Anonymous #2 22h

I would agree with you if there wasn’t a capitalist super power that, in order to stop “socialism” (which was just countries trying to nationalize their own business and protect the money of entire citizens), decided to instigate a coup in Honduras, Cuba, Nicaragua, Panama, Hawaii, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea, etc. throughout the last 60 years

10

Anonymous #3 17h

The USSR was doing the same thing though, should we just have let them expand their sphere of influence unchecked? Also this isn’t actually an argument against capitalism

1

Anonymous #5 16h

The founding fathers didn’t design capitalism, they just designed the American government

6

Anonymous #4 16h

I never knew that I always figured they did

1

Anonymous #5 16h

Capitalism will always result in corruption. The whole point is a competition based economy and in competition there are winners. The consolidation of capital to few companies in every industry was always going to be the end result

4

Anonymous #4 15h

It’s not supposed to be an argument against capitalism. It’s an argument that socialism isn’t the threat you think it is. If every socialist country is doomed to fail, why did we have to stick our noses in them? If they were always going to fall as capitalists always say, why did we need to do anything?

1

Anonymous OP 14h

The USSR was famously free from corruption

0

Anonymous #6 13h

One country being bad doesn’t mean another country is good? wtf is this logic

1

Anonymous #3 13h

Every system has corruption. It makes no sense to reject one system for a problem that exists in all of them. The question isn't whether a system has corruption, but how effectively it limits it. Socialist regimes have a much worse record on corruption than liberal economies.

0