They are. Technically. It's the most warped twisted definition of socialism. But being socialist isn't what's important in ML Communist regimes. They, like their mirror on the right. The fascists. Are all about authority and authoritarianism.

The biggest problem for most of us westerners trying to understand this. Is that we are propagandized and indoctrinated to view left and right as being about social issues. And that thou shall have no economy before God but capitalism. And that socialism does not exist as anything other than a boogeyman to scare us with. We are not taught in schools what socialism actually is beyond Marxist-Leninist communism bad. And as a socialist while I do agree that Lenin's monster he is indeed quite bad. And that while reading the philosophy and theory of Marx he managed to make all the worst possible interpretations. His version of communism doesn't even define all of communism let alone all of socialism. But it is still technically socialism.

Socialism doesn't require that. So that does not make it any less socialist. As a socialist however. I would argue that since Karl Marx's time. The concept of health care has become a much more important notion to the welfare of the general populace that should include universal health care. It isn't part of the definition however.

Well they are not wrong to criticize and reject ML communism. But they are however rather hypocritical.

My issue is that you said they're capitalist. They're not. They do use a market economy in addition to a planned economy, as part of the overall socialist economic system. It's not a binary either-or; using a market economy doesn't mean it's capitalism, and planned economy (intervention) doesn't mean it's socialism. When I said they're structural terms, and relate to purpose: capitalism's purpose is to maximally extract profit and concentrate wealth; socialism's purpose is to better the lives (materially and culturally) of its people. China, as a socialist system, takes advantage of the benefits that a market economy can offer (efficiency, competition, resource allocation, demand and pricing signals) but doesn't use it to extract and concentrate wealth: instead, it uses the net benefits of the market economy to benefit the people. Similarly, a purely planned economy can be very stable and fair but is prone to stagnation and slow progress. By using both systems simultaneously, taking the relative advantages of each, China is able to benefit from efficiency and stability. There's also no pure free market economy: every capitalist economy has degrees of government intervention (another name for planned economy), especially in times of crises.

I also don't know what you meant about a "strong central government" not making them communist. That seems like a strawman. Nobody would say that a strong central government makes it communist, or a lack of a strong central government means it's not communist. "Strong" with no other qualifies is also not very useful: do you mean tough and resilient, or do you mean controlling?

I weighed calling them socialist, but it seemed… unhelpful when what i was trying to highlight that the unemployed youth are relying on family, and not the state.

This is a trap that people keep falling in to. Just because a socialist country doesn't do "good thing X" doesn't mean it's not socialist. No system is perfect; the difference is that the CPC makes strong plans, sticks to them, and publishes progress reports to address the problems that do arise. Should the state be taking the burden here where family currently is? Perhaps. But it's failure to do so doesn't mean the system isn't socialist. Again, I'll repeat my earlier statement: being "socialist" is a statement that is about the purpose of the government and the relation of the government to its people; it is socialist if it is for the benefit of the people en masse. Being "socialist" is not a statement of a utopic ideal antithesis to capitalism.

If you truly are willing to read about this, the book I mentioned is a good overview of China as it exists, as an implementation of a socialist society, at a level that does not require previous knowledge of theory or of China. Being intended for a foreign audience, it makes a concerted effort to address common misconceptions held by those outside of China about China. It's also very heavily sourced: each chapter ends with several pages of citations used in that chapter, including primary sources from CPC members, official government documents, analysis and critiques, and "historical"/foundational texts.

Your wiki link for inequality has China ranked 98, not 71, putting it much closer to the USA at 107.

I'm not sure if you understand how a ranked list works: you can invert the ranking order and the relative difference is identical. Whether you say China is 98 and USA 107 (a difference of 9) or you say China is 71 and the USA is 62 (a difference of 9), the relative difference is the same (it's 9). The only difference is how you interpret which is better, which I didn't do. My point was they're similar and middling in the ranking.

Also notably, the Gini index has a very long list of nominally “capitalist” countries ahead of China, which meet your criteria for a sustained fight against inequality and taking care of the poor.

This is irrelevant to the point I was making. My point wasn't that China is uniquely positioned with low income inequality. My point was twofold: it is middling in its rankings (i.e., not the most unequal), and it's decreasing. The fact that it's steadily decreasing is directly related to the point I made about the CPC truly working for the people to solve the real problems they're facing: they identified a problem, identified some causal factors, discussed the importance of fixing it, made plans of how to fix it, are implementing those plans, and make reports on the progress of those plans. You'll also notice that those capitalist countries which have less income inequality than China have more government intervention in the market (i.e., tempering the "free market") in part because the issue doesn't address itself in a capitalist system, and intervention has to be taken to address the problem. This is what China is doing, too: their income inequality problem isn't magically going away on its own free will, it is going away because of government intervention in the economy.

Forgive me as you’ve written quite a bit here but this seems to be the only concrete policy to discuss vis-a-vis capitalist vs communist systems. The rest is subjective language about “working for the people”. Every politician gets up on stage and talks about how they’re fighting hard to give people better lives. No one really gives those statements any credit.

The difference is that Western politicians rely on selling a promise and not delivering. Yes, they get up on stage and talk, and then do nothing. With the CPC, they actually show results. They make plans and publish them, they implement them, and they publish update reports that show whether or not they stuck to what they said they would do. This is not another situation with empty promises; if it was, they either wouldn't publish update reports or the update reports would show that they aren't doing what they said they would. You're confusing form and function: both CPC and Western politicians make promises, but the Western politicians do not deliver and the CPC does. There's a reason CPC support in China is so high, and it's because the party truly works for and benefits the people; if it were empty promises that never benefited the people, they wouldn't have so much support for the party.

(Edit: I was wrong in the direction I had sorted when I wrote this comment initially. I have removed the now irrelevant part. My point still stands: the two countries I compared are similar, and China is middling in it's ranking; inverting the sort order doesn't make the countries less similar, and since they're middling, inverting the sort order means they're still middling. I didn't make a claim that one was better than the other).

They sourced gini information three times, and then cited what dollars-to-donuts is a propaganda work from someone that agrees with them. It's on topic, but it's also a lot of words to prop up a weak point.

You could say people should respond instead of downvote, but they also say to pick who you argue with carefully, because most arguments are a waste of time.