No? This is nonsense Red Scare fearmongering, in socialist Cuba and Russia life expectancy skyrocketed, poverty rates plummeted, and society saw mass democratization in a unitary socialist system.

The Russian Revolution, Chinese Revolution, Cuban Revolution, Vietnamese Revolution, Laotian Revolution, Haitian Revolution, Bolivarian Revolution, etc. These all saw dramatic increases in life expectancy, literacy rates, housing rates, and democratization of society. The development of technology is intrinsically tied to politics, not outside of it.

The French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Cuban Revolution, etc.

It wasn’t a lie, the site links many western news sites as sources for claims. If you actually took a few minutes to engage beyond checking the links, you would have known that. No deflection or obfuscation on my part, just disappointment that you won’t even do the due diligence to refute any points. You are indeed the one being dense, sorry to say. This is kind of like that time when you were insistent that the proper term is “Marxist-Leninism” rather than “Marxism-Leninism”, which Wikipedia easily verifies.

Yes it is, public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy and the working class runs the state. By Marxist analysis, it’s clearly socialist.

I referenced numerous works that provide definitive accounts of anti-discrimination laws, legal protections, and administrative power and representation. You deflected, said I was wrong, and refused to engage with any of it, hand waving it as “disinformation” despite largely being sourced from places like the New York Times. You have no actual legs to stand on, and justify your own lack of developed argumentation and lack of evidence as “not taking the bait.” Anyone can see that the only people who ever side with you are the ones entrenched in the same epistemic bubble as you. In a sense, that puts you on pretty even ground with maga in my worldview, refusing to look at hard evidence and shutting your eyes and ears to uncomfortable facts.

Thank you!

China is socialist, I already explained how and why to you a couple of days ago, which I will repost here so you can read it again:

The PRC has a socialist market economy, a form of developing socialism where the commanding heights and critical industries are socially owned, while emerging industries are marketized. This is because the CPC understands the Marxist critique of capitalism, which isn’t that private property is morally wrong, but that the basis of social ownership is centralized, socialized production as seen in developed markets, not decentralized and scattered production, which instead suits markets.

The CPC already tried the more dogmatic method of collectivizing everything, and this went the way Marxists would predict: unstable. The developing areas were in contradiction between their unsuitable level of productive forces, and an attempt at forcing a higher level of social organization upon them. This resulted in dogmatic errors that have since been corrected.

Regarding the CPC, they are a proletarian party. The state in Marxist analysis can never be a neutral “state,” it can only be a “feudal state,” a “capitalist state,” a “socialist state.” They can only represent the ruling class of society, as determined by which class controls the economic base. The proletariat and peasantry took power in 1949, and since then have had dominating control over the base and superstructure. Hierarchy is not class, that is not Marxist. The capitalists that exist in China are under the domination of the state, they are not in power.

As for the affirmative action claim being a strawman, your only logical point was that affirmative action in China does not matter because the US has Black Americans in government. This is such a non-sequitor that I had to find a point somewhere, so that’s the best point I could make out of your logic. I already responded directly to the lies you made, feel free to go back and reread my comment.

I don’t know what your goal is here. If your goal was to delegitimize me, then surely you’d actually respond to the points I brought up and source something, as it stands you’re just legitimizing me.

Ah, gotcha! Makes sense.

No? This is ridiculous, all major change has come through revolution.

No, China is not imperialist, nor “expansionist imperialist.” This is baseless. The west is actively imperialist. The west uses financial domination of the global south, including dollar hegemony, IP monopoly, unequal exchange, and more to extract as much surplus from the global south as possible. China does not, and the reason it does not is because it isn’t dominated by private finance capital. Private finance capital is the main driver of imperialism as a stage in capitalism, and because you have not looked into the causes of imperialism and neocolonialism and have not looked at the numbers, you assume that the socialists must be guilty as well:

• Five Imperialist Myths About China’s Role in Africa

• China debt trap? PH an ‘expert in bad loans,’ Locsin says

• Deborah Brautigam Debunks the Chinese Debt Trap Theory in New Research Paper

• China’s Debt Relief for Africa: Emerging Deliberations

I’ve read a lot about Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, and while I still need to read on Inner Mongolia, I don’t see that changing my assertion that China is not expansionist. I recommend you read Xinjiang: A Resource and Report Compilation, Taiwan: An Anti-Imperialist Resource, Hong Kong Reading List, and Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth. All of these are western sources, so you should have no problems with believing this to simply be “CPC propaganda.”

China has comprehensive minority protections and rights. Your evidence thus far seems to be that China is secretly evil because it has affirmative action, which is nonsense of course and demands more than just blanket statements with no backing. You’re free to respond to whoever you want, but when you lie and slander to other people behind their backs, certainly you can see why that would be a pretty low thing to do, no?

Revolutions are won through organized groups of disciplined revolutionaries preparing for crisis. You are speaking to the opposite of historical revolution.

Revolution does not spontaneously become organized, organization needs to happen prior to revolution to turn crisis into a struggle against the system.

Yep!

Definitely true! But when people say this they generally are playing on a false moral sin for Marxists to use items made under capitalism, as though Marxism is a religion.

I don’t think normalization is a problem so much as justifying the capitalist nature of it. We can see the difference between how AI is handled in, say, China, vs. how it’s handled under capitalism, so it’s important to actually attack the role AI plays in capitalism, rather than AI itself. The problem is the social relation, not the tool.

They already do that in the west, though, at least in the US.

There’s certainly a lot to think about with it. In the modern era, I don’t see anyone as actually equivalent to Xi Jinping on the capitalist side, if we are to take FDR to be the champion of social democratic capitalism. To me, it seems socialism has its equivalent while capitalism has begun to struggle more and more.

I’m trying to get you to formulate a more materialist answer to opposing AI. The AI question isn’t really settled in Marxism yet, but it’s essentially a tool.

China isn’t imperialist, nor is it “expansionist imperialist.” It isn’t that it’s okay when China does it, I have no idea what you’re referencing. It is chauvanist to call China an ethno-state, considering that it has 55 minority ethnic groups, who are overrepresented in the NPC to ensure their voices are not shut out by the Han majority. Do you have an issue with responding to me directly if you have something to say, or are you hoping I just won’t notice while you undermine me so you can get away with it uncontested?