6 ms·

> Communism and its associated pairings have killed far more than capitalism ever will. Ever will? The "capitalists" have already killed far more. Did communis

> Communism and its associated pairings have killed far more than capitalism ever will. Ever will? The "capitalists" have already killed far more. Did communists wipe out a continent full of native americans? Did communists killed more people than the Nazi germany, the US, british empire, chinese empire, japanese, etc in ww2? Did communists kill more people during both the vietnam wars? > Communism only ever exists when paired with an authoritarian government and cannot exist without one. Capitalism can (and does) exist without an authoritarian government. Fine, that's an actual argument that can be discussed. But why lie outright about reality. But pretty sure the natives would have loved to live under their own authoritarian government rather than being wiped out by the capitalist paradise. > There is a reason why the only people that defend communism have never lived under it. Must be why you are so good at lying. Because you grew up under communism?

MiiMe19 11mo ago
Capitalism did not kill the natives, the colonial governments and other European governments did. Communism implies evil/bad/death, but capitalism does not. And even then, the "system" in place at the time was mercantilism, not capitalism. For your last argument, you do not need to be Gordon Ramsay to know when something tastes bad. Once again, growing up under communism implies with 99% certainty that you do not want communism. It is an implication, not a bi-implication.
- hearsathought 11mo ago
  > Capitalism did not kill the natives, the colonial governments and other European governments did Then neither did communism. The governments did. > And even then, the "system" in place at the time was mercantilism, not capitalism. Sure. Just like the soviet union, china, north korea, etc are not true communists. Idiots on both sides always make the same excuses. > Once again, growing up under communism implies with 99% certainty that you do not want communism. If that were the case, a certain percentage of the world wouldn't have had to spent trillions to undermine and overthrow communism. > It is an implication, not a bi-implication. Morons on both sides love to throw around logic terms they don't understand to buttress their shitty argument. That and silly statistics. 99% certainty. Good one.
  - MiiMe19 11mo ago
    Well capitalism does not always mean bad, but communism does. Therefore, one is objectively worse than the other.
- zoolily 11mo ago
  Corporate capitalism largely started colonization. Most of the English-speaking colonization of America was started by companies like the Virginia Company, the Massachusetts Bay Company, etc. Most of India was conquered by the British East India company before it turned over its holdings to the British government. The Congo Free State was the personal property of the King of Belgium, not part of or governed by Belgium, for the exploitation of companies he had interests in.

MiiMe19 11mo ago

Capitalism did not kill the natives, the colonial governments and other European governments did. Communism implies evil/bad/death, but capitalism does not. And even then, the "system" in place at the time was mercantilism, not capitalism. For your last argument, you do not need to be Gordon Ramsay to know when something tastes bad. Once again, growing up under communism implies with 99% certainty that you do not want communism. It is an implication, not a bi-implication.

hearsathought 11mo ago
> Capitalism did not kill the natives, the colonial governments and other European governments did Then neither did communism. The governments did. > And even then, the "system" in place at the time was mercantilism, not capitalism. Sure. Just like the soviet union, china, north korea, etc are not true communists. Idiots on both sides always make the same excuses. > Once again, growing up under communism implies with 99% certainty that you do not want communism. If that were the case, a certain percentage of the world wouldn't have had to spent trillions to undermine and overthrow communism. > It is an implication, not a bi-implication. Morons on both sides love to throw around logic terms they don't understand to buttress their shitty argument. That and silly statistics. 99% certainty. Good one.
- MiiMe19 11mo ago
  Well capitalism does not always mean bad, but communism does. Therefore, one is objectively worse than the other.
zoolily 11mo ago
Corporate capitalism largely started colonization. Most of the English-speaking colonization of America was started by companies like the Virginia Company, the Massachusetts Bay Company, etc. Most of India was conquered by the British East India company before it turned over its holdings to the British government. The Congo Free State was the personal property of the King of Belgium, not part of or governed by Belgium, for the exploitation of companies he had interests in.