Biden’s legacy will be that he was the butcher of Gaza. Who forced his administration to do this?

Interesting. Who forced the Biden administration to do this?

How about trusting most majority muslim countries themselves, which reject the genocide claim?

More on this here.

Highly disagree with this.

Even if you ignore the PRC’s primary materialist / world-historic acheivement over the last few decades (lifting more people out of poverty than any country in history), then you still have futuristic / sci-fi things like:

• The PRC’s green energy revolution.

ELECTRICITY MIX (PERCENTAGE)
============================================================
2010:  [████████████████████████] 61% Coal  |  39% Clean
2025:  [████████████████] 32% Coal           |  68% Clean
2030:  [████████████] ~25% Coal (target)     |  75% Clean (target)
============================================================

• Rapid development of fusion power.
• Space missions like a planned moon landing possibly as soon as the 2030s, and planned mars landings for 2040s.

These are star trek / bucky fuller level ideas.

cool Japan: “How wholesome!”

cool China: “This site is run by PRC operatives.”

Check those sources. Adrian Zenz, HRW, Pentagon press, ASPCI, and various other US government employees / US and UK state media. Wikipedia is not neutral, its run by US government agents like Katherine Maher, and acts as a spokesman for pro-US / imperialist talking points, and their admins silence anyone who goes against that narrative.

https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia

The US failed to overthrow socialism in the PRC, whereas their other color revolutions (especially in eastern europe) succeeded.

• The CIA, Gene sharp, and it’s pacifist color revolution regime change tactics.
• Notes for the 30th anniversary of the Tiannment incident.
• It wasn’t a massacre of peaceful students, but a skirmish between PLA soldiers and armed detachments from the pro-capitalist / free market reform movement. The protest movement, as evidenced by their own accounts, called for market liberalisation, and free market reforms, rallying around a replica of the statue of liberty. After the movement had been building in the square for seven weeks, unarmed soldiers were sent in to disperse the protesters, after which many soldiers were beaten to death, torched, and lynched. The New York Times death count went from 2600, to many thousands, to 8000, to tens of thousands. In reality only around ~200 (including soldiers) were killed or trampled, in smaller clashes outside the square. The on-scene New York Times reporter disavowed the article, especially about machine-gunning of protesters. A wikileaks cable from a US ambassador to the US state department, confirmed that no killings or machine-gunnings took place in the square.
• Latin American diplomat eyewitness account of June 3-4 events on Tiananmen Square wikileaks (PDF)
• There was a Spanish television crew that covered the entire Tiananmen Square incident as it unfolded. Their footage showed that there was no massacre. A few things worthy of pointing out - Liu Xiaobo and Hou Dejian, both student leaders of the Tiananmen protests, have been recorded as saying that they never saw anyone killed at the protests.
• The protest movement followed the line of “color revolutions”, in which the US tried to destabilize and create counter-revolutions in eastern Europe and Latin America after the fall of the USSR. The strategy was to stir division within and without, by inundating the media with news of massacres of “peaceful”, pro-capitalist / market reformers.
• The defeat of a counter revolution in China.
• Interviews from some of the student leaders.
• An account from a resident.
• Tiananmen Square “Massacre”, A Propaganda Hoax.
• The truth about the Tiananmen square protests

White genocide

Show me the metro lines connecting walkable neighborhoods. Or high-speed trains between well-developed city centers

China has more high speed rail than every other country combined: https://youtu.be/zkMnxJF22O8

Got a source for that?

For an even better analysis than you could ever get in a university class, I highly recommend reading Domenico Losurdo - Liberalism, a counter-history for a more detailed history of what liberalism is. Even from its very foundations and founding authors, it was white supremacist, pro-slavery, anti-worker, pro-colonialism, pro-workhouse and prison, etc.

From Zak Cope - divided world divided class

The labour aristocracy is that section of the international working class whose privileged position in the lucrative job markets opened up by imperialism guarantees its receipt of wages approaching or exceeding the per capita value created by the working class as a whole. The class interests of the labour aristocracy are bound up with those of the capitalist class, such that if the latter is unable to accumulate superprofits then the super-wages of the labour aristocracy must be reduced. Today, the working class of the imperialist countries, what we may refer to as metropolitan labour, is entirely labour aristocratic.

The labour aristocracy provides the major vehicle for bourgeois ideological and political influence within the working class. For Lenin, “opportunism” in the labour movement is conditioned by the preponderance of two major economic factors, namely, either “vast colonial possessions or a monopolist position in world markets.” These allow for ever-greater sections of the metropolitan working class to be granted super-wages so that it is not merely the haute bourgeoisie which subsists on profits. Thus, according to Lenin, it is not simply capitalists who benefit from imperialism:

The export of capital, one of the most essential economic bases of imperialism, still more completely isolates the rentiers from production and sets the seal of parasitism on the whole country that lives by exploiting the labour of several overseas countries and colonies.

For Lenin, superprofits derived from imperialism allow the globally predominant bourgeoisie to pay inflated wages to sections of the (international) proletariat, who thus derive a material stake in preserving the capitalist system:

In all the civilised, advanced countries the bourgeoisie rob—either by colonial oppression or by financially extracting “gain” from formally independent weak countries—they rob a population many times larger than that of “their own” country. This is the economic factor that enables the imperialist bourgeoisie to obtain super-profits, part of which is used to bribe the top section of the proletariat and convert it into a reformist, opportunist petty bourgeoisie that fears revolution.

There are several pressing reasons why the haute bourgeoisie in command of the heights of the global capitalist economy pays its domestic working class super-wages, even where it is not forced to by militant trade-union struggle within the metropolis.

• Economically, the embourgeoisement of First World workers has provided oligopolies with the secure and thriving consumer markets necessary to capital’s expanded reproduction.
• Politically, the stability of pro-imperialist polities with a working-class majority is of paramount concern to cautious investors and their representatives in government.
• Militarily, a pliant and/or quiescent workforce furnishes both the national chauvinist personnel required to enforce global hegemony and a secure base from which to launch the subjugation of Third World territories.
• Finally, ideologically, the lifestyles and cultural mores enjoyed by most First World workers signifies to the Third World not what benefits imperialism brings, but what capitalist industrial development and parliamentary democracy alone can achieve.

In receiving a share of superprofits, a sometimes fraught alliance is forged between workers and capitalists in the advanced nations. As far back as 1919, the First Congress of the Communist International (COMINTERN) adopted a resolution, agreed on by all of the major leaders of the world Communist movement of the time, which read:

At the expense of the plundered colonial peoples capital corrupted its wage slaves, created a community of interest between the exploited and the exploiters as against the oppressed colonies—the yellow, black, and red colonial people—and chained the European and American working class to the imperialist “fatherland.”

Advocates of imperialism understood very early on that imperialism would and could provide substantial and socially pacifying benefits to the working classes in imperialist countries. Cecil Rhodes, arch-racist mining magnate, industrialist and founder of the white-settler state of Rhodesia, famously understood British democracy as equaling imperialism plus social reform:

I was in the West End of London yesterday and attended a meeting of the unemployed. I listened to the wild speeches, which were just a cry for “bread!” “bread!” and on the way home I pondered over the scene and I became more than ever convinced of the importance of imperialism … My cherished idea is a solution for the social problem, i.e., in order to save the inhabitants of the United Kingdom from a bloody civil war, we colonial statesmen must acquire new lands to settle the surplus population, to provide new markets for the goods produced in the factories and the mines. The Empire, as I have always said, is a bread and butter question. If you want to avoid civil war, you must become imperialists.

Liberal doesn’t mean left wing, it means pro-capitalist, anti-communist. The US tolerates no public leftist presence.

Why is that depressing? I see mixed urban greenery with lots of city infrastructure.

But Venables’s postscript changes all that. Venables is the Buddicoms’ first cousin, and was left the copyright to Eric & Us, as well as 57 crates of family letters. From these she made the shocking discovery that, in 1921, Eric had tried to rape Jacintha. Previously the young couple had kissed, but now, during a late summer walk, he had wanted more. At only five feet to his six feet and four inches, Jacintha had shouted, screamed and kicked before running home with a torn skirt and bruised hip. It was “this” rather than any gradual parting of the ways that explains why Jacintha broke off all contact with her childhood friend, never to learn that he had transformed himself into George Orwell.

Source

Workers in the PRC absolutely have the right to strike, there are hundreds of cases a year.

Use audiobookshelf for audiobooks.

I agree that the “principle aspect” as you say, or which class is holding power and ultimately controls both the economy and the political system, is most important. I’d argue though that the primary difference in these sectors is who is in control of the surplus, and whose benefit it goes to. In the PRC and even in Cuba, there are still private capitalists who effectively control the surplus generated within those companies, and use it as they see fit. They’re severely limited of course, but they still function differently from the socialist sector whose surplus is worker-controlled via 5 year plans.

The only “socialist industry” I can think of in western countries, outside of tiny examples like coops, are things like state-run natural resource and energy companies. The US military is just the enforcement arm of capital, planned and controlled by capital. Even state-run social services shouldn’t really be thought of as socialist, since they produce no surplus value, and are funded via other ways, and are overall capitalist-planned.

Who told you that NK “sucks”, and why do you trust them?

Definitely, people in western countries rarely leave their bubble of the 5 or so anti-communist media companies that control everything they see.