That might be misleading. It’s pretty easy to get a work visa, which you can use to stay indefinitely, got to renew it though. Getting permanent residence is harder to qualify for, but if you’ve been in China for a while it’s easier. lots of people just stay in China very long periods of time on work visas.

As others mentioned part of how the CPC stayed in power was definitely that the Sino Soviet split diverted attention and allowed some reprieve. But that’s definitely not all of it.

Keep in mind China went through the opium wars, rebellions killing tens of millions (Taiping rebellion), Japanese invasion, civil war, then was isolated by the US like other socialist countries until the Sino Soviet split.

Even then the US kept pressure on China, think Taiwan, Hong Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang where and are all places the US stokes tensions and attempted to foment collapse.

Compared to lots of other communist nations, I think the CPC was able to maintain a higher level of credibility and support from its population. Some of that came from maintaining consistent improvements in people’s lives. Notably a 2012 paper noted that:

The pace and scale of China’s economic transformation have no historicalhe pace and scale of China’s economic transformation have no historical precedent. In 1978, China was one of the poorest countries in the world.precedent. In 1978, China was one of the poorest countries in the world. The real per capita GDP in China was only one-fortieth of the U.S. levelThe real per capita GDP in China was only one-fortieth of the U.S. level and one-tenth the Brazilian level. Since then, China’s real per capita GDP hasand one-tenth the Brazilian level. Since then, China’s real per capita GDP has grown at an average rate exceeding 8 percent per year. As a result, China’s real pergrown at an average rate exceeding 8 percent per year. As a result, China’s real per capita GDP is now almost one-fifth the U.S. level and at the same level as Brazil.capita GDP is now almost one-fifth the U.S. level and at the same level as Brazil.

China has obviously since continues growing. Keep in mind, before the reform and opening up China was already growing, it was inconsistent (great leap forward) but it was growing. Many metrics like life expectancy and literacy increased substantially in that period. China’s reduction is poverty is so great it accounts for ¾ of the global reduction since 1982 per a world bank report

I don’t like the graph because if China was on the top, you would see global poverty hasn’t changed much if you exclude China.

Anyways, in comparison to other communist countries, while they all have incredible achievements in their own right, because of the radical improvements in people’s lives the party was bale to maintain very high credibility and standing with the people. As I mentioned, the US tries to cause conflicts in China, but it’s more difficult with such high support. You can see this Harvard study for more details, in short approval of the government is high and increased during the duration of the survey from 2003-2016.

It might not be an exact answer, and it would take a lot of time to explain how China was able to accomplish what it did (which might be more of the answer your looking for) but hopefully this context is helpful.

Economic growth itself is just a number, development is what matters. In addition and as a part of development I also specifically mentioned education and improvement of quality of life. You could add literacy, housing, levels of nourishment, and much, much more.

I won’t argue about history or its interpretations with you now. Just consider the path to development wealthy capitalist countries took, which involved slavery, colonialism, genocide, brutal worker suppression, and perhaps the worse working conditions in history during industrialisation.

You may attribute many horible things to communist countries. I might argue much of this is exaggerated by the media of the anti-comunist country you live in. Even if it is all true, developed capitalist countries did the same to themselves, and other peoples around the globe.

Then consider the development communist countries have had compared to undeveloped capitalist countries. People can have better lives, that is what matters.

Individuals in struggling societies don’t always atomize, many revolutions occurred due to degradation in conditions. When the cost of fighting for change is less than doing nothing you will fight, and you will fight with others, or else you will quickly fail and be forgotten.

Curious what your definition of facism is. With a few exceptions, communist inclined states have always lead to unprecedented economic development, education, improvement of quality of life, etc. If you take all cold war propaganda at face value, you can not deny the development seen in such states; when balanced by alleged atrocities, you see a stark contrast to colnialist nations that too committed atrocities but with little to show for it.

I find the surface level historical criticisms of communist states, even if applied at an equaly superficial level, is applied to capitalist states, you would find a staggering contradiction. Maybe you should read more. Add to your socioeconomic calculus the fact that no communist state benefited from the same starting point as colonizer countries, and try to be critical of this. Consider that none of these communist states had the benifits of colonization, and when compared to other developing countries did remarkably better.

The point is not about impact but intention. Evidently liberalism, for all its flaws, certainly has had a significant impact. The progressive forces 250 years ago where for the most part already proto socialists. Fundamentally liberalism has been reactionary, even in the case of feudalism and monarchy, liberalism has tended to air for maintaining monarchy; such as constitutional monarchies where one can find leberals having preference for this rather than republics. This can be observed in historical cases such as France where many liberals wished to maintain the monarchy, but the contradictions and progressive forces where too great. Rather than a progressive force, I would contend that liberalism tends to be reactionary to development and progressive forces. Today this can be seen in the liberal leaders of developing countries handicapping themselves and their sovereignty by maintaining economic relations to the benefit of the imperial core. See ECOWAS and ‘preserving democracy’ as of late.

Curious if you could elaborate. Authority is complicated. Perhaps you should read this relatively short text by Engels.

The point is that liberalism and facism are intrinsically linked. Liberalism does not seek to change the world and stems from philosophies instead seeking to explain it. Accordingly, liberalism is a philosophical justification for the capitalist status quo. As such, when contradictions in capitalism accentuate with time, such as those between classes, liberalism turns to fascism. Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds, because the liberal is a closet fascist when times are good; when class struggle poses a threat, it clamps down. You can see this throughout history.

That a poor, simplified explanation, but I hope it helps.