Indeed, everything bad that happened in any other country was caused by the USA, thereby proving that capitalism is the most powerful thing in the world. USA! USA! USA!

That type of comment is really taking the wrong lesson from OP. You are just doing more tribalism, now with a strawman.

The weirdest part is that the US never really got up to much imperialism compared basically every other world power.

It’s “appeal to hypocrisy”. It’s very similar to butwhataboutism, but butwhataboutism relies on constantly shifting the focus and making the opponent jump through hoops while the butwhatabout-er never concedes anything. Hypocrisy is saying “you did bad shit too so you don’t get to talk.”

Sure, but no Lenin 2.0 please. Oligarchies and dictatorships tend to go down the same tired old path.

Just one more revolution, bro!

The nth time's the charm!

The opposite is more common in my experience - people playing apologist for shit that happened 100+ years ago because of some vague sense of common identity with the perpetrators.

I don’t think there’s any evidence for genocide,

Back up, there may not be evidence for a single, concerted policy of genocide, but there are many verifiable genocides of Native American peoples by colonial polities and societies.

I have yet to encounter this explicitly where someone would say that Native Americans were "purely victims". At best, they aggregate and dehistoricize all tribes into a conglomerate term, "Native Americans". I'm sure there are some who cling to the "noble savage" trope, but I don't see it these days.

What ever intertribal conflicts happened, they never reached the level of disease spread, displacement, and systematic violence aimed at cultural erasure. The unprecedented scale of violence unleashed by colonialism, which led to devastating consequences for these communities is important and to flatten the intertribal violence along side the colonial conquest is narrow minded. They may have sucked, but some far more than others.

Regardless, they were still victims of colonial genocide, they didn't have to be pillars of esoteric religious morality for that to be wrong. Considering how many wars between england and literally every other kind of person they could identify not being english, it's hardly a stone to be thrown in this context.

Only insofar as one is willing to subsume multiple economic systems without even marginal ideological similarities between them as a single system that bears the guilt for the actions of the polity.

I wouldn't say central planning has caused most deaths attributed to ML countries, and I wouldn't say capitalism has caused most deaths attributed to non-ML countries. Both have caused more deaths than they have any right to, but the fundamental problem lays in political and military power more than the exact structure of economic hierarchies. They can feed each other, but then we must get into questions of how much guilt and in what proportion - especially since ideological application in the real world is rarely 'pure' - each piece holds.

Not only that, but these two economic systems have dominated an age where an order of magnitude more people live on the planet than previously. It may be technically true, for example, to say that capitalism or central planning has killed more people than feudal economic systems, but that does not really capture the actual moral value of each of the three.

Capitalism is shit. We need to get rid of it. But that's not the same as saying it's responsible for more suffering and death than any other.