And I responded to that with the list of arguments that the duck might call itself whatever it wants but it’s still the same capitalistic duck (gig economy, 996, almost no proletariat in NPC - like 10% now? 15%?).
This is bullshit based on vibes. I'll state it again: The PRC is socialist because public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state. The PRC is not a gig economy, 996 is a problem but doesn't mean it isn't socialist, and the NPC is controlled by the proletariat.
No socialist country can be ruled by beurocracy or bourgeoisie.
Yep, the PRC is governed by the proletariat.
You ignored that and instead wrote this shit:
China is already socialist, it isn’t going to become socialist because it already is. China has worker protections, and the lives of the working classes have been improving year over year.
Repeating again how I categorized socialism: The PRC is socialist because public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state. When I said China has worker protections, that was a response to your cope about "996" and other nonsense, not a way to say China is socialist.
As if this is requirement to being a socialist country. If it is, then half of EU fits, including Poland.
It isn't a requirement to be socialist, and I never said it was. It took several comments for you to understand that my source was an economist's review of a work of fiction and not the work of fiction itself, and now you keep pretending I'm defining socialism by saying it has safety nets despite my insistence on the mode of production. Why are you so consistent with butchering my points? Respond to the actual points I make.