Communism works in theory, not in practice…
I’m not sure if it even works in theory.
It doesn’t.
Thats why its a larf 
It doesn’t. My saying is “If your theory doesn’t work in practice, your theory is wrong” 
Dog bites man story. You said it yourself. She’s a professor.
Does libertarianism works in practice and where in the world can you show example of working libertarianism?
Hong Kong vs China
America vs Mexico
Western Europe vs Eastern Europe (although maybe not so much anymore)
Etc…
So USA, Hong-Kong, Western Europe are libertarians ideals? I don’t think so.
Is goverment bailing out failed market libertarian? Is wellfare state libertarian? Is monetary monopoly libertarian? Central banking? Etc …
All of the nations he stated were far more libertarian in nature than the antitheses of those nations. 3 might not be equal to 1 but it is far closer to 1 and than 9… And America was libertarian at the beggining of its history, and although this has been changing in recent years, alot of the more moderate libertarians are pro central banking
so the shirt on my back that might take part in a worthwhile trade to me someday in the future isn’t capital?
Ahh yes, those claims you here that are just so revolting you want to puncture your ear drums. One that kills me is “The New Deal fixed the depression caused by laissez-faire policies.”
I think this one causes internal bleeding, not sure.
You know, come to think of it, this would lead to a very interesting conclusion.
Capitalism, by this definition, excludes the poor from its numbers.
Therefore, socialism and communism (let’s combine both terms under the word “socialism” for now), being the antitheses, of capitalism would mean that it excluded everyone that capitalism included. Therefore its not socialism if you are fairly well off, wealthy, or rich (let us combine the terms within the term “wealthy”). Applying this logic would result in a wide variety of extremly strange conclusions, the most important of which would be that all of socialism’s most important figures would not actually be socialists, because all of them were at least fairly well off when they were in office, indeed anyone today who isn’t poor cannot take part in a socialist activity and cannot be a socialist, just as the poor person cannot be a capitalist. This would mean that everyone from Marx onward was not a socailist.
Indeed this would also mean that by definition all people in a socialist society would need to be poor in a socialist socierty in order for it to be socialist, however poor is a relative term, and if everyone were or relativly so, there could be no rich, nor poor, merly well off, but socialist activities are not socialist activities if the participants aren’t poor, and so by definition there would have to be people wealthier in the world in order for a socialist society to exist, and in comparison to these rich people everyone else must be poor.
Are there any flaws in this statment? Because if not this is possibly the greatest counter argument to the original statment ever.