Was the French Revolution good or bad?

I suppose if you repeat if often enough it must be true eh?

The Indians starved because the Capitalists who owned the land began producing cash crops rather than food crops, which of course inevitably led to food shortages combined with the fact many were to poor to afford the little food that was there. Do you not comprehend this? Isnt the first time ive had to explain it with no results.

 

Famines are usually not due to there not being enough food, but due to that the food isn't properly allocated. There was food rotting in the fields in one indian state while there was a famine in the nieghboring state. Food was even exported from some states suffering famine. What could cause such a misallocation of resources? Price controls can. If you limit how high the prise can raise (perhaps due to an ongoing or predicted famine) you will also limit the supply. THe price system is very wonderful in that it handles so many things automatically, and co-ordinates people without them even being aware of it. If there's a famine, you'd want to first get food there, and secondly make sure that it's put to good use (i.e. no hoarded or wasted). High prices attracts plenty of food there, and the high prices also rations the scarce resource. No one will buy more food than they need due to its price. An reversly, when there's a price ceiling, not enough food will come, and people will buy more than they need because it's not as expensive as it should be. And that's true for pretty much any kind of price ceiling, be it food or gasoline.

And no, indians weren't too poor to afford the food. If that was the case, one has to wonder why there wasn't constant famines in india. Famines are particular exceptions, and wouldn't be explain by indians being poor, which they'd be even in years without famines. Also, you must understand that money is money, no matter if it's from a poor person or a rich person. The aggregate wealth of poor people is higher than that of rich people. Why else would it ever make sense to produce something that poor people would buy? If that wasn't the case, the only kinds of houses built would be mansions, and the only food made would be luxurious, and so on.

 

Ok, so if you agree with that part about our nature, don't you think it's kinda futile preaching Marxism?

 

No, you're wrong because you're trying to change the subject. The subject was that no leftist predicted the collapse of the Communism. You wasted my time with some Chomsky screed arguing that the Soviet Union wasn't really communist (yawn). That's an argument that may play leftist to leftist, but to anyone outside the ignorance bubble of leftism, the issue is absurd.

So did Chomsky predict the collapse of communism? No. Therefore you're wrong.

 

Humans are different, we have the intelligence to be able to shape the world around us and decide which system is more effective and which is more moral, than decide which pieces we want to keep and abandon accordingly. We, as you know, are not like other animals in the sense that we CAN change things, animals largely cannot.

 

The reason there wasnt constant famines in the past was because they had a communal system set up where they shared food with each other, they did it willingly without the government though so its more of a anarchist form of Communism rather than a State sanctioned form of Communism. Once that system was removed and replaced with Capitalism, the landlords required the workers to now produce cash crops which indeed many can be eaten, but they are far too expensive for the Indians to afford so naturally it is shipped somewhere that it can make the most profit.

 

Reactionary movements, which are often more of a conservative thing while revolutions are more of a liberal thing, suffer the same sets of issues. Remember when the Tea Party wasn't almost completely run by bigwigs in the GOP and giant conservative donors? I do. Wasn't a very long period though.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL. What is with conservatives acting like Reagan single handedly toppled the USSR?

 

During is not at the beginning of. If they had fully embraced capitalism they wouldn't have still had colonies because capitalism has no need of them.

 

If the Soviets fully embraced Communism than they would have no need to let Ukrainians starve.

Oh right, but it doesnt work with Communism eh? Only Capitalists get to use that excuse eh?

 

Accept that would be wrong not because it doesn't work for communism but because that wasn't Lenin's motivation. Lenin did fully embrace communism and it was the need to force collectivization of the Ukrainian kulaks in the name of communism that lead to their starvation. In farm collectives have been the chief problem for almost every communist country that ever existed.

 

Oh, I must have missed how the anti war pacifist leftists had a hand in toppling the former Soviet Union. Perhaps you could give us details of those patriotic acts from the leftists.