post
what "slavery is allowed if the enslaved person is a prisoner" does to you
The top score would be Gaza tho with 100% of its population being prisoners of Israel.
ITT: Liberals who assume that evil Chinese MUST be lying about their statistics but the above board whites of the USA are not.
1970 was during the cultural revolution. In that year, the world population was 3.68 billion, and the population if China was just shy of 830 million - China had 22% of the world's population, so if they held (only) 20% of the world's prisoners, they'd have a lower than average incarceration rate.
The same is not true for the US today, we have less than 5% of the world's population today.
The rest are in undeclared labor camps
Goes for both
The reeducation camps closed years ago. Here you have a western source claiming so:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/23/china-xinjiang-crackdown-uyghurs-surveillance/
Surely a champion of Uyghur rights would be aware of this already?
The rest are in undeclared labor camps

Goes for both
US labor camps are not undeclared (though extraterritorial black sites are). They’re called prisons, and the labor is slave labor, thanks to the 13th amendment.
but it is worth noting that China does utilize administrative detention
Isn't that the same as Jails in the US which is separate from prison statistics?
Jail is where you go for the night when arrested for disorderly conduct and are released the next day.
Jail is usually for holding during due process and for sentences up to a year. Prison is generally for sentences longer than a year.
Administrative detentions can be longer. On paper they can hold you about a month, but it can be longer than that with a judge’s signoff if they have proof of a crime.
And in the US, jail can be up to just short of a year.
This is typically where the police try to get you to confess to something and drag it out as long and uncomfortably as possible until you do, after which you either get to go free (though you end up on a list for a long time) or you may go to a “black jail”/黑監獄 which is a sort of under-the-table prison.

The terms of release can also sometimes require completion of a rehabilitation program, which is often the voluntary alternative to prison, or getting transferred to a short stay detention center for a few months to perform community service.
So pretty similar to the US.
And in the US, jail can be up to just short of a year.
I'd like to point out, 'proper' jail, for misdemeanor level offenses, is 'up to a year,' but I personally know individuals who have been in jail (where people awaiting trial stay, in addition to people convicted of misdemeanors) for over three years now, still waiting on their trial.
Source: The US propaganda you received and believe uncritically.
What's next, you explaining their inherent need to lie because of their race?
The red army of china didn't really take prisoners.
This happened right before the cultural revolution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine might have helped cut down the potential prison population...
Edit, digging this up from 5 threads deep:
...I understand what per-100,000 means, but I also understand that not all groups of 100,000 people are the same; removing a large sub-population of people that doesn’t exactly match the overall population’s average will result in a change to the overall population average.
If you have a total population (T), and you are measuring the rate of an event (E), then E / T gives your average event rate for the total population, which you can then normalize to a per-X number. For example: T = 1000 people E = 10 incarcerations. 10 / 1000 = .01, normalized to per 100 capita would be 1 per 100 people on average, from the total population.
If you have a sub-demographic in that population (Ts), and it has a different rate of an event (Es) then its rate is also Es / Ts. For example: Ts = 100 poor-people Es = 5 incarcerations. 5 / 100 = .05, normalized to a per 100 capita would be 5 people per 100 on average, for that sub-population.
If you suddenly remove that sub-population, what happens to the rate of the overall population? That’s easy to calculate: (E - Es) / (T - Ts) (10 - 5) / (1000 - 100) = 5 / 900 = .0055, normalized to a per 100 capita would be .55.
Suggesting that a sub-demographic doesn’t perfectly match the per-capita average of an entire population and that removing them would change the overall per-capita rate isn’t nonsense.
First of all, I'll take the honour of using .world's favourite word: whataboutism much?
Second of all, wow, there was a hunger episode as a consequence of bad ecological policy on a preindustrial society?!
BTW, life expectancy in China at the beginning of the socialist revolution was 35 years, by the time Mao died it was above 55. Those are hundreds of millions of lives saved.
Yeah but everyone knows the US has more people per capita than anywhere else

More people per people
Let me address a few things. First, I didn't post my response because I think the incarceration rate in the U. S. is OK. It's not. Incarceration of non-violent criminals is especially aggregeous. Private for profit prisons are a horrible idea.
I responded because the OP posted an image comparing the incarceration rates of the CCP's cultural revolution to the current U.S. incarceratiom rate. The implication is that because the per-capita incarceration rate was lower in China during that time, it was a nicer place to live than current-day America. That ignores the part where the Chinese government starved to death 15,000,000 - 55,000,000 people, or put in Americanized terms: somewhere between the entire population of Pennsylvania to the entire populations of California AND Pennsylvania.
Claiming that a per-capita measurement normalizes all factors, makes a sampling error based on survivorship bias. It is highly unlikely that the overlap of people who starved to death during the CCP's famine had the same incarceration rate of those who did not. I'm guessing rich and party aligned individuals had a much lower rate of both starvation and incarceration.
This would certainly be true in the U.S; Incarceration rates are much higher for low-income individuals: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/income.html. Low income individuals are also more likely to starve to death in a famine* (*citation needed). Now imagine if the United States government starved to death the poorest 10,000,000 people in the U.S. and then started bragging about how much it's per-capita incarceration rates have improved!
There was famine in China from natural causes
From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
It is widely regarded as the deadliest famine and one of the greatest man-made disasters in human history
(Emphasis mine.)
Also, regardless of the reason my other points stand: having millions of poor people starve to death will reduce you incarceration rate, and people might choose to live in a country with a higher incarceration rate if it means they don't starve to death.
To be perfectly clear, I don't subscribe to the notion that communism is bad and capitalism is good. I think every socio-economic system has pros and cons and are prone different forms of degredation and usurption.
I think the people leading a country and the people that comprise its society have a larger impact on life than their system of government.
With that said, a government is ultimately responsible for the safety and well-being of its people.
It's the system that determines how its run, not the people at the top.
That is the catch. It only determines how it is run if the people at the top are following the system. The system is supposed to determine that, but if everyone in positions of power decide to disregard what the system is supposed to be, then suddenly the system that a government used to have or advertises as having, no longer represents the actual state of affairs.
Responsibility means owning an outcome. If I take responsibility for the safety of your children and a meteorite literally falls out of the sky and kills them, I am still responsible. I'm not going to try to make excuses and make sure you know it wasn't my fault and there wasn't anything I could have done. I was responsible. Your kids are dead. The buck stops with me. That's what actual leaders do, they own the outcome.
the idea that the CPC didn't incarcerate as many people per capita is because of the famine. This is nonsense.
How is that nonsense? What was the per-capita incarceration rate of the population who died in the famine? What was the per-capita incarceration rate of the population that didn't die in the famine?
There is probably no data for that, so we can't know for sure, but I showed that in the U.S. a large famine would result in a lower incarceration rate because poor people would starve at a disproportionate rate, and poor people are also incarerated at a disproportnate rate, so that would reduce the overall rate per capita. This doesn't necessarily apply to the situation in China, but I don't think it is nonsense with no foundation in logic.
I never said it would make it equal. In fact, I'm confident that it would not.
The whole reason we started this argument is because you made a condescending comment implying either that I can't read, or that I don't understand what rate per-100,000 means. I understand what per-100,000 means, but I also understand that not all groups of 100,000 people are the same; removing a large sub-population of people that doesn't exactly match the overall population's average will result in a change to the overall population average.
If you have a total population (T), and you are measuring the rate of an event (E), then E / T gives your average event rate for the total population, which you can then normalize to a per-X number. For example: T = 1000 people E = 10 incarcerations. 10 / 1000 = .01, normalized to per 100 capita would be 1 per 100 people on average, from the total population.
If you have a sub-demographic in that population (Ts), and it has a different rate of an event (Es) then its rate is also Es / Ts. For example: Ts = 100 poor-people Es = 5 incarcerations. 5 / 100 = .05, normalized to a per 100 capita would be 5 people per 100 on average, for that sub-population.
If you suddenly remove that sub-population, what happens to the rate of the overall population? That's easy to calculate: (E - Es) / (T - Ts) (10 - 5) / (1000 - 100) = 5 / 900 = .0055, normalized to a per 100 capita would be .55.
Suggesting that a sub-demographic doesn't perfectly match the per-capita average of an entire population and that removing them would change the overall per-capita rate isn't nonsense.
Had the original post simply pointed out that America's incarceration rate is horrible, I would have no disagreement with it, but instead it chose to make a direct comparison between present-day America and China during the Cultural Revolution.
My primary disagreement with this comparison is not with that fact that present-day America has a higher reported incarceration rate than China during the Cultural Revolution, it is the fact that to an audience that may not study history, it helps craft the narrative that China during the 1960s was a much nicer place to live than present-day America because the incarceration rate was significantly lower. I thought it was worth mentioning that, regardless of why it happened, or if anyone was at fault, one of the largest famines in human history occurred in China immediately preceding this time period, which made it not a very nice place to live. There are things worse than incarceration, and most people, myself included, would choose life in a U.S. prison over starvation. Not that either choice is a good once.
My secondary disagreement was with the implication that I don't know how basic statistics work. I suggested that a massive removal of poor-people from a population could have reduced the overall incarceration rate. You said that this was "nonsense". Not that there is insufficient data, or that it wouldn't be a very significant change. My burden of proof is not, probable, or possible, it is just above the level of nonsense. Or do you retract your previous statement that I made a nonsensical argument?
I think it’s rather chauvanistic to try to say it’s better to live imprisoned in a developed country than non-imprisoned in a developing country
That's not what I said. I said it is better to live imprisoned in the U.S. than to starve to death.
Nah, I don’t retract my statement
Ok, well if you aren't even going to concede that a rational argument, as incorrect as it might be, isn't nonsense, then I don't think we will be able to have any meaningful discourse.
I wish you well. Good luck with your Marxist endeavors.
A rational argument is an argument that follows some sort of logical thought process, it has nothing to do with whether the conclusion is correct or not.
This is a rational argument:
- Premise 1: The Earth is a planet.
- Premise 2: The Earth is flat.
- Premise 3: All flat planets have edges.
- Conclusion: The Earth has edges.
Premise 2 is false, and premise 3 is unknown, so the conclusion is false, but it follows a logical thought process and isn't nonsense.
This is nonsense and irrational:
- Premise 1: Apples are round.
- Premise 2: Pyramids exist.
- Premise 3: Unicorns have horns.
- Conclusion: Aliens!
There is no discernible logic or rational thought process. It is just apparently random statements with no connection.
- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reason
- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonsense
- https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_false_premises
- https://thelogicofscience.com/2017/03/27/the-fallacy-fallacy-reject-the-argument-not-the-conclusion/
Again, since we can't even agree on commonly accepted definitions for basic concepts, we just aren't going to be able to have any kind of productive conversation.
Good day.
1 843 701 US prison population
1 686 108 China prison population
The trick is to always assume "China is lying about its internal statistics" and inflate whatever number they give by an arbitrary large percentage. 1.7M is obviously an under-count because the CCP is always lying about everything.
Also, you can do some broad brush "Everyone in Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, North Korea, and Taiwan are prisoners of the Chinese state, so actually that's over 60M people" napkin math to make the numbers look better.
I think this is a good rule of thumb in general. When statistics agree with my preconceived notions, I consider them trustworthy, and if not, I assume that reality lines up with what I expect. For example, the referendum in held in the Baltics about leaving the USSR ended in favor of leaving, which I think is a good example of a trustworthy statistic. But the subsequent referendum in the remaining members ended in favor of staying in the USSR, and I think that's a little suspicious, don't you?
When statistics agree with my preconceived notions, I consider them trustworthy, and if not, I assume that reality lines up with what I expect.
I… thought you were being sarcastic. This is an obvious and severe flaw to have in one’s rational thinking.
prejudice (noun)
1. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions.
2. An adverse judgment or opinion formed unfairly or without knowledge of the facts.
It's suspicious because it disagrees with my preconceived notions about communism.
See now there you've made a crucial error. You're recommending a book which, while it has some criticism of the specifics of how the USSR implemented socialism, on the whole it's quite positive about the idea of establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat in general. Obviously that disagrees with my preconceived notion that humans are greedy, and that therefore capitalism is good, so I would never read a source that contradicts this, because I would have to dismiss most of it outright. And that's just a hassle.
Look, it's like the scientific method, right? You start with a theory, and then you gather a bunch of data, and the stuff that agrees with your theory you keep, and the stuff that doesn't you either dismiss outright, or you rationalize. I feel like I really can't make my position any more obvious than that.
I appreciate your patience and your continued efforts to educate folks on this website, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.
It's sarcasm yes. I figured dropping a phrase like dicatorship of the proletariat would give up the game (honestly I thought my very first comment in the thread was already laying it on thick), but Poe's law in action I guess. I do really appreciate you, keep up the good work.
How can I say this in .ml-ese? Hmmm, try asking the folks who actually lived in those places.
Where you from?
I wasn't born in the Soviet union, but I have asked lots of more older people, all were negative, the best thing they said was that they built schools... and those were mostly the ones they destroyed, and have you noticed a pattern in .ml users which support what the Soviet union most if not all of them didn't experience it or live in a place where it was you just glaze china, Russia and etc.
I've asked many people who were born in the USSR, and I think about half of them feel that the shit we’ve had since then is way worse.
It wasn't perfect by any means, but I think we should have improved it with reforms instead of splitting into poor countries and giving all the power to oligarchs.
What country maybe it is a local thing?
No, Occupied China doesn’t control DPRK or ROC
If we play that game we can’t trust American numbers either so the whole conversation becomes pointless
On its own that's misleading, you should be using the per capita stats.
I'm sure he hasn't got a clue how many Chinese there are, or where China is.
All that matters is China bad, commie bad
Per capita is misleading, it over represents low populations and under represents high populations
When you use it, it makes Canadian cities appear more violent than American cities as an example
And yet, the USA still the 5th highest in incarceration numbers and the highest in absolute numbers.
I'd say that tells you enough
Yes, I can read the graphic and my own post
Instead of being in prison, they were dying out off hunger and concentration camps... There are idiots supporting US, and hypocrites supporting china...



all 99 comments