You're confusing capitalists, ie capital owners, with liberals, those who are pro-capitalism. As for Lemmy, its growth is tied to recognition and Reddit's decay, the established community on Reddit is itself the draw.

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.

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.

I don't follow how this relates to the meme

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.

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.

This was the original claim:

Socialist countries generally have better safety nets, like China. Even Cuba, poor and sanctioned as it is, takes better care of its poorest than capitalist countries do.

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.

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.

Major cities tend to have better infrastructure and access to care. I don't know about "best" though.

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.

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.

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.

Sure, but they're also useful examples.

A human put in the prompt and posted the output, yes. The message is what's most important for agitprop.

Sure, but already it's better to be poor in China than poor in the US.

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.

Socialist countries generally have better safety nets, like China. Even Cuba, poor and sanctioned as it is, takes better care of its poorest than capitalist countries do.

/s doesn't take away from the point, it's just an indicator. In this day and age, it's legitimately impossible to tell otherwise sometimes.

People license themselves into believing that that which benefits them is good. They aren't married to the ideas, they willingly choose to believe them until their material conditions prove them inaccurate through their new lived experience. Red Sails has a series on "brainwashing" that I consider critical reading for anyone wanting to agitate, especially Roderic Day's Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of "Brainwashing."

Sure.