Pre-WW2 the entire world was either invading or being invaded. 100's of millions of dead. No-one pretending they're civilized. Why not mention Finland siding with Nazi's and laying siege to Leningrad? 1 million dead. How about the 1943 Bengal famine caused by the UK? 3 million dead. Famines and UK again in 1910's Iran? 10 million dead. "One can go on and on" with examples of supposed democracies killing millions.
After WW2 there was a new world order. UN Charter. Countries pretending they're civilized and no longer invading each other because they might get nuked in return. Colonies dismantled.
Finland: It began with a Soviet invasion of Finland in late 1939. Thus, for both Soviet-Finnish wars, Soviet Union is to blame as an initial aggressor. Since Western powers mostly closed their eyes to all Soviet aggressions preceding and at the beginning of WW2 (the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, and the following invasion of Poland together with Nazi Germany; the subsequent Katyn massacre with mass executions of 22,000+ ppl.; Soviet occupation of the Baltics; Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Bukovina etc.), anyone can hardly blame Finland siding with Germany later, after having to cede over 10 % of its territory to the USSR after the first Soviet-Finnish war.
Bengal Famine: It happened during WW2, and yes, the British India goverment was partially to blame as well as Churchill's war cabinet - for not providing the food relief soon enough (later they did incl. the help of a full infantry division, R.A.F. supply planes etc.), but so were the war-time circumstances surrounding it. But in essence, it was a war-famine, and a large part of the blame for the famine lays on Imperial Japan of the time. Yet there is no denying British war-time mismanagement of the war efforts against Imperial Japan in India played a part. The famine would have been well manageable in peacetime. Also, I would not call British India goverment a democracy, but lets not delve into that further. Famines are less likely in democracies due to free press, electoral accountability, and other factors. Yet, compare this with the conclusion of the Holodomore in Ukraine, where the Soviets concentrated on propaganda efforts denying it ever happened (even with help from G. B. Shaw and other Western socialists).
Persian Famine: Also a war-time famine, during WW1. I know little of the subject, but if we are to believe the Wiki (
Persian famine of 1917–1919 - Wikipedia), under Causes etc., the British and Russian armies present due to the war efforts (Ottomans vs. Russians etc.) may have worsened the famine, with poor administration of the local government, seasonal droughts, and "dislocation of trade and agricultural production caused by the war" playing also a major role. I will not be so heartless as to say "there were other famines in Persia before without foreign influence" as you have commented the famines in Lenin's Russia, but overlooking the World War I (not started by Britain) as a major contributing factor is a defect in your reasoning.
1970's-1980's. Death squads. Democracy destroying democracies.
Again, you're trying to pass off welfare as if it came about because capitalists cared about the wellbeing of their citizens. In every case I know of, welfare policies were created by socialists in power, or by fear of socialists gaining power.
Everything bad = socialism, everything good = capitalism, is dishonest and lazy. Doctrines and ideologies evolve. Socialism isn't a religion.
Ancient Rome had socialists? They had religious people too. Just because someone puts a name on something doesn't mean the ideology or practices are new.
Yes, modern capitalists do care about the wellbeing of the workers, not in the least because it also benefits their business. There is nothing dishonest in pointing out how all socialist countries in the past turned into tyrannies the minute they were created and practiced state capitalism (and communist-revolution-fueled neo-colonialism), while greatly oppressing the liberties of their citizens. The ancient Rome was merely a remark that social welfare is something that evolved over centuries, and is not merely an invention of modern thinkers. I am also not downplaying the great role of modern democratic socialist elements in a today's, largely free society, However, I do not view Marx and his subsequent followers in Soviet Union as being a part of them.
In a true capitalist society all roads would be private. Poor people wouldn't be able to afford non-subsidised dairy or wheat. They already can't afford fruit and vegetables.
I am talking about modern democratic capitalism, not you view of capitalism which seems to be approx. industrial revolution-capitalism, and also not state capitalism, as practiced by most socialists in the past and present (China). Democracy, capitalism (i.e. private ownership of the means of production), and modern welfare state in general, despite the deficiencies, is vastly superior to early forms of capitalism, modern forms of state capitalism (socialism) etc.
He did that out of fear of socialist parties taking control. See above. Would he have done it without the pressure of socialism?
He was more concerned to stimulate economic growth via social security for the workers (see above), taking the wind out of socialist sails was most likely just a secondary concern. (This is not to say he was a democtratic politician, quite the contrary in fact, but that is another matter).
The state belongs to the people.
No it doesn't, unfortunately. Although I am an advocate of democracy and modern democratic capitalism, I see the deficiencies as well, one being the diminishing of electoral accountability in our age (resulting in greater corruption, and subsequent division between the electorate and the state), and the rise of mega-corporations giving birth to the corporate socialism where the companies privatize profits and socialize losses. Together with growing extreme left-wing tendencies, this assymetry is the greatest threat to modern democratic societies, and subsequently our personal liberties (with corporations being able to effectivelly control the free speech rights without due process etc.).
You don't need to react, since everyone knows people die in the US because they can't afford healthcare. US is an example of a democratic country that doesn't care about its own people. Cares a lot about corporate welfare, but not people.
Where do you live now?
Yes, I agree that not having a universal healthcare system is something the US should think about. Yet: "58% of community hospitals in the United States are non-profit, 21% are government-owned, and 21% are for-profit. According to the [WHO], the United States spent $9,403 on health care per capita, and 17.9% on health care as percentage of its GDP in 2014. Healthcare coverage is provided through a combination of private health insurance and public health coverage (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid)." [Wiki]
According to the 2018 worldbank.org poll:
USA had healthcare expenditures in the amout of 16.89 % of its GDP in 2018
China had healthcare expenditures in the amout of 5.35 % of its GDP in 2018
Cuba 11.19 %
Venezuela, RB 3.56 %
European Union 9.85 %
Saying it "doesn't care about its own people" is not reflected in these numbers. It may say something about its effectivness, yes, as well as climbing obesity rate etc., but also the use of modern (expensive) technologies, high rate of preventive measures (screenings/vaccinations) etc. Does USA need a universal healthcare system (while also integrating the private healthcare system, not banning it of course)? Probably yes. But saying it is a "democratic country that doesn't care about its own people" is simply not true on many levels.
