Enjoy communism (III) rats eating dead people and people eating rats in NK

[Hydrogen]

I followed Yeonmi Park before she was on JRE. She has a youtube channel with a lot of content. She was human trafficked from north korea into south korea and sold as a sex slave for $300 when she was around 13 years old. I think she's 27 now. Eventually she made her way to the US and was granted amnesty. She has a book published about it on amazon.

In Order to Live: A North Korean Girl's Journey to Freedom
by Yeonmi Park
https://www.amazon.com/Order-Live-Korean-Journey-Freedom/dp/014310974X/

There are many other defectors from north korea, their stories are always worth reading.

[1715043816]

1715043816

[1715043816]

1715043816

[1715043816]

1715043816

[jaberwock]

The mainstream media is mostly left-wing (with a few exceptions such as Fox news) and want us to believe that Socialism will result in rivers of milk and honey. But in reality, it results in the slavery of 99% of the population by the 1% elite (similar to the case in North Korea and Cuba). It is very interesting that most of those who praise socialism nowadays are those who have no experience of living in a socialist country. Hopefully these guys will get an experience to enjoy the wonders of socialist rule, when Kamala Harris is elected as the POTUS in 2024.

Since you gave an example of fox news, I am going to assume that you are an American? Or at least know the media in the American system hence know a bit about American politics (these days who doesn't lol)? So in that case, communism in a tyrannical system is where the leaders like how NK is managed right now lives the 1% amazing life, he has that right as the leader, and 99% crush beneath him, and even eating rats to survive, or Venezuela losing weight all together as well just because their leader cost them a lot of money and now they can't even afford food and there isn't even food in the markets.

However, do you really believe that management is still better in a capitalist liberal system? I believe that paying a thousand dollars ON TOP OF your insurance just because you had a little cough is not a good system neither.

I still believe that there is a real "dream" equality in the world, it could be right, it could be left, it could be any ideology I do not care, call it "the middle"? That sounds good, but its where people could be billionaires like Jeff Bezos, but nobody starves to death or pays thousands for insulin, there is definitely a middle-ground humanity could find.

[gagux123]

Communism / Socialism will NEVER work!
We don't need proof to conclude this, just look at countries that have adopted communism/socialism around the world, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea are some examples.

A question I always ask people who say that communism/socialism can work and that it is superior to capitalism.

"If communism/socialism were so good, why do Venezuelans or Cubans flee their countries and go to the US or another South American country? And why doesn't the opposite happen?"

The other question is: "Tell me some countries around the world that communism/socialism was successful?"

To this day, no one has been able to answer this question for me, because it is very obvious and no sympathizer of communism/socialism wants to accept it!

[hatshepsut93]

As long as the regime is able to keep the population terrified, they will be able to enslave them. But at one point, the threshold of tolerance will snap and there will be a mass uprising. And this has happened in other countries as well (Lithuania, Poland.etc). And in all probability, Kim Jong Un will face the fate of other dictators, such as Saddam Hussain, Muammar Gaddafi and Nicolae Ceaușescu. Even in Cuba and Venezuela, now the population is rioting against the communist regimes. You can't rule with muscle-power forever.

It's actually not about the people snapping, it's about the government becoming weaker and allowing them. The North Korean regime exists for more than 70 years without any slightest attempts of insurrection. You can't organize any resistance when one part of the population is scared and the other is devoted to the government, and everything is so tightly controlled that the flow of information/money/weapons is impossible. North Korea is just a large high security prison, and for it to collapse it would need to become a low security prison first.

[Sithara007]

Since you gave an example of fox news, I am going to assume that you are an American? Or at least know the media in the American system hence know a bit about American politics (these days who doesn't lol)? So in that case, communism in a tyrannical system is where the leaders like how NK is managed right now lives the 1% amazing life, he has that right as the leader, and 99% crush beneath him, and even eating rats to survive, or Venezuela losing weight all together as well just because their leader cost them a lot of money and now they can't even afford food and there isn't even food in the markets.

However, do you really believe that management is still better in a capitalist liberal system? I believe that paying a thousand dollars ON TOP OF your insurance just because you had a little cough is not a good system neither.

I still believe that there is a real "dream" equality in the world, it could be right, it could be left, it could be any ideology I do not care, call it "the middle"? That sounds good, but its where people could be billionaires like Jeff Bezos, but nobody starves to death or pays thousands for insulin, there is definitely a middle-ground humanity could find.

Medicare system in the United States is rotten and that is not due to the capitalist system. If that was the case, then how come Medicare costs in neighboring Canada are 10 times lower than the rates for the same in the United States? They are also having the same system there. Capitalism can be managed in a way where exploitation doesn't occur. Take the case of European countries such as Germany and Switzerland. They are perfect examples of capitalism. United States is an example where the system is dominated by a few corporations. And corporate-capitalism is different from normal capitalism.

[Koro-Sensei]

This is the problem with a high pride leader who controls his country without the regard for human life. This is the problem with a leader who's only priority is his own wealth rather than his countries development. The problem with this kind of government like NK is that most of its constituents is in support with that regime and neglect the rotten system. They do not want to fight and accepts the superiority and abuses that they are facing. Unlike any other country who would like to break the chain of poverty and oppression willing to die for the next generation. Extremely brainwashed by NK government.

[Argoo]

Better mention it as dictatorship because every communist country is almost having the dictatorship rule which doesn't care about the people still they are funding the nuclear weapon research. I think Kim also accepted the hindrance of food supplies in their country in the international media which he never did that before itself a proof that how worse the situation of North Korea at the moment.

If there is something called God then please take care of such people.

This is true because I don’t see a single really Souialist or Communist state right now. After all, socialism and communism in theory are completely different from what we see in practice in states that call themselves socialist or communist. The main slogan of communism is from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. That is, a communist society presupposes a complete abundance of material wealth. If this is not the case, then such states cannot be considered communist. North Korea is a purely totalitarian state and has nothing to do with socialism or communism.

[bryant.coleman]

This is true because I don’t see a single really Souialist or Communist state right now. After all, socialism and communism in theory are completely different from what we see in practice in states that call themselves socialist or communist. The main slogan of communism is from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. That is, a communist society presupposes a complete abundance of material wealth. If this is not the case, then such states cannot be considered communist. North Korea is a purely totalitarian state and has nothing to do with socialism or communism.

LOL.. don't you get tired of defending communism?

I am 100% sure that you are not from a country where communists were in power. Because I haven't seen anyone from former communist states such as Russia or Ukraine defending them. If "real communism" is different, then please enlighten us and show us an example of such a country. Communism is a bunch of impractical and obsolete ideas, which can never work in real life scenario. Dozens of countries have tried the communist/socialist system, and not even one has been successful. Some of them, like China shifted to capitalism before it was too late.

[paxmao]

-snip

Yes, that's why I said in a previous post, that in reality, many times what we call capitalism is actually social democracy, a mixture of free enterprise and individual initiative with regulations and redistribution. I find it very funny to hear people complaining about capitalism in countries where the public sector accounts for more than 50% of GDP, they have high taxes, public health care (which I am in favor of), etc.

Quite capitalist is a country like Singapore, but in general it is not the European countries.

basically both are like aiming for social, where they help each other. in a capitalist country, someone is allowed to work so that they have a lot of income until finally the state collects taxes to equalize development which will later be for the equality of society. and for a socialist country, this is purely in the hands of the government, so that citizens' lives are equal

There is a general misunderstanding about Capitalism and Socialism governments. The fact that a state provides some free services does not make it communist. I am afraid that the precise definition is quite fluid and there is a grayscale of possibilities.

Particularly, there is a tendency to confuse economic liberalism and the Austrian School of though with Capitalism. I my very humble view, that is only a version of Capitalism. The basis are right to individual property, free enterprise and the possibility of  investing for a return. This has nothing to do with the liberal versions that propose a thin state or zero intervention.

For me, there is clear proof that those "thin states" cannot provide safety, continuity and opportunity for all, just as communism cannot either.

Only their leaders and the rich ones are enjoying this kind of government. The hunger in NK is caused by poor government who's crazy in building weapons rather than producing food added by economic sanctions given by international community. Their leaders are having their best lives while their constituents where hungry and having no opportunities to have a good life. I feel sad for these people.

Of course that's how it is, communism is just an illusion so the real tyrants can trick the population into believing that they're going to deliver them the paradise ..

Yes, just as Capitalism sell the paradise of material goods, the "opportunity for all", the self-made millionaire dream... Is there a system that is not promising utopia?

People do know what's going on in Venezuela for the most part, everyone just ignores it because we're not allowed to talk about how socialist countries fail hopelessly with their economic situation, and how hyperinflation spirals out of control when you put all your eggs in one basket. With Venezuela, the price of oil dropped and their economy crashed because there wasn't enough economic activity to pick up where the oil left off, thanks to the government.

The mainstream media is mostly left-wing (with a few exceptions such as Fox news) and want us to believe that Socialism will result in rivers of milk and honey. But in reality, it results in the slavery of 99% of the population by the 1% elite (similar to the case in North Korea and Cuba). It is very interesting that most of those who praise socialism nowadays are those who have no experience of living in a socialist country. Hopefully these guys will get an experience to enjoy the wonders of socialist rule, when Kamala Harris is elected as the POTUS in 2024.

And that may happen only thanks to your marvellous version of Capitalism has failed millions of people. on the promise of milk and honey. You do not get the moral high -ground on undelivered promises. N

Totally agree with this one, there's no such thing as equal in communism, it's just a tyrant replacing another tyrant with the current tyrant saying that they're the savior of the people even though it's not the case. It's just so sad that this is also a test of loyalty because you won't suffer from the wrath of communism if you are utterly loyal towards the tyrants in power.

Communism has killed more people than any ideology other than organized religion in the recorded history. Mao Zedong caused 80 million deaths, while Josef Stalin is close behind with 60 million to his name. Then there are a few others like Pol Pot and Kim Jong Il, with a few millions to their name. If people still support this horrible ideology even after all this, then I have to say that they are delusional. Communism is an ideology that needs to be wiped out from the surface of earth, just like other horrible ideologies such as Nazism and Wahhabism.

That is not true. Imperialism  and expansionism of the capitalist countries has killed more people that any other ideology. Kaiser´s Germany was not communist, Hitler was certainly not Socialist and  Japan was not communist nor the US was socialist when dropping Fat Boy on Japan, nor UK was communist when setting Hamburg in fire. I do not mean to make a  competition of this, and I am certainly not a supporter of tyranny in any manifestation,  but I am tired of  propaganda and the  attempts to compare and elected government with authoritarian  despots.

[Poker Player]

There is a general misunderstanding about Capitalism and Socialism governments. The fact that a state provides some free services does not make it communist.

I have never said that. But I tell you what I usually say when they talk to me about "free" services. They are never "free". You don't pay for them on a bill, but you pay for them via taxes.

In the case of health care, I think it is right that it should be universal (not free), because demand is inelastic: you can decide not to buy clothes or mend old clothes or not to go out so much, etc., but if you have a heart attack you have to be treated now. The demand side is totally different in health issues.

I am afraid that the precise definition is quite fluid and there is a grayscale of possibilities.

And we will agree that the best system is a mixture of both: free enterprise, respect for private property, etc., combined with some redistribution. Which from what I understand you are more in favor of taxation and redistribution than I am (I would say there are a few forumers of a similar opinion to yours, such as Cnut237 and suchmoon).

For me, there is clear proof that those "thin states" cannot provide safety, continuity and opportunity for all, just as communism cannot either.

I would say that they are essentially different because the history of mankind shows the opposite: the great states that are dedicated to redistribution arose precisely from "thin" states that created wealth. If you put a huge state where there is no wealth created, you are not going to have anything to redistribute. States are extremely inefficient at creating wealth. I would say that the more regulations and taxes they put in place, the more efficient they are at destroying it.

[pinggoki]

Also read somewhere that starvation in NK is so bad people use drugs to alleviate the hunger and redirect it to something else. Just mind-boggling to think about how things are going in NK when their supreme leader gets fatter and fatter by the day. I think we're all well aware of the shoot-to-kill order if you ever did try to cross the border which sucks. Communism never works in practical applications no matter how good it sounds on paper.

Thanks OP for these threads. While the description of situations in NK may seem hard to believe for some of the pragmatists, I am quite sure that a set of leaders who are capable of planning murder of brothers and blowing people with artillery, can very well create these conditions.

Quite a few apologists of communism in this thread too. Maybe it is just a reflection of the CCP puppets going around on the forum these days and just an overall reflection of the Chinese methods of  trying to control narratives through seemingly honest opinions. Yet, anyone with half a brain will realize that Communism can NEVER work. Like NEVER.

By its very definition, communism means that the "means of production and property" is owned collectively, in this case, by the state. And who is the state? There is no "collective entity" called the state. It is a bunch of individuals who rise to the top in the name of equality. Whether its Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao or Sun; they all are individuals or groups of people who become "The state".

This is what leads to the ultimate failure as there are no checks and balances on power that exist in capitalist democracies; free markets, free press, free judiciary. Sure those are not perfect. Yet, that just means they are involved in a constant struggle of distributing resources between unequal participants. Nothing of that sort is possible in Communism.

Communism is fine in theory but impossible to practice at scale.

Very well said, also saw these apologists who kept on defending Communism like it was God's gift to these countries. I would also agree with your explanation as to why Communism only works on paper and never when it's practically applied. The fact that they don't have a solid concept of what a "state" is in countries where it is implemented makes communism a very dangerous ideology to follow through.

[paxmao]

There is a general misunderstanding about Capitalism and Socialism governments. The fact that a state provides some free services does not make it communist.

I have never said that. But I tell you what I usually say when they talk to me about "free" services. They are never "free". You don't pay for them on a bill, but you pay for them via taxes.

In the case of health care, I think it is right that it should be universal (not free), because demand is inelastic: you can decide not to buy clothes or mend old clothes or not to go out so much, etc., but if you have a heart attack you have to be treated now. The demand side is totally different in health issues.

I am afraid that the precise definition is quite fluid and there is a grayscale of possibilities.

And we will agree that the best system is a mixture of both: free enterprise, respect for private property, etc., combined with some redistribution. Which from what I understand you are more in favor of taxation and redistribution than I am (I would say there are a few forumers of a similar opinion to yours, such as Cnut237 and suchmoon).

For me, there is clear proof that those "thin states" cannot provide safety, continuity and opportunity for all, just as communism cannot either.

I would say that they are essentially different because the history of mankind shows the opposite: the great states that are dedicated to redistribution arose precisely from "thin" states that created wealth. If you put a huge state where there is no wealth created, you are not going to have anything to redistribute. States are extremely inefficient at creating wealth. I would say that the more regulations and taxes they put in place, the more efficient they are at destroying it.

If you take the UK as example during the XVIII and XIX centuries, the state was anything but thin. If you take Germany, same case.

I was more in line to people saying socialist and communist to anything that implies redistribution, perhaps not your case. About how much is redistributed, who pays for it and what is "included" (obviously paid with taxes, I did not even think that had to be said), that would be where I would focus a discussion and the adjustments that different economic cycles may require.

RE thin states, please notice that I said they cannot provide safety and stability on a continuous basis. If you look at an initially very thin state (US) a few of the first things that had to be setup was the ability to collect taxes, the centralisation of money emission, a pan-state law,... It was simply impossible to run a country if you had to ask all the states for permission and money to, for example, pay an army to defend it.

State structures cost money and, I believe that there is enough proof of these being required.

[Sithara007]

And that may happen only thanks to your marvellous version of Capitalism has failed millions of people. on the promise of milk and honey. You do not get the moral high -ground on undelivered promises. N

Just one simple question. Which group of countries are the richest in this planet? Those which follow capitalism, or those who follow socialism? I checked the list, and found that there was no socialist nation in the top-100. Obviously not everyone may benefit out of capitalism. You need to work hard, if you want to earn money. It is the socialist thinking, that you get money for doing nothing. Those who don't want to work in capitalist economies will remain poor and then they will complain that capitalism has failed them.

BTW, let me ask you in which country you are residing in. A capitalist nation, or a socialist one? If you were living in a socialist country, then I am sure that you won't be even having the means to type this post.

[Cnut237]

Pardon my ignorance but I really have to ask, is this happening in this 21st century or it is the lifestyle of before in NK? I can seem to wrap my head around people not having access to the basic human stuff! How in the world I'd the people over there able to survive on a daily basis! I really can't imagine a life much harder than what this people are going through if this is what is happening, anyone able to flee from such life should be very thankful.

Yes, it is happening right now. The stories that come out of North Korea are horrific. The Nazis ran concentration camps for a few years in the 40s. North Korea have been running them for over half a century. They have the worst human rights record on the planet. Have a read of "Escape From Camp 14" by Shin Dong-hyuk.

Today we continue with another chapter of the series: enjoy communism, lest we forget.

Why would we forget, though? You do seem to be running a bit of a one person crusade against communism... but there's not really anyone to argue against, or at least no-one with a compelling counter-argument. Communism is terrible, has failed again and again, and is drenched in blood. Stalin and Mao, for example, are two of the biggest mass-murderers in history.

And yet... communism isn't really the problem. In theory, it's a reasonable and equitable — if, for me, unpalatable — idea. The problem is that it is so easy to abuse. Autocracy, however it manifests, whether in a state that is nominally communist or not, is the worst system of government. Any system that cannot, or will not, be held accountable for its own actions is invalid and unrepresentative.

Laissez-faire 'ancap' capitalism is terrible for the same reason, so so easy to exploit.

The best system of government is one where opposition is not just possible, but encouraged, and indeed a vital part of the structure. I am happy to live in a capitalist democracy. As I've said before, it's an oxymoron, but that is its power. There are of course problems, corruption, cronyism, and inevitably a strong tendency towards plutocracy... but still, it's better than the alternatives. And I always vote for a left-wing party, because I see this as providing a more potent countervailing force to the capitalist tendency towards self-enrichment at the expense of others*. Voting for a right-wing party in a capitalist state is a vote to encourage inequality of opportunity and to further entrench the elite.




* Please don't mention that damned cake. Unrestrained capitalism is a 'will to money', and is exploitative by nature. The question of whether or not potential wealth is infinite (it's not), sidesteps the issue.

[Poker Player]

Why would we forget, though? You do seem to be running a bit of a one person crusade against communism...

Well, I'll tell you: I've spent my life surrounded by leftists, and they don't say this:

Communism is terrible, has failed again and again, and is drenched in blood. Stalin and Mao, for example, are two of the biggest mass-murderers in history.

I don't hear things like that, and instead I usually hear that in Cuba and Venezuela everything is wonderful, while they complain about capitalism and order any kind of crap through Amazon Prime from their Iphone.

[Cnut237]

Why would we forget, though? You do seem to be running a bit of a one person crusade against communism...

Well, I'll tell you: I've spent my life surrounded by leftists, and they don't say this:

Communism is terrible, has failed again and again, and is drenched in blood. Stalin and Mao, for example, are two of the biggest mass-murderers in history.

I don't hear things like that, and instead I usually hear that in Cuba and Venezuela everything is wonderful, while they complain about capitalism and order any kind of crap through Amazon Prime from their Iphone.

Ha. I suppose I'm a different kind of leftist, then. A lot of ideologies tend to be absolute and idealised; the difficulty is applying them to the real world, which is of course messier and full of all kinds of unknown variables and people who will try to exploit whatever system of government is put in front of them. We're probably all guilty to an extent of trying to argue in favour of our preferred theoretical solutions, even when they are unworkable in practice.

I think that the first example below is obscene, and should not be permitted, because the second example exists at the same time. But I'm happy to concede that capitalism (held in check by a democratically elected government) is the best (by which I mean, least bad) system we have.

At $4.8 billion, the History Supreme, owned by Robert Knok, is the most expensive, largest superyacht in the whole world. At 100 feet in length, History Supreme took three years to build, using 10,000 kilograms of solid gold and platinum, both of which adorn the dining area, deck, rails, staircases, and anchor. If that weren’t luxurious enough, the master suite features a meteorite rock wall, a statue made of Tyrannosaurus Rex bones, a 68 kg 24-carat gold Aquavista Panoramic Wall Aquarium, and a liquor bottle adorned with a rare 18.5-carat diamond.

1 in 3 people globally do not have access to safe drinking water. Billions of people around the world are continuing to suffer from poor access to water, sanitation and hygiene, according to a new report by UNICEF and the World Health Organization. Some 2.2 billion people around the world do not have safely managed* drinking water services, 4.2 billion people do not have safely managed sanitation services, and 3 billion lack basic** handwashing facilities.

[Poker Player]

I think that the first example below is obscene, and should not be permitted, because the second example exists at the same time. But I'm happy to concede that capitalism (held in check by a democratically elected government) is the best (by which I mean, least bad) system we have.

At $4.8 billion, the History Supreme, owned by Robert Knok, is the most expensive, largest superyacht in the whole world. At 100 feet in length, History Supreme took three years to build, using 10,000 kilograms of solid gold and platinum, both of which adorn the dining area, deck, rails, staircases, and anchor. If that weren’t luxurious enough, the master suite features a meteorite rock wall, a statue made of Tyrannosaurus Rex bones, a 68 kg 24-carat gold Aquavista Panoramic Wall Aquarium, and a liquor bottle adorned with a rare 18.5-carat diamond.

1 in 3 people globally do not have access to safe drinking water. Billions of people around the world are continuing to suffer from poor access to water, sanitation and hygiene, according to a new report by UNICEF and the World Health Organization. Some 2.2 billion people around the world do not have safely managed* drinking water services, 4.2 billion people do not have safely managed sanitation services, and 3 billion lack basic** handwashing facilities.

But we have talked about this before. It's not as easy as I take from the rich and the poor will suddenly have clean water. For starters, I don't think UNICEF is 100% objective because they make a living from it but assuming that's true, the redistribution you propose, which is taking gold from the yacht and spending it to invest in clean water infrastructure is never carried out like that in practice.
 
Taking away moderate amounts is theoretically Ok but if you take too much away from those who get rich, in the end you end up disincentivizing and less and less wealth is created and you have less and less to redistribute.

Then, we have to think that for this money to reach poor people, there is a lot of political spending, bureaucracy, personnel, and if we take into account that where water is needed is in third world countries where politicians are usually even more trash than in developed countries, it seems to me that even if you confiscate the whole yacht they are going to build few infrastructures. 

[icopress]

Regarding the communism in general, people in countries with more or less free markets and more or less "capitalist" would be greatly surprised to know that those communist regimes do have supporters. When the USSR imploded, most people lived without any luxury and they certainly did not have many of the freedoms that democracies had, but they mostly had a roof over their head, a job and food - zero luxury of course other than culture perhaps.

It is not a matter of supporters, but of upholding an outdated social and cultural core. Any political party also develops its ideology to unite certain groups under its auspices. Every community, from LGBT people to the Ku Klux Klan, strives for integrity, creating norms and values ​​that help separate the self from others.

Have you ever wondered why some social groups consider themselves to be better than others? And any political struggle comes down to the manifestation of intolerance, while trying to revive outdated models of power .. Indeed, in fact, there is a struggle between the political ethics of our countries, and ordinary people are closely intertwined with each other. I find the explanation for this in the fact that before 1991, politicians were more or less in control of the situation. And after the collapse of the military-political blocs, we got more and more opportunities to meet face to face with those who did not belong to our circle.

[Cnut237]

But we have talked about this before. It's not as easy as I take from the rich and the poor will suddenly have clean water. For starters, I don't think UNICEF is 100% objective because they make a living from it but assuming that's true, the redistribution you propose, which is taking gold from the yacht and spending it to invest in clean water infrastructure is never carried out like that in practice.

Yes, of course it's not that simple. I'm in favour of truly progressive taxation, a wealth (rather than merely income) tax, and a UBI. But I don't want to derail the thread by getting into a discussion about the nuances of all of these things. I'm not suggesting we break up the yacht, sell the parts, and demand that the money be spent directly on sanitation. I think that kind of approach is overly prescriptive.

Taking away moderate amounts is theoretically Ok but if you take too much away from those who get rich, in the end you end up disincentivizing and less and less wealth is created and you have less and less to redistribute.

True. Although I suspect you and I would draw the line of 'too much' in quite different positions. There is a lot of 'crying wolf' on this, too. Threaten to raise corporation tax by 0.5% and there will be a cacophany of howling from global giants that they can't possibly survive and will have to leave the country in search of a new business-friendly home abroad. 

Then, we have to think that for this money to reach poor people, there is a lot of political spending, bureaucracy, personnel, and if we take into account that where water is needed is in third world countries where politicians are usually even more trash than in developed countries, it seems to me that even if you confiscate the whole yacht they are going to build few infrastructures. 

Yes, agreed. As someone with a keen interest in data, I'm aware of the inefficiencies of for example many charities. However the charity evaluator GiveWell, which is I think extremely good, has shown that one of the most efficient ways to help the global poor is simply by giving them cash without it having to run through a network of possibly corrupt intermediaries (GiveDirectly is consistently ranked as one of their top charities). I'm not sure if you give to charities, but you may also be interested in having a look at Deki which helps to a small extent to reduce inequality of opportunity by providing small interest-free loans to budding entrepreneurs in poorer nations. But I think I may be derailing the thread again, so I'll stop there.

[Poker Player]

Yes, agreed. As someone with a keen interest in data, I'm aware of the inefficiencies of for example many charities. However the charity evaluator GiveWell, which is I think extremely good, has shown that one of the most efficient ways to help the global poor is simply by giving them cash without it having to run through a network of possibly corrupt intermediaries (GiveDirectly is consistently ranked as one of their top charities). I'm not sure if you give to charities, but you may also be interested in having a look at Deki which helps to a small extent to reduce inequality of opportunity by providing small interest-free loans to budding entrepreneurs in poorer nations. But I think I may be derailing the thread again, so I'll stop there.

Normally when I have created threads, if they have reached page 5 I have locked them because the conversations tend to go from being a little off-topic to being completely off topic and in other cases redundant.

In the case of charities, I think it is a bit related because we are talking about communism/redistribution, and in an ideal world, as paxmao pointed out I think in another thread, nobody would have to donate to charities, but everything would be perfectly redistributed. However, we are not going to see that unless the decisions are made by an AI and I think not even that.

You won't remember but I told you that I do donate to a charity, just when you asked me last time, precisely that week I also made a donation in person to a person in need. I donate to that charity of my choice because in a way I trust that the money is being used well, although you can never trust 100%. At the moment I don't plan to donate elsewhere but the one you point out seems to be a good one.