What’s the problem with my example? Roman Empire qualifies for “recorded history”.
Do you prefer more recent times like 1800? Life expectancy comparable to the roman period, but the main causes of deaths were tuberculosis, pneumonia, cholera, and diarrhea. Yes, you can die of diarrhea.
What’s the problem with my example? Roman Empire qualifies for “recorded history”.
If you weren’t a shit lib jabroni intent on knee jerk defending a system that does literally nothing for you unless you own capital, so smug and self assured and addicted to the smell of your own farts, you’d realize the point of the “recorded history” statement isn’t “the systems used before were better”
the point of the statement is to illustrate how fleeting and ephemeral the supposed “only system that works” is. It has literally only existed for ~300 years, but stupid fuckers like you act like capitalist wage labor and property relations are just common sense “human nature”
Anyway, hope you’re thrown into a pit you dumb fucker
Which was under capitalism. Capitalism was the dominant mode of production in the 1800s. And directly responsible for the increase in diseases because it forced people to move to cities when Enclosure happened and people had to go work in factories.
I can see you already got told multiple times in these comments. But then again, I think, most can also see you don’t actually know anything you are talking about. So, uh.
My “fault” is that I didn’t notice that this was a bubble of people reinforcing each other’s far-left views and eager to insult anyone contradicting their black&white reality.
Although I enjoy having a political debate, and some were able to reply without behaving like rabid dogs, this is clearly a place for zealots, which is not who I am.
I see your centrist attitude is more advanced that other centrists’, so much so that it no longer enables fascism, unlike every other centrist! wow, you are so smart, i am totally in awe of you.
The right direction would obviously be socialism with public ownership of the means of production and an economy being directed towards meeting the needs of working majority as opposed to a handful of elites. Should be pretty obvious, yet here you are.
That’s correct communism is the end goal. Also, not sure what you could possibly mean that communism didn’t work well. Everywhere it’s been tried, it has lifted millions out of poverty and provided them with housing, education, food, and healthcare. Countries run by communist parties today are demonstrably doing a far better job providing for the working majority than their capitalist counterparts. The research on the subject is extensive and the results are beyond question.
Study demonstrating the steady increase in quality of life during the Soviet period (including under Stalin). Includes the fact that Soviet life expectancy grew faster than any other nation recorded at the time: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2672986?seq=1
This study compared capitalist and socialist countries in measures of the physical quality of life (PQL), taking into account the level of economic development. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2430906/
You’re typing this comment in the Year of our Lord 2025. Currently, China is becoming the world’s main economic superpower as the United States squanders its imperialist hegemony. Cuba has the most successful healthcare system in Latin America, while everyone else in LatAm is either moving in the direction of socialism, or failing.
The time to make these embarrassing arguments was a century and a half ago, when the only examples of socialism were failed experiments like the Paris Commune. Hell, these days we can even point to how socialism’s failures, like the later years of the Soviet Union, were still better than what came after, in the form of neoliberalism.
So either you’ve gotten to this point in the conversation because you’re trolling, or you’re really this ignorant and get all the information about the world around you from the New York Times and white boy youtubers.
What’s the problem with my example? Roman Empire qualifies for “recorded history”.
Do you prefer more recent times like 1800? Life expectancy comparable to the roman period, but the main causes of deaths were tuberculosis, pneumonia, cholera, and diarrhea. Yes, you can die of diarrhea.
If you weren’t a shit lib jabroni intent on knee jerk defending a system that does literally nothing for you unless you own capital, so smug and self assured and addicted to the smell of your own farts, you’d realize the point of the “recorded history” statement isn’t “the systems used before were better”
the point of the statement is to illustrate how fleeting and ephemeral the supposed “only system that works” is. It has literally only existed for ~300 years, but stupid fuckers like you act like capitalist wage labor and property relations are just common sense “human nature”
Anyway, hope you’re thrown into a pit you dumb fucker
So you fail to understand how basic investment works, but you criticize Capitalism copy-pasting ideological statements.
Ok.
Which was under capitalism. Capitalism was the dominant mode of production in the 1800s. And directly responsible for the increase in diseases because it forced people to move to cities when Enclosure happened and people had to go work in factories.
i’m pretty sure the idea with anticapitalist sentiment isn’t to go backwards anymore, you know?
That’s not what OP implies when he says that capitalism only existed for 1% of recorded history.
I can see you already got told multiple times in these comments. But then again, I think, most can also see you don’t actually know anything you are talking about. So, uh.
None of the two.
My “fault” is that I didn’t notice that this was a bubble of people reinforcing each other’s far-left views and eager to insult anyone contradicting their black&white reality.
Although I enjoy having a political debate, and some were able to reply without behaving like rabid dogs, this is clearly a place for zealots, which is not who I am.
I see your centrist attitude is more advanced that other centrists’, so much so that it no longer enables fascism, unlike every other centrist! wow, you are so smart, i am totally in awe of you.
Nope, that’s exactly what I implied when I point out that capitalism is the wrong direction of human development.
I’m curious now: what would be the right direction without going backwards?
The right direction would obviously be socialism with public ownership of the means of production and an economy being directed towards meeting the needs of working majority as opposed to a handful of elites. Should be pretty obvious, yet here you are.
deleted by creator
That’s correct communism is the end goal. Also, not sure what you could possibly mean that communism didn’t work well. Everywhere it’s been tried, it has lifted millions out of poverty and provided them with housing, education, food, and healthcare. Countries run by communist parties today are demonstrably doing a far better job providing for the working majority than their capitalist counterparts. The research on the subject is extensive and the results are beyond question.
Professor of Economic History, Robert C. Allen, concludes in his study without the 1917 revolution is directly responsible for rapid growth that made the achievements listed above possible: https://web.archive.org/web/20200119044114/https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.507.8966&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Study demonstrating the steady increase in quality of life during the Soviet period (including under Stalin). Includes the fact that Soviet life expectancy grew faster than any other nation recorded at the time: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2672986?seq=1
A large study using world bank data analyzing the quality of life in Capitalist vs Socialist countries and finds overwhelmingly at similar levels of development with socialism bringing better quality of life: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646771/pdf/amjph00269-0055.pdf
This study compared capitalist and socialist countries in measures of the physical quality of life (PQL), taking into account the level of economic development. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2430906/
This study shows that unprecedented mortality crisis struck Eastern Europe during the 1990s, causing around 7 million excess deaths. The first quantitative analysis of the association between deindustrialization and mortality in Eastern Europe. https://academic.oup.com/cje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cje/beac072/7081084?guestAccessKey=01c8dd9f-af1c-48b3-b271-eb5d3a45017c&login=false
Romania, the inustrialization of an agrarian economy under socialist planning https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/888851468333915517/pdf/multi0page.pdf
An exploration of China’s mortality decline under Mao: A provincial analysis, 1950-80 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25495509/
Authoritarianism, repression, slower innovation and progress compared to Capitalism, pick what you prefer.
Not even China or Russia are pure Communist anymore.
Here we go!
You’re typing this comment in the Year of our Lord 2025. Currently, China is becoming the world’s main economic superpower as the United States squanders its imperialist hegemony. Cuba has the most successful healthcare system in Latin America, while everyone else in LatAm is either moving in the direction of socialism, or failing.
The time to make these embarrassing arguments was a century and a half ago, when the only examples of socialism were failed experiments like the Paris Commune. Hell, these days we can even point to how socialism’s failures, like the later years of the Soviet Union, were still better than what came after, in the form of neoliberalism.
So either you’ve gotten to this point in the conversation because you’re trolling, or you’re really this ignorant and get all the information about the world around you from the New York Times and white boy youtubers.
China is no more a pure Communist country and Cuba may have a good healthcare system, but sorry if I stick to my capitalistic Europe.
I guess we will stick to our own opinions. Bye!
You’re just fucking illiterate