You're confusing the distinction between socialism and communism, and it's because you view the world through an individualist frame, not a socialist one. You see socialism only through the eyes of an individual worker and an individual capitalist, you do not see classes. As such, you believe the distinction between socialism and communism as the difference between, essentially, elements of communism and the whole society being communistic. This is wrong.

Socialism is a transition between capitalism and communism, where the working class dominates the state and the economy. It isn't about individual relationships between workers and capitalists or lack thereof, but the entire class with relation to the entire class. Communism is the point by which all class distinctions have been eradicated and property collectivized, which discounts anarchism which seeks many cooperative-style cells, which leads to class distinctions between cells.

Restricting the ability of class traitors to go against the working class is not a bad thing. Independent unions that seek greater autonomy for a small subset of a class in a way that goes against the rest of the class is the problem with individualist framing. China has the largest federation of unions on the planet, they do a fantastic job of protecting worker rights. The reason independent unions are not allowed is because these cracks in the system become highly exploitable by a capitalist class that very much would love to overthrow the working classes as the ruling class.

I never made the point that workers unions being state recognized made society socialist. I argued that MAGA incorporating workers into a capitalist state is not at all the same as the CPC integrating unions into the socialist state of China. You made the false comparison there.

You double-down on this dishonest framing that workers and capitalists are the same when you talk about authoritarianism. The state is not outside of class struggle, it is within it, and thus can only be the representative of the ruling class. I support the working classes having state authority to protect against capitalists, and this is not at all the same as supporting capitalists having state authority against workers. This is the same problem you keep bumping into, treating tools as abstractions without looking at what class is wielding the tools. You erase class struggle from society.

Your next paragraph just has you add "Capitalist" to the beginning of words, without justifying what makes any of it capitalist. GDP is not capitalist, it's just a metric used for measuring production. The reason why China is successful is because it's a socialist country, public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy, and the CPC is a proletarian party, which controls the state. It isn't "capitalism and authoritarianism," it's a socialist market economy run democratically. If China was capitalist, it would fall into the same trappings as other capitalist economies, and would be well on its way down. Instead, it is increasing socialization of the economy:

As for China being neocolonial, I look at Africa to know that they aren't. China forgives debt, develops infrastructure, and facilitates south-south trade. It isn't neocolonial because it has no reason to be, it isn't dominated by private finance capital, and as a result Africa is rapidly developing, rather than remaining entrapped like it has been by the west.

As for the PRC vs. the USSR, both are socialist, the USSR just took a more direct confrontational approach. It does not make the PRC capitalist.

Overall, I think you should start studying Marxism-Leninism. Not even to become one, but to understand why China's socialist road looks the way it does. Everything about China matches up with how Marxist-Leninists would understand it to, but it clearly is thwarting how you are understanding it as an anarchist. To me, as a former anarchist, seeing socialist countries dramatically rise was one of the big problems that caused me to study Marxism and gradually abandon anarchism.