Sort of. There was a decent bit of naval development which enabled the initial slave trade and colonization of the Americas, but they didn’t truly leapfrog India and China until they used the spoils to reach dramatic capitalist development, industrialization, and purposefully direct research and tech into millitary and naval development so as to become uncontestable. This turned trade from being somewhat dominated to fully dominated and uncontestable.

Yep. The huge advancements in technology brought about by colonialism and capitalism in Europe compelled their naval supremacy, which allowed Europe to dominate trade routes, leapfrogging India and China who were still more of a developed feudal-sort of stage. This led to the Opium Wars, colonization of India and China, and eventually their independence movements that propelled China into socialism and India into its own capitalist system (which is a whole other discussion).

Definitely true as well.

Failing to have a coherent understanding of how imperialism works. A lot of westerners seem to think they live in developed countries developed purely by their own industry, while not realizing how financial capital continues to plunder the global south.

You need to educate and agitate and organize. It isn’t an either/or situation, you need both so that theory and practice sharpen and reinforce each other. Ignoring one weakens the other.

Long story short, Europe was slightly ahead of Africa in terms of development when they began to really interact, around the time Europe found out about the Americas they had a bunch of new land from genocide of the natives and needed manpower Europeans could never hope to fulfill, so the slave trade started in earnest.

Europeans would only trade their goods for slaves, which started the slave industry in various African nations that wanted these goods, which stalled development in Africa while dramatically increasing development in Europe, widening the gap until the colonial era. Over time, this gap began to increasingly be seen as its own justification, and Europeans became increasingly racist towards Africans.

It isn’t about inherent evil. Europe was beginning to become capitalist while the most developed nations in Africa were developed feudal kingdoms, and the geography of Africa and Europe had more to do with that than any genetics could ever hope to cover. The narrow gap was exploited by Europeans and widened until the modern era of imperialism and neocolonialism.

I highy recommend How Europe Underdeveloped Africa by Walter Rodney. We’re doing a readalong over in Hexbear.net if you want to join!

Socialism has existed on a large scale for over a century. The USSR was the first, and now we have countries like Cuba, Vietnam, the PRC, etc, all economies where public ownership is the principle aspect of society. I’m not arguing from an “ideal,” I’m speaking purely about existing material reality. Using the PRC as an example, the large firms and key industries are overwhelmingly publicly owned:

The PRC did introduce Reform and Opening Up after struggles within the Cultural Revolution and the Gang of Four. These reforms didn’t change that public ownership is still the principle aspect of the economy, though. Private and cooperative ownership existed even under Mao, and economic growth was positive under Mao, just unstable, which the market reforms and introduction of special economic zones helped make stable and regular:

Pre-Reform and Opening Up Post-Reform and Opening Up

You didn’t bring any facts to the table or any analysis, you just said “no” then insulted me. It"s insulting and utterly insufficient for proving your claims.

To the contrary, socialism can only work at scale. Small-scale cooperation exists, yes, but isn’t really “socialism” as we understand it. A business cannot be “socialist,” socialism is a descriptor for an entire mode of production, not a quantum unit of an economy. Socialism is a mode of production where public ownership is the principle aspect, and regularly is proven to be superior to capitalism. The largest economy in the world by PPP is socialist, the PRC, and it’s a broad, diverse, multi-ethnic society of billions.

I think you’d do well to research more on socialism. “Human tribalism” is more of a response to immediate conditions within capitalism, a system dominated by private property. It isn’t some eternal genetic fault in humans, over time we have become increasingly interconnected and interdependent. Socialism is the natural evolution from that point now that capitalism has already centralized the broad majority of production, meaning coherent and deliberate planning of the economy is more feasible.

The worst is when they erase the immense famines in Tsarist Russia, China under the Kuomintang, etc, pretending that socialism caused the famines they experienced, when socialism gradually erased famine and hunger in both Russia and China.

People want to feel morally righteous for condemning socially percieved evil, even if it isn’t real. People also generally “license” themselves to believe in that which they believe materially benefits them.

Essentially, people’s capacity for changing their mind on something is less about the facts at hand and more about their readiness to accept an alternative viewpoint, which is driven by reaction to external circumstances.

Socialism or barbarism.

Socialism doesn’t “come with the same assholes,” socialist states have made dramatic and comprehensive strides for the working class while oppressing the capitalists.

Organizing, which is far more important, and it isn’t close. Voting is less than the bare minimum.

The system isn’t formed based on the wills of individuals, nor is there an inherent “nice” or “mean” quality to people. If we all decide we want to live in a perfect utopia, that still won’t take form, because that’s not how societal progression works. We live in capitalism, because capitalism emerged from preceding modes of production like feudalism. It wasn’t a choice people made, but an economic progression on the basis of private property and free-moving capital, which leads us to today where a tiny handful own the lion’s share of production.

Capitalism is riddled with contradictions, however, and these contradictions sharpen over time. We move onto socialism by organizing, where we can actually take control of production and run it along a common plan to suit the needs of the people.

Edit: figured it’s a good chance to plug my introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, if what I said makes sense to you!

Glad to hear it!

The best and most comprehensive resource I have seen so far is Qiao Collective’s Xinjiang: A Resource and Report Compilation. Qiao Collective is explicitly pro-PRC, but this is an extremely comprehensive write-up of the entire background of the events, the timeline of reports, and real and fake claims.

I also recommend reading the UN report and China’s response to it. These are the most relevant accusations and responses without delving into straight up fantasy like Adrian Zenz, professional propagandist for the Victims of Communism Foundation, does.

Tourists do go to Xinjiang all the time, yes. You can watch videos like this one on YouTube, though it obviously isn’t going to be a comprehensive view of a complex situation like this.

I certainly can empathize with feelings of hopelessness, but I think you can absolutely still organize with others that most closely align to your beliefs and interests, and that organizing can help be a part of forming a new bedrock of optimism for yourself. I don’t think desiring the end of humanity is particularly useful for getting positive change.

Okay? Just because I’m not omnicidal I’m deserving of hatred?

No they didn’t, and yes, this is eco-fascism. Desiring omnicide of humanity for ecological reasons cedes all agency to the ruling class.

I’m pro-veganism and pro-socialism, so we can move onto a more ethical and environmentally conscious mode of production. Wanting humanity to go extinct is just ecofascism.