I'm atheist, but you were the one claiming he was socialist.

Caring about the poor, disabled and all else and giving yourself to that cause is called charity not socialism. Socialism is demanding that others do it, and they usually are the biggest hypocrites since they preach it but keep their richness to themselves.

And as far as I remember most of the powerfull, rich and billionaires on the end of ex-URSS had ties to the top brass and were involved in the black market allowed by those top brass to benefit themselves.

And I rather have Bill Gates making 100000x more than me and I still living plenty than have Boris earn 4x more than me and I starve, inequality isn't the real enemy as we both agreed and Chris try to deny.

And you put it very well that without the incentive to excell there is no progress. Capitalism is based not only in excell but also on making what the market needs and attending those demands earn you money, so basically most people that got rich (outside of corruption and crime) were providing value and improvement to the world and deserved their money.

Capitalism in 200 years improved standard of lifes uncomparably more than the 20000 years before it. The king of xix century lived worse than a poor people (that isn't starving) of today.

Yeah what you just said makes zero sense if the elite would be in charge of making up a system it would be complete free market capitalism with zero rules and regulations that way there is no limit on how much wealth they can accumulate or how much more they can earn compared to the rest of the population or how much they can screw over people that make a whole lot less then they do.

exactly the peasants that lived under the monarchies of the past (similar in my opinion to what communism really is code for) suffered for centuries with no hope of advancement till the era of the enlightenment came which put emphasis on the importance of the liberty of the individual and independence

the ancestors of the people of most of the western nations fought to give the people of western nations the chance to live outside of the oppressive rule of something like communism or feudalism, where people actually have a chance for improvement

and now many people for some reason(stupidity presumably) are ready to throw that away and become peasants again... its so bizarre to me that i just can't wrap my head around it

" it would be complete free market capitalism with zero rules and regulations that way there is no limit on how much wealth they can accumulate"

so people can challenge them through working hard?

and if its free market what is stopping the other individuals in the society from working hard and gaining their own piece of the wealth of the nation?

"that way there is no limit on how much wealth they can accumulate"

if the elite are the ones running the communist system which inevitably happens why would they limit themselves? does it not occur to you that someone has to be at the head of the communist system? why would that person put limitations on themself?

what really happens is that the limitations of the communist system all fall on the regular people of the society and they are used to funnel resources back to the elite, which is the reason for the communist system to start with... its like what happened under the monarchies of the past to the peasants

"how much they can screw over people that make a whole lot less then they do."

how can they screw over people under a free market where there are no restrictions? can you explain that?

I'm atheist, but you were the one claiming he was socialist.

Caring about the poor, disabled and all else and giving yourself to that cause is called charity not socialism. Socialism is demanding that others do it, and they usually are the biggest hypocrites since they preach it but keep their richness to themselves.

And as far as I remember most of the powerfull, rich and billionaires on the end of ex-URSS had ties to the top brass and were involved in the black market allowed by those top brass to benefit themselves.

And I rather have Bill Gates making 100000x more than me and I still living plenty than have Boris earn 4x more than me and I starve, inequality isn't the real enemy as we both agreed and Chris try to deny.

And you put it very well that without the incentive to excell there is no progress. Capitalism is based not only in excell but also on making what the market needs and attending those demands earn you money, so basically most people that got rich (outside of corruption and crime) were providing value and improvement to the world and deserved their money.

Capitalism in 200 years improved standard of lifes uncomparably more than the 20000 years before it. The king of xix century lived worse than a poor people (that isn't starving) of today.

" it would be complete free market capitalism with zero rules and regulations that way there is no limit on how much wealth they can accumulate"

so people can challenge them through working hard?

and if its free market what is stopping the other individuals in the society from working hard and gaining their own piece of the wealth of the nation?

"that way there is no limit on how much wealth they can accumulate"

if the elite are the ones running the communist system which inevitably happens why would they limit themselves? does it not occur to you that someone has to be at the head of the communist system? why would that person put limitations on themself?

what really happens is that the limitations of the communist system all fall on the regular people of the society and they are used to funnel resources back to the elite, which is the reason for the communist system to start with... its like what happened under the monarchies of the past to the peasants

"how much they can screw over people that make a whole lot less then they do."

how can they screw over people under a free market where there are no restrictions? can you explain that?

I guess you are  totally clueless when it comes to economics even with restrictiond poor people get screwed over by having to pay higher insterests on loans and other such thinks.  Without any restrictions the rates would be even higher for poor people.

" even with restrictiond poor people get screwed over by having to pay higher insterests on loans and other such thinks.  Without any restrictions the rates would be even higher for poor people."

under a free market if there are areas where a particular service is overpriced the likelihood is high that a competitor can arise and offer that service at a better price 

but lets leave that for a second - under a communist regime why do you assume that you won't be taxed or charged at higher rates? what is stopping those in charge from doing so? are you aware of the taxes the peasants of the past had to put up with?

what a silly argument to raise lol

i mean you said yourself that the communist regimes of the past had few rich people... why do you think that is? think about it lol

" even with restrictiond poor people get screwed over by having to pay higher insterests on loans and other such thinks.  Without any restrictions the rates would be even higher for poor people."

under a free market if there are areas where a particular service is overpriced the likelihood is high that a competitor can arise and offer that service at a better price 

but lets leave that for a second - under a communist regime why do you assume that you won't be taxed or charged at higher rates? what is stopping those in charge from doing so? are you aware of the taxes the peasants of the past had to put up with?

what a silly argument to raise lol

i mean you said yourself that the communist regimes of the past had few rich people... why do you think that is? think about it lol

Yeah, nope uncontrolled free market capitalism leads to monopolies which end up leading to higher prices and less choices.  I think you need to brush up on economics 101.

"uncontrolled free market capitalism leads to monopolies"

lol how? if everyone has the chance to compete on equal footing?

can you actually back up your assertion and explain how what you said is the case? or are you just repeating what someone told you and you don't really know why they said so?

and as i asked what is stopping the rulers under a communist system from raising taxes on the common people?