*my cherrypicked data tends to suggest that my own personal definition of what "socialism" is tends to correlate with poverty globally*
Give me a counterexample then. I can only find charts that show correlations.
There is genuinely no point, because you have already made it clear that your definition of "socialism" is cherry picked in a way so as to exclude the possibility - as is the ridiculous implication that countries are either "socialist" or "capitalist" as if there isn't a range of policy options that straddle both economic systems (not that "pure" socialism is even one set of policies to begin with).
And even then, the Soviet Union was wealthier per capita than the world average for the entirety of the pos WW2 era. Point being that it is pretty insane to point to the ideology of incumbent governments as being responsible for their level of economic development. In the vast majority of cases it is overwhelmingly (even if not always and to differing extents) the result of geographic, historical, political, economic, cultural factors that are well beyond said incumbent's control.