The growth is occurring under a dictatorship of the proletariat, wherein 70% of all heavy industry was nationalized and the state exerts a level of control, intervention and open class warfare far beyond Keynesian capitalist states.

Sure they have that large state union but laborers are still conducting strikes and wildcat strikes at a significantly higher rate than in union strongholds, and those radicals are much more likely to be literal Maoists than limp social democrats.

They are explicitly attempting to correct for the pitfalls of the Soviet Union, namely capitalist encirclement, autarky, and the overwhelming of the planning apparatus for as long as possible. They are also adapting to the reality of the world without the Soviet Union, wherein socialism is no longer a world power and concessions must be made to avoid being destroyed in the same manner.

On your last point that isn’t what I do. At least 40% of young people identify as socialists and I go based on their concerns. China is one of the best propaganda tools if you know how and when to use it. It’s an existing socialist project that is wildly successful. It’s not in second place like the Soviet Union was.

If you want to see what a state capitalist nation looks like when the Bourgeoise are in control, you can look at Russia.

you could make an eco-accelerationist argument that the maturation of capitalism in densely populated developing nations on a resource limited planet will much more quickly expose its inherent contradictions and is going to get us all killed decades ahead of schedule. but i’d imagine the easiest answer from most people would be to just kill all the poors, capitalism in one country, etc.

Kind of? Apparently only employees of the company can own stock in it though there still remains the question of how equitably these stocks are distributed

They are confusing that stat with the percentage of heavy industry currently nationalized in China.

Well yeah although the counterpoint is 1) Cuba and 2) they used to have more or less universal healthcare before the market reforms.

Economic development is not evidence of socialism. Countries like Japan or SK industrialized even faster than China.

in china, patients murder doctors instead of the other way around

generally, issues that can be solved by going to the ER in the US are much cheaper in china. it’s when you get into more capital intensive illnesses that you become just as fucked as an american (if not more so). the systemic problem is that doctors are generally less motivated to provide quality service since their salaries are so incredibly low that they get more returns on being good paper pushers and taking bribes than being good doctors. increased rule of law (read: actual consequences) has the bribery on a steady downward trend.

the government has been unwilling to further subsidize doctor salaries (they’ve actually been on a downward trend for a while now), and the ‘solution’ in recent years has been to promote public/private partnerships in the various departments in order to indirectly offload the cost on to the consumer in the form of diagnostics and other consumable tech, of which the doctors can get a cut. this has created a situation in which quality coverage has become more concentrated in capital-dense areas and people only ever go to the big name hospitals for anything. the government’s response to this has been to throw money at the smaller public clinics to entice people coming in with easy fixes away from the bigger hospitals so that the specialists there can do specialist things instead of spending 90% of their time treating stubbed toes.

tldr; complicated