Socialism vs Capitalism

submitted by [deleted] from jssocial.pw

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][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.