:D

Seen this post over and over. This is not a new study at that point

Depends on the definition of “wasting”

There’s always a way to spend less water, even less than you currently do.

But normally spending more water translates to comfort, as well as better washing.

You’ll need to monitor it and take antibiotics before symptoms kick in, otherwise it may be too late.

In any case, the higher mortality, the lower the chance of spreading. There are and were plenty of viruses, for example, that have a similar mortality rate, but that’s exactly why there’s no outbreak - patients are easy to identify and isolate, and in the wild many die before propagating anything.

No, this is Glagolitic script, an alternative to Cyrillic. Mostly used in old Slavic scriptures, was later replaced by Cyrillic and Latin.

Most Slavs themselves don’t know how to read this

I don’t think you did read Marx, Engels, and Lenin.

Can’t say for Mao, did not read his works close enough.

But the communism classics would strongly disagree with you; besides, you stray so so far from the original topic.

Communism does not necessitate self-sufficiency, moreover, a switch to fully domestic production is detrimental to any economy. The reason modern economy is globalized is that it’s simply more efficient, and capitalist economies are all about efficiency, as it allows to extract more value. At the same time, many past socialist economies were forced to only partner with other socialist economies, which limited their options and hurt their economy.

One of the key reasons communist classics called for a global revolution is to gain the critical mass of communism-aligned countries to minimize this effect and maximize globalization efforts. The communist endgame is one interconnected world without any nations to begin with, not to mention any protectionism.

That’s all, like, economics 101.

No, I just state the fact that protectionism doesn’t mean communism and globalism doesn’t mean capitalism.

They are different terms for a reason.

There was everything protectionist about Nazi Germany, who seeked to give control of German industries to German capitalists.

As I said, protectionism may coexist or not coexist with communism, as it can with any other economic system.

If you’re serious about equating protectionism and communism, you should probably be happy with the way things were done in the Third Reich.

You should seriously reconsider the terms you employ, and read the classics more thoroughly. Also, open the goddamn Wikipedia if you’re too lazy for that.

Strict prohibitions on foreign controlling interest in real estate, capital, and intellectual property, for starters.

This is protectionism and it has literally nothing to do with communism. Those are two absolute different things that can coexist or not coexist.

Same relates to your other points.

Your rhetoric is eerily similar to protectionist points of Nazi Germany, a very non-communist state that was obsessed with domestic control and protecting domestic capitalist with the proclaimed idea of “capital belonging to all people of Germany”, as opposed to “evil Jewish cartels”.

Simply trapping the capital inside the country speaks little of what gets to the workers. And if we talk communism, ALL of the capital is directly owned by the collective of workers. Which is not China.

Define “communist economic policies”.

If you’re Luo Wen, you’re in favor of state regulations of the capitalist market; you are not pursuing communist policies.

It’s not enough to maintain domestic control of the capital - this is a feature of any protectionist regime, even a fascist one. You should also make sure this capital is entirely democratically controlled and owned by the workers - which is not what happens in China. The capital of Chinese businesses is not the “property of workers”.

You’re right on classics - but off topic.

I’m saying that China does not economically classify as a communist state, neither did even USSR, because it just wasn’t feasible at the moment.

I’m combating the change of meaning where communism as officially proclaimed ideology is conflated with communism as an actual economic system. As a result of this, people start thinking that communism is when a state controls some sides of economy and gets involved in social programs, which is not a definition of communism, it’s a capitalist state with social elements.

A state can even apply some of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist principles, but it is economically capitalist as long as means of production are controlled by private entities looking for profit. This is not an argument about what China should or shouldn’t do - this is an argument that China is not economically communist or even socialist, like it or not. Neither was USSR during the so-called New Economic Policy.

A return in form of cash or lease.

Clarify, please?..

Textbook communism is an economy that is 100% worker-owned, with everyone’s needs directly met without the intervention of money. The rest is not that, by literal definition. Let’s not play into the hands of people who want to call that communism and ultra-left to exploit in their own needs.

China does have some strong policies, but it doesn’t make it communist by any definition. Also, high home ownership rate is mostly a cultural phenomenon, with housing still seen as “best investment” despite the fact there are entire ghost towns full of houses that never ever filled.

I’m well aware that US pressures China militarily, and that China has a much more peaceful approach. However, Chinese ships regularly bully other countries in the South China Sea against international maritime laws.

The infrastructure China builds is not just a gift - but an investment on which China expects a return. I’m not convinced China is actively pursuing debt trap diplomacy, but it certainly uses economic power to pressure other countries into various concessions.

That makes sense.

I think USSR really did influence the world in a big way. No debates, just stating my stance.

It is great that you participate in what you do, and I advise any socialist to act the same, but it doesn’t mean you can’t do both.

Fight the system in existing framework, but don’t forget it’s not the only way. Think revolutionary, but do not settle for that alone and fight the system by legal means too. One shouldn’t exclude the other.

The economy of China is not characterized by the common/social ownership of the means of production, which means it is not socialist. No amount of five-year plans can change that.

China does spark international conflicts and does bully its neighbors, but it is true that the country doesn’t cosplay world police and doesn’t participate much in military operations outside the country, which is a big plus.

As per the bar, it shouldn’t fall lower just because some country got even more evil. We can compare the evils, but the evil will be there.

With all that said, I do not say “China bad”. But claiming “China good” would also not be correct.

I think it’s a consequence of poor representation by many actual tankies, multiplied by a concentrated effort to silence any critique of Biden to boost his ratings as someone just a bit less evil than Trump.

This is a big clusterfuck, and I hope to have a better dialogue between authoritarian socialists, liberal socialists and people who consider themselves “left” because they vote Democrat (Murica did a great job at straying people away from actual socialism).

Hostility won’t help either side, but tankies are stubborn and Biden-prophets are relentless, dividing the community of people who all want a more equal and happy world.

By that I primarily meant “Chinese government is not guilty in atrocities it ordered to commit”

But in general, of course China is a miracle in many ways.

No one expects America to turn communist today, not in 10, 20, 50 years. The red scare and capitalist propaganda is so bad it would be idiotic to assume America as a socialist frontier.

But:

1. We have to work against red scare and change the people, not the government;
2. We should develop revolutionary movements in other parts of the world. The successes of USSR in the 30s have seriously affected people everywhere, including America.