No
Thank you for taking the time to make a nuanced argument. I'm particularly happy with how much effort you went to source your statements and then synthesize them into a useful conclusion that I hadn't considered before. It is always nice to see a comment like yours that proves that people do read articles (and not just headlines)! I wish we could all contribute as much as you do.
Your wiki link for inequality has China ranked 98, not 71, putting it much closer to the USA at 107.
I'm not sure if you understand how a ranked list works: you can invert the ranking order and the relative difference is identical. Whether you say China is 98 and USA 107 (a difference of 9) or you say China is 71 and the USA is 62 (a difference of 9), the relative difference is the same (it's 9). The only difference is how you interpret which is better, which I didn't do. My point was they're similar and middling in the ranking.
Also notably, the Gini index has a very long list of nominally “capitalist” countries ahead of China, which meet your criteria for a sustained fight against inequality and taking care of the poor.
This is irrelevant to the point I was making. My point wasn't that China is uniquely positioned with low income inequality. My point was twofold: it is middling in its rankings (i.e., not the most unequal), and it's decreasing. The fact that it's steadily decreasing is directly related to the point I made about the CPC truly working for the people to solve the real problems they're facing: they identified a problem, identified some causal factors, discussed the importance of fixing it, made plans of how to fix it, are implementing those plans, and make reports on the progress of those plans. You'll also notice that those capitalist countries which have less income inequality than China have more government intervention in the market (i.e., tempering the "free market") in part because the issue doesn't address itself in a capitalist system, and intervention has to be taken to address the problem. This is what China is doing, too: their income inequality problem isn't magically going away on its own free will, it is going away because of government intervention in the economy.
Forgive me as you’ve written quite a bit here but this seems to be the only concrete policy to discuss vis-a-vis capitalist vs communist systems. The rest is subjective language about “working for the people”. Every politician gets up on stage and talks about how they’re fighting hard to give people better lives. No one really gives those statements any credit.
The difference is that Western politicians rely on selling a promise and not delivering. Yes, they get up on stage and talk, and then do nothing. With the CPC, they actually show results. They make plans and publish them, they implement them, and they publish update reports that show whether or not they stuck to what they said they would do. This is not another situation with empty promises; if it was, they either wouldn't publish update reports or the update reports would show that they aren't doing what they said they would. You're confusing form and function: both CPC and Western politicians make promises, but the Western politicians do not deliver and the CPC does. There's a reason CPC support in China is so high, and it's because the party truly works for and benefits the people; if it were empty promises that never benefited the people, they wouldn't have so much support for the party.
(Edit: I was wrong in the direction I had sorted when I wrote this comment initially. I have removed the now irrelevant part. My point still stands: the two countries I compared are similar, and China is middling in it's ranking; inverting the sort order doesn't make the countries less similar, and since they're middling, inverting the sort order means they're still middling. I didn't make a claim that one was better than the other).
It's available for free on a popular "scientific research paper file sharing site"[^1] if you search for its title.
[^1]: The founder of which just won an EFF Award a couple days ago!
The point is not how you feel about it. The point is the reality of the situation: despite whatever protest or complaint people had, it had no bearing on the actions of the USA and no punishment was brought on the USA. As such, the USA calling for punishment on someone else is hypocritical. It wants to pretend to be the world's police while simultaneously being the biggest crime boss, and it deserves to be called out for that.
The reason people keep bringing up Iraq is not for some "whataboutism". It's simpler and more significant than that: it shows a hypocrisy, and double-standards. It's not that people are saying "what Russia is doing isn't bad because the USA did bad" (that is whataboutism, by the way); they're saying that the USA's (and the world's) feigned outrage over Russia is hypocritical because of what the USA has done. Nobody held (or intends to hold) the USA to account for what it's done, yet everyone is demanding Russia be torn apart, torn down, everyone tried for war crimes, etc. It's a double-standard. If the USA had been held to account for what it did, then people wouldn't be saying "but Iraq" (and if they did, that truly would be simple whataboutism). But until there is fair application of standards, it's fair to call the USA on its hypocrisy when it wants to pretend to be the world's police while simultaneously (ironically, in line with behavior of actual police) causing tremendous harm itself.
You're taking an overly specific definition of lynching and framing the situation wrong, and coming to a bad conclusion.
A court's refusal to punish it, in nearly every case, is tacit support. They aren't saying "please, lynch!" but they're saying they won't punish lynching.
This also easily fits any definition of lynching that's not so restricted so as to only include "hanging black people from trees in town squares".
My issue is that you said they're capitalist. They're not. They do use a market economy in addition to a planned economy, as part of the overall socialist economic system. It's not a binary either-or; using a market economy doesn't mean it's capitalism, and planned economy (intervention) doesn't mean it's socialism. When I said they're structural terms, and relate to purpose: capitalism's purpose is to maximally extract profit and concentrate wealth; socialism's purpose is to better the lives (materially and culturally) of its people. China, as a socialist system, takes advantage of the benefits that a market economy can offer (efficiency, competition, resource allocation, demand and pricing signals) but doesn't use it to extract and concentrate wealth: instead, it uses the net benefits of the market economy to benefit the people. Similarly, a purely planned economy can be very stable and fair but is prone to stagnation and slow progress. By using both systems simultaneously, taking the relative advantages of each, China is able to benefit from efficiency and stability. There's also no pure free market economy: every capitalist economy has degrees of government intervention (another name for planned economy), especially in times of crises.
I also don't know what you meant about a "strong central government" not making them communist. That seems like a strawman. Nobody would say that a strong central government makes it communist, or a lack of a strong central government means it's not communist. "Strong" with no other qualifies is also not very useful: do you mean tough and resilient, or do you mean controlling?
I weighed calling them socialist, but it seemed… unhelpful when what i was trying to highlight that the unemployed youth are relying on family, and not the state.
This is a trap that people keep falling in to. Just because a socialist country doesn't do "good thing X" doesn't mean it's not socialist. No system is perfect; the difference is that the CPC makes strong plans, sticks to them, and publishes progress reports to address the problems that do arise. Should the state be taking the burden here where family currently is? Perhaps. But it's failure to do so doesn't mean the system isn't socialist. Again, I'll repeat my earlier statement: being "socialist" is a statement that is about the purpose of the government and the relation of the government to its people; it is socialist if it is for the benefit of the people en masse. Being "socialist" is not a statement of a utopic ideal antithesis to capitalism.
If you truly are willing to read about this, the book I mentioned is a good overview of China as it exists, as an implementation of a socialist society, at a level that does not require previous knowledge of theory or of China. Being intended for a foreign audience, it makes a concerted effort to address common misconceptions held by those outside of China about China. It's also very heavily sourced: each chapter ends with several pages of citations used in that chapter, including primary sources from CPC members, official government documents, analysis and critiques, and "historical"/foundational texts.
Honestly it looks like it got bought and has been used by someone else? The domain has been registered with the current owner since 2022-05-07, and if you look at the Wayback Machine for 2022-05-12 it says it's up for sale. It looks like the domain used to be used for the Center, for example this snapshot from 2016. Even back in March 2023 the site wasn't showing porn but was not being used by the Center.
Wow. Reading through those Descriptions is rough. Many of them involve the cop lying with verbal testimony not matching bodycam footage. One I saw was after the guy was already restrained, he bit the cop's finger, so the cop shot him. Others show that they are looking for (or will make up) any excuse to shoot: one person had a lighter in their hand which caused the cop to shoot and kill them. It's honestly disgusting that people will go out of their way to defend this system. I guess that's a level of privelege that I just don't understand; how can you possibly be sure you'll never be in such a situation with a lying, murderous police officer?
Fully sourced means my statements were sourced, not that it was dripping in sources.
Also, the book I cited is not propaganda. Please don't resort to calling everything that posits an alternate view propaganda.
From the Springer page on the book,
Roland Boer is a professor in the School of Marxism Studies at Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China.
So he has a degree in and is a professor in the exact subject he's talking about, from a respected University:
Dalian University of Technology (DUT) [...] is a public research university located in Dalian, Liaoning, China, with an additional campus in Panjin, Liaoning. [...] Formerly called the Dalian Institute of Technology, DUT is renowned as one of the Big Four Institutes of Technology in China. [...] As of 2022, DUT was listed as one of the top 400 global universities in several major international universities' rankings
Moreover, it's not some random publisher or some guy's PDF on the internet. It's published by Springer which, if you have done any academic reading in almost any field, you will know that Springer content is high-quality and trustworthy. In fact, at a lot of the university libraries I've been in, some subjects (maths, especially) are probably three-quarters Springer publications,
Springer Science+Business Media, commonly known as Springer, is a German multinational publishing company of books, e-books and peer-reviewed journals in science, humanities, technical and medical (STM) publishing.
It seems you're right. I will edit that part of my comment. But I will point out: I wasn't making a statement that one was worse than the other. I made the point that they're similar in ranking and like I said, even if you reverse ranking order they're still just as similar. And, since they were middling in their ranking like I originally said, if you invert the sorting, they're still middling.