Lemdro.id

9 points

1 year ago

One famine one time is definitely preferable to the constant famines that exist under capitalism

report

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

If only the dead could argue their case…

I think it is important to take a critical look at past tragedies and mistakes, and work hard to avoid them in the future. Unfortunately I fear that many people would repeat them if given the opportunity and it served their idealogical and/or selfish interests, unless it was more convenient to do the right thing.

report

KurtVonnegut [comrade/them]@hexbear.net

[ - ]

6 points

1 year ago

I think it is important to take a critical look at past tragedies

Those who care more about past tragedies than current tragedies don’t care at all. They’re just looking for some excuse to feel self-righteous.

report

[ - ]

2 points

1 year ago

Thanks for the quotable quote, but I didn’t say nor imply that.

report

[ - ]

9 points

1 year ago

Yeah I also think we should look at the past and the present in order to create a better future, which is why I say one famine once is better than constant famines like we have now. How many millions die of hunger each year? How many have died at the hands of capitalism? How many are dying? While we have food available. This isn’t even to count for the famines that were enacted on purpose like those the british did in Ireland and in India.

Meanwhile both the USSR and China managed to eliminate famine in regions that had been plagued by it since history could account for it. Were the countries perfect? Far from it. Pretending that they are somehow worse for eliminating famine while people are starving in countries with food on the shelves is ridiculous.

report

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

They eliminated famine in their own borders … after causing famine in their own borders. Congratulations, I guess?

International efforts to deliver food aid to those most in need are typically hampered by war, not by a lack of food. Real supply & demand issues caused by poor yields, conflicts & other supply chain disruptions often drive up prices which hits the poor the hardest, but we haven’t had a global food shortage in a long time.

report

[ - ]

3 points

1 year ago

Both imperial Russia and Qing China were plagued by frequent famines, I don’t see how it is damnng that the PRC and the USSR had a famine in their early years of existence (after they’d fought long and drawn out wars), when they then never had famines again.
There a millions of people starving in the us today, in Europe, in africa, in south America, in the middle east, in India. There is more than enough food, but somehow these capitalist countries have millions starving. The us has kids missing lunch in school, despite food being available in cafeterias.
If one famine once in a region that used to be plagued by famines is too much for you, what does this ever-present famine then mean to you? What system do you suppose we make use of? Surely you cannot be a capitalist, since you are so staunchly against people starving

report

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

There are A LOT of problems out there, I agree. There is, however, a difference between destroying a country/regions ability to produce essential and strategic goods (like food, which has very immediate effect) through reckless decisions by authoritarian regimes (then throw in the Holodomor for fun), and inequality & a lack of social safety nets.

Right now, the whole world has, through various efforts, has solved the global food production issue. That the soviets and china managed to solve this aspect of it too is not a win for socialism, especially given the mass starvation that accompanied their efforts, but I see (and correct me if I have misunderstood) you and others holding this up as some kind of tenuous proof of superiority.

Social inequality and the denial of what I believe are basic human rights (food, housing, safety, access to healthcare, and freedom of expression), OTOH, are a continuing problem world-wide. I am much more interested in efforts here - both local, regional, and global.

report

[ - ]

3 points

1 year ago

Holodomor for fun.

The holodomor was the famine you doofus. It was also not an action taken deliberately by the Soviet government, and historians and scholars agree that the holodomor didn’t target Ukraine specifically - it was instead a famine that.hit the Soviet Union as a result of years of war. Do you not know your hostory?

Right now, the whole world has, through various efforts, has solved the global food production issue.

Right now millions are starving, despite there being more than enough food.
You still haven’t answered the question.

That the soviets and china managed to solve this aspect of it too is not a win for socialism, especially given the mass starvation that accompanied their efforts, but I see (and correct me if I have misunderstood) you and others holding this up as some kind of tenuous proof of superiority.

That the soviets and the Chinese managed to eliminate famine in a region that had been plagued by famine since history could account for it, is not an immense accomplishment? Cope. It most certainly is, especially when you bring up the discussion of starvation.

Social inequality and the denial of what I believe are basic human rights (food, housing, safety, access to healthcare, and freedom of expression), OTOH, are a continuing problem world-wide.

Issues that the soviets and the Chinese made far greater dents I to, than anything modern capitalist governments do.

am much more interested in efforts here - both local, regional, and global.

So again, since you care so much about famines, and the current system has constant famines despite ha ing more than enough food available, and the soviets and the Chinese managed to eliminate famine, what system do you support? You surely cannot be a capitalist, since so many people are starving to death every day in capitalist countries. Millions are starving in the us alone. What do you think should be done?

report