They say communism killed 100 million people in 70 years

Advances in medicine and agriculture made the population of the third world grow. Their deaths are systemic to capitalism, capitalism requires that these people die so that greater profits can be extracted from the resources that are withheld from them, and property and the commodity form means that otherwise abundant resources are withheld from them simply because they cannot pay. How else would you explain how we manage to overproduce everything and still fail to provide everyone their basic needs for survival?

Like under feudalism and following communism?

...

Peter Joseph has absolutely read Marx, his only "mistake" is that he started peddling crypto-marxism back when you couldn't be out about it

Does the dude accept the LTV tho?

I remember him alluding to it a couple of times including in his debates with Molymeme and Alex Jones but I think he went even more crypto after just the mildest marxist terminology set those people off into an autistic rage (esp Jones)

I wonder how the people who really suffer would feel about you saying that.

Communism killed 100 million Communists.
That 100 million death toll for Capitalism was our enemies.

This is so stupid it hurts

Africa's population is ballooning because they aren't starving as much as they used to. International Stalinism might end hunger, but everybody abolishing the state and living communally likely will not. A farm commune in Iowa has just about no incentive to send a bunch of grain to starving farmers in Mozambique, especially when everybody is opposed to market exchange.

...

...

Misread this as Paul Joseph as in Paul Joseph Watson

Who put them up for sale?

The state, probably related to some austerity deal forced on them by the IMF

Coca cola death squads :^)

He's read the highest level porky economics:
youtu.be/KEC0GT_8l_I?t=4m13s

so I'm pretty sure he's read Marx.

Peter Joseph strikes me as the typical average Ron Paul to Bernie Sanders type of supporter.

His first video was edgy libertarian shite.

Give him or his kind a basic income for first world countries and he'll drop any sort of revolutionary mindset the minute they get the check.

Here is worldsocialism.org's take on Peter Joseph

worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2017/no-1354-june-2017/peter-joseph-indicts-capitalism

Who the fuck is we? Everybody in the world working together? Who do you think will coordinate that? What incentive is there?

There are systems which could solve global hunger, but late stage communism probably will not.

He seems to be developing as an intellectual. He was a good old fashion Utopian for a long time.

...

You don't have any reading comprehension.

I'm saying the system of government that erases poverty and starvation is not actually Marxist. An AnCom shouldn't pretend their victory will save starving milliards, because in all probability it will be worse for the global poor than capitalism. There's little in a communist, localized system to consistently encourage global cooperation, so communist structure is not a solution to the same problem with capitalism.

This is a relative issue. Every historic economic or political system has allowed people to starve.

He needs to read some fucking Hudson and Graeber.

And right after that he goes to misrepresenting Adam Smith with libertarians cartoon caricature of The Wealth of Nations. I see no reason to believe he's read Marx.

I didn't say he was Marx, I said he's probably read Marx.

I can see that you dont know who these 100 mln are.

To be fair, you have to have a very high Autism Level to understand the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The Communism is extremely subtle, and without a good grasp of theoretical Marxism most of the images of breadlines will go over a typical analyst’s head. There’s also Stalin’s nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his gulags. True socialists understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depth of the Communism that is being built. As a consequence people who dislike the USSR truly ARE idiots - of course they won’t appreciate, for instance, the NKVD kicking open doors in the middle of the night and hauling people off for being “crypto-fascist trotskyist wreckers”. I’m smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as the Great Purge unfolds on their television screens. What fools…how I pity them. And yes by the way, I DO have a CCCP tattoo.

The level of discourse is frankly frightening, I may have to leave before I am proved a brainlet.

I think you're missing the point that capitalists are literally taking resources out of Africa and withholding them from the people there. Africa is one of the richest areas in the entire world, resource-wise. People weren't constantly starving before capitalists came and took all their shit. You don't need to pump resources into the continent, they can be entirely self-sufficient with the proper infrastructure and technology. To dismiss actual, structural contradictions in the capitalist system with "oh people starve all the time" is so goddamn stupid it boggles the mind.

The zeitgeist movement always seems to me like closet communists who really like plants and shit.

And when i say 'movement' i mean the cult following the movies have. It just goes to show you the power of propaganda really, you can directly trace everything theve done back to one guy and his movies and judge their 'success' from their. Its really interesting to think about.

In fact they were. There were higher rates of starvation and infant mortality before colonialism, it's why Africa is currently undergoing a population boom.

Occasional starvation is not that uncommon in pre-industrialized agricultural societies.

Just like everywhere else before modern agriculture and medicine. Just like Europe before modern agriculture and medicine. Those weren't caused by capitalism, in fact they were the things that allowed for the expansion of capital. People starving isn't some universal, unchangeable constant, it is predicated on material conditions and availability of resources that we have largely overcome today. The fact that we have the agricultural technology to make the Nile floodplains produce enough food to feed entire world and people are still starving is an indictment of capitalism. The poverty in Africa, hell poverty in general, is entirely artificial. It exists only because the system demands it

Agricultural potential and development is not evenly distributed, and making it so everybody can live locally is a massive international logistical undertaking.

Sure, everybody in the world could share all the food, but that isn't late stage communism. Some people live in shitty places for agriculture, agriculture is fairly volatile in output even now, and some demographics, such as the Amish, multiply almost endlessly to match output. Saying the Nile could support the world does not mean communism could be implemented without anybody in the world starving. The Nile commune has no reason to put grain on a boat and send it to Australia. Please respond to that, it's frustrating to post here because people ignore the things they haven't memorized a response to.

Obviously technological and organizational changes reduce starvation, and to a large degree you could hold capitalism responsible for those changes. That does not mean capitalism alone is making people starve, despite all advances. The absence of an overridingly powerful global apparatus dedicated to solving hunger is responsible for that. If you want a world welfare state just say so.

The reason they're ignoring it is that it's a stupid argument. It is purely hypothetical.You're assuming that 1. that vast areas of the world would be unable to produce enough food to meet demand, despite the fact that the most densely populated areas in the world produce a vast surplus of food, and that areas that are currently overpopulated could easily produce more than enough with the proper investment; and 2. that a future communist society would be completely decentralised and uncooperative despite having no reason to be so, especially if they're having food problems. The other reason people don't respond is that such questions are ultimately utopian, it's literally asking people to sketch out a future society down to how to distribute food, which is impossible to answer because there are countless different solutions that all ultimately depend on the conditions at the time, which you can't predict unless you have a fucking crystal ball. Any answer would be obsolete after a year.
I never said that it's capitalism alone that causes people to starve, quit putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that capitalism is systemically incapable of solving the problem, whereas there are no such barriers for communism. The commodification of food and water means that if you don't have the money to pay, you don't get it, regardless of the availability. The perfect example of this is Nestle privatising wells in Africa: The water was freely available, everyone could get it, but now you have to pay for it, and if you can't afford it you drink the dirty river water. Capitalists will always try and commodify what is uncommodified, turn commons into private property, and if you can't pay you don't get it, which is a ridiculous notion when there's more than enough for everyone, it's completely needless. This gets even more ridiculous when the supply of a good is so huge that it becomes unprofitable to sell it, and instead of giving it away (which is the common sense response when you got a shitton of stuff you don't need) it is far more profitable to just burn it. It's things like these that lead to things like homeless people sleeping outside empty houses and people drinking sewage when there's a clean well just half a mile away.
This isn't about specifics. This is about the simple fact that capitalism is fundamentally unable to resolve the issue. The issue is built into its very DNA. Communism has no such restrictions. If people starve in communism, it's because there legit isn't enough food, or because the distribution is flawed. Both issues can be resolved, the contradictions of capitalism can't.

no one wants to play with you because your games are stupid and you just declare yourself the winner