Well of course, in practice you don't have the CIA couping countries because they became capitalist. Unfortunately for Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Honduras, Guate

Well of course, in practice you don't have the CIA couping countries because they became capitalist. Unfortunately for Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Uruguay, Paraguay, Nicaragua, Panama (formed by the US for obvious interests in the region), Cuba, Peru, etc. if you want to democratically elect someone who isn't super capitalist your country gets invaded / blockaded / sanctioned. In the "real world", it's better to disappear a few ten thousand non-US citizens than it is to have a visible competing hegemony. The only countries to survive that pressure (China, DPRK) have only done so because of nuclear armaments which the US (the only country to nuke a city, let alone two) opposes. Are you sure you know what they achieved? Or are you just repeating the same tired history that was written by the victors of the Cold War, who only had to destabilize the entire middle east by funding the Mujahideen in order to collapse the USSR? Because I look at lifespan and infant mortalities in Cuba, a tiny country not even a fraction of the US in size or wealth, and they're doing better than the US! In most metrics, the US is near dead last. Why do we pretend like our system works the best? You can say most stable, I'd say the largest standing army in the history of the world is to blame there. Having an economic crisis every decade or so doesn't seem like the system is working. Other "capitalist" countries doing well, like Germany, were similarly colonial powers that got all the "capital" to invest by yoinking it from slaves they worked all over the globe. The value of silver and gold extracted from Latin America was worth more than all existing capital expenditures in Western Europe up until that point. 8 million natives died in Potosí alone extracting that wealth. Did the system work for them?