Memes

The authoritarian Harvard and Pew polls which reported such a number? Lmao yall are so brainwashed even if a million Chinese came up to you to tell you you'd be unconvinced. There's literally dozens of western polls which confirm it, it's not up for debate, denying it is as ridiculous as denying the existence of the moon.

Being incredibly adept at mental gymnastics isn't critical thinking. What part of parroting the headlines you get from corporate media says "critical thinking" to you? I feel super bad for my American comrades trying to organize and make things better when half the country is somehow even dumber than this.

'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, instead of 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.

So if the government is run by a party people greatly approve of and said party dominates billionaires, who otherwise run rampant in countries like the US, this is a good thing and the people love it. However, you also expect a Communist revolution in the US for the next 4 years? What on Earth kind of fanfiction is this? How on Earth is Trump going to wrangle billionaires under him when the entire US state apparatus is designed from the ground up to represent billionaire interests?

Pasting my comment from earlier:

Any "leftist" that thinks the fact that China has billionaires means it therefore isn't actually Socialist needs to read Marx and Engels. There are many such liberals here in these comments. Marx predicted Socialism to be the next mode of production because markets centralize and create intricate methods of planning. As such, he stated that folding private into the public would be gradual, and by the degree to which industry would develop. From the Manifesto:

The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

In even simpler terms, from Engels in Principles of Communism:

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.

That doesn't mean billionaires are good to have, necessarily, either. It remains a contradiction, but not an uncalculated one. I highly recommend anyone here read China has Billionaires. As much as Marxists want to lower wealth inequality eventually as much as possible (insofar as thr principle "from each according to ability, to each according to needs applies, Marx was no "equalitarian" and railed against them), in the stage of developmemt the PRC is at this would get in the way of development, and could cause Capital Flight and brain drain. Moreover, billionaires provide an easy scapegoat that the USSR didn't have, and thus all problems of society were directed at the state. It's important to consider why a Marxist country does what it does, and not immediately assume you know better. The CPC has an over 95% approval rate, you can't just assume you know what's best.

The phrase "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is meant to depict higher stage Communism. Until that is possible, the answer becomes "to each according to his work," because as Marx said in Critique of the Gotha Programme:

these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

At least take a consistent stance, if you believe the PRC to not be Socialist simply because it has billionaires either you disagree with Marx or you have flawed analysis. There are genuine Marxist critiques of the PRC that don't rely on nonsense. If you consider yourself a Marxist, correct your study. I have an introductory Marxist reading list if you need one.