"You mean governments that wanted to..." /> "You mean governments that wanted to..." /> "You mean governments that wanted to..." /> "You mean governments that wanted to..." />
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
DonFerrari said:
Leadified said:

" That doesn't really make capitalism to be at risk." -> "You mean governments that wanted to keep their power gone and intervened???"
You just proved my point.

Revolution happens when society cannot take it anymore, violence becomes a viable solution. When you try to shove issues like inequality or exploitation under the rug like it's nothing, all it says to me is that capitalism can no longer solve these problems so their supporters choose to ignore them. 

I disagree with your premise given the evidence I've provided so I don't think we can go further than this.

I don't know how to put it simpler to you that government instilling fear because they want to keep their power is totally different than capitalism being at risk... the socialist countries fall by themselves and capitalism was thriving at the same time... so it's hard to say it was at risk.

Sure, the violence was so needed that they had to kill their own followers to keep their power... but that was the socialist countries.

You need to stop saying "No!" so much and brush up on your knowledge of contemporary history because it's clearly lacking. Capitalism is the system, which was challenged by Soviet socialism, one backed by the US and the other by the USSR. They fought in proxy wars to install their preferred systems and topple each other. Had the USSR won the Cold War, then American capitalism would have been history.

How is this so difficult for you to understand?

Last edited by Leadified - on 07 February 2018