uh, what?

see, its fun not even to try to make points.

we already determined you had no interest in carrying on the conversation.

and you have two president, herbert hoover or fdr, which one caused the depression? oh, i'm sorry, the american revolution, distancing itself from the english monarchy, THAT is what caused the great depression? warshington? jefferson? adams? where do you place the blame? on the entirety of the economic system? then the american revolution, is indeed, the cause of the death of seven plus million people come the depression?

i'm confused. i at least relate my ridiculous arguments to history, you seem to make it up as you go, i call you on it with rhetoric and questions, and you ignore it as me.. what, not understanding how history works?

holy crap man, wtf

COMMUNISM DOESN'T KILL PEOPLE.

NEITHER DOES CAPITALISM.

WHEN PEOPLE GRANT GOVERNMENTS THE POWER TO RULE THEM, GOVERNMENTS KILL PEOPLE. JUST LOOK AT ALL THE EXAMPLES YOU TWO ARE TOSSING AT EACH OTHER TO TRY TO SHOW HOW HORRIBLE THE OTHER SIDE IS. THE COMMON THREAD IS NOT AN ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY. THE COMMON THREAD IS A PERSON OR GROUP OF PEOPLE WITH TOO MUCH POWER. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THIS WAY.

THIS IS WHY COMMUNISM (ON A LARGE SCALE) HAS NEVER WORKED AND NEVER CAN. COMMUNISM REQUIRES THAT THERE BE A PERSON OR GROUP OF PEOPLE WITH THE AUTHORITY TO RULE THE MASSES, IN ORDER TO ENSURE EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. PROBLEM IS, ONCE PEOPLE HAVE POWER, THEY TEND TO BECOME GREEDY AND CORRUPT.. THAT PESKY PART OF HUMAN NATURE THAT CAUSES US ALL TO LOOK OUT FOR OUR OWN SELF INTEREST FIRST INEVITABLY LEADS TO THE FAILURE OF ANY GOVERNING SYSTEM WHICH REQUIRES A PERSON OR GROUP TO HAVE ABSOLUTE POWER OVER OTHERS.

FREE MARKET CAPITALISM CAN AND HAS WORKED. IT IS JUST VERY RARELY ALLOWED TO FLOURISH FOR LONG, BEFORE POLITICIANS DECIDE TO TRY TO TAKE CONTROL, AND GAIN THEMSELVES SOME POWER. AND POLITICIANS ARE VERY SKILLED AT GETTING THE MASSES TO BUY INTO THE POLITICS OF ENVY AND GREED, OF US VS THEM (RICH VS POOR IN THIS CASE) AND OF FEAR (YOU NEED US TO PROTECT YOU!).

AND BLID, YOU COMPARED THE THEFT OF THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE'S ASSETS TO THE RICH IN CAPITALIST SYSTEMS... YOU DO REALIZE I'M SURE, THE HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO. IN THE CASE OF SOVIET RUSSIA, THOSE ASSETS WERE ALL TAKEN FROM THE PEOPLE BY FORCE BY AN ALL POWERFUL GOVERNMENT. IN A CAPITALIST SOCIETY, THE TRADE WHICH MAKES SOME PEOPLE RICH IS VOLUNTARY. NO ONE FORCES THE MIDDLE CLASS TO SPEND THEIR MONEY ON THE NEWEST SHINY OBJECT. NO ONE FORCES PEOPLE TO BUY PRODUCTS LIKE A FANCY CAR, OR A NEW COUCH, OR HEALTH INSU... OH WAIT.

I MISS CAPITALISM.

Egalitarianism never works, instead of raising everyone up to the highest common level, it reduces everyone to the lowest common denominator.

The rationale behind this type of governmental system is that anyone who is exceptional, will not perform up to their capabilities and create, and or do, something of great import or achievement. And why should they since they will only get the same benefit as someone who wants to sit on their ass and do nothing, yet have those needs met by the people in charge of distributing the "payment".

Thus, the incentive to excel is not there, and if it is, it is never rewarded, thus, everyone languishes under the the lowest possible existance.

I would much rather live in a meritocracy rather than a democracy, or a dictatorship, no matter how benevolent.