We can look at the question from the following perspective. If we accept the premise that China operates under state capitalism, what implications does that hold? At its core, capitalism is defined by private ownership of capital, where individuals or entities control labor’s objectives and structure. Enterprises under this system exist primarily to expand their owners’ wealth, with any societal benefits emerging only as incidental byproducts.
State-owned industries, however, serve a fundamentally different purpose, even if their organizational structure superficially mirrors private enterprises. Their primary aim is to mobilize labor toward socially beneficial objectives such as constructing infrastructure, expanding housing, ensuring food security, and similar public goods. Crucially, capital accumulation by private individuals is absent in this model. Profits generated by state industries are reinvested directly into public services, infrastructure, and long-term national development.
While valid critiques can be made about organization of SOEs or potential worker alienation within their hierarchies, the system’s focus on collective welfare, rather than private profit, makes it fundamentally different from actual capitalism. When evaluated by its capacity to prioritize societal needs over individual wealth extraction, this framework is clearly superior.
Debatable, and certainly not necessarily true. Fascism can also feature state-owned industries, or at least all industry is considered subordinate to the state. Even if the leaders have good intentions, their priorities may not align with the general populace. The way I see it, the workers do not own the means of production; the state does. Having single-party rule, high levels of censorship, and being generally authoritarian makes things even more problematic, because it hurts the argument that, "the workers own the state, so it's socialism."
The important factor to test is whether the Proletariat has power, or the Bourgeoisie. Single-party rule does not mean a system is anti-democratic, what matters is if you can actually influence policy and engage with the party, or if the bourgeoisie is the class that can and does do that. As for "authoritarianism" and "censorship," all states do that, what matters is which class is wielding it against which.