First and foremost, there's no such thing as a "communist country". Communism is a very late stage of socialist development when all class contradictions have been abolished. We don't know what that might look like, but the consensus is that we can't really talk about a country being communist but rather an overall state of the world.

Secondly, China has a fairly good grip over its billionaire class. They don't have the class power their class has in the US, Europe, or the rest of the western capitalist world. The capitalist class in China is subject to the wishes of the working class represented by the party with its over 100 million members.

Same reason the US has the most prisons even though it's aiming to be the freest country.

Imagine living in Lebanon and not being a millionaire...

Even normal people there live in houses worth billions of Lebanese Pounds.

China has maintained enough of a market system to avoid our usual direct efforts at overthrow or embargo, as long as our billionaire ruling class sees their markets as an opportunity outweighing the threat of their government they'll block any push by our government to interfere with their access to those markets. Not only did that work perfectly but they actually managed to get their greatest global rival to voluntarily de-industrialize and hand the vast majority of our productive capacity over to them without a single shot fired. Every last bit of argument here and elsewhere about whether they're communist or not is just cope from people whose civilizations have never pulled off anything half that slick in their entire worthless existences.

China does not claim to be a fully communist society yet. Official ideology describes the country as being in a long-term developmental phase of socialism; communism is portrayed as a future goal. However, if they continue as they have been treating people like mere numbers, keeping them in poverty under total control, while billionaires amass wealth they will never achieve that anyway. In a society that ideologically advocates for overcoming class distinctions and capitalist exploitation, enormous private fortunes exist. Entrepreneurs like Jack Ma have at times amassed wealth running into the billions. At the same time, the Party controls key sectors of the economy and can exert massive pressure on companies. That transitional phase has gone spectacularly wrong. That is not how communism is defined. Private property is accepted only as long as it remains compatible with the Party's political interests. This is very convenient for the government: it can harness the productivity and innovation of capitalism without adopting the political power structures of a liberal political system.

They didn't used to have billionaires, when Mao was in power. Strangely, a lot of Westerners seem to hate what China is now, but also hate what China was before, which seems very strange to me. "The reforms were bad and China should be more Maoist" that is a coherent position, "The reforms were good but should have gone further and become even more capitalist" that is also a coherent position. But "China is bad now because they allow billionaires but they were also bad when they didn't allow billionaires" isn't really coherent, it just seems like knee-jerk opposition to whatever they do or don't do. Anyone who wants to offer critiques should be able to answer the simple question of whether the reforms were good or bad, whether they moved in the right or wrong direction.

On the off-chance that you actually want a serious answer to the question, let's start with some history. Before the revolution, China's average life expectancy was in the 30's, it experienced frequent famines, had no access to medicine, and had had similarly awful conditions for literally thousands of years with no improvement for the average person. The revolution brought about huge improvements in life expectancy and the basic necessities of life (with the failure of the Great Leap Forward being an exception to this general trend).

However, while central planning works for providing basic necessities because the demand for those necessities is very predictable, it is not the most efficient regarding consumer goods. This was one of the failures that caused the collapse of the USSR, the desire for consumer good and the inability to compete domestically. Furthermore, despite the increases in life expectancy, virtually everyone in China still lived in extreme poverty. The reforms in the 80s were intended to address this, and they were wildly successful at it:

In the words of Deng, it doesn't matter if the cat is white or black, so long as it catches mice. It doesn't really matter if a policy is ideologically "pure," so long as it provides clear material benefits for the common people.

Where I'm standing, the whole point of having any sort of political beliefs at all is to figure out which policies will improve people's lives. And lifting 800 million people out of extreme poverty over the span of 40 years, can you name a more successful policy, ever, in all of history?

So much ignorance on display here in this thread. People talking out of their ass with no clue or care why and how China has implemented economic reforms and development policy. No clue what communists even are much less the details of how they manage the economy of a developing socialist state within a capitalist global economy. Just thought-terminating clichés about billionaires and so-called "state capitalism".

Fun fact: you can actually read the justifications for why socialist countries managed by proletariat governments have implemented limited market systems in their economies in China, Vietnam, Cuba, USSR, even Korea. Their thoughts are public!

The net worth of the world's billionaires is over $16 trillion in 2025¹. 1% being 160 billion. On average, around every 4000 USD send to the most effective charity saves someone's life². So around 40 million children.

This doesn't account, of course, for the difficulty of selling large amounts of stocks without them losing value and the fact that, as low-hanging dangers are depleting, each subsequent child would be more costly to save.

¹ Wikipedia contributors. (2026, August 3). The World's Billionaires. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 18:47, August 11, 2026, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_World%27s_Billionaires&oldid=1367525482

² GiveWell. (2026, February). How Much Does It Cost To Save a Life? https://www.givewell.org/how-much-does-it-cost-to-save-a-life

We don't need donations, we just need to tax them at the same level we're taxing regular workers. And since their fortunes are growing at double digit rates, a small annual wealth tax wouldn't hurt them either.

Worry about your own country, yank