Communism in general is far worse than capitalism

Firstly I would like to add, that you must know very very little about the history of famines in the soviet union, even famines in the communist world. Firstly i will ask you, have you ever heard of the Holodomor? (http://en.wikipedia.org...) it was a mass famine that is estimated to have killed off somewhere in the region of 10 million people. I can also point you to a list of famines and mass starvation's in russia here (http://en.wikipedia.org...). The most major and deadly famines were as a result of the communist parties ideals. The collectivization of land meant that peasants no longer had a chance to competitively work to gain for themselves. People were essentially made serfs again, all that was changed was the name of their masters. As for War, i think this is funny, Marx claimed that communism or socialism could only truly come into existence through violent revolution. and every socialist or communist state had socialism or communism arise in it by force. Russia, China, North Korea, Eastern Europe, Cuba. In fact most of eastern Europe had communism and socialism forcibly established by the soviet union during and after WW2. Capitalism however does not promote violence, due to the simple fact that violence is not profitable for a business. Destruction is not productive. You will find that businesses almost always prefer to solve their disputes in a court room, rather than by violence. Because in a capitalist system you have an incentive to make your own life better as well as an ability to do so. As for fear, http://en.wikipedia.org... As for my statement, time and time again history has showed us that a people who want to climb out of the ditch of poverty are best off using capitalism to do so. here are some situations in which the people have done better after capitalism was introduced. " Among economists, the countries most famous for rapid economic growth are the East Asian "Gang of Four": Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan. Between 1960 and 2007, incomes in these countries grew on average by more than 5 percent each year. They have been joined recently by China, whos e extraordinary economic development has given it annual per capita growth over the same period of 6.2 percent, second only to Botswana, with 6.5 percent. This means that the average income in China was seventeen times larger in 2007 than in 1960. "http://williameasterly.files.wordpress.com... In this source it is suggested that china has grown massively from its previously communist days. Currently the Chinese, who have recently accepted some capitalism are experiencing some of the most rapid growth in the world.http://en.wikipedia.org...(latest_year)#Five_fastest_growing_in_each_region Russia, after it abondoned communism had a massive increase in GDP despite being relatively unstable for a period of 4 years. http://upload.wikimedia.org.... London in the early to mid 1800's had awful working conditions as well as widespread poverty. Yet by the end of the 1800's and early 1900's much of the poverty had stopped. Much of the original poverty was caused by a huge influx in workers from the countryside, of course with a capitalist system London was for a time unprepared for such an increase in population, but as employment grew and many people came to cater for this large group and people. In a perfect world, with no scarcity and perfect humans, anything would work. Socialism and communism failed because they ignored human nature as explained well here http://www.thefreemanonline.org.... No where in the definitions i viewed of socialism or communism mention freedom and equality. Of course if you have the ability to own your own land, you have the ability to develop that land in anyway you please. You have freedom in that you can choose what you wish to do with your own property. But in a socialist system, or even a communist system, private ownership is limited or banned altogether. If you live on land that is owned by someone else you have no ability to decide what happens on that land, there may be votes with the people who live on that land, in which case only the majorities decision will be enacted. You will still not have as much freedom as if it were to be your own land. As for equality, in a capitalist system all have the same ability to work their own way up in the world. Those with truly innovative ideas are rewarded by the market and become rich. In capitalism deals and actions can happen which are mutually beneficial, eg, I give you money to make my product. As for lower prices wealth as prosperity, you claim that monopolies are responsible for raising prices etc etc. However the very definition of a monopoly The exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service. Is exactly representative of what would happen in a socialist or communist state, the government in a socialist or communist state has complete ownership over the means of production and therefore has a complete monopoly over all means of production. Although in capitalist systems the freer and less government control there is the less likely it is for monopolies to form. This is due to Government closing of markets, in a very free capitalist society, government intervention would be small and therefore taxes would also be very low. This would mean that the cost of either setting up business in one place or moving business to another place would be very low as well, as there would be little or no import tax. This would mean that for monopolies to successfully survive they would need to buy up near endlessly expansive markets instead of the much smaller state and county sized ones that exist now. Look at iceland, it had a freemarket system and it is highly developed and enjoys many freedoms http://www.mapsofworld.com... Corporatism can only exist when government does intervene with private business, if a government refuses to ever intervene with the affairs of private business, then corporatism cannot exist. As for the "progressive era" it is known as a classic example by Austrian economists of where government spending and government control eventually led to a huge bust in the 1930's. Pure communism completely ignores incentive, in a capitalist system incentive is the driving force. Capitalist nations have always been more wealthy than communist or even socialist ones. Haitian refugees choose to flee to the free and capitalist america which is 500 miles away, even though the socialist state of Cuba is only 50 miles away. Every socialist or communist nation that exists today is home to many hardships and troubles. North Korea, can barely even keep its lights on at night, Cuba is struggling to produce goods for its populace. Ask yourself this, why has socialism failed in most regions where it was adopted, whereas capitalism and freetrade hasnt?