I think we are just having an academic debate over a finer detail, yes? It seems to me we are in agreement on most points. My point relates to figuring out how to keep despots from hijacking the reigns of power once they are placed in hands of kind hearted optimists.
Yes I believe so. Which despots are you referring to? Because for Iran, as you mentioned, it’s not just random despots seizing power. It’s despots backed by cia and bp. Sounds like there’s your issue right there. Capitalism breeds imperial type behavior. Capitalism is the problem with socialism.
Not just Iran either. Nearly every middle eastern country has had a right wing military dictatorship at some point, installed by the U.S. or Britain. Countries that wanted to nationalize their resources or move in a more socialist direction (Libya and Egypt come to mind) were targets of coup.
The common denominator is *most cases I would say in the United States. It’s not the random despots. It’s the U.S. purposefully installing puppet regimes all over the world.
Also, the U.S. does resort to armed invasion when they don’t get their way through “soft power”. See Iraq Syria and Afghanistan for examples of the U.S. “stabilizing” the region, aka absolutely destroying all semblances of society and creating massive refugee crises.
After the great famine of 58-62, China embraced capitalism as the more effective way to deliver food to where it is most needed (as opposed to central planning.) USSR and CCP technically are/were state-managed capitalisms. I would argue the US is broken because of Dodge v Ford.
CIA/BP op backed installing the shah in the 1950s, I'm talking about the late 70s revolution, which began as a communist intellectual revolution and was hijacked by islamist thugs.