Also compared to what? "Capitalism, but it had less industry"? "Capitalism's direct ancestor, which was just cruder and less developed but which fundamentally behaved exactly the same just worse, and also there was much less industry"?

Because any time you compare states with even remotely comparable amounts of industrial capital, the socialist state comes out ahead. Which is just a big "no shit" sort of thing: of course a state that sets out to use wealth to meet people's needs and build up the economy is going to do better than a comparable state that sets wealth on fire so some idle fancy lad can chortle and clap and bark like a seal watching it burn for his pleasure. "Successful" capitalist states only attain a modest standard of living within their borders through superexploitation of client states abroad and legally/socially unpersoned minorities internally.

We already do, that's the funniest thing. Outside of humanities departments and radical spaces most people just take in the narrative of capitalist development wholesale , and they don't even see it because it's "common sense"