History shows us that socialism usually leads to body counts. Whenever I bring this up around those advocating socialism they’re usually quick to saying, “Yeah but how many people has capitalism killed?” While they believe this is a smart response in which their opponent can only answer with an absurdly high number the truth of the matter is capitalism hasn’t actually killed anybody.
An advocate of socialism is always quick to laugh at my answer and bring up all those die because they’re unable to afford medical care, housing, food, etc. The problem with their rebuttal lies in the fact inaction does not kill somebody. Capitalism is a form of voluntary trade where people in a free market are able to take the product of their labor and trade it to others for the product of their labor. If you don’t like the terms of a trade you can walk away and no harm will come to you. Unfortunately there will be those who can’t afford basic needs but they do have other options including charity and mutual aid societies. Still some people will inevitably die from exposure, disease, or hunger under capitalism as with any economic system.
Socialism is a different beast altogether as the product of your labor is not yours to keep. In order to provide for everybody a central state confiscates the product of peoples’ labor so it can be equally distributed. This is where the real difference between socialism and capitalism comes into play; under socialism if you refuse to turn over the product of your labor to the state they will use for to take it for “the greater good.” Thus socialism is not a voluntary economic system but one based on the act of theft. Another aspect of socialism that is necessary for this topic is the idea of a new “socialist man.” Proponents of socialism believe people must be educated in order for a socialism utopia to form and this education is often the source of violence in socialist countries. Those who refuse to cooperate and play but the state’s rules are usually shipped off to reeducation or labor camps (often both camps being the same thing in practice). On the other hand capitalism works with our current society without the need to education the populace.
Capitalism vs. socialism is really a debate between voluntary and forced society. Under capitalism all transactions are voluntary whereas transactions under socialism are performed through coercion. If you die because somebody failed to provide you with something we don’t claim the would-be provider killed you. A man with a carry permit who refused to intervene in a violent crime is not said to have murdered the victim. When a farmer fails to provide food to a starving man we don’t charge the farmer with murder. Thus the people socialists claim are killed by capitalism can not be said to have been killed by capitalism. Those people died because they were no provided with a need and that doesn’t fit the description of being killed.
The victims of socialism however are usually those who dissented against the state or tried to maintain the product of their labor by concealing it from the state’s agents. Many Ukrainian farmers were labeled enemies of the state and hauled away because they attempted to conceal grain for their sustenance. Those farmers were murdered by the state because they refused to turn over what was rightfully theirs; in other words the state played the part of the mugger in a robbery. When somebody kills another while performing an act of theft we call it murder. Therefore by definition socialism is said to kill people as the redistribution of resources necessitates theft which necessitates violence.
The people advocates of socialism claim are killed by capitalism die due to the lack of action whereas those killed by socialism are killed by purposeful action.
6 thoughts on “People Killed by Socialism vs. People Killed by Capitalism”
This is stupid reasoning
“On the other hand capitalism works with our current society without the need to education the populace.”
Obviously, education is not important in capitalism. If it was important then you might have to use proper grammar, or at least proof-read.
Also, you may have (some) valid logic, but it is not sound. Mainly, your implication that capitalism is not theft. If I work on a farm, and I am able to do all the work necessary to produce the goods, then by your logic I should be able to keep all the goods. Assuming I am not the owner of the farm, but merely an employee, I am only entitled to a fraction of the value of the goods. A portion of that value will be directly delivered to the owner of the farm. I would be interested in understanding how you could justify that as non-theft.
Also, if I were to save some of the goods from the farm that I work on and not hand over said goods to the owner of the farm, is that theft? If it is not theft, then you should reconsider your arguments against socialism.
Finally, consider oil, and the pre-emptive war on foreign ground to obtain that oil. I still have yet to see any money passed on to me from the profits of that acquisition. It would appear to me that corporations were benefitting from that grab, not the people, as would be the case in socialism. This is a clear example of capitalism killing.
Therefore, next time at your party and the conversation turns to capitalism kills vs socialism kills, don’t bring up oil, because you will get buried.
Oh BURN! You get what you pay for, namely some grammatical mistakes since I do this for free (one the other hand I’m very good about fixing such mistakes when pointed out).
Theft implies the use of coercive force. If you voluntarily agree to work for somebody at a specific wage and that employer makes more off of your labor than you are paid it’s not theft. On the other hand if your employer forces you to work for him at the same wage level at the point of a gun it is theft.
That depends on the agreement you have with the owner.
I use the term capitalism as a synonym for free markets. Taking something through war is not a free market exchange, it is theft. I’m also an anarchist and find the state to be illegitimate because it exists through expropriation.
Except I believe oil obtained through warfare is theft. If somebody believes capitalism is the cronyism we live under today then one can make a valid argument that it is a form of theft, an argument I would agree with.
So right Christopher.
But trying to explain it to an already indoctrinated socialist is like…. well, it’s impossible.
[quote]I use the term capitalism as a synonym for free markets. Taking something through war is not a free market exchange, it is theft. I’m also an anarchist and find the state to be illegitimate because it exists through expropriation.[/quote]
It is impossible to be both an anarchist and a capitalist.
The fact that I’m an anarchist and not anti-capitalist demonstrates your comment as false. I know a lot of social anarchists like to claim that all anarchist philosophies are anti-capitalist. That would be akin to me claiming that libertarian socialist is an oxymoron. In truth people can pick pieces of philosophies that suit them, reject piece that don’t, and develop evolutions. This is why there are so many different flavors of anarchism, libertarianism, conservatism, liberalism, etc.
As much as it likely pains you to hear this you are not the sole authority on defining words.
Comments are closed.