>Not really, Capitalism have also been observed to do its thing without democracy as well
Prove it
> the USSR had lots of progress as well, but it doesn't make Stalinism a good system
Not morally or ethically, which I'll remind you, yet again is what we're talking about. Stay on topic
>Slavery? Racism? Colonialism? Property requirements to vote? Women suffrage? Supporting brutal regimes in the name of corporate profit? Famine while still exporting? Exploitation fueled by Capitalism's profit and growth motive? Climate and ecological disaster? People dying in the US due to lack of healthcare access?
Prove the causative relationship between these things and capitalism, and that they make up 80% of capitalism's history, your original assertion. Why did they exist before capitalism?
Why did many of these good things fail to happen before capitalism? Why do they happen virtually everywhere afterwards?
Capitalist countries are the most ecologically and climate efficient per capita and quality of life.
Exploitative compared to what and where?
Examine severe illness outcomes, pharmaceutical research, medical innovation, and general health of the US (meaning, US citizens have bad health habits) vs elsewhere before you make such ignorant comments.
>Come on, you're the one preaching, it's your duty to prove your extraordinary claim against history. Capitalism is like 400 years old.
Which is why it's remarkable how much progress has occurred under it in such a short period of time, literally my point
>Native American's societies for example thought of people being forced to wage labour their entire life for someones else's enrichment to be not much better than being a slave. Certainly not "freedom" in any case. Not to even mention their thoughts about the concept of private ownership of the commons, as in private property.
You continually speak authoritatively about subjects you clearly do not have any insight into. Native Americans practiced slavery & conquest. Native Americans had private property. They also hadn't invented the wheel and sacrificed hundreds of thousands of people a year on top of pyramids. You're regurgitating well known popular myths. Stop deviating off topic
>What explicit examples?
China under Pooh's new crackdown on private property and capitalist tendencies vs it when it opened and extended private property rights. Estonia post-USSR. Zimbabwe vs Botswana. Just a few, modern ones, if we want to go back to the 18th and 19th century the trend was nearly universal in the west.
Which modern, high quality of life, non capitalist countries are less harmful to the environment?
>You have no scruples at all do you? "No insight into" then you go on avoiding the point and just falsely suggesting that I said something I didn't say (treating all historical North American societies as one, which is ridiculous), what a deeply dishonest thing to write, shame on you.
What was your point then? You were leveraging some native American sentiments and factually incorrect popular myths on their beliefs about property ownership to contend falsely that they had better economic systems devoid of profit motive or property.
>I won't be wasting energy on replies that have zero prospect of breaking through that dogma. I can see others have tried with no success.
The irony coming from someone with entirely unsourced, repeatedly demonstrably false assertions, while I have provided endless examples and sources.
Sorry, not sorry for sticking to my well researched and verbosely sources principles and reasoning because random strangers on the internet regurgitate easily countered dogma from ideologues and propagandists.
I can tell you exactly what evidence would look like that would change my mind about any topic I hold strong beliefs about. Meanwhile you can't even stick to one topic.
Your account has been using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's against the site guidelines (https://hackernews.hn/newsguidelines.html) and we ban such accounts regardless of what they're battling for or against. I've therefore banned this one. If you or anyone want further explanation, see these links:
What a sad state of affairs when pushing back against the bullshit spread by the very prolific reactionaries, albeit polite (which is all that matters here), of this site sooner or later gets one banned. To add insult to injury most of them have been posting on HN for many years.
I don't know what you're referring to, but if there are accounts breaking the HN guidelines the way you were doing, which we haven't banned yet, I'd like to know which ones they are.
Everyone thinks that we're secretly siding with their opponents when we do this kind of moderation (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...), but that feeling is not based in fact. It's just an inversion of your own sympathies. The other side thinks we're ruining the site by secretly siding with you.
You alone can't do anything about the demographics and their biases here. Buy if you honestly believe that HN is somehow politically neutral you're deluded.
It does't require a sociologist to realise that when certain topics degenerates into 500-1000 comments of bullshit and others doesn't even register that this user base has a certain bias.
Finally, what is seen as ideological warfare naturally follows the overton window. I could directly translate liberal/conservative folks posts here into a equivalent socialist narrative instead and it would be seen as ideological warfare because it's simply out of the ordinary.
You can just look through my comment history and the users I've replied to if you're genuinely interested.
Actually I'm not making any argument or claim about political neutrality, and I don't think I've ever made such a claim. That would be a difficult thing to study, if it's even possible.
I'm making an empirical observation about how people with strong political passions react when they get moderated, and the rather obvious root of those reactions. The fact that people of all ideologies and political types react with exactly the same reflex is relevant because it clarifies that root so vividly.
Prove it
> the USSR had lots of progress as well, but it doesn't make Stalinism a good system
Not morally or ethically, which I'll remind you, yet again is what we're talking about. Stay on topic
>Slavery? Racism? Colonialism? Property requirements to vote? Women suffrage? Supporting brutal regimes in the name of corporate profit? Famine while still exporting? Exploitation fueled by Capitalism's profit and growth motive? Climate and ecological disaster? People dying in the US due to lack of healthcare access?
Prove the causative relationship between these things and capitalism, and that they make up 80% of capitalism's history, your original assertion. Why did they exist before capitalism?
Why did many of these good things fail to happen before capitalism? Why do they happen virtually everywhere afterwards?
Capitalist countries are the most ecologically and climate efficient per capita and quality of life.
Exploitative compared to what and where?
Examine severe illness outcomes, pharmaceutical research, medical innovation, and general health of the US (meaning, US citizens have bad health habits) vs elsewhere before you make such ignorant comments.
>Come on, you're the one preaching, it's your duty to prove your extraordinary claim against history. Capitalism is like 400 years old.
Which is why it's remarkable how much progress has occurred under it in such a short period of time, literally my point
>Native American's societies for example thought of people being forced to wage labour their entire life for someones else's enrichment to be not much better than being a slave. Certainly not "freedom" in any case. Not to even mention their thoughts about the concept of private ownership of the commons, as in private property.
You continually speak authoritatively about subjects you clearly do not have any insight into. Native Americans practiced slavery & conquest. Native Americans had private property. They also hadn't invented the wheel and sacrificed hundreds of thousands of people a year on top of pyramids. You're regurgitating well known popular myths. Stop deviating off topic
>What explicit examples?
China under Pooh's new crackdown on private property and capitalist tendencies vs it when it opened and extended private property rights. Estonia post-USSR. Zimbabwe vs Botswana. Just a few, modern ones, if we want to go back to the 18th and 19th century the trend was nearly universal in the west.