How do I refute this?

If this is the best we can do, I'm severely disappointed.

From 1938 straight to 1990.

How about something like 1920 to 1970 or something?

How about you (tell them) not to use propaganda as arguments. You know. Showing selective data..

Unless you think humans were banging rocks together until the 18th century than you owe your thanks to labor and human ingenuity. Capitalism wormed its way in to find a way to profit from those advances.

This one is probably my favorite because it is often upheld as the standard we should use because the numbers of capitalist nations are often superior to those of formally centrally planned socialist nations, but the same pro-capitalists will then refuse to use HDI as a measure when comparing nations with the best worker's rights, welfare, bargaining rights, etc. like the Scandinavian and western European nations.

Also,

Greece is doing SO GOOD because of capitalism.

FUCK OFF!

That's life. Nobody is born entitled to happiness and security. The fact that we have had enough growth, prosperity, and peace to convince people of the exact opposite is almost a miracle and it definitely won't last forever so you better be ready for a lot more disappointment in your life.

Oh, is that why capitalists refuse to use HDI as a measurement? :^)

You can't. The main appeal of socialism is that it supposedly removes the constraints placed on the developement of the forces of production by capitalism. Socialism is supposed to outproduce capitalism by applying "scientific" central planning and abolishing the "anarchy" of capitalist production. The fact that it didn't is just another sign of the failure and bankruptcy of this toxic alien jewish ideology

Also lefty/pol/ is satire are you seriously taking what's here seriously? TOP KEK

Which is why there are four former eastern bloc countries with a higher IHDI than the U.S.?

Capitalism isn't anarchy, capitalism is bosses exploiting their workers for maximum profit

This is economically viable (just as slavery is economically the best way) but it leads to a subservient class of workers and a higher class of capitalist prokies

The point of socialism is to have the workers control the means of production (business) instead of porkies taking their production and only giving them a fraction of it

...

What even the point of putting forward arguments and refuting them? you don't seriously want to have an argument. what do you hope to accomplish, actual professionals in this field have written books as a response to someone's argument. what do you think your paragraph or so of text with accomplish? If you really wanted to discuss this, you would engage with the experts of the subject, instead you've come to the least credible community on the internet, an anonymous imageboard, where you can shitpost for a few hours, behave like an asshole, and then if you get shown up, just stop responding and the thread will disapear in a few hours anyway, and you've got no reputation to worry about.

The platform is better suited for furry porn than politics.

/thread

all dem sauces

...

Most transactions are financial or capitalization upon intangible assets in a capitalist economy… that whole layer of paper wealth wouldn't exist in a state socialist economy so GDP would be much lower obviously so it's really a nonsensical comparison. Those countries all had massive issues but looking at GDP numbers doesn't make much sense here.

Increases in land values and stocks made up most wealth growth in the capitalist economies while production was being outsourced to the third world

Also the soviet sphere never used GDP they used a system called NMP officially to do their numbers
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_material_product

Countries focusing on making money make more money than countries that focus on making life better.
Crazy huh?
Money =/= happiness
Money =/= progress
Money =/= science

Read a book or two for starters? People who post this image haven't, that's why they post it. It isn't that hard to debunk though, this picture obviously doesn't tell the whole story. All of those Eastern economies were growing at a similar rate to Western ones throughout the 50's and part of the 60's, in fact the USSR was growing significantly faster than the US. It should be very well-known by now that all of their economic problems stemmed from the continuous market "reforms" that coincided with increasing corruption and bourgeois infiltration, culminating with the purposeful destruction of the USSR by it's enemies.

Pretty sure Italy had anti-miscegenation laws under Mussolini.