Socialism vs Capitalism

submitted by [deleted] from (jssocial.pw)

all 82 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Kyto113 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Capitalism hoorah!

When bread waits in line but millions don't have money to buy it...

[–]ReeferMadness 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Imagine wanting this to be permanent. These people are literally being handed free food, this is literally what the socialists are claiming is the great future we can all have, and here you are using it as an example of how terrible capitalism is. And this is temporary due to the government forced shutdown of capitalism due to covid. So yeah, let's make this permanent with socialism.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

His argument was:

millions don't have money to buy it...

Not that waiting in line is bad. He wasn't criticizing the response, but rather the reason the response was needed.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's just the money power screwing with distribution.

[–]adultmanhwa 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

tHE mOnEY PoWER = CapiTaLiSm

[–]adultmanhwa 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

eVen If IT'S In usa (BIGgeSt prOponeNT OF cApItALISm FOr decAdeS), If iT lOOKS bAD, ThAT's nO loNgeR CApITALIsM

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (32 children)

True. But any government that is allowed to regulate commerce, will be corrupted by corporations.
Out of greed, for self preservation, doesn't matter. The corrupt government will protect monopolies.
And monopolies are like limited socialism that doesn't even pretend to care about people.

[–]Druullus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

only corporations?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

No, but I wanted to stay on topic. What's the use in full shelves, when the food is tasteless, poisonous and unaffordable? A monopoly can do this to you.

[–]ReeferMadness 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

The food is delicious, that is why everyone is fat. If people couldn't afford food they would be starving like they do in socialist paradises. Have you heard of the Maduro diet?

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Good food is delicious, sates your hunger and makes you healthy and strong.
Unspecified chemicals that look like food can be delicious and keep you hungry to ensure maximum consumption.
Constantly filling the belly with shit can be just as bad for one's health as a shortage of food.

[–]ReeferMadness 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

It is wrong to blame government for the poor eating habits of people. The reality is that nearly all people could afford to eat healthy if they wanted to, but they don't. It is simply a lie that capitalism makes people eat poorly, doubly so when you claim it does it by making people poor. Capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than any other system in history. People living in capitalist societies have the highest average income.

If money is the deciding factor then capitalism is exactly what you need to allow people to eat healthy.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than any other system in history

people + freedom = wealth
people + wealth = state
people + state = - freedom

Math is hard.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Capitalism also gave corrupt people the tools needed to get a one-world dictatorship. You are so bungled, ReeferMadness.

[–]EvilNick 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Then don't buy that bread, or make your own. Don't tell others what they should be forced to eat.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I can, for now, although it's more expensive than it should be naturally. Growing your own food is already interstate commerce, but personal baking is still mostly allowed. But threaten a monopoly, and everything you do can quickly become interstate commerce with several tons of books with regulations. And when you give people real ways to eat healthy, you can be held accountable for the economic losses you're causing.

[–]EvilNick 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Where are you cause it's not the usa

[–]EvilNick 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

So communist bread will be better? In capitalism you choose your bread. In socialism the government chooses and whether you even get it depending if they need a villian at any given moment.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Communism will try to make cheaper food, yes. But making the food completely nutrient-free, is hard. And communists are, fortunately, stupid. Food there, may be rare, but it is doomed to stay nourishing.

[–]EvilNick 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Tell that to China and food made with formaldahyde and melamine.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Good observation. And their food isn't even tasty. China has managed to combine socialism with monopolistic corporations.

[–]EvilNick 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Well technically the government is the monopoly in China.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

How confusing. Capitalism is when the state promises to not infringe the negative rights of the citizens. Socialism, is when the state promises the citizens new cooler positive rights, and pays for them by taking away the negative rights. Corporations in China exist and can act, but their property and freedom can be taken away whenever the state wants. This seems like feudalism, with self-selected aristocrats.

Monopoly, is when there is only one actor, and only this actor can act. China allows some companies to form and act, it doesn't make itself the monopoly in every sphere. It only gathers tribute and sends directions. Usually.

[–]EvilNick 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Socialism, is when the state promises the citizens new cooler positive rights

lol I think you might be confused. free stuff is not "a right", mind you a cooler positive right.

[–]Druullus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

what topic?

[–]ReeferMadness 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Any unregulated commerce will create monopolies, fix prices, destroy the environment, poison the people, etc. And no, market forces are not going to fix it. Regulations are necessary and regulatory capture is not intrinsic in regulated markets, it is a corruption of them. The solution is to prevent the corruption as much as possible because that is the best you can do.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

When things get irreparably bad, people band together and start anew, using their experience to build a better system.

Well, they try. But sometimes they can't. Who can stop them? Only a state.

A state that is allowed to stop people from creating new systems, is required for monopolies to form.

[–]ReeferMadness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

A state is absolutely not required. Those who control the monopolies can themselves prevent competition. There are a million different tactics they can use.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sure, but if a corporation harms people, they will eventually learn its name and begin avoiding it. Unless there is a state protecting this harmful corporation and its income with countless laws. They can grow everywhere, but a full dystopia must be sanctioned by the state.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The government is a corporation.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A state is an independent organization, it can use force against its clients when it wants. A corporation is ruled by the state, and can only do what the state allows it. Names are shifty things. A corporation that loses its fear may begin acting like a state. When corporations are allowed to use force with no rules, we get feudalism, where everyone is like a small state.

[–]jykylsin2034 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Eliminate the banks and it only gets better

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Actually, without the banks, and without loans for businesses, you have no large factories, hence no smart phones no autos, no refrigerators or any of the things we all love. What you have is what you had before banking. Little guilds of weavers and cabinet makers, tool makers and shoe makers. No thanks.

[–]jykylsin2034 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Sorry I wasn't clear, I meant the large international banks (rothschild). Set up instead what Germany did where they had small loans from the government with no interest and were forgiven at points for certain circumstances so you don't rack up massive debt you can never hope to pay for like here in the United States but also other places. Credit cards, student loans, for tons of people this stuff has given them a colossal amount of debt.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes there are models that work both ways. The Swiss have a good governmental system, with the cantons and regular referrendums. Oddly the latter they copied from California long long ago, I guess the cali government thought it was too much power in the hands of the people. Credit cards are unsecured, hence the super high interest. I don't know why people have them, they are a fraud! And you can easily default on them if you have no assets to be chased.

It's all very complex with banks, the IMF, the World Bank in Brussels controlling it all, the US central bank owned by private entities. Nothing can be done on a collective basis, you just have to break free of the rackets and be your own central bank so to speak. I haven't had a bank loan ever, and only had a CC for 6 months back when they first came in, the 1980's. You can live quite successfully without paying interest if you put your mind to it.

[–]jykylsin2034 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah it's possible technically, but for the vast majority it isn't, or it isn't convenient to live interest free.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I suffered the loss of convenience for future wealth myself. If the vast majority of americans had have done likewise they wouldn't all be begging for a $600 payment to bail out their lives would they. $600? I could lose that out of my wallet and shrug it off as stupidity and a minor irritant.

When it comes to money in life you are either a free person or you are a slave to bankers and governments, there is no middle ground.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You constantly say people should move out of the cities, then you come in to deride the sort of businesses found outside of cities and major population centers? You are constantly unwillingly shilling "Run away, BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE. Love your factory-made shit, FUCK THE ARTISANS."

[–]TheOtherSide 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

He is right.

[–]JasonCarswell 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Not accurate. Are you fucking retarded posting this while you have food lines in your capitalist America?

You can blame it on the lockdown if you want to but your so-called capitalist heaven is ruled by the corrupt capitalist corporatocracy that bought your capitalist politicians who ordered the tyrannical lockdown that ultimately serves the monopolistic giant capitalist oligopoly. Meanwhile even during this so-called pandemic your capitalist health system is denying people the fundamental right to live while taking taxes to fund the global perpetual wars of mass murder - for profit.

Fuck BOTH extremist exploitative capitalism and communism too.

I hope this post is sarcastic.

[–][deleted]  (7 children)

[deleted]

    [–]Kyto113 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

    Lol imagine living in a world where you're afraid of factories and plastic bags but Nazis are something you idolize...

    Also, Nazis were socialist only in name.

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    The Nazis were National Socialist, which is a specific form of Socialism in which the means of production are largely privately-owned, but the economy is centrally-planned. Anyone who opposed Hitler's regime would be stripped of their property, and then it would be given to someone more loyal — and anyone who wanted to keep their property would obey his four year plans.

    [–]FreedomUltd 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    Nazis were socialist only in name.

    Yes. Usually when people refer to the Nazis as socialist they're trying to talk down socialists.

    [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    The Nazis were socialist, but I don't like how people use that as an argument to discredit the entirety of Socialism — it ain't too hard to find actual arguments against it.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    In Germany, capitalists were allowed to "voluntarily" join the revolution.
    This way, they had recruited many not idiots and become the most efficient socialist country.
    But, their supply of not idiots would have dyed out after one generation.
    Even without the war, their future would have been the same.

     

    And don't even joke about them giving up the power after the victory. No state does this.

    [–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Nazis had many social programs. Secondly, you do not have to be a nazi to take from national Socialism or Federism. Have you read Feder or Schact?

    [–]PlanetoftheClowns 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    I find it ironic and sad that today's brainwashed youth who consider themselves neo-revolutionaries just itching to burn everything down are basing their dreams of a post scarcity communist society on the successes of the capitalist society in which they grew up having access to excesses. Whereas if you've ever known someone who grew up in a communist society leaving it for a capitalist society they will describe a childhood that was a miserable existence of scarcity.

    No system is perfect, but there is one key difference between communism and capitalism: self determination. Self determination doesn't work in communism. The state controls all, defines all and having an individual come along and disrupt the rigidity of a communist society is destructive because the rest of the society cannot react to the disruption. Whereas in a capitalist society self determination is promoted, expected and required. Disruption while destructive to existing monolithic entities is a creative force as the rest of the society has the ability to react, adapt and innovate to the new conditions.

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

    In Socialism there ain't enough food to go around. In Capitalism there is enough food to go around, but you can't afford it.

    [–]Canbot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

    Who can't afford food? Why does this shit keep getting repeated over and over? Capitalist societies have the highest level of income for the average person of any other system. It is ass backwards to claim that under capitalism people can't afford food, or anything for that matter.

    [–]FreedomUltd 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

    There are many people in the USA who are too poor to eat properly. Stop pretending there are not.

    [–]Canbot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    That is not true. People who live on welfare, literally the least amount you could reasonably claim as the lowest paid people, are eating fast food which cost more than going out and buying healthy food. You have been lied to.

    Go look up how much people are given in foodstamps, and don't let the propagandists convince you that has to pay for anything else either because there are separate welfare programs for everything. Then look up how much food actually costs at a reasonable place like Aldi. There is literally no one who can't eat healthy if they wanted to.

    A family of 4 literally gets $640 for food every month.

    Stop spreading lies.

    [–]FreedomUltd 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    You stop spreading lies.

    Millions of working Americans don’t know where their next meal is coming from. ... One-sixth of Americans don’t have enough food to eat.

    [–]Canbot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

    Just because someone makes a claim on the internet does not mean it's true. Literally the first paragraph starts off talking about a 3 year old who refuses to eat the free meal he gets at school. I don't have the patients to go through all that garbage on a website that is so incredibly buggy it won't scroll. It's propaganda. When they are telling you these people are starving and tell a story about how the kids refuse to eat free food and then go on and on about bills but tell you nothing about income you have to be intelligent enough to realize they are bullshitting you.

    America has welfare programs. You can get free food if you can't find a job. People on welfare are disproportionately FATTER than the general population. They have nothing to do all day but eat free food. America does not have a food problem, or an income problem, it has a "people too stupid to eat healthy" problem.

    [–]FreedomUltd 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Yeah see the thing is, you are nothing but some person on the internet spewing bullshit.

    That "buggy site" is National Geographic.

    And they've addressed the poor / obese issue extensively.

    [–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    This is what is called the appeal to authority fallacy. You will deny all logic and facts that contradict your programming and claim any lie told by an authority figure must be true simply because they are the authority. That is stupid.

    I am making logical points, I am refuting that article based on content in that article. You literally can't point to anything I said as being wrong or illogical and still demand that I must be wrong, and the clearly bullshit article (as I have already shown) must be right because National Geographic is an authority.

    Never mind that they are literally a nature magazine who became famous for pictures of animals, is run by leftists, and can't claim any knowledge about economics or social science.

    [–]FreedomUltd 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Do you actually do fool anyone by claiming to be logical?

    I'm well familiar with the tactic of waving off any source anyone can produce, and relying instead on what you pull from your own ass. It's where you people live.

    The fact remains, I've produced one source, and you've produced Jack shit.

    You read the first paragraph and found that a kid didn't eat a breakfast that was available to him, and his mom struggled to feed him when he was hungry later. It's your own fault that you don't recognize them as people who don't have enough food. That's not being logical, it's being in denial of anything that doesn't agree with your world view, which you have yet to support with anything. And frankly, it's being a real cunt. But again, it's where you people live.

    [–]jet199 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    Processed food costs a lot more than fruit and veg or even good unprocessed meat. Takeaway food costs even more. When I've seen people on welfare eat the problem isn't the cost of food is that they don't know how to cook or they want to by the brands they see advertised everyday.

    And American food is much, much cheaper than anything we have in Europe yet you have more people in food poverty. Capitalism isn't making food more expensive, there's no evidence for that, and price isn't even the problem in the first place.

    [–]FreedomUltd 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Processed foods do tend to be less expensive than most fresh foods. In part, they're that cheap because the U.S. government subsidizes the producers of corn and wheat, the main ingredients in those packaged snacks, which helps keep crop prices low. In addition, lean meats and fish, as well as fresh fruits and vegetables, are highly perishable items, and there's a cost involved in delivering them unsullied to your table or cafeteria tray.

    https://www.sharecare.com/health/eating-and-society/why-processed-foods-cheaper-fresh

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

    Who can't afford food?

    23% of Americans.

    Why does this shit keep getting repeated over and over?

    Because facts don't go away just because you ignore them.

    Capitalist societies have the highest level of income for the average person of any other system.

    That doesn't disprove my argument. If someone in a capitalist country has $2, someone in a socialist country has $1, and food costs $3: neither of them can eat. The former may look better off on paper, but the outcome is the same.

    It is ass backwards to claim that under capitalism people can't afford food, or anything for that matter.

    The truth is "ass backwards" then.

    [–]luster 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    “Food insecurity” is a statistic designed to mislead. From the USDA “For most food-insecure households, the inadequacies were in the form of reduced quality and variety rather than insufficient quantity.”

    So, they have food, just not the variety and quality. I would love to eat steak, lobster, crab and shrimp but I can't afford that quality all of the time. I guess that makes me food insecure.

    The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine have criticized USDA for how these statistics are contorted from a measure of household “security” into a misleading estimate that millions of individuals go hungry.

    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11578&page=5

    Private nonprofit organizations exploit USDA statistics to create a crisis atmosphere. USDA food security reports, by creating the illusion of a national hunger epidemic, have helped propel a vast increase in federal food aid in recent years. But that has been a dietary disaster across the land.

    A Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics study concluded that “food insecure” adults are far more likely to be obese than “food secure” adults — indicating that a shortage of food is not the real health problem.

    http://www.andjrnl.org/article/S2212-2672(12)00745-9/abstract

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    “Food insecurity” is a statistic designed to mislead. From the USDA “For most food-insecure households, the inadequacies were in the form of reduced quality and variety rather than insufficient quantity.”

    It's actually more accurate than quantity, because if you only eat one type of food, no matter how much you eat, you'll eventually get malnutrition, because the human body needs variety.

    So, they have food, just not the variety and quality. I would love to eat steak, lobster, crab and shrimp but I can't afford that quality all of the time. I guess that makes me food insecure.

    That's not what variety and quality means — it means variety and quality of nutrients. Those foods are high in protein, but not everything else people need to survive.

    illusion of a national hunger epidemic

    Middle class Yankees can pretend like the problems of rural, Southern, Working-class folks don't exist — 'til we burn the whole Union down.

    a vast increase in federal food aid in recent years.

    That obviously ain't enough if 23% of Americans are food insecure.

    “food insecure” adults are far more likely to be obese than “food secure” adults

    Because cheap food has less nutrients and more garbage, meaning that you gain weight, but not the nutrients your body actually needs to survive.

    a shortage of food is not the real health problem.

    Yes it is, because people can't afford to buy real food, thus are forced to by processed garbage.

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Those foods are high in protein, but not everything else people need to survive.

    Protein is the most expensive nutrient and the hardest to meet. Carbs and fat get met incidentally generally. And ofc carbs aren't strictly necessary at least in the short term.

    Micronutrients... The RDA is unobtainable every day at a normal caloric intake without supplements and supplements are suboptimal. There's something wrong with the whole system. But they're also micronutrients, needed in far small values than macros and the only macro hard to get enough of is protein.

    [–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    The world "food insecurity" is clearly a propaganda tool used to convince fools that it means "can't afford food" while the actual definition they use is "gets food aid in some form".

    This is literally the kind of situations they are including in that number:

    The rest were able to obtain enough food to avoid completely disrupting their eating patterns, but had to cope by eating less varied diets or utilizing food assistance programs.

    It's fucking absurd. By that definition 100% of people in non capitalist countries are food insecure. This is meaningless drivel.

    That doesn't disprove my argument. If someone in a capitalist country has $2, someone in a socialist country has $1, and food costs $3: neither of them can eat. The former may look better off on paper, but the outcome is the same.

    It does disprove your argument because that statistic about capitalist countries having the highest income is adjust for Purchasing Power Parity. They literally have the highest income when you adjust for how much they can buy.

    And even if the absurd claim that no one in the world can afford food because Capitalism pays $2 and communism pays $1 and food is $3. Capitalism is still better! And don't try to claim that Communism gives you all the food you can eat no matter what the cost is, that is not how it works. If that were true then the value of that food would be considered income and the data would show that people who live under communism are the wealthiest on average. That is not the case. They live in poverty.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    The world "food insecurity" is clearly a propaganda tool used to convince fools that it means "can't afford food" while the actual definition they use is "gets food aid in some form".

    That just means the real number is much higher, because most people in need don't get benefits, that only goes to the poorest of the poor — and I've personally seen that to be true.

    but had to cope by eating less varied diets

    That's the important part: they weren't able to access enough nutrients — and I'll remind you: people need more than just "food", they need a variety of different nutrients, and must balance those nutrients. It's not like someone can just eat a bunch of bread their whole live and not get malnutrition.

    By that definition 100% of people in non capitalist countries are food insecure.

    No, because a lot of people are able to afford a variety of nutrients, and can afford to avoid processed foods full of garbage and chemicals.

    They literally have the highest income when you adjust for how much they can buy.

    Yet not enough to buy food. My point still stands.

    the absurd claim that no one in the world can afford food

    Strawman.

    Capitalism pays $2 and communism pays $1 and food is $3. Capitalism is still better!

    Yet in neither system can the person afford food. It's only better on paper; they have the same outcome.

    And don't try to claim that Communism gives you all the food you can eat no matter what the cost is, that is not how it works.

    Another stawman.

    Also, stop replacing "Socialism" with "Communism". There's no legitimate reason to do this, unless you're saying Socialism is okay, which you ain't.

    [–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    First off Socialims is Communism Lite. They both make the exact same claim: that the poor will be made wealthier by giving more power to the government and trusting that the government will give them back more benefits in return. Communism simply claims that you need to give the government more power than the amount claimed by Socialism. So when socialism fails the next step is to hand over more power to the government and go into full blown communism. Socialism is just a stepping stone.

    That just means the real number is much higher,

    That doesn't make one ounce of sense.

    they weren't able to access enough nutrients

    This is an absolutely baseless claim. People who eat junk food could spend less on healthy food, the problem is they would have to know what is healthy food and have some ability to cook. The real problem here is stupidity not income.

    Yet not enough to buy food. My point still stands.

    Your point is a lie

    And don't try to claim... Another stawman

    You clearly don't understand what a strawman is.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Socialims is Communism Lite.

    Yes.

    They both make the exact same claim: that the poor will be made wealthier by giving more power to the government and trusting that the government will give them back more benefits in return.

    I can agree with that.

    That doesn't make one ounce of sense.

    Yet you don't refute the actual point. If they count food insecure as "getting government benefits" and the government doesn't give benefits to everyone who needs them: the amount of people who are actually food insecure must be higher than those counted as such.

    People who eat junk food could spend less on healthy food

    I have yet to see healthy food sold at a lower price than junk food. Perhaps that's true in Yankeedom, but not where I live.

    they would have to know what is healthy food

    Another problem with Capitalism: businesses are incentivized to lie about what they sell, so they need to be forced to label their products.

    some ability to cook.

    Food that you cook on an actual stove tends to be of a much higher price than microwaved food, and especially junk food — again: perhaps it's different in Yankeedom, but not where I live.

    Your point is a lie

    Yet you refuse to give a counter-point.

    You clearly don't understand what a strawman is.

    You clearly don't, because you're the one arguing against things I didn't say, and then pretending like I was saying them — that's what a strawman is. You do this because you've realized you can't actually refute any of my points.

    [–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Yet you don't refute the actual point...

    Yes I did. Your claim that "food insecure" means they can't afford to eat heathy is a lie because "food insecure" means nothing of value. It is such a broad term that everyone falls into it. It means nothing. It does not mean that those people can't afford to eat healthy. You can have the healthiest diet in the world and still be considered food insecure by that definition. Therefore the claim that lack of money is causing people to have poor diets in capitalist societies, and this data about food insecurity proves it, is wrong.

    I have yet to see healthy food sold at a lower price than junk food

    Compare the price of Lays potato chips to the price of potatoes. The potatoes cost less. Everywhere. You are wrong, and have never actually looked, or have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Compare the price of Lays potato chips to the price of potatoes. The potatoes cost less.

    Canbot's got a point there TheAmeliaMay. I can buy anything here in rural Oz cheaper if it's natural. Even meat! A kilo of steak is on average around $20 and a 400g can of crappy braised steak and onion is $4.50. I can assure you there is not even 200g of meat in that can, and what is meat certainly isn't all steak. It's mostly water in there mixed with an emulsifier.

    [–]Desecr8r 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Agreed...perhaps it's because that mantra is repeated by those who inadvertently trust the *rich/influencers or hungry\poor enough to take and eat whatever shit they are given?

    [–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I don't think your sentence makes any point. It's obviously a piece of propaganda spread by socialits/communists. The question is why is it so prevalent when it is so clearly wrong.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Yes!! Give me Capitalism with a capital C. Bread and cars and houses, all waiting in line for those who are prepared to strive for them.

    [–]emptiedriver 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Where's the first picture?

    I am from the US but currently living in an EU country with taxes that are about 50% (so gets called "socialist" when it's convenient) and bread that is both cheaper and higher quality than back home. I don't see homeless people here and there weren't lines for groceries during the pandemic, whereas I know people literally wait in line for bread at homeless shelters or at supermarkets during hard times in the US. It seems pretty random and nit-picked to say one system does or doesn't result in lines. Sometimes some versions of both systems can result in lines, other times not...

    No system is perfect because it's a hard world. We can try to build a country based on competition or cooperation, but both have downsides. Competition might make everyone work harder, but it might make you lose, or people could fight dirty or start with a leg up you don't have. Cooperation might make everyone more comfortable, but there could be moochers who don't do their part, and if there's not a good motivation the whole thing could sink. But it's not as if one way always works and the other never does

    [–]AwakenGoyimEcoSlaves 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    So stupid. Socialism has only failed in placeswhere corrupt politicians make it fail. The nazi superpower that threatened the jewish world domination was born out of socialism. All the idiotic sheeple will believe the propaganda of the victors of war.

    [–]adultmanhwa 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    cAPiTAlISM Never GOEs wRoNg, wHEN it GoeS WRoNG it'S SoCialIsm