Xi is in the highest seat of the CPC, that doesn’t make him a “CEO.” Your comment is nonsense word salad.

See, I have done research, and have come to the conclusion that Xi can’t disappear people willy nilly. The burden of proof is on you for making that claim.

Getting a liberal to read is borderline impossible. They can’t even stomach short articles anymore.

Baby level understanding of how China’s peoples democracy works, with not a single source.

Putin is “technically not a dictator” in the same way that Biden is “technically not a dictator”: by way of the capitalist class abiding his status as ostensible head of state.

• [Princeton and Northwestern] Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy
• “Bourgeois Democracy”: What Do Marxists Mean By This Term?

You spent several paragraphs correctly outlining why Xi has power, while being subject to recall and democratic checks. The CPC has 96 million members, he isn’t leader of a cabal but of the party of the people, and as a consequence the CPC has over 95% approval rates in peacetime. This is unheard of outside of wartime in the west, you need to understand what you are talking about here.

I recommend Xi’s writing on democracy from 2021, Democracy is not an Ornament.

The “social credit system” was made to hold financial and privately-run institutions to account, and prevent companies and organizations from committing fraud and polluting the environment. Even US capitalist mouthpieces like foreign policy agree with this.

The government does assign universal social credit codes to companies and organizations, which they use as an ID number for registration, tax payments, and other activities, while all individuals have a national ID number. The existing social credit blacklists use these numbers, as do almost all activities in China. But these codes are not scores or rankings. Enterprises and professionals in various sectors may be graded or ranked, sometimes by industry associations, for specific regulatory purposes like restaurant sanitation. However, the social credit system does not itself produce scores, grades, or assessments of “good” or “bad” social credit. Instead, individuals or companies are blacklisted for specific, relatively serious offenses like fraud and excessive pollution that would generally be offenses anywhere. To be sure, China does regulate speech, association, and other civil rights in ways that many disagree with, and the use of the social credit system to further curtail such rights deserves monitoring.

These are basic things the US used to do in the 1950s, but now stopped any pretense of doing. Any regulation against business is considered “authoritarian” now.

Meanwhile in the US, having a bad credit score can prevent you from buying a car, house, or even renting an apartment.

China uses these scores to hold financial institutions to account, while the US uses scores to prevent ordinary citizens from getting housing. One country is a dictatorship of the proletariat, the other a dictatorship of capital.

I’m not going to deceive myself into thinking that china is running fundamentally differently than any western oligarchy.

You’re choosing to continue deceiving yourself that China is not fundamentally different from any western oligarchy, got it.

It’s more that liberals like yourself directly ignoring facts and statistics while blindly repeating vague and unsourced claims of “China Bad,” because it lets you remain comfortable in your pre-existing worldview. Communists do not have such luxury, which is why they seemingly always have endless sources on hand. In your comment here, as an example, you discredit the CPC’s approval with no source. However, if we ask Harvard themselves about the results of their study, they say “We find that first, since the start of the survey in 2003, Chinese citizen satisfaction with government has increased virtually across the board. From the impact of broad national policies to the conduct of local town officials, Chinese citizens rate the government as more capable and effective than ever before. Interestingly, more marginalized groups in poorer, inland regions are actually comparatively more likely to report increases in satisfaction. Second, the attitudes of Chinese citizens appear to respond (both positively and negatively) to real changes in their material well-being, which suggests that support could be undermined by the twin challenges of declining economic growth and a deteriorating natural environment.” This directly goes against your claims of “social credit” preventing this, moreover the “Orwellian Social Credit System” you hint at doesn’t even exist, at least not in the manner you imply it does.

You are directly decieving yourself because you license yourself to. If you actually looked at real sources and didn’t reject them reflexively, while accepting bourgeois media at face value, you’d sit much closer to where I do. You should read False Witnesses and Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing.” Both are excellent examples of why people don’t change their minds when seeing indisputable evidence, they willingly go along with narratives that they find more comfortable. It explains the outright anger liberals express when anticommunism is debunked. That doesn’t mean Communists don’t do the same thing, but as we live in a liberal dominated west (most likely, assuming demographics) this happens to a much lesser extent because liberalism is that which supplies these “licenses” to go along, while Communism requires hard work to begin to accept. This explains the mountains of sources Communists keep on hand, and the lack thereof from liberals who argue from happenstance and vibes.

I am sorry, but none of what you have said makes any sense from a Marxist perspective.

1. The presense of Commodity production does not mean the system is Capitalist. To that extent, if you have a 99% publicly owned and centrally planned economy, it must be Capitalist, and once that final 1% is absorbed, it becomes Communist. There is no Socialism by this definition, it’s a straight jump from Capitalism to Communism. Even in the PRC, the majority of the economy is Publicly Owned and Centrally Planned. Engels disagrees with your stance:

Question 17 : Will it be possible to abolish private property at one stroke?

Answer : No, no more than the existing productive forces can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. Hence, the proletarian revolution, which in all probability is approaching, will be able gradually to transform existing society and abolish private property only when the necessary means of production have been created in sufficient quantity.

You kill the Scientific and Dialectical aspects of Marxism and deny the existence of Socialism.

2. This is really 2 points in 1. “Employer” is not a class. Classes are not jobs, but relations to production. Communism will have managers, planners, and so forth to assist with economic production. The other point, on the PRC not using labor vouchers, that’s for when China reaches Communism, when they are currently Socialist.

3. This is entirely anti-Marxist. The State is an extension of the class in power. In a fully centrally planned economy with full public ownership, there is no state. The bourgeoisie is focused on competition and accumulation, it isn’t a “power dynamic” but a social relation to production. From Engels:

When ultimately it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself superfluous. As soon as there is no social class to be held in subjection any longer, as soon as class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the anarchy of production existing up to now are eliminated together with the collisions and excesses arising from them, there is nothing more to repress, nothing necessitating a special repressive force, a state. The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished”, it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase “a free people’s state” with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.

Bolded the most relevant bits. The state ceases to exist when classes cease to exist, because when all property is public there are no classes. However, production remains administrated and directed! I think it’s quite obvious from reading the source material that Marx was no Anarchist, nor did he believe that Socialism was devoid of private property, nor could it be. This is a gradual process for Marx, one we call Socialism, as it works towards a fully Publicly Owned and Centrally Planned Economy, Communism. The government does not “extract surplus value” in a profit accumulating manner, but to pay for public services and infrastructure, directly spelled out by Marx in Critique of the Gotha Programme. The State is an extension of the dominant class, and the class which is dominant can be found through real analyzing of the trends and conditions of an economy. In the PRC, those trends are towards uplifiting the working class and continuing to fold Private Property into the Public Sector.

Change my mind that the vast majority of Chinese are happy with their government? Why would your articles cause me to do that?

He specifically doesn’t want to hear anything that doesn’t confirm his world view and in being loud about it it’s getting him likes from his in-group which he thinks is all he needs and makes him superior.

You can see it in the way he responds to everyone with either the idea they fully agree with him or are deserving of indignation.

Wait till he finds out even his echo chamber doesn’t pass the purity test and God forbid he ever fail it himself.

Also I swear the amount of small business owners I know in Singapore who agree they live there for a better life is wild if you know anything about the authoritarian lean of Singapore. Grass is always greener and all that.

Still not a liberal

Conservatism is a form of liberalism.

Upon rereading, it looks like I misunderstood it due to conflating it with some other comments, so you’re right. I apologize for the misunderstanding, and will edit my comment accordingly.