That 95% number sounds a lot more like "disagree and your life will become more difficult" than genuine satisfaction with the government.

Ahaaaa but you see I did a bit of a cheeky gotcha here (sorry). Everyone always comments on this figure because it's sensationally high.

That number comes from the longest independent study carried out of its kind (30 years long). Carried out by Harvard who I'm quite sure you will agree is not going to be biased in favour of China, quite the opposite in fact. They also very specifically state that the findings are not due to propaganda but that Chinese people's opinions change based on actual material improvements in their lives.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/

Quote on 95% figure that I've used:

The survey team found that compared to public opinion patterns in the U.S., in China there was very high satisfaction with the central government. In 2016, the last year the survey was conducted, 95.5 percent of respondents were either “relatively satisfied” or “highly satisfied” with Beijing. In contrast to these findings, Gallup reported in January of this year that their latest polling on U.S. citizen satisfaction with the American federal government revealed only 38 percent of respondents were satisfied with the federal government.

The actual study is here: https://ash.harvard.edu/files/ash/files/final_policy_brief_7.6.2020.pdf

Quote on it not being because of propaganda:

We find that first, since the start of the survey in 2003, Chinese citizen satisfaction with government has increased virtually across the board. From the impact of broad national policies to the conduct of local town officials, Chinese citizens rate the government as more capable and effective than ever before. Interestingly, more marginalized groups in poorer, inland regions are actually comparatively more likely to report increases in satisfaction. Second, the attitudes of Chinese citizens appear to respond (both positively and negatively) to real changes in their material well-being, which suggests that support could be undermined by the twin challenges of declining economic growth and a deteriorating natural environment.

While the CCP is seemingly under no imminent threat of popular upheaval, it cannot take the support of its people for granted. Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread, our survey reveals that citizen perceptions of governmental performance respond most to real, measurable changes in individuals’ material well-being

Responding to the rest of your response now:

Anyway, you keep going back and forth on whether the bourgeoisie actually own and run the business, so I'm not sure what you meant when you first claimed that they did, if you're now claiming they don't.

I am not sure what made you think that I said they did? I did not. Can you quote the part that caused this confusion? Maybe I misworded something?

Also, dude, the union membership rate is kinda pointless when literally all unions save one are considered illegal.

Why? You should not be measuring the effectiveness of unions by how many independently exist but instead by the effectiveness of their organising and frequency of their action. China had 1500 major strikes last year that were negotiated. You should focus less on an aesthetic and more on outcomes, what you care about is improving people's lives yes? That is your preferred goal? We are on the same page in that I hope as it is the goal and desire of everyone on this site as well.