MeowZedong

Start here

If you want recent coverage from everyday people, you can find social media posts from Chinese tourists. You can always Look at the state media. You already know they'll be bias in their own favor, but that doesn't mean everything they publish is fake. Look for other sources for confirmation. Most of it will be boring reports, which is less likely to be exaggerated.

How many people become homeless while having full-time work? I'm sure they just didn't work hard enough to deserve a place to live.

Translations:

"If someone uses drugs, they deserve to be homeless."

"It's impossible that people would pick up a drug habit to cope with their homelessness problem."

"Anyone else who becomes homeless is just dumb or lazy. It's their fault they don't have my privilege and I'll ignore any amount of evidence to not rethink my shitty, self-entitled world view."

Communism is when I have to work and they don't! Wait...no, that's capitalism.

Meanwhile the US builds house and sells them to corporations who have no interest in letting someone live there.

Your only source on the DPRK is Radio Free Asia. Go push a train by hand you clown.

Edit: To clarify, the above was in response to the original comment, which was edited to be much more reasonable after my response.

They don't call you old fashioned for that, they call you tankie. It's because they're mad that you don't buy the bullshit they push. Look at all the claims they make about the USSR here while providing no evidence or context for the situations they claim people were living in.

They compare apples to oranges when it's communism they are criticizing and stick their fingers in their ears while screaming when it comes to criticizing crapitalism.

To add more: the last chatel slave in the US was freed in 1942. During WWII.

Why? Not because it was the right thing to do, but because the optics of having slaves looked bad and the Japanese Empire (of all institutions) was calling the US out.

People living and running the country to this day fought tooth and nail against the civil rights movement. Slavery is not ancient history, it's part of what's allowed a small portion of the current world population to lead a privileged life.

Mfw I remember Democrats had the majority in the Senate and the house as well as a SCOTUS that would back them, but they didn't codify Roe v Wade.

It's only stupid if you don't address the root causes of the problems that you are listing. If you don't do anything to lift the people out of their desperation and end the cause of that desperation, then of course they will sell it.

Your middle paragraph is the first part of what I'm talking about, do what is needed to help people lift themselves back up. Only a small part of that is helping with housing. The bigger problem is the second part, if you do nothing about the conditions that contributed to their downward spiral, then that first part will only be a temporary relief.

This second comment made it much more clear that you weren't just saying, "nah, fuck them," but covering all of the nuances of what needs to change just isn't a realistic expectation for text comments online. Frankly, I have a feeling you and I agree a lot on that first part of what is needed to help people, no clue about how you feel about the second part. I appreciate you coming back with a thoughtful answer instead of trolling, because I expect trolling.

I agree with your conclusion, my explanation was just a matter of addressing the context of the question, not covering how imperialism can operate under all systems, just the system in question.

I'd say that, generally, imperialist motivation is a matter of gaining power. In a capitalist system, capital is power, so they are seeking capital.

The way I explained it was meant to break it down into a modern context to help answer the question, not to address imperialism in the context of feudalism or other systems. End of the day, someone is exploiting someone else for their own gain. It was just a matter of the context of the question and I erred on the side of keeping the scope within capitalism.