Your example of socialism is a common misunderstanding, one that sees petite bourgeois worker ownership as socialist. The problem is that you abstract an element from the whole. Those that do not work at said cooperative do not share in its ownership, and this creates the rise of class distinctions. The perpetuation of money and the commodity form give rise to capitalism. The lack of understanding of state power and its role in the economy leaves it open to capitalist dominance of the state. This is why your understanding is both common and yet anti-Marxist. It's a metaphysical error in analyzing society.

Secondly, you further demonstrate a confusion of how the state operates. The state is not outside class struggle, but is within it. The state cannot be anything but under the domination of the ruling class of society. In such a worker-dominated society, the state is not outside of the working classes. Thus, organizing in a way that undermines the socialist state undermines socialism. You try to justify it by saying independent organization is "healthy," but you do not materially justify this. This becomes a moralistic argument, not a materialist one, and thus falls into idealism.

You fall even further into confusion when you equate MAGA, a fascist movement within a capitalist society, with the CPC, a communist party within a socialist society. The problem is not political loyalty in general, but political loyalty to fascism or socialism! You equate fascism with communism as equal evils here based purely on the similarity in form being political loyalty to the system. Anyone can see that these are very different systems!

Next, "authoritarian rhetoric." I support the authority of the working class. I do not support the authority of capitalists or fascists. The fact that I support worker states does not mean I support any and all states that support any and all classes. I support a particular form of state, that being a socialist state. Again, you confuse particular similarities in form abstracted from context for absolute similarities in total. This is a metaphysical error repeated.

Next, your confusion of marketization as capitalism. We already went over how cooperatives themselves are not socialism, because what matters is the context of the entire system. The capital that exists in China exists only in secondary industries, where marketization plays a progressive role. Critical and large industry is overwhelmingly state owned and planned. If China had a wealth cap, it would not fundamentally change that until production is socialized and collectivized afterwards, there will exist capitalists. However, as long as these capitalists exist within the birdcage set out by the socialist state, they cannot gain political power.

Further, you make completely unbacked and baseless claims of "neocolonialism." You do not interrogate or substantiate this point. China's position on the world stage undermines neoimperialism, which operates via IP monopoly, US cultural hegemony, the dollar as the world reserve currency, and US military dominance. Neoimperialism works through neocolonialism. China's advance in IP destroys the IP monopoly of the west, undermines their military dominance, creates room for south-south trade, and undermines US supremacy, which is necessary for imperialism in the modern era. There is no neocolonialism from China.

The USSR was also good. I will push back on the idea of a "political upper class," such a term is not founded in Marxist understandings of class but the simple substitution of class for any category. Class is a social relation to ownership of the means of production, administrators in the Soviet Union had equal ownership to any other worker and were paid wages equivalent to skilled laborers.

Overall, I defend China from a Marxist position, you are attacking it from, at most, an anarchist position. Either you do not believe Marxism is socialist, or you must acknowledge that China certainly isn't an anarchist's dream, but at least fulfills Marxist understandings of socialism, which explains their success.