OurToothbrush

I would disagree on them calling them defective. This is unnecessarily confrontational.

That is only one or the reasons it is wrong to call them defective. They arent defective.

I don’t think there driving force of the conflict comes down to capital, but a conflict of non-economic ideologies.

Well, you're incorrect. Israel is a settler colonial venture, that is where the conflict comes from, not a difference in religious beliefs.

But, it’s a very large conflict with a very long history, so not only am I not an expert, but the nature of the conflict may have many aspects that change over time.

The region was really peaceful before the colonial project actually, I mean of course the ottoman empire wasn't great but there wasn't a lot of notable ethnic conflict in the region.

In a real free market companies will lobby the government to bail them out.

Russian communism: ~5M dead in the Holodemor

Chinese communism: ~15-55M dead in the Great Famine

Even with these inflated numbers, they are no match for the numbers of people intentionally killed by capitalism and feudalism, let alone starvation under capitalism and feudalism.

Plugging the book "late Victorian holocausts"

Cambodian communism: >1M dead in the Killing Fields

inb4 not real communism

If you believe the Cambodians were communists, you have to believe that the nazis were. Except in Pol Pots case, he only claimed to be socialist for a few years of their decades long operations. I am choosing you believe you're not that gullible so I must assume you are ignorant of their history.

Muh “you can’t criticize socialism because you don’t understand THEORY”. You probably don’t understand capitalism either outside of socialist critiques of it. Then how can you be so certain of what capitalists believe?

Literally took years of capitalist economics in high school and college, it is one of the reasons I'm a communist.

“I can’t help EVERYONE so I’m just not gonna help ANYONE”.

More like "the issue is systemic and requires systemic solutions, not charity"

*goes off and tries to convince people to follow an ideology that only works if everyone believes in it.

Chinese feudal landlords didn't believe in socialism, that didn't stop the communists from doing land reform.

Can you name one socialist revolution that hasn’t involved massive amounts of murder and violence?

By definition revolutions involve violence. Are you condemning the capitalist revolutions that threw off the monarchies? The status quo involved comparatively massive amounts of violence then, and it does now.

But also, an example of socialists gaining power through the ballot box was in Chile. The US ended up funding, training, and equipping right wing death squads to kill (and worse) Chilean communists, teachers, trade unionists, indigenous people, and random people. Chile became an extraordinary violent right wing capitalist dictatorship.

According to history.

Who's history?

I’m being exposed to it on Lemmy nearly every single day.

Okay, then explain the difference between scientific and utopian socialism, what what differentiates labor from labor power in the context of surplus labor value extraction?

The low bar there is my fault though, I should have asked if you were educated on what communists believed.

Volunteer at a soup kitchen, donate to a homeless shelter, etc.

Put a bandaid on a gunshot wound while you're at it.

Yes, that totally makes sense. But in my experience, this works best when people freely choose to cooperate because they realize it’s in their own self-interest, instead of having cooperation imposed on them by force.

That has literally happened, can you name any successful socialist revolution that didn't involve education and the creation of mass popular support?

It’s funny because most communists seem to want to be the ones on top by trying to impose communism on everybody else.

According to who, capitalist media? Have you ever actually exposed yourself to what communists think and believe, or are you afraid of a spectre?

Why not start at the bottom and learn how to cooperate with people there?

The communists, infamous for avoiding rank and file and mass line strategies, as well as other strategies that relied heavily on creating popular support

Make some friends at work and see if they can help you get a better job.

I'm already super cushy in my job, I dont want involuntary homelessness to exist, and I also don't want homeless people to be killed. I want kids to be able to go to bed and not be hungry. That isnt possible under capitalism.

Put that philosophy into practice in the here and now instead of dreaming of some grand utopia where everyone willingly cooperates with everyone else everywhere and all the time.

We don't think it will be utopia. We don't think everyone will willingly cooperate all the time. If you think this is what communists believe, you haven't read a lot of communist thought. It feels like you are just throwing cliches at the wall and trying to box with a strawman, and it is kind of weird to watch.

Do you understand the notion that people will generally cooperate when it is in their mutual selfish interest to cooperate? Does that make sense to you? Or do you reject even that notion?

You can cooperate with others toward selfish ends. That's literally how pack animals like humans work.

Right now it is in everyone's self interest except for the bourgeoisie to stop capitalism and create a more equitable system. If you just want to be on top, that is being selfish and not understanding how odds work, not being selfish.

I mean yeah, colonialism and capitalism are tied together at the hip, and Palestinians resisting the settler state of Israel is pretty directly related to resisting capitalist violence.

Throwing in the standard disclaimer of "my family was affected by the holocaust and I know several anti-zionist israelis who think Israel doesn't have a right to exist" because some people get really weird about this opinion.

"Capitalism does not work because people are selfish, and selfish people are incentivized to harm their fellow man by capitalist structures. Under socialism, selfish people will work toward the common good because working toward the common good is the easiest way to earn recognition and status"

"People are selfish, and it is in 99 percent of peoples self interest to overthrow capitalism in order to improve their material conditions"

Henry Kissinger won a nobel peace prize lmao

Capitalist awards often mean you are bad at the thing they're commending you for

Now do the home ownership rate in socialist countries

(Hint, the "American dream" of owning a home is much easier under socialism)

Do you mean that just like we have defined inch the length that is exactly 25.4mm (where mm is the length light travels in 1/299792458 seconds in a vacuum, seconds being whatever the fuck they are), we have also defined animals with XX chromosome females, and if they’re human, women, while recognizing that there are rare exceptions?

Two things:

A) you're not thinking procedurally. Doctors do not generally check chromosomes when they determining sex generally. So it would be more accurate to say "in infants, doctors define sex by looking at genitals, in adults, by looking at a variety of characteristics. We use chromosomes in medical circumstances to look for potential conditions that may explain symptoms, and sometimes we can use that as a category in determining sex" The definition you are using is really most applicable in people who are doing research, not clinical work, or interacting with human beings in a social context.

B) cool, so we've established that is what you think sex is. Other communities define sex differently. You can't claim inches are some universal innate biological truth and those heathens over there using centimeters are wrong and need to accept the wisdom of inches. And while inches might be more useful to you, centimeters may be more useful to them.

I would really suggest that you read “Bodies that matter, on the discursive limits of Sex” from Judith Butler. She literally has a PhD in philosophy and has devoted her life to analysis of the way we as a society conceptualize sex.