this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2025
559 points (94.3% liked)
Memes
54189 readers
657 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
China eradicated extreme poverty, and has been extremely consistent when it comes to improving quality of life year over year. Imperialist countries may have higher quality of life in some areas, such as the Nordics, but they are regularly deteriorating thanks to capitalism while China is regularly rising thanks to socialism.
Like I said, theoretically it will even better than those capitalist countries, at some point. It's just not the case yet
Sure, but already it's better to be poor in China than poor in the US.
That'd be fine if those were the two countries in the world, but there's lots of capitalist and socialist countries
Sure, but they're also useful examples.
I mean preferably you'd pick top ones to compare, so best in class from both systems. In this case the winner would be from the capitalist side, if your pick was China. That's what I meant it being a poor example. There's probably a socialist country that actually beats the capitalist countries when it comes to social safety net and not as many living paycheck to paycheck
China beats the US when it comes to quality of life for those without much money, though. Maybe if you were talking 20 years ago the situation would be different, but China has absolutely surpassed the US. Further, the US Empire relies on imperialism, and has been a developed country for far longer. China at the moment is the world's most developed socialist country, and it already surpasses the US Empire.
Hypothetically which county in China offers the best social safety net?
Major cities tend to have better infrastructure and access to care. I don't know about "best" though.
Did you just make the whole thing about USA? Fucking hell, this America centrism is killing me
No? I included the Nordics as well. What are you trying to say, here? I used the US Empire as its the dying world hegemon, but use any western European state you like and it's similar.
I mean jeez. There's other countries out there and we were talking about those beating China. If you feel like the Nordics have poorer safety nets than China or more people living paycheck to paycheck just say that, instead of a reply talking about US for whatever reason...
When you say "top of the world," the US is the world hegemon with the greatest amount of wealth and plunder. It distributes it very poorly because it's a dying capitalist empire, of course. Nordic countries are in some ways behind China and in some ways ahead even if they fare better than the US, but that's because of imperialism still, and not an example of capitalism working. China shows that, despite developing far later than the imperialist west (take your pick on whichever one), it has managed to develop far more quickly and for the benefit of all, rather than an elite few.
Don't insinuate that I'm a bot. Dehumanization is bad. Either explain what you mean by "best in class" or accept that it's possible that someone would interpret it as I did.
Why do you say the US is dying? Seams to be imperialising and monopolising better than ever to me.
It's lashing out more violently, sure, but the global south is actually developing thanks to increased south-south trade and an erosion of western tech monopoly. The rise of China is contributing greatly to this.
Can you point me towards some resources?
From what I know big tech companies are going incredibly well and achieving lots of growth.
Look at the rates of electrification in the global south, and the sluggish economies in the US and Europe. The AI bubble is just that, a bubble.
What I said:
The topic was about people living paycheck to paycheck and social safety net... So take top ones in that category from both systems and compare them to find the overall winner.
But that doesn't make sense, you compare among peers in development timeframes where you can, as well as size and location. Nordic countries tend to have good safety nets, but they also fund them from imperialism, and they've been developing for a longer period of time. China isn't imperialist, and it's only recently been developing. If you're trying to compare capitalism and socialism as systems, you have to compare their trajectories and where they've come from, not static snapshots.
We're trying to find the best countries right now. You'll never find good comparable enough countries anyway, there's always big meaningful differences that can be argued over endlessly.
Right now there's capitalist countries beating all the socialist ones at what we're talking about. Like said, theoretically at some point they will be best than every capitalist country. It's just not right now.
This was the original claim:
Which is true, and requires analyzing them in context of their peer countries. Imperialist countries have inflated living standards due to taking huge amounts of super-profits from the global south, therefore comparison isn't going to be even anyways. Comparing Cuba with other Latin American countries makes a lot of sense, trying to grab "the best" of each like history is just a static snapshot and doesn't matter is horrible for trying to see which is better.
I'm just saying that right now the best of capitalist countries beat the best of the socialist ones, at least if that best example is China (which isn't great tbh). In theory in the future etc. but like right now.
Why would that make any sense for a kind of comparison between capitalism and socialism? Why not compare peers? And additionally, China does have good quality of life, and again is rapidly improving.
Well you'd want to see what's currently best available. At this time, there's countries that are doing better than best of socialist countries. Maybe it'll change at some point, I know theoretically it should. But we don't want to go into wild speculation
Saying that socialism is a more effective system than capitalism and that socialist countries provide better for the working classes than capitalist ones is the statement I made, and is true. Comparing "the best" (whatever that means) capitalist and socialist countries doesn't actually answer that. It doesn't take into account length of time, history, level of development, trajectory, and more, and it especially doesn't take imperialism into account.
Those best in what we have been talking about the whole time lol. Right now those are capitalist countries. I bet socialism is great and gets better and better but it's just not at the top yet in this. Unless there's a better example than China ofc.
You are saying that socialism is better at this particular aspect but all I'm saying the best in it are still capitalist.
No, you pivoted the conversation to that direction. Originally we were talking about capitalist and socialist countries, and how socialist countries take better care of their working classes than capitalist countries. I gave good examples of this, but then you decided to erase context and try to compare "the best" with "the best." This is a terrible idea for reasons I've already explained, doing so erases historical context, geographic differences, geopolitical tensions, and historical trends.
The only capitalist countries that have it better than China are the Nordic countries, and that's only in some ways, not all. Further, the Nordic countries have been developed for longer, are imperialist and thus use the spoils of imperialism for their safety nets, and have not been targetted by other countries. To compare the quality of life for a worker in China vs a worker in the Nordics without taking those factors into consideration tells us nothing about the effectiveness of capitalism and socialism for the working classes.