It is hard to say who gets it right here and in any case the case that China isn’t capitalism is full of some useful information about ‘markets’ inside a communist system. It seems that the problem is really that China’s communism isn’t really communism, without or without elements of capitalism.
If China had a genuine communism this debate would have some real meaning. The point here is the way that the Chinese system has tried to invent our DMNC and partially succeeded but has lost the correct construct of ‘communism’. There is no formal definition, the source of the catastrophe. Communism should by definition have rights and liberties and otherwise be called by that term at all. But the confused track of Russia/China here allowed a crystallization of a wrong definition.
In any case, the Chinese significantly created some innovations that leaves one to think, if only.
The case that China isn’t capitalist deserves careful scrutiny to see the way the Chinese did some sensible things in the middle of their path to communism. Done right, and with a serious brand of communism the whole experiment of the last century might have made a real breakthrough to defining communism…