Framing this as "liberal militantism" is going to be a tough take for this board, and for people on the english-speaking, western-dominated internet generally. But it's not an unfair take, as LeMay said they were committing war crimes, and if they'd lost the war then history would have regarded their actions very, very differently. We simply are not socialized by media to think of western war crimes and abuses/oppression in this fashion.

If the victims of communism includes the nazi soldiers killed during WW2, it seems like the victims of capitalism number should probably include the civilians burned alive en-masse during firebombing campaigns in Germany and Japan.

If the victims of communism number includes the holodomor, surely it should also include the people starved as a result of famines caused by export subsidies (and the collapse of imports as prices surge, leaving their former customers with no domestic production and a famine).

If the victims of communism include NK or Russian gulags, surely it includes the political prisoners held in US slave labor camps for trivial offenses by the state, and then exploited for the manufacturing profits of the companies that own them as chattel property.

If the victims of communism include whatever murderous dictator of the day, then surely the victims of capitalism include those of Pol Pot, Indonesia, and Malaysia today.

I say this not because communism is so great but because most people can’t even acknowledge that such a “victims of capitalism” number even exists. But it does, you just haven’t been propagandized to think it’s a number of matters like the “victims of communism” number.

People will literally cry over dead nazis killed during the act of invading and annexing another country as long as they can make a political point against the right person for killing them. And that is used to push back against the entire concept, we can't have public healthcare because "that's socialism" and you know what happens in socialism right? Gulags and dictators.

We don’t even have a slur for capitalism-tankies, because we havent been propagandized that it’s a bad thing we should be disdainful of. I guess it’s just “neoliberal”? Or “air strike/dronestrike liberal” depending on the era? But the firebombing and atomic weapon campaigns were shocking large compared to even air striking a single wedding. We burned millions of people alive inside their own homes, mummified and suffocated them from the inferno. “Firebombing liberals” or “bombies” doesn’t have the ring but it’s so much more apt for the kinds of behavior that are justified and excused in those communities (like tankies). But maybe “firebombing humanitarian” is a little more on-point, capture the “we had to kill the people to save them” vive?

Or maybe the term is just tankie, whether it’s actual tanks or air bombing?

Either way we certainly don't treat the abuses of this system as being something implicit to the system - Pol Pot, Suharto, or other murderous, abusive authoritarians aren't an indictment of capitalism as a concept and a system of organization, it just happens sometimes. But North Korea condemns communism forever, that's why the US can't give you healthcare.

But the reality is that capitalist-tankieism is absurdly widespread. Again, this is not the way we are socialized to regard western history, but the firebombing campaigns were acts of terrorism and mass-murder against a civilian population, killing them en-masse for military ends such that the war effort would no longer be sustainable. Total war is a crime against humanity and an atrocity, and would be properly labeled as such if the other guy did it. You can't just firebomb millions of civilians... unless you are the right political system.