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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s adjacent. I would consider being homeless extreme poverty.
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.
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?
No, they aren’t. That’s not how it’s defined.
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.
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.
Your claim was:
I’m showing you evidence that 800 million people did see the effect.
It doesn’t matter if the cat is white or black, so long as it catches mice.
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.
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.