[asdfjklasdfjkl]

There are more nuanced critiques of either of the predominant systems discussed in this comment section. If you want to throw unfair death totals for what are at best regimes loosely approximating their underlying communist or capitalist ideologies, you can just as easily claim capitalism kills tons. https://i.redd.it/h0l4hqcf5inz.jpg

but honestly, I don't think body counts are the right way to judge either. Makes for a great way to emotionally charge the conversation, though.

[wooter]

none of those things have to do with capitalism. those were all acts of government and the antithesis of free enterprise.

[frgtpsswrdlame]

Almost like how a totalitarian dictator killing his own people has nothing to do with communism?

[wooter]

scoreboard really. name a single capitalist totalitarian dictator? Capitalism implicitly does not incentivize centralization of power. Now name how many successful western countries haven't embraced capitalism as, at the very least, their main source of funds to experiment with.

[frgtpsswrdlame]

>name a single capitalist totalitarian dictator?

Pinochet.

>Now name how many successful western countries haven't embraced capitalism as, at the very least, their main source of funds to experiment with.

Almost all western countries are capitalist I believe? Usually I take western to mean (1) democratic (2) capitalist. Besides as I'm arguing elsewhere, the failure of many socialist states is due to US intervention. Cuba's Embargo is a great example, the coup that placed Pinochet in power is another. America hates socialism/communism so it constantly acts aggressively towards those states while helping capitalist states. It's tough to look at the scoreboard and judge when the ref is obviously biased.

[wooter]

> Pinochet.

So just because he instituted some free market policies, hes capitalist? In no way did any capitalist figurehead advocate any of his violence. Also, what was Pinochet's body count? many orders of magnitude less than just Mao right?

> Almost all western countries are capitalist I believe? Usually I take western to mean (1) democratic (2) capitalist.

You are stretching the word capitalist beyond any recognition. It simply does not describe a government embargo nor aggressive government actions by any definition.

[throwawayknecht]

> In no way did any capitalist figurehead advocate any of his violence.

You should really do some research before you make claims like this. One place to start would be Marvin Liebman and the American-Chilean Council, which planted pro-Chilean propaganda in several high-profile conservative press outlets.

[Arcaten]

In what way, shape, or form does slavery have nothing to do with capitalism?

The millions of American Indians that were murdered because they wouldn't give up their valuable land?

How is throwing away good food because no one pays for it, and thereby letting poor people starve, not capitalist? How is it the "antithesis of free enterprise"?

[wooter]

Thats a pretty shallow interpretation of history.

To the degree that they did trade peacefully (free enterprise), they flourished - thus the lesson of Thanksgiving. Not to mention they were fleeing religious persecution themselves in North America. Of course establishing private property in a new land was not without friction and abuse. However, the killing of Indians by the Union army were direct actions of Government - not the enlightenment principles of capitalism, free trade & movement, as expounded by the likes of Mises and Adam Smith.

and it was financed by European royalty in South America. How did that go?

The truth is there weren't many options. But I would attribute abuses by violent governments to government, not private enterprise.

[WaxProlix]

I have to believe this is a troll comment but maybe Poe's gotten the best of me again...