Thats quite true. As mentioned, the harm of colonialism far outstrips the harm of comnunism in china.

Are you suggesting weavers in China today are rich, compared to weavers in Europe today?

The colonialist powers in Europe, North America, and East Asia have a population in the hundreds of millions and general access to wealth and utilities greater than most of the world. Even in the worst parts of the US, clean water is more accessible than in much of the world.

Like, the global capital machine works on a three part extraction:

• extract wealth from colonies (de facto or dejure) through resource transfer
• extract raw wealth from labor through manufactor of goods out of resources
• re-extract wealth from from both parties through sales of manufactured goods

if we are looking purely at distribution of stuff and money, I feel its not terribley controversial to suggest that a representative person in the colonial core has more than one in a colony.

Now, at what level does having more stuff rise to "not being in poverty" is a topic that I would find a lot more debatable, but even the UN's self congradulatory and pitiful "2 dollars a day" shows more people hitting that in the imperial core than outside it

Edit to note: I'm not saying "CHINA BAD" here, I'm saying "lifted out of poverty" is not a good metric. Its an inherently capitalist metric. Measuring if people have enough stuff is a losing game against capitalist wealth extraction. Measure instead how good a life is.