Mafia is capitalist....so ultimate power in the hands of one person, who benefits most by controlling individual small business and taking much of their profit by the use of extortion, violence, threats and murder is how you believe capitalism works....no, sorry...and being on the side of "Freedom" does not make one a capitalist. If that is the case Osama Bin Laden was also a capitalist since prior to his rocketing to the top of the most wanted terrorist list, he fought the Russians, on the side of the US, in Afghanistan. And don't forget, the Russians and Chinese also fought on the side of "Freedom" in World War 2.
You also appear to be saying the only requirement to me capitalist is to be non-communist.....so by that definition socialists, dictatorships, Unitary State, Federations, Confederations, Oligarchies, Autocracies, Monarchies, Anarchism, Totalitarianism and the occasional Warlord are all practicing capitalism if they are not communist......
Sorry, no, the mafia is not practicing capitalism
Capitalism is an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. (Mafia nor Mongols fit the definition)
A Capitalist is a person who uses money to invest in trade and industry for profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism. and/or a person practicing, supporting, or based on the principles of capitalism. (Mafia, nor Mongols fit the definition)
I'm just using the same standards which have been put forth and used by capitalist ideologues and elements of extreme anti-communism which have become part and parcel of America's political culture (of which organized crime has been integral part, both in terms of political/economic influence and its celebrated role in popular culture).
Keep in mind that the general context here is "guilt by association." The argument commonly put forth by capitalist ideologues (as a way of arguing against just about anything that might be beneficial to the lower classes) is that "it's socialism, therefore communism, and therefore will lead to a system like the USSR, NK, PRC, etc." In order to answer that argument, it must be done within the same context, form, and framework.
In other words, if you're going to associate communism with the worst crimes against humanity, then I would expect a certain amount of consistency and fairness in looking at the larger picture.
Growing up during the Cold War, the world was divided into two parts: The Free World and The Communist World. By that standard, anything that was not explicitly "Communist" would presumably be considered "Free" and therefore Capitalist (or at least sympathetic to capitalist interests). It even has religious and spiritual significance, as the West was essentially calling for a kind of "holy war" of Christian "freedom" versus the "godless communists." Reagan called them the "evil empire" while referring to America as the "shining city on the hill."
The same basic line of argumentation has continued all along. It involves a lot of moral relativism and a great deal of statistical melodrama about body counts. It's an attempt at an appeal to emotion. It has very little do with definitions or theoretical abstractions about what "system" is better. Save your definitions of "capitalism" and "capitalist" for economics class. This is a discussion about politics.
To me, I think it's a red herring to focus on body counts, which is what I was attempting to demonstrate with the list I posted above.
The main question to consider regarding which system is better is to look at the big picture of individual countries as a whole, comparing them to what life was like before communism and whether life improved for the common citizen under the communist regime. That's the only real comparison of any value in any honest discussion of "capitalism vs. communism."
The fact is, communism has improved the standard of living in the countries where it was adopted -
when comparing it to the regime which existed prior to communism. China was better off under Mao than under Chiang Kai Shek. Russia was better off under Stalin than under Tsar Nicholas II.
As a species, humans are violent killers - mainly of each other. On the whole, governments are not moral institutions, and even religious bodies have tainted their own reputations and undermined their own ability to be moral guardians. Politics, governments, and businesses are rife with corrupt, amoral people, so all this moral relativism is rather silly. The only question of any relevance is "who makes the country (as a whole) better?"
That's not to say that communists didn't have their share of problems, but we also have to look at the serious declines we've seen here in America as a result of capitalism, particularly the Reaganite "mobster" version of it that we've been operating under these past decades. America has gone downhill significantly - I've seen it over the course of my lifetime. That's because we've allowed capitalist leeches to run roughshod over our economy and political system - something that will definitely have consequences, some of which we're starting to see already.
So, just as what happened in Russia and China, I believe communism can make America better off than we are now. I believe it will bring about a sense of brotherhood and unity among all Americans - something we so badly need at this time.
