Did Capitalism kill one billion people in the last century?

[NWO Sentryman]

i was looking at mr1001nights youtube page when this comment by him came up:


"u continue presenting a false choice between capitalist and communist bosses. I reject both. As for the numbers you present, they are false. In fact, just looking at India from 1949-79, the famines under a system based on private ownership of industry (capitalism) killed over 100 million--more than all communist states. If u look at all the deaths from capitalism in other parts of the world & its imperialism & wars, starvation, destruction of the environment etc; we're talking 100s of millions"

Is any of it true? can capitalism be blamed for every single death in the last century alone?

http://www.youtube.com/user/mr1001nights

[Safe-Keeper]

Sounds like the "atheism has killed more people than any crusade in history" argument.

Important question to ask - did they die because of the capitalist system, or did they die of non-capitalist causes in a country that just so happened to be capitalist? Not to say that lives haven't been lost that a welfare system could've saved, but one billion seems a bit excaggerated.

[Mark6]

Anyone who claims India in 1949-1979 was capitalist is either an idiot or a liar.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Works both ways. Capitalism is responsible for massive increase in food production efficiency due to innovation. We couldn't feed the world's current population had that not occurred.

At the same time, communism probably prevented massive starvation in China in the first half of the 20th century by a more equitable distribution of that food.

I don't think the economic system is the deciding factor here.

[SimonD]

At the same time, communism probably prevented massive starvation in China in the first half of the 20th century by a more equitable distribution of that food.

I guess that must have been after the famines caused by Mao during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward

You may wish to read some first hand accounts by Jung Chang in her book 'Wild Swans'

[arthwollipot]

So long as you define the cause of death as capitalism, then yes, you can claim this.

But I'd be hard pressed to justify naming capitalism as the single cause of any 20th century death. One of the biggest killers of the century was the Great War. Was capitalism the cause of the war? I suppose if you picked just the right data to report, you could try and claim that. But it'd be a stretch at best.

You can cherry-pick data to support pretty much any conclusion. That doesn't mean you're right.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I guess that must have been after the famines caused by Mao during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward

You may wish to read some first hand accounts by Jung Chang in her book 'Wild Swans'Actually, it was the one thing my Dad told me was a benefit of communism in China. My Dad was a staunch anti-commie like Reagan. My Dad believed the commies were behind the Vietnam war protests.

I knew if I posted that without checking, it was going to be flawed. I see the great famine of 1958 resulted from bad management under communist rule. However, that was years after Mao's revolution. So one needs to look at the pre Mao conditions as well.

If the peasants were well fed in both Russia and China, I sincerely doubt either Mao or Lenin would have been successful.


Either way, my point still holds, neither economic system prevents famine and both can intervene in one. There are other causes and solutions behind such events besides just the economic system.

[McHrozni]

At the same time, communism probably prevented massive starvation in China in the first half of the 20th century by a more equitable distribution of that food.

Was that before the Great chinese famine of 1958-61, or after?

McHrozni

[NWO Sentryman]

Actually, it was the one thing my Dad told me was a benefit of communism in China. My Dad was a staunch anti-commie like Reagan. My Dad believed the commies were behind the Vietnam war protests.

Actually, Ion Pacepa (former head of Romania's secret police) has tesified to the communists being behind the anti-war movement, or at least hijacking it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/pacepa200402260828.asp

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTQzMGQ5MWM0ZTE5OGYyYjg5ZjI4ZGVjYTI1NzBkMjU=

I knew if I posted that without checking, it was going to be flawed. I see the great famine of 1958 resulted from bad management under communist rule. However, that was years after Mao's revolution. So one needs to look at the pre Mao conditions as well.


Em, Jung Chang has attested these were COERCED famines. Why else did the Gvoernment hoard the grain away.

If the peasants were well fed in both Russia and China, I sincerely doubt either Mao or Lenin would have been successful.

The Peasants in Russia actually hoarded their grain so they could sell them at a better price. This led to the February revolution of 1917.

The peasants were well-fed, but they were illiterate and taxed to the hilt by the land captains.

The same is true with the chinese except the hoarding of grain.

Either way, my point still holds, neither economic system prevents famine and both can intervene in one. There are other causes and solutions behind such events besides just the economic system.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

i was looking at mr1001nights youtube page when this comment by him came up:



Is any of it true? can capitalism be blamed for every single death in the last century alone?

http://www.youtube.com/user/mr1001nights

No

[The Central Scrutinizer]

At the same time, communism probably prevented massive starvation in China in the first half of the 20th century by a more equitable distribution of that food.

True. All the people who had already starved to death no longer needed their share of food.

[NWO Sentryman]

I think we have the Stundie for October.

[SimonD]

If the peasants were well fed in both Russia and China, I sincerely doubt either Mao or Lenin would have been successful.

I wouldn't called Russia or China successful Communist states. Successful military dictatorships, yes.

You don't think that the fact that both governments killed millions of dissidents and performed generational indoctrination had more to do with them been 'successful'?

As to the OP - it is human greed that kills people, whether it been in the name of Capitalism or Communism

[six7s]

[As to the OP - it is human greed that kills people, whether it been in the name of Capitalism or Communism Greed... and incompetence...

In the context of this thread, all political ideologies are merely 'techniques' devised to manage resources... and - as per any/all techniques/tools - prone to abuse in the hands of naive users

[Mark6]

I wouldn't called Russia or China successful Communist states. Successful military dictatorships, yes.
I think Skeptigirl meant that Stalin and Mao were successful in taking over their countries. Not in running the countries afterward.

[Megalodon]

At the same time, communism probably prevented massive starvation in China in the first half of the 20th century by a more equitable distribution of that food.Was that before the Great chinese famine of 1958-61, or after?

I think that it was before, pretty much by definition of "first half"...

[Suddenly]

One billion is probably quite low if we are talking about deaths that can fairly be said to have capitalism as a cause.

Especially if we look at situations where concentrations of capital influenced government to adopt policies that harmed those without same. For some reason there is a "capital vs. government" false dichotomy. A government can commit atrocities at the behest of capital as easily as it can while trying to enforce abstract ideology.

This is, of course, largely meaningless. Life is the undisputed leading cause of death, but a cause that is best lived with. Politics is a fact of life, something that is a matter of life and death. Problem is, human beings are far from perfect.

Ergo, **** happens.