I'm fine with death count as capitalism is better than communism or the second-place winner of the genocide Olympics fascism.

yeah i don't think so

liberalism and capitalism beats both in death count

british empire alone would beat both

i think even just british india alone would beat both

https://youtu.be/4krzVkaViMs

This reminds me of people in Baltimore

"I'm rebelling against the patriarchy! Let's burn down OUR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD!"

Not sure if the British Empire qualifies as their major economic projects were state-run companies (the East India etc,) That's how they get to tortured logic like calling **King** Leopold's adventures in Congo 'Capitalism'.

It all depends on how you count it, If you lean to Communism you can count that Capitalism has killed more, Just look at all the people who died from illness despite cures being made due to wealth inequality under Capitalism

Plus all wars that were fought over economic interests

I would agree with you that adherence to communism is indicative of a basic inability to do math.....

Capitalism vs Communism debates are like “what would happen if Germany won ww2” or “AK vs AR” debates

yeah of course, but by this metric i'm counting anyone who died in a famine under a capitalist regime as part of capitalism's death toll for example

since that is the standard applied to communism

Either a classic or a dead horse depending on the person

and by that standard capitalism would beat communism and national socialism put together in the 21st century alone

Except the deaths under Capitalism happen over a much longer time span in many more places, because Capitalism is an actual working system

AK vs AR is a debate? I mean the sprawl on 7.62x39 alone......

And this is exactly why i try to ignore death counts when looking at a philosophy

communism has lasted for about a century

i dunno if "death counts" should be ignored entirely but the vast majority of examples where they're brought up are done so in a manner that is retarded in one way or the other

I would also agree that adhering to communism requires a willing ignorance to death and human suffering. See we have a lot of common ground here.....

The point, though, is that Communism kills people much more quickly and has much less benefit than Capitalism

Modern Communism has made a lot of adjustments so it's arguable if they can be considered the same philosophy as the one that killed people

i've seen little evidence to suggest it "kills people much more quickly" whatever that means

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJQSuUZdcV4&t=4106s

Just look at this debate for instance and you can see that the sane modern communists do not resemble the old ones

Sure it could be argued that a new version of homeopath *could* cure cancer.

south korea and indonesia seemed pretty capable of "killing people quickly"

@The Electric Lizard so are you saying "that wasn't real Communism?"

Well according to Marx is wasn't really

Please

Marx believed in stage theory and technically speaking they never reached the stage of 'pure communism'

"Real Communism hasn't been tried before!"

Trust me, guise

Although the Soviet Union didn't even adhere to his philosophy though

and really i think that given any honest assessment abraham lincoln was probably responsible for a larger proportion of american deaths than stalin was soviet deaths

Marx would have never believed that Communism would be possible in the 1900's

Horseshit. According to Marx it's a process and socialism is a stage on the way to communism. Thus every historical notrealcommunism(tm) is in fact an attempted communism.

in a much shorter period of time at that