting thank you.
It is pretty clear that colonialism for capitalist profit has a legacy of blood, violence and death that's hard to fully quantify. Definitely in the billions all told. Not that violence never existed on the planet or in human society's prior to say, 1600, but colonialism for capitalist profit put it into rampant overdrive. While 20th century dictators were certainly not without blame, and they probably did cause millions of unnecessary deaths either through intention or incompetence, those numbers PALE in comparison to the last 500 years of colonialism for capitalist profit, or CFCP as I call it.
Capitalism has nothing to do with colonialism
@@ExPwner pretty weird false statement there
@@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999 you are the one with the false statement. Every single one of you weirdos cannot properly define the two terms. If you even bothered to properly define terms you would see that they are mutually exclusive.
@@ExPwner I don't see how. I'm not talking about basic exploration, or Euro people coming to North America to settle in the New World. I'm talking about the exploitation of mostly the Global South by European powers. Now this wasn't done for scientific research it was done for profit, a whole hell of a lot of profit to be specific for elite business interests. Sounds like "big" capitalism to me.
@@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999 what is the definition of colonialism? What is the definition of capitalism?
Is capitalism “when people look to profit?” No, it is not. Try again.
I am living proof of how socialism stifles progress , just few years younger got more oppurtunities and reached better positions.You are m8ssing the point ,colonialism and capitalism are unrelated ,as the colonialism takes away decicion making .Go to a bet5er university and read
This is the equivalent of being on trial for rape and murder and then saying "Ted Bundy did way worse though!"
Uhhhh, sorry if this reply isn't so intellectually sound - my brain cells are still recovering from this video...
You've just equivocated capitalism with colonialism. Nobody is arguing that colonialism isn't incredibly deadly for those being colonized. But colonialism is older than the British or Americans. It's even older than human beings! What do you think plants are doing by trying to spread their pollen everywhere, they're trying to establish _colonies_ on new land to make use of that land's nutrients.
If capitalism = colonialism then capitalism is over 300 million years old.
Of if we're only talking about human colonialism, were the ancient Greeks capitalists as well?
Were early hominid species also capitalists for warring with one another?
You've made a good argument that colonialism is deadly, you haven't said anything about capitalism being deadly in this video.
Addressing solely the first sentence: It's not like that, because the issue being discussed when referring to the deaths caused by socialism/communism is which system is worse.
I’ve heard this kind of “debunking” before from “The Black Book of Capitalism” and “The Black Book of Imperialism.” You know the funny thing about both of those? Neither even attempts to provide numbers.
@stafusyour yapping state sources lil bro
of shit....😀
Потому что такая цифра вне человеческого понимания
Sadly the history of human beings is pretty much a charnel house under all political systems but the average citizen does get a better chance at life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness over all in a democratic country.
True, especially a non-Communist one.
No the higher standard of living is due to the circumstances of the country and its position in the capitalist hierarchy, until recently the us had an enviable standard of living and a sham democracy.
@@Glumclam Capitalism the reason so many of the ordinary people have been able to live outside poverty; it is not the problem.
Thank you again Professor 🙏🏼
You just compared communism to imperialism and colonialism and called it comparison to capitalism.
Colonialism and imperialism(land expansion policies)are traits associated with governments and monarchs in addition to communism or capitalism(economic policies) and have plagued countries that use capitalism or communism. That’s like saying let’s compare how our pastries turn out, you use milk and ill use water, then when my water pastry comes out worse than your milk pastry I blame it on the eggs that we both used.
The real comparison the kill count argument makes is comparing 4 populations. Each one on its own island. Each island has 10 people on it.
So one island of the 4 tries capitalism and no one on their island dies. But they also practiced colonialism and killed 1 person on each other island to take their resources.
1 island tries communism and 3 people on their island die. They also practice colonialism and kill 1 person on each other island for their resources.
Now the two remaining islands have to decide which system they are going use. Which will it be?
Extrapolate this to all modern day countries basked off the last 300 years of evidence.
This is what we are talking about.
@MAJORITY...RULE101utter bullshit. Government doing stuff is not for profit and seeking profit is not capitalism. Capitalism is private enterprise.
Share and Save the World
Based on this assumption capitalism would fall exact in the balance of social change!
Yes in Russia after the wall fell that’s exactly what happened
No why
Even had the 100 million number been true - Better 100 million now, than billions of people over time under capitalism horrible conditions.
Capitalism hasn’t killed that many.
@@ExPwner It’s still killing folks!
Oh look a cut-and-paste plagiarism...from someone who can never manage a
coherent relevant response...even in a single sentence.
A better question for this "willfully ignorant, functional illiterate" is
what are the penalties for slander and libel?
@@need-to-know- no it isn’t
How many people died during the industrial revolution?
How many people's lives were improved because of it?
From feudalism quite a few but nowadays it's making things worse. Food is mega expensive now, more people are becoming homeless and the governments are ruled by oligarchs. You can't tell me that's capitalism being successful.
Comments for the Algorithm
How many people get their health deteriorated in industrialization?
How many people had it improved?
Industrialization was inevitable at some point, but it's a shame that it was forced through at such a violent speed because the elite certainly didn't value the lives of the poorest on whose backs it would be built on.
@@lochnessmunster1189 at that time or now?
@@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999 "It was forced through at such a violent speed"- let's say you could have slowed down the industrial revolution. What would you have done?
@@hayin2041 At that time.
Well I keep seeing people saying Mao killed tens of millions. But where does that number come from? It's not a figure published as a fact. There's an estimate (from the west) that the "Great Leap Forward" caused famine that caused tens of millions of deaths although that's not an credible / official number. It's also said that millions were persecuted during the "Cultural Revolution". But neither of them was intentional "killing". Mao is responsible for his mistakes in both events but he did not mean to kill the people. So it's extremely unfair to link the words "man slaughter", "mass murder" or even "genocide" with Mao's name. And those were not necessarily the fault of communism or socialism too.
The number comes from multiple historians. It is credible. You just don’t want to buy it because you are a genocide denier.
What absolute nonsense you speak.
Exactly.
But anti-communists HAVE to be vague and dishonest.
@@eymed2023 Communists are the biggest liars to ever exist. You can't believe anything they say.
貴方の考えは殺人罪と強盗致死と殺人教唆の違いについて延々と語るようなものだ。
Dictatorship is not socialist, where is a socialist country?
Doesn't matter, left wing or right wing. Communism or capitalism. A dictator is a dictator in either system. Totalitarianism in any form under any system or ideology is horrible.
Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.
Capitalism is the dictatorship of the Capitalist class. Sometimes explicit, with corporate-backed fascist dictators, and sometimes closed or hidden, with Liberal "democracies".
Socialism is the proletariate class holding political and economic power.
This "dictatorship" nonsense is Capitalist projection.
My great-grandfather was shot in 1937 for having an extra cow. My grandfather, when he received an amnesty for his father, cried all night in '93, although he was a very "harsh" man, he had several stab wounds and he worked at a shipyard. and then he died of cancer because he smoked i was a little boy
Which socialist country would this be please?
Where did this happen?
I call bullshit.
@@arthurlincoln9093 Fanfictstan
Thank you Prof. Wolff!!! Such an important clarification to our ever present white men arrogance!!
I acknowledge the deaths due to colonialism, that doesn't let communism off the hook.
The problem is that you conflate imperialism with capitalism
Exactly. And he just makes things up. He is a liar
And what motivates and originates that imperialism? Oh, that's right, the need for corporations to get raw materials to mass produce for a certain market in demand, in other words, capitalism. It has always been like this, from British expansionism, to all of the bombings the US has been doing in the middle east.
You libertarians sure love to do mental gymnastics.
the problem is that you conflate famine with socialism, if everyone that died on a socialist country counts as "deaths of communism" then why not do the same for capitalism?
@@HundredManSlayer- If you're talking about the Holodomir it was not just a famine there are plenty of sources that prove it was a deliberate and to deny that is just genocide denial.
And for the record I don't know why you are trying toargue any of these countries were not communist they clearly were. And if you're wondering why people in general conflate famine with communism is because when you have a centrally planned economy all economic failures are the blame of the ones in control of said economy.
@@youmakenosense7437 Oh hello jackass the motivations for imperialism are separate from capitalism and to imply it is the source of imperialism is absurd. It predates such an economic system dating back to the times of Babylon and given the expansionism from the soviet union in Eastern Europe and elsewhere it is clear that imperialism can occur in nearly any economic system.
I know you like to condescend towards libertarians because you probably know nothing about either the positions people like me hold you filth. You talk about mental gymnastics when you got the gold medal tanki
Stalin was not a socialist but a communist dictator. Hitler was technically socialist too by that dumb standard. The comparison is offensive to any real socialist.
There was no any communism in the Soviet Union. Sorry to disappoint you.
😂name a socialist country that made poor people rich or protect free speech. How do you explaine that britain sent convict slave labour to australia and now with capitalism and democracy you have gold, skyscrapers and kerry packer?
Most of them made their people richer than they were before.
@@eymed2023name a state, dummy
@@eymed2023name a state or country buddy
Socialism is slavery. We see it in China, Russia and North Korea to this day.
"Social transformations" invariably involve deaths -of course they do because they always have two sides and always involve violence, pitting aggressors against victims. The Chinese and Russian Revolutions are classic examples of violence heaped on class enemies. And we do know about death statistics because often socialist states are very adept at keeping records to prove to the tyrannt that the job has been done. Stalin for example had millions of people deported to the Russian East or incarcersted in Gulags far from "civilized" Moscow.
Capitalism is a choice. Nobody ever got dragged off to a factory to work and capitalism provides people with an opportunity to better their individual circumatances. This is why Russia abandoned socialism and China adopted elements of it after the 1989 Tiannamen uprising which was a call for political and social freedoms and better economic ideas.
"Socialism is slavery"? What a stupid statement! There is a video by Prof. Wolff about 3 basic kinds of socialism, maybe you should start watching that before you talk about socialism in such a ridiculous way.
@@Azazin187 And here we have an example of the kind of intolerance that socialists tend to exhibit when they hear something they do not like. In a socialist country, this person would doubtless be reporting his neighbours for their beliefs and attending public floggings.
Socialism is slavery and I really dont mind if you do not accept that because in a capitalist country, freedom of ideas and the rights of individuals to hold a wide variety of beliefs is protected in law.
@@Azazin187 In real Socialism, there is "common ownership" of the means of production. What power do you have, to "own" or "not own" something, in that system?
BS. Socialism isn't slavery, nor is Capitalism "choice".
@@lochnessmunster1189 Owning the RESULTS of production, not the MEANS.
Seriously, how is that a hard concept?
Medical insurance lobbies, preventing Americans from having universal healthcare causing a lot of death and suffering to make a profit for their boards and shareholders have a created a pretty large body count.
Wrong! The US has fewer deaths from healthcare than your precious government monopoly does.
Thank you Professor Wolff for the History lesson . The Evils committed by a majority of European nations on simple societies in the name of Profit .
Can you name any economic system in which profit isn't a desire of human action?
@@lochnessmunster1189 the problem is businesses put profit over lives though
@@mor9n243 But is that the case with every business? If you treat your employees badly, and your arch-competitor treats them well, will this give you an advantage or disadvantage?
@@lochnessmunster1189 doesn't matter the boss makes money off their backs
@@lochnessmunster1189 I live in a city where the Hospital is outta control capitalism
Not really understanding the stance here right out of the gate. Both governments under Stalin and Mao were authoritarian; not a true government for and by the people as socialist philosophy calls for. They murdered anyone who threatened their power, just like those in any authoritarian position does which includes capitalism. Did either of those countries truly implement the ideals of Marx? Or was it just a label to try and camouflage it's authoritarian natures; much as evangelical christians claim to follow Christ then cherry pick passages that they use to marginalize and kill others? Your defense of these particular "communist" regimes reminds me of what many do in the U.S. who choose party over actually helping people. There are several socialist democracies that are actually functional to hold up as positive examples. There is no defense for what Stalin, Mao, and other like them have done in the pursuit of power over people.
I think he is describing it in the terms set by the right.
You're missing the point that capitalism is the most deadly ism of all.
This is called the ‘authoritarian’ argument. Whenever you find yourself without a reasonable argument, you say ‘but they are authoritarian regimes’.
@@tubedon1000 O.k. That may be true. How is my observation and analysis of his statements unreasonable? Definition of authoritarian argument: "An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument." How does apply in this case?
@@biosphereisland5666 Argument from authority is a different thing than the "authoritarian argument" concerning communism/socialism.
At the end of the day Stalin and Mao improved living conditions in their respective countries and set them on the path to industrialization. There obviously were costs, but it's very hard to imagine how the alternatives would have been any better.
So-called "democratic" (if such a system even exists) leaders that try to implement any sort of socialist-ish policies end up mysteriously dying or getting overthrown.
Empires can usually export the costs to the colonies and such. China and the USSR couldn't.
None of these deaths were caused by facilitating the transaction of goods and services, which is what capitalism is. Nice try.
Look up the history of markets, which existed before capitalism. Also there's literally a form of socialism called market socialism. Cope.
@@knowledgeanddefense1054 Your post inadvertently supports my argument. Clearly people traded goods and services since humans started walking upright. Free market economics today does not murder people. Whether market socialism exists or not, how is that relevant?
@@anthonymorris5084 "Free market economics today does not murder people."-hahahahaha... HAHAHAHAHA!
20 million people in third world who die due to a lack of profit motive to help them, though?
"Whether market socialism exists or not, how is that relevant?"-*facepalm*
@@anthonymorris5084 Also, if you want to look at more direct murders I can point you to: hundreds of years of slavery ("oh, but existed before capitalism too!" so like how gulags existed in Russia before the USSR and famines existed in China before Mao?) the British colonial rule of India, other forms of imperialism by the US around the world, the native american genocide, unhealthy industry (including cigarettes and fast food) which has taken tens of millions at this point ("oh but it was their choice" and what manufactured the culture around that choice, which endlessly encourages consumerism? capitalism, because you're a product of your environment) and last but not least pollution and climate change - that's like 500 million, right there. Compare that to the accusation against communism, which is 100 million minus (and I'm going according to historians here who denounced the ways you twisted their words, look up the sourced wikipedia page) straight up lies like a million deaths in Vietnam, lower birth rates somehow counting as deaths, unavoidable famines as a result of preexisting starting conditions of a country desperate enough for a revolution in the first place as well sanctions embargoes and invasions from... certain other countries (*cough* capitalist ones *cough* so much for the free market *cough*) conflicts with nazis who the soviet union fought more than any other ally during WW2, natural disasters and droughts in China that were the result of a larger pattern... yeah, you get the point.
The irony is that a worker has infinitely more freedom with unions, democratic co-ops and regulations that he could vote for and thus empowering him than what you're advocating for, which is the dictatorship of the top 1%
@@anthonymorris5084 Who do you know is being murdered in Cuba and Vietnam (China is a mixed economy so I don't know if that counts) right now? Also, social democratic countries using the nordic model in Scandinavian countries, while still capitalist, are the closest capitalism could get to socialism without a full transition - and it's the least free market, while doing the best in every area to maximize human happiness. Compare that to the United States of America, AKA the school shooting gallery.
And no, this doesn't even prove that socialism needs a bit of capitalism in order to work, because a full transition to a proletarian run state would immediately be followed up with sanctions, embargoes and invasions by other capitalist countries.
But these are not against their own people. What Stalin and Mao did were against their countrymen. There's a difference.
They were their countrymen, too. They were all citizens of the British Empire.
Lies. The deaths under Stalin and Mao were mostly deaths from starvation, which there was more of before the revolution.
That “difference” means nothing
BS. Capitalists kill their own people.
yeah just point examples of nazi germany what WAs capitalist, as well as all collonial action inclusive opium war and inclusive todays capitalist russia actions
Switzerland is capitalist and hasn't been involved in a foreign war for more than two centuries. How do you explain this phenomenon according to your logic?
@@lmy2366 i was not talking about peaceful capitalist countries, actually Switzerland is social-democratic, what is not "pure" capitalist, howewer:
The point of my logic is that capitalist country ALSO CAN do atrocities, what we see historically, so being a socialist country do not necessary makes it killing machine, and the answers WHY that happens lies in some OTHER aspects of political and social situation and NOT in the fact that a country "is a socialist".
@@cicik57 There is no such thing as varying capitalism. A system does or doesn't incorporate markets and private property, period. Switzerland is thus capitalist.
My point was to provide an example of pacifist capitalist countries, of which Switzerland is among. Capitalism is not an innately jingoistic system (which you implied), much like any other economic system.
@@lmy2366 i agree, my point just was that the level of violence is influenced primary by OTHER factors and not by socialism/capitalism, what is also the theme of the video.
@@lmy2366 Switzerland is a parasitical state that engages in imperialism via its complicity as a tax haven, money launderer, arms dealer and escrow service for every mass murdering imperial project vomited forth by Europe's inbred ruling class for the last 700 years.
Don't you think it's disingenuous to make these comments - "mass death has always occurred during major social transition" - and then not be forthcoming about the acceptable level of death (and how you will prevent it) for your proposed major social change?
Not only that but he is lying about the census and in trying to tie capitalism to colonialism. They have nothing to do with each other and his claims about deaths from a census are lies because there was no such census.
ua-cam.com/video/ehwDR-afg18/v-deo.html
If the oppressor doesn’t go away willingly, they will go some other way.
@@need-to-know- The point I think he's trying to make is that it's wrong to haggle blood for any social change. Moreover what arbitrary line would be set that is an acceptable amount of blood for any cause?
The 22nd December 1989 is one of the most blessed dates in world history. It was the last gasp of the Ceausescu regime and the dissolution of the Socialist Republic of Romania.
UA-cam has plenty of videos showing how the evil dictator and his evil old hag of a wife were shouted down by crowds of angry and unhappy citizens in Bucharest and the look of disbelief on the face of the old monster as he realizes that the people despise him is priceless.
This is the reality of socialism. In 1989 there was a global rebellion against socialism. The Soviet Union collapsed, workers and students occupied Tiannamen Square in Beijing and the Berlin Wall was smashed down.
It is not invincible. It has its inherent flaws and it can be destroyed.
BS. You're speaking Capitalist fiction.
Capitalism finances dictatorships. Capitalism is broken and societies revot to overthrow it.
Capitalists use violent state repression of protesters, such as the philadelphia genocide.
The USSR did not "collapse", that's a Cold War-propaganda word. The union was abolished by the party elite.
It was only after 1991 that the economy almost collapsed in Russia
Wouldn't it have just be easier for Prof Wolff to move to a socialist country than living here in America and becoming a millionaire ?
All nations on the planet with an advanced economy is a mixed one. If one can define socialism in some way, it would be "The public/workers own the means of production". A mixed economy means, elements of socialist and capitalist economic system working side by side. Meaning,
*Prof Wolff lives/works/vacations in: a partially socialist nation. So do you.*
The argument Wolff offers, is moving more of the shared infrastructure to public ownership, or worker owned democratic co-ops, of which would be competing with, but most likely out-competing purely capitalist enterprises.
I agree with him. We'd be better off as a society, with a lot of stuff that's necessary for our everyday lives, to not be in the hands of artificial entities and hoarder, con-man, parasitic, sociopathic weirdoes who are out to take as much money offa me, as possible.
Our roads, bridges, water, electricity, information technology, education and energy, food and mass transportation, should not be in the hands of multinational conglomerates who's only purpose is, seeking profit. I for one, don't like being blackmailed by monsters.
_"Your money or your life?!"_
Its what stick-up men in the olden days used to say to their victims. Its what the capitalist class sez to us right now. But they say it in legaleze and financial instruments...also owning everything. Some of which they got for free and are subsidized by us. The taxpayers.
Hope that helps.
@@k3v1n47 I have watched hundreds of video's by Prof Wolff. Prof Wolff admits he is a Marxist. He preaches Marx on a routine basis. What you identified above is NOT what Prof Wolff is advocating. Under socialism, the means of production are owned or controlled by the state for the benefit of all, an arrangement that is compatible with democracy and a peaceful transition from capitalism. Marxism justifies and predicts the emergence of a stateless and classless society without private property.
Prof Wolff is promoting Marxism. Marxism is a social, political, and economic philosophy named after Karl Marx. It examines the effect of capitalism on labor, productivity, and economic development and argues for a worker revolution to overturn capitalism in favor of communism, repeat "Communism" Prof Wolff uses the term socialism loosely when he is promoting Marxism.
Well, not really. If you think of modern socialist countries you find Venezuela Cuba and China. Cuba has been embargoed by the US for as long as 99% of people can remember causing them to not be able to grow as the could of been able to. Venezuela follows the same path as Cuba, capitalist exploitation then american embargo. China isn't socialist, they are as socialist as Norway or Finland. Capitalism is the dominant economic system in all three of those countries. Regulated capitalism doesn't make it socialism.
@@demigod1230 Well, not really. If you think of modern socialist countries you find Venezuela Cuba and China.
*All nations on the planet with an advanced economy is a mixed one. The people or public control the means of production and distribution, in some aspect in these society's economy. A socialist system by its nature.*
*We identify things by their features. What is the description of a thing. A word points to the concept. It isn't he concept. Its merely a symbol of the concept.*
*The degree of gov involvement, ie: control of markets, and means of production, varies in nation state to nation state.*
*When the ostensible "people's representatives or government", intervenes in the economy on behalf of the greater good, then what do we call that idea? All nations with an advanced economy, their gov has some hand in how Capitalist enterprises behave in public.*
*From banning them from certain aspects of the economy and managing the vast resources and production capabilities of their citizens. ie: **_"Public goods."_*
*The US has a mixed economy. "Modern Socialist countries" is just a label. We identify things by their features.*
Cuba has been embargoed by the US for as long as 99% of people can remember causing them to not be able to grow as the could of been able to.
*As compared to their previous iteration, they've grown far beyond what the capitalist domination of their society gave the majority. The most effective time of the embargo on Cuba, was when the Soviet Union was dismantled. A disaster for Cuban prospects. The USSR was their largest trading partner.*
*Economically they've been hurting as designed from the US' plans. Because of this collapse or dismantling of the USSR, the US now was in a better position to strangle Cuba. Now the Cubans seem to be actively seeking to join China's Belt and Road Initiative. An international infrastructure and trading pact, that bypasses the US economic and political bloc.*
*I'm sure the DC weirdoes are sh¡++¡ng Their pants. Or maybe their too busy sniffing their own farts with sh¡t eating grins, to notice what's coming?*
Venezuela follows the same path as Cuba, capitalist exploitation then american embargo.
China isn't socialist, they are as socialist as Norway or Finland.
*They are literally ruled by the communist party. They literally are more of a planned economy than any of the European and North American nations...with heavy redistributive policy. With heavy interference in the Capitalist arena. In the markets for everything.*
Capitalism is the dominant economic system in all three of those countries.
*How else would they operate in a world dominated by capitalist enterprises? They're not idiots. They can't fold their arms in ideological disagreement with the capitalist dominated states, pouting. Instead they're on the way to becoming the world's largest market. Taking the power that comes with it.*
*Multinational corporations go where the money is. Instead of getting a free ride as they do in the Western political and economic bloc, non Chinese corporations are severely limited in their operations in China.*
*Concessions unseen in the Western world have to be made with the communist government of China.*
*With these policies within a few decades they pulled 300million people out of poverty. How? socialism. Redistribution via many state power means. That has an enormous political and symbolic example for the much of hte world.*
*China, shares with the most resource rich parts of the world a commonality. They were colonized...by the Western bloc. There are many moving parts in this game we are mere observers in.*
*Capitalists made a mess, over the 5 centuries they were in control of society. They are a small group.*
Regulated capitalism doesn't make it socialism.
*You just came up with a new thing you didn't mention. "Regulated Capitalism"? What is this? All over the world in every advanced economy, restrictions and limitations are placed on capitalist enterprises. This is so general its absurd.*
_"Regulated capitalism doesn't make it socialism."_
*What is this?*
@@demigod1230 What is "Capitalist exploitation"?
A typical example of a dishonest leftist: people die under capitalism - who knew? Obviously under socialism people are immortal. It's the same kind of dishonesty practiced by Irish Nationalists to argue that a 'million' people died in the Potato Famine, which is only achieved by counting every death in the 1840's as part of the famine - even though given the Irish population and the life expectancy at the time, you'd have expected about 100,000 deaths each year even if the famine had never occurred. Basically people who died of cancer, strokes, heart-attacks, diabetes, TB, and other diseases, three or four years before the famine even began are considered to be victims. Similarly, the 200,000 Irish people who moved to England and Scotland during the famine are also counted as 'dead' as they weren't in Ireland and didn't emigrate - because Ireland was part of the UK and moving from there to London or Glasgow was not considered emigration. That's socialist statistics for you.
I have no idea what are the accurate statistics about the Irish potato famine are, but it is our belief that the last of 500 years of hyperviolent and aggressive colonialism for capitalist profit are extreme and FAR in excess of anything misguided 20th century so called socialist dictators may have done.
@@YourCapyFrenBigly_3DPipes1999 capitalism has nothing to do with colonialism.
BS. It's not dishonest, these are deaths directly caused BY capitalism.
He's not "dishonest", he is speaking facts.
You're a typical example of a parasite making verbal malabarism.
Just stop robbing the working class already.
However, tribes in Africa were efficient in killing each other with spears, stones and arrows even long before British Colonialism. And many European countries were very civilized before German EU-''liberation'' 1914 1941
This is nonsense. Picture a talking anus, gibbering nonsense, voiced by Bobcat Goldwaith. Definitely the visual equivalent of this dude's comment.
Cool story bro. Now, you may not like this story and it may upset you, but I've lived, worked and studied in the USSR and traveled extensively in Communist Easten Europe as well as China and regardless of your body count games I saw for myself first hand over many years how utterly shitty, grim , desperate and hopeless life for people was under that system. Nothing takes the blinkers off one's eyes like seeing that, unless maybe seeing the miles of no man's land one had to cross at the frontier because they had to keep their own people from escaping that workers paradise. A far better metric than mere stacks of corpses.
Really, where in China? or is this another I have the experience story?
It’s so ironic that you say “cool story bro” in response to a recounting of well-documented historical fact, then respond with “I lived communism and let me tell you it was harribbble!!!“
The rejoinder “cool story bro” was literally made to mock vague and non-credible anecdotes like yours
Not true, I was your next door neighbor your entire life, moving when you moved, and you never went to the Soviet Union, China, or even Cuba. I have photographic evidence of it too
@@abe8435 nothing in this video is “well recounted” or “historical fact.” Richard Wolff is straight up lying about his own doctoral dissertation because the census was not taken in that year.
Miles of no man's land? Can you please tell us which countries from your list had no crossborder trade and no settlements along the borders even in the most autocratic periods of their history?
One has the admire the restraint of our Professor, who is loathe to raise arguments regarding
comparative deaths but does it anyway ( because capitalism ) but as usual, attempts to
imply that the deaths he cites are all the result of "economics"...but he still can't get even close
to the millions attributed to "socialism" in the "massive continent of Europe". ( more Asia than Europe )
In terms of size, the two are almost even, with Europe only slightly bigger than the US (10.2 million sq km vs 9.8 million sq km) but this includes large parts of Russia. The EU, which many people think of as Europe, has a population of 510 million people, in an area half the size of the US (4.3 million sq km).
Damn those Brits for partitioning India and Pakistan...given that humans are naturally cooperative and caring,
it is clear that if not for those nasty Brits, Hinduism and Islam would have gotten along splendidly...just
like the Israelis and the Palestinians.
One has to wonder, what motivates this historical revisionism, and the imposition of
of the supposed moral superiority of the present upon the past...when nothing has really changed.
Nothing like obfuscating and deflecting when you have no rational counterargument, as usual.
@@kevinschmidt2210 I know but the question is, why do you keep doing it?
For Wolff EVERYTHING is capitalism...so he invents numbers... without any verification
of the actual "cause"...of death. Certainly "millions" did not die in the period, of the
Mau Mau revolution... was an uprising determined to "exterminate" their white
oppressors, but as usual failed to hit their mark, much like the BLM movement.
As for the deaths that occurred in the years cited 1895 thru 1930 the million and a half
deaths is simply an assertion without explanation... or a chain of evidence.
That you would accept any such presentation of history over such an extended
period of time reduced to a summary of fewer than 25 minutes, or in this case less than 5.
with any degree of credibility which reduces to "because capitalism"...can not be taken
seriously except by a fool.
@@kevinschmidt2210 nothing like casting aspersions when you cannot refute what he said and instead are yourself a liar.
@@ExPwner Cry more.
There is nothing to refute within his comment, except obfuscating and deflecting opinions asserted as facts, which is what I did!
Those aspersions? LOL!
That makes YOU the liar.
Dedunking? More like an acknowledgment that Stalin and Mao killed people and then a feeble attempt to make death count a competition.
2:02 "Maybe Stalin and Mao didn't sit for 2 or 3 centuries" That's right they were too busy ruling and killing people to be sitting.
If you let "two or three or four centuries" go by it doesn't matter what economic system you are under. Generations of people are going to die of "old age." He doesn't quote any direct cause of death by capitalism. I hope he really didn't mean hey look 200-400 years went by and all those countries under capitalism died.😂
2:34 Wolff talks about British taking over Kenya as colonialism which is basically war or similar to pillaging. He later says that colonialism is the extension of Capitalism. Any Country, power, economic system can colonize. The Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics colonized the Baltic States, sending countless Russian nationals to Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia to displace the indigenous population.
If we want to talk about deaths happening under rule by the economic system, Mao's "Great Leap Forward" caused millions of people to die in China, with estimates ranging from 15 to 55 million, making the Great Chinese Famine the largest or second-largest famine in human history.
So what about Capitalism? Capitalism was never directly addressed in this video, but was put as the centered topic to be critiqued from the beginning of the video. 1:55 "The number of deaths is much much larger" sure no facts. 4:45 "imagine if we had a census" Yeah anything is possible with an imagination.😅
Those "estimates" have been debunked a long ago by social researchers and only propagated by western ideologues. For instance, the way these estimates work is that they count the number of unborn children based on some linear model for population growth, forgetting for instance that China implemented a one-child policy for the majority Han population. Moreover, it has been shown in countries around the world that an increase in life situation is the surest way to decrease number of children per family. But I guess those scientific facts have no weight against idiological arguments.
@@leroitiaks Let's assume the "estimate" is as you say. What is the actual death count? Do you have sources that you can share? Because apparently Wolff acknowledges that a lot of people died and Mao supposedly killed more people than Hitler and Stalin
@@jakeshota4050 A lot of people die whenever there is an overhaul of social organisation, but also when a harmful organisation is maintained. The point here is to ask why estimates on deaths under socialist governments are taken at face value and not those under other regimes. You yourself said "supposedly", something again challeneged among others by Naom Chomsky, no friend of socialism.
How about the 1 in 2 cancer rates seen around the world in various places in the 21st century.
How about the 95% infant mortality rate in some workhouses in 19th century.
Maybe let's discuss the systematic clearences of land in the 16th and 17th centuries (then onto colonies after)..
Let's not talk about the constant risks capitalism is producing on a daily as a byproduct of growth. Let's just not.
@@leroitiaks Yes, I said supposedly because I acknowledge that sometimes "facts" could be a false opinion. The farther back you go in history, the more it becomes "his story" basically the victor may tell the history how they want it to be remembered. There is more transparency in the world today, but with the exception of China reporting 0 covid deaths😂
If "the point here is to ask why estimates on deaths under socialist governments are taken at face value and not those under other regimes." I guess the answer is that we are waiting to have someone actually explain how Capitalism has killed more people than socialist governments. Because it clearly wasn't addressed in this video above and that is why I posted my original comment. We already have some sort of consensus that socialist governments have killed a lot of people under its rule so that is why that part is being acknowledged.
He’s lying! If there’s some sort of coercion or force involved, then it’s not capitalism... Under capitalism there’s a mutual agreement between the people buying or selling a good or a service!
iT wAsN't ReAl CaPiTaLiSm lol
Let me guess, you're one of these people who thinks real capitalism never existed except for medieval Iceland
Whether one wants real capitalism or socialism, yer gonna have to kill the rich to get it.
@@Synerco there’s no such thing as “real capitalism”. There’s the actual capitalism and whatever else economic system that requires force or coercion has nothing to do with capitalism!
Then USSR wasn't communism, because means of production were not collectively owned 💋
@@missk1697 Exactly, but they sure gave their best shot and look at the results! 😂😂😂
This hypothesis is nonsensical. Advancement in technology is the primary force that shape the world. Economics has a far smaller influence to the way the world evolved.
Prior to colonisation, it was the medieval age where war between nations are common. Not long later, the west discovered a way to learn about the universe. With each new discovery of science, new invention were made and west became the most advanced nation in the world. Colonialism is a result of the superior technology over the rest of the world. Nevertheless, it is still a world where might rules the weak with rivalry primarily between the western countries. The world wars have a huge impact that pushed towards a capitalism. Capitalism drives technological development and globalisation. There are winners and losers but in general the world is largely peaceful and progressive.
Jfc stop playing pretend historian and actually read a fking book. Start with escape from rome
"the west became the most advanced nation on the earth"
capitalism drives inequality and inequity.
@bananaguard All other forms of systems will have inequality because no system is perfect and remains in the same state. Throughout the history of mankind, there are all forms of inequality. The worst outcome is when the world revert back to the mighty rules with force.
Capitalism is individual rights, which Marxists evade. Capitalism has no colonialism. _America_ had late-19th century colonialism, guided by the Progressive desire to "save our little, brown brothers." Occupying the Phillippines had zero benefit to the US. America is a nation, not the politics of individual rights. Individual rights are good. America has not been always consistent in application. That does not invalidate individual rights.
BS. Capitalism is theft.
"Individual rights" have nothing to do with this.
Violence of socialism? Communism, Maoïsm, National socialism... Socialism wins the violence game here
Ur supposed to watch the video.
@@DJWESG1 why would he/she actually want to educate themselves it’s easier to be ignorant😭
Do you think that Nazis are socialist?
@@DJWESG1 Even if he did, I doubt he would accept the facts of Prof. Wolff's argument. What do you call such a person?
Capitalist on capitalist violence:
Both world wars. The first atomic strike. All 8 wars going on today as I write this.