WASHINGTON (AP) — Communism, President Donald Trump says, is the greatest threat the U.S. has ever faced.
This summer, citing similarly grave concerns, he took the rare step of delivering a primetime address to the nation, accusing China of “sinister election meddling” in 2020 and reviving his yearslong push to dispute his loss in that year’s election.
Even as Trump seeks to decry Democrats as communists ahead of November’s midterm elections, he is rolling out the red carpet this week for Chinese President Xi Jinping, the leader of the world’s most powerful communist country.
The state visit comes as the president himself has increasingly directed his administration to take large stakes in private companies to try to stimulate the economy — something even some Republicans decry as corporate socialism.
Can someone please ask that blithering idiot to define communism?
Right after he learns what groceries are and that dumb has a b on the end
Would be funny to see.
Yes, although I’m finding it hard to find him funny since he got re-elected instead of locked up forever. It’d undoubtedly also be mind-numbingly stupid and wrong and make me lose yet another little piece of my sanity.
One thing that makes me a bit happy as a communist is that he correctly recognizes that his biggest threat is communism, so he labels all of his opposition as such.
Words don’t mean anything anymore.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2026-07-09/trump-state-ownership-communist
Its always projection
State ownership in a capitalist state is not communism but state capitalism. China is a socialist country because public ownership is the principal aspect of China’s economy, and the working class runs and controls the state.
Those darn anarcho-socialist commies wanting to give people better lives and dignity!
I don’t think China is communist.
Just look at their healthcare system if you think so.
China is a developing socialist country run by a communist party. Their primary concern at the moment is with developing the productive forces to a level at which the economy can be efficiently publicly owned and planned, so marketization is employed in secondary industries to rapidly develop, while maintaining public control of the commanding heights. Their form of economy is called the socialist market economy.
There’s a case to be made that it’s more of a stratified ethno-centric state capitalism more akin to theoretical fascism than a true socialist market economy. It compares reasonably close to something like the state capitalism of Rhodesia before its collapse. It’s just not a settler colonial state, so it’s more stable due to the more favourable ethnic ratio by comparison to the dominated ethnic minorities. It’s not unreasonable to question the authenticity of the CPP’s claim to the label of “Communist”, anymore than it is to question North Korea’s self-description of being a “Democratic People’s Republic.”
The important factors, from a Marxist standpoint, are that the working classes control the state and that the commanding heights of the economy are publicly owned. Rhodesia was as you said, a settler-colony that ran on colonialism as their primary mode of production and class character. As for questioning the authenticity of the CPC, I invite everyone who knows a decent bit about Marxism to read statements from the CPC and critique them here.
For a Marxist like myself, you can’t really “fake” this kind of understanding. Even if Marxists can disagree with him here, what cannot be said is that this is all talk. The people of China do study Marxism, and though it is true that a good number tune out as we all do from class, it becomes incredibly difficult to present a “faux-Marxism” in a well-educated socialist state.
As for questioning the authenticity of the CPC, I invite everyone who knows a decent bit about Marxism to read statements from the CPC and critique them here.
Talk is cheap, actions speak clearly. It’s very hard to claim that the workers control the state, when they are responding more out of fear of falling into a disfavoured underclass (or worse) than they are responding to their own needs. I have no doubt that in spirit the people of China consider the promise of Communism their goal, but the political class speaks a different truth with their hands than they speak with their voices.
The actions of the CPC do back up their talk with action. Did you read the article I linked? China is progressing exactly as Xi Jinping described, in my opinion, which is why I invited you to criticize openly so we can discuss. One thing I think you have confused is the idea that there is a “political class.” In Marxist analysis, there is no such thing. Administration is not a class, but an occupation. What determines class is ones relation to ownership of the means of production, which administrators in socialism share in common with factory workers and whatnot.
Can you explain how the CPC is not adhering to Marxism? I think the article presents a good intro point for discussion.
Sounds great in principle except while the devolution of profit is far more equitable, the devolution of authority is not, so the claim that administrators have devolved ownership to the worker is only half true. The fundamental problem is that true devolution of ownership would imply equal participation in defining objectives and a synthesis of perspective. The tight information controls, aggressive, punitive discipline rather than integrative discipline methods, and extremely harmful consequences for breaking with party narrative, even with good cause create a de facto class stratification between the partisan administration and the proletariat. This not only harms the individual in lack of self-actualization, but also the nation as a whole in terms of limiting adaptability, and preventing the integration of feedback not previously modelled, and producing misguided, misinformed leadership, corrupted by their own personal biases.
It’s the same semi-devolved state of ownership which most socialist societies get stuck at. Systemic authoritarian bottlenecks and a failure to learn, integrate, and achieve mutual consensus rather than imposing consensus from above ends up recreating the worst sins of tyranny, and plutocracy. China has done better than most at navigating this obstacle, but it hasn’t overcome it. Its hybrid semi-socialist state creates exploited underclasses out of ethnic minorities and perspectives deemed incompatible with the flawed perspective of the political elite.
There are two major disagreements I have with your analysis.
The first is your firm break from Marxism and materialism into idealist analysis. Administrators in socialism perform a socially necessary form of mental and managerial labor in coordinating society. This does not make them a distinct class, just like managers are not a distinct class. Again, ownership of production is the primary distinction between workers and owners, not whether one coordinates other workers. The administrators in the CPC are overwhelmingly proletarian, but you divert from Marxism here.
Secondly, the actual, practical experience of China paints a wildly different picture of society than you describe as its supposed shortcomings. Even according to western firms like NIRA data, perceptions of democracy are incredibly high:
This is no accident. Policy in China comes from the bottom-up, in a process called “Whole Process People’s Democracy.” It then gets interpreted by the CPC, who relay and simplify policy with a Marxist-Leninist viewpoint, which then gets feedback and is implemented. Democratic centralism makes policy quick when necessary, and gradual when consensus needs to be built. It’s why policy in China has radically adapted over the existence of the PRC, far more so than other countries, while maintaining more political stability.
In essense, you critique China from a liberal perspective while maintaining Marxist phrasing. That’s why I invited you to analyze the article and critique it, so that we have a common basepoint.
The important factors, from a Marxist standpoint, are that the working classes control the state and that the commanding heights of the economy are publicly owned.
They don’t in any sense control the state. An authoritarian “vanguard party” rules on their behalf. And the commanding heights are owned by whom exactly? That same party, not the working class itself.
The CPC is a proletarian party. I think you’re confusing what class is, in Marxist analysis. The party is not its own class of people, but a subsection of the working class. If plumbers were the only ones responsible for administration, it would not be accurate to say the “plumber class” owned the means of production. Classes are relations to ownership of the means of production, and in that administrative labor is one subset of the proletariat.
Clearly you have never been to China nor ever watched anything else but fox news or Newsmax. Good news for you is that the best president of the best country ever, is now launching his own news channel. Enjoy living the dream!!!
I haven’t been to China, no, but I also don’t watch Fox or Newsmax. I’m a member of a communist party, and I try to get my news from left organizations like Breakthrough News, Liberation News, Granma, CGTN, etc.
They’re authoritarian state capitalist imperialists with a stong dose of Han nationalism.
They’re not socialist since workers neither own nor control the means of production. Though it might be arguable that, as Marx strongly implied, socialism is a phenomenon that emerges from the contradictions of capitalism, so China has to go through all that bullshit as part of the journey, since the country was almost entirely feudal when the CCP took over.
All states are “authoritarian,” in Marxist analysis, as the state itself is a monopoly on violence in service of the ruling class. China is not state capitalist, because the bourgeoisie has no political power, and the commanding heights of the economy are both publicly owned and run to service societal need. China is also not imperialist, neither in the colloquial sense nor the Leninist analysis, as it is not super exploiting the global south for super profits. Finally, minority ethnicities in China all have strong minority Protections and over representation in bodies like the NPC.
China is socialist because the state is run by the proletariat, and the commanding heights of the economy are publicly owned. The principal aspect of the economy, ie rising and dominant factor, is public, collective ownership. The job of the CPC is to facilitate the process of developing into higher levels of socialism, and the method of marketizing secondary industries is the most rapid way to create the basis of socialized production.
I’d really like to see a Marxist analysis, not just a declaration with no backing.
The state is run by the proletariat…
Sure.
Yes, the class background of the CPC is generally salaried workers. The bourgeoisie in China are prevented from attaining political power and prevented from forming a coherent class by which they can overturn the state. This editorial from The Guardian explains it quite well, actually:
But Xi’s support for mixing private and public ownership structures was purely pragmatic. It had value, he said in another forum, because it would “improve the socialist market economic structure.” Xi’s assessment is echoed by Michael Collins, one of the CIA’s most senior officials for Asia. “The fundamental end of the Communist party of China under Xi Jinping is all the more to control that society politically and economically,” Collins argued earlier this year. “The economy is being viewed, affected and controlled to achieve a political end.”
…
The party’s overarching aim, though, has remained consistent: to ensure that the private sector, and individual entrepreneurs, do not become rival players in the political system. The party wants economic growth, but not at the expense of tolerating any organised alternative centres of power.
…
“[Capitalists] act as if they are being chased by a bear,” wrote Zhang Lin, a Beijing political commentator, in response to these comments. “They are powerless to control the bear, so they are competing to outrun each other to escape the animal.”
What other class could rule China, if not capitalists or workers? In Marxist analysis, in any society where there is class struggle, there are two broad classes that form the principal contradiction. It certainly isn’t the peasantry, who no longer exist, nor is it the petite bourgeoisie, who largely exist in sole proprietorships, nor is it the aristocracy, who again no longer exist. The classes at struggle in China are the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, with the proletariat at the top, settled by the revolution.
I keep seeing sarcastic remarks that don’t actually present a coherent Marxist analysis, as though snark is a suitable counter to verifiable material reality. Is it really so hard to present an argument on who you believe is the class ruling China, and grounding that with Marxist analysis?
deleted by creator
Dumbocrats are communists and socialists who will give you free handouts! Anyway…vote for my party and I’ll give you $5000!
🫲🍊🫱
China is not communism. They’re State capitalists
The word for the merger of state, corporate, and religious power under authoritarian nationalism is fascism.
I do not get why people still pretend they don’t understand why Trump likes “communist” dictators.
Public ownership is the principal aspect of China’s economy, and the working class runs and controls the state. They are socialist. State capitalism would be the Republic of Korea before market reforms and Singapore, where big capitalists dominate a strong state that reinforces the private sector.
They dont, if anything china is closest to feudalism. Theres a tight inner circle who controls everything and everyone is subject to them. There are a few lower levels like the seperate leaders of regions but theyre also under the control of the upper layer. Also theres sort of a king in the form of xi jinping. While of course this isnt a completely serious comment, neither is calling china socialist.
Have you considered taking part in the White people try not to push orientalist fantasies about China in regards to parts of our society they don’t understand challenge?
No, your comment is absurd. Feudalism was a mode of production where the land was owned by the aristocracy, and peasants toiled the land, providing to the lords part of their produce, and then making or trading the rest of their product for the goods they needed. China is a democratically run country, where the working classes control the state through a process called whole-process people’s democracy. Policy comes from below, and then ladders upward in the government to where it is interpreted through Marxist-Leninist analysis and applied. This is a form of consensus building.
What you are confusing is the process of democratic centralism. Xi Jinping was elected from bottom to top, he had to work his way up from the local level all the way to the top. Local councils democratically elect delegates to higher councils, and this project ladders upward. At any time, people can be recalled by the lower council. This ensures that the democratic process is constantly fulfilled and renewed.
I am dead serious when I say China is socialist, because I am serious about studying and applying Marxism-Leninism.
For Republicans it’s always just been slang for enemy. Unfortunately for far too many Democrats as well. It doesn’t matter that neither one are actually communist.
China practices state capitalism, not communism. News outlets pretending that any major government is truly ‘communist’ provide the far-right with boogiemen that enable them to advance their extremist policies.
China has a socialist market economy. The commanding heights of the economy are publicly owned, while marketization is employed in secondary industries for the purpose of rapid development. It is also run by a proletarian, communist party. State capitalism would be closer to Singapore or the Republic of Korea, where private industry controls and runs the state.
This is laughable, Belgium has a larger public sector than China (percentage not total).
You are literally agreeing that socialism is “when gouvrmint does (owns) stuff”.
It is also run by a proletarian, communist party.
Oh my bad Carry on commrade, hopfully one day in the future you will be able to visit the workers paradise that is China. 共产党万岁！
Socialism is not “no private property,” nor is it “has a larger public sector.” Socialism is a mode of production and distribution where public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy, and the working classes control the state. The latter was decided in 1949 with the completion of the revolution, the former is maintained through the aforementioned public ownership of the commanding heights.
Sarcasm isn’t a point. The CPC is overwhelmingly proletarian, and ideologically Marxist-Leninist. These are basic facts about the CPC.
Socialism is a mode of production and distribution where public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy, and the working classes control the state. The latter was decided in 1949 with the completion of the revolution.
I’m sorry comrade they must have forgotten to invite me to this meeting. Glad you made it and can now report to us!
Jokes aside, how is this different than than a large public sector? Is Belgium only singled out because it doesn’t have a “proletarian” gouvernment? You have not definied what that even is. Just because his party doesn’t call itself Belgian Workers Party or something like that is Bart De Wever less proletarian than Xi Jinping or Li Keqiang? His parents were shop owners and railway workers. Xi and Li are both high ranking bureaucrats who are the children of other high ranking bureaucrats. Not one of them, nor their parents for that matter, were democratically elected.
If socialism is indeed as you say large public involvement in the economy and the working classes controlling the state Belgium is far more socialist than the PRC. They even have trade unions, so direct worker representation with considerable political power which China does not have. China has one trade union for everyone and it’s part of/controlled by the gouvernment. You don’t have to be a genius or even a socialist to come to the conclusion that this is a bad idea.
The CPC is overwhelmingly proletarian.
It’s so proletarian it’s largely made up of chinese buisnessmen like Jacky Ma.
Using China as an example for socialism is either very far removed from reality or cynical.
Regarding the definition of socialism being tied to social ownership being the principal aspect, and not simply a ratio, it’s because the commanding heights of the economy have direct and indirect control over the rest of the economy. If you have a few huge and critical industries, but a huge amount of your production by ratio consists of small proprietors and self-employed people, even if the critical industry is smaller by ratio it still dominates the overall economy.
The identification of social ownership as principal is core for how we understand contradiction, which is the key engine of change in dialectics. As the economy of China develops, the economic base for private property weakens and the economic base for social ownership strengthens, because social ownership’s base is in highly developed and socialized means of production, while private property’s base is in decentralized and scattered production.
Secondly, Xi Jinping was elected by the national congress. You are confusing mass elections for the top representative for democracy itself, but democracy is rule by the majority and has many different forms. As explained earlier, the PRC elects local councils, that then send delegates upward. Xi Jinping rose up through this very process to the head of state, where he was elected President of the PRC.
The identification of a proletarian state is largely determined by class background. If you had read through the links I provided, you would know that the CPC is overwhelmingly proletarian:
In 2020, the Communist Party of China had 91,914,000 members, about 6.57% of the population of China. In 2017, about 26.7% of members were women.[12] In 2015, roughly 30% were farmers, herdsmen or fishermen, 25% were white collar workers, 18% were retirees, and 8% were government employees.[13]
On July 2, 2001, Jiang Zemin allowed the possibility of membership to be extended to billionaires.[14] Despite this, the Politburo and Central Committee are barred to these billionaires. The National People’s Congress and Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference also includes parties that aren’t the CPC. 2,980 seats are available in the National People’s Congress, only 45 are held by the capitalist class. The Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference includes the regions of Hong Kong and Macau, religious bodies and non-CPC members. Only 59 out of 2,200 available seats are held by the capitalist class.[15]
In 2019, the breakdown is at least 66.14% working class/peasantry, 28.37% undefined class status, and 5.5% capitalists (the extra 0.01% comes from rounding the two halves of White Collar Management up by 0.005% each). Even if we put all of those from an undefined class status, still about two-thirds of the party are workers/peasants. If we put them as aligned with the working class the percentage would be 94.51%. But even if we were the least generous as possible then we’d still end up with over half the party members being of a working-class/peasant background, so no matter how you cut it, the CPC is primarily made up of workers and peasants.[15]
The CPC does have a small number of capitalists, including billionaires, but they are not in control of the part and are in fact barred from forward progression. With a proletarian party in charge, and public ownership of the commanding heights of the economy, we can see that the proletariat is the class in power. This is affirmed by the state crackdowns on capitalists that divert from the state and try to subvert it.
China has the world’s largest federation of trade unions, as you correctly identified, and since the state is socialist, the state works with the union in an official and integrated capacity. Independence from this federation is a crack that can be exploited by capitalists, so this is prevented to protect the unity of the socialist system while class struggle is alive and well. You don’t have to be a genius or even a socialist to understand that throughout history, capitalists have leveraged disunity among the working classes to sow chaos and weaken worker power.
China is socialist, and it’s important to have a Marxist analysis that relies on hard data and facts, not simply vibes and emotions. Belgium is controlled by capitalists with private property as its principal aspect. Parties like PTB are good, but Belgium is not a socialist country simply because PTB has a small level of official representation. I encourage you to develop a Marxist understanding of China.
State Capitalist, Feudalist, Plutocratic, Authoritarian, Nationalist, Fascist.
Not a bad start, but y’all can get more creative with it, I’m sure. Throw in a Kleptocracy, an Oligarchy, or maybe spice it up with some Mercantalism. If you wanna get crazy with it, how about Gerentocracy? Anything goes in this space! And don’t be afraid to mix and match!
stratified ethno-centric state capitalism more akin to theoretical fascism. . . something like the state capitalism of Rhodesia
chef’s kiss See, look at that, perfect example. That’s a description that’s pure creativity. Think of it like an expressionist painting, it’s just about whatever you feel, whatever you want to put out on a canvas. It doesn’t have to make sense, it doesn’t have to have any resemblance to reality, just write whatever you feel. And sometimes it’ll look like you just vomited on a page, but that’s just art for you.
Remember, kids, there’s one rule when talking about China, and one rule only: it has to be negative. Beyond that, anything goes!
Communism never took away my rights. Communism hasn’t put me in a worse financial position than my parents or grandparents despite more education and training. Communism isn’t funding for-profit prisons in the US. Communism doesn’t cause bankruptcy from medical bills in the US.
The more they throw it around, the less it means anything.
If only democrats were as amazing and effective as the Republicans made them out to be when fear mongering
Trump doesn’t care about someone’s ideology, he only cares if you’re a winner or a loser. He kisses up to those he perceives as winners and punishes those he sees as losers.
He only blathers about socialism, which he doesn’t understand himself, to rile up his ignorant base and keep them supporting things against their own interests, and to his advantage.
He sees working people as losers.
And screw his fascism. Boycott anything the government takes a stake in. Make these corps go broke.
Ah yes, the two most communist institutions in the world: centrist political party and dictatorship with central planning elements that hates oligarchs
