How do we quantify how many people died because of communism or capitalism?

[VBM]

Whenever talking about the USSR or communist China, people say that communism was the reason why tens of millions of citizens died, but when people say that capitalism kills millions of people each year, many people say that it’s too simplistic to attribute those deaths to capitalism. So why is it that many people say communism is definitely what led to those people’s deaths, but the same can’t be said for people who supposedly died because of capitalism?

[John Dule]

"Capitalism" refers solely to what happens in the sphere of the market, so if a "capitalist" nation's government decides to bomb another nation, those deaths cannot be attributed to "capitalism."

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

When China uses Uighurs for slave labor for multinational companies, does that count as both?

[Big Abraham]

"Capitalism" refers solely to what happens in the sphere of the market, so if a "capitalist" nation's government decides to bomb another nation, those deaths cannot be attributed to "capitalism."

You don't think decisions about who to bomb falls within the sphere of the market? Have you ever heard of Enron, Halliburton, Raytheon, Boeing, etc. etc. etc.?

[John Dule]

"Capitalism" refers solely to what happens in the sphere of the market, so if a "capitalist" nation's government decides to bomb another nation, those deaths cannot be attributed to "capitalism."

You don't think decisions about who to bomb falls within the sphere of the market?

No.

[Big Abraham]

"Capitalism" refers solely to what happens in the sphere of the market, so if a "capitalist" nation's government decides to bomb another nation, those deaths cannot be attributed to "capitalism."

You don't think decisions about who to bomb falls within the sphere of the market?

No.

Well, you're wrong.

[John Dule]

"Capitalism" refers solely to what happens in the sphere of the market, so if a "capitalist" nation's government decides to bomb another nation, those deaths cannot be attributed to "capitalism."

You don't think decisions about who to bomb falls within the sphere of the market?

No.

Well, you're wrong.

I'm comfortable with that.

[Santander]

In communism, deaths are a statistic to be forgotten.

In capitalism, deaths are a business opportunity to be celebrated.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

"Capitalism" refers solely to what happens in the sphere of the market, so if a "capitalist" nation's government decides to bomb another nation, those deaths cannot be attributed to "capitalism."

That's not fair.

1. How many wars have started over the fight over certain valuable resources which are important for a nation's economic prospects or for dominating both the geopolitical or economical sphere (which applies to communist great powers too).

2. But more importantly how many people have been denied healthcare indirectly because the state hasn't been able to introduce affordable healthcare, affordable housing, affordable education and stuff like that, which indirectly leads to more deaths and less happy lives instead of where the states provides it for a cheaper cost, sometimes within the capitalist system itself.

3. The environmentalist vs economic question. Some environmental issues are simply not ignored or not pursued because it might hurt the economic interests of a nation (Poland's pollution in the East, North Dakota Access Pipeline) of a multinational (oil companies), which causes havoc on ecosystems and some communities.

I might forget a few things, but to give an answer to topic question, it's not possible and i don't think it is helpful to the debate for communism vs capitalism (or even concentrate on that debate). We need to look further ahead in the future, and start dealing with these issues, regardless of whether a system is communist vs capitalist.

[John Dule]

"Capitalism" refers solely to what happens in the sphere of the market, so if a "capitalist" nation's government decides to bomb another nation, those deaths cannot be attributed to "capitalism."

1. How many wars have started over the fight over certain valuable resources which are important for a nation's economic prospects or for dominating both the geopolitical or economical sphere (which applies to communist great powers too).

Thousands of resource wars happened before capitalism emerged. Were those "capitalistic" wars?

2. But more importantly how many people have been denied healthcare indirectly because the state hasn't been able to introduce affordable healthcare, affordable housing, affordable education and stuff like that, which indirectly leads to more deaths and less happy lives instead of where the states provides it for a cheaper cost, sometimes within the capitalist system itself.

Again, you're talking about "the state." When the US government does something wrong, that is not the fault of "capitalism." The government is not the market.

3. The environmentalist vs economic question. Some environmental issues are simply not ignored or not pursued because it might hurt the economic interests of a nation (Poland's pollution in the East, North Dakota Access Pipeline) of a multinational (oil companies), which causes havoc on ecosystems and some communities.

How exactly does one quantify how many deaths were due to "environmental damage?"

[Oregon Eagle Politics]

We can't

[LAKISYLVANIA]

"Capitalism" refers solely to what happens in the sphere of the market, so if a "capitalist" nation's government decides to bomb another nation, those deaths cannot be attributed to "capitalism."

1. How many wars have started over the fight over certain valuable resources which are important for a nation's economic prospects or for dominating both the geopolitical or economical sphere (which applies to communist great powers too).

Thousands of resource wars happened before capitalism emerged. Were those "capitalistic" wars?

2. But more importantly how many people have been denied healthcare indirectly because the state hasn't been able to introduce affordable healthcare, affordable housing, affordable education and stuff like that, which indirectly leads to more deaths and less happy lives instead of where the states provides it for a cheaper cost, sometimes within the capitalist system itself.

Again, you're talking about "the state." When the US government does something wrong, that is not the fault of "capitalism." The government is not the market.

3. The environmentalist vs economic question. Some environmental issues are simply not ignored or not pursued because it might hurt the economic interests of a nation (Poland's pollution in the East, North Dakota Access Pipeline) of a multinational (oil companies), which causes havoc on ecosystems and some communities.

How exactly does one quantify how many deaths were due to "environmental damage?"

Thousands of resource wars happened before capitalism emerged. Were those "capitalistic" wars?

In some sense, the world has always been capitalist. But that might be more because of human nature. The psychology/sociology behind capitalism is the same as that of human nature (driven by survival, driven by social darwinism, driven by the ego -> which explains partially why communism failed, because we cannot erase human nature).

Again, you're talking about "the state." When the US government does something wrong, that is not the fault of "capitalism." The government is not the market.

Let's assume what you state here is correct. And if we reverse the equation. When the Sovjet government does something wrong (gulags and stuff like that), is it the fault of the state of is it the fault of communism?

How exactly does one quantify how many deaths were due to "environmental damage?"

We can't, but it doesn't matter, we all know that climate change and environmental damage / loss causes lives. We can do estimates however, some probably already did. Air pollution is one of them, we're not talking about climate change, but about environmental damage. I consider that environmental damage. I also think environmental decline - even if it didn't affect humans but it does, but let's assume it doesn't affect humans - is still not desirable. Loss of ecosystems and biodiversity is not something i think that should be desirable. And we haven't talked about other negative effects environmental damage causes.

[John Dule]

In some sense, the world has always been capitalist. But that might be more because of human nature. The psychology/sociology behind capitalism is the same as that of human nature (driven by survival, driven by social darwinism, driven by the ego -> which explains partially why communism failed, because we cannot erase human nature).

No. The world has not "always" been capitalist. Capitalism is a very specific system of market governance in which labor is voluntarily allocated and private property is protected by the state. Trade and mutually beneficial exchange are inherently human traits, but that is not the only component of capitalism.

Let's assume what you state here is correct. And if we reverse the equation. When the Sovjet government does something wrong (gulags and stuff like that), is it the fault of the state of is it the fault of communism?

"Communism" is a system that organizes both the state and the economy. "Capitalism" is a system that only organizes the economy. You can have a capitalist dictatorship or a capitalist democracy.

We can't, but it doesn't matter, we all know that climate change and environmental damage / loss causes lives. We can do estimates however, some probably already did. Air pollution is one of them, we're not talking about climate change, but about environmental damage. I consider that environmental damage. I also think environmental decline - even if it didn't affect humans but it does, but let's assume it doesn't affect humans - is still not desirable. Loss of ecosystems and biodiversity is not something i think that should be desirable. And we haven't talked about other negative effects environmental damage causes.

Well, on some level I agree-- air pollution and related illnesses can certainly be construed as deaths that result from "capitalism." However, I think the issue here is that deaths that result from free market activities are inherently more difficult to quantify; deaths that "result from" capitalism usually happen because of negligence that ripples through multiple causal factors, whereas deaths that "result from" communism are often due to direct government action.

[Senator Incitatus]

We don't.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I've said elsewhere recently that I think many critics of communism (and I suppose capitalism too for the purposes of this thread) focus too much on the shocking death tolls from man-made tragedies like the Great Leap Forward and not enough on the general failure to improve the standards of living of billions of people over the longue duree.

If Stalin had killed zero people then the Soviet model would still have been significantly worse than its competitors!

[GeneralMacArthur]

Well, the USSR and the PRC fought many wars and sponsored countless famines and genocides in the name of spreading communism, the economic/political system.  An explicit tenet of Marxist-Leninist ideology is spreading communism by any means necessary, including mass murder.  Capitalism is essentially a reflection of the basic state of the world, where people have the freedom to produce whatever they like and value it however they like, so it isn't much of an ideology and doesn't require any such rules to exist.

America hasn't fought wars in the name of capitalism.  They've fought wars in the name of anti-communism, but the primary motivation wasn't economic, it was preventing the Soviet Union from achieving global hegemony, oppressing/murdering millions more people, and surrounding America with puppet states where they could later set up nuclear silos or naval/air bases.

If we truly cared about spreading "capitalism" we'd declare war on Sweden for being socialist.  Or we'd have declared war on Vietnam in the 90s, a war we could have won in about ten minutes, instead of working to welcome them back into the civilized world.

[Alcibiades]

Well, the USSR and the PRC fought many wars and sponsored countless famines and genocides in the name of spreading communism, the economic/political system.  An explicit tenet of Marxist-Leninist ideology is spreading communism by any means necessary, including mass murder.  Capitalism is essentially a reflection of the basic state of the world, where people have the freedom to produce whatever they like and value it however they like, so it isn't much of an ideology and doesn't require any such rules to exist.

America hasn't fought wars in the name of capitalism.  They've fought wars in the name of anti-communism, but the primary motivation wasn't economic, it was preventing the Soviet Union from achieving global hegemony, oppressing/murdering millions more people, and surrounding America with puppet states where they could later set up nuclear silos or naval/air bases.

If we truly cared about spreading "capitalism" we'd declare war on Sweden for being socialist.  Or we'd have declared war on Vietnam in the 90s, a war we could have won in about ten minutes, instead of working to welcome them back into the civilized world.

Since when was Sweden not capitalist?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

In some sense, the world has always been capitalist.

This is in contradiction of every Marxist, historian, and sociologist who's ever written on the subject.

[West_Midlander]

Tens of millions died from communism, or at least people who tried to achieve communism and called themselves communists.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Since in a communist nation the state directly controls everything , that means the state is directly and morally responsible for the deaths and suffering that happen.

[Diabolical Materialism]

Remember kids, markets of any kind = capitalism

[KaiserDave]

Well, the USSR and the PRC fought many wars and sponsored countless famines and genocides in the name of spreading communism, the economic/political system.  An explicit tenet of Marxist-Leninist ideology is spreading communism by any means necessary, including mass murder.  Capitalism is essentially a reflection of the basic state of the world, where people have the freedom to produce whatever they like and value it however they like, so it isn't much of an ideology and doesn't require any such rules to exist.

America hasn't fought wars in the name of capitalism.  They've fought wars in the name of anti-communism, but the primary motivation wasn't economic, it was preventing the Soviet Union from achieving global hegemony, oppressing/murdering millions more people, and surrounding America with puppet states where they could later set up nuclear silos or naval/air bases.

If we truly cared about spreading "capitalism" we'd declare war on Sweden for being socialist.  Or we'd have declared war on Vietnam in the 90s, a war we could have won in about ten minutes, instead of working to welcome them back into the civilized world.

lmao