Could you explain why it was supposed to be funny?  I don't see what the joke is in you saying "I dont understand that word". 

It seems pretty foolish to paint all unions with the same brush.  They can run on good ideals (they started that way), but none today hold those same ideals?  You can't just throw that out there without explaining how that would be true.  Why would unions universally transition from trying to help people to being just after the money? 

And, looking at the history of the labor movement, how do you explain the correlation of "better wages and benefits followed unionization"? 

So we have several centuries atributed to capitalism in the death count on the whole world versus some decades of direct famine death and execution on socialism and you want to use the same balance?

Your dose of perspective isn't even a serious study.

But let's just calculate all deaths occured in capitalist countries as deaths caused by capitalism, sure.

For you to suppose that I didn't know it so you had to be a little condescendent explaining.

It isn't painting all with the same brush, is saying that one degree or another group leaders try more to get benefits to themselves than to benefit others. Is all socialists evil? No, but all that arose to absolute power are. They start asking for equal rights and better payment and end as kings.

I explain that quality of life followed industrialization and better wages followed more value (and wealth) being created. You can't share what you don't have.

I used the whole world for the case of Capitalism's death toll?  Read my first paragraph again.  The US alone more than doubled the world's death toll for "Socialism".  It also managed to surpass "Socialism's" death toll in less than half the time.  The first link also illustrates that it only takes less than six years for Capitalism in the modern world to systemically cause more deaths than "Socialism" has in its totality--and that's only looking at systemic causes of death!

The second link is the big picture, comparing all the world's capitalism-induced deaths vs "Socialism's".  (Socialism is in brackets because it is Communism that takes the Credit for 100M deaths, not Socialism).

Your cognitive dissonance is showing.

My apologies

/Close_Thread

1.  So you're saying "they are all greedy and selfish, but not to the exact same degree".  That's not exactly refuting my point.  By now it seems to me the basis for your position is "power corrupts", which could easily be applied to the corporations you seem to claim the unions are victimizing, or the government, or anyone. 

2.  Decent wages followed industrialization at quite a distance, coincidentally right when unionization gained steam?  The same happened with society addressing horrible work conditions, wage slavery, et cetera? 

 So apparently Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, the Ottoman Empire and all particpating countries of both world wars were all captialist countries that at the same time fought against the capitalist system and the main proponents of capitalism, go figure. I'm almost suprised that the Soviet Union wasn't included as a "capitalist" country. It's rather ironic that Maoists out of all people trying to tell others how evil capitalism is because how many people they claim it killed.

There is some amazing display of ignorance in those links, such as portraying the Arab Slave Trade as capitalism's fault, when capitalism didn't even exist yet, instead they were fedual and mercantillist socities. Capitalism appeared as a response to the latter one.

All these body counts for socialism and captialism serve no real purpose but to fuel internet arguments. If you think socialism is the way to go, all power to you, you can believe in whatever you want but you can do better than the links you just posted.

I guess you missed the very first paragraph as well.  give it another read.  when the US alone more than doubles Communism's death toll under even some pretty narrow parameters, using that 100M figure turns out to be disastrously self-defeating.  

You might want to give mine another read too. But if you're not going to address my post then don't bother replying.

Took the words right out of my mouth.  That first link was merely sourcing the quote, the second sourcing my claim that there are estimates reaching 1.6 Billion.  you didn't refute my claim that higher estimates existed, nor did you even try to refute the most conservative of estimates.  So my initial claim went unchallenged and your little essay tried to red herring the goalposts of an estimate that needn't exist at all for my initial claim to remain true.

As you had nothing to add despite a handy little arrow to my actual point, I will abide your request and not bother replying to you anymore.  Bye!

Bye!