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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.