[ivojp]

Well, counting up all the times in human history that governments had to violently force their subjects to accept private property rights or their ability to alienate their labor...

let's see 0 + 0...carry the 1....um I've arrived at 0.

[pmiller2]

I see. So, all the wars of imperialism of the last 300 years didn't happen? Thousands of people don't die in the US alone every year because they can't afford medical care? You're either being deliberately disingenuous, or channelling your 14 year old nephew who's an "ancap" because it's edgy, even though he doesn't own any actual capital, if you think the body count of capitalism is really 0.

[ivojp]

Is imperialism unique to capitalism? What about capitalism necessitates imperialism? Was Soviet Russia not imperialist when it conquered much of eastern Europe? Is China's expansion and One-China policy not imperialist?

Is quality healthcare tied to the economic engine of its country? How is universal health care in North Korea? Pretty good?

You're conflating separate issues and presenting them as indictments of capitalism. That is either deliberately disingenuous or horribly ignorant. Either way, I suggest you pick up a book other than A People's History of the United States.

UPDATE: Small addendum since you are confused as to what capitalism is. Your 14 year old nephew does own capital: their labor. Their ability, depending on labor laws in their state, allow them to offer that labor in whichever market or not. An option that would be deprived of them in a system that follows the prescriptions of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."

[fabianhjr]

> Small addendum since you are confused as to what capitalism is. Your 14 year old nephew does own capital: their labor

Their labour is a factor of production but it is _not_ capital. Here is an introduction to the factors of production: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Factors_of_production . (Notice that both in classical/liberal economics and marxist economics labour is distinct from capital)

> Their ability, depending on labor laws in their state, allow them to offer that labor in whichever market or not.

That is a commodity and _not_ capital and is normally discussed as the commodification of labour: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Commodity (Addendum: there are many examples of regulated commodities like those containing tabacco and alcoholic beverages)

> An option that would be deprived of them in a system that follows the prescriptions of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."

How so? They would still be able to labour (according to their ability) and would receive what they need (food, housing, medical treatment, education, entretainment, etc.) according to their need.

Even in a capitalist mode of production you cannot "choose" to labour in a particular employment. The employer would gauge ability and the most effective number of employees; Lets assume that hypothetical nephew doesn't know how to cook and wants to work as a chef in a gourmet restaurant or isn't a nuclear engineer/scientist and wants to work as a nuclear plant operator like a fellow named Simpson.

[pmiller2]

It always amazes me how ignorant most of the so called "capitalists" (who generally control little to no actual capital) are. Thanks for showing me at least someone paid attention in economics (or maybe history) class.

[aaron-santos]

It's a necessary condition. The curriculum is crafted specifically in this way. See for example A TEACHER GUIDE TO THE CALIFORNIA ECONOMICS STANDARDS[1].

From unit 1.2:

> HUMAN CAPITAL[Many textbooks discuss “labor” instead of ‘human capital.” We use “human capital” because it involves much more than physical attributes and helps students focus on the reason why they are in school.]

Student's earliest exposure to formal economic education begins with definitions that deceive people into believing they are capitalists when they are in fact selling their labor power for wages.

[1] - https://www.ccee.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/OTHER_PDFS...

[pmiller2]

Yeah, I know that. There's no easier way to create a permanent underclass than to restrict access to education and stifle ideas that are threatening to the status quo.

BTW, the 9 point outline in that PDF is actually a good framework for understanding and learning to navigate a capitalist, market economy, so I wouldn't say it exactly makes your point.

Edit: Ah, ok, the indoctrination portion of the program comes a little later on in the file, lol. :P. Consider the last part of my last sentence withdrawn.

[pmiller2]

And, you're deflecting. It's called "whataboutism," and it's a logical fallacy. Educate yourself and look it up. You're also straw manning by claiming I said imperialism is unique to capitalism, when I did no such thing. Please either refrain from replying, or actually engage with an argument.

Now, back to the question I posed to you: did, or did not capitalist nations participate in wars of imperialism for the sake of economic expansion, which then resulted in people dying?

PS: I know damn well what capitalism is. It's private ownership of the means of production, along with a market based economy and enforcement of private property rights.

If you understood what capitalism was, or even basic economics, you would know that labor is one of the factors of production which is completely separate from capital. You also grossly mischaracterize how labor works in a socialist framework, again showing that you've never cracked a book other than maybe Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom.

Moreover, you have no literal idea what a capitalist is, either, so I'll tell you: a capitalist is one who generates his or her living solely or mostly off of capital. Capital is defined as "means of production," including land, tools, and other things besides labor and raw materials that allow for this thing we call "production" to happen.

And, I know you have this strange notion of the word "voluntary," whereby because I choose not to starve or freeze on the street, I have to live indoors, and, because I can't afford to buy my own home, I have to rent, yet you consider it "voluntary" that I have to agree to a coercive contractual agreement in order to have an extremely basic standard of living. This is laughable, and capitalism deserves all the jeers it gets for redefining common sense terms like this.

So, anyway, let's not continue to deflect, and return to. the main point: do you want to answer the question or not? Did capitalist nations participate in wars of imperialism for the sake of economic expansion, resulting in the death of even one human? One is greater than 0, after all, so, if you can acknowledge that, then we can begin a more thorough accounting of the deaths of capitalism.

[neuromanser]

crickets... :)

[anigbrowl]

Ahistorical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure

[aaron-santos]

I don't quite understand how you get that number. Do you care to explain a bit more?

[heavyset_go]

The Great Irish famine was a product of market capitalism[1] and private property[2], killing over 1 million people.

The Bengal Famine killed over 10 million people[3].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)#Food_ex...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)#Causes_...

[3] https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2014/7/17/1314447/-Capitali...