Authoritarian regimes vs. knowledge/honesty

The basic gist goes something like this: Authoritarian regimes such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) (see here for some of the horrors they're up to under the current dictator), defunct Communist regimes, the Nazi Party, and the Iranian theocracy rule by heavy censorship and punishment of dissenting voices.  This means, I believe, one of two things:

(1) "Ideas so good that they're mandatory"

(2) These regimes tacitly confess that their ideological dictates can't win in the free, fair and open marketplace of ideas, which means their dictates are likely fundamentally flawed or false, with evil/destructive consequences to be expected for so many concerned/affected.  By being forcibly imposed, these ideological dictates have not received a proper vetting to accountably distinguish mere opinion from knowledge.  This being so, the likes of Xi Jinpeng don't know that they're "leading" their nations in a good or healthy direction; as far as they know, they're doing just the opposite.  The coronovirus outbreak is the tip of the iceberg, and that's just this one authoritarian regime.

You might readily guess which of these two interpretations I subscribe to.  Heck, do any conscientious philosophers disagree about this?

How much of a commie is AOC?

(Just to be sure that AOC's statements about billionaires are fully contextualized . . .)

Just how to the left of the Chinese Communist Party does this make AOC?  Even China allows billionaires, and I don't think China is much of anything to the right of Rawls (see this blog's Jan 2019 post on Rawls for more).  Maybe there aren't human problems that are easily solved by having the ever-more-big-and-powerful state coercing people into doings things?  Presumably the billions lifted out of poverty by neoliberal market forces (a lot of that interacting with the Chinese Communist agenda) do matter even if they still face lots of financial and quality-of-life challenges (her example being ringworms but there are lots of other challenges still to be met via the usual: capitalistic growth)?  China seems to think that the existence of billionaires is necessary to lift the country out of poverty.  Even China.

More importantly, from an ethical and philosophical angle (and not the more narrowly political-economic one, a matter where, in any event, Mises/Hayek/Friedman/Buchanan tower over whatever academic leftists who egged on AOC), perhaps the Chinese learned a little bit of epistemic caution or 'humility' given its past failures due to zealous reform-ism egged on by charismatic 'leaders'.  Perhaps they're more pragmatic than AOC, and what does that tell you?  Even the CCP.  But back to the key ethical-philosophical point: AOC displays a hubris that the CCP already experienced back with Mao and has greater wisdom on that front than she has.  Even they.

(Implication: Put AOC & academic left comrades in charge of China and watch her/them wreck everything compared to what even the CCP finds feasible-plus-acceptable, poverty-reduction/existence-of-billionaires-wise? ofmg lol, how ever do these academic leftist (qua leftist, etc.) salaries keep getting funded...)