So because it wasn’t stated in policy, the outcome wasn’t the goal? What a genuinely fascinating position to take in an argument if not slightly ignorant or naive.
Power is never gained without some amount of bloodshed. To believe the British had some noble goal while Communists did not, that we never killed anyone to obtain the United States, that Russia never killed anyone to become what it is today, is again, incredibly naive.
The perceptions of history are always quite bloody and to be so inclined to believe the policy of one government while at the same time questioning every single policy of your own, rightfully, I might add, is and I cannot stress this point naive.
You could measure the number dead by Capitalism to be far greater than Communism as the latter is only a 20th century construction while the former is centuries older.
The proper response to Prager was not to fall for his trap of the comparison at all.
It simply has no practical application to the human condition. People want things. Denying them their individualism in service to the community is as naive as believing governments who state noble goals cannot have bad intentions.
And this applies to politics as well. While it might seem noble to get everyone to agree, if we are only thinking of the party, and singling out individuals who speak out from within then we are no better than communists for denying the individual in favor of a party… or the political community.