[sQL_inject]

"The main responsibility of every Soviet citizen was to facilitate the arrival of Communism, where people would contribute to society according to their abilities, and receive from society according to their needs -- has there ever been a nobler sounding goal? And yet historians cannot agree on an estimate of many millions of people were starved to death, tortured to death, or worked to death, all in the name of that goal."

[PickledHotdog]

And yet millions of people starve, are tortured and are worked to death in the name of Capitalism. How many die or are made destitute due to lack of affordable healthcare in the US alone?

Not to mention the trillions of dollars (and lives) given up in the pursuit of halting what we're told is a fragile, prone-to-collapse form of government for a hundred years now.

Strange that.

[robocat]

> How many die or are made destitute due to lack of affordable healthcare

Healthcare costs are unlimited, and healthcare doesn't solve death.

An equivalent non-partisan question would be "how many people die from lack of exercise"?

[sQL_inject]

I'm not sure where or by whom you you were told it's a fragile, prone-to-collapse form of government, but I wasn't. Communism has a stranglehold on the societies it spawns within because the elite keep it that way.

Show me a country that espouses true Communist principles and I'll show you ten successful Capitalist ones. Don't confuse corporatism with capitalism, the latter which is the free exchange of ideas and goods mutually beneficial to both parties in an open market.

The US's enemies keep Cuba on life support for one reason.

Work a day in the gulag for your pithy apple ration and you'll be begging to sit in an air conditioned office and choose from ten apple varieties at different prices at your local Corporate Grocer.

[mindslight]

> I'll show you ten successful Capitalist ones

Could you please list these ten countries even if I cannot show you a country that espouses true Communist principles?

Please do keep in mind though:

> Don't confuse corporatism with capitalism, the latter which is the free exchange of ideas and goods mutually beneficial to both parties in an open market.

Directly stated: the problem I see is that term Capitalism is basically used as a Motte and Bailey. It seems to be the least worst option, and it certainly has benefited us greatly. But that doesn't mean it should escape criticism - especially as it lists further and further into what you're calling "corporatism"