Anonymous #1 4w

capitalism is dictated by a logic of infinite growth in the pursuit of profit. capitalism is the cancer

9

Anonymous _orangutan 4w

And socialism isn’t?

-5

Bro socialism kills millions

-3

Anonymous #1 4w

Capitalism kills billions

5

Anonymous stoner22 4w

How?

0

“Nuh uh”

0

Anonymous #1 4w

Lack of healthcare, poverty, the endless wars for resources and to feed the capitalist class.

7

Anonymous #5 4w

CEOs are useless parasites

3

Anonymous stoner22 4w

How are you going to make executive decisions in this perfect system?

1

Anonymous stoner22 4w

18yr old polisci minor take It’s a necessary role, It’s just always filled by nepos. #3 said it for me.

-4

Idk if you can really call the Irish potato famine a product of capitalism. Moreso just… theft. Not capitalist theft, just literal theft. Englishmen coming in and stealing ppls cattle n grain n shit

0

Anonymous #6 4w

colonialism: it’s what white settlers did everywhere

1

Lolol you literally just said that 😂😂😂

-1

Bro you just said the stupidest thing, it’s hilarious 😂 and you don’t even know it

-2

Anonymous _orangutan 4w

This is a grave oversimplification of the potato famine. Also, Irish people are white, so that’s a weird distinction. They didn’t even settle in huge numbers, they didn’t colonize so much as they just pillaged and pillaged and pillaged and then went home, which was next door. No need to live there. And then we got northern Ireland. So eventually yes, colonialism- but with an asterisk, later on Colonialism is also not synonymous with capitalism though, and was originally born from mercantilism.

-1

Anonymous #1 4w

I know your brain is straining and struggling to comprehend that supply can eclipse demand, but that doesn’t mean what they said is stupid. It’s accurate.

-1

Anonymous #6 4w

Not talking to you

0

You just admitted that there’s plenty of food under capitalism

0

Anonymous #1 4w

Yeah, but I’m talking to you. You’re a dumbass, and just don’t have a response. Not slick.

1

Anonymous #6 4w

Not taking bait

1

Under socialism there’s no food whatsoever?! Are you really not getting this?!

0

Anonymous #1 3w

(The bait is intellectual discourse)

3

“Nuh uh”

0

Anonymous #6 3w

You’re incapable of that

0

Anonymous #1 3w

Explain supply and demand challenge

1

Anonymous #6 3w

Are you joking? You don’t know what supply and demand is?

0

Anonymous #6 3w

It wasn’t individual englishmen just taking a boat across the Irish Sea? It was the law of the British Empire, which forced Ireland to export most food products. Potatoes were basically all the native Irish were allowed to eat (and the only viable food on tiny, over divided tenant plots of land). That is why when the blight happened it was so much worse than the rest of Europe. So yeah it was capitalism, those laws existed for the extraction of wealth for the Empire

5

Anonymous #6 3w

no it isn’t? Exports of grain and other foods were forced, while native Irish were corralled onto smaller and smaller plots of land, where the only thing that could produce enough food to survive on, on that small area was the potato. when the blight came, the English continued to force grain / meat exports to Britain. They aren’t calling the Irish colonizers, they are saying the Irish were colonized by the British, which is true. A vast majority of land in Ireland was given to Scottish or

5

Anonymous #7 3w

english planters. at its greatest extent the places they could live were heavily limited geographically in a manner not unfamiliar to victims of later British colonial projects. Ireland was England’s first colony, as the Irish were seen as a different, inferior race and governed accordingly.

5

How do you ensure that productivity remains high if workers choose to do less work or slack off?

1

You’re saying it’s greed?

1

Anonymous #7 3w

I think we’re in agreeance, but I may be phrasing myself wrong. In my mind colonization is more methodical and institutional. The English basically just took shit and said too bad. There wasn’t even really a false semblance of “legality” even by their own terms, they just sorta did it. Pillaging, I believe I called it. Tons of land went to the English, but they did not populate that land as often as they did farm it. They didn’t settle en masse, is what I mean.

1

Anonymous #7 3w

Never said it was?? The laws existed for extraction of resources primarily. Capitalism implies exploitative trade, but there was no trade happening for the majority of the famine!! Just theft. Exploitation is not unique to capitalism, nor born from it. Are we going to say the romans were capitalist now? The Hans? Like what is this? Not every system of finance that isn’t socialism is capitalism lmao. Jesus Christ.

0

There is no way you just posted an screenshot of an AI summary as if it’s a gotcha. There just isn’t.

0

Agreed! This applies both ways though. Greed and exploitation kills in many forms, and under many names. Put side by side, capitalism looks worse. But they should not be put side by side in the first place, and people often miscategorize feudalism mercantilism or hybrid systems as modern day late stage capitalism, in order to make this stat more palatable to its intended audience.

-3

Not by this point, no. England was broadly transitioning throughout the 19th century- I do not agree with the idea that favorites = capitalism. While the role of monarchy at this point was mostly symbolic, Lordships still held moderate power, as opposed to US monopolists and barons. State capitalism, maybe. But not what we’d call it today. Theft is a part of capitalism, I didn’t say it wasn’t. I said that COLONIALISM is generally more bureaucratic than what historically happened in Ireland.

-1

Anonymous #6 3w

Factories*

1

Anonymous #6 3w

There was a substantial population transfer, with Irish being kicked off their land and packed into smaller parts of the Island. Over several centuries different monarchs intentionally settled (“planted”) English and Scottish people on land taken from native Irish. They settled hundreds of thousands of people, particularly in Ulster, which is why about half the population in the 4 stolen counties are self identified as British.

3

Anonymous #6 3w

The UK was literally the first and premier capitalist nation at the time… resource extraction from colonies is what funded industrialization, it absolutely has to do with capitalism.

3

Anonymous #6 3w

England was absolutely capitalist before the late 19th century wtf are you talking about. England ended Feudalism in the 1660s. State capitalism is capitalism, the means of production are not held by the workers.

1

Anonymous #7 3w

Yes, parts of Northern Ireland were settled. The majority of the country, though heavily impeded, did remain unsettled though. And that’s why in *the rest* of Ireland, the majority of people are Irish, and the culture is also relatively preserved, and distinct from that of England. According to the 2022 census, 40% of Irish people still even speak Gaelic to some extent. This is my point.

0

The fissure comes in that I think a lot of y’all are misusing the terms, while also using them interchangeably. I do not think the exploitation of the third world is colonialist, I think it is empirical, as actual occupation is much scarcer, and less protected by law I will also note that occupation does not inherently equal colonization. India was occupied, Ireland was occupied, South Africa was colonized. Australia was colonized.

0

Anonymous #6 3w

And the US. Obviously. Among many others.

1

Anonymous #7 3w

Would you consider china to be operating under the same principles as the United States? Because no, it’s not really capitalism in the sense people tend to use the term. Like it just isn’t. The means of production were not owned under feudalism, either. Feudalism is not capitalism. In mercantile times, merchants and artisans DID often own their means of production. Was that socialism? Or does socialism have to be organized? Or is socialism just welfare? Y’all can be so trigger happy sometimes.

-2

Anonymous #6 3w

At its greatest extent (during Cromwell’s genocide) the entire native population was ethnically cleansed to Connacht, in Western Ireland. The entire rest of the island was resettled. Essentially the entire island was settled at some point, even when native Irish were allowed to stay where they were, their lands were forcibly taken and they were instead given English landlords. Sure a majority of the population are Irish, but that population is still less than prior to the Great Hunger.

1

Anonymous #7 3w

As far as the Irish language goes, “to some extent” is doing a lot of work. The language nearly went extinct and was heavily suppressed by the English for centuries, same as Welsh, Gaelic and all the other minority Celtic / Brythonic languages. There are very few who can actually speak the language, outside the few people who primarily Irish speaking areas, which is a tiny part of the population and country unfortunately.

1

Anonymous #6 3w

Ireland was colonized… it was deliberately resettled with hundreds of thousands of people. These people’s descendants (at least in the North) too this say support the occupation of four rightful counties of Ireland.

1

Anonymous #6 3w

China is simply ahead of us. Their way is genuinely optimal if you’re just trying to increase productivity in a capitalist economy. the cost is state brutality, environmental destruction and massive labor exploitation. capitalism naturally loves autocracy. under feudalism the means of production were controlled by the nobility, the bourgeoisie were only just forming as a class. hence why feudalism is different from capitalism. mercantilism is sort of half way between the two. it is proto

1

Anonymous #7 3w

So, “ethnic cleansing” only applies when the ethnicity is effectively cleansed. This is what I mean, you guys kind of just say shit. Not every effort of the British empire was colonial, nor effective. Ireland was NOT desired for its livability, it was desired for its farmability, keeping the mainland free for industrial development and growth. Killed. You mean killed. Slaughtered, if you want a dramatic word. Not cleansed, because the Irish are still going strong in both domestic and abroad.

0

Anonymous #7 3w

-capitalist, but the monarchy and to a less extent the nobility still have some role. but mercantilism isn’t really a distinct system like capitalism or feudalism or socialism, it’s just a specific economic approach in a capitalist economy, namely controlling trade to maximizing the inflow of currency and minimizing the outflow of currency. merchants and artisans had employees, who certainly weren’t controlling their own lives. your understanding of what actually defines these systems from a

2

Anonymous #7 3w

marxist perspective is a bit shallow.

1

Anonymous #7 3w

The anglo population at large also declined after the Romans had their way. They were still not “cleansed”, and they went on to copy their forebearers and take over the world for a while. But even then, the loss of old runic languages had a significant impact on culture. Still not cleansed, matter of fact quite the opposite. Your terminology is skewed, and it frustrates me how unable you are to see it, so I’m going to give up on you now. Be well.

1

Sure, neocolonialism. The terms are not interchangeable though, at all. Few “neo”terms are, hence the prefix meaning “new”. New colonialism is not the same as old colonialism. They’re both based in exploitation, but the latter involves replacing native populations and cultures with colonists, while the former is purely economical. “Economic colonialism” is an accurate term that I wish people would use. I have read Marx when I was a tankie teenager, but haven’t retained a ton of it to memory.

1

Anonymous #6 3w

“economic colonialism” is a bit reductive. there is still real control exerted, outside the economy. France for instance still has had partial control of much of Africa well into the 21st century, often fighting several conflicts at once there.

1

Anonymous #7 3w

That’s actually a good example, but one that I haven’t researched extensively, so cannot comment on too much. Another example here would be china, which is basically taking on the role of a loan shark in many parts of Africa, acquiring land through predatory contracts, building infrastructure, and then not upholding deals to provide it to the population, keeping the facilities Chinese. They’re doing so both for regional influence, and finance. In most modern cases though, it is a fitting term.

1

Anonymous #7 3w

Libertarian capitalism is not what you’re describing at all. Your oversimplifications are getting extremely old. Productivity is not the goal under capitalism’s PROFIT is. China operates much differently.

1

Anonymous #7 3w

Some did, many didn’t. Independent business was common during the era though, moreso than now at least. There have always been and will always be power struggles in every form of economy.

1

Anonymous #6 3w

there is no such thing as “libertarian capitalism”. by productivity I essentially meant profit on a societal level, since obviously there is less individual profit

0

Anonymous #7 3w

Right, but a key facet of modern capitalism IS individual profit, not societal. Yes, there is. Wtf are you talking about? There are dozens of schools of thought relating to capitalism. Legalization of weed is a libertarian policy, lack of regulation in food is a libertarian policy, private monopolization is a libertarian’s wet dream.

1