Yeah that's not what ad hominem means. I didn't attack you personally as a means to avoid addressing your argument. I called you a tool because you act like a tool and then I addressed your argument.
You're grasping at straws. Stop.
The fact that you've been using communism and socialism as synonyms when in reality they're two distinct ideologies. It really tips your hand and demonstrates that you're talking out of your ass.
Care to provide a quote or are you going to continue being as vague as possible?
I feel a great disturbance in the force. As if millions of scholars suddenly cried out in frustration and drank themselves into a stupor.
Shit, you're right. Trotsky's definitely the only reliable source when discussing facism, I'm such a fucking idiot.
No it's the old "I value my time and I'm not going to waste it on people who have demonstrated that they have no intention of reading anything of substance."
When you demonstrate no ability to make and defend a coherent argument, don't expect me or anyone else to take you seriously.
If you are as much of a well read intellectual as you claim, you should be able to succinctly explain to me why communism or socialism, take your pick, is objectively better than capitalism.
If I cared about downvotes I wouldn't be here.
Right. Which is why in the vast majority of your comments here, you discuss how you will be downvoted and don't want to explain yourself only to be downvoted.
Correct. However, once you have a basic understanding of socialism (which you clearly do not) you can look at studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of socialist policies in small scale (generally a few thousand people) experiments. If you don't even know the basics of socialism you won't know what you're looking at.
Assumptions, assumptions, and more assumptions. What's new?
I can show you the effectiveness of capitalism on a similar if not larger scale, so what? Is it my word against yours? The fact of the matter is, you cannot prove socialism is objectively better than capitalism. If this was the case, we wouldn't be having this argument, despite what the conspiracy theorist inside of you wants to say.
Like I said, until you assume a stance you can defend, you have no argument. You haven't had an argument throughout this entire exchange and, given your pigheadedness, you won't anytime in the near future.
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got more important things to do than argue with another internet pseudointellectual.