> Capitalism has not empowered people and does not uplift people from poverty.
Alright. So this is a definite statement. A conclusion. hmm interesting, lets's continue reading to see what reasoning this follows from.
> We're able to produce thousand times as much goods per worker as in the 1700s, and yet do we live (and by we I mean all the workers, not just us with high-level jobs in rich countries) that much better than at that time?
Ok so, capitalism created RICH countries, yet it did not uplift people form poverty. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If I were you, I would try to state my position a bit better because you sound completely self-contradicting. What you mean to say is that capitalism have created a lot of wealth, but it hasn't evenly distributed it.
>I do agree that capitalism is a system that has had a significant impact on our ability to produce more goods, and that in some countries we can see a positive impact
ooh look. That IS the EXACT OPPOSITE statement to the first one you made. Wow...
See, the reason I hate debating leftists is that they start by rejecting your statement and move on to actually PROVE IT but provide some context in which it does not satisfy what they deem to be "fair". Well, here is the thing chap. If the Congo had capitalism, the Congo would reap the benefits of that capitalism as you PROVED above that it has. It just so happens that the poorest places in the world at the least capitalistic ones. Must be a coincidence right?!
> And look at recent years too, with poverty skyrocketing even in the most "advanced" countries.
facepalm