I mean, if a post says that the US has higher rates of starvation than socialist countries, someone jokingly references the “communism is when no food trope,” then you respond by suggesting there may be some truth to that, I don’t think it’s an “argument” to point out that socialist countries did achieve food security better than capitalist countries.
Is this how they keep the shelves full?
In the USSR they always said they had lots of money but they couldn’t buy anything with it because the shelves were empty.
After WWII, soviet caloric intake was higher than the U.S.
Great, but ittelevant to any point I was making. I must have stepped.into the ideologically frail part of Lemmy.
Explain how, exactly, the response was irrelevant to your point. After all, your ideology is strong and infallible.
You must have the answer, right?
What ideology?
It’s irrelevant because it doesn’t attack the point I made. Both things can be true at the same time.
It’s not irrelevant, the idea that “communism is when no food” is wrong because they ended famine in a region where that was common.
You’re looking too hard for an argument where there never needed to be one.
I mean, if a post says that the US has higher rates of starvation than socialist countries, someone jokingly references the “communism is when no food trope,” then you respond by suggesting there may be some truth to that, I don’t think it’s an “argument” to point out that socialist countries did achieve food security better than capitalist countries.
Take off the blinkers.