516
Americans in a nutshell (thelemmy.club)
submitted 4 days ago by [M] to c/comics@lemmy.ml
419 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 19 points 3 days ago (22 children)

How on earth is that connected to the eradication of extreme poverty in China?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
    •
  • [+] -14 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (21 children)

    It's not going to show up on the graph if it's unreported.

    EDIT: like when they are in prison/camp, dead, unregistered immigrant or just unwritten

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 3 days ago* (18 children)

    Lol, so you think any evidence that conflicts with your presumptions about reality is just fake.

    Even the fucking World Bank acknowledges that this data is accurate. Are you claiming they're faking numbers to make China look good? What, is George Soros behind it? How far does your conspiracy theory go?

    Maybe you should try basing your beliefs on evidence instead of propaganda and ignorant assumptions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [+] -15 points 3 days ago (17 children)

    Everyone's data on this sux. Not a representative of anything. Like the USSR once had a homeless rate of a grand total of zero because it was made illegal (I know I could bring the US or something into the example but it's actually funny seeing you get triggered by mention of the USSR). There are other biases like someone promising a bonus inside of the govt if there aren't any (reported) homeless people.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 3 days ago* (16 children)

    You asked someone earlier:

    How would I know you aren’t the one cherry picking?

    That's a great question. If we all just blindly believe whatever we feel is true, then there's no possible way to determine who's right and who's wrong. That's why it's important to ground your beliefs in evidence. Because that way, we can actually determine who's right and who's wrong.

    But there's clearly no point discussing anything with you, your views cannot be changed by evidence because they're not based on evidence. They're based solely on blind faith. They are fully unfalsifiable, and no matter what the world looks like in reality, there could never be any evidence that would change your mind. It's no different from arguing with a Flat-Earther.

    If you ever get tired of worshipping at the alter of anti-communist propaganda and decide to start basing your beliefs on evidence instead of faith, hmu and we can continue this discussion then.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [+] -14 points 3 days ago* (15 children)

    I don't feel like bringing evidence right now, I am having fun in these arguments. I also know I am not changing your opinion. I am not even that anti-communist, I am fine with siding with non-stalinist communists. Look around references in the wiki I mentioned before if you want evidence.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 3 days ago* (14 children)

    Mhm. Right, the evidence totally exists, you just "don't feel like showing it right now." And my girlfriend lives in Canada, that's why you never see her, no you can't see any evidence she exists, I just don't feel like showing you right now. Or ever.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [+] -10 points 3 days ago* (13 children)

    Okay fine, I will feed you with this one source https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajes.12324 here's one source (yes, it fits the definition of homelessness)

    EDIT: there's a paywall, whoops... anyways I have stuff to do and can't look on btdigg for you

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    We were discussing the eradication of absolute poverty, and went into what identified that and went into eradicating it. You return with a source on homelessness, which has the following to say:

    Depending on how one defines homelessness, China has either a very tiny homeless population or an extremely large one. Compared to other countries, there very few vagrants: people living on the streets of China's cities without means of support. But if one counts the people who migrated to cities without a legal permit (hukou), work as day laborers without job security or a company dormitory, and live in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions on the edge of cities, there are nearly 300 million homeless.

    Nobody denies the existence of underdeveloped housing in China. Calling them "homeless," however, is a stretch. The article itself identifies extremely low rates of vagrancy, which is much higher in capitalist countries. The ongoing development process in China now focuses on increasing the quality of housing and the availability of housing. What is not in question is that China consistently focuses on improving the lives of those most vulnerable in society, which does not improve at the snap of a finger, but through long development processes that drive real results.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    Weird, if they call "work as day laborers without job security or a company dormitory" homeless, then in USA (or Poland) there is suddenly at least a double digit of homelessness. Also last time when i checked, bourgeois media loved nomad workforce chasing trash jobs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 days ago

    Yep, it's all definition pervertry to dodge the central point that China is rapidly getting better for working people year over year. They see China as a static snapshot and focus on how we define their present conditions to obfuscate how their conditions are changing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 3 days ago (9 children)

    I'm not asking for a source about homelessness, I'm asking for a source that disproves the evidence I presented about the eradication of extreme poverty.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [+] -12 points 3 days ago (8 children)

    It's adjacent. I would consider being homeless extreme poverty.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    Well then you're wrong. Extreme poverty has a specific definition, which you can find in my earlier link.

    This is a big part of the problem. You look at China and judge it based on your standards of poverty, presumably coming from a country that was much wealthier historically. By looking only at the present, and only in absolute terms, you miss the direction that things have gone.

    There are huge differences in the scope of things that you might consider "extreme poverty." Someone who can't afford a washing machine is poor, and someone who can't afford their next meal is also poor, but taking people from the latter to the former is a massive improvement in their life, even though privileged people might look at both and just see "poor."

    This is why organizations like the World Bank use specific definitions for terms like "extreme poverty" rather than just going off vibes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -9 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    presumably coming from a country that was much wealthier historically

    Lol, no, where I live is already in this thread.

    Okay, imagine one of the homeless people (by the specific definition from Wikipedia) decides to get a place of their own for some reason. Congrats, they are now in extreme poverty. See how they are related?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 14 points 3 days ago

    You were given a clear definition of a real program that addressed a well-defined deficiency in society, and are responding to it by saying you subjectively interpret the label differently. Earlier you were discussing it as though the numbers were hidden or fabricated, now you're saying you don't agree with how they defined absolute poverty. In either case, however, you have not discounted that there was a clearly massive program targeting objectively defined metrics to mass success. The question at hand isn't if China is a far-future utopia or a dystopia, but where or not the working classes are put at the forefront of society, which is expressed through objective programs and measures.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -10 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    Either way, it's dumb to say "no poverty = people see socialism". Socialism is when people own means of production, not when govt does stuff.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 days ago* (2 children)

    Your claim was:

    Even if so, it’s pointless if the average worker can’t see the effect

    I'm showing you evidence that 800 million people did see the effect.

    Socialism is when people own means of production, not when govt does stuff.

    It doesn't matter if the cat is white or black, so long as it catches mice.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -8 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    True or not, that was not China "applying" socialism. That was them doing stuff. They are still functionally equivalent to capitalism. The average person works for someone else who is making orders of magnitude more money than the worker.

    Anyways, it seems my ban speedrun isn't working out they way I intended, although it may or may not have effect later.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 days ago

    You can define your terms however you like. Whatever you want to call the Chinese system, it lifted 800 million people out of extreme poverty in a generation, which is an incredible accomplishment. As the World Bank link says, that accounts for three quarters of all poverty allieviation in the world, in the same time frame. You can criticize other stuff it does but you can't deny it's accomplishments, outside of dogma and conspiracy theories.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 3 days ago

    During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.

    If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.

    • Michael Parenti (RIP)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent