Why don't you reply to the actual substance of my reply, penis breath.

You're responding to someone who literally created hundreds of puppet accounts on purpose, so he could flood debates with corporate fascist propaganda without anybody being able to stop him.

I have reason to believe you are the one with puppet accounts you delusional lunatic. I was downvoted in my own debates after banning you and the only account that was here to do it was "JamesDD". When you look at his waterfall it reads just like yours.

There are seven billion people on the planet today, compared to 1.6 billion in 1900.

LOL you did exactly what I said you would do. Pathetic. Pathetic and intellectually dishonest. You just came at it from an angle that attempts to frame me as the one not acknowledging the population increase, when in reality you are committing the same fallacy I predicted. You are citing the total number of people starving and pretending that has any relevance, when person for person there is far less poverty.

I think socialism has been thoroughly owned today. Privately owned I might add.

Shut the fuck up you retarded fucking ass wipe. I am going to steam press your nuts and keep them in my arts and crafts folder.

You expect me to take anything you say seriously after reading that? Get a life.

Capitalism has been here for hundreds of years and millions of people are still starving. What's your excuse for that?

Less people are starving thanks to capitalism. More people starve under socialism than any other ideology. Capitalism has created more abundance than ever before, and the only way you could deny it is by dishonestly citing the raw number of people in poverty without taking into account that the total population is way higher, which is exactly what you were about to do.

Show me an example of a capitalist country without exploitation.

"Exploitation" can be a very subjective term.

A completely classless society is obviously a very long term goal, so even if it is possible we wouldn't see it just spawn the second socialists take over a country. It could possibly take centuries to fully manifest.

Excuses. You sound like a sniveling little bitch ignoring the fact that millions die every time you people try to make things loving and equal and happy for everyone by centralizing all production and media in the hands of the all powerful state.

All that is being demonstrated is the flaws inherent in revolutionary/statist socialism.

So you're going to start an equal utopia by sprinkling fairy dust on the people who own their own things and wishing away their desire to keep them? That's not how it works, which is why you need the state to make the bad successful people give up what they earned and built.

Your fake quotes don't make me a hypocrite. They make you a liar.

It isn't fake, it's a re-iteration designed to emphasis how stupid and hypocritical you are.

Socialists want the precise opposite of economic hierarchy.

Then show me an example of socialism without hierarchy. Go ahead, I'll wait. Every socialist country is brutally hierarchical and authoritarian.

stupid, lazy, upper class morons like you who think the world owes you a living.

lol. So the stupid, lazy ones are the ones who go out and earn a living for themselves instead of bitching obaut how the system "is like totally against us man" on the internet. That's richer than every person you hate for being more successful than you combined.

It's "natural" that people with IQs of 160 and biceps the size of small elephants end up dying of starvation or dysentery in Uganda, or Rwanda, or Nigeria, because they don't have enough money to feed themselves.

People who are starving typically don't have IQs of 160 or biceps the size of elephants because it takes nutrients to maintain those things.

Bronto

I'm not whoever that is.

Capitalism is an economic pyramid system.

So is the socialist state. The difference is capitalism creates a natural hierarchy based on not being fat and lazy and stupid and socialism creates an artificial one based on everyone either being a slave or a part of the state.

The "wage" which workers earn is a tiny percentage of the value their work produces.

Prove it. And don't use some specific isolated example, you are claiming this is generally true of capitalism.

It proposes to give workers back 100 percent of the value their individual work produces.

Funny how that never happens. Instead socialist countries exploit the working class even more.

You sound like a bumbling autistic retard .