Ask Lemmy

If it was an accident, the accident repeated several times. Even engineers got murdered for correctly saying you shouldn't overload trains (1).

Wow, you mean Authoritarian Communism is still Authoritarian? Yeah no shit (and as you can read from earlier I've already mentioned many such things happening under conditions of Capitalism, directly from the doctrines practices of cost cutting and wage theft or brutalization, but fine, "I'll see your engineers there and raise you the British Bopal disaster" that killed and deformed generations of Indians in their home village and is still causing health effects today).

As you've dropped in I'm going to assume you saw me mention that Stalinism was not Communism in its ideal form, but was a Stalinist form.

Your point is thus not about Communism, but about Communism under Authoritarian leaders... And I have already shown that Capitalism is capable of mass killings and atrocities under all sorts of conditions as part of the philosophy (ingrained to it). Where as Stalin's actions here aren't specifically connected to Communist doctrine. I've already covered this point several times with the previous respondant.

That there is a written philosophy - that of Marxism, that of the Communes and the Commons, is why I can say these things. It has a primary set of writings. But we can say that about Capitalism too...

That's because real capitalism hasn't been tried yet. All the capitalist systems still had subsidies, governments beyond enforcing property law, ...

...because Marx was ALSO the person who first defined and wrote about CapitalISM, in his work DAS KAPITAL 1867.

You can look and find commentaries about other concepts in different languages and different sounding words that aren't Capitalism, such as Merchantilism, or in The Hollantse, or you can find the word Capital here and there and claim it relates, or instance around the time of Marx's first treatise on the subject, but none are systematic, focused on the right topic using the ism repeatedly and providing a widely agreed in definition of it.

Like all concepts it has these forerunners that are related but NOT it. So you have tried to be clever here without realizing that when we discuss Capitalism in the way I have - we are talking about Marx's original definition of it. Which was the phenomena of using an unearned accumulation of KAPITAL in order to purchase, own, and exploit workers for the purposes of profiting from exploiting their now alienated Labor.

No, because that was not real capitalism.

Oh yes, as you can read above, it very much is. It is in its original description as found in the criticism by Karl Marx in Das Kapital, in 1867. A description so accurate that it's widely agreed with - even among the Capitalists. He was the first and primary text on what the doctrine of "real Capitalism" is. Capitalists hitherto didn't want what they were doing to be known so openly, and intimately and for good reason. Just as any abuser doesn't want what they're doing to be described. It comes naturally to them, and that is no excuse for it, doesn't make it more moral or acceptable. Only once it's pointed out accurately described does the argument start, only then can the behaviours meet reforms. Which is why in Marx's writings we also find advocacy for labor rights.

Sorry my friend, but what I've spoken about is indeed, Real Capitalism™ - down to the origin of the term.

P.S there's also Proudhon: the capitalist's employee was "subordinated, exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience" - so not much better. People of the era were writing things as they saw them emerge. It's still the problem of the abuser as described above.