Question

you'll never impose that kind of rule without masses of dissenting people that you need to quietly kill getting in your way

What are you talking about? That's what tankies do.

not exactly. We don't silently let people die, we let them have a fighting chance for a start. Nice that communism has ceased to exist for the most part and that global conflict has been decreasing as a trend though there are still grand incidents of suffering still. Why are you all so afraid of answering my question? Do you really think the framework of order you all cherish can be implemented without the use of violence? really?

ALL OF THEM

Socialism and communism aim for the abolition of imposed rule. Capitalism is not some kind of natural default state.

Of course not, it's heavily implied that you meant innocent people.

The one where he talks about how communism is people self-organizing, not a dictatorial state-capitalist economy. In other words, all the ones you clearly didn't read.

How illiterate and brain-dead can you be? Alright, here's the spoonfed version of what communism actually is, liberal: it's direct democracy. It's when people self-organize their workplace along democratic lines and rationally negotiate with everyone else how to best meet needs. It is a stateless, classless society with an economy ran along the lines of "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs, whatever they may be".

Do you need proof that it works? Well, in historical order, here are some examples: Iroquois, Cossacks, pirates, anarchist Ukraine, anarchist Catalonia (heavily industrialized!), and Rojava (where the Kurds are fighting ISIS right now).

All the components (mutual aid, cooperative firms, direct democracy, etc) are known to work on their own in modern society, and there's no reason why they can't be put back together and expanded to solve automation, nationalism, and climate crises all in one broad stroke. Other than, of course, that the current system rests on guns, false laurels, and propaganda, not any real sort of legitimacy.

If you are so smart, then reading a few books on theory shouldn't take you so long. Look up "What is Property?" by Proudhon and these Marxist works: German Ideology, Capital: a Critique of Political Economy, The Communist Manifesto.

I answered your question. You are being disingenuous. Anarchists and similar libertarian socialists have never employed the same methodologies of Leninists and other state socialists. Their societies, however brief, have been freer than any capitalist or state socialist societies.
As to your second point, if you want to get to counting deaths, if we use the same standards for capitalism that are used against "communism", capitalism has killed far more people in the past 150 years.

It's a stuck-up liberal, they've never read anything on politics outside of grade school but think they know everything because they listen to John Oliver.

Just write a few paragraphs of refutation, it'll join us and start reading soon enough.

It's impossible to answer its questions without breaking down why they are retarded to begin with, and if a liberal doesn't want their mind changed, you ain't gonna force it on them.

I think that capitalism resembles a system that is more closely tailored to human nature than communism and socialism especially considering how many people there are today. What if I start breaking your "conventions" then and other people agree with me and start doing it too? Will you not impose some sort of rule upon me?
what are you on about. Just assume is the per usual distribution of deaths in a population when communism normatively takes over or some other authoritarian ideology.

I've read some of the Manifesto but I don't want to read your bullshit. I have better things to read and there is only so much time. How about you try your best to use your brain and condense something into an argument or response to my question instead of being a spineless shriveling slug?

HAHAHAHA, so they weren't so free in the end because their system got clapped and you WANT something like that that fails for you and posterity? Those numbers you are referring to in regards to deaths from diseases, lack of basic resources, and even other numbers on deaths from conflict have decreased in the last 150 years as well. There is good will in human kind and not everything is free and not everyone has time but in time im sure that these issues will be resolved by capitalism. Not going to take the bet that the systems you all purport to be morally superior that have never worked in the long run could possibly do the same job in the time that it will probably be done (alleviating human suffering)

See, this is what I mean by you being dishonest. First you criticize me when you think I support an authoritarian system. Then you criticize me for being 'too libertarian.' And there are many examples that persist. Rojava and Kerala on the level of nation-states, and certain federations of cooperatives.
And this is true under any system. Nazism, Bolshevism, and Fascism all increased the life span of their citizens and their wealth over time. Slaves in 1850 were living longer than slaves in 1750. What you pose as an argument for capitalism could be an argument for any other authoritarian system.
You're right. Not everything is free, and that's why those bosses and masters who don't do the work of their employees shouldn't be entitled to the fruits of their labor.
They haven't, and the capitalist trend is now running in the reverse of human development. Life expectancy in the United States has remained virtually stagnant for the past 40 years, declining even for some groups. Wealth of the present generation is a fraction of what it was two generations ago. Democratic functions are being removed as capitalists seek to maintain their position over the people.
Simply put, capitalism has reached the stage where it no longer requires democracy in even the superficial form. And rational working people are not going to stand for a system that is against our self-interest.

VERBIAGE! LILY TALK! BABY BOY BLUE BOO HOO!

In a communist society, you would be doing something for literally no reason, so I doubt it would even harm anything. You would be free to pursue capitalist economics, but there would be no motivation for anyone to join you.
We are not Stalinists. Not most of us, anyway, the authoritarian apologists have been derided by the far left for decades. But we aren't a safe space so there's no reason to ban them for their views. We usually refer to them as "tankies".

Okay, how about this: we would consider your entire conception of political economy to be fundamentally wrong and based solely on a pop culture analysis of the Cold War. Communism is a post-scarcity society in which the means of production are collectively owned, with classes, currency and the state being phased out due to lack of necessity. Even if you assume that countries like the USSR and Maoist China were trying to achieve this, it has little bearing on the ideological tenants of other communists and socialists. There is a reason this page exists: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Stalinist_left
Also, actually read the book itself, front to back, not random snippets taken out of context by people who think Marxism is a Satanic doomsday cult. Anarchist theory is also mostly left-wing to varying degrees, i.e. anarcho-communism, syndicalism, mutualism.

Radical democracy: let the body toll be chosen by a random number generator.

Fuck it if everyone else is too pussy then I'll answer. If we are guaranteed to have no socialism/communism if I say no then hell I would accept like 20% of the population maybe. If that sounds harsh to you, how many people will die if we do nothing and resources continue to run out, the climate is further destroyed, and industrial society is increasingly unstable?

This is a paradox that is a little complicated to point out without being accused of a tyrannical agenda, which is the main reason liberals are extremely hard to reason with, especially when they realize why it's paradoxical, since this almost always leads to them becoming lolberts instead, i.e. climate change don't real so it can't be used in an argument.

As many as it takes.
Quality > quantity, and the sooner we can stop wasting our finite resources on capitalist nonsense, the longer the planet will provide for us.

What if my capitalistic endeavour was to build and sell the most deadly weapons known to man?

300 gorillion.

That's a bit of a contrived point, I am talking about capitalism itself, not whatever commodity is being sold. WMDs would never need to exist in a communist society and would thus be destroyed.

just because they wouldn't need to exist doesn't mean that someone couldn't create them i secret.

the world needs order

fully automated luxury gay space android communism

100% death rate because we go full android

How? Resources are collectively owned, and even if he somehow manages to procure them without someone at least noticing they are gone and either build them on his own or convince his cohorts to remain secretive, they would still have to be willing to massacre millions of people on a whim, which incredibly few people are capable of doing for no good reason. And this is ignoring the endless practical issues here.

I don't exactly trust Big Brother to be in my best interest. Like above, you are assuming a perfect storm of character traits and sheer luck that defies probability.

So are you going to address any of my points or just leave with non-arguments?

If we do it right, the answer is zero. Zero people.

If counterrevolutionaries want to take up arms and try to stop us, that's their own fucking fault and they killed themselves.

You make a very compelling argument.