How to Refute?

quality of life can improve with the industrialization and efficiency processes capitalism can introduce

to deny this is retarded unless you are a Fuedalist or something

This much is obvious, but does anyone have a statistical argument to prove the specific point that neoliberalism is NOT responsible for what has largely been accomplished by modernization that would've happened regardless?

We need solid books, or at least some peer-reviewed papers, that we can point to when neolibs try to justify their disgusting exploitation.

Can I get some context for this clip? When was it recorded and whom is he referencing at the start?

Oh there it is, he mentioned the major strike in India last year. Must have been a recording around then.

Seriously this. We should have a thread devoted to links to academic, empirical studies on topics to dispel propaganda.
I might be able to start that thread later today, if no one else does.

What are good sources for peer-reviewed papers? Google Scholar is something I use sometimes. I also sometimes watch Dr Layman on YT, who has some videos on collecting empirical data and bias (you don't have to watch his centrist videos if you don't want to).

Also I found this paper ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2430906
when I was looking up stats for capitalism improving quality of life (playing devils advocate), it concludes with "The data indicated that the socialist countries generally have achieved better PQL outcomes than the capitalist countries at equivalent levels of economic development."

Mwahahahahhah

Aljazeera is a state owned media. You are using socialism :)

Not its not, a big city does not equal welth.

Pinocucks will cry, Chile is a shithole.

I think it's pretty obvious when you just look at the conditions that coincide with rapid growth in literacy rates, life expectancy, infant weight, caloric intake, etc. The common denominator in all systems isn't capitalism, it's industrialization. In fact this process often happens much faster in socialist countries, the USSR achieved about 50 years of capitalist industrial development in about 20 years.

Quality of life was constantly increasing in soviet union as well, at times more rapidly than anywhere in the world so far. So yeah, socialist countries get better over time too, the diffence is that capitalist country does it on 3rd world countries' or even their own poorest peoples expense ,when socialist countries don't need to exploit anyone.

muke did a whole video on this: youtube.com/watch?v=KSChKGrynkY

Stay mad commie cucks

Obviously, capitalists will emphasize easily-acquired data: GDP, inflation etc., point at those and say things are getting better. More complex data (real wage accross decades or worsening healthcare, for example) and more subjective quality of life indicators (possibly things like alcohol and drug addiction rates, psych surveys about hope and optimism etc.), as well as unfavorable easily-acquired data of course, are buried by the propaganda machine, which is now stronger than ever thanks to omnipresent internet, 24-hour news cycle and such.

I'd like to point out the Chilean """Miracle""" here. Whenever someone defends it, the only indicators they'll bring up are low inflation and growing GDP. I can 100% fucking guarantee it.

A second, perhaps even more important factor, is one that I think I read about ages ago but can't remember where, when or by whom, so I'll have to go by memory here. I think it's the first two lines here , the term used was, I think, "technological creep". Life-extending technology will obviously make itself felt in more developed countries first, then radiate "poorwards" as costs diminish and production capacity increases. Examples include electricity, refrigerators, vaccines and a million other things.

I can't help but notice this technological creep seems to have hit a bit of a cap. All the "big" life extenders have been invented because mostly they were relatively very low-tech solutions to millenia-old problems. It seems we're more or less stuck at some 80 years in the more developed countries, with poorer countries slowly catching up, and it'll take one hell of a hi-tech breakthrough to go past the 80 limit.

Retard.

Autismo, is clearly joke

...

Actually, I've been working up to a thread about this very point, though I haven't read through nearly enough to be sure about it. Specifically, I'm not focused on "capitalism" versus "socialism" (reformism from proponents of the latter has pretty much singlehandedly kept the former from collapsing into feudalism again, and describing ML states as particularly socialist is absurd), but on the shift toward neoliberalism inside capitalism since the 1970s, and the ironclad wall of apologism for it.

Okay? Okay, let's get this shit started. Here's what I've got so far:
A question regarding neoliberalism I would be interested in is the issue of whether or not neoliberalism can be credited with an increase in 3rd-world living conditions.

I'm sure we've all seen articles about the UN and similar organizations' "texas sharpshooter fallacy"-style revision of targets to justify their neolib policy prescriptions, like the one linked in this post or this one:
thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2017/04/05/bill-gates-and-4bn-in-poverty/

But I haven't seen any that go further, to questioning or even attempting to statistically disprove the notion that any increase in the living standards of the 3rd-world has happened, or that any increases are attributable to neoliberal policies. For instance, a thought I've often entertained is whether the transition from traditional subsistence labor to market-based wage labor has caused an increase of "income" and "consumption" wholly detached from any actual increase in economic activity for individuals/households/villages.

The best I've been able to come up with are various articles that all seem to ask good questions using data produced by neolibs, sufficiently good questions that they are able to shift the burden of proof for neoliberalism's benevolence off their own shoulders, rendering it an even fight. But none of them have enough relevent data to actually take the fight to the neolibs, conclusively falsifying the moral justification neolibs have hidden behind.

Note that I haven't finished reading these, so my conclusion is preliminary:
jstor.org/stable/40072185?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
bruegel.org/2015/09/has-globalization-peaked-trade-and-gdp-growth-in-the-post-crisis-context/
cepr.net/publications/reports/trade-and-jobs-can-we-trust-the-models
wider.unu.edu/publication/looking-beyond-averages-trade-and-poverty-debate-0
socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2016/05/free-trade-delusions-versus-real-world.html
opendemocracy.net/globalization-institutions_government/globalisation_inequality_4292.jsp
focusweb.org/node/816
yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/globalizations-missing-middle
hbr.org/2016/05/why-the-global-1-and-the-asian-middle-class-have-gained-the-most-from-globalization
ablog.typepad.com/keytrendsinglobalisation/2013/11/china-world-poverty.html
muse.jhu.edu/article/177805/summary
crookedtimber.org/2009/04/15/reducing-inequality-put-the-brakes-on-globalization/
monthlyreview.org/2009/03/01/a-failed-system-the-world-crisis-of-capitalist-globalization-and-its-impact-on-china/
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X04000075

Utility monster. Average standard of living may go up but the people who have it worst don't get much better if they get better at all.

Also standard of living is often measured by how many commodities you can buy.

Just give a counter example: the collapse of the quality of life in Russia after the end of the USSR. Same for certain areas of Northern China, parts of Eastern Europe, and a plethora of developing countries.