Capitalist development vs Socialist development

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

Unrelated to China, but why is the Vietnam War listed as Indecisive or unclear outcome?
- As far as I know it's because both sides had pretty banal low-level and straightforward stated goals that were all "met" so there wasn't a clear "winner" and a "loser" in those strategic goals. It was really more of a 3 week skirmish than a full war. Vietnam obviously wanted to force China out of their country, and China said they wanted to bat Vietnam on the nose and force them to pull out of and not occupy Cambodia, or Laos or Thailand.
  Which China left meaning Vietnamese succeeded in their strategic goals, and the Vietnamese diverted major resources and pulled out of Cambodia and didn't occupy Thailand and Laos meaning the Chinese succeeded. There weren't really any major strategic goals that were stated by either side that showed blatant failure; like China never said they intended to fully occupy Hanoi and create a Chinese puppet state and failed. Vietnam as far as I know never said they intended to continue occupying Cambodia or occupy Thailand and then failed to. So in a way they both got what they wanted and it was a status quo antebellum situation. Thus indecisive in the context of if it weren't 'indecisive' there would have been a winner or loser.
  Thailand and Laos were under multi-factional civil wars whose royal governments were also US proxies; so the Vietnamese were also involved there (and involved with their local communist parties), prompting Sino-Soviet-split-related concerns with China since even though both China and USSR provided support to Vietnamese communists; the USSR became the dominant supporter and ally of Vietnam and continued to be. China also had an alliance with Cambodia dating before Khmer Rouge even; which was in part because Cambodia wanted assurance against the larger Vietnam and Thailand. The split in the Chinese Cultural Revolution era between the ultra-lefts and others had half of the CPC supporting the Prince and half of it supporting the Khmer Rouge against the prince. North Vietnam and Khmer Rouge provided support for each other for a while too. The politics were a mess. No idea what other involvements China had with Thailand and Laos other than Sino-Soviet fears.
  People overstate the significance of Chinese casualties as meaning a loss when that's not how war works. Strategic objectives are all that matter. The losses (if you average the wildly disproportionate claims from all sides; impossible to actually know when you look at it) were more even than something like The Winter War between USSR-Finland; and though that war had the Soviets suffer disproportionate losses, it was still a complete strategic victory for the Soviets; they got everything they were after which had refused by Finland in previous requested land-swaps, namely gaining the Karelia buffer region.
List of wars being involved in is not a list of countries being invaded and occupied, nice try though.
- honestly the map is too unserious to merit discussion
- And OP's comparison pic is nonsense for more reasons than that. The time ranges are wildly different, it's counting starting from 1776 for the US, but it starts counting from 1949 for the PRC
- China is occupying Vietnam and Cambodia?

Yeah, apart from other areas of china (if you can call those "invasions and occupations") there's only been one time they've invaded another country and that was Vietnam in 1979.

korea
- Helping kick out US troops from a sovereign state that has asked for their help isn't an invasion though

I’m surprised that nobody defended the Western Allies’ takeover of former Axis empires yet. I am going to write this to prevent any attempts:

The Western Allies reused the Empire of Japan’s system of forced prostitution.

Italian anticommunists pardoned Fascists while punishing thousands of partisans; there was no equivalent to the Nuremberg Trials for the Italian Fascists; the liberal bourgeoisie refused to prosecute Fascists for their atrocities in Ethiopia; and there were continuities between Fascism & the post‐1945 Italian police.

When the Western Allies took Algeria from the Axis, they let the fascists continue running the internment camps; important elements of the Fascist era survived in postwar France.

The U.S. Army continued keeping Jews in the Axis’s concentration camps (‘We appear to be treating the Jews as the Nazis treated them, except that we do not exterminate them.’ — ~~Harry Truman, Sept. 1946~~ Earl G. Harrison, Aug. 1945); West Germany’s régime was polluted with surviving Axis personnel; fascist elements survived in West Germany.

Somebody could argue that there was no alternative to the Western Allies, but plenty of partisans were active in France, for example, and the Eastern Allies could have reached every Axis‐occupied region given enough time.

I’ll freely concede that the Western Allies were better than the Axis… but that’s not exactly saying much.

The U.S. Army continued keeping Jews in the Axis’s concentration camps (‘We appear to be treating the Jews as the Nazis treated them, except that we do not exterminate them.’ — Harry Truman, Sept. 1946)
This point specifically I think is unfair. When you liberate a prison that has prisoners from far away, you can't necessarily arrange for everyone to get sent home immediately. Honestly, with the state of anatomical atrophy the survivors had been reduced to -- such that eating a larger-than-average meal would kill them -- I'd worry about them even being able to make the trip if it was taken immediately.
I could be missing something though (and I concede that them still being there in Sept. 1946 means they were probably being unduly deprioritized)

There was also the time they invaded Vietnam.
and with the USSR
During the first and second Afghan civil-war there were also border skirmishes

@yogthos
well... if the map also shows where the US has acted clandestinely for its own imperialist purposes, the map gets a little redder.

what's more lib than cheering for slavery https://www.historicly.net/p/tibet-china-and-the-violent-reaction
- You can be opposed to the theocratic bullshit that is the Dalai Lama and still acknowledge that China invaded & occupied Tibet.
  Especially if you count the Allies winning WWII as the invasion & occupation of Germany in the upper map.
Liberating the people of Tibet from a feudal theocracy, from poverty and illiteracy. The horror they must be suffering.
I don’t think many Tibetans would welcome a CIA-backed Dalai “suck my tongue” Lama coup government.
- Liberating Germany from Nazi rule, the horror!
  If you count the Allied victory as the invasion & occupation of Germany, you must count the liberation of Tibet as an invasion and occupation.
- Tut‐tut, I see that feddit.org has blacklisted lemmygrad.ml members, which explains why Enkrod overlooked my comment on the Western Allies’ lackluster excuses for liberation.
  Of course, I could have made my comment longer, such as specifically mentioning how the Western Allies maintained Fritz Schaeffer as Bavaria’s minister president. That wasn’t a secret either.

skill issue

Big time, despite all the colonization the burger empire still can't keep up with China. Hence all the crying about over production.
- No, I meant China's lack of colonies is a skill issue. They've tried often enough, but usually got BTFO by a small set of islands in front of their coast, or a few hundred Europeans.
Not invading other countries is a choice, not a skill.

the uk got invaded?

More like became a vassal of the empire after WW2 along with the rest of Europe.
- So North Korea and Vietnam do count for China, right?
- comedy hot take understanding of geopolitcs aside, you said they invaded and occupied?
  when did they invade and occupy the uk?

@yogthos Your map is wrong. This comment from the linked thread probably sums it up best...

"loaExMachina
@sh.itjust.works

Image says “Has invaded since PRC was founded”, not “is occupying right now”, don’t try to change the terms of the debate when contradicted. You still could’ve made a point that China invaded much fewer countries than the US, but at least try to have an accurate map or the accurate words."

pretty disingenuous to call border skirmishes invasions if you ask me
- @yogthos If you send your military across another countries' border without that countries' permission that's generally referred to as an invasion, but don't let facts get in the way of your CCP shilling.

China doesn't occupy every nook and cranny of the oceans and waterways on the planet. Whoever made this chart is a fuckin moron. Humans cannot realistically engage in long term oceanic invasion and occupation.

@yogthos Technically, they have also invaded themselves.

When did the US invade all of russia? (genuinely curious)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War

Ah yes, China helping Korea liberate itself from the US invasion is occupation. I'm starting to think I want whatever drugs Fleur is having.

Ah. Xinjiang and Tibet should defintely be painted in red. Also Vietnam without a doubt. Korea is a matter of definition.

Tibet was a slave state when it was liberated during the revolution and this map states clearly "after the PRC was founded" piss off with this lib ass well ackshually shit.
🤣
Also Hong Kong, not really an invasion, but definitely not a welcomed rule of power after the UK left.

Look, can't we agree that neither country gives a shit about the working class? Nation states are so 20th century. Why not try something new and try dissolving the state and self organizing into communes that best reflect our beliefs and values?

That said... What do the different shades of colors mean in the top image? Only half fucked over?

No we can't because that's demonstrably false. The state in China clearly represents the interests of the majority.
90% of families in the country own their home giving China one of the highest home ownership rates in the world. What’s more is that 80% of these homes are owned outright, without mortgages or any other leans. https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2016/03/30/how-people-in-china-afford-their-outrageously-expensive-homes
The real (inflation-adjusted) incomes of the poorest half of the Chinese population increased by more than four hundred percent from 1978 to 2015, while real incomes of the poorest half of the US population actually declined during the same time period. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23119/w23119.pdf
From 1978 to 2000, the number of people in China living on under $1/day fell by 300 million, reversing a global trend of rising poverty that had lasted half a century (i.e. if China were excluded, the world’s total poverty population would have risen) https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/China’s-Economic-Growth-and-Poverty-Reduction-Angang-Linlin/c883fc7496aa1b920b05dc2546b880f54b9c77a4
From 2010 to 2019 (the most recent period for which uninterrupted data is available), the income of the poorest 20% in China increased even as a share of total income. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.DST.FRST.20?end=2019&locations=CN&start=2008
By the end of 2020, extreme poverty, defined as living on under a threshold of around $2 per day, had been eliminated in China. According to the World Bank, the Chinese government had spent $700 billion on poverty alleviation since 2014. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/31/world/asia/china-poverty-xi-jinping.html
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/lifting-800-million-people-out-of-poverty-new-report-looks-at-lessons-from-china-s-experience
People in China also enjoy high social mobility https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/18/world/asia/china-social-mobility.html
And finally, they have record household savings https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-dow-jones-bank-earnings-01-12-2024/card/chinese-household-savings-hit-another-record-high-xqyky00IsIe357rtJb4j
Why not try something new and try dissolving the state and self organizing into communes that best reflect our beliefs and values?
The real question is why do anarchists have nothing to show aside from rhetoric for over a century. I'll take a functional worker state that actually improves lives of the people instead of living under dictatorship of capital while dreaming about unachievable utopia.
Why not try something new and try dissolving the state and self organizing into communes that best reflect our beliefs and values?
Go ahead. If that works, I'd be delighted. Seems that all it ever ends up producing is a 15 person sex commune. When self-organizing commune lift a billion people from poverty and outmaneuver the US empire, I'll become an anarchist.
Because i want rail roads crossing the world and massive buildings and a global shipping network and all the things that are only possible because of states. If u want to return to monkee feel free but the rest of us would like to have a civilization. Fundamentally i disagree with ur stupid ideals even IF we put aside the reality of defending anything that working people build from capital.
Personally I think a gradual transition towards statelessness is necessary, because people are currently used to living in a state and are generally quite skeptical of sudden rapid change, even if it would be purely positive. Even if the capitalists were eliminated tomorrow and their propaganda networks shut down immediately, the general populace would still be infected by their brainworms for at least a generation.
Look, can't we agree that neither country gives a shit about the working class?
I have almost the exact opposite take on China.
Shit government, surveil people, torture people, no internet-freedom.
Their huge massive redeeming feature os that they REALLY give a shit about their working class.

This is too close to dishonest to be persuasive.

The word "occupied" is doing the heavy lifting, but saying "invaded & occupied" implies that they've done as little invading as occupying, which is not true.

The USSR isn't included, so the implication that socialism means 0 occupations is also untrue.

All states that identify as socialist have done fewer invasions than the US, as a combination of having existed for less time, having had less power during that time and -yes - having a slightly lower inclination to invade.

All powerful states abuse their power to unacceptable (if differing) degrees. That's the nature of hierarchical power. All nation states are vermin.

Is the blue in the bottom image the seas and oceans of the world or areas that China claims as the South China sea?

Ramming Philippines ships in Phillipines waters is hardly peaceful conduct.

Don't get me wrong, USA are horrific and absolutely need to be held to account but that doesn't mean China are good guys. All major world powers act like dicks to maintain their own interests.

Oh, and since when is China socialist? The wealth disparity there is hardly people's ownership of the means of production.

@yogthos Ummm.... you sure about that?

(Also, China is not the only socialist empire in the history 😉 )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ListofwarsinvolvingthePeople%27sRepublicofChina

when you definitely understand what imperialism is