Lets talk about the state and revolution

First, I will say that it was Lenin himself who argued that a transitional DotP will inevitably include elements of both socialism and capitalism:

No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, has denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Soviet Socialist Republic implies the determination of the Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the existing economic system is recognised as a socialist order. But what does the word “transition” mean? Does it not mean, as applied to an economy, that the present system contains elements, particles, fragments of both capitalism and socialism? Everyone will admit that it does. But not all who admit this take the trouble to consider what elements actually constitute the various socio-economic structures that exist in Russia at the present time. And this is the crux of the question. Let us enumerate these elements:

1. patriarchal, i.e., to a considerable extent natural, peasant farming; 2. small commodity production (this includes the majority of those peasants who sell their grain); 3. private capitalism; 4. state capitalism; 5. socialism. Russia is so vast and so varied that all these different types of socio-economic structures are intermingled. This is what constitutes the specific feature of the situation.

V. I. Lenin, "Left-Wing" Childishness, April 1918

The question in my mind is not "is China socialist or capitalist?" but rather "is China a dictatorship of the proletariat or a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie?" and further "in which direction is China's development heading?"

If a nation is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, then it does not matter how socialist its policies or economics becomes, because the government remains a government by and for the bourgeoisie and so capitalism and private ownership will remain a thorn in the side of the working class - see, for example, the failure of the German Social-Democrats to secure proletarian power and their eventual succumbing to reaction and fascism.

On the other hand, if a nation is a dictatorship of the proletariat, then it is entirely possible that, provided it is done carefully and with profound discipline, the nation can incorporate elements of capitalism during a transitional period and use them to develop the economy in a progressive and beneficial manner.

China has shown no signs of a bourgeois counter-revolution, nothing of the sort that has been observed in Eastern Europe after the fall of socialism there. The Communist Party of China remains the leading party and the majority party in China. The Chinese constitution continues to proclaim the pursuit of socialism; their leaders continue to profess an adherence to Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought. If the bourgeoisie were in power in China, there would be no need for a pretense of socialism. Why should we believe the Chinese proletariat is so extraordinarily class-conscious and organized as to necessitate the pretense of socialism in order to keep them content, yet so uneducated and weak as to have no ability to recognize a bourgeois counter-revolution nor any motivation to fight against it? It is far more sensible to view China as a long-standing DotP.

As for which direction China is heading, I will offer my recommended reading on China:

Why the World Needs China, Kyle Ferrana, 2024

The East Is Still Red, Carlos Martinez, 2023

Thanks, Anon!