i dont mean 2 play devil's advocate, but let stop blaming ideologies and start blaming da scumbags in charge who twist da ideology to fit their own personal agendas

blame lenin/stalin/mao/pol pot, not socialism/communism
blame hitler, not national socialism

and ya u can say tht the ideologies paved da way for tht kind of bad shit to happen, but it doesnt mean da ideology is inherently responsible

u get some1 GOOD in charge who isnt a power-crazed despot and then let see wat happen...

Edited 6/22/2016 03:20:33

+1

Wrong. Socialism has killed 80 million.

Actually, the figure is well over 100 million, if not "hundreds of million" as I said (http://www.scottmanning.com/content/communist-body-count/).

Yes and the innocent Capitalists haven't shed any blood, have they? Karl you know better than any that Capitalsim is disgusting.

It doesn't compare. The 150 million figure is only domestic deaths caused by horrible governance, and doesn't include wartime deaths. And by comparison, approximately 0 americans starve to death each year, and obesity is a far greater problem here (yes, that's how much food we have...).

Why do you all feed the troll?

Who is Imperator even talking to? Also, that's not really a good way to measure goodness of a system - just by how many they've killed. Maybe a better way would be how many to population at last year ratio, and I definitely think capitalism (whatever that is) can easily compete, especially in the closer years.

Edited 6/22/2016 03:23:43

my statement was more of a blanket statement to any1 who ever blames an ideology for a leader who commits atrocities while parading under da banner of said ideology

I don't even know, Like somehow I'm talking to leif erickson?

This doesn't make much sense...

Imperator its 180 mil

^ accurate picture of karl

Can a person be a "radical traditionalist"? Seems like an oxymoron to me.

you're an illiterate then.

Radical: very new and different from what is traditional or ordinary.

Traditional: A way of thinking, behaving, or doing something that has been used by the people in a particular group, family, society, etc., for a long time.

That's from Merriam-webster's:-)

Hey look more Authoricucks!

Not the only definition of radical.

''(especially of change or action) relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough.''

Edited 6/22/2016 04:20:58

Socialism works in small quantities, for example : Denmark. But for Russia it doesn't work, in fact it's a catastrophe.

That I can agree with Leif on.

It seems to be easier for smaller nations to provide benefits like welfare, universal healthcare, state college education...

In the US, since there are so many people, it would be a massive burden on the government.

Also, if this is the far right thread, I'd expect to see some Corporatism here.

I like how nobody has bothered to respond to the far right thread now that a Jew's on it.

Oy Vey!

No. Since Karl's here, I expected him or you to say something to counter me, especially since I'm not on the far-right.

However, I did not mean it in that way.

Socialism works in small quantities, for example : Denmark. But for Russia it doesn't work, in fact it's a catastrophe.

Denmark is a capitalist country, not a socialist one.

Also, even if denmark were somehow socialist it wouldn't matter. If a system is beneficial to 0.0% of the worlds population while to the other 100% it makes them starve to death, then it is a horrible system, not a good one.