Simple, deaths are still lower then they'd otherwise be under anything other then a democratic system (which is pretty much never what they had before hand). It's not perfect, and far from idea, but then so was Iraq after the US invasion, doesn't change the fact that it's better then the alternative.trunkage said:Since we are going whole hog on oversimplification of the issue - why do you think mass starvation under social system is better than capitalism which severely underplays for recourse by setting up dictators to kill the populace or force them into labour. Oh and there's lots of starvation too.Zontar said:Alright then moving back to the topic, why do you think mass starvation under a socialist system is better then there being too many people who are overweight?erttheking said:Nice try to deflect. And the answer is, not as many as you think. But you weren't talking about that so let's stay on topic.
When comparing capitalism to socialism, there's really no argument to be made at this point other then at most an 80/20 mix if you really want to push the red, because with how many times its been tried and how horribly its gone 100% of the time, the idea that socialism as anything more then a peripheral to a capitalism system can work is flat out religion at this point. It's the young earth creationism of political science.