I TRIED SO HARD

What a nonsensical statement. The population of countries where you can see such a starving child are raising, not falling.

capitalism has political influence in those countries and when you compare countries which are capitalist for all intents and purposes like Taiwan with Belgium the differences are trivial despite their different environments, culture, history etcetera..

>if you compare my cherry picked examples

How about Moldova instead? Or Kenya, one of the freest capitalist states on the planet?

He fought off the Italians (1935-1936) and was awarded medals and/or honours by France (Legion d'Honeur), England (Knight Grand Cross in 3 separate orders), the United States (Legion of Merit (Chief Commander)), The USSR, and about 3 dozen other countries.

He isn't wearing anything close to what he was awarded.

>pic "Time" 1930 Nov 03

>He fought off the Italians

He didn't fight off shit. You mean "during his reign the army fought of the italians".
And then he got all those medals from Italy's enemies to spite them.

>The population of countries where you can see such a starving child are raising, not falling.
And world poverty is falling.

At rates that don't match the overall growth of the economy.
The pie grows faster than the small slices of it, so if we define "poverty" as having a very small slice of the whole, its actually raising, not falling.
Don't work with static numbers.

Yeah, but absolute poverty like that in the picture, is falling percentually.

Yes, as advances in science are making the essentials more affordable as a percentage of the economy, not as markets accommodate the needy.

You may argue the market is a driving force for that.

Yes, as is generally known rulers don't particularly have anything to do with what happens in their countries during their reigns
Well said user, the lazy nigger probably just sat there waiting for his welfare checks

You may argue it, and others may argue against you.
The computer, the internet, passenger flight, telephony, radio, many of the great discoveries that made the modern world possible are government funded planned projects.
The only part of an iPhone that the market is responsible for is the visual design of it.

I am sure he was very honorable and royal when he nodded in agreement as his general explained a simplified version of the planned defense.

And yet, those things have sprouted out in market capitalist societies. Correct me if I am wrong, bhe USSR wasn't really great for much technology apart from propaganda filled things like space travel.

Gommunism encourages more functional inequality. In capitalism, a small number of people have so much money they can't find things to spend it on, and most people have enough money to live with some luxury. In gommunism, as it has been practiced at most times in most places, the majority of people are poverty-line and some people are moderately well off.
Quantitatively, the disparity is obscene in capitalism (if you have a problem with inequality), but qualitatively the division is far worse in gommunism.
Which kind of disparity would you prefer?
Also, equality is a bit of an unfortunate value. Why put that above divinity? Or even beauty, power etc. Or even wealth.
If the above have the be sacrificed for equality, does it cause you to rethink how valuable equality is?

they have economic growth rates obama would chop his dick off for, they will be prosperous too eventually

Strange that Soviet scientists got a dozen Nobel Prices, even with the obvious and understandable bias against them, as the whole community was boycotting communism as part of the Cold War.
Further, the first few decades of communism in Russia and the other soviet republics was very conservative and traditionalist, with science labeled "bourgeois" and "idealist", and scientists and engineers imprisoned, exiled or otherwise disposed of.
Yet despite this tremendous setback, the state came back strong with research in chemistry, physics, and of course the great achievements of space flight and exploration that you quickly dismiss as propaganda.

inb4 hurrr durrr ur commie

>Dismiss as propaganda
I don't dismiss it as propaganda, I am saying there's a possibility that the soviets only cared so much about that because it had a propaganda value.
Mind if I ask for any inventions the Soviets or the communist neighboring states made that improved the everyday life for people?

All the poorest states have great economic growth, because if you smuggle a truck full of bananas into the country it would be significant growth.
Look at it as a percentage of the overall economy, not as a 1 turning into a 3 and saying 300% growth!!!!!!!! while next door the number is in the thousands.

Artificial heart and lungs, zip and post code system, Ilizarov apparatus still in use today in treating bone fractures, artificial satellites for communication, fucking TETRIS, 3D holography, radio antenna, programmable computer, mobile phones, nuclear power plant, etc.

2 minutes in google by the way.
And your question is very poorly framed. "improved the everyday life for people"? All invention does, eventually, as use is made of it.
This make take years to realize, and for a country that practically restarted its science establishment in the late 40s, and stopped existing in the late 80s, many of their work wasn't put into immediate practice.
All invention is useful, if only to build on it with further invention, and make that useful down the line.

And? Everyone starts at the bottom. That is like making fun of a fat person at the gym.

No, this is like explaining that a weakling who goes from 2kg to 3kg lifts isn't experiencing the same relative growth as a pro going from 150kg to 160kg, despite what percentage growth says.

When you are absolute dogshit, it is very easy to get better. This doesn't mean things are going well and you are doing great.

He was responsible for rebuilding the Army ya twonk, he knew Euros wanted his country. He appealed to the League of Nations but they ignored him.

get fucked
me ne frego

I thknk you are getting the word relative wrong.
And it shows that things are at least getting better.

Actually, disregard the first part of my post.

>youtube.com/watch?v=4XHEPoMNP0I

> Everyone starts at the bottom. That is like making fun of a fat person at the gym.

Is this supposed to supposed to be humor?

It ain't a minor country and he ain't a dictator.

Nigga Ethiopia would be utter sit if Haile Selassie were to continue ruling in since he wasted os much money and ruled the country like a feudal kingdom. If there was socialist who at least dedicated big efforts to bumping up the living stands and removing the discrimination evident within the Ethiopian society then later shifted to a more democratic government with a free economy that would be better then what Haile would've done.

He was a good war time leader though.

But the socialists were in charge for years user and they only made things shittier.

What you have to realize is that many of these countries had no experience with the modern economic system or capitalism (the latter was hindered in many colonies because the natives getting rich and educated would fuck up your control of the colony), no educated populace and suddenly independent and gimped as a nation. The years it takes to build up to even a low tier nation takes years and that's if nothing comes in to stop it whether it's war, disease, resource fluctuations etc.

Like an overweight person and like many people entering business it often takes multiple tries to firmly get on the horse and really start some development and that isn't even the end of the journey because yo have a long way to go before you actually start seeing your efforts come into play.

The Derg was a Marxist Leninist junta but lets b honest if it wasn't the Derg it would've been the countless people who despised Haile.

Haile wasn't a dictator, he was an Emperor, and a pretty good one at that, human rights criticisms notwithstanding.

He wasted all dat free US Aid money on military.