Firstly, Churchill's war-time policies can hardly be described as capitalism. Secondly, an accusation by a politician means little. Thirdly, even if we accept t

Firstly, Churchill's war-time policies can hardly be described as capitalism. Secondly, an accusation by a politician means little. Thirdly, even if we accept that it is true and that we can attribute this genocide to capitalism (none of which you have made even plausible), how many of those 100 million does that get you? Fourthly, it is rather curious that you choose a (supposed) genocide executed by government as your attack on capitalism. I would have hoped for an example of a society that embraced capitalism and where tens of millions of people starved as a result. That would be a strong argument. That is after all the primary argument for socialism: the poor will suffer under capitalism, and thrive under socialism. Yet reality continuously fails to comply with this theory. Venezuela is running another experiment right now to prove for the umpteenth time what we already know. Apparently the zoo animals have already been eaten by hungry citizens. You have also not pointed out what is ahistorical about my view, let alone provided evidence that it is in fact ahistorical.