this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2025
42 points (62.5% liked)

Comic Strips

17845 readers
1815 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/32127354

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (10 children)

I'm sure you're definition is probably broad enough that that my concept might include some of the wars you'd discount. ..but not all.

in any case, even if I narrowed it down significantly, there'd be enough to disprove "communism is incompatible with war".

Rather, you could say "in theory, communism is incompatible with war, even though it isn't a magical fix for the underlying tendencies and in some cases needs that drive war."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (9 children)

Wars happen for a number of reasons, and there should be a distinction between offensive and defensive wars.

In theory, capitalism is incompatible with war as it is assumed to be a system of fair exchange. Many economists and philosophers followed Ayn Rand in promoting this idea. Obviously it is NOT such a system, and is instead a relentless amoral pursuit of profit and value extraction, and will cheerfully use war to obtain resources while simultaneously extracting value via defense industry stocks. It also uses war to crush any opposed ideologies, which is censorship in its most violent form.

I am not familiar with how communism or socialism is compatible with war outside of Rand's claim that socialism consumes resources leading to demand for more which must be taken from neighbors rather than using a system of free and fair exchange.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (7 children)

there should be a distinction between offensive and defensive wars.

...that difference is entirely which side of the battle line you're on...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

yeah, that's why I sidestepped that one. It's an easy pathway into "no, you!"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Who was the aggressor: Germany or Poland? Israel or Iran? Iraq or the US?

Are you saying that there is no such thing as a right or wrong, good or bad side to a violent conflict?

If so, prove it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No, are you just scrapping for a fight?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No, I'm saying that it's only "no you!" for bad faith actors. I'd like to think that isnt who we're dealing with in this site.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

ah. In that case, we can all acknowledge that communism and capitalism have both lead to significant wars and violent non-war actions on the populace.

The Korean war, The invasion of Hungary, the invasion of Czechoslovakia, sino/soviet border conflict, Chinese invasion of Vietnam..

..but let's not pretend that war is the end-all be-all of government criminality. We can look at democide, or just atrocious neglect that had occurred quite a few times in communism, add well as abuse of the populace.

..now, I'm not claiming capitalism is good. But Communism isn't some panacea that prevents tensions and violence.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)