QueerCommie

You did not look at the resources I sent lmao. Do you have any sources for your claims?

China is a one party system.

False. Even Wikipedia can debunk your claims. There are nine parties in China, which work together in consultation on policy. Boer has a whole chapter on this. There is no requirement of party membership for running in elections and they have tons of elections. The reason they don’t have a bunch of spectacle where people pretend they hate each other and the president is whomever can procure the most money and be the most charismatic like the US is because they manage their contradictions non-antagonistically (another thing Boer talks about).

China doesn’t perform well on living standard.

A laughable statement. China is doing better than the US. But, the US has centuries of imperialism it benefits from, so why compare it to China, when India is more comparable and has 7 years lower life expectancy.

Too many homeless and a great part of the population lives in poverty.

Of all the things to accuse China of, that is not it.

Work week is 6 days a week and 12 hours a day.

You really need to source these claims. Anyway, labor rights are increasing year by year. They a whole lot better than other countries with large manufacturing industry.

There’s not one thing China is the best at when it comes to welfare and living standards.

My shock when a country that’s less than a 100 years out of its century of humiliation isn’t the absolute best at everything.

So no, it’s by no means a great example.

Eliminating poverty, , leading the world by far in technological innovation, and being the largest economy not too long after being a feudal backwater without colonies isn’t exemplary?

Why do you care? Star Trek is fictional, but socialism is real and democratic, moving toward communism (like Star Trek).

I don’t know too much about Star Trek, but with that extreme post scarcity, what do you need a government for? The reason we communists support abolishing police is because you don’t need any coercion if everyone has whatever material thing they could want or need.

Star Trek has an economic system, it’s not run “on science.” Star Trek is functionally fully automated luxury communism. Under capitalism we have the technology to have no scarcity, but that’s not profitable, so capitalists create scarcity by destroying excess product and not giving it to those in need. In Star Trek they have a duplicator thing so no one is in need and no one can make a profit. It is a communist utopia. If you want to see a rational society that implements policy for scientifically planned good look at China. Their ultimate goal is communism, but today for now their achievements include lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty, heavily subsidizing green technology allowing it to be cheap and accessible, and lifting people’s living standards so that the life expectancy is higher the wealthy western countries.

Authoritarian is a nonsense term. You said you support socialism right? It cannot exist without capitalists feeling and being vocal about their oppression. All the media portrays China as evil because they are the antithesis of our sick society.

“Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part…” - Fredrick Engels

Self evident to whom? We are ruled by ghouls who care more about profit than people’s lives. Shouldn’t it be “self-evident” to Biden that committing genocide is bad? Shouldn’t it be “self-evident” that corporations shouldn’t be getting away after poisoning millions of people? Shouldn’t it be “self evident” that if people work all day their wages should be enough to allow them to live decently?

These things may obviously be good, but it won’t be done until we have a system that puts people over profit.

Fake numbers about a US enemy from harvard? Shouldn’t we be hearing about the 10% who didn’t like the government being punished if there actually is coercion?

Science is their friend. Companies pay people to make studies that make their dangerous products look good. Think tanks run studies to figure out how to keep the economy growing at the expense of working people.

China is by no means perfect, but far more democratic than the US “beacon of democracy” ever was. There’s a reason over 90% are happy with their government. https://dessalines.github.io/essays/socialism_faq.html#is-china-a-democracy

They are also a good example of the practice of scientific socialism. They’ve extensively studied the Soviet Union as to avoid their mistakes. They also study the contradictions of their society to develop harmonically. I recommend Roland Boer’s Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: a Foreigner’s Guide.

Science has no goal. It cannot determine policy. It can tell you how certain policies may affect certain metrics, but it matters who decides what metrics matter ie. do we care if people have food, or if line go up.

I should mention many Utopian Socialists wanted scientists to rule society, but their dreams failed and were coopted. They didn’t understand the class character of the state.

Technocracy is stupid, and just serves tech elites. Thankfully, there is a scientific political system out there called Scientific Socialism. It ruthlessly criticizes the world to find the best way to advance the interests of the great masses of people. It analyses the movement of history and society to make it develope smoothly. It studies its own struggle to make it be more effectively. However, it is not against democracy, but rather in favor of a truer democracy of the working class. Liberal democracy is simply the ruling class making up differences and fighting each other for show. In China they have a far better democracy without such fighting, and instead have tons of dialogue and study.

Every time anyone calls you out on anything

There’s nothing to call him out on. All that you dronie losers say is “how dare you say a country that I don’t like is good with sources, you’re not allowed to do that!”

You’re the one reducing possibilities. Your dichotomy is between staying a territory and becoming a state. While being a state is nominally better than being outright occupied subjects, prior to colonization they were better off, and you suggest decolonization and not being colonized aren’t options.

Does that mean USians will have access to their tech or will they keep it banned while admitting they have no valid reason to?