90
Do you think there would be less conflict in the world if the average intelligence went up 50%? (lemmy.world)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
62 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

A lot of societies produced war and suffering long before capitalism existed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    And many didn't, and none produced the kind of mass industrialized war capable of dozens of millions of casualties. But yes their ruling classes still waged war for the same reason as our ruling classes do. So it isn't a problem of human nature, but a problem with having a ruling class.

    But never before have the underclass actually held the tools and means of production, and been as directly opposed in every rational interest, as the exploiting and exploiter classes produced by capitalist social and economic relations. Furthermore, the working classes are broadly opposed to war, broadly in support of rational, secular government, human rights, and freedom of association. But because the education and dissemination of info to the masses is overseen by the ruling minority, people lack the ability to name the problems which we face.

    So our social forces that produce war, are imperialism, which is a historic stage of capitalism. So we can concretely identify specific tendencies in a society built by people, name them, and subsequently resist them; rather blaming all problems of society on "human nature". We can be much more accurate and specific than that. And the moment we are, we have an imperative to do something. Which is why fatalism is so convenient for people who fear freedom.

    That's how people who consider themselves rational and scientific end up falling for apocalypse myths; with facts underwriting eschatology. I think there would be less conflict and difficulty in the world if people were 50% less gullible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    The USSR had a huge number of nukes, tanks, planes, and other warfighting equipment and they weren’t capitalist.

    China also has a huge army and the biggest navy in the world by hull count. Also not capitalist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    That's an interesting observation, whether or not USSR and/or China is/was capitalist, and in what ways, is a rich topic of discussion. There are a ton of different theories about them, and I'm familiar with a few.

    Why do you think USSR and China still had militaries? Was it to make imperialist war, or to defend against it? There's an abundance of different views on the topic that are much more scientifically and historically honest than "its just human nature."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    So any country that does bad things is capitalist and the worse the things the more capitalister it is.

    And they are absolutely for imperialism more than defense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    Did I agree or disagree with you that the USSR and China were not capitalist? I'm open to different interpretations. I can see ways that USSR and China were capitalistic in some ways, socialistic in some ways, and had their own unique character in other ways. China and USSR weren't even allies after Stalin, and China's economy changed dramatically after Deng Xiaoping took charge of organizing the Chinese economy after the cultural revolution. I'm actually quite critical of the USSR after 1921.

    I think you should try to be a little more specific. The creation of the military of the USSR was a carry over of the armies of WW1 who were being sent to die senselessly by the Tsar. Afterward, Russia was invaded by like 6 separate countries, including the USA, and had to deal with a counter revolution by the Tsarists. I think those are two specific circumstances where the maintenance of a military was verifiably not imperialist but necessary for preservation of the worker state. Afterward, the military was used for repression by the Stalinist bureaucracy, but industrialization was necessary after the destruction of the early 1920s, if not how it was carried out.

    The carving up of Eastern Europe by Molotov Ribbentrop might be considered imperialistic, I think there's a lot of different ways to look at the only thing that Stalin and Trotsky agreed on: that the Germans and Italians were going to be the opponents in another world war. I'm actually very critical of Stalin, and think he made many mistakes. But other than being a bastard and a motherfucker, I think the historic circumstances, that were the motivators for a the mistakes that were made by the Stalinist bureaucracy, were objective, often defensive. And while imperialists always claim national defense when claiming some foreign prize, there is much more basis for a defensive posture against the Nazis, who actually invaded the USSR and killed 20 million Russians, mostly civilians; than there is when, for example, the USA invaded Vietnam.

    Vietnam might be a good example of an imperialist agenda on behalf of the Chinese. The USA and China both supported the villainous Khmer Rouge. But other than soft power, what evidence has China demonstrated of imperialism? Genuinely curious about what your answer might be.

    Don't make me out to be something I'm not. Yes I'm a socialist and an anti capitalist but I'm not a sucker, at least not a willing one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent