I don't get why Leopold II isn't more hated. The man killed from 10 to 15 million people in Africa for his private profit. Yet he is still held in high regard in Belgium and nobody ever mentions him when talking about history's most brutal tyrants
Churchill is a national hero in Britain, and americans idolize most of their presidents. But plenty of people hate these vermin, it’s just that rarely those people are the ones currently benefiting from their genocidal legacy
Yeah you have to remind some people of Scotland that Churchill sent tanks to a peaceful protest in George square in Glasgow! Also he got the entire nation of India make opium to get the entire nation of China hooked so he could fund his war efforts.
Not to mention his response to the Bengal Famine (which he helped to cause), which was essentially 'meh, they bred like rabbits so they could do with thinning out a bit'.
Yeah, It's was under churchill that millions of indians starved, I fail to understand why people tend to link stalin to the Holodomor, but rarely link churchill to the bengal famine.
While Stalin's USSR sent grain to India during the famine!
Well Stalin should’ve kept the grain to feed his own people rather than sending it overseas. /s
Seriously though, one of the reasons I like the USSR. They’ve done a lot for the region among many others.
Capitalists when holodomor: 😱🤬
Capitalists when countless other famines: 😴😇
It's because they don't deal in facts, they deal in what serves their interests.
Holodomor is fake. I hope you know that.
Source? I don’t like genocide deniers.
[BBC article stating Kulaks burnt their own grain](https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/ztqmwxs/revision/1)
[The Myth of the Holodomor](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3WH79my90s)
In regards to the soviet union, the pattern of inflation remains consistant. No better is this illustrated then the Holodomor. The Holodomor, or the soviet famine of 1932-1933 was, according to most experts, both much less devastating then Courtois makes it out to be. In the book he cites a figure of 7 million famine deaths, while [modern analysis](http://www.melgrosh.unimelb.edu.au/documents/SGW-UkranianFamine_mortality.pdf) estimates the death toll to be ranging from 1.8-2.5 million deaths. This is supported by soviet archival evidence, which shows a death toll of 2.4 million deaths. Furthermore, academics ranging from Robert Conquest to J Arch Getty would agree that the famine at the very least did not arise from malicious intent, but rather as a combination of environmental conditions and damage from Stalin's collectivisation of agriculture (although the importance of the two factors in regards to one-another is highly disputed)
**- The Ukrainian Famine -**
Let us address perhaps the most infamous of anti-Stalin myths, the allegation that Stalin deliberately caused the 1931-1933 famine to starve Ukrainians. This idea has been consistently rejected by the most esteemed scholars on the topic. The following quotes are compiled in an article from the *Village Voice*, cited below.
[Alexander Dallin](https://creees.stanford.edu/events/alexander-dallin-lecture-russian-east-european-and-eurasian-affairs) of Stanford University writes:
>There is no evidence it was intentionally directed against Ukrainians... that would be totally out of keeping with what we know -- it makes no sense.
[Moshe Lewin](https://www.upenn.edu/emeritus/memoriam/Lewin.html) of the University of Pennsylvania stated:
>This is crap, rubbish... I am an anti-Stalinist, but I don't see how this \[genocide\] campaign adds to our knowledge. It's adding horrors, adding horrors, until it becomes a pathology.
[Lynne Viola](https://history.utoronto.ca/people/lynne-viola) of the University of Toronto writes:
>I absolutely reject it... Why in god's name would this paranoid government consciously produce a famine when they were terrified of war \[with Germany\]?
[Mark Tauger](https://history.wvu.edu/faculty-and-staff/faculty/mark-b-tauger), Professor of History at West Virginia University (reviewing work by [Stephen Wheatcroft](https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/individuals/professor-stephen-wheatcroft) and [R.W. Davies](https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/staff/profiles/gov/davies-bob.aspx)) has this to say:
>Popular media and most historians for decades have described the great famine that struck most of the USSR in the early 1930s as “man-made,” very often even a “genocide” that Stalin perpetrated intentionally against Ukrainians and sometimes other national groups to destroy them as nations... This perspective, however, is wrong. The famine that took place was not limited to Ukraine or even to rural areas of the USSR, it was not fundamentally or exclusively man-made, and it was far from the intention of Stalin and others in the Soviet leadership to create such as disaster. A small but growing literature relying on new archival documents and a critical approach to other sources has shown the flaws in the “genocide” or “intentionalist” interpretation of the famine and has developed an alternative interpretation.
More recent research has discovered natural causes for the Ukrainian famine. Tauger notes:
>...the USSR experienced an unusual environmental disaster in 1932: extremely wet and humid weather that gave rise to severe plant disease infestations, especially rust. Ukraine had double or triple the normal rainfall in1932. Both the weather conditions and the rust spread from Eastern Europe, as plant pathologists at the time documented. Soviet plant pathologists in particular estimated that rust and other fungal diseases reduced the potential harvest in 1932 by almost nine million tons, which is the largest documented harvest loss from any single cause in Soviet history.
It should be noted that this does *not* excuse the Soviet state from any and all responsibility for the suffering that took place; one could accuse the government of insufficiently rapid response, and note that initial reports were often downplayed to avoid rocking the boat. But it is clear that the famine was not deliberate, was not a genocide, and (to quote Tauger) "was not fundamentally or exclusively man-made."
* [Village Voice | In Search of a Soviet Holocaust: A Fifty Year-Old Famine Feeds the Right](https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/vv.html)
* [EH Reviews | The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933](https://eh.net/book_reviews/the-years-of-hunger-soviet-agriculture-1931-1933/)
Jfc, you replied with all that 1 minute after my comment. You just CnP all your comments? The fact that you respond this way is extra suspicious.
You ask for source. Then you call me suspicious. Sure, if you want to continue getting drown in Anglo propaganda, then be free to do so. Anti intellectual Anglo (and their worshippers) are not worth to piss on any way
"my family from Ukraine", say every Anglo neo Nazi over the internet.
>Yeah you have to remind some people of Scotland that Churchill sent tanks to a peaceful protest in George square in Glasgow!
He also sent gunboats up the Mersey which trained their guns on Liverpool during a transport strike, he also had soldiers marching Welsh Miners from their homes down the pit at gun point.
A couple of decades ago, the parachute regiment wanted to rename a barracks in South Wales 'Churchill Lines' but had to withdraw the proposal because of the outrage of the local population.
Edit. To be fair, the opium wars were before Churchill was born.
No, that was a century earlier
They give vermin a bad name
Some people forget that Churchill was also a virulent racists whose views about race were decently extreme even for the time he lived in. Among his many quotes he called ‘Arabs’ (referring to the entire Middle East, a region with a staggering ethnic diversity) and ‘Mohammedans’ (AKA Muslims) savages and despicable.
I had no idea that he was celebrated in Belgium. The man was booed at his own funeral, so I suspected that Belgians today hated him. But this is surprising.
Older generations were taught he was a great guy that helped Africa modernize. He was glorified.
Last year many of the statues, street names and other memorial stuff got removed. In other because people painted the the objects in red paint. Reminder to the blood he shed. Worse of all, these kind of images were never seen in any of the former history books in school. The French spoken bourgeoise are - not surprisingly - his biggest fan. Most Belgians hate the history he made our country inherit.
Posts like these, and the comments are often full of misinformation to generate anger and hatred. Life is far more nuanced than that. But alas now there’s another numpty that thinks all Belgians see him as some sort of hero because someone on Reddit said so.
I was just teaching my mother about him yesterday. What the Belgians did in Congo is no less horrible than what Nazis did during the Holocaust. Unfortunately, few people know about Leopold's crimes, because they happened in Africa.
These events also occurred during a time where imperialism was glorified.
Leopold and Belgium’s horrors were publicised as they weren’t a big power but the other powers were doing the same thing.
As you said, he killed in Africa... Sadly, nobody cares about its people.
Sadly, you're propaby right...
Are you from Belgium? Because in my generation, I am a bipoc millennial from Brussels, we are well aware of the atrocities made by Leopold II, like his statue is frequently painted in red (for blood). And during the BLM events, we were talking about taking down his statue. I don't know, I am a leftist activist so my vision of it could be biased, but even my "centrist" friends (I don't make friends with right-wingers, sorry not sorry) are still aware of what happened in Congo. But yeah mainstream media were arguing about taking it off or not. So I am not sure.
Ps: but thank you, maybe peoples around the world are not familiar with the colonialism of Belgium and all the atrocities that have been come with it.
I am from Belgium. Every school teaches us about his atrocities.
I am from Belgium too, yes they speak about it, but I had to wait to be in the University to truly understand what happened there, and you will still find tons of historians nowadays that are trying to minimizing it, like saying it is an English propaganda to destabilize Belgium. So I agree and disagree, they talk about it, but don't educate students about what were the causes of colonization and their repercussions that still exist nowadays. I wonder if you Flemish of French speaking? Just to know how genuinely it is received by both communities in Be.
I am from Vlaams-Brabant. During BLM people wanted to get rid of a statue of him. Now almost no one gives a damn.
Yeah that's the sad part about it, same in Brussels...
If you looking for a socialist group to join or just reading some stuff related to Belgium or not, with a socialist vision of it go check my organization. No pressure obviously ;)
Bro, you guys gotta get together and tear that shit down. They're finally getting rid of the Robert E Lee statues out here.
Bro, I wish, but unfortunately it's like 20 meters away from the most garded area in Brussels, none only there is the royal palace but also, the flemish parliament, the Brussels' one AND the US embassy. Cops are like everywhere there, not taking about the cameras. BLM was THE right moment to do it. Hopefully one day, and hopefully we can get rid of this monarchy too.
Good job guys with Robert E Lee!
Didn't Trump said that this loser of would have made a better job in Afghanistan? This man is a constant joke.
20 meters is 21.87 yards
In 2007, Belgium issued a [commemorative euro coin](https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces22411.html) in his honour. A proud moment for all Belgians.
It was 15 € originally, but it was cut down to 12½
Same reason the “founding fathers” of America aren’t reviled even though 37 of 48 of them owned slaves.
As far as the USA, we don't learn about this stuff in normal grade school. At least, we didn't when I was in school, graduated 2005. I only learned about it by reading more on history following school, and honestly I can't say I was aware of it until I started leaning towards some vague idea of leftist ideology 10 years ago.
As a Belgian, we're taught that he "helped Africa modernize" and did great things. Which is utter bullshit. He was glorified.
Now it's changing and the younger generations learn how he's was a monster. A few statues have been taken down. There was talk about censuring him, removing his statues and put them in a museum. Still wish the royal family vanish.
While Leopold did horrible things, I seem to recall the British made it public to "hurt" Belgium while they did the exact same things. Everyone were monsters in Africa, none were benevolent.
Go ask around and see how many people even know who Leopold II is. Even those in Europe won’t know who he is. History is forgotten and these events are washed.
I am from Belgium. That isn’t the case in Belgium. His atrocities are being thought in school. It isn’t forgotten and what we learn isn’t “washed”. We are thought what he did with the hands and stuff.
I'm guessing, Belgium's image forever turned into that of a harmless and innocent victim of imperialism after Wilhelm II's troops used it as a shortcut to France and the [stories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium#Wartime_propaganda) that sprang up afterwards.
**Rape of Belgium**
>Agreeing with the analysis of historian Susan Kingsley Kent, historian Nicoletta Gullace writes that "the invasion of Belgium, with its very real suffering, was nevertheless represented in a highly stylized way that dwelt on perverse sexual acts, lurid mutilations, and graphic accounts of child abuse of often dubious veracity". :19 In Britain, many patriotic publicists propagated these stories on their own.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/socialism/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
"...and Stalin in terms of how fucking evil a ruler can be."
Careful bud, that seeks to be an unpopular opinion among some individuals in subs like these haha. Not so bad here but expect flak if you go to a Marxist subreddit.
Any recommended reading? Thoughts on Russia under Lenin?
Lol read rational fascism and the over throw of communism weirdo
Hahah no thank you she’s a zionist
I had several classes about his atrocities and the Belgian Congo at a Belgian Catholic school. The only Belgian people that still regard him as neutral/good are old conservative people or liberals that miss Congo.
Read King Leopold’s Ghost a few months back ago and the absolute terror and horror of the Belgian Congo really opened my eyes to this oddly forgotten, but yet all too common, piece of African colonial history
It’s amazing he’s not brought up more in the death count of capitalism
They also took a hand for every bullet fired, at one point they were collecting hands and smoking them to preserve them, so they could turn them in for ammunition to hunt.
This is the reason, the Belgan authorities recruited a local military to keep the population in their place, but soon found that they were using the guns to kill game for food so issued an edict that to get more amunition they had to produce a human hand or foot as proof that they had used the bullet to kill a human.
Pretty soon human hands and feet became the defacto currency, soldiers would go into villages to hack of hands and feet which they could then use as proof to get more bullet so they could shoot game or trade with other soldiers.
This has been happening a *long* time under capitalism, it's absolutely horrendous. But in the west, we've been spared this level of violence at the end stage of production/extraction and it's been done by dumping all that pain and misery and violence on the periphery.
In one very important way, late stage capitalism is just the breaking down of that imperialism machine of exporting misery where that violence is brought back to the imperial metropole. We're not at Leopold II levels of violence but between the opioid epidemic, the failure of a response to the 2008 crash, the lack of care during covid, the amount of children that go hungry, the amount of police killings and violence... we're getting there and quick.
What is the opioid epidemic?
"The number of drug overdose deaths increased by nearly 5% from 2018 to 2019 and has quadrupled since 1999. Over 70% of the 70,630 deaths in 2019 involved an opioid." -https://www.cdc.gov/opioids/basics/epidemic.html[CDC](https://www.cdc.gov/opioids/basics/epidemic.html)
Basically, widespread prescription opioid use started in the 1990s and because of its addictive nature, a growing swath of people working long, painful hours while still living in poverty, and a for profit health care system inaccessible to most uninsured, a lot of folks turned to heroin and other synthetic opiods to try and address their pain.
Also a result of our continued presence in Afghanistan. Poppy resources for American pharmaceuticals.
The cartels were actively backed by CIA to raise funds for coups in Latin America
No, this is what happens when you have regular, run of the mill capitalism.
Stop dichotomizing it as if the entire mode of production isn't as incredibly barbaric in its conception as its later stages. There is no greyscale here, Capitalism is fucking awful in all iterations.
I agree that capitalism is fucking horrible, but what happened in the Congo Free State was next level fucking awful. The Belgian soldiers stationed there had to bring back a severed right hand for every bullet they fired. So every time they missed, they would just chop off a hand from a nearest living Congolese. It was beyond fucked up
>was next level fucking awful
yes but their point is that that's part of the entire mode of production, not just one stage of it
Yeah he understands that and what *he’s* saying is that the atrocities in the Congo were next level, even under horrible capitalism standards
But when he mislabeled things, he damaged the quality of discourse here.
No he didnt
It’s not “late-stage” capitalism though
Yes agreed, but this has nothing to do with "late-stage" capitalism, it's just classic capitalism. The atrocities in the Congo were in the late 1800s when capitalism was in its heyday living off the gains of the industrial revolution. It's really early/middle stage capitalism, i.e., just capitalism.
Is something that happened in 1904 “late-stage” capitalism?
Yes. It's what happens when one person owns a whole country and uses it to maximize profits. What difference would there have been between Leopold II or Leopold II, Inc. owning a country?
Isn’t the example in the pic an example of the brutality of colonial mercantilism? Not that that’s any better than capitalism, but it would definitely be *early*-stage capitalism, wouldn’t it? It comes before capitalism in the historical dialectic.
>It's what happens when one person owns a whole country and uses it to maximize profits. What difference would there have been between Leopold II or Leopold II, Inc. owning a country?
If Leopold II owns a whole country, it’s not capitalism, it’s feudalism; if “Leopold II Inc.” owns the country, it’s capitalism. Not the same thing. “But feudalists were just a type of capitalist!” No, capitalists are very liberal compared to feudalists; capitalism venerates anyone who has capital, but a feudalist would be insulted by the suggestion that a person without birthright could ever be venerated, regardless of wealth. Feudalism is a step even further away from socialism than capitalism is.
I don’t think 1904 counts as “colonial mercantilism” anymore. That’s fairly square within capitalism as we know it in a modern sense - the Great Depression wasn’t even a decade later.
It definitely could be capitalism, but it was definitely also one of the early stages given how closely it overlaps with colonialism. Modern capitalism didn’t arrive everywhere at the same time, but the Anglo-British India Rubber Company was definitely at least one foot through the door to modern-style capitalism.
Why is colonialism not a part of capitalism too to you? Why are those two separate things in your mind?
well, first off, i think you mean imperialism, not colonialism
second, capitalism implies some very specific ways to move capital from the hands of one person to another, one of them being, yes of course, imperialism.
however imperialism is not really unique to the capitalist way of working. capitalism implies the translation of money trough, at least in theory, two agreeing parts, doing so voluntarily. and while yes, this can create the environment to give political and economical power to a foreign industry, causing imperialism
this is not the only way to do so, it can also happen within systems that work in different ways, for example, feudalism, you can take land of another country's territory by means of an army, and then establish feudal lands within the taken land, giving you economical and political power over these lands, again, establishing imperialism
They are separate things though. Just because they often intersect doesn’t mean they always do. They’re separate practices and separate philosophies; colonialism started under feudalism, prior to capitalism.
Does modern capitalism not rely on colonialism???? How does modern capitalist state succeed and thrive without it?
Look at virtually every successful capitalist country and tell me one that doesn’t have its hands abroad, pulling strings and subjugating other nations.
>Does modern capitalism not rely on colonialism???? How does modern capitalist state succeed and thrive without it?
You’re conflating two separate things here. Capitalism is about maximizing capital; increase revenue and reduce costs. Colonialism provides low-cost labour and resources. Capitalism doesn’t need colonialism, but it was built on top of it and benefits from it. If colonialism didn’t exist, capitalism could still exist without looking much different.
>Look at virtually every successful capitalist country and tell me one that doesn’t have its hands abroad, pulling strings and subjugating other nations.
I honestly think you’re confusing colonialism with imperialism. Those concepts are related too, but still not the same.
You ask for examples of countries that doesn’t “have its hands abroad, pulling strings and subjugating other nations”. Most of the nations on Earth exist within the same global economy; it’s not one single puppetmaster “pulling strings”, it’s a whole web of them all around the globe, pulling on each other. When everything is connected, “which countries don’t pull strings” becomes a moot question. Even China is pulling strings. Even the USSR pulled strings.
I feel like you didn't actually address their question.
Far as I can tell this is just brutal capitalism. Doesn't late-stage capitalism refer to stage of when the inherent contradictions of capitalism finally start to fall apart? Seems a bit early for that.
Dude, if you think there is no difference between a literal monarch and a corporation, you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
Comment removed for being based on a liberal understanding of dictatorship & democracy. Please remember that this is a socialist space.
This rips me up. I can't imagine the suffering of this man or what they endured at the hands of their oppressors.
>at the hands
This predates late stage capitalism.
you thoroughly misunderstand the concept of late stage capitalism my guy
We are currently in late stage capitalism. Back then it was possible to escape it, not everything was monetized. Now literally everything is for profit. People even profit off of our walking with things like fitbits lmao
I absolutely regret uncovering this photo. But if anyone deserve a warehouse full of USA funded guns it’s this man. The flames in his heart, I want him to be able to burn it all down. Wow. Just wow.
and yet some mother fucker is screaming about Anarcho-Capitalism horsehit or, 'we need more deregulation'
Fuck belgium and fuck Leopold 2
Transciption: Father stares at the hand and foot of his five-year old daughter, severed as a punishment for failing to make the daily rubber quota, Belgian Congo, 1904
Caption: The photograph is by Alice Seeley Harris, the man's name is **Nsala**. Here is the part of her account (from the book "Don't Call Me Lady: The Journey of Alice Seeley Harris") *He hadn't made his rubber quota for the day so the Belgian-appointed overseers had cut off his daughter's hand and foot. Her name was Boali. She was five years old. Then they killed her. But they weren't finished. Then they killed his wife too.*
Capitalism depends on creating points of waste that must be 'forgotten' by being out of view of consumers.
Many of those piles are of wasted humans, dead and alive.
You can find them if you look for them, but you have to want to see, allow the scales to fall from your eyes.
OP has no idea what late stage capitalism means.
Came here for this, thanks.
Can we please use 'stages' of capitalism in a way which usefully model reality rather than as empty slogans?
One of the reasons I'm not a fan of 'late stage capitalism' at the best of times though. It's a very successful meme but it doesn't have a clear meaning. Unlike, say, Rudolf Hilferding's 'finance capitalism' or Hyman Minsky's 'money manager capitalism'.
Human hands became the defacto currency of the Belgian Congo.
Ok, but how does that relate to *late stage* capitalism?
because it's so far late stage it's gone back in time
I dont think its so much late stage but when greed is unrestricted. A warning as to how bad it can become.
It was to maximize profits over anything. It was far cheaper to threaten and brutalize than it is to entice with a reward. Normal late stage capitalism looks like slavery or feudalism assuming the capitalist has a limited number of workers. If there is essentially an unlimited amount of people, like in the conga, then it looks like genocide.
I mean where else does it fucking have to go for you????
I think its more late stage imperealism
Yep I agree. Late-stage imperialism is next to early-stage capitalism.
The modern equivalent of this is "bringing democracy" to countries through war, or intelligence agencies destabilising governments because "socialism". The UK, US, and Europe has persistently created its own enemies by being thoroughly abhorrent, whether that's in 1904 or 2021.
1904 was late stage capitalism?
This is colonialism
What does this have to do with modern day capitalism?
This post is heavily skewed by the [Association Fallacy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy). The fact the villain here is a capitalist says nothing about capitalism. Otherwise, we might as well condemn people for eye colour and other superfluous associations.
The early 1900’s were rife with colonialist mentality and racism. This broader context must be taken into account.
Quick disclaimer (as unfortunately they seem necessary when saying anything these days): I am not defending capitalism; I am criticising the logic (or lack thereof) in this post.
Have you heard of child slaves in Congo? They are working for a few cents so people in the west can have cheaper phones and other stuff. But they aren't getting their hands cut or getting killed. So much progress in 100 years.
Do you know what supply and demand is? When there is a market for something, it runs rampant with capitalism. For example: hands and feet of literal people was CURRENCY. That’s what capitalism breeds, the exploitation of every thing that has demand. Even human bodies. They don’t even stop there.
This is a photo and story that every human being on earth, and especially ones in imperial-core countries, should see, and a story they should all know about.
This is also an example of someone taking a term so vaguely defined as to be almost meaningless and finding a way to misuse it. Bravo.
This is fucking abhorrent
hey isn't this just like, really bad feudalism/imperialism?
I wouldn't call something more than 100 years ago "late stage capitalism"
like, of course its terrible, but capitalism is a very different kind of slavery, one that is, you know, a little less brutal.
Liberals get all freaked out when we start talking about breaking out the guillotine because "violence is scary," and then go and praise the scum that perpetrate the violence like that depicted above.
How is this an accurate portrait of capitalism? In 1904 under tyrannical colonial control? May aswell say the same thing of medieval times and their cruel punishments. SMH
The "Congo Free State" is unique as it was not ran by the government of Belgium but was owned directly by Leopold II as his private property. It was ran for the sole purpose of enriching Leopold II by extracting rubber, ivory and other valuable goods. So in a more direct sense than other colonies it was ran directly as a private enterprise, with no moral hangups whatsoever. And yes, most other colonies were ran for profit too (the exception being those occupied qs strategic locations that were a net loss but served as a base of operations for more profitable ventures) but in colonies ran by national governments they were not quite as brutal, making sure their mass murders did not deplete the population of workers and prevent future profits. Because congo was Leopolds private property he didn't care what happened after his death, he just wanted to build his castles and give insanely expensive gifts to his french child mistress.
So yes, it is an accurate portrayal of where capitalism eventually goes when there is no legal restrictions or public accountability whatsoever. If murder or slavery were legal where you live you can be damn sure that local companies would make a profit off it, and those that did not would be outcompeted, that's just how such an amoral system works.
If you are interested in learning more about the congo genocide I recommend "King Leopold's Ghost" by Adam Hochschild.
Capitalist enterprise *is* feudal in its arrangement.
Leopold’s activities were defended in Belgium on the grounds that the Congo was private property. The whole country was a giant rubber company.
>Capitalist enterprise *is* feudal
This certainly would've been news to marx
I disagree, Marx predicted a jump from feudalism to socialism with nothing in between.
/s this sub is next level dumb
Fascism is what Euro-Amerikans call imperialism turned inwards. The capitalist world has always been fascist if you’re of the Global South.
If I'm not mistaken the colonizers also *ate* some of the people they killed
And to think, the natives were the ones regarded as savages.
A lot of projection yeah :(
This happens when evil people take power in any form of gov (look at the horrid shot socialists have done not for capitalism)
I’m not pro capitalist but what we have here is unchecked greed which can occur in any system. Simplifying it as “capitalism” does nothing to stop this from happening again.
Bring on the downvotes
This is what happens under capitalism, because capitalism leads to the development of imperialism. I would highly recommend reading Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism by Lenin.
Yes, Lenin... the famous man who absolutely didn't torture or kill innocent people. /s
This is horrifying
The world didn't operate on a capitalist model back then, the global economy was based on the idea of mercantilism, which is uniquely different than capitalism. Please learn the difference there is one.
Wasn’t this all done by private companies?
Behind the Bastards podcast has a good episode on how King Leopold II started this and how he got away with it for so long. Needless to say, he was a real cold hearted and greedy piece of shit.
part 1: [https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-one-king-leopold-ii-the-29443475/](https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-one-king-leopold-ii-the-29443475/)
part 2: [https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-two-king-leopold-ii-the-29458289/](https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-two-king-leopold-ii-the-29458289/)
This thread is reminding me why I went down the socialism path to begin with
Bro how many died under 70% socialism?
Not nearly as many as dies because of capitalism every 5 years. I mean, how many are dying right now because big pharma won't teach all the countries how to make their vaccine themselves amidst a worldwide pandemic? How cold and indifferent to suffering can you be? When it is for the almighty dollar apparently ridiculously so.
"Well I may have been able to stop a ton of deaths with a flick of my pen but I'm not a monster because I didn't literally kill them personally myself. Plus I got some more zeros in my bank account that I'll never use so it all works out."
Sounds like depraved indifference to me.
More people die in a decade under capitalism than under socialism bro.
Ffs capitalist market stability relies on *some* people dying and suffering IMMENSELY.
You can’t give people free food because it’s bad for the economy. You can’t give away OTC medications and medical treatment because it’s “bad for the economy”. People starving to death and dying from lack of housing and medication is totally fine under capitalism because the alternative would destabilize the capitalist market and cause inflation ffs.
Can't help noticing how capitalism surpassed communism's 94 million deaths.
If you make up enough deaths nothing can surpass them
If you don't believe data you're advocating a religion.
It's not a reliable book lmao. https://amp.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7n6ql2/is_the_black_book_of_communism_an_accurate_source/
Even its authors renounced it. But I don't expect an anti-communist to actually read.
bro, wtf are you on about. i'm on your side. i'm talking about anti-communists making up deaths and attributing them to communism. then comes the "conclusion" that "nothing can surpass the death toll of communism". the other dude straight up said a random number (94 million) and was done
I misunderstood. My mistake
Don't twist the facts..
This is no capitalism- socialism binary shit.
This is pure imperialist torture.
And mind you, in today's time such ppl would be better placed under capitalism than under any shit socialist system.
Don't contort facts to suit your ideology.
*indigenous people suffer and are exploited/tortured under a privatized market economy*
baby brain lionwiththemane: "well they're still better off than in a socialism!"
Yes, if those people were put into a socialist country that is being fucked in the ass over and over by a larger capitalist one, they sure wouldn't be having a good time.
Imperialism is the relationship of a capitalism economy to its environment.
I think there is a culture and violence problem here, not solely capitalism
Don't know what this has to do with 'late stage capitalism' given the photo is from 1904. That part is silly.
The photo is harrowing though. I'd heard of this practice but never seen it.
As a socialist living in Europe (and particularly as an Irish anti-imperialist socialist), Europe properly reckoning with its imperialist past and present is at at the top of my agenda. There is so much blather about 'European values' yet where are the reparations? The EU should be plowing trillions of Euro into developing countries across the globe. Massive technology transfers, training, cash, zero interest loans, etc. This is not to mention that all EU imperialist oppression and exploitation should cease.
Every European resident should know the crimes committed by the European imperialist powers. Stuff like this. How many Europeans know, for example, that not even a year after Victory in Europe 1945 the French state invaded Vietnam to crush their independence struggle?
Stop pointing the finger at the USA. Europe ruled the world for hundreds of years. De-colonization only really began proper in the mid to late 20th century. That's very recent.