The Black Book of Capitalism

"mathematising" actually gave an example of communism, which he defended, as lenin's communism (which was basically the standard model of communism for those other dictators)
you're saying "communists" like "mao, stalin, etc" as if they weren't "communists", yet the OP of that other thread would have had to have thought of them as communists because they specifically rejected anarcho-communism to me in favour of marxist-leninism - he even said he'd be fine with an authoritarian leader so long as the revolution would happen (paraphrasing)

PS: the link with those figures isn't actually suggesting that it was *capitalism* that cuased deaths, you're saying it was the problems or actions of the respective governments of the relevant nations that caused the deaths. for instance, "belgian exploitation of the congo" - how is that capitalism killing people? that's kind of the opposite of capitalism killing people - coercion. capitalism is individual activity done *without* coercion.

Communism is by definition a stateless, classless, moneyless society with communal ownership of the means of production therefore it is categorically true that there has never been a communist society. Everything before that is a grey area and subject to individual interpretations. These individuals should be judged by their actions: nowhere does it say communism requires mass murder. They were acting in their own interests under the guise of communism.

With regards to your second point the logical progression of capitalism is colonialism and it is no coincidence slavery began at about the same time as capitalism.

This is because capitalists cannot stand the thought of working under a different system because it undermines their free market economy. This is obvious with any study of history: examples would include the assassination attempts on Fidel Castro and the attacks on Indonesia and Burkina Faso. Directly the result of capitalism.

marx said the path to communism was socialism. socialism, in his terms, was a dictatorship of the proletariat. a "dictatorship of the proletariat" is basically impossible though. you can't have a system where each and every worker controls the means of production. that way, nothing would possibly be done efficiently. that's the thing. that's why lenin started marxist-leninism. and I didn't say that communism required mass murder, but communism is very usually associated with food shortages, and famines...I mean, stalin sure *purged* a lot of people, but he also *starved* a lot of them as well. it's the same with mao, pol pot, the kim family, etc.

Factories would owned through participatory democracy like communes. The only reason you think it is impossible is because you have absorbed capitalist propaganda.

wtf no it isn't capitalism is parallel to liberalism! liberalism endorses capitalism like it endorses individual liberty and peace! to have domestic peace and a large absence of coercion, you need capitalism, because it's allowing individuals to associate with each other freely and without law/violence stopping them. the only thing that goes hand in hand with colonialism is authoritarianism because it is international authoritarianism! stop throwing lies all over the place
oh wow you haven't a clue
fidel castro had so many assassination attempts because if he conspired close enough with the soviets he could have basically had cuba be a patch of the soviet union right at america's door step! that's why the cuban missile crisis was such a "crisis"!