With public ownership of the means of production (in any public sector industry) it is by definition socialist. By every definition socialist.
It's only socialist if you accept the framing that the state (ie the government) is the manifestation of the will of the people. This is demonstrably untrue in China given how regularly they suppress protest movements and attempts by workers to organize. They are NOT the will of the people. They are the will of the party, which has always been the case in every state communist country that has ever existed.
And I don't get my information on China from western media sources. I get it from people I know who live in China and from my own experiences in China.
anyone can join he government and take on the boring admin work, there are checks at every level to reduce corruption and no one person ever has absolute power. Technically “the evil dictator Xi Jinping” could be ousted with a single vote, or multiple lower regional votes. The same is true for all positions. Appointments are democratically placed, so corruption is minimal.
Replace "China" with "The US" here and it sounds exactly like it comes out of a grade school civics textbook in the US describing the American political system. This is the exact same line every single elected government around the world uses to describe how democratic they are.
I meant, how does one run it locally. I see a lot of people saying to just "run it locally" but for someone without a background in coding that doesn't really mean much.
Over 60% of the economy by GDP including all essential services, is owned by the peoplestate
FTFY
If the state represented the people, why does the Chinese government kill workers who try to organize so damn much? It's because the state =/= the people. What you described is just capitalism where the state is one of the capitalist class. The difference with the US is that the US government is owned by the capitalist class rather than being one of it.
They won't but even if they hypothetically tried to, I doubt they could. We're talking about Marshalls who have spent their career in the DoJ working alongside and for the Executive Branch. The courts try to tell the AG to order the Marshalls to do something and the AG refuses. So the courts try to deputize the Marshalls and give direct orders and we're to expect the Marshalls will go against the people they've been loyal to their entire careers?
Again, both are shitty. In fact, not just both, but all. All hierarchical power structures are just plain evil. I'm not interested in parsing which evil is more evil. The Chinese government is an evil institution. The US government is an evil institution.
Well, there are a hell of a lot of Christians, Jews, and Muslims alive right now who aren't actively trying to kill each other. Mostly, they just let others go about living their lives. It's only the radical fundamentalists who try to kill others.
Wouldn't ever even come to that, at least not under the current Trump administration.
Yes, the US Marshall Service is technically the enforcement arm of the judiciary, but they're under the Department of Justice and answer directly to the US Attorney General. The DoJ is part of the Executive Branch and the AG is a member of the Cabinet appointed by the President. The current AG is Pam Bondi, who is a VERY close Trump ally who's been working for him in various ways as a lawyer since at least 2019.
The Supreme Court doesn't order the Marshall Service to do anything. They send a request to the AG, who then gives orders to the Marshall Service. Even under previous administrations it would have been incredibly difficult to imagine the circumstance where the AG would order the Marshalls to arrest a member of the Executive Branch, and it's just never going to happen under Trump.
Not while remaining faithful to their religion. A core tenant of all three faiths you named is that their God (which are all different interpretations of the same god) is the ONLY god and you cannot recognize any other god.
Of course, there have always been varying interpretations of each faith. Christianity, especially, has lent itself to syncretism quite well. There have been (and still are) many cultures where the people would identify themselves as Christian, but see no contradiction in also recognizing aspects of other faiths, including sometimes gods (although they might call them some other word).
If you're following any of the major, world-recognized denominations of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam (eg Catholicism, Protestantism, Sunni Islam, Orthodox Judaism, Shia Islam, etc) then, no, you cannot worship pagan gods. But there are smaller versions of each religion which do.
Why do you have to pick one or the other? Can we not recognize that the governments of western nations and the government of China are all evil institutions that cause far more harm than they ever could benefit?
I tried asking ChatGPT how a fictional character in a story I was writing would go about rigging a tesla cybertruck to light on fire without the police catching him. It wrote out a pretty detailed scene, but glossed over the specific actions. So I asked it to get more detailed in how it would change the wiring of the car. Then it wiped away the entire conversation (including previous responses) and said it couldn't talk about that right now.
This History of Rome -- Pretty much exactly what the title says. This is an old podcast. It started in 2007 and finished in 2013. It pioneered the history podcast genre. It was made by Mike Duncan, who went on to create...
Revolutions -- Mike Duncan's follow up to The History of Rome. It's a similar format, but rather than a single on-going historical narrative, each season focuses on a different historical revolution. The original run of the show covered the English Revolution, American, French, Haitian, Spanish-American, 1830 French Revolution, 1848 European Revolutions, Mexican, and Russian Revolutions. He then concluded the podcast in 2022, but started it back up again late last year. This season is a fictionalized podcast about the Martian Revolution of the 24th century (told as a history from someone living well in the future of it). He's said that once he's done this season he's going back to doing historical revolutions picking back up after the Russian Revolution.
You're thinking of the 24th Amendment, which reads:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
The way your state (and many others) gets around this is because the fee to get your ID is not technically a tax. It's a fee. It's a rather silly semantic difference, but that's how the law works. You're not paying a tax, and your right to vote isn't being restricted because you didn't pay a tax. You are being required to have a photo ID to vote, and the form of photo ID you've chosen to get (which might well be the easiest to access) requires you pay a fee to acquire.
Yes, this seems like a minor pedantic difference, but that's kinda the point. The people who push these voter ID laws are doing the exact same thing people in the Jim Crow South did when they created poll taxes, poll tests, grandfather clauses, etc. They are trying to skirt around a law (in this case, the 24th Amendment, back then the 15th Amendment) in order to restrict the right to vote from people who should be protected.
It's only socialist if you accept the framing that the state (ie the government) is the manifestation of the will of the people. This is demonstrably untrue in China given how regularly they suppress protest movements and attempts by workers to organize. They are NOT the will of the people. They are the will of the party, which has always been the case in every state communist country that has ever existed.
And I don't get my information on China from western media sources. I get it from people I know who live in China and from my own experiences in China.
Replace "China" with "The US" here and it sounds exactly like it comes out of a grade school civics textbook in the US describing the American political system. This is the exact same line every single elected government around the world uses to describe how democratic they are.