top 96 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 64 points 8 months ago* (5 children)

Funnily enough the problem with capitalism is actually that eventually you run out of other people's money.

Tap for spoiler

Capitalism inherently serves to concentrate wealth since the ones with the money make the rules. As wealth disparity increases and people get poorer they can't buy as much stuff and growth dries up. Then the only way for the rich to keep getting richer is to degrade labour conditions, but that's unpopular so you need to blame a scapegoat and enact a repressive regime to enforce it. That's quite a problem, and it's one which might feel familiar to the astute reader.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Then the only way for the rich to keep getting richer is to degrade labour conditions, but that's unpopular so you need to blame a scapegoat and enact a repressive regime to enforce it.

    I didn't get this part. Please explain?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child)

    The money they collect is the money we pay them minus the money they pay us. If we can't pay them more the only way to get more is for them to pay us less. Gross simplification obviously. Then the typical strategy is to blame immigrants or Jews or whatever for the decrease in living standards, and crack down on anyone who tries to improve things.

    Edit: this is sort of a meme-ified version of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall which is the real theory of how economic crises in capitalism come about and not really the same as what I'm describing here, but along some similar lines. It's worth reading about from actual scholars in detail if you're interested in that sort of thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    Honestly? Their real plan is to get us to kill each other, and the ones who remain will be kept as slaves (for... multiple purposes). That is why the cost of living keeps increasing; we are becoming more and more violent, and after a lot of deaths, they will “control” the “chaos”.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 47 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    For anyone interested, here' a short excerpt on this point from a socialism crash course:


    Unlike workers, Capitalists make their living, not by clocking in and being paid a certain fixed wage per hour, but through absentee ownership. Their wealth is earned while sleeping, playing golf, or visiting the mailbox to collect pieces of this wage theft, often in the form of stock dividends. A worker's wealth is dependent on the number of hours they can work; a Capitalist's wealth is based on how much absentee property they can accumulate, and as such can multiply infinitely. Some Capitalists earn an average worker's yearly salary in a single night's sleep.

    For example, a Copper mine owner neither physically mines the copper, and (living thousands of miles away) likely delegates day-to-day operations to a hired manager. Yet, because they have a piece of paper that says they own it, they get a large cut of everything that was mined: the ultimate free lunch.

    A 1983 report by England national income and expenditures found that on average, 26 minutes of every hour worked (or 43% of labor value added) by English workers across a wide range of industries went to various exploiting or unproductive groups, with workers receiving only 57% of their pre-tax productive output as wages1. In other words, at least 40% of the work you do every day is stolen by Capitalists.

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Giving away 40% of your salary to the state for healthcare and welfare -> Crazy crime incredible inhumane and brutal theft

    Giving away 75% of your salary to private companies who do the same things but worse and that don't even ensure you full coverage -> Amazing business Enterprise of freedom choice of Democratic democracy 💀

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 24 points 8 months ago

    "Ask people what they hate about socialism/communism and they'll describe capitalism."

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 8 months ago

    The real problem with socialism is that it offends the CIA, and bad things happen to people who offend the CIA.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 8 months ago

    The problem with capitalism is that eventually you run out of other people's money

    see: Nvidia-Oracle-OpenAI bubble

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago

    itt people who don't know who Margret Thatcher was enough to have seen this misattributed/misquoted from her before.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago

    Man I hate it when socialism capitalisms.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago

    What we don't seem to ever run out of is bullshit.

  • source
  • [+] -28 points 8 months ago (75 children)

    The problem with socialism is that people put it as: "You won't need to do any work and still get money".
    And that makes the whole system sound stupid, because it just won't work that way.

    Use the correct words and explain the real thing.

  • source
  • hideshow 75 child comments
  • [+] 26 points 8 months ago (2 children)
  • [+] -9 points 8 months ago

    Perhaps because you are not in spaces where people do so, trying to make Socialism and Communism sound stupid to make other people uninterested in others that would talk about it.

    It might even be a part of someone's misinformation campaign, really.
    The same place had people calling themselves Muslim and trying to make others angry at them, in ways that it would increase -ive sentiment towards the religion itself.

    Simply put, the moment you put a buzzword onto anything (like any *-ism), that opens it to be grouped with anything anyone might claim it to be. And that's why one needs to make sure to explain what they mean by the word, every time they want to argue about its pros/cons with others.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (21 children)

    The problem with socialism is that people put it as: “You won’t need to do any work and still get money”.

    I've only heard anti socialists say that as a way of smearing socialism. This is the kind of shit you hear in a PragerU video or something.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 8 months ago* (20 children)

    a way of smearing socialism

    That's the problem.
    It is pretty easy to smear any *-ism or honestly any buzzword.

    See what's happening with the word AI.
    Some scientists use a very specialised model to make an actual +ive impact and everyone says "AI is great!" and use that to drive funding for destabilising the technology industry/market.

    Those who like to irresponsibly control people, will use buzzwords to attract people into groups and then use them to further an unrelated agenda by slowly drifting away from everything the word once stood for.
    This is essentially the history we know of: under the names of gods of religions, of languages, and then ideologies and regimes.
    In the end, all of them go to help those who will control people without caring about how they use them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (19 children)

    What's your proposed solution then?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 8 months ago (18 children)

    I don't have a solution for others.
    Only one that I decided for myself and then applied it.
    You gotta find your own balance point for how much you care about correctness and how much you are fine being led astray by "leaders" in turn for likeability and easy conversations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (17 children)

    I personally don't subscribe to the idea of leaders who can't justify their position. Maybe your problem is that you see socialism as a system to be implemented rather than a thing that you do? Like, socialism is, and should be a constant revolutionary project, not just a static position.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 8 months ago (16 children)

    Like, socialism is, and should be a constant revolutionary project, not just a static position.

    If you try to put it that way, that then again opens it for others to add/remove as they feel like.
    While I understand that socialism is not some hard program that can exactly apply to every scenario, there has to be some tenets of it that are defended well, to prevent a malicious actor from uprooting its base.

    My personal solution is simply that I don't subscribe to any *-ism and don't group myself with anything even if it tends to provide similar solutions in the current scenario, simply because in some other one, the group's solution might end up greatly differing from what I would consider acceptable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (15 children)

    Like, socialism is, and should be a constant revolutionary project, not just a static position.

    If you try to put it that way, that then again opens it for others to add/remove as they feel like.
    While I understand that socialism is not some hard program that can exactly apply to every scenario, there has to be some tenets of it that are defended well, to prevent a malicious actor from uprooting its base.

    There's is. It's really simple: "From each, according to their ability, to each, according to their need." Anything else on top of that is philosophical.

    My personal solution is simply that I don't subscribe to any *-ism and don't group myself with anything even if it tends to provide similar solutions in the current scenario, simply because in some other one, the group's solution might end up greatly differing from what I would consider acceptable.

    This is a similar tact that I took when I was about 16-17, but I find that to be a very naive point of view. Regardless of whether or not you want to apply any label to yourself (which is perfectly valid) the material conditions of the system we live in will come down on you too. So you either end up in the "We are stronger together" camp, or you end up in the "Me and mine are what needs to be protected. Other people be damned" camp. And if you find yourself in the former, you most likely align with people who call themselves socialist, and if you find yourself in the latter, well then you're probably a bootlicker

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 8 months ago (14 children)

    you find yourself in the latter, well then you’re probably a bootlicker

    Considering how I have seen people claiming to be from the former camp expecting bootlickers, I'd say that assumption doesn't work out well in real life.

    Those who try preaching "We are stronger together" and "according to their ability" are most of the times the same who would damn everyone when they find the perfect time, while also using the same words to make others give them a hierarchical position.
    And in the end, you still have the players get power while the workers get exploited and their voices shut down.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (13 children)

    Opportunism is a real problem in every system, but you can stop it if you're well organized. Ultimately I reject your framing because if we were all power hungry we'd be licking fascist boots, not talking to the powerless.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 8 months ago* (12 children)

    Problem is, you are not my colleague or my boss or similar people. You are someone I might not even end up interacting IRL.

    Most people will just ignore the people slowly amassing power because they tend to be discreet enough to not raise too many alarms and the same thing might look like just incompetence unless one is looking closely enough.
    Then there will be people who just find it easier to de-escalate situations, no matter what the outcome, that end up helping the malicious ones get out unscathed. Cover-ups follow.

    And the power-hungry will mostly be found in places of power. Whether you interact with them directly, depends upon where you end up working.


    The most hard working and benevolent people I have seen, are coincidentally also those who tell you to care about yourself.
    They won't preach teamwork or communality, but that comes naturally to them. They won't ask you to help others, but will help with what they are good at and not treat it as a favour. They don't bid you to be helpful, but enable you to get to a place where you can be helpful. Also, they won't act like they overtly care about you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (11 children)

    I feel like you've interacted with too many socialists online. That is not my irl experience at all. In fact, your last paragraph there does describe most irl socialists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (10 children)

    Except that they neither identify as socialists, nor do they care about the other's *-ism.
    So you see, one neither needs to be any *-ist nor requires to accept all terms of any group, to be able to have +ive interactions with them. The only time that is required, is when it is an extremist group.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (9 children)

    I think you're way too hung up on labels. Why do you give a shit what somebody else calls themselves? Maybe you've just been meeting socialists that know you have a weird anti"-ism" thing, so they just don't use that word and instead describe ideas to you (which is a fairly common tactic to take around somebody that is slightly unhinged). Nobody said everybody needs to be any kind of anything. There are lots of helpful people to socialist causes who don't consider themselves to be socialists. That's called critical support is is highly valued.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (8 children)

    you’ve just been meeting socialists that know you have a weird anti"-ism" thing

    No. I have been meeting people who don't even know about the word.


    You sound like:
    "All good guys are ours."
    "All bad guy claiming to be with us, are not really ours."


    way too hung up on labels

    When the label is your agenda and you are calling me "hung up".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (7 children)

    "Its 2026 and in my third week here on North Sentinel Island, I've discovered that, despite a century of a world super power using the word 'socialist' in the name of their country, somehow these people have never heard the word, 'socialism'".

    That's how you sound.

    Once again, I don't give a shit what people call themselves, so if they are good guys, they are on the same side as me, because that's the side I've chosen? People claiming to be socialists but they're not actually socialists, then they're not socialists. That's not a bad guy/good guy thing, that's just how words work.

    Again, there are incredible people who have been vital to the socialist causes who would never call themselves socialist, and there are no problems with that.

    My problem is with you specifically. The label isn't my agenda beyond just trying to get you to stop caring about what someone.calls themselves and start caring about what they do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (6 children)

    “Its 2026 and in my third week here on North Sentinel Island, I’ve discovered that, despite a century of a world super power using the word ‘socialist’ in the name of their country, somehow these people have never heard the word, ‘socialism’”.

    Well, some people just never learnt English

    trying to get you to stop caring about what someone.calls themselves and start caring about what they do.

    Guess what? I always ever really cared about what people do. And someone calling themselves something is part of what they do, for whatever reasons they do.
    I don't have a problem with this part. My problem is the direction you take after this conclusion. Words will always mean something to people and when someone calls themselves a part of some groups or when someone calls others a part of their group, politics takes over from that point. That affects the masses and masses have power.
    So even if I actively try to stay out of said "masses", doesn't mean it won't affect me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (5 children)

    That word only exists in English? That's weird, I wonder then how so many people from non-Engliah speaking countries learned about it then?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    Yeah I was being facetious.
    But a better way to say that is - Not everyone has the time to subscribe to all such things, no matter how widespread it is. And I am saying this as one that literally has "Socialist" in the constitution of my country.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Then, I don't know what to say to you. Having conversations with low information people with yield low information results. That is in no way relevant to what we're talking about. You might as well have said "Yeah, but lots of people I know have never even heard the word 'fission' before" while in a thread talking about nuclear science.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    Exactly my point.
    People can have low/no information about your domain and still be helpful people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Please go back and read the several different times I say exactly that in my previous comments. We don't disagree about that. We just seem to disagree that people who do use "-ism" labels can also be helpful people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago

    people who do use “-ism” labels can also be helpful people.

    I don't disagree about that either.

    What I am saying is that (now again having to reiterate what I said before) if you use a *-ism extensively without properly defining it, you end up giving power to a phenomenon you don't get to control. And someone with the ability to control it, can come in and use it for nefarious purposes, as stated in previous comments.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    "You won't need to do any work and still get money".

    Redditors mis-defining socialism as capitalism again.


    Unlike workers, Capitalists make their living, not by clocking in and being paid a certain fixed wage per hour, but through absentee ownership. Their wealth is earned while sleeping, playing golf, or visiting the mailbox to collect pieces of this wage theft, often in the form of stock dividends. A worker's wealth is dependent on the number of hours they can work; a Capitalist's wealth is based on how much absentee property they can accumulate, and as such can multiply infinitely. Some Capitalists earn an average worker's yearly salary in a single night's sleep.

    For example, a Copper mine owner neither physically mines the copper, and (living thousands of miles away) likely delegates day-to-day operations to a hired manager. Yet, because they have a piece of paper that says they own it, they get a large cut of everything that was mined: the ultimate free lunch.

    A 1983 report by England national income and expenditures found that on average, 26 minutes of every hour worked (or 43% of labor value added) by English workers across a wide range of industries went to various exploiting or unproductive groups, with workers receiving only 57% of their pre-tax productive output as wages1. In other words, at least 40% of the work you do every day is stolen by Capitalists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago

    For example, a Copper mine owner neither physically mines the copper, and (living thousands of miles away) likely delegates day-to-day operations to a hired manager.

    And while they try validating their position with, "I take all the risks", they would also, transfer all the damage to the workers at the drop of a hat, then lobby the Government to undo their losses at the cost of everyone else giving power to the Government.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (44 children)

    You really should read some theory and look at real socialist practice before you arrogantly state things that are just completely false.

    Edit: misread the comment thought the were making the quoted point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 44 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 8 months ago (8 children)

    So you're saying that noone does any work in socialist countries? They wouldn't last many days if that was the case

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] 6 points 8 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Exactly, that's why it was weird of the commenter to object to someone saying that socialism isn't "You won't need to do any work and still get money" with "you should read some theory" as if socialist theory said that that was exactly what socialism is

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 8 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Based on their edit it wasn't, they had misread the original comment

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    I think you replied to the wrong person

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Then you didn't understand what was being said and should reread it. People work in socialist countries like I work in China we just have a minimum standard guaranteed to us and the government actually works for us instead of for corporations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago

    Then you didn't understand what was being said and should reread it.

    yeah i did actually read it multiple times to make sure i didn't misread it, did you?

    Edit: misread the comment thought the were making the quoted point.

    Let's double check before making accusations next time

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] -4 points 8 months ago (34 children)

    read some theory and look at real socialist practice

    I live in a socialist country. And it works (well, at least better than current US).

    You should go around interjecting people who say, "You won’t need to do any work and still get money" and link them to places where they can read the theory, to reduce such BS'ers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [+] 7 points 8 months ago (33 children)
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] -2 points 8 months ago (29 children)

    I live in a country that went from Imperial control to almost fully Socialist (except for the Police, which are mostly tamed bullies) and is now rapidly progressing towards Capitalism (probably because anyone that refuses to do so, gets on the offside of US).

    And PRC qualifies as neither Socialist nor Capitalist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 8 months ago (29 children)
  • [–] -3 points 8 months ago (28 children)

    and the working classes control the state

    I find it hard to believe that the majority of the working class people consider territorial expansion to be good for anyone in this age.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (27 children)

    I find it hard to believe that China is engaged in territorial expansion when it hasn't dropped a single bomb in 35 years

    Or do mean the border dispute with India? Because that's an artifact of the British drawing shitty borders and imposing them on subjugated people and those people have not established an effective framework for redressing the problem yet

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (26 children)

    Nepal

    Why did the British not colonise Nepal


    Detaining citizen in Shanghai, if it's Chinese citizen, why need VISA? If it's an Indian citizen, why detain?

    Forget British, forget military occupation. What decides who is worthy of controlling a place?
    I believe, one that is there during hard times 2 3. PDF

    And considering how China tried to cut off downstream from Tsang Po, even if I were to assume China controlled all of Indian territory, that act doesn't make Chinese government particularly desirable. And if we consider that China doesn't control said territory, then that makes China a bad neighbour at best and an incompetent governor at worst.


    See, I am not very patriotic. I am fine with whatever the name of my country is. But the difference between how the land resources are controlled and distributed over the years, make me seem like China will end up being a worse Central Govt. than India (which isn't particularly great already), for the given territory.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Are you actually arguing that the PRC would govern territory materially worse than the Indian Union does today? That China’s central state has demonstrated lower developmental capacity, weaker redistribution, and poorer integration of peripheral regions than India? If that is your stance, then it requires empirical support, because the comparative data point in the opposite direction.

    Over the last four decades, China has eliminated extreme poverty at a national scale recognized even by multilateral institutions. It has built dense transport networks into frontier regions, universalized basic electrification, and industrialized at a speed unprecedented in modern history. Per capita infrastructure stock, manufacturing capacity, high-speed rail coverage, and energy generation all exceed India’s by large margins.

    India remains characterized by deep regional inequality, persistent rural poverty, underemployment, and infrastructure gaps especially in peripheral areas such as the Northeast. State capacity for large-scale mobilization and coordinated development is structurally weaker. Growth has been significant, but uneven, and heavily mediated through private capital rather than centralized planning mechanisms.

    If the question is resource distribution, China’s fiscal transfer system and central planning apparatus have demonstrated stronger equalization effects between coastal and inland regions than India’s center–state fiscal balance has achieved. If the question is infrastructure delivery, China’s record is quantitatively superior. If the question is poverty reduction, the scale difference is like that of an ant versus the sky.

    You can criticize aspects of governance in both systems. But to assert that China would be a “worse central government” in developmental terms is not supported by comparative political economy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    developmental terms

    No, I am not at all calling China's capabilities low in terms of creating a war machine.

    I am talking in terms of how quality of life has been affected by either of them in places which both countries are calling as their own (see my points in the above comment). While China tries to call Arunachal Pradesh and parts of J&K and its people as under itself, India is what sends the disaster relief resources, whereas China considers blocking natural resources to try and increase discontent of the people living in those areas.


    China took longer than India to even admit the increasing air-quality problems in high pollution states,^[although for both countries, the actual metrics being used to report them hardly align with actual types of pollutants and the mitigations in response have been "too little too late" for both] which shows me that the govt. doesn't like admitting facts. And personally, I am fine working with people who fail a lot, as long as they are consistent in communication and don't try mixing lies into reports. Because trustability is an important part of any relationship, which also applies to governments.^[The main reasons I give flak to US govt and organisations is due to their lack of consistency, which makes them very less trustworthy.]

    And I am not even going to point out the actual quality of buildings that you might have been a part of your metrics, simply because I expect enough people to have pointed those (and other similar conditions out to you).
    While Indian buildings aren't particularly great either, I am in a 10+ year old building which was not designed for earthquakes and has still not cracked (much less collapsed into a death trap) despite multiple of those.

    Then comes the destruction of values over the years. China has had a rich culture of thousands of years and any such civilisation develops values and traditions that are conductive to longevity.
    But the recent values shown by adults (not even children) from China has indicated an erosion of older values that were developed over the centuries in China. This is not something that happens easily without intervention from higher powers (and I am inclined to think it was the govt, unless you know of any other power that might have to gain from activities that cause this side-effect).
    While there has been quite a lot of food adulteration problems in India, there are some lines that people would not cross. Specially the working class (who actually care about values unlike the business class) would never. But the normal people that seem to come out of China to set examples, don't seem to be doing any good for its reputation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    Ah you're a reactionary spouting tofu dreg and other nonsense. You should try look into things outside your nationalist bubble.

    Edit:

    “I am not at all calling China’s capabilities low in terms of creating a war machine.”

    China’s comparative advantage over the past forty years has been poverty eradication, infrastructure build-out, electrification, and industrial capacity. Reducing that to militarism is either ignorance or bad faith. Where's your high speed rail? Where are your clean streets? Why is your literacy so low? Why do you have so many shanty towns? Why do your tech expos have to pretend Chinese tech is Indian invented?

    “India is what sends the disaster relief resources…”

    India administers those territories. Of course it sends relief? Are you an idiot?

    “China considers blocking natural resources…”

    There is no evidence that China has cut off Brahmaputra flow to manufacture discontent. The projects are run-of-river. Seasonal fluctuations are monsoon-driven. You are asserting intent without evidence. That is speculation.

    “China took longer to admit air-quality problems…”

    China’s PM2.5 levels have declined substantially since 2013 after aggressive regulatory intervention. India today has multiple cities ranking among the most polluted globally by annual average concentration. If the metric is environmental turnaround after crisis recognition, China’s trend line is steeper. You are ignoring trajectory and focusing on narrative.

    “Actual quality of buildings…”

    “Tofu dreg” is a meme, not a dataset. China has built the largest high-speed rail network on earth, thousands of kilometers of expressways, and entire metropolitan regions within two decades. Failures exist, as in India, collapsed bridges, unsafe housing, infrastructure accidents. Anecdotes do not overturn macro-level engineering capacity.

    “Destruction of values… erosion of older values… normal people coming out of China…”

    I bet you love those caste values as you beat those dalits to keep them in line.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (22 children)

    Yeah a border dispute over a few hundred acres. Please don't use words like "territorial expansion" when discussing a few hundred acres along a contentious border that has historically been undefined and only in modern times have there been an attempt to make them fixed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 8 months ago (20 children)

    a few hundred acres

    It started with a few metres in some cases and has been going on at multiple fronts.
    Perhaps PRC needs to stop expecting people to forget the past and start noticing how they contradict their own self.
    The tensions have been created by PRC's "an inch a day" tactics, which I honestly see as nothing more than petty (and I am saying this, knowing full well than PRC would want to call India "petty", to help them get more fake points).


    For Nepal

    And if it really was just about a "few hundred acres" and PRC really worked with a Socialist philosophy, then they would:
    a) Not really need to worry about Nepal (a pretty small country with hardly any military power) being any sort of a threat that would require putting effort to take a small amount of land. b) Consider how the small amount of land would hardly make a difference to the people of China, while it would make a big difference to a country with was lesser land than China.

    And that is where the inconsistency I talk about, comes in place.

    Nepal is an otherwise docile country and I am pretty confident they would have been happy to have partial open borders with some kind of trade treaties in that area.

    As such, while you try to play it down by calling it "contentious", Nepal was trying to hide any such transfer or annexation, fearing what exactly? If it were really fairly claimed, there wouldn't be a real reason for that, no?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (19 children)

    You do realize that the border is with Tibet, right? An autonomous region within China that has never been recognized as a state with firm boundaries in all of human history. The border is contentious because borders are contentious. As much as you might not like border disputes, there is nothing socialist or anti-socialist about having border disputes. Nepal doesn't want to make a big diplomatic stink over the situation. You want to psychologize them as fearful of China and therefore China isn't socialist?

    You're not making any sense. China is not engaged in imperial capitalist expansion simply because there's a few hundred acres being built on by the TAR along their own border in ways that violate the border. That's a resolvable tension and doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (16 children)
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    Oh hey, I got you mad enough to chase me around now, eh? Welcome! I like that your primary beef with me is that you think I can't read but then you post this particular link. Very well done! Do continue, please.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    mad? nah, I just want to annoy you some more. it's low hanging fruit, I know, but I also know you can't help but angrily try to debate me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    I'm not angry, Lu. I'm just disappointed

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (9 children)

    Lmao you should check the sources on natopedia before you post. Western tabloids and government spin off NGO's.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago (8 children)

    Lmao you should check the sources

    the article sources multiple Asian communist parties. you should, as you said, check the sources. but go on, give us your best No True Scotsman.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    The Nation, The Diplomat, Center for European Policy Analysis, The Week, Jamestown Foundation, The central Asian caucus analyst, The Japan times, The Guardian, transnational institute, The Washington post, the daily telegraph, Harvard international review, financial times, the times of India, the Carnegie endowment, Nikkei Asia, the economic times, lowly institute, New York Times, the wall Street journal, human rights watch, foreign policy, BBC, Tibetan review, Taipei times.

    I wonder if something ties all these sources together? Maybe an ideological alignment? People like you give anarchists a bad name.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    there you go. for a No True Scotsman, that wasn't bad.

    I wonder if something ties all these sources together?

    nice of you to forget to mention those sources quoting communist party members.

    People like you give anarchists a bad name.

    you're staning a dictator from a platform whose admins support a transphobic dev. to be perfectly honest, I don't give a shit what you think about "people like me". and I wouldn't, even if tankies didn't view anarchists as expendable fodder and enemies of the state. the fact of your mere association with your instance is enough to tar you with the stain of their bigotry.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (5 children)

    Pointing out imperial aligned sources aren't socialist and have a narrative is no true Scotsman? Are you sure you know what that phrase means? Might as well just link a Radio Free Asia article cut the natopedia middleman.

    You are disgusting calling me transphobic for simply using this site. Also what dictator am I stanning? I am simply calling out your lazy source that is clearly filled with American propaganda sources. If you take American propaganda outlets at face value you shouldn't call yourself an anarchist you're a lib. One who is severely detached from history and reality at that. I don't support the Devs? I have never donated and there are no ads? I don't know them personally. You seem like a shitty person and a petulant child.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    Pointing out imperial aligned sources aren’t socialist

    the source is a communist party. repeating a lie doesn't make it true. stop ignoring communists just because they don't agree with your emotional viewpoint.

    You are disgusting calling me transphobic for simply using this site.

    I don't believe I ever said that. if you feel that's what I said, then perhaps you're just expressing your subconscious feelings of guilt. no need to drag me into that. you should calm down and consider your actions. try to do better, people like you give communists a bad name.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (3 children)

    the fact of your mere association with your instance is enough to tar you with the stain of their bigotry

    Fuck you. Stop lying. Try be a better person.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    Fuck you. Stop lying.

    the fact of your mere association with your instance is enough to tar you with the stain of their bigotry

    allow me to quote myself clearly not calling your transphobic. you are stained by association with them, for sure. but you are trying to twist my words into something that they are not because you clearly are not feeling well.

    Try be a better person.

    I am a better person than you will ever be, simply for not defending authoritarian regimes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›