Look, if you don't believe me, at least believe in Kishore Mahbubani, ex-Singapore diplomat and ex-UN Security Council head. He's spoken extensively about this in his book "Has China Won?" and can corroborate what I said.

In the past 40 years, the freedoms of Chinese people have exploded. People could not choose what to wear, where to work, what to eat, where to live. Now they can. Millions travel world-wide every year, and all of them return home. Why would they do that if China is as bad as you say?

As for "a revolution against Beijing": prof. Mahbubani says that there are actually hundreds of protests in China every year. But those people aren't protesting against the central government: they're trying to get the central government's attention, to help them with their grievances. The central government is very popular. According to a poll by Harvard, who collected data over a 15 year period through anonymous in-person interviews, support for the central government has increased in this 15 year period. In 2016 (last year of the study), it was at an all-time high: 96% of respondents said they're satisfied or very satisfied with the central government.

What makes you believe you are more right than prof. Mahbubani and Harvard?

> and all of them return home. Why would they do that if China is as bad as you say?

Because getting a Visa that lets you stay abroad is actually really hard

This. We've seen this in East Germany. Sure they gave you a visa, they let you out. Your family stayed. To make sure you come back. Some people screwed over their family. Most people played along and came back.

Are you saying East Germany was awesome and things should have stayed as they were?

China is not east Germany.

Heck today's China is not the 70s China.

I'm more afraid of going to the US, where any Chinese person can be labeled a 'CCP spy' for no reason.

A bad party that is improving is still bad.

That's tautologically true of course. What is far less clear cut is whether it's preferable for someone (and their children) to stay in a country with a bad regime that's improving or in one with a good regime that's deteriorating. It depends on many factors (levels of goodness/badness, rate of improvement/deterioration, persistence and stability of trends, how one is personally affected by goodness/badness/improvements/deterioration).

To make it more concrete, there are people (granted, overwhelmingly ethnically Had Chinese fluent in the language) who voluntarily choose to reside in China over the US or EU, and I don't think they are irrational about it.

So what are the better choices? Do you think that if someone were to liquidate the CCP top members, plunging the country into chaos, that the Chinese would be better off?

It's easy to say "X is bad" when you don't have to care about practical consequences, like whether there are better alternatives, why we're in a suboptimal situation in the first place, and how to get to a better place.

> Do you think that if someone were to liquidate the CCP top members, plunging the country into chaos, that the Chinese would be better off?

Yes, very much so.

Your presumption is that if CPCs rule, whose rule is a chaos itself, disappears, there will be more chaos?

We are talking about immediate ruinous effects for the majority of Chinese every day communists stay in power.

The moment it stops, lawless land repossessions instantaneously stop, house confiscations stop, fake cases, and expropriations against entrepreneurs stop.

> It's easy to say "X is bad" when you don't have to care about practical consequences

Practical consequences of letting communists to stay in power are millions left destitute every year after their land, property, and businesses are stolen.

>sent to gulags

The GULAG was a specific USSR agency and their camps. You can't just call any prison system you personally don't like GULAG.