Ah ok thank you

That’s for Chairman Mao and I would largely agree with that however I meant more for the new China as a whole. China continues to be imperfect but as I said I believe the real debate is the semantics of how far the good outweighs the bad as opposed to are they good or bad currently.

China itself just like Chairman Mao is imperfect but I strongly believe the merits out way the wrongs and the real question isn’t is China good or bad but by how much the good out ways the bad e.g. is it 60/40, 70/30, 80/20 etc.

If it’s your first time Beijing is a must. You get a perfect mix of the old and new china plus museums galore and old Beijing hotpot is a must try as well as proper Beijing duck.

The worst crime of all. Being powerful while the wrong race.

I directly linked the report? Are you blind as well as an idiotic racist bastard?

Edelman is an american capitalist consulting firm no Chinese influence that you’re so scared of (chauvinist). Showing your ass as in you are showing how uneducated you are. English obviously isn’t my first language again you being a fucking chauvinist loser.

Edelman

Page 6 US western capitalist firm and plenty of others. Again showing your ass.

Over 80% of us support the government. Are we all brainwashed or are we all evil?

The “fabrications” of you siding with someone calling China evil. China is directed by the people. Reconcile how you don’t hate Chinese people for me.

A rapist, a snitch and a liar walk into a bar. The bartender asks “The usual again Mr. Orwell”

No because even if you don’t state it openly it’s clearly apparent. You clearly hate China, and we’re all just brainwashed serfs of the ebil gubberment.

You are defending and agreeing with someone calling China evil and authoritarian capitalist. He is wrong and so are you. No amount of dodging or hiding behind semantics will change the position you chose to defend and that you clearly chose to defend it for chauvinist reasons.

You are a loser. You don’t view us as independent people who have our own views on our country. You ignore the fact that even western outlets report over 80% of us support the government. But none of that matters to you because we’re just peasants brainwashed by the evil “authoritarians”.

You didn’t read anything I wrote. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Please read a book.

No you don’t understand white people are like dumblebot and the asian hordes are moldymort.

A tankie is when people point out you don’t understand what you’re talking about and are just regurgitating talking points and it makes you feel bad.

Come to China I can give you a tour I can translate so you can talk to the locals and you can see we’re humans too not just some brainwashed peasant “untermensch”. You chauvinist loser.

all the drama in Hong Kong, Taiwan

You 白左 really hate the liberation of your owners colonial holdings and fascist attack dogs.

me when I do liberal reductionism and don’t understand anything Lenin, Chairman Mao or Stalin wrote.

Edit: To more properly explain.

You rely on a crude, ahistorical definition of socialism and treats China as a static abstraction rather than a real society developing under concrete material conditions. You reduce Marxism to a legal-form checklist and ignores class power, historical development, and the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is a fundamental error.

In Marxism, “who owns the means of production” is not a question of paper titles but of class rule. Ownership only matters insofar as it expresses which class holds political power, controls surplus, and sets the direction of development. Defining socialism as the immediate abolition of all private enterprise is not Marxism; it is utopian liberal nonsense.

Lenin addressed this explicitly. Under proletarian rule, state capitalism is a socialist tool. His formulation is unambiguous: state capitalism under a dictatorship of the proletariat is not capitalism in the bourgeois sense but a form subordinated to socialist power and goals. The decisive issue is not whether markets or private firms exist, but which class commands them.

In China, the commanding heights of the economy are publicly owned and planned: land (state-owned in cities, collectively owned in the countryside), finance, energy, heavy industry, transport, telecommunications, arms production, and strategic resources. These sectors form the backbone of the economy. Private capital exists, but it does not dominate accumulation or political power.

The Chinese bourgeoisie does not rule. It has no independent state power and no ability to capture the party. Capitalists are subordinate to the Communist Party and can be regulated, expropriated, imprisoned, or eliminated when they conflict with socialist objectives. Recent crackdowns on tech monopolies, finance, real estate speculation, and billionaire figures demonstrate this class relation. In capitalist states, capital disciplines the state. In China, the state disciplines capital.

Surplus extraction and allocation further expose the difference. Under capitalism, surplus is privately appropriated and reinvested for profit. In China, surplus (especially from state and regulated sectors) is redirected toward long-term national development: infrastructure, industrial upgrading, poverty eradication, and technological independence. The largest poverty reduction in human history did not occur through laissez-faire capitalism, but through state-directed socialist accumulation (nearly a billion people lifted from poverty).

Chairman Mao was also clear that socialism is not a finished endpoint but a long historical process filled with contradictions. He emphasized that class struggle continues under socialism and that development occurs through uneven, conflicting processes. Socialism is transitional by definition: it emerges from capitalism, contains remnants of it, and advances toward communism through struggle and transformation. Treating socialism as a stable, contradiction-free end state is anti-Marxist.

Calling China “authoritarian capitalism” is ridiculous. I’ve already dealt with the “capitalism” issue but also authoritarian is a useless modifier used by liberals to easily bundle together countries that opposed the status quo as evil and immoral. Try reading On Authority

“Everything else follows from there” is exactly wrong. Everything follows from class power, historical conditions, and the direction of development. Your reductionist liberal framework cannot explain why China plans five-year strategies, suppresses finance capital, controls land, resists imperialism, and openly declares socialism as its goal. Marxism can however.

It’s not an argument it’s an observation.

Le evil Asian hordes are teaming up with orange man to hurt the poor innocent EU.

It’s peak slop. Harry Potterism. Star Wars Derangement Syndrome.