Anonymous #1 1d

Yes so inference in the Indian markets.

-1

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

That would have to do exactly with capitalism. The extraction and export of resources falls under international trade, which is a tenant of capitalism and of course, the British Empire itself was a capitalist state. Therefore, it is the fault of capitalism.

5

Anonymous #1 1d

In capitalism you’re supposed to have voluntary exchange Indians were being taxed without their consent forcing them export their food.

-1

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

That’s because they were colonized. The British were practicing capitalism at the Indian peoples’ expense. Capitalism and colonialism are not mutually exclusive and in fact usually go hand in hand.

3

Anonymous #1 1d

Maybe by your own personal definition again most people consider voluntary exchange to be part of capitalism.

-1

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

Except that’s not my own personal definition but rather, a commonly accepted one by scholars around the world. Capitalism does not require the consent of everyone under it to exist. For a whole, the ones who ruled over India was the British East India Company which existed until 1874 and even after control was transferred to the government and private companies still extracted resources and traded them in the British and global markets at the expense of the Indian people without their consent.

2

Anonymous #1 1d

So like I said, capitalism and colonialism often go hand in hand. Other examples include the United States, France, Belgium, and the Netherlands to name a few

6

Anonymous #1 1d

I never said it requires the consent of everyone. Yeah that wouldn’t be capitalism if it wasn’t voluntary exchange.

-1

Anonymous #2 1d

There was a variety of reasons depending on the colony. There were religious, geopolitical, resources, prestige, there were penal colonies etc.

-1

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

Capitalism isn’t a voluntary exchange, it’s literally impossible to choose not to take part within a capitalist system.

5

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

lol all of that boils down to capitalism

6

Anonymous #2 1d

It doesn’t but ok.

-1

Anonymous #2 1d

It’s not about not taking part in the system it’s about voluntary exchange idk why you keep trying to conflate these two things.

-1

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

If you’re forced into the system, nothing you do within it is voluntary. You have no other options: it’s participate or die.

5

Anonymous #2 1d

You can still make choices within a system. That’s the point I’m talking about the choices you make when exchanging things.

-1

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

When you’re forced into a system, and have no options other than to take part in it, you can’t make free choices. That’s like victims of blackmail choose their actions of their own free will. They’re not making that choice because they want to, they’re making it because they’re coerced into it.

4

Anonymous #2 1d

Ok again we’re not talking about not having to be apart of the system idk how many times we’re gonna repeat the same thing. If we’re being this silly with the definition of coercion, are grocery stores coercing you to go to them but you need to go to the grocery store to get food?

-1

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

You aren’t forced to go to any grocery store, your comparison is terrible. You can’t live life without going to the grocery store, there are other ways to get food. You cannot live in a capitalist society without participating in capitalism.

3

Anonymous #2 1d

My point is that we can expand what coercion is to what are pretty normal things in society. Regardless that doesn’t change what I mean by voluntary exchange.

-1

Anonymous #2 1d

Ok if you live in a town with 1 grocery store is that grocery store coercing to come to it?

-1

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

No, because nobody is forcing you to live there. Coercion is when you’re forced to pay incredibly high prices regardless of where you go because business owners know you have no other choice but to pay them.

5

Anonymous #2 1d

I feel you’re being very obtuse about this hypothetical on purpose, you’re kinda just bringing up irrelevant points. Let’s say you move to a new city with the most grocery stores and restaurants anywhere in the world are those places coercing you to go to them bc you require food to live? That’s not what coercion means lol.

-2

Anonymous #2 1d

I’ll just go with this definition of coercion from the first dictionary definition I found “to compel to an act or choice.”

-2

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

And being forced into a system where you have to decide between two bad options is coercion.

6

Anonymous blue__wave 1d

Your definition is proving my point

3

Anonymous #2 1d

Sure if you want to say they have to be bad options I think that’s reasonable but then we have to decide what’s considered bad or not.

-2

Anonymous #2 1d

It’s rlly not, I think that fact you had to add the “bad options” part to the definition is telling.

-2

Anonymous blue__wave 23h

Under capitalism, all options are bad. Everything is overpriced, low quality, and designed to extract as much wealth from you as possible.

6

Anonymous #2 23h

What economic system currently has lower prices or higher quality products?

-1

Anonymous blue__wave 21h

Communism or socialism, your basic needs are met regardless of your financial situation. Everybody has access to basic needs, which is not the case in capitalism

3

Anonymous #2 21h

That wasn’t rlly the question, what socialist or communist economic system currently has cheaper or higher quality products?

-1

Anonymous blue__wave 21h

Literally all of them. Since basic needs are guaranteed to everyone, they’re cheaper than under any capitalist system.

3

Anonymous #2 21h

No country has decommodified all essential goods, there’s capitalist countries with welfare if that’s what you mean.

-1