>>40
1. Yeah, but you said it had to be tiny and under developed. I gave a counter example of a huge higly developed society. And what i am really saying is that the idea of property is needed for capitalism, and this idea is not given by nature but by a certain culture at a certain point in time. Meaning that communism is possible in this world.
2. I am not claiming to know exactly what you need in specific terms, and you are an idiot to believe that i did. You are dodging the question again, but i take it as an admission of defeat.
3. Demands is not equal to needs. And wants are unlimited as you said. But needs are finite, and there is enough resources in the world to end starvation, homelessness, general sickness (meaning people dying for easili curable diseases), poverty. But your rebuttal to that is that the greedy poor starving sick children would just want more. Nice. My win.
4. Have never claimed different. Take reading courses.
5. capitalism is not an idea, its a mode of production. Read moar.
6. The specific factors leading to human death and suffering is arbitrary yes. But the importance of evaluating those factors is not. And the benchmarks were for capitalism, so i dont get how free markets would apply. Is many free markets a capitalism win or loss? Do you see the difference between your suggestion and the number of dead by starvation and exposure? I can explain more if you have a hard time grasoing the concepts. And yeah, just because stalinism is bad capitalism is not good. Read more logic. (And btw, more people starve in india, the world largest democracy, than in china, the world largest totalitarian state, go figure).