NonCredibleDefense

The entire idea of attributing an economic system to death is ridiculous.

They're not, they're attributing a political system to death, because that political system enabled and perhaps rewarded those in power to do it.

Here's a Wikipedia article about it, which has plenty of sources and some criticism. There's no consensus on exact figures (which range from 10-20M all the way to 148M), but there does seem to be consensus that the number is high (definitely millions).

If you have a scholarly alternative to those mentioned in the article, I'd be interested in reviewing it, especially if it makes a strong case for Stalin and Mao not being responsible for tens of millions of deaths by starvation. But just know, once someone puts themselves in charge of coordination of production and distribution of food, I will hold them accountable when that goes wrong.

The capitalist system works around these issues by encouraging and rewarding over supply, since a famine in one area is an arbitrage opportunity in another. Communism, on the other hand, punishes over supply since that means workers aren't efficiently allocated. It also rewards hoarding because that means you're getting more than your fair share and is the closest thing to "profit" (and you can barter excess for other goods you want).

9 Million people a year from malnourishment now

And in most cases, the cause of that is corruption and authoritarianism. Western countries try to send aid to help solve hunger and malnourishment, but dictators take that aid so it doesn't reach the people, because hungry people don't have time to rise up.

Most of the countries with the worst malnutrition are in Africa, and largely in areas known for poor rule of law and high corruption. That said, aside from the early 2020s so far, hunger has been on a consistent downward trend. I couldn't find the source I saw earlier, but this one shows a general downward trend since 2000, and the other report I saw before showed a downward trend since 1900.

Under this system now that rules globally

There isn't a system that rules globally. Malnutrition tends to be much less in areas with freer markets and less repressive governments. The real enemy here is autocracy, the economic system isn't the interesting factor when it comes to things like access to basic necessities.

Why do you argue so hard against those people lol

I'm only arguing against authoritarianism, and that is what pure socialism tends to devolve into. I have no problem with food banks and other charitable endeavors, in fact I actively support that type of thing. But I draw the line at "just trust me bro" when it comes to putting control of an entire economic system into the hands of a political party. I just don't trust human nature that much.

The reason why the Cold War was happening at all was because the US shoved themselves into a role of preventing “communism,”

That's an unfair assessment. The USSR also placed itself into the role of defeating "capitalism" and intervened in a number of countries to encourage socialist/communist revolutions. The actual ideologies here aren't particularly important, what is important is who has the most influence in those regions. The US didn't particularly care what government was in power, provided it was more friendly to western countries than the USSR.

By the Cold War, the US was already more socialist than much of the world. We had just passed the New Deal, unions were quite common, and 34% of Americans were in a union in 1954, and we still have most of those institutions (though union membership fell to around 20% by the fall of the USSR and 10% today).

The opposition here wasn't ideological, that was just how it was sold (the whole "red scare"). The opposition to socialism was to prevent further expansion of influence by the USSR. If the opposition was purely on ideological lines, surely politicians would have eradicated socialist institutions like Social Security and Medicare, but they instead expanded them (source is about SS expansions).

Socialism isn’t bad. It’s what capitalists forced socialism to be in order to survive that’s bad.

Blame whatever you want, but the facts remain that socialist countries by and large have been bad for the people living under them, whereas capitalist countries with a mix of socialist institutions have been good for people living under them. Those are the facts available to me, and until I see evidence that pure socialism is actually a net positive, I'll continue to believe that it's not.

It also ignores all the harm done by capitalism

Most of those harms have little if anything to do with capitalism itself. Capitalism is only an economy policy, not a political ideology, whereas socialism covers both. Most of the evils "under capitalism" can largely be tied to authoritarianism of some variety, and to me that's the main issue w/ socialism as it tends to exist. The problems don't necessarily come from the economic system, they come from the political systems in place.

Lol reread your comment and tell me you aren’t at least slightly influenced by propaganda.

It's impossible to escape, and I imagine you are also quite influenced by propaganda. The best I can do is look for multiple sources for information and avoid the worst offenders.

You’re literally giving a pass, an asterix to something you just don’t wanna agree to.

No, I'm just saying the situation in Guatamala is completely different because they weren't even socialist, and the elected President was openly capitalist. Eisenhower was an idiot here and gave in to United Fruit Company.

has it really ever been actually tried since outside powers kneecap it at every turn?

The context in the past 100 years was the USSR, which was the main rival and enemy of the US, so it absolutely makes sense for the US to attempt to stop any expansion by the USSR, and vice versa. Most of the interventions by the US into countries going through a socialist revolution were actually proxy wars w/ the USSR, like Korea and Vietnam. I don't think it would particularly matter if the USSR was socialist/communist or fascist, the they would butt heads over any expansion. Both the US and the USSR wanted to be the top superpower, and that's what all the interventionism was about.

Look at socialist revolutions after the fall of the USSR, there are far fewer, and those that happen have little if any opposition by western powers. Why is that? The USSR doesn't exist, and China doesn't seem particularly interested in backing socialist/communist revolutions, so they're generally left to resolve themselves. One significant counter example is the revolution in Nepal, but China also opposed that regime change, so it has little to do with socialism and more to do with how friendly the new regime would be to our (or China's) interests.

how many died from the introduction of capitalism/destruction of imperial European powers?

The proper answer to this would have to be in percents, not absolute numbers, because populations at the time were much lower. But yeah, I don't have a good figure for this.

One especially tricky part of this is that casualties of capitalism are much harder to associate with any particular group because capitalism is largely decentralized, whereas socialism/communism tends to be centralized. A failure under socialism/communism is much easier to assign a cause to than a failure under capitalism. The clearest examples are slavery in the Americas, but that actually started under mercantilism and was quickly abolished in the northern colonies after getting independence (i.e. the areas with higher development).

That said, liberalism and capitalism together have done wonders to improve the lives of the average person. There's a good reason why China has pivoted from socialism/communism to capitalism in recent decades, and it's because it works. Socialism seems to work best when paired with a capitalist system, such as in most developed economies (i.e. a robust social safety net, support for unions, etc).