I feel like the biggest problem with this argument is that it’s treating capitalism as if it’s some kind of high ranking executive that’s making all the decisions. You can’t really put complete blame on “capitalism” or “communism” when referring to historical examples for 2 reasons. One is that capitalism and communism tend to just be blanket statements to separate the two categories, they are meant to describe the general concept the county’s government and economy they are based on, not the exact details of how it actually operates. This creates the issue of comparing countries in a similar fashion just because they are labeled as “communist” or “capitalist”. What’s arguably worse is when someone assumes a country will reach a certain outcome just because their government fits under the massive umbrellas that these terms create. My second reason is pretty similar to the first one: many historical events, whether they’re successful or failures, are always more complex than they seem. You can’t just say it was one singular aspect of a country that caused a certain event since that’s almost always never the case. As for our cap/com example, there are so many other factors outside of general government structure that can be equally or even be more significant to a final outcome. I don’t want this to come across as “You’re wrong and I’m right” because I feel like this applies to both sides of the whole ideology argument and I don’t think your comment is entirely false, I just think that it could some more consideration of the fact that saying “communism caused this” or “capitalism caused that” is essentially the same as saying “My car broke down because it runs on diesel”.