I swear to god ultras are more interested in the sort of masturbatory philosophising of categories than it actually producing any useful insights.
It's the most anti Marxist thing to insist that a thing has to be only a singular thing with a concrete and rigid definition, it's like Marx didn't bludgeon you with dialectical materialism hard enough on practically every work of his. He spends decades insisting on the dialectical process and the necessary work to resolve contradiction through material means, which is an integral part of development, only for y'all to go "but this is vaguely like thing, how can it be other thing?"

Man said communism and the abolishment of the commodity form, of private property, the development of the productive forces, couldn't be achieved overnight, and every ultra went "but it's already been overnight, so now it can be, right?"

China has all the elements of a capitalist mode of production

It does when you ignore all the material differences. A state where the biggest capital holders are regularly punished if they break the law or step out of line politically is not a state where capital has final say.

There's been no counter revolution in China, the organs of proletarian power remain in place even as reforms have been undertaken in every facet of life in China. It is the utmost chauvinism to pretend to know better than the biggest communist party in the world where even local officials are required to study Marxism diligently. Being really confident and having misunderstood Das Kapital to be a prescriptivist economical taxonomy doesn't make you an authority on Marxism. Applying that shit is what does.

My friend, you're the one who's actively denying the opinions of the Chinese people I know, while pushing a Harvard study on my face. And then calling me racist/chauvinistic. I am not sure how that helps your case, but I guess just spouting random nonsense is your idea of a conversation.

To help you out, I have taken some time to find some of the articles from the time I was in SG, and cases I discussed. These are the articles.

bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-chin…

economist.com/china/what-peng-…

theguardian.com/world/2022/oct…

Most of the people I talked to related with these incidents, and acknowledged that while they may not the be the norm, they're certainly not anomalies. And a lot of people dont come out because the government reacts in such dracnonian ways.

The people I talked to were not representative of all of China, it would be ridiculous to consider that. However, ignoring multiple unrelated people sharing similar stories would be an asinine thing.

If your response is going to be a an aggregate study about economic development, and ask me why would people be unhappy with that, then you need some sort of help to understand that economic freedom is not the only freedom in the world.

The PRC has a hair over 50% of its economy in the Public Sector, and another near tenth in the Cooperative Sector. The Private Sector makes up the minority of the economy. Furthermore, this Private Sector is gradually being folded into the Public Sector. Moreover, the Public Sector has key industries like Steel that the Private Sector must rely on, further making the Public Sector primary. In what manner is the Private Sector dominant? At what arbitrary point would you say the PRC needs to reach for it to pass your imaginary thresholds? This is silly, and anti-Marxist.

Your next paragraph elaborates on your conflation of Socialism with Communism. Communism must be international, and must be global, eventually. Socialism can begin in one country, as Socialism is the transitional phase to Communism. By your definition, a fully socialized economy in one country would still be Capitalist! Again, you directly shatter Marx and Engels telling you that under the DotP, Capital will be wrested gradually with the degree to which it develops, and call this phase "Capitalism" for seemingly no other reason than to discredit AES, even if it ends in absurd conclusions like a 99% socialized global economy being Capitalist, or a 100% socialized country being Capitalist.

This "no true Socialism" stance is anti-Marxist as well, Marx referred to the Paris Commune as a DotP and a Socialist system until it was overthrown. Even if we ignore all of AES that Marx never lived to, there has been Socialism even by Marx's words. Same with Engels, who analyzed Utopian Socialists who were working down the wrong path, but still could be considered "Socialist."

Additionally, productive forces have different levels of development in different sectors where public ownership and central planning makes more sense. There isn't such thing as a "general" level of development. Your steel industry may be well developed and thus easily planned, but your automotive may not be yet, at which point you want to use markets to centralize and then gradually increase control and ownership over that industry until its fully socialized. To go further than reality is anti-Marxist.

Further, you reference a joke, and not actual working hours, when trying to discredit the PRC. Furthermore, such a system absolutely can be present in a DotP, a DotP does not mean there is suddenly a "worker's paradise," but that the Proletariat is in control. The CPC has an over 95% approval rate, unheard of in most countries, and it owes this to the rapid transformative capacity of a Socialist economy to rapidly plan and build up infrastructure, and eliminate poverty. I want to stress, you opt to not analyze the structures and class dynamics at play, and instead believe you can reference a joke about how the PRC isn't a wonderland, not actual working hour statistics, and think that means the Bourgeoisie is in control? This is absurdity.

You have no points, Socialism is Communism for you, and you refer to a DotP with a largely publicly owned and centrally planned economy that is further absorbing the Private Sector as "Capitalist." Can you please make a point that logically follows what Marx and Engels were writing and explain why they clearly stated that the DotP will gradually wrest Capital from the Bourgeoisie, and why you believe this phase to be called "Capitalism?" This reeks of Trotskyism, which coincidentally is only really found in western countries as it isn't practical in any capacity and thus isn't dangerous to the status quo, and moreover adopts an anti-solidarity stance with AES in the Global South.

who otherwise run rampant in countries like the US, this is a good thing

Billionaires are not fine in any of the cases, neither when they run rampant or when they are subdued by the government to support their agenda and narrative. You can not take two bad cases A and B and then say B is not A therefore it is good. That is a logical fallacy.

you also expect a Communist revolution in the US for the next 4 years?

I don't expect a communist revolution in the US for the next 4 years, all I am saying is that I expect them to subdue billionaires into obedience like China does. That is not communism to me. Whatever the overall arching goal of China and USA is for subduing millionaires, I think they meet in the common denominator: wanting have absolute control everything and I think there is a word for that kind of state.

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?

Whether or not Trump will be able to achieve it we will see. But he can still do it in a way that represents billionaire interests: all he has to do is convince the billionaires that it is in their interest to support him. It will likely through mixtures of bribery and intimidation attempts. Of course billionaires might get threatened by him and try to burn him to the ground as well.

1

Interlocked in a global economy is an understatement for a country in which millions of its citizens work for US based multinational enterprises owned by billionaires. They are at this state organic extensions of each other, cut one out and the other likely dies. Very similar to clothing sector in India, Bangladesh etc but for other sectors (like electronics I suppose).

The question you asked is a difficult one I will give you that. I have no dreams (well I mean sometimes I do but don't believe the practicality of it) of getting rid of all billionaires all at once. It is a bit like cancer I guess which must operated on surgically. Going to a billionaire free society is one of the many possible pathways that can lead from subduing billionaires. But at this point all you are presenting me with is the possible good-will of Chinese government. A more simplest explanation is that it simply is a very authoritarian government.

2

Can? I don't know. I believe Trump will try. And he will try precisely because of the reasons you have presented. US is run by billionaires, if you subdue billionaires then you are the most powerful man in US. I think Trump is deluded enough to try this given that Elon likely also shares the same goal with him, perhaps even more enthusiastic than Trump about it. As I said above, there may be many reasons why a government tries to subdue billionaires, getting rid of them is just one of many such reasons.

3

Well after you subdue the billionaires, it is entirely up to you to decide how to use that power. Trump will %100 sure use it to get more powerful himself, might even try to change things so that he can be a president the next term as well. In the simplest cases, he will make forced deals that will immensely benefit the businesses he owns (well now his sons "own" them if you believe that).