Or the nature of the attacks. Why should I care about “Obama attacked Pakistan” if the “attack” was killing Bin Laden?

How do I know this guy isn’t a CIA/Mossad op?

“I say things you like on a blog, give me money”?

The overwhelming majority of finance is publicly owned in the PRC

Okay, but you can’t just say it is publicly owned and then not have any actual tangible way of individual members of the public of accessing what they apparently own.

socialist economy

By every definition of “socialism” that I can find, China is breaking virtually every rule. What specifically about their economy makes it more socialist than, say, any other economy in the world?

Public ownership presents itself in the real world via the vast, pro-social infrastructure projects, poverty alleviation campaigns, central planning, Five Year Plans, and consistent improvements in the lives of the working classes.

Okay, I think socialism is a little bit more than when the government does stuff, but maybe I was taught differently. I guess by that definition even India is socialist and publicly owned.

In China, they have direct elections for local representatives, which elect further “rungs,” laddering to the top.

And how do you avoid the inherent corruption issues the one-party system presents? Since anyone who is already higher up in that ladder holds power over those underneath them, and power leads to corruption.

Every western democracy on earth fits these criteria - elections for local representatives, who themselves go on to vote on the leadership (parliamentary or electoral college, take your pick). And we all have mass polling and opinion gathering.

This system is remarkably effective, resulting in over 90% approval rates.

Those approval rates exist only at the federal level, not the provincial or municipal.

Not coincidentally, it’s illegal to publicly criticize the federal government in China, or accuse it of failing to adhere to socialist ideals.

Again, power leads to corruption.

I’m not sure what your point is. Is your point that the presence of any private property whatsoever means a state isn’t socialist?

Is your point that having democratic elections and governments that do good things for the people makes a country socialist?

Because by all the criteria you’ve named, I can name a lot of countries that are even more socialist than China. Canada is more socialist than China and we don’t even call ourselves socialist.

So what’s the difference? It sounds like just any other western capitalist country except you just call it socialist and publicly owned?

The PRC is socialist, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state.

Why do financial institutions like banks and stock markets exist, and then lock their customers out of their money?

How does public ownership tangibly present itself in the real world, if billionaires still hold billions without giving billions worth of labour value, and poor people do not receive a fair share of their labour?

Through what means do the working classes control the state?