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.


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:
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?