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.

I don't subscribe to an Individualist worldview, so no.

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.

That's only true of some kinds of Anarchist thought. Anarchism is a broad category of viewpoints, so you just painting it with a broad brush comes off as ignorance to Anarchist theory. Second, even if you were right and Anarchism universally advocated for a network of "cooperative-style cells" as you put it, you offered nothing to prove that it would lead to class distinctions in cells, you just asserted that blindly.

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.

You pack this section with a ton of loaded assumptions, it's sloppy reasoning. Assuming that any desire to deviate from the State-approved union structure in any way represents class betrayal is ridiculous. It falls into the identical category as religious fundamentalists who assume that even the slightest disagreement or challenge to the existing structure represents an existential threat to the whole, and must be crushed.

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.

As a Statist, of course you wouldn't view absolute State power as structurally problematic. The same way a religious fundamentalist doesn't have a problem with the church having absolute power, as long as it is their religious sect that controls it. I disagree, because I am interested in structural critiques of power. I seek to increase the power of workers vs Capitalists, and also to reduce the power and influence of the State. These are not mutually exclusive goals, although they are complex and interconnected.

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.

I didn't say GDP was Capitalist, I said "Capitalist GDP growth", or in other words, pursuing rapid and consistent GDP growth at the expense of other factors in an economy. You then just go on to assert the same Statist assumptions as before.

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:

This one I found quite ironic, because first off, I literally listed multiple Capitalist trappings right above your response, which you just before, "...you add “Capitalist” to the beginning of words, without justifying what makes any of it capitalist."

You then post a chart, I don't know what it is from, but it assumes a statist framing, so my previous anti-statist critiques apply to that as well.

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.

The USA forgives debt, the EU forgives debt, the damn IMF forgives debt...so what, they're not evil and corrupt institutions now? The US Army Corps of Engineers builds infrastructure, does that mean the US military isn't an evil, Neo-colonial institution? You also said, "It [China] isn’t neocolonial because it has no reason to be, it isn’t dominated by private finance capital..." As if private finance capital is the only reason anybody would be interested in Colonizing anything.

All of the benefits you claim come from China's involvement in Africa can also be, and have been, claimed by Western Imperialist entities about their colonization projects. That's why it's Neo-Colonialism, I already said it is miles better than anything the West did, obviously. But better doesn't make it good, if I bake a cake with 1 cup of feces mixed in the batter, reducing it to 1/4 cup of feces is better, but it's still a shit cake.

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.

No, the USSR actually was a legit State Socialist project. They actually largely eliminated private property, largely eliminated markets in favor of a centrally planned economy, and largely did not fall into Capitalist trappings like consumerism, vapid entertainment culture, or ultra-luxury goods. It was a disaster in many ways, horribly corrupt and terribly managed, and a lot of innocent people died needlessly. However they still managed to raise living standards for the vast majority of their population, develop interesting and impressive technologies; like a ternary logic-based computer, the first artificial satellite, the second most powerful military in the world for a while, and a rough but functional space program that saw several other "firsts." Some Soviet technology is still used by modern cosmonauts, like their electro-mechanical orbital computers, which are considered very impressive by modern engineers, Westoids included.

This will be my last response in this thread because I think you and I have hit ideological bedrock. I've made all the primary points I wanted to make, and I think I have responded adequately to your statements. I oppose your worldview very strongly, but I do appreciate your civility in this exchange. In a weird way, I am rooting for China, everything they succeed at makes the US look even worse, and hopefully will help inspire a labor resurgence in the USA in the coming years. Right now we need all the help we can get.