Was that before or after they welded a bunch of apartment complex doors closed?

Oh, you were serious! Well, I think what they need is Democracy first, then unions. Communism theoretically eliminates the need for unions, but the reality is that it's just a dictatorship. Unions in China would likely either be co-opted by the Communist party through subterfuge, or through "reeducating" the misguided leadership and defining the unions - thus landing them right where they are, with a new bureaucracy.

Unions represent the spirit of the checks and balances envisioned in the U.S. Constitution. It is only by being of near equal power to the company that employees can negotiate for fair compensation and treatment. Without that, they're just resources. It's an effort to use human nature to gain good outcomes.

Username checks out.

Tankies will always find any excuse to say China can do no wrong, and if they do it's the west's fault...

"We had to massacre those protesters, you see. The US was targeting our military assets! It's their fault." Golly.

I was implying nothing about any other type of societal organization. However, since you mention it, I will point out that Capitalism (which is an economic, not political philosophy) can become horrific for the same reasons Communism becomes horrific - People. Communism was a response to naked, mercantilist Capitalism. Marx's heart was in the right place, but he was describing a Utopia.

I think Democracy (in its many forms) designed with checks and balances is a viable answer to the problem. It ain't magic, though. People still need to ensure it remains balanced. We've been having some trouble with that lately. It took fifty years of planning for the authoritarians to get us here. It's a good sign it was so difficult, but now we have to work hard to fix the mess.

Sarcasm. The comment you replied to was being facetious. Obviously things are not going swimmingly. Use your context clues.

sigh. I know what communism is. I also know it's never been implemented in real life and never will be due to the nature of a subset of humans inflicted with various personality traits like Narcissism, Psychopathy, and Sociopathy... not to mention simple greed and basic envy.

I find it interesting that you first assigned to me the characteristics of ignorance and arrogance, and then pegged me to a certain nationality, thus revealing your uninformed bias against an entire nation containing over 300 million people - many of whom probably fled whichever morally superior country you call home - simply for living there.

Now, as for the assertion that government control of the means of production is the antithesis of communism, I give you first a description of Karl Marx's vision:

Karl Marx envisioned communal ownership on a large scale through the abolition of private property, particularly in the means of production, advocating for these assets to be owned collectively by society. He believed this would lead to a classless society where resources are distributed based on need rather than profit.

Now, has it ever crossed your mind how this could possibly be implemented? I mean when you literally have millions of people collectively owning everything and therefore whatever is needed must be somehow made available wherever it is needed. Where will things be stored, and who will manage it? Who will ensure nothing is stolen from the people? Who will ensure item or resource "A" is transited from somewhere to the place it is needed? Word of mouth? Telegraph? What if nobody feels like manning the telegraph or decides not to relay the message to the next person? Heck - how do they know who the next person is?

In any sufficiently large group of people, some form of "government" has to exist merely to facilitate meeting the needs of the people being governed. So, I put it to you that the U.S.S.R. was in fact "implementing communism" by being the "people's government" and thus, by their logic, everything is "owned" by the government. They have to know where it is, how to protect it, how to ensure there is enough of it to meet needs, etc.. Unfortunately "power corrupts". Or in the case of the Red revolution, it decapitates a revolution for freedom and democracy the moment it wins power and takes its place.

Oh, I forgot to address the Dr. Strangelove reference. Did you know that was parody and sharp criticism of not just The United States, but of the power structures of the whole (first) world at the time? If that kind of criticism were made in the U.S.S.R. or China, Cuba, etc., of their leadership, the film would be banned and everyone involved would be imprisoned or disappeared. We're allowed to criticize stupidity in leadership over here (for the moment). We believe it is a useful tool to try to make things better, or at least a bit more sane.

Great. A double meaning :D

The difference between Chinese billionaires and American billionaires is that the Chinese ones are owned by the government. To set up any company in China requires part government ownership of, I think, 15%.

There is no way the billionaires are calling the shots, ever, while Xi is in power. As if he would allow what's happening in America, happen in China.

Remember what happened to the CEO of Alibaba? Jack Ma? When he became rich enough to potentially take over the country?

Nah...Jack Ma tried to fuck around with government and they shut him down.

First, we do not know this, even the weather channel provides the odds of something happening alongside a reminder that future outcomes cannot be predicted with certainty. Second, they are fundamentally different:

American capitalism: Maximization of individual economic freedom and utility. The system is designed to facilitate capital accumulation, innovation, and consumer choice through decentralized decision-making. The individual (consumer, investor, entrepreneur) is the primary unit of analysis which in turn is often a source of criticism due to the individualist nature of the social doctrine. The "invisible arbitrator (state)" of the market is trusted to aggregate individual choices into the best possible social outcomes but as seen recently, this trust has no incentive and can be taken advantage of leading to internal corruption and instance of accumulation of powers. Process is paramount: free choice, free competition, and profit motive are both the means and the implicit ends. It was also a direct response by John Locke to the issues caused by mercantilism and was created in the 1689 if I remember correctly.

Chinese socialism: National rejuvenation and the perpetuation of the ruling party's governance (let us remember that this is a country that is still less than 100 years old). Economic development is a critical tool for ensuring state sovereignty, social stability, and the legitimacy of the Peoples republic of China, which in turn is governed by a marxist-leninist influenced communist party. The economy is a subsystem of the state, not a separate sphere. It draws from Confucian traditions of a meritocratic, guiding state (similar to marx's conclusion "From each according to his ability to each according to his needs" on the flaws of the 19th century german socialist democracy present in his last volume, Kritik Des Gothaer Programs). The collective (nation, party, society) is the primary unit of analysis. Economic growth is a means to power, stability, and civilizational restoration. The system is teleological oriented toward a specific end-state (a "modern socialist," strong nation, correcting the post-modern false narrative that communism does not work which is a complete generalization and misdirected association on why certain states failed, yet cuba remains and has been for over a century even with the american embargo still being present). Efficiency matters, but only insofar as it serves the ultimate political goals.

The competition between them is not just economic so we can be clear; it is a competition between two fundamentally different logics of social organization: one rooted in individual autonomy and decentralized choice, the other in collective goals and centralized coordination. The 21st century will be a live test of their relative performance and resilience and I think of it as amazing that we get front row seats to see this.

Do you have a source for the housing thing?

In terms of the rail having air resistance that feels a bit of a Fox News point. It's not perfect so why bother with anything but loads of big cars?

The sheer amount of rail rolled out in the last 10 years dwarfs anything any other country is doing.