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.
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.
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.
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.