Capitalist indices of economic growth can never be relied upon as anything other than that. An IMF measurement of poverty can never be understood as anything other than a measurement of the success of capital accumulation as defined by the capitalists.

I should phrase this a little better at the end. An IMF measurement of poverty can never be understood as anything other than a measurement of the success of capital accumulation as defined within the framework of capitalist economic growth. That's better.

An example would be land values and property prices being terribly low. A bad sign in terms of capitalist economic growth. A good sign if you're a poor working person. The indices are made by and for the capitalists.

So when the IMF indicates incredible economic growth in China, this is an indication of the success of capitalist accumulation. State sanctioned capitalism in China being an INCREDIBLE success for capital and its beneficiaries.

Anyway, I'm going to leave it at that, if you've followed me this far, kudos, thanks for reading

If you read the entirety of this thread, did you understand what I'm saying? I want to get an idea of how comprehensible this is