- cross-posted to:
- genzedong
- genzedong
- history@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- genzedong
- genzedong
- history@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
“How British colonialism killed 100 million Indians in 40 years” is an incredibly different headline than the post title.
The article doesn’t even mention socialism.
The article talks about the horrors that actually happen under capitalism that people living in capitalist societies often project onto socialism. Hope that helps you.
Kinda feel like this article is more about racism, imperialism, and colonization than it is about capitalism. Capitalism might have motivated the racsim, but if you know not view a group of people as being human, then bad shit is gonna happen regardless of the economic system.
Capitalism emerges to serve the needs of European society as it grows and it’s internal contradictions become too difficult for feudalism to manage. The nationalism of feudalism is incapable of meeting the new demands of capitalism and racism emerges to support capitalism’s contradictions. There is no accident behind racism emerging after colonialism starts. Imperialism is the logical conclusion of capitalism.
I’m not going to disagree with you on any of those points.
It’s still not what the article says.
You’re being deliberately obtuse.
The reason the poster submitted the article with the title they did is because there is a long history, starting with a book called The Black Book of Communism, of claiming that communism killed 100 million people. There is an entire nonprofit and a museum called The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (Adrian Zenz comes from here, btw). The narrative from the capitalist West is that communism is brutal and killed so many people.
Here is an article showing that this exact claim is applicable to capitalism. The authors of the Black Book have repudiated the book and their own work and much of the book is completely unsourced garbage or terrible methodology (like counting Nazi soldiers as victims and projecting potential birth rates and counting differences between their projection and actual birthrates as victims).
So the poster of the article is referring to the context in which the article is written.
Yes. I get that, because I have the historical context. But nothing in the article directly says that, so to someone without the context, it doesn’t say anything about it.
I’m not being obtuse, I just think that unless your intent is preaching to the choir, the article isn’t a good choice without supporting context. And I’d appreciate it if you didn’t insult me just because you don’t like what I have to say. I’m not even disagreeing with the central premise, just how you’re presenting your message, so maybe ease up on the ad hominem.
ETA: just realized you’re not OP. Sorry about that.
