>>52
Yes, it has to be tiny and have a low standard of living. If you measure standard of living exclusively in terms of food and shelter, maybe they had a standard of living. Indian standards of living were low enough that they could sustain it with communism.
"I am not claiming to know exactly what you need in specific terms"
"needs are finite"
If you don't know what my needs are, you cannot know that they are finite. You can guess at what is required to keep me alive (although at the standard of living where I am barely kept alive I would rather die, and thus my wants are less than what you believe they are). You cannot know what my wants are except by my choices. If you take away my choices, you cannot know what my wants are.
When you say "U said: Profit must money u idiot! No U." I have to believe YOU are the one that should be taking reading courses, dumbass.
Capitalism is not just a means of production. It's an idea also. Big arguement over meaning of capitalism, etc.
Capitalism = free markets and private property. You have to have both to have capitalism. The capitalist method of production is corollary to Capitalism.
Number dead by starvation and exposure is not a failure of capitalism. It would be a failure of socialism because socialism assumes collectivism, but it's not a failure of capitalism because capitalism is individualist.
Democracy != Capitalism. And I think India has a higher death rate because it has a higher birthrate, because china has caps on how many kids you can have. That example sucks ass.