The point of all this is that in spite of the disanalogy - nobody here is suggesting Bolshevism as an alternative to liberalism, so your comparison is misplaced - the Soviet Union comparisons don't do the work you want them to. In spite of the lack of abundant natural resources in controlled territories, or the colonies controlled and exploited by Western powers, the Soviet Union transformed itself from a decrepit feudal economy into a world superpower within a single generation. In addition to points already raised above, that doesn't account for Western GDP growth that was gleaned from colonialism and foreign wars, or from the growth that resulted from Keynesian economics (state planning). The old "taking care of other people is Soviet Communism, and Communism is bad" trope is very old hat these days. The issues aren't as simple and the comparisons aren't so direct.

300x is hyperbole, but 18x is not: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/a-high-price-for-healthy-food/ The comment you replied to is basically right. Eating healthy food is a privilege in this country, and it's a privilege that millions of people don't have.

I don't like living in a country where privileged people (if you are reading this, that almost surely includes you) think that obesity is the big problem for the truly impoverished and not the lack of access to reasonable health care, transportation, and education (among many other things) that are all REQUIRED for meaningful participation in this society. When you set the bar at Roman Gaul it's easy to pat yourself on the back for the catastrophic results of our economic system, but for anyone who thinks citizens should be entitled to livable conditions and meaningful social/economic/political participation, what we have is an abject failure.

Yes, because everyone in the Soviet Union was rich before the Communists, right?