My understanding is that the party controls all land, has controlling interests in many if not most critical companies--as of 2016 the Chinese government owned three percent of all companies in China and up to thirty percent of industrial output[0]--and even theoretically independent companies have former Party officials or relatives of those officials running the show.
So it's surely not your textbook Leninist system, but it has many aspects thereof; I suppose you might characterize it as a mixed-command economy. It isn't what we would describe in the vernacular as "socialist"--as that word today generally, outside of the fever swamps of the American right wing, refers to countries like the Nordic or other Western European countries that work within something of a mixed-market system; it's definitely more command-oriented than that, still. Leninist/Stalinist communism generally sports a number social factors that definitely still exist in China outside of the economic structure, such as strong informational control, a smorgasbord of human rights abuses, and a generally totalitarian mode of governance and operation.
So I guess the question becomes "well, what does 'communist' mean?" My own, inexpert answer would be "it's not 'communist', except insofar as 'communist' is defined to mean 'what China does'," and my own thinking is that today it maps more to an ethnonationalist--though this isn't a perfect description as many groups are accepted, but at the same time one can see see the routine oppression of Tibetans, Uighurs, etc.--totalitarian state with a largely centrally-controlled economy. That doesn't map to any historical definition of 'communist' that I know of, but reasonable minds can differ.
My own, inexpert answer would be "it's not 'communist', except insofar as 'communist' is defined to mean 'what China does'," and my own thinking is that today it maps more to an ethnonationalist--though this isn't a perfect description as many groups are accepted, but at the same time one can see see the routine oppression of Tibetans, Uighurs, etc.--totalitarian state with a largely centrally-controlled economy. That doesn't map to any historical definition of 'communist' that I know of, but reasonable minds can differ.
We've seen other centrally controlled ethno-nationalist governments in the past, particularly in the early to mid 20th century. The confusion we have in 2019 is that we label those historical examples as "right-wing." This is actually quite strange, since these historical examples had highly centrally controlled societies and economies. The government set prices, determined working conditions, and dictated who sold to whom. Centralized control extended to all aspects of society and culture. Those are hallmarks of far left and communist governments. As in present day China, human rights were nullified, and certain ethnic groups were vigorously oppressed. As in present day China, industry "worked closely with" the government, and while wealthy oligarchs were created, they were very much subject to the whims of the government. There was also very close control of the media and information access by the public.
The only real categorical differences I see amount to stated ideology, and thus lip service: Is ethnicity important, or is class important? I think that's 1) only relevant to how the ideology is propagandized and sold and 2) only orthogonal to the left-right axis. It might also have an affect on whether and how obviously rich oligarchs are allowed to exist. (Can't contradict the party narratives, too much.)
I think the "right wing" label being applied to such totalitarian governments with centrally controlled economies and many left-wing characteristics is itself a propaganda maneuver of convenience. It's really the degree of authoritarian control which is most important in 2019.
One of the ethno-nationalist governments you're talking about is obviously nazi Germany. Need I remind you that the nazis systematically privatized the entire German society? They also supplied prisoners to these companies, as slave labor.
Most of the corporate empires and fortunes exisiting in Germany today owe their legacy to the nazi party, a fact which they are obviously keen to hide.
Calling the nazi party "left wing" or "socialist" is blatant revisionism, which has become extremely common in conservative and alt-right circles.
Similarly, the USSR was a totalitarian state capitalist dictatorship. The state (ie. the party) owned everything, there was absolutely no collective ownership. There was still wage labor and a very clear hierarchy, not to mention absolutely massive amounts of corruption and grift. In that sense, nazi Germany and the USSR were surprisingly similar; a strong leader with all power consolidated at the top, concentrating ownership and power with a small wealthy elite.
The actual far left is composed primarily of socialism, communism and anarchism. All are defined by the collective ownership of the means of production. Not state ownership or party ownership, but collective ownership. Their main difference is whether a state exists (socialism) or has withered away (communism) or if all forms of hierarchy have been abolished (anarchism).
The actual far left is composed primarily of socialism, communism and anarchism. All are defined by the collective ownership of the means of production. Not state ownership or party ownership, but collective ownership.
This either exists only on small scales, or as a fiction. On the scale of national governments, it's always a fiction disguising state control. Whether it's a totalitarian state controlling corporations or a totalitarian state controlling "collectives," it all just amounts to a totalitarian state with some form of disguise.
The real revisionism is putting a fig leaf of one form or another on all forms of totalitarian governments with centrally controlled societies and economies, then saying they're vastly different because of these different fig leafs. It's more fundamental to observe how they behave historically with regards to human rights. The most important aspect is the authoritarianism.
I assume you propose capitalism as a better way? Unfortunately the free market is a utopian myth.
Personally I agree with anarchism that all hierarchies must be abolished, including monarchy, wage labor and even the concept of the nation state itself.
Greed and territorialism have only ever brought grief and misery. The people in power have succeeded in dividing us into easily-manageable tribes and set us against each other, and while we squabble they reap the rewards of our work.
You really should look into anarchism (or anarcho-communism). Peter Kropotkin and Mikhail Bakunin are good places to start. I would also recommend Max Stirner, for a good introduction to individualist anarchism.
I assume you propose capitalism as a better way? Unfortunately the free market is a utopian myth.
No disagreement there.
Personally I agree with anarchism that all hierarchies must be abolished,
Such societies don't exist. Societies which are highly communal exist until they reach about 450 people. Even then, they develop hierarchies of personal power.
including monarchy, wage labor and even the concept of the nation state itself.
Arbitrary and corrupt hierarchies need to be reformed. It's an ongoing process. That's built into human nature. There are also good hierarchies which have done much good in human history.
Sure, but that also has never been practically the case in any communist nation of which I am aware. Getting into No True Communist discussions isn't meaningfully productive, but there might at least be something to be made from looking at other self-declared communist states and teasing out the differences.
And I don't want to start that discussion. I just think it's easier to call China a totalitarian capitalist state, without torturing other labels to make them fit. It's not unthinkable for a state to miss represent it self when it comes to names or labels.
So it's surely not your textbook Leninist system, but it has many aspects thereof; I suppose you might characterize it as a mixed-command economy. It isn't what we would describe in the vernacular as "socialist"--as that word today generally, outside of the fever swamps of the American right wing, refers to countries like the Nordic or other Western European countries that work within something of a mixed-market system; it's definitely more command-oriented than that, still. Leninist/Stalinist communism generally sports a number social factors that definitely still exist in China outside of the economic structure, such as strong informational control, a smorgasbord of human rights abuses, and a generally totalitarian mode of governance and operation.
So I guess the question becomes "well, what does 'communist' mean?" My own, inexpert answer would be "it's not 'communist', except insofar as 'communist' is defined to mean 'what China does'," and my own thinking is that today it maps more to an ethnonationalist--though this isn't a perfect description as many groups are accepted, but at the same time one can see see the routine oppression of Tibetans, Uighurs, etc.--totalitarian state with a largely centrally-controlled economy. That doesn't map to any historical definition of 'communist' that I know of, but reasonable minds can differ.
[0] - https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Wendy-L...