I think you're a bit confused about what "State Capitalism" is in Marxian economics, here. Marx and Engels both repeatedly asserted that folding Capital into the Public Sector is a gradual process once "lower-stage Communism" (now referred to as "Socialism") was achieved. This directly implies markets and Private Property exist even within a society that had already become Socialist. I am not sure how you can counter that without attempting to redefine Marxism or reject it wholly.

As for the nature of the PRC's economics, the Public Sector is primary, and the Private Sector is gradually more heavily influenced and planned by government. This does not mean it's "impossible to get relief because the CPC is their boss," the CPC is not run for profit like that. SOEs compete in the Private Sector, but the CPC itself is not made up of the bourgeoisie, but overwhelmingly not bourgeoisie.

I think reading theory would help you a lot with understanding how the PRC operates and why.

You can't have Communism in one country, as Communism must be international, global, and have fully eradicated Private Property and Commodity Production. You absolutely can have Socialism in one country, however. Socialism is a transitional status towards Communism from Capitalism, and is dependent upon human supremacy over Capital and a trajectory towards further collectivization and the dominance of the Public Sector over the Private not in percentage, but power.

To take the opposite claim, that you can't have Socialism in one country, is to determine that you must call a fully publicly owned economy "Capitalist" despite eradication of Markets and commodity production in general. Further, to claim that Socialism can only exist internationally is to make the asserted claim that a 99% publicly owned and planned economy is actually dominated by the 1% in the market sector and is thus Capitalist, these are anti-dialectical judgements.

Further, revisiting Marx, he considered countries where feudalism was still the majority of the economy yet Capitalism well on its way to dominate the entire economy to already be Capitalist. The dialectical method acknowledges that there is nearly no such thing as a "pure" system, to require "purity" for Socialism alone and not any of the previous Modes of Production erases the foundation of Scientific Socialism.

All in all, I am getting a definite Trotskyist vibe from your analysis and that would explain your stances a bit more, but I really do wonder in particular how you personally reconcile Dialectics with an anti-dialectical approach to Socialism specifically. The productive mode does not depend on a "one drop" rule of commodity production, but the dominant mode and the trajectory of the system as a whole.

I suggest reading What is Socialism? Here's a relevant snippet from it talking about your exact argument:

Let’s imagine trying to apply this line of thinking to any other mode of production. If any hint of private ownership, commodity production, and the anarchy of production in a socialist society would serve to prove it is not socialist, then, by logical necessity, any hint of public ownership, social production, and economic planning in a capitalist society would serve to prove it is not capitalist. Real capitalism, therefore, just like socialism, can be proven to have never been tried.

This also leads to another absurdity. There is an enormous gulf between these two systems. How, then, does one transition between capitalism and socialism? If a mode of production can only exist in its most pure form, then how does one mode of production transition into the next? Necessarily, it must be an instantaneous jump, from one pure form to another. It fundamentally cannot be any other way.

Yes, all Socialist societies should work towards the eventual end of commodity production, however neither Marx nor Engels figured that it could be done away with immediately. From 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.

From Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:

The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society -- the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society -- is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase "a free people's state" with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.

Ultimately, it remains a contradiction that eventually the PRC will have to do away with. However, this is a gradual process that can only be accomplished through trial and error. There is a Chinese proverb often referenced in the CPC, that "one must cross the river by feeling for the stones," and this reflects their cautious strategy. Moreover, we must understand that the USSR fell, and the CPC saw that in real time. Not wanting to repeat the Cultural Revolution nor the fall of the USSR, the CPC adjusted their practice. It remains to be seen what will happen in 10, 20, 50, 100 years, of course, but currently the CPC is behaving in a manner we can understand as Marxist.

The distinction between Communists and "tankies" doesn't really matter at this point because the label of "tankie" is applied to every Communist these days, even Anarchists and progressive liberals. It's generally a term without meaning. Either way, though, Communists don't "love strongmen," that's more of a post-hoc explanation liberals come up with to denounce Communist movements, ie "Che Guevara is a strongman, that's why Communists support Cuba" etc. etc.

You should read the book too.

Frankly, this is wrong. I am not trying to be rude here, so please don't take it that way, but as you admitted in the original post you aren't very informed on this subject to begin with. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend reading my top-level reply to this thread as well.

First, to get the obvious sticker out of the way, the Russian Federation is undeniably Capitalist, Socialism was dissolved and the former state was sliced up and sold for parts at garage sale prices to wealthy Capitalists. The USSR was dissolved in the early 1990s, 3 decades ago, and with it the Socialist economy was also dissolved. An estimated 7 million people died due to the sudden destruction of the economy and the utter crumbling of previously government provided services, like free healthcare and education, a process known as "Shock Doctrine."

Secondly, Fascism and Communism. You really need to read the book I recommended, Dr. Michael Parenti has an easy to read writing style packed with wit and rigorous historical analysis, however I will respond as best I can to the points you yourself brought up.

It is correct that both Fascism and Communism have an "in-group" and an "out-group," but if you don't actually see which group is represented and which group is oppressed by which system, you come to false conclusions. Fascism's in-group is undeniably the national bourgeoisie, the Capital owners that profited immensely off of the various fascist movements, such as Ford, Hugo Boss, Krupp, many of which exist to this day in some form. The out-group is also undeniably the proletariat, the working class. Often times, somewhat due to the Nietzchian influence, ethnic groups such as Jewish peoples and Slavic peoples were targeted, along with any organized members of the working class, especially Communists. Fascism is a sort of "immune system" for Capitalism.

What about Comminism? Well, it's the exact opposite. Communist movements have historically come from the Proletariat (as well as the peasantry, especially in China where there wasn't a large Proletariat at the time of its revolution), and have served the Proletariat greatly. The oppressed class is the Bourgeoisie. What this historically has translated to is AES states (or "Actually Existing Socialism") working towards huge literacy programs, massive education expansion, rapid industrialization, and generous social services. The USSR, for example, provided completely free healthcare and education, and had lower retirement ages than the United States, the social safety net actually inspired FDR's New Deal as a means to prevent revolution within the United States during the Great Depression.

Moreover, the USSR and the Nazis saw the vast majority of the fighting in WWII. 80% of Nazi deaths came from the Eastern Front, it was the strategy of the West to let both the Nazis and the Communists fight it out and grind each other to a pulp. Truman spoke this of the strategy:

If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.

Ultimately, the real issue here is trying to dress up a massive difference as a small one, and using it to equate two polar opposites. Again, I highly encourage you to read the top level comment. No, AES states are not and have never been perfect, but they have also been in no way shape or form comparable to fascist states, in who they serve or how they functioned, and to equate them is a massive error.

Let me know if you have any questions!

You're free to read into the study itself more and call the ones who took it up to ask. The fact of the matter is that, statistically, the study is sound and can be trusted to be accurate.

The state is fundamentally a tool of class oppression. Such aspects would include private property rights, and other enshrinements of class distinctions, which are gradually erased as property is collectivized. Additionally, aspects like policing would transform to be more akin to social workers as the economic reasons for crime would be dramatically minimized, things like that.

Line goes up.

They also deter good comments that go against the grain for an instance. Labeling comments as "toxic" even if they are fine but controversial isn't good. Such toxic comments can be reported and removed anyways.

Leftists existing and being critical of liberal right-wingers was not an organized campaign, rather, it was a salient discussion around the US Election. The Leftists are still here doing what they always do.

I have a few, but the general theme of 2025 for me is "cultivation." Ignoring personal life milestones as goals, my biggest areas of work will be to improve my fitness and start a training regimen (I know, typical lol), going vegan once and for all, accelerating my language learning journey, and finishing the 30 or so works left on my "essential Leftist theory" personal reading list I set out for myself, including Capital Volumes 1-3. I want to go into 2026 a more well-rounded individual that is more knowledgeable and broadly skilled.