Which Starves More People, Capitalism or Communism?

Observer notes that both capitalism had Communism have bad records when it comes to starving people to death. He implies that one system is as likely to starve you death as the other.

That said, I would like to defend the Communist record against one of the worst slanders, that “Communism equals starvation.” Not true, it’s actually capitalism equals starvation.

And often times, both Capitalism and Communism had the same sordid record.

It really depended who was running the given society, and at that particular time in history.

True, the diet is not top-notch, but it fills your stomach…

Ah, yeah, however, you could say the same thing for prison inmates :/

But let’s look at the figures:

The capitalist record is far worse. Capitalism starves to death 14 million a year, mostly in South Asia. How many starve under Communist or even neo-Communist systems like China nowadays? Close to zero.

Adding up all the starvation under Orthodox Communism from 1925-1990, it looks like there were around 21.5 million starvation deaths under Communism over a 65 year period.

         Starvation  Period    Rate       Per capita
USSR     5.5 m       1925-1990 84,000/yr  1/2,300
China    15 m        1949-1990 365,000/yr 1/2,730
Cambodia 1 m         1975-1979 250,000/yr 1/16
Rest     0           1945-1990 0          0
Total    21.5 m      1925-1990 331,000/yr 1/3,637
World*   336 million 1986-2010 7.14 m/yr  1/426

However, from 1986- present, only 24 years, capitalism has starved 14 million a year. That’s 336 million in 24 years, or 14 million starvation death per year. Whereas Communism averaged 300,000 deaths per year. In the 20th Century, capitalism was starving 42 TIMES as many people per year than Communism was.

And for a good part of that period, 25% of the population was living under Communism. Adjusting for more living under Communism, capitalism was starving 14 times more people per capita than Communism was. Looking at the world as a whole, if all you want to do is eat and nothing else, Communism and neo-Communism is the way to go!

Or, looking at the chart above, capitalism starves 8.65 times more people per capita than Communism and neo-Communism.

And that’s not including figures from Eastern Europe.

Good job, capitalists. Good fuckin job.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

10 thoughts on “Which Starves More People, Capitalism or Communism?”

  1. The population of Ukraine has decreased from 52 million in 1992 to 45 million right now. That’s the result of capitalism in Ukraine. That’s bigger than the Holocaust. Life expectancy has decreased. Access to medication deteriorated. Social inequality skyrocketed. Kiev is a magnet for western perverts looking to take advantage of poor Ukrainian women and girls.

    Great blog by the way. You rarely see an American being capable of seeing past both the capitalist propaganda and the Trotskyist derailment strategies.

  2. That’s actually not true, me coming from Latin America myself know this. In fact though, you didn’t even provide any statistics showing that obesity rates are higher starvation rates in Latin America. Is it because there aren’t any?

  3. That is an interesting take on this.

    First I would say that it is difficult to lump major ideologies together when many of your examples are not entirely communist. You picked a few examples of mostly state-controlled economies where their leaders call themselves socialists/communists, when they’re more on par with dictatorships. USSR, China, and Cambodia sure, I can see that. A lot of these countries (like many others, including ours) have several examples of government abuse.

    Lumping the entire rest of the world as “capitalist?” That is a pretty bold claim considering you’re using a few fallacies. Using poor logic does not make your argument stronger. We know various ideological stances that influence government/culture can make some things better or worse, but it really depends on how far you take it. State-controlled economies may fare better through an economic storm (recession) temporarily but have a fairly difficult time gaining back growth and production.

    As far as Ukraine…again, you are missing some key points. A huge part of the population loss was due to the fact that several territories once a part of the Ukraine are no longer. That alone would count for most of the decreased population. However, there are still issues. Government corruption, the area is destabilized (due to Russia), and a lot of emigration.

    You have a lot of the newer families leaving the area to other territories and a lot of the older families and elderly staying there, hence the lower birth/death ratio. Also, there are more women than men in Ukraine. I think last time I checked there was like 83 men per 100 women? Something like that. That would also decrease birth rates.

    You are right about a few things…they do have poor health coverage and living standards. To use an argument like, “Ukraine is capitalist, now look at them! Poor health and decreasing population!” is in poor taste if you’re considering that Russia’s involvement is negligible. It has caused turmoil in the surrounding area, a lot of deaths have occurred, and it’s suspected that Russia’s involvement is not merely for seizing territories (which they did already) but a form of economic warfare.

    Thank you.

  4. First of all how would one quantify ‘kill’? How much by bad weather, and how much by bad policy? Here’re two example:

    1) Who was responsible for the Egyptian famines narrated by Joseph? Pharaoh or God? Divine punishment?

    2)Bharat–

    a) According to a famous indian economist (Amartya Sen?), 1.5 -2 millions indian infants died each year (though not recent figures) due to disease and hunger, just who were responsible? Hindu gods? Hindu inequality?

    b) Bharat had 2 consecutive years from 1966 -1967 of very very bad harvest, millions of Hindus would’ve died but were saved by Yankee grains, which the yanks back then allowed the Hindu gov to pay in rupees. Who was the savior? Yanks? Hindu gods? Hindu politicians who begged the yanks?…The Hindus blamed Churchill for the 1943 Bengal famine death for diverting grain shipment to Europe where 27 millions Russians died, of which I suspect a significant % probably were due to hunger.

    ………………..

    Yet another example. Hey, China imported something like 86 million tons of soy last year with hard cash, mostly from USA, mainly as husbandry fodder. I don’t know, maybe you guys can tell me, should Chinese thank the Yanks for the meat on the dinner table?

    1. LIN

      No, you should thank us for propping up the Overseas Chinese Communities in the Philippines or Indonesia that would otherwise collapse without US military support.

      But this is coming from a guy who hates Chinese-Filipinos for personal reasons.

      My feeling is that the US should just let China have the peripheral Southeast Asian countries that produce Filipinos and Muslim Malaysians.

      Sooner or later you merchant community would end up in the Malay cannibal pot anyhow or China could lose its money trying to protect Fuji Chinese in Indonesia or wherever.

  5. LIN

    Not to repeat myself but let us look at what the Overseas Chinese Community which sends money into China and sustains your own version of a global network/economy actually depends upon:

    1) Fuji Chinese are callous and greedy peasants who give nothing back to their economic Malay colonies, so whites have to subsidize Philippines or Malaysia, or there would be another Indonesia where Chinese merchant bodies lay everywhere, and cannibals danced around with their heads.

    2) These cannibals are Muslim, which lends the situation a political and religious dimension.

    3) China relies on the global networks of these countries, especially Singapore.

    4) Indians and Chinese would be at one another’s throats nonstop in the Malaysian archipelago if it were not for US government performing a balancing act. Read ANY BLOG, and the hatred between Indians and Chinese in Singapore is hilarious and operatic.

    5) Chinese Overseas Economies depend upon US hiring Filipinos or Indonesians, again to offset tension from the fact that Chinese own 90% of the economy.

    6) Canadian police have to cope with Chinese organized crime cartels importing heroin or simply extortion coming into Vancouver from Hong Kong. Every race has dregs, but China’s dregs become a White problem, whereas White criminals are not China’s problem.

    1. Trash,

      Did you say you were once a movie script writer? I think your mind mode regarding China rest on hearsay and stereotyping.

      1) Foreign investment, according to what I read, accounts for 12.5% of total investment in China. Even during the 80s and 90s, investment/connection to do with overseas Chinese didn’t amount to much, though the labour-intensive factories they built might help employment of migrants. It takes about US $1 billion to build a 1 million KW thermal power plant or an integrated (furnaces, mines, rail,..) steel plant of 1 million ton/yr capacity. Even as a poor 3rd world country, China produces more cars than the USA.

      2) I’m a Chinese patriot, not a Han nationalist. To me, a Chinese Indonesian is an Indonesian unless he/she shows the proper leaning.

      3) You can search for Chinese tech/econ R&D plans for the coming decades, and you’ll see ‘Overseas Chinese’ amount to little.

      1. LIN

        Yes, I’m on IMDb and my work was physically produced so I’m not a would-be screenwriter. But we are equal in anonymity.

        “Overseas Chinese amounts to little” Now as much as disliked being intimidated by Chinese-Filipinos Creaders is correct that they do manage to run economies in Southeast Asia that prevent those places from being like Zimbabwe. If you removed the Overseas Chinese from Indonesia or Philippines these countries would then collapse and white people would have to pay more aid. Also, Islam extremists would emerge.

        Amoy and SPECIFIC parts of the Fuji Province are tied up in trade with the Philippines for example because historical ties or money coming back from Philippines. Nobody in Beijing is going to care or be affected by this, agreed. Its pretty much a Southern thing.

        Chinese-Filipinos and Singaporeans are not Han Chinese. They fled the Han expansions/massacres of the 19th century.

        1. “Chinese-Filipinos and Singaporeans are not Han Chinese. They fled the Han expansions/massacres of the 19th century..”

          Apparently you’re wrong. The last exodus of people from the territory of nowadays China happened more than 1,000 yrs ago. I live in HK, and apparently the original aborigines in area around HK were not Han Chinese and most of them had fled to Vietnam and other parts of S. E. Asia. Those who didn’t leave were almost all assimilated. What makes a ‘Han’ is loosely defined, mostly it has to do with born with the Han language and identifying with the history lineage. Incidentally, the most well-known Vietnamese anti-Han poem was originally written in Chinese.

          http://zzwave.com/plaboard/1412782840_36881_140093802673881_139534379396490_401068_6127230_n.jpg

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *