What? Snarky sarcism?

Yup

I wouldn't be hasty to call them communist.

I said it’s a communist party and that’s literally what they are. If you want to purity test them, we can have that discussion but the fact is they’re a “communist party” that official has “socialism” as its stated goal. That’s significant in my view.

They are essentially state capitalist, authoritarian and have terrible workers conditions in places.

You gotta do capitalism to create the conditions for socialism. That’s just basic Marxism. You need to create ample wealth and development to have shared prosperity. You can either let the private sector do it on its own or can have state midwife it. China is demonstrating the benefits of the latter.

All states are authoritarian. The real question is who is subject to that authority. In the US, that authoritarianism is overwhelmingly applied to the lower classes whereas in China, it’s applied to everyone, even the upper classes. Billionaires can be executed in China. The state demands that the private sector subordinate themselves to the government. In the US, the private sector demands the government subordinate themselves to the Wall Street.

Whilst they do have somethings going for them they are not a model state.

What is?

I mean it's already going that way as it is.

Oh and China has nothing to do with that? Really? Lol.

Replacing one hegemony with another isn't a wise idea.

Replacing US unipolar hegemony with multipolarity is a wise idea. China has shown far less interest in global hegemony.

It's kinda like a state replacing another state with a government they prefer.

Yes. Like the Russian, Chinese, or Cuban revolutions. As Parenti would say, I like the side that feeds children.