with perhaps the exception of south korea and with some good will taiwan, not a single capitalist country reached the so called “developed” status coming from underdeveloped. all of those who did received a downpour of american taxpayer money.

...

I can't even make sense of this, what they're trying to say. It's too many layers.

If the US spent taxpayer money on developing other countries, is that not a good thing? I know they like to say "occupied Korea" so maybe they are pretending that South Korea is a nightmare and all the Koreans would rather it be free of the West or something, and so the influx of money was just a way to ruin everything.

I think the whole argument is so stupid that my brain can't properly absorb it. But I'm having trouble even understanding what they're saying is the problem or argument here. Capitalism cannot survive, so these massively successful capitalist countries have to shower down trillion-dollar-buckets-full of spare money down on other countries, which also then become developed into capitalist economies, which is proof that the whole thing can never work.

Got it. Perfect sense. I mean, there is a fair argument somewhere adjacent to that. Enacting "capitalism" isn't as simple as turning on a switch, it's intertwined with a lot of factors and often either needs help or is a fuckin' bumpy road. Also, the US often betrays smaller nations by visiting "capitalism" upon them which is basically a parasitism version where they get to compete in a free market to sell off their country's resources to wealthy nations, they get nothing, and any leader who doesn't want that gets a bullet in the head. Capitalism! Holding up South Korea as an example of when that happened kind of makes the whole example fall down though.

Also, if no capitalist country can get itself established without US taxpayer money, because it doesn't work anyway, where did the US or EU come from? Sprung from Zeus's forehead?