Global poverty has been significantly reduced

I don't think it's too crazy to say that a state whose economy is dominated by merchant capital, and the relations of labour that entails, is a capitalist state. If a Venetian merchant buys a ship, hires a crew, pays them a wage and makes a profit, then he is a capitalist and the sailors are proletarians. If there is an entire economy dominated by such relations, then it's a capitalist economy.

i doubt you've read any books on the subject and assuming that i'll direct you to the wikipedia page
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism#The_'crisis_of_the_fourteenth_century'

Attached: jigglebille.png (900x702, 317.8K)

Capitalism started in the 1950s you commie!

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (232x350, 183.97K)

The thing about merchant capital is that, especially in pre-modern times, profit could be made by merely transfering commodities from an economy dominated by small producers in one area to another economy dominated by small producers in another simply by pocketing the difference in price between the two.

Here is what Marx had to say on this subject:

This is occurring under Capitalism.

Capitalism built New York. Communism built gulags

I'm gonna bet that I've read more books on it than you given the best you can do is wikipedia

Simple forms of Capital existed prior to the Industrial Revolution. However, capitalism as a holistic self-perpetuating mode of production did not.

...

It became more efficient and I see hat you're saying but all the basic components of capitalism were still there.

and not a single attempt at argument was made

Attached: joseb sdalin xDDDD.png (616x606, 13.73K)

Attached: smug cat.jpg (390x500, 29.13K)

One more reason to hate capitalism.

Attached: poverty reduction lie.png (762x5129, 1.4M)

not an argument.

*fedora tipping intensifies*

What are you on about OP?

vanguardngr.com/2018/01/worlds-top-1-earn-82-wealth-generated-2017-says-oxfam/

washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/01/04/massive-new-data-set-suggests-inequality-is-about-to-get-even-worse/?utm_term=.73c7b95e1bc1

Not because of, but despite of capitalism.

it's rather simple, china started from simple mass production to where they are today, but india tried to shortcut it's way into prosperity by starting from services/IT, unfortunately this did'nt work out so well

Labour is outsourced from first-world countries to third-world ones at more expensive costs because our labour is more valued because of leftist programs, so the poor of nthose nations find it harder to consume essentials, most cheap produce is a product of cheap third-world labour from massively exploited workers without worker solidarity, public organisation, or fascist manipulation from public-appointed figures who contribute to capitalist imperialism.

The only way we see benefits from capitalism is because the west has counteracted it's exploitation more successfully than poorer nations. This global network of labour isn't a direct result of "capitalism" either, it is just the natural progression of technological and communicative ability pertaining to necessity, supply and demand, which still, isn't even a capitalist paradigm, I've heard capitalists themselves say that thier system just subsists upon the justification of private property, no more. And now, you get these libertarians taking credit for the consciousness of consumers, when supply and demand would rather be self-actualised in a more leftist or primitive society, now we get fed things we don't necessarily ask for, it takes away responsibility and agency from the public, that's why it's so easy for the government to swoop in and plunge us deeper into slavery, we are becoming more infantilised and vunlerable to exploitation.

Wow, how very socialist of capitalism. Keep it up.

Attached: 12km5w.jpg (660x880, 190.24K)

it's bound to happen, alot of their wealth came from the monopoly they had on certain technologies for example, if that gets sweeped out of them by China, further poverty will ensue

this

This thread again…

Dominant capitalist countries like the US have skyrocketed in many ways because the lack of a counter balance (like the USSR and Eastern communist Bloc were) has allowed the plunder of many , previously protected regions (thus enriching themselves and giving a huge raise in the average through sheer bulk of population while pretending to uplift said countries with the token Marshall Plans they always give to provide good surface data and cover up the contaminated sores of the socio-economic reality). Sure SOME progress is made in capitalism, that is undeniable, but its consumer-based imperialism is running out of steam and is bailed out in the last moment, by either massive bank loans or socialist policies, both methods will eventually crash and the poor will literally eat the rich in response. The rising level of living standards is also partly because the US has relaxed and stopped being as active in its destruction of other countries as it did in the Cold War, (which was a way to spite the USSR). So in a way it proves the opposite, that Capitalism accepts no competition except that which promotes liberty, or rather the liberty of the powerful and rich to exact their will on the weak and poor.
Also all this data about how "poverty has dropped" and the rest of the bullshit has a statistical issue shared by all stats: the use of averages (which has a skew even without outliers in the data), data gathering biased against communism (since capitalists make up the majority of the UN) and the limits of a population sample. And that's not even taking into account that it excludes glaring holes in methodology, such as ignoring the fact that averages built using a scale ranging between billionaires and homeless-people result in the average result being higher than the actuality of the majority, in other words wealth disparity is ignored and resulting skew is also ignored.

Let me add to this.

prior to 1991, from about 1950 to 1970 the poverty was already spiraling down at a sharper slope than after 1991, and was still dropping, albeit at a slightly lower rate from 1970 to 1980, and after 1980 and until 1990, the poverty rate continued to drop. HOWEVER poverty is also measured poorly since it bases it on the "living with less 2 dollars a day" which ignores the fact that in Eastern Europe, despite pay being lower, the spending was also far more even.

Example: Czechoslovakia,

in Czechoslovakia 2000Kcs = 400$ because of the skewed exchange rate however the prices in Czechoslovakia were subsidized.

The average worker in the CSSR earned, between 1500-2500 Kcs.
Items like sausage, cheese etc. cost between 1 and 10 Kcs usually, meaning that the average grocery bill was 50Kcs, meaning that even Czechoslovakia's demoted currency could provide for all that was wanted inside its borders for very little money. considering this, the poverty in the former eastern states was based on money when the states themselves were not money based societies or economies, making it wrong to measure poverty in that fashion.

The transition to capitalism, produced countless pre-mature deaths and continues to produce a higher mortality rate than likely would have prevailed under the socialist system. A 1986 study by Shirley Ciresto and Howard Waitzkin, based on World Bank data, found that the socialist economies of the Soviet bloc produced more favorable outcomes on measures of physical quality of life, including life expectancy, infant mortality, and caloric intake, than did capitalist economies at the same level of economic development, and as good as capitalist economies at a higher level of development.

Shirley Ceresto and Howard Waitzkin, “Economic development, political-economic system, and the physical quality of life”, American Journal of Public Health, June 1986, Vol. 76, No. 6.

Russian historian and sociologist Sergei Kara-Murza has written a great deal about the destruction of the Soviet Union, including a book along with Sergei Aksenenko entitled "The Soviet Order" in 2010 discussing the economy and its foundations. There are a few interesting quotations in the book about deficits:

Discussing a recent Russian television program comparing the Soviet and Russian economy, he notes:

Quote: "[It was said that] under the Soviet system it was impossible to live because of the deficit. But now in Russia at least there is no deficit.

Well what can one say? After all, on the screen we just saw the figures about production in Soviet years and today [presumably similar, or perhaps even the same figures cited above]. How can this be, I ask? There was a lot of milk, and this is called deficit. There became half as much, and now there is no deficit, but abundance. But the word "deficit" means "lack". So apparently it is more important to see milk in the store than to see it on the dining table. More than this, it is evident that the current "abundance" is fake. If people were suddenly given a [decent] salary, all the products would be gone from the shelves in two days (and this is what happened in 1996, where before the election, in order to appease voters the government gave out pay and pensions)."

There are many other interesting ideas and facts in the book, discussing for instance catering, and how in 1990 84 million people enjoyed catering services in school, various industrial enterprises, construction, transportation, security services, state farms, etc. These services were provided free or with significantly subsidized prices. The authors note that these 'invisible' channels of food distribution, including catering and the products of private farming

Hunger in 1/2 huh?
qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d59a742845205b80ab3bc0594c2087c5

If hunger was eliminated then why did Russia produce about 3x less food under capitalism than under communism even

gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/business/prom/natura/natura31g.htm

Notice how in almost every area of food production there was a severe decline in the 1990s, before the country could afford to replace domestic production with imports with petrodollars. Also notice that things like unprocessed meats, milk, butter, flour, groat grain and bread remain below their 1990 level in 2009, while the production of cheaper foods like vegetable oils, canned goods, and processed meats increased. Also note the dramatic rise in production of of alcohol, and of cigarettes. Remember as well that 1990 was a terrible year for the USSR economically, so if the Russian Federal Service of State Statistics had chosen say 1985 as a baseline measurement contemporary Russia would look even worse off.

gowans.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/we-lived-better-then/