Comments by "buddermonger2000" (@buddermonger2000) on "The Four Trends of the 21st Century." video.

@Wackaz Which countries which have embraced socialism are actually happier? Please don't point toward the northern European countries which are A: not socialist and B: more have a social sigma against unhappiness. There's also the trends of suicide and other such matters which if you've looked closely mirrors more from the death of any sort of lived philosophy. The takeover of more atheistic values and generation of historic wealth (which you're lying to yourself if you say it isn't as a direct result of market system and its growth from the industrial revolution) which makes actual struggle in life almost gone. Humans which have lived generations struggling to even feed themselves have never really had the time to develop depression and other such issues. And there's a direct correlation in states between wealth and suicide currently where you don't see any of the massive suicide rates in poorer countries (which also tend to have a proper religion). Vietnam may be "much happier" but also live in a semi-opressive regime where you can't criticize the government. Happiness indexes are also more metrics at how acceptable it is to be unhappy as I alluded to earlier. The actual communes of Vietnam being the happiest parts of society is also very disingenuous as a commune is largely a small area with a small group who lives together on a patch of land and might as well be an extended family which have historically been quite happy for thousands of years with little they actually do besides work their living. The fall of an actual culture in much of these societies is much of the reason for their current situations and not really related to capitalism. Capitalism is just a means of building wealth which thus brings prosperity by allowing people to engage in the FREE movement of goods and labor. Socialism is the exact opposite of that and much of what it does is simply redistribute wealth from those who genuinely generate it and then misallocate resources to produce things inefficiently. There's good reason that every government which has been explicitly against capitalism eventually moved back toward it. You cannot have an industrial society without Capitalism as you're attempting to supplant a system with one which isn't built for it which is why despite Marx's prediction the revolution would come in western Europe, largely came in the un-industrialized countries such as the ones in Asia (Russia too) which also used it as a way to expand the revolutions against their previous shitty governments. I think the only real evidence of "capitalism killing millions" is in bengal with the domination of the east India company who ruled the county as a company. Which is generally a no-no as a rule and directly led to its regulation. Every other case of people starving is almost entirely from governments who want it for a political reason or are using it in such a misallocating of resources as to be negligence so bad it's malice. Oh also you're an absolute LIAR if you're saying Vietnam is still progressing toward socialism when they're arguably embracing capitalism more than ever before with its expanding economy. You're also an absolute liar for saying Cuba is happy when we just recently had a VIRAL movement of Cuba attempting to get its freedom. They aren't happy. They're controlled. As an aside: You used fascism wrong and so I know you don't actually know what it is beyond something you don't like and you're the type to in the 1940s call the soviets Fascist to try to defend that socialism isn't an oppressive system inherently. If you're a Marxist and a Historian with being an economist you have something fundamentally wrong with your thinking either missing key details or ignoring them for ideological purposes. Marx can be forgiven for inventing it and not seeing what the trend is at this point in time. If you currently think that it's at all applicable in this point in time you need to re-evaluate your view of at the very least economics. It's also disingenuous to say war is from learning from ourselves. That's an idealistic and honestly idiotic view of why we're at peace. We're at peace because of the major powers of the world were to wage war we'd be subject to nuclear annihilation decimating everyone equally. NOTHING else is the reason. It's the equivalent of the biggest gun ever. It's the equivalent of giving two people guns and then saying if the other shoots, you have a way to kill them regardless so you just both lose. War has winners and losers. Nukes don't.
2
@christiandauz3742 Unstoppable militarily maybe but it'd collapse on its own divisions. Such an empire lacks any real cohesion and would be too drunk on its own perceived superiority to notice. Btw congrats we actually have an example of what you want and it's called the PRC. Btw I'd never argue it Isn't powerful and you can even argue that it could stay up. HOWEVER the world would be in such a shitty place it would basically look like the world of "The Hunger Games" in complete dystopia of pure shit for everyone but those at the top.
2
@inovakovsky No they don't. Only example is Bengal with India but beyond that it's entirely political and from governments.
1
I just saw a pamphlet for sale on how the art of war applies to business lol
1
I wonder why religion became not cool. And especially why people have looked toward science to explain the world over religion when they have often gone hand-in-hand.
1
@christiandauz3742 Please be kidding
1