> Capitalism has been a miracle for everyone, not just a few.
Capitalism has had demonstrably terrible effects for many people all over the world without the luck of being born in a country or even a social class with enough economic clout to dictate favourable terms in trade agreements.
The conflict and genocide in East Timor was driven by capitalist Indonesia (a US ally) and colonial greed. Of course this conflict was ignored at the time because it was more important to focus on the Khmer Rouge, so the US and its brand of capitalism could save face:
These are just three examples. There are countless other examples of the destruction and death caused by capitalist policies all over the world. This kind of greed, corruption and harm is not limited to totalitarian states, they're just less reported on by western media. Deliberately so.
Calling it a 'miracle for everyone' is an obscenely narrow-minded claim.
Some commentators have defended the usage of whataboutism and tu quoque in certain contexts. Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair. For instance, in international relations, behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be quite good for a given geopolitical neighborhood, and deserves to be recognized as such.
Christian Christensen, Professor of Journalism in Stockholm, argues that the accusation of whataboutism is itself a form of tu quoque fallacy, as it dismisses criticisms of one's own behavior to focus instead on the actions of another, thus creating a double standard. Those who use whataboutism are not necessarily engaging in an empty or cynical deflection of responsibility: whataboutism can be a useful tool to expose contradictions, double standards, and hypocrisy.
Others have criticized the usage of accusations of whataboutism by American news outlets, arguing that the accusation whataboutism has been used to simply "deflect" criticisms of human rights abuses perpetrated by the United States or its allies. They argue that the usage of the term almost exclusively by American outlets is a double standard, and that moral accusations made by powerful countries are merely a pretext to punish their geopolitical rivals in the face of their own wrongdoing.
The scholars Kristen Ghodsee and Scott Sehon posit that mentioning the possible existence of victims of capitalism in popular discourse is often dismissed as 'whataboutism', which they describe as "a term implying that only atrocities perpetrated by communists merit attention." They also argue that such accusations of 'whataboutism' are invalid as the same arguments used against communism can also be used against capitalism.
> You mention "quality education in the trades and higher professions for example." - what percentage of the population got to enjoy that?
All the examples I gave were freely available even to the regular workers. I've spent enough time in Poland and Ukraine to know I'm getting this information from people who actually lived through this. Primary sources.
Most wouldn't go to university, sure, but that is also true of the west. Not everybody goes to university, some become labourers or take up a trade.
Free child care, free healthcare, free education. Even free psychiatric help (something we sorely need in he west). The quality of this varied greatly sure, but it was freely available. These are basic socialist principles that are practices even by enlightened western nations today (just not the US, obviously). These were pillars the USSR was built on.
The fact that it had colossal failings elsewhere does not detract from this.
> Can you give some specific examples?
I already did.
I'm not denying the system was highly corrupt and many people suffered, but you are denying even basic truisms that you could confirm yourself if you got out of your bubble or read some history books.
The things I am saying are not excusing the horrible things the system engaged in. It would be interesting if you held your own country to the same standards as well. It wouldn't come out as clean and shiny as you think.
You are arguing from the perspective of someone who thinks there was literally NOTHING positive about the system at all. You are deliberately ignoring what I am saying and your responses in this thread have been little more than "I disagree because the USSR was bad".
This is just pure fundamentalism and I'm not going to continue arguing with an ideologue. It's wasted effort.
> after all people didn't starve before Russia had modern farming equipment.
Yes, they did. You don't know your history or are deliberately ignoring parts of it.
Russia and the Russian Empire was always struggling to produce enough food due to the nature of its landscape. Barely any of it is suitable for farming.
This is the main reason Russia always tries to expand westward (that and its lack of warm-water ports for trade). It's simple self-preservation. I'm not excusing some or all of the horrible shit they've done to pursue this goal either, but it is understandable. The US did exactly the same when it swarmed over North America wiping out or subjugating every Native tribe it encountered.
The arable land in Russia is incredibly slim and was mostly situated on its western countries bordering Europe. Most of Russia and many of its satellite states during the USSR is and were unsuitable for farming.
On the subject of US/NATO trade embargoes, the US did a similar thing to Cuba and some South American states for decades for no good reason other than 'communism bad!'.
Trade embargoes used as a tool to fight an ideological war by weakening the target country's economy, thereby discrediting its economic model by artificially limiting supplies of grain and efficient farming equipment.
All they ended up doing was hurting the regular people who probably couldn't have cared less what system they were under. They were too busy trying to live their lives.
There was nothing in the Soviet system that prevented it from trading with the west from an ideological standpoint either. The refusal to trade came from the west; and the only reason trade with the west was hindered was because the US wanted to fight an ideological war by undermining its enemies economies.
The reality is, the so-called free-market champion that is the United States engages in market distortion to eliminate rivals all the time. The best example recently was the Iraq War. That was a response to Saddam Hussein's plan to stop trading oil in dollars and switch to Euros instead.
I feel like you are deliberately ignoring information that doesn't satisfy your world view.
> Malthusianism has been thoroughly debunked at this point.
It really hasn't, it has merely been updated, and yet people like yourself deliberately ignore the revisions and always focus on the obsolete original argument from the 1700's.
The only thing that has been debunked was Malthus prediction that human populations grow exponentially whereas the food production grows at an arithmetic rate. That hasn't proven true because we produce more than enough food for everyone (yet people are still hungry), but population it still continues to grow in a way we cannot accommodate even now for a variety of reasons.
Besides, the main thing people disliked about Malthus's initial prediction was not that it simply suggested limiting population growth (although the religious types certainly balked at this), but rather what his predictions implied in terms of future solutions to the problem; i.e. euthanasia, eugenics and mandatory sterilisations.
They are the main reasons people don't like to entertain the idea of population control, which is fair enough; but they are ideological arguments against population control, not practical ones.
I'd suggest reading more about this though, because I think you've just picked up on the 'Malthus was debunked' soundbite that people like to repeat ad nauseaum without really understanding the debate around it and how it has evolved into the modern era.
The peak population numbers provided by the UN that supposedly 'debunked' this theory have been repeatedly updated and revised because they don't hold. Even the idea of a 'peak' population is one that is not univerally accepted as it only factors in prosperity among developed nations leading to lower birth rates. It does nothing to account for the mantra many religions have of 'be fruitful and multiply'.
The religious are going to be primary drivers of population growth going forward while secular societies are those that are falling below replacement rates for births.
It was originally supposed to peak at 9 billion. Then it was revised to 11 billion. Then 13 billion. Now it sits somewhere around 15 billion because the models used to estimate the peak population numbers are imperfect and do not take into account all variables.
Besides, Malthusianism has nothing to do with the point of my post, which is that we are slowly poisoning the ecosystems we depend on because we consume and waste too much.
That is an entirely separate issue to raw population numbers and is an issue of poor waste management, over-consumption spurred by a an addiction to perpetual growth (in capitalist terms) and ineffective logistics.
The main problem isn't how many people we have, that's just an amplifier of other problems. The main problem we have is one of greed and apathy and an insistence on infinite growth on a planet with finite resources.
You've changed the topic of conversation into something else to avoid addressing my point.
> There's a lot more to life than minimizing carbon footprint in the immediate term.
Which is a profoundly selfish (yes, selfish, I'll stand by that) sentiment given the shit state our global ecosystems are in as a direct result of our wasteful, greedy culture and highly self-centred, amoral economic model.
If you gave a single shit about the future of the species (as well as other species) instead of just your own DNA you would be trying to minimise your footprint every day.
A relevant quote from National Geographic:
The number of people does matter, of course.
But how people consume resources matters a lot more. Some of us leave much bigger footprints than others. The central challenge for the future of people and the planet is how to raise more of us out of poverty—the slum dwellers in Delhi, the subsistence farmers in Rwanda—while reducing the impact each of us has on the planet.
The population question has not been answered, it has merely evolved and expanded. Anyone suggesting otherwise is deliberately trying to shut down debate.
Others have criticized the usage of accusations of whataboutism by American news outlets, arguing that the accusation whataboutism has been used to simply "deflect" criticisms of human rights abuses perpetrated by the United States or its allies.
They argue that the usage of the term almost exclusively by American outlets is a double standard, and that moral accusations made by powerful countries are merely a pretext to punish their geopolitical rivals in the face of their own wrongdoing.
In fact, invoking 'whataboutism' in the way you have done is a misuse and a deliberate attempt to deflect.
Animal Farm was a critique of Stalinism and the hijacked Bolshevik revolution more than anything, and it's a good one considering Orwell himself leaned socialist (which Stalinism certainly was not).
It's always good to remember this and we should keep repeating it.
This is the most profound insight we have into the mind of Mark Zuckerberg and what he thinks of his user base.
Stop listening to the PR and examine his actions since then. You can see how that comment was not merely a youthful indiscretion, but his entire business.
Zuckerberg continues to display this exact same mentality, only now he has billions of dollars in resources.
Capitalism has had demonstrably terrible effects for many people all over the world without the luck of being born in a country or even a social class with enough economic clout to dictate favourable terms in trade agreements.
The conflict and genocide in East Timor was driven by capitalist Indonesia (a US ally) and colonial greed. Of course this conflict was ignored at the time because it was more important to focus on the Khmer Rouge, so the US and its brand of capitalism could save face:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_invasion_of_East_Ti...
As was the privatisation of water supply in Bolivia that led to conflict and massacres:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochabamba_Water_War
Plus the US-backed militias and crackdowns in various South American nations to prop up and entrench its business interests:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars
These are just three examples. There are countless other examples of the destruction and death caused by capitalist policies all over the world. This kind of greed, corruption and harm is not limited to totalitarian states, they're just less reported on by western media. Deliberately so.
Calling it a 'miracle for everyone' is an obscenely narrow-minded claim.