you're right, ridiculous. It was all Stalin's fault for implementing the deceitful capitalist-roader idea of Socialism in One Country and turning the USSR into a conventional state actor.
If only Trotsky had been in charge and actively interfered in border states to export the revolution, then we"d really have seen enlightened Socialist foreign policy.
Interfering with weaker neighbors isn't related to socialism or capitalism, that's just something great powers and regional powers do
see: Prague Spring, Hungary 56, East Germany, Afghanistan, Angola, Vietnam, Cambodia
But that doesn't really weaken the 'how would new ideologies fare if old ideologies did not attempt to immediately destroy them due to those who are entrenched in power in the old ideology' argument.
Yes, Stalin was clearly one of the worst men in history, but, perhaps if the west had been tolerant of new ideas and had been happy to see Russia experimenting with a new way of maximizing production then Russians wouldn't have been so happy to vest all state power in the hands of an abusive strongman and so on. Its a chicken and egg thing which means that what we really learn from History is that new ideas struggle to survive in the shadow of the old. This doesn't exclude the fact that they could have been inherantly good, but it means our experiments are biased. Socialist countries have always come under attack from established capitalist ones, and you can certainly create a relationship to show that the better a states relationships with its neighbors have been, the more succesfully it has been able to implement socialist policies. Does history ACTUALLY show that socialism requires the support of the global community to thrive?
Interfering with weaker neighbors isn't related to socialism or capitalism, that's just something great powers and regional powers do
see: Prague Spring, Hungary 56, East Germany, Afghanistan, Angola, Vietnam, Cambodia
Are we trying here to argue that American foreign policy doesn't have a long track record of overthrowing and undermining governments specifically on the basis of being insufficiently friendly to American capital?
+1
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Interfering with weaker neighbors isn't related to socialism or capitalism, that's just something great powers and regional powers do
see: Prague Spring, Hungary 56, East Germany, Afghanistan, Angola, Vietnam, Cambodia
Are we trying here to argue that American foreign policy doesn't have a long track record of overthrowing and undermining governments specifically on the basis of being insufficiently friendly to American capital?
I think the argument is more that powerful states mess with less powerful states, regardless of system of government. Which, generally speaking, checks out historically.
Interfering with weaker neighbors isn't related to socialism or capitalism, that's just something great powers and regional powers do
see: Prague Spring, Hungary 56, East Germany, Afghanistan, Angola, Vietnam, Cambodia
Are we trying here to argue that American foreign policy doesn't have a long track record of overthrowing and undermining governments specifically on the basis of being insufficiently friendly to American capital?
I think the argument is more that powerful states mess with less powerful states, regardless of system of government. Which, generally speaking, checks out historically.
Sure, but its also a nonsequiter to the point. The point raised was that we can't separate the failure of socialist states from the willingness of a capitalist hyper power to make them fail. Pointing out that other governments with other models have also acted imperially isn't relevant to that point.
+1
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Interfering with weaker neighbors isn't related to socialism or capitalism, that's just something great powers and regional powers do
see: Prague Spring, Hungary 56, East Germany, Afghanistan, Angola, Vietnam, Cambodia
Are we trying here to argue that American foreign policy doesn't have a long track record of overthrowing and undermining governments specifically on the basis of being insufficiently friendly to American capital?
I think the argument is more that powerful states mess with less powerful states, regardless of system of government. Which, generally speaking, checks out historically.
That is the most consistent sentiment honestly. Whether it be Soviets, PRC, United States, Prussa, England, Persia, Otomans, and even further back, Rome, Egypt, etc. Theocracy, Monarchy, Communist, Socialist, Capitalist, Democracy, Oligarchy.
The larger stronger nations have significant leverage over smaller weaker nations. It's one of the few constants over the last 10,000 years of human history.
I think though this is getting a bit out there, and we need to discuss benefits of socialism that don't suggest that the reason socialism/communism failed is because of capitalism, because that is a bit of a hand wave cop out. Similar to communism and socialism have never worked and are bad because Venezuela and USSR, is a hand wave cop out on the other end.
It's important to recognize mistakes in both systems.
"Death squads overthrew our democratically elected government for a fruit company" isn't what I'd call a "hand wave"
Neither is England wrecking India because of a trading company.
It's just power over weaker nations, government was rather irreverent, as they would have overthrew any government capitalist or otherwise that wouldn't work with them, that's the nature of power, but it's same with Soviet expansions and taking over of democratically elected governments.
We've overthrown capitalist nations as well. CIA has kind of a mixed history when it comes to overthrowing nations.
Im well are of all of this. None of it has anything to do with "a lot of the failure of socialist nations has to do with the extreme hostility of a specific neighbor".
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
I don't know about any of that, I walked in on this page.
We've talked most about Scandinavia, China and the USSR here, but mostly glossed over Latin America where there was some real potential for socialism to do some real good but every time they made moves against entrenched capital interests they were overthrown by an ideological opponent they never could have stood against.
So yeah, nations invade and overthrow other nations all the time and we've certainly done it to capitalist nations as well, but when looking at the global struggle in crafting a sustainable socialist government we have to come to the conclusion that in many cases the failure came from an ideologically opposed outside power, not the failure of an economic or governmental model.
The argument is not "capitalist states are more imperialist than socialist states." It's "you can't accuse a state's economic system of being a failure when it was specifically, deliberately undermined by other, powerful imperialist states."
Fifty student activists have gone missing in southern China after police raided an apartment where they had been mobilising support for factory workers demanding union rights.
Labour activists who were in touch with the group said the raid took place at 5am on Friday in Huizhou, near Shenzhen, in Guangdong province. Activists said they were not able to contact or locate those who had been detained. Video footage of the raid showed police in riot gear storming an apartment and scuffling with occupants.
The group, made up 50 students and five workers, is part of a small but growing labour rights coalition in China’s manufacturing region where independent labour unions are barred and activism is seen as a threat.
We really really need to stop falling for authoritarian propaganda.
The argument is not "capitalist states are more imperialist than socialist states." It's "you can't accuse a state's economic system of being a failure when it was specifically, deliberately undermined by other, powerful imperialist states."
Additionally, we should consider how American motives might vary when overthrowing weaker countries. When we invade more or less capitalistic Afghanistan we're not doing it because we don't like their capitalism.
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
The argument is not "capitalist states are more imperialist than socialist states." It's "you can't accuse a state's economic system of being a failure when it was specifically, deliberately undermined by other, powerful imperialist states."
What I am saying is that, a state's economic system is being deliberately undermined by other powerful states is an existing condition and is happening regardless of government type. It is happening to almost all governments, all the time, and it is regardless of economic system.
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
The argument is not "capitalist states are more imperialist than socialist states." It's "you can't accuse a state's economic system of being a failure when it was specifically, deliberately undermined by other, powerful imperialist states."
The argument is not "capitalist states are more imperialist than socialist states." It's "you can't accuse a state's economic system of being a failure when it was specifically, deliberately undermined by other, powerful imperialist states."
Additionally, we should consider how American motives might vary when overthrowing weaker countries. When we invade more or less capitalistic Afghanistan we're not doing it because we don't like their capitalism.
In the same vein it's worth noting the Soviets invaded communist Afghanistan because they were too communist
The argument is not "capitalist states are more imperialist than socialist states." It's "you can't accuse a state's economic system of being a failure when it was specifically, deliberately undermined by other, powerful imperialist states."
What I am saying is that, a state's economic system is being deliberately undermined by other powerful states is an existing condition and is happening regardless of government type. It is happening to almost all governments, all the time, and it is regardless of economic system.
Its not an equally existing condition. When a capitalist government/economy in Latin America wants to sell off their crop lands to American business interests we're their best friend and hey would you like some aid money?
Which case study are you citing re: good neighbors=better socialist policy implementation? I'm actually asking, not implying there are none
The Scandanavian nations, where the people in many cases own the oil and gas resources outright and the profits from them are spent by a democratically elected government on their behalf. Strong unions, strong safety net, strong national labor protections, nationalized public transit etc. Sure, its not a direct hard 'workers own the means of production in all industries socialism', but its many steps closer and it has succeeded admirably producing a quality of life which is the envy of the world
Neither America or Scandanavia are socialist, but Scandanavia IS much closer, and any definition of socialism you care to brew up which doesn't allow for that is a useless definition.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
The argument is not "capitalist states are more imperialist than socialist states." It's "you can't accuse a state's economic system of being a failure when it was specifically, deliberately undermined by other, powerful imperialist states."
What I am saying is that, a state's economic system is being deliberately undermined by other powerful states is an existing condition and is happening regardless of government type. It is happening to almost all governments, all the time, and it is regardless of economic system.
Its not an equally existing condition. When a capitalist government/economy in Latin America wants to sell off their crop lands to American business interests we're their best friend and hey would you like some aid money?
When a socialist government in Latin America wants to sell off their crop lands to American business interests, we're their best friend as well. We're pretty universal when it comes to exploitation.
But if an economic system can't survived being deliberately undermined, it is a failure, because that is the status quo. There is no socialism that is in a bubble.
The argument is not "capitalist states are more imperialist than socialist states." It's "you can't accuse a state's economic system of being a failure when it was specifically, deliberately undermined by other, powerful imperialist states."
What I am saying is that, a state's economic system is being deliberately undermined by other powerful states is an existing condition and is happening regardless of government type. It is happening to almost all governments, all the time, and it is regardless of economic system.
Its not an equally existing condition. When a capitalist government/economy in Latin America wants to sell off their crop lands to American business interests we're their best friend and hey would you like some aid money?
When a socialist government in Latin America wants to sell off their crop lands to American business interests, we're their best friend as well. We're pretty universal when it comes to exploitation.
But if an economic system can't survived being deliberately undermined, it is a failure, because that is the status quo. There is no socialism that is in a bubble.
But if the USA and Europe decided to become socialist, then there would be noone to do the undermining, instead it would be Capitalist states which would immediately find themselves under attack
The argument is not "capitalist states are more imperialist than socialist states." It's "you can't accuse a state's economic system of being a failure when it was specifically, deliberately undermined by other, powerful imperialist states."
What I am saying is that, a state's economic system is being deliberately undermined by other powerful states is an existing condition and is happening regardless of government type. It is happening to almost all governments, all the time, and it is regardless of economic system.
Its not an equally existing condition. When a capitalist government/economy in Latin America wants to sell off their crop lands to American business interests we're their best friend and hey would you like some aid money?
When a socialist government in Latin America wants to sell off their crop lands to American business interests, we're their best friend as well. We're pretty universal when it comes to exploitation.
But if an economic system can't survived being deliberately undermined, it is a failure, because that is the status quo. There is no socialism that is in a bubble.
Yeah, we're real friendly with socialists that sell off the means of production to private foreign interests. Odd.
What governmental system can survive being undermined by the US when the power differential is what it is? This is just "might makes right" logic.
+1
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
The argument is not "capitalist states are more imperialist than socialist states." It's "you can't accuse a state's economic system of being a failure when it was specifically, deliberately undermined by other, powerful imperialist states."
What I am saying is that, a state's economic system is being deliberately undermined by other powerful states is an existing condition and is happening regardless of government type. It is happening to almost all governments, all the time, and it is regardless of economic system.
Its not an equally existing condition. When a capitalist government/economy in Latin America wants to sell off their crop lands to American business interests we're their best friend and hey would you like some aid money?
When a socialist government in Latin America wants to sell off their crop lands to American business interests, we're their best friend as well. We're pretty universal when it comes to exploitation.
But if an economic system can't survived being deliberately undermined, it is a failure, because that is the status quo. There is no socialism that is in a bubble.
But if the USA and Europe decided to become socialist, then there would be noone to do the undermining, instead it would be Capitalist states which would immediately find themselves under attack
You don't think there aren't multiple Capitalist and Socialist nations deliberately trying to undermine the United States? I imagine that would continue regardless of government.
What reason do non-Venezuelan capitalists have to care about Venezuela other than that the oil keeps flowing? That was the only industry they appeared to care much about and they didn't seem to care that much when Chavez expropriated various parts of industries.
"Every nation is trying to undermine every other" conveniently overlooks that some nations are global military hyper powers with 15% of global GDP and some are poor barely industrialized former colonies.
+2
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
Isn’t the scadanavian model called social democracy? Where you have the bones of a capitalistic structure but who owns that capitol is very, very differently structured than in what the west traditionally thinks of as capitalism. To me it seems like a good mix, you get markets and wage competition, people are free to do what they want (still liberal in the classic sense) but the profits of the system are used for the betterment of all.
The argument is not "capitalist states are more imperialist than socialist states." It's "you can't accuse a state's economic system of being a failure when it was specifically, deliberately undermined by other, powerful imperialist states."
What I am saying is that, a state's economic system is being deliberately undermined by other powerful states is an existing condition and is happening regardless of government type. It is happening to almost all governments, all the time, and it is regardless of economic system.
Its not an equally existing condition. When a capitalist government/economy in Latin America wants to sell off their crop lands to American business interests we're their best friend and hey would you like some aid money?
When a socialist government in Latin America wants to sell off their crop lands to American business interests, we're their best friend as well. We're pretty universal when it comes to exploitation.
But if an economic system can't survived being deliberately undermined, it is a failure, because that is the status quo. There is no socialism that is in a bubble.
But if the USA and Europe decided to become socialist, then there would be noone to do the undermining, instead it would be Capitalist states which would immediately find themselves under attack
Why wouldn't socialist states have reason to undermine each other? China and the Soviet Union were not best friends.
The argument is not "capitalist states are more imperialist than socialist states." It's "you can't accuse a state's economic system of being a failure when it was specifically, deliberately undermined by other, powerful imperialist states."
What I am saying is that, a state's economic system is being deliberately undermined by other powerful states is an existing condition and is happening regardless of government type. It is happening to almost all governments, all the time, and it is regardless of economic system.
Its not an equally existing condition. When a capitalist government/economy in Latin America wants to sell off their crop lands to American business interests we're their best friend and hey would you like some aid money?
When a socialist government in Latin America wants to sell off their crop lands to American business interests, we're their best friend as well. We're pretty universal when it comes to exploitation.
But if an economic system can't survived being deliberately undermined, it is a failure, because that is the status quo. There is no socialism that is in a bubble.
But if the USA and Europe decided to become socialist, then there would be noone to do the undermining, instead it would be Capitalist states which would immediately find themselves under attack
You don't think there aren't multiple Capitalist and Socialist nations deliberately trying to undermine the United States? I imagine that would continue regardless of government.
In Soviet America, Russia undermines you.
Russia vs the USA is not a clash between Capitalism and Socialism. It would continue with the exact same intensity if the US and EU suddenly decided to be socialist. The US and EU are the big players in the world of enforcing capitalist might on the world, whether through financial pressure, or political pressure, or war. No other Capitalist country is strong enough to pick up that stick.
The argument is not "capitalist states are more imperialist than socialist states." It's "you can't accuse a state's economic system of being a failure when it was specifically, deliberately undermined by other, powerful imperialist states."
What I am saying is that, a state's economic system is being deliberately undermined by other powerful states is an existing condition and is happening regardless of government type. It is happening to almost all governments, all the time, and it is regardless of economic system.
Hm, I don't think this addresses the argument, or is quite accurate. States have specifically targeted ideologically opposed states many times; that's a big part of the Cold War, in general, isn't it? It doesn't happen "regardless of economic system." They wanted to undermine both potential geopolitical opponents and potential examples of successful alternatives.
There are many specific instances of socialist regimes or movements undermined by capitalist efforts, usually in vulnerable, unstable areas. Are there good examples of e.g. Soviet interference with similarly vulnerable capitalist regimes? Is the argument that smaller capitalist regimes were so robust that even imperialist meddling couldn't topple them?
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
The argument is not "capitalist states are more imperialist than socialist states." It's "you can't accuse a state's economic system of being a failure when it was specifically, deliberately undermined by other, powerful imperialist states."
What I am saying is that, a state's economic system is being deliberately undermined by other powerful states is an existing condition and is happening regardless of government type. It is happening to almost all governments, all the time, and it is regardless of economic system.
Its not an equally existing condition. When a capitalist government/economy in Latin America wants to sell off their crop lands to American business interests we're their best friend and hey would you like some aid money?
When a socialist government in Latin America wants to sell off their crop lands to American business interests, we're their best friend as well. We're pretty universal when it comes to exploitation.
But if an economic system can't survived being deliberately undermined, it is a failure, because that is the status quo. There is no socialism that is in a bubble.
The argument is not "capitalist states are more imperialist than socialist states." It's "you can't accuse a state's economic system of being a failure when it was specifically, deliberately undermined by other, powerful imperialist states."
What I am saying is that, a state's economic system is being deliberately undermined by other powerful states is an existing condition and is happening regardless of government type. It is happening to almost all governments, all the time, and it is regardless of economic system.
Its not an equally existing condition. When a capitalist government/economy in Latin America wants to sell off their crop lands to American business interests we're their best friend and hey would you like some aid money?
When a socialist government in Latin America wants to sell off their crop lands to American business interests, we're their best friend as well. We're pretty universal when it comes to exploitation.
But if an economic system can't survived being deliberately undermined, it is a failure, because that is the status quo. There is no socialism that is in a bubble.
But if the USA and Europe decided to become socialist, then there would be noone to do the undermining, instead it would be Capitalist states which would immediately find themselves under attack
Why wouldn't socialist states have reason to undermine each other? China and the Soviet Union were not best friends.
They would undermine each other, but they would not have a specific ideological difference which would 'require' them to do so. Their conflict would be governed by the interactions between those nations, and could lead to cooperation or conflict. Massive differences in fundamental economic ideology is a VERY good reason to fight with another nation.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
edited October 2018
Regardless of economic systems and policies, the US is gonna fuck with the Americas so long as there isn't another major power in this hemisphere to tell us not to, and we'll likely continue to do that to specifically prevent one from forming, regardless of government. We've fucked over capitalist democracies as well as socialist states, the connective tissue is asserting US interest and economic superiority.
Right now we do that because we want to have our companies fuck over local concerns. If we were a different government type, I have no doubt we would still find another reason to do so to assert regional control.
The USA in the Cold War was willing to not care much about economics of a country as long as the leaders hated the Soviets or openly allied with the USA.
"Every nation is trying to undermine every other" conveniently overlooks that some nations are global military hyper powers with 15% of global GDP and some are poor barely industrialized former colonies.
Barely-industrialized postcolonial Socialist Cuba was perfectly capable of sending mechanized divisions to Africa and deploying nerve gas against Angolan rebels. You don't need to be a hyperpower to be a dick.
Regardless of economic systems and policies, the US is gonna fuck with the Americas so long as there isn't another major power in this hemisphere to tell us not to, and we'll likely continue to do that to specifically prevent one from forming, regardless of government. We've fucked over capitalist democracies as well as socialist states, the connective tissue is asserting US interest and economic superiority.
Right now we do that because we want to have our companies fuck over local concerns. If we were a different government type, I have no doubt we would still find another reason to do so to assert regional control.
True, but socialist USA would want its divided and squabbling neighbors in South America to be Socialist during their squabbles so that the USA could better mingle its companies in with their own and secure power. Perhaps socialist south America, while still under continually pressure from the US to remain divided, would be better off and the USA would be too such the balance of power is the same as it is today.
Posts
If only Trotsky had been in charge and actively interfered in border states to export the revolution, then we"d really have seen enlightened Socialist foreign policy.
But that doesn't really weaken the 'how would new ideologies fare if old ideologies did not attempt to immediately destroy them due to those who are entrenched in power in the old ideology' argument.
Yes, Stalin was clearly one of the worst men in history, but, perhaps if the west had been tolerant of new ideas and had been happy to see Russia experimenting with a new way of maximizing production then Russians wouldn't have been so happy to vest all state power in the hands of an abusive strongman and so on. Its a chicken and egg thing which means that what we really learn from History is that new ideas struggle to survive in the shadow of the old. This doesn't exclude the fact that they could have been inherantly good, but it means our experiments are biased. Socialist countries have always come under attack from established capitalist ones, and you can certainly create a relationship to show that the better a states relationships with its neighbors have been, the more succesfully it has been able to implement socialist policies. Does history ACTUALLY show that socialism requires the support of the global community to thrive?
Are we trying here to argue that American foreign policy doesn't have a long track record of overthrowing and undermining governments specifically on the basis of being insufficiently friendly to American capital?
I think the argument is more that powerful states mess with less powerful states, regardless of system of government. Which, generally speaking, checks out historically.
Sure, but its also a nonsequiter to the point. The point raised was that we can't separate the failure of socialist states from the willingness of a capitalist hyper power to make them fail. Pointing out that other governments with other models have also acted imperially isn't relevant to that point.
The larger stronger nations have significant leverage over smaller weaker nations. It's one of the few constants over the last 10,000 years of human history.
I think though this is getting a bit out there, and we need to discuss benefits of socialism that don't suggest that the reason socialism/communism failed is because of capitalism, because that is a bit of a hand wave cop out. Similar to communism and socialism have never worked and are bad because Venezuela and USSR, is a hand wave cop out on the other end.
It's important to recognize mistakes in both systems.
It's just power over weaker nations, government was rather irreverent, as they would have overthrew any government capitalist or otherwise that wouldn't work with them, that's the nature of power, but it's same with Soviet expansions and taking over of democratically elected governments.
We've overthrown capitalist nations as well. CIA has kind of a mixed history when it comes to overthrowing nations.
So yeah, nations invade and overthrow other nations all the time and we've certainly done it to capitalist nations as well, but when looking at the global struggle in crafting a sustainable socialist government we have to come to the conclusion that in many cases the failure came from an ideologically opposed outside power, not the failure of an economic or governmental model.
They're not actually socialist
Like, we've been over this in the thread! The people don't actually own the means of production, an authoritarian politician class does!
They're currently raiding groups of new college graduates who've been pushing for unionization of Chinese businesses as dissidents.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/24/50-student-activists-missing-in-china-after-police-raid
We really really need to stop falling for authoritarian propaganda.
Additionally, we should consider how American motives might vary when overthrowing weaker countries. When we invade more or less capitalistic Afghanistan we're not doing it because we don't like their capitalism.
Oh, yeah. Totally on board here then.
In the same vein it's worth noting the Soviets invaded communist Afghanistan because they were too communist
Its not an equally existing condition. When a capitalist government/economy in Latin America wants to sell off their crop lands to American business interests we're their best friend and hey would you like some aid money?
The Scandanavian nations, where the people in many cases own the oil and gas resources outright and the profits from them are spent by a democratically elected government on their behalf. Strong unions, strong safety net, strong national labor protections, nationalized public transit etc. Sure, its not a direct hard 'workers own the means of production in all industries socialism', but its many steps closer and it has succeeded admirably producing a quality of life which is the envy of the world
Neither America or Scandanavia are socialist, but Scandanavia IS much closer, and any definition of socialism you care to brew up which doesn't allow for that is a useless definition.
But if an economic system can't survived being deliberately undermined, it is a failure, because that is the status quo. There is no socialism that is in a bubble.
But if the USA and Europe decided to become socialist, then there would be noone to do the undermining, instead it would be Capitalist states which would immediately find themselves under attack
Yeah, we're real friendly with socialists that sell off the means of production to private foreign interests. Odd.
What governmental system can survive being undermined by the US when the power differential is what it is? This is just "might makes right" logic.
In Soviet America, Russia undermines you.
Why wouldn't socialist states have reason to undermine each other? China and the Soviet Union were not best friends.
Russia vs the USA is not a clash between Capitalism and Socialism. It would continue with the exact same intensity if the US and EU suddenly decided to be socialist. The US and EU are the big players in the world of enforcing capitalist might on the world, whether through financial pressure, or political pressure, or war. No other Capitalist country is strong enough to pick up that stick.
Hm, I don't think this addresses the argument, or is quite accurate. States have specifically targeted ideologically opposed states many times; that's a big part of the Cold War, in general, isn't it? It doesn't happen "regardless of economic system." They wanted to undermine both potential geopolitical opponents and potential examples of successful alternatives.
There are many specific instances of socialist regimes or movements undermined by capitalist efforts, usually in vulnerable, unstable areas. Are there good examples of e.g. Soviet interference with similarly vulnerable capitalist regimes? Is the argument that smaller capitalist regimes were so robust that even imperialist meddling couldn't topple them?
So literally every system, never mind economic?
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
They would undermine each other, but they would not have a specific ideological difference which would 'require' them to do so. Their conflict would be governed by the interactions between those nations, and could lead to cooperation or conflict. Massive differences in fundamental economic ideology is a VERY good reason to fight with another nation.
Right now we do that because we want to have our companies fuck over local concerns. If we were a different government type, I have no doubt we would still find another reason to do so to assert regional control.
Barely-industrialized postcolonial Socialist Cuba was perfectly capable of sending mechanized divisions to Africa and deploying nerve gas against Angolan rebels. You don't need to be a hyperpower to be a dick.
True, but socialist USA would want its divided and squabbling neighbors in South America to be Socialist during their squabbles so that the USA could better mingle its companies in with their own and secure power. Perhaps socialist south America, while still under continually pressure from the US to remain divided, would be better off and the USA would be too such the balance of power is the same as it is today.