• from software paypig@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    1 year ago

    We should do the VoC method where every death in a capitalist country is tallied up then raised to the power of a random positive integer.

  • KurtVonnegut [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Now do imperialism! I wonder how many people have died in Yemen this year, besieged by capitalist Saudi Arabia, with weapons they bought from the capitalist USA. We don’t actually know the number, because our capitalist media is not interested in making it a big story.

  • Effort0499@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Cappie apologists are crying when faced with facts. “… but … but … communism killed waan hundred gigantillion people!!!”

    Capitalism not only kills people but it also leaves some of them alive after robbing their brains.

    • Commiejones [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “Well I could start a meaningful discussion about the accuracy of the data or I could say something smug that downplays human suffering. Nobody can disprove that I’m a smuglord and I can’t be bothered defending my assumptions by looking for alternate data. So this is a no brainer (just like me)”

      • lowleveldata@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        28
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think I can really start a “meaningful discussion” here, can I? The image didn’t even define how does it count a death to be caused by capitalism to start with. It just points to anything happen in the world and says “it’s capitalism”.

        • AmarkuntheGatherer@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          34
          ·
          1 year ago

          You? Apparently not. But to the best of their ability people answer honest questions here. “If capitalism is so great and a shirt travels the world 5 times before getting to the shop why’re there tens of millions without access to sanitation and clean water” is a fair question.

          Also, the high estimates of the famines in socialist states are measured exactly in the manmer you decried. If you could read the bottom text, you’d underatand this is intentional.

          • lowleveldata@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            16
            ·
            1 year ago

            Also, the high estimates of the famines in socialist states are measured exactly in the manmer you decried. If you could read the bottom text, you’d underatand this is intentional.

            So in other words, they are both wrong? What is the point of using a measuring method you don’t agree with in the first place?

            • 新星 [he/him/CPC bot]@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              22
              ·
              1 year ago

              Let’s underestimate the deaths then for the sake of argument.

              There are about 9 million annual hunger deaths globally, so a quite conservative estimate for the figure total would easily be 10 million.

              The point still stands that even if communism had really been responsible for 100 million deaths (spoiler: it isn’t), capitalism actually hits this every decade.

              • lowleveldata@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                11
                ·
                1 year ago

                Er, I still can’t understand how everything happens in the world must be caused by Capitalism. So that 10 millions deaths per decade would be 0 if we all abandon Capitalism?

                • 新星 [he/him/CPC bot]@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  24
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes, because capitalism is the means by which these inequalities exist where some people have unfathomable billions and some people can’t even get access to food.

                  A socialist planet would realize we could make further strides for the mutual benefit of everyone if we weren’t wasting the intellectual potential of millions depriving them of basic human needs and act accordingly.

      • lowleveldata@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        Either you drink the dirty water and die from that or you don’t and die from dehydration. What’s the point of the distinction of lack of water and lack of clean water?

          • lowleveldata@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            ?? The solution is to provide clean water. Also we were discussing about the grouping of death causes in the poster. How does the solution affect how you group that? Where is the group for literal dehydration anyway if they’re are different group of death causes as you suggested?

            • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              In a place where the local river is too polluted to drink, the solution is to either purify the water or solve the pollution at its source.

              In a place where there’s literally no water, the solution is to truck or pipe water in from far away. That’s drastically different?

              I think “lack of clean water” combines both causes of death, for simplicity? I’m not really sure why you have such a problem with it.

              • lowleveldata@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I think “lack of clean water” combines both causes of death, for simplicity? I’m not really sure why you have such a problem with it.

                Yes, I agree. Which is why I said it’s impressive that there are no one dying from both lack of food & water in my first comment. It was your reply that says it’s “lack of clean water” (instead of lack of clean water + lack of water). Which is a meaningless distinction that we seems to both agree now? Have you changed your mind on that one?

                • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  People dying of dehydration probably also die of malnutrition, like you said, but people dying from drinking unclean water are a distinct group that can’t just be lumped together with starvation because that’s a public sanitation and pollution problem rather than a resource problem. This statistic groups dehydration and waterborne illness and pollution and industrial poisoning together as one group, and then separates that with malnutrition as a completely separate group. You, for some reason, have a problem with that?

        • knfrmity@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          The distinction is, to oversimplify it, between living in a parched desert or living next to a toxic river or a contaminated well. In the case of contaminated water, you may not even really know that your water is contaminated with, say, cholera or dysentery on a given day, you just drink it because you must.

          I would also venture to guess that most people, even in overexploited nations, have access to water of some sort. So wording it as lack of clean water is probably more accurate than lack of water.