gnuhaut

different conceptions of democracy

This is kind of my point. Western liberals claim their representative type of democracy is the only correct way to have democracy. But in their version of democracy, economic power allows oligarchs and corporations to own and control the media, there are countless legal (and illegal) ways to influence policy and bribe politicians, and the police and courts routinely suppress anti-capitalist and other emancipatory movements, organizations and individuals.

Giving lectures about democracy when you're at the helm of a country that is actually ruled by the capitalist class is hypocritical.

In China, the people directly elect local council (e.g. village or town level) representatives. Those local council members than select who among themselves to send to represent them at the next level above. This continues all the way the National People's Congress and the Standing Committee.

This sort of organizational structure is more-or-less how political parties in Germany also work; so by that logic the Green party itself would presumably be an undemocratic institution.

OK, but the CPC can control who is allowed to run in elections, right? Well, Germany banned its communist party: In Germany, any organization (and their members) that wants to abolish the liberal order, capitalism, private property and so on is subject to repression, surveillance and outright bans, and this is enshrined in the constitution. So no fundamental difference there either: In Germany the liberal institutions decide who can and cannot run, and they have decided the commies are out.

Empirically, the Chinese government enjoys way better approval rating than any Western government, Chinese people believe themselves to be living in a democracy, and the Chinese administration seems way more responsive to the actual needs of the people, what with the poverty reduction and all. How is this possible if they're so much more undemocratic than Western liberal democracies?

These drone strikes are more about improving Ukrainian morale, rather than hurting Russian morale.

Can't win a war on symbolic victories alone. When they run out of real recruits it won't matter that the NAFO dork army is still in high spirits as they imagine Russians cowering in fear.

Taiwan was returned to the Republic of China (ROC), ruled by the nationalist KMT, after the defeat of Imperial Japan, which had occupied it. The KMT forces lost the civil war on the mainland against the communists and fled to Taiwan, claiming to be the true government of China. The ROC was a military dictatorship until the late 80s and responsible for the White Terror. At first, the communist People's Liberation Army (PLA) couldn't follow and invade Taiwan because they lacked a navy, and soon after, the ROC got US protection (Taiwan was in important US military base during the Korean war).

In the 70s, Nixon recognized the People's Republic of China (PRC) in Beijing as the legitimate government of China, and un-recognized Taipei. He also signed an agreement with the PRC stating that there is one China, and that Taiwan is part of China. White House spokespeople reaffirm this regularly when asked. They never actually properly committed to this though: In practice the US treats Taiwan almost like it is independent, but they avoid calling it that officially. So the US is arguably in breach of its agreement with China on this point, and always was (though I think this was understood by all sides at the time of signing).

In this agreement, the US also promised to work towards reunification and to demilitarize Taiwan. They did in fact remove US troops from Taiwan and scaled down weapons deliveries. Lately though, they are increasingly breaking these promises with more weapons deliveries, more US military personnel on Taiwan, and open support for pro-independence positions and politicians.

The PRC for its part promised to work towards peaceful reunification and not use military force. So far they haven't, so this is currently a one-sided breach of the agreement by the US. Why is the US breaking an agreement that so far has prevented a military conflict?

Both Beijing, as well as the majority of people on Taiwan, are in favor of continuing the status quo for a while longer. But Beijing has made it clear that they will not accept Taiwan declaring independence, and they certainly do not want a hostile military presence so close to the Chinese mainland and important port cities. The PRC has threatened to blockade/invade Taiwan if independence is declared or if there is a military buildup.

No it doesn't. One is about kicking out colonial rule, and the other is about kicking out migrants.

help the US and it’s allies stop Russia from invading other countries as they have been doing for decades

Wait, you think the country that has by far done the most invasions should be supported to stop *checks notes* an invasion? This is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. And apparently by any means necessary too.

I wonder what would have happened if the US's whole Mediterranean fleet were destroyed thanks to Russian help during one of their "humanitarian interventions". I wonder if you were also moralizing about the need to start WW3 in those situations?

You're just thinking of the worker aristocracy in the West, not the global working class, clearly. China has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty. And it's neat how you blame China for something done by your own ruling class. Furthermore, this trade war (not to mention a war war) will be terrible for workers everywhere. Do you think the billionaires are going to bail you out? No, they're going to squeeze workers even more to finance this conflict, and they'll tell you suffering is your patriotic duty.

And imagine thinking China is the genocidal one out of those two. The US has had a hand in so many genocides and has directly and indirectly killed millions in the last decades. If you compare this to what China has done recently they look like angels.