A family living on a farm and providing most of their own needs, living sustainably for generations, is by most definitions “living in poverty” because they consume very little.

Now if you strip that family of their land and force them to work in factories their consumption goes way up since they no longer are able to support themselves.

That family has now been “lifted out of poverty”.

But yes, you are correct, no system has made people more depended on exploitation then Capitialism.

You're romanticizing primitivism.

You’re idealizing the crushing poverty of sustenance farming.

Have you ever been to a developing country? Talked to the families who choose to abandon their farming and work in a factory so their kids can get proper healthcare, better schooling and living in a house without a toilet that feeds into the river?

Plenty of them could continue to work as farmers and choose not too. Who are you to claim their choice is wrong?

I’m guessing you’ve lived a comfy life and take all of these things for granted and then sneer at those who want the same.

It’s pretty clear even “state capitalism” leads to wealth and the elimination of abject poverty.

> It’s pretty clear even “state capitalism” leads to wealth and the elimination of abject poverty.

What even is the difference between such heavy state capitalism and socialism? Socialist economies existed with various level of market involvement and economic freedom, see Lenin's NEP - was the USSR initially a champion of free market reform?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

By the way, elections in China are only at very local levels. Most of what we do elections for in western countries are indirect elections there. The Congress is not directly elected by people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_China

However you might want to check the 1929 elections in fascist Italy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Italian_general_election

I don't really think communism is a viable economic system, because of, you know, people. However, a couple of points should be made:

- Communism has always had to deal with enmity of world's richest and most influential nations (USA and UK in particular). Possibly because communism has had this inbuilt idea that it needs to spread to everywhere, whether they like it or not (kind of like some religions). Could this have been otherwise? I don't know.

- Between 1922 and 1962, USSR's economy grew at an average of about 9% real per annum, despite having to deal with the massive trauma of World War 2. Also, income inequality decreased. Population went from ~140 million in poverty to ~240 million living, um, not in poverty.

So... it is not quite as simple as you make it out to be.

Growing from a bad start and where you can copy a more developed nation makes this easier.

https://bearkunin.medium.com/soviet-union-facts-and-fictions...

True. But you know what really makes economic growth easier? Foreign aid. Also trade.

The USSR otoh had to deal with sanctions.

https://www.americanforeignrelations.com/E-N/Embargoes-and-S...

I don't know what other friendlies you mean. USSR installed communist/socialist governments in the countries it liberated from German occupation after WW2, but those relationships were... complicated.

Communist countries wanted to export communism, maybe for all the good and bad reasons democratic countries want to export democracy. However there were plenty of people in the west that wanted their country to become communist, especially up to the 80s. So the enmity against all the communist world was also a matter of internal affairs, to contain internal opposition.

On reflection, whether communism holds extra appeal in poor countries, or whether it was an accident of history that *rich* capitalist countries faced off against poor communist countries, communism's chances were kind of hamstrung by this enmity. The playing field was uneven.

So which system is truly better at lifting people out of poverty, all other things being equal, remains uncertain.