this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2025
343 points (92.1% liked)
Comics
7517 readers
39 users here now
This is a community for everything comics related! A place for all comics fans.
Rules:
1- Do not violate lemmy.ml site-wide rules
2- Be civil.
3- If you are going to post NSFW content that doesn't violate the lemmy.ml site-wide rules, please mark it as NSFW and add a content warning (CW). This includes content that shows the killing of people and or animals, gore, content that talks about suicide or shows suicide, content that talks about sexual assault, etc. Please use your best judgement. We want to keep this space safe for all our comic lovers.
4- No Zionism or Hasbara apologia of any kind. We stand with Palestine π΅πΈ . Zionists will be banned on sight.
5- The moderation team reserves the right to remove any post or comments that it deems a necessary for the well-being and safety of the members of this community, and same goes with temporarily or permanently banning any user.
Guidelines:
- If possible, give us your sources.
- If possible, credit creators of each comics in the title or body of your post. If you are the creator, please credit yourself. A simple β- Meβ would suffice.
- In general terms, write in body of your post as much information as possible (dates, creators, editors, links).
- If you found the image on the web, it is encouraged to put the direct link to the image in the βLinkβ field when creating a post, instead of uploading the image to Lemmy. Direct links usually end in .jpg, .png, etc.
- One post by topic.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Source/explanation for why capitalism kills 100 million people every 5 years please?
Here's a list of US atrocities, just a few of those equals that tally.
Also there's this report from results on child poverty, which estimates about 10 million preventable child deaths per year, which means capitalism kills 100M every decade.
Also the PRC has lifted more than 800M people out of poverty in the last few decades, more than the entire population of latin america. If you remove the PRC from poverty indexes, than world poverty is actually increasing.
If you ignore China, world poverty is increasing or stagnant: https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/2/3/pinker-and-global-poverty
No probs.
ok this is probably gonna get censored because this is lemmy.ml after all, but less than 1 million people had been violently killed by the US worldwide since the end of the cold war, both directly and indirectly.
you can't really blame starving children in africa on american capitalism, because if they were to interfere, there'd be claims of it being interference in another country's internal affairs and "neocolonialism" or sth like that
China has done good, alright, i give you that. :)
The US war on Iraq alone killed ~1 million people.
Some random other examples:
thanks for such a list, i have long been looking for one :D
https://monthlyreview.org/2012/07/01/the-gdp-illusion/
is ukraine and gaza not evidence enough?
or venezuela, or iraq, or iran, etc.?
is that 100 million?
latin america alone surpasses that.
First two are from fascism not capitalism smfh.
Fascism and capitalism are one and the same. For some reason (probably a heavy propaganda campaign) everyone thinks fascist when they mean authoritarian or dictator. Fascism is things like Citizens United allowing corporations to flood politicians with donations, essentially marrying corporation and government.
Fascism and capitalism are two separate things one is an economic system the other is a political ideology and fascism is authoritarian by nature.
How is capitalism not authoritarian by nature? Explain.
Is Sweden authoritarian?
Yes. All states are authoritarian, as they are all representatives of a given ruling class by which the rest are oppressed. You can't get rid of authoritarianisn without abolishing class, so socialist states are better in the interim.
Letβs flip that around: Is Sweden libertarian? No.
Our definitions of authoritarianism clearly differ. Traditional definitions are limited in scope - political democracy does not inherently eliminate or override economically authoritarian mechanisms.
So to answer your question: Is Sweden authoritarian?
Sweden is a capitalist state that operates with soft authoritarian features, or at the very least, leans authoritarian - all embedded within a democratic political framework (including socialist elements).
Authoritarianism isnβt black or white; itβs a spectrum. Capitalism does not exist in a vacuum - it requires authoritarian structures to enforce itself, either through state power protecting capital, or private violence used to assert and maintain ownership.
Ultimately, capitalism is economic authoritarianism, even under the best-case, most-idealized form of political democracy regulating it.
You can't have two definitions of authoritarianism, here's the actual definition from a dictionary "favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.".
More knowledge for the hungry below.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism#%3A%7E%3Atext=11+External+links-%2CCharacteristics%2Cthe+goals+of+the+regime.
Right-libertarians or anarcho-capitalists would say the same thing about libertarianism, a word historically coined to mean mostly the opposite of their ideology - a word they later co-opted to dress their preferred ideology (capitalism) up with language that implies freedom.
I'll remain steadfast in my position: capitalism is economic authoritarianism by nature. Many thinkers agree that authoritarianism is a continuum or spectrum.
The good thing about dictionaries is that we don't have to follow them strictly regarding political theory, which is fluid and evolving by nature. But regardless, "favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority [...] at the expense of personal freedom" seems to be a core principle of capitalist institutions. Regulation cannot meaningfully address core internal authoritarian structures and hierarchy present in capitalism.
The only examples of capitalism being compatible with libertarian or democratic governance would be in a direct democracy, with stronger regulation than anywhere on the planet, or in examples like worker-owned cooperatives (if that concept was enforced or widespread) - however, it would be closer to market socialism at that point.
Even in Sweden, contesting the violence (inherent in the enforcement of private property) of capitalist institutions would be met with violence.
How the fuck is an inanimate object supposed to be violent?
A relevant example in Sweden is the pending Kallak iron ore mine, which is opposed by the indigenous population because it threatens reindeer herding. Sweden is exerting violence, albeit under the guise of legal frameworks and processes, to maintain the rights of capitalist resource extraction over favoring true democratic processes and considering indigenous or local livelihoods.
If all this gets approved and the mine becomes operational, even local protestors or affected indigenous communities will be removed if they interfere or block operations. There is certainly an element of violence in a state enforcing property rights.
We see this with the Dakota Access Pipeline more starkly, organizers of the protests against its construction recently faced a lawsuit with harsh financial penalties, and protestors (including indigenous individuals) were dispersed with violence (with the use of LRADs, rubber bullets, sprayed with water in freezing temperatures, or were arrested) so construction could proceed.
There's this thing called a court system where people use democracy to handle such disputes.
It's not working.
The DAPL was built, leaked multiple times, and damaged indigenous land (including their water). The people organizing the protests were fined more than $660 million through the court systems and many indigenous individuals were arrested and some charged - again through the court systems. The arrests happened under Obama, who appeased the tribe upon leaving office after deafening silence, which was short-lived as this was subsequently very quickly overridden by Trump. The courts were silent to their pleas, from start to finish.
The democracy in Sweden, which you loosely tout as a gold standard, is similarly deaf to their local indigenous population and other concerned individuals, including other locals, and they are running out of legal options.
It's the Sami's land that they are constructing the mine on, but the Sami have to fight to stop the construction of a mine that could damage their livelihood and harm the environment, including their water? Make it make sense. Courts favor capitalists in capitalist economies - you need capital as input and legal action is very expensive.
This is an authoritarian move by Sweden and the only democratic process is for the Sami to go broke fighting this. When it's inevitably approved, their only real option is to see their land be taken, have their sovereignty/land rights impacted, have their water contaminated, and see their food and financial livelihood affected significantly. The damage will be permanent, even if some time down the road, an appeal or other democratic process rules in their favor.
If they do anything outside of the law to respond to the mine, including enforcing their land rights themselves, their personal freedom will be impacted and their "strict obedience to authority" will be enforced and subsequently maintained.
But right, Sweden isn't authoritarian - not even a little bit. I'm so convinced.
Can I see your source?
I'm not sourcing every single claim. I promise that I am not purposely misrepresenting any key facts or spinning anything in regards to indigenous land being impacted in so-called democracies. I have a libertarian socialist bias and I feel strongly in my belief that capitalism is incompatible with democracy - that's my opinion and there is no source for that.
If there is anything specific that you would like sourced, because it is unbelievable or difficult for you to verify, feel free to ask. It's my opinion and belief that if there is a spill, there is damage, too.
Otherwise, if you are interested, I strongly invite you to investigate not only my claims but these indigenous land disputes in a general sense.
We can sit here all day and night arguing political theory and definitions, but these are real issues with permanent consequences. Mines tend to have environmental effects on a greater scale than most are willing to admit.
fascism and capitalism are 2 sides of the same coin where history has proven that capitalism always devolves into fascism eventually.
You could say the same thing about socialism, as socialist societies seem to consistently turn fascist
No, they don't. They stay socialist, or dissolve like the USSR did. Fascism doesn't mean "scary," it's capitalism in decay when it needs to violently assert itself to perpetuate its existence.
What did the USSR dissolve into politically? What ever it was, it's closer to fascism now.
The PRC wealth inequality has gotten steadily worse to the point where many (not all) democratic countries have better redistribution of resources
The USSR dissolved into capitalism. It had a nationalist movement in the aftermath of shock therapy, and socialism is rising in popularity. The KPRF had 63,000 new members over the last few years and is the second largest political party. To begin with, fascism is capitalism in decay, it isn't removable from that context.
As for the PRC, it is democratic, moreso than liberal democracy. Further, inequality is decreasing in the 2020s, and morever socialism is not defined purely by the scale of disparity, but by the mode of production.
To the first paragraph, that is exactly what I'm saying; socialism gives way to capitalism, which according to comments elsewhere in this post is fascism.
I never said that the PRC is or isn't democratic, I implied that it wasn't socialist. Workers need to sell their labour to survive and do not have a stake in the companies they work for. Well besides what they can buy on exchanges. Labour, housing, food and health care are all commodities.
Socialism doesn't give way to capitalism naturally, the USSR didn't collapse, it was dissolved. It didn't need to be.
As for the PRC, it's absolutely socialist, even if it isn't fully automated luxury gay space communism yet. The large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and the working class is in control. There is still commodity production and markets play a heavy role, but that's because markets do have some level of use when it comes to developing the structures necessary to run a fully centrally planned economy, and as long as the large firms and key industries are publicly owned, the private sector doesn't actually have the power in society. This is socialism.
In the first paragraph, I'm really unsure what you're trying to say with collapse vs dissolve, but the end result was that socialism evolved into what ever version of capitalism it is now
State owned corporations are not incompatible with capitalism. The level of public ownership in China now is roughly equal to that of the 1960s UK as a proportion of GDP.
And you never addressed my concern that the workers must exchange their labour for the ability to survive, I'm sure the plight of the Chinese worker has direct analogues with Brazil, the UK and many other capitalist countries. Heck if you are born with the wrong hukou, you can be denied health care and your children their education
I explained outright what my point on the USSR was, it did not need to end, but was done from the top-down. Socialism wasn't in danger of collapse at the time of the Soviet Union's dissolution.
As for the PRC, I'm well aware that capitalist systems have public sectors, that wasn't my point. My point was that the large firms and key industries are publicly owned. Overwhelmingly so. Further, the state is run by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. By having the large firms and key industries publicly owned and run, this form of ownership is the principle aspect, and thus has dominance over the rest of the economy.
Britain, on the other hand, was and still is a capitalist country dominated by private capital. Having some level of public sector for things like healthcare while private capital has absolute dominance over finance, the large firms, etc means ultimately it's the bourgeoisie that have power. It also has a literal monarchy. Further, Britain runs on imperialism to subsidize a lot of these costs for safety nets.
I did address that Chinese workers don't have the same level of safety nets, I said China is in the primary, initial stages of socialism. Ideally there shouldn't need to be wage labor, and there should be more robust safety nets, but those don't determine if a system is socialist or not. Socialism is a mode of production, so it's important to actually center the relation to production, and as I already established public ownership forms the principle aspect of the PRC.
So why did they voluntarily dissolve the union? And to my point, did socialism end when they dissolve the union? My point was that socialism gives way to capitalism and by extension fascism.
With China, my point is that they were more socialist and they're becoming more capitalist. SOE do not make a country socialist. The UK was my first example and I never said they were socialist, I was saying that China by GDP has a similar concentration of state owned enterprises as the UK in the post war period, leading me to believe that they have collapsed into capitalism. Despite rising incomes, these benefits have been unequally spread across society. Look at GINI and wealth distribution by income, i will admit that in the 2020s it has plateaued, but even still their gini by income and wealth is worse than my home country of Australia (incidentally our largest bank was partially state owned until 1991.) Despite China being far more equal before Deng xiaoping reformed the economy.
China now is socialist light, not even at Nordic levels by most measurements Wealth and income inequality is worse than many capitalist countries, people living in cities earn far more than those in regional areas. Education, retirement pensions, health care and housing are tied to where you were born.
The USSR was socialist, Russia widely considered to be it's successor, is not
The idea that socialism gives way to capitalism necessarily implies that socialism naturally gives way to capitalism, ie this is something that is economically compelled, rather than a decision to be made. The USSR was not economically compelled to dissolve. Perestroika was damaging, and there were multiple issues with the Khrushchev, Gorbachev, and Yeltsin eras leading to lack of faith in the political institutions that were not due to socialism, but due to more complex factors. Your claim also requires states like Cuba, China, Vietnam, etc to necessarily be becoming capitalist, when the opposite is true.
Secondly, on to China. Private property is not itself capitalism. Private property is the basis of capitalism, but existed well befote capitalism, and exists in socialism as well. Concentration of state owned industry has nothing to do with it, what matters is which is the principle aspect, ie which governs the large firms and key industries, ie the aspects of the economy that have power, as well as which class has control of the state. Britain is capitalist because the large firms and key industries are private and the state is controlled by capitalists and a vestigial monarchy. China is socialist because the large firms and key industries are publicly owned and the state is owned by the proletariat.
China is not becoming "more capitalist." The market reforms were corrective measures from their ultraleft period, where they tried to achieve higher levels of public control than were realistically efficient for their level of development. Public planning works best on developed industry, China was underdeveloped yet tried to go beyond their means. This resulted in uneven and unstable growth.
The Nordic countries are capitalist because the large firms and key industries are privately owned, the state is under control of capitalists, and they fund their safety nets from imperialism. Having a public oil industry doesn't upset that balance. Socialism does not mean equality either, it is a mode of production driven by worker ownership and control as the principle aspect.
As for the urban/rural divide, this is changing. China is developing rapidly, and now towns and rural areas are being specifically targeted for development. Even before this, though, uneven development of the towns and cities does not mean it isn't socialist. You have a very liberal understanding of socialism that appears to be based on vibes alone, and not on Marxist analysis.
what makes you think that?
The british and US empires were and are far more effective than their fascist successors at killing innocent people.
And fascism is just a specific form of capitalist imperialism that burned out by the 1940s and regressed to the far more stable form of government for (neo)colonialism - bourgeois parliamentarism.
The us and British imperialist nations didn't cause an estimated 70,000,000 deaths in a mere 6 year time frame, fascism did.
Mind specifying?
ww1 had more deaths than ww2, and it was inter-capitalist rivalry fighting over who would get control over the colonies. Took place before fascism as a term was even coined.
British imperialism killed millions in India, africa, asia. US imperialists genocided an entire continent, and the nazis explicitly took it as their model: trying and failing to acheive in eastern europe, what the US's capitalist democracy already carried out in North america.
https://dessalines.github.io/essays/us_atrocities.html
You should really do an online search before you post, WW1 had a death count of roughly 20,000,000 vs WW2's 70,000,000
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties
Fascism is capitalism in decay, when it needs to violently assert itself to maintain existing property rights. It isn't a button you press.