No, you sit there and nod along when a leftist-type calls for the USA regime to be overthrown and act like its the best thing that could happen and would go absolutely swimmingly, but if someone says the same about China, say it’s awful and that would mean the death and suffering of millions.

It's extremely simple: my point isn't that changing systems is inherently bad, but that's your core premise. The reason I am confident that socialist revolution in the US Empire would be dramatically positive (not at all free of conflict or struggle, of course) while collapse of socialism in China would be devastating for most people is because I look at history, not just the abstract, metaphysical idea of change being bad.

For example, when looking at the transition between tsarism and socialism in Russia, we saw a chaotic period of revolution followed by tremendous progress in key life metrics like life expectancy, housing rates, literacy rates, women's rights, and more. It was not perfect, and it did involve violent revolution, but the new system was dramatically progressive and uplifted the people.

When we look at the dissolution of socialism in Russia, we see skyrocketing poverty rates, increased prostitution, drug abuse, disparity, homelessness, drops in education, life expectancy, and more. Many of these metrics are still behind the soviet union in the modern Russian Federation.

By looking at historical example, and comparing the general with the particular characteristics in the US Empire and the PRC, I can say which I support and why.

So that would still mean a lot of suffering in the interim, you know.

Of course, but this suffering pales in comparison to the tyranny of the present capitalist dictatorship and the constant genocide the US Empire exports. If there was an easy, simple, peaceful option to bring about socialism in the US Empire, I'd take it in a heartbeat. The problem is that there isn't, and I can say so because I study the processes of growth and development, of change, ie dialectical materialism.

I said we will “never agree” in your framing that every liberal democracy everywhere is a “dictatorship of capital”. You said it regarding the ROC, but you likely view it true of everywhere. That’s terminology rooted in your world view and not based on any kind of common ground.

It's based on the analysis of how capitalist systems are run. Bourgeois "democracy" cannot truly represent the will of the people, only the will of the ruling class, that class being the capitalists that control the large firms and key industries. This isn't something leftists believe out of dogma, but observed analysis of history and the process of growth and development of society over time.

I don’t regard what Rimu said as racism.

That's a self-tell, Rimu spread Heritage Foundation propaganda about "organ harvesting" by the PRC. There's absolutely no credible evidence for this, meaning Rimu believes it due to seeing Chinese people as subhuman. It's the same strategy colonizers used to dehumanize those living in colonies, believing lies about them and seeing them as "savages."

Moreover, I didn’t even do that. I said that the pure purpose of Piefed wasn’t rooted entirely in politics, nor that different interpretations of how the blocking function should work (as you recall that was the chief point of dispute) had anything to do with Rimu’s political positions.

My point was that Rimu's views impact the development of PieFed, and thus we need to contextualize PieFed's development with his views. There is no such thing as a process in the abstract, as a static and unrelated thing, instead everything exists in context with everything else. Your rejection of contextualization is anti-scientific.

Because it’s just an expat making cathartic, and ragebait comments? What should I do, exactly?

This is the point you made, not the point said ex-pat made. Said ex-pat has deliberately stated that they want socialism to fall and the capitalist ROC to dominate the mainland. To answer your question, you should stop running interference for these kinds of things.

You regard everyone who isn’t a communist as having right-wing beliefs, so it doesn’t really matter if someone explicitly calls for the Chinese regime to be overthrown or not - you’d still say the same thing if they don’t start from that point.

Anti-communism is right-wing. I don't consider all non-communists to be right-wing, though, for example anarchists are left-wing. Opposing socialism and wishing for the instatement of capitalism is right-wing, and I can't see how you'd argue otherwise.

And what am I doing, exactly?

Running cover for right-wingers that, from our interactions purely, have all had anti-China positions. It seems like you're trying to dance in rhetoric to defend and legitimize those that oppose the PRC and the socialist system it has against any meaningful criticism. I say "dance in rhetoric" because you seem entirely uninterested in talking about the flaws in your analysis, like your metaphysical framing of concepts and your rejection of history having an impact on modern conditions. You see history not as an unfolding process, but as a series of snapshots, and you refuse to engage with my critique of this error whenever I bring it up.