To be fair, if one is a self-described "commie", there's only one possible interpretation. Maybe avoid associating yourself with genocidal regimes? Even as a joke (I sure hope it's a joke)? Maybe?
Communism isn't genocidal. You should read up on what it actually is instead of relying on pro-capitalism propoganda. "Somebody died because Stalin/Mao" holds no candle compared to capitalism's "somebody died because housing, hospitalizing, and feeding the poor wasn't profitable".
Ah the old "there were no poor people before capitalism" mistruth again. You might want to research what Mao did before defending it in any why.
But you're right, communism the idea is not genocidal, just all of its prominent leaders were. The fact that the ideology lends itself towards "there is only 1 truth" has nothing to do with that, I'm sure.
Rather than trying to argue capitalism vs communism I would like to point out that neither specifically calls for mass murder. Both to happen to be associated with plenty of it though.
For people thinking capitalism is completely clean please look up the Indonesian genocides. For people thinking communism is great, consider how mao and stalin could have been stopped by communism.
Definitely said nothing like that. In the US there are 6 unoccupied house for every homeless person. Somehow this is better because you found a way to decentralize the dictator and blame the victims?
You're free to have an opinion about which economic system is better. But the opinion that communism implies genocide and capitalism implies freedom is quite non-negotiably uneducated.
Your link makes no effort to suggest that capitalism is a positive force in reducing poverty or that communism is a negative force. In fact, it seems more likely you'd draw the opposite conclusion:
> Second, we can also see from this chart that despite remarkable progress, in some rich countries—notably the United States—a fraction of the population still lives in extreme poverty. This is the result of exceptionally high income inequality
The best conclusion I can draw here is that Western powers are rich because they imperialized other nations effectively and survived key historical wars. Africa is doing bad because they were heavily colonized and met the bad end of several wars. Communist nations failed to reach US levels of power because they imperialized less effectively than the US. No where in history or that article do you see "they became communist then became more impoverished"
The article even goes forth to mention poverty traps, a problem well known to critics of capitalism. A problem that socialism reduces and communism eliminates.
Again, you're free to pick capitalism as your ideal economic model, but you should at least start with factual information on the alternatives.
