I don't deny the benefits of global trade. I'd agree that capitalism was a positive development in the history of a) economic productivity and b) individual prosperity, and that globalism is directly responsible for the level of technological development we enjoy today. One critical aspect of capitalist development, however, is that it's historically tied to the dynamics of imperialist expansion, which is part of what Deleuze and Guattari describe as the modern State. Given this historical connection, it's impossible to extricate poverty from success.
Eugenics is historically tied to the progressive moment, that doesn't mean it's impossible to extricate eugenics from progressive politics.
Every imperialist regime with some mode of capitalism made others suffer through anti-capitalist acts. The Irish didn't starve because they were out-competed by superior British agriculture, they starved because the British forbade trade. Iran didn't have an uprising against the West and British Petroleum because enterprising Anglos purchased their oil fields at market value, they had an uprising because the oil fields were taken as a part of war and then later privatized.
You respond to many of my points already, which is that protectionism and imperialism were crucial components of capitalism (and still are today, to perhaps a lesser degree).
Hardly crucial, at least to a degree that it impoverishes other nations. America was more or less isolationist until McKinley and the Spanish-American war; they had fairly high tariffs and protectionist policies, but I'm unaware of evidence that those tariffs were necessary for capitalism. The South, obviously, was quite opposed to protectionism. And it obviously does not explain how tiny city-states like Singapore, Hong Kong, etc become incredibly wealthy with virtually no military and minimal trade barriers. Protectionism has always been used as a populist ploy to convince workers that they should be honored to pay their masters more for a good than pay someone else. The continued success of neoliberal governments along with the growth of most economies worldwide, not to mention things such as the fact that countries that trade almost never go to war.
You suggest that this leads to "temporary war and economic depression," which is accurate; but it's not followed by significant improvement of the standard of living for all citizens (additionally, all citizens didn't enjoy higher standards of living before communist revolutions; only some did). More often than not, the extraction of imperialist powers either a) opens the door for corrupt local officials to swoop in and take over, or b) establishes a dictatorial regime that leads to the kinds of coups we see in Cuba and Afghanistan. The resultant effects aren't unrelated to the capitalist efforts of imperialist nations that colonized and occupied these territories. Venezuela's current situation isn't a result of their government's meddling or "kicking the capitalists out"; it's an effect of the 1973 oil embargo and its lingering impact. Likewise, as Orwell suggests in the piece quoted by Dak, India's poverty was an effect of Britain's domestic standard-of-living (that is, the British could enjoy the products and wealth that they did only because India couldn't fully enjoy the fruits of their labor, most of which went to the Brits). This is all part of global markets and trade as much as it is part of government meddling or other purportedly "anti-market" activities.
The overwhelming majority of citizens enjoy higher standards of living, even though there are obviously those that become wealthier. Where are you observing this? People predicted that outsourcing to China would only profit Nike executives and Chinese factory owners. Obviously not true; China has the largest middle-class in the world now. Their poorest are those unable to participate in capitalism, largely rural minority groups and the illiterate (both shrinking classes in China). More often than not, Western leaders in both politics and industry work together with foreign nations to ensure that things are stable.
Cuba is the most extreme success story of a communist regime (and it's worth noting that they remained poor not so much because of their leadership (which gradually mellowed and began to accept trade - albeit with a redistributive and authoritarian aim - but because of America's excessively long trade embargo), and Afghanistan was never exactly properly conquered and made an imperial possession.
I won't deny that countries like Cuba and Venezuela are poorly managed and that their internal economic policies are insufficient. I won't deny that capitalism has done more for global development in the past two centuries than socialism. I will deny that capitalism can solve the third world's problems.
The current economic standing of countries like Afghanistan, Guinea, Haiti, and of colonies like Puerto Rico, are results of capitalist history. There's no way around this point. Does that mean capitalism is primarily responsible for their current situations? I won't argue that, no, because I don't think I have enough information to figure out what the primary factors are. But I can say with certainty that these situations aren't unrelated to capitalist intervention over the past century or more.
Capitalism is lifting Africa out of poverty right now, thanks to China building infrastructure and bringing money in exchange for natural resources and political influence. The vast majority of the world was "third world" by current standards just 100 years ago. I don't understand how you can say that capitalism has done any good, without accepting that it enriched the once-destitute nations all over the world.
Afghanistan is poor primarily because it's a rural fundamentalist shithole filled with tribal pedophiles. The British hardly even had a chance to extract wealth out of there via any form of trade. File under halfway under #2, a USSR-curious -stan, but with other extenuating factors. Guinea I'm not familiar with; skimming Wikipedia, what makes their history particularly different from any other colonized African nation? Apparently they had a socialist revolution in the 50s-70s, nationalized any French owned industries, killed some people, etc. Obviously slavery and imperialism hurt Africa, but that wasn't capitalism. Just compare the outcome of Guinea with that of Cameroon, also a French colony but one that maintained a good trade relationship with France, now one of the more promising sub-Saharan nations. File under #1. Haiti was a nation of African slaves that killed their masters and spiraled into illiteracy and death. Compare them to their next-door neighbor in the Dominican Republic, populated with many subjugated to Spanish colonial rule, but founded in support of trade and property rights. File under #1, by proxy.
