For starters, I want to point out the farce you’re putting on by both making a mockery of Marxism, and yet acting as though you’re an authority on what Marxists actually believe. As you’ve admitted, you think communism is ridiculous, and as you’ve admitted elsewhere, you yourself are a colonizer that fled Hong Kong once the communists began to further integrate it with the mainland. You’re trying to hide behind your individual role as a colonizer by drawing on Irish history as a colony, a country with a rich history of Marxist thinkers like James Connolly, while simultaneously arguing against China’s socialist system as not being adequately Marxist. It’s a farce.

Regardless of your personal background, however, it’s important to address your claims as they are.

First, class. Not once did I ever say that class is homogenous. Classes are aggregates, of course doctors enjoy greater material benefits than other kinds of workers. The critical importance of them being the same class is that they both share a collective interest as a class, that interest being collectivization of production and distribution. As laborers, both have as an interest rising collectivization and socialization, whereas capitalists, both big and small, oppose this trend. Classes are bimodal, in the modern era proletarian and bourgeois, with each broad class having manifold striations. This does not mean variance within a class is sufficient to be a class of themselves.

The class makeup of the CPC is overwhelmingly proletarian. This is a fact. The types of workers that most occupy the CPC do tend to be more educated, and therefore make more money, it’s true, but this is not a bad thing. Again, as workers, they share the same class interest.

The working poor are not “fed some bullshit,” they are seeing the most rapid climbs in life metrics in history, and the most rapid development of their material wealth. Who cares if some few capitalists get wealthier if the whole of society prospers? If the marketized sector in China became an impediment to progress, this would be a deeply concerning situation, but Marxists are not moralists and do not oppose private property as a sin, but instead as something that plays a specific historic role and phases out of that role. The role of markets is to socialize production, the role of a socialist state is to collectivize socialized production and oppress capitalists from forming a cohesive political bloc.

Your arguments about “human nature” are, frankly, childish and absurd. Again, you make a mockery of yourself, thinking Marx never accounted for incentives. The comical idea of equal pay for everyone is a farce invented by liberals to discredit communists, the actual fact is that socialists suggest that pay be according to the work done until the productive forces are so advanced that it doesn’t matter anymore. From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs, is a hypothesis of an era where production and distribution is so advanced that anyone, regardless of background, is sufficiently trained to perform any act of labor in society and thus all labor be interchangeable.

You then continue to embarrass yourself by claiming China has been an imperial power for its entire history, ignoring the century of humiliation when it was a colony, and ignoring colonial Hong Kong that you describe as “cool.” Further, you never actually establish that China is imperialist, you just say that Tibet and Xinjiang are part of China as though that’s enough to claim it imperialist. You have a great deal of work to prove imperialism, and annexing territory is not imperialism.

Regarding your discussion of “hard” and “soft” science, you evidently care for neither, considering how confidently you speak on subjects you do not care to learn about. If you want to actually critique Marxism, you should begin by learning what Marxists actually believe. You occupy a stance that despices Marxism and Marxists, while also trying to say Marxists aren’t true Marxists. It’s opportunist doublespeak.

Regarding trade unions, the All China Federation of Trade Unions is extremely effective at supporting worker rights. Time and time again, independent groups under the guise of supporting progressive causes have been CIA fronts designed to foment popular dissent. Independent trade unions therefore stand not against merely their own bosses, but the ACFTU and the unions a part of it.

The “interesting language” I use for Tian’anmen Square is spelling it correctly. Discussion of June 4th is not censored, repeating western atrocity mythos is. I’m not lying here, the ones that are persecuted are the ones that uplift the color revolution as a good thing, despite the fascist background of the CIA-planted leaders of the student movement.

You then drone on about inequality in China, but the central point is that marketization inevitably results in monopoly, and monopoly inevitably makes itself better as a part of planned economy than marketized. Markets prepare the basis of planned economy, so that’s how China is progressing. It isn’t a lengthy period of sacrifice for an eventual 180 pivot to communism, it’s a gradual process of constant improvement that results in higher degrees of socialization:

The absolute bare minimum you could do is read Socialism With Chinese Characteristics: a Concise Guide. It’s 50 pages long, and is the bare minimum you would need to begin to criticize China from a standpoint that understands their system from their perspective.