>>32906266>Are you implying the global tendency is not capitalist?1.Define capitalist at this point because you faggots abuse it as much as socialism.
2. Even if it were it would be disingenuous as liberalism is generally opposed to the amount of intervention needed to fix this in an manner that would satisfy you.
but strictly speaking no, from a capitalist point of view, much of the west is increasingly becoming socialized, bourgeoisie socialism and reactionary socialism may not appeal to you but it failed to appeal to me as a capitalist. of course and the largest world power on the rise is china.
A Neo-fuedal warlord state can hardly be considered a liberal market, and a failed state will be as bad at maintaining the lives of it's citizens no matter what the economic system they follow.
>afghanistanfollowing the soviet invasion and the imperialistic tactics that would install ethnic minorities in power at the expense of the majority population.
>namthat was the french actually. the Americans supported nationalist elements during that conflict (as well as the french albeit begrudgingly) and following that tried to back the anti communist forces generally.
>sweat shopsLocated largely in communist Asia.
>all those examplesYes, but what you ignore in this is the soviet active measures in those regions as well. you can talk about the Shah but you ignore the PKK and other activities (even the shah to my knowledge was a British colonial issue).
Bolsheviks supporting and subverting nationalist movements, it was a cold war after all.
The result however is a bunch of fucking devastated countries unable to support their populations.
>Ok lib, I suppose Adam Smith is now "le tyrant" now. I'm sorry you double nigger, did i not fucking see stalin ball licking up in this thread.
I don't think dear old Adam would be on board for people getting beaten for engaging "liberal" jobs.
Going to enjoy your social parasite ass getting shoved into the factory
