Progressive Politics

Okay, but you can’t just say it is publicly owned and then not have any actual tangible way of individual members of the public of accessing what they apparently own.

Public ownership doesn't mean anyone can do whatever they want with it. For example, a publicly run nuclear power plant isn't going to let random citizens walk around and do whatever they want.

By every definition of “socialism” that I can find, China is breaking virtually every rule. What specifically about their economy makes it more socialist than, say, any other economy in the world?

Can you explain this? What do you think socialism is, and how is China "breaking virtually every rule?"

Socialism is a mode of production where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the working classes in charge of the state. China fulfills both of these requirements.

Okay, I think socialism is a little bit more than when the government does stuff, but maybe I was taught differently. I guess by that definition even India is socialist and publicly owned.

Socialism is not when the government does stuff, but socialism allows the working classes to direct production and distribution to do good stuff for the working classes more effectively.

And how do you avoid the inherent corruption issues the one-party system presents? Since anyone who is already higher up in that ladder holds power over those underneath them, and power leads to corruption.

Power does not lead to corruption, it isn't a supernatural force turning people evil. Corruption comes from people desiring to improve their own conditions and taking advantage of their position to do so, which is contested by transparency and kicking bad actors out of the party. There is nothing about being a one-party system that makes it more corrupt.

Every western democracy on earth fits these criteria - elections for local representatives, who themselves go on to vote on the leadership (parliamentary or electoral college, take your pick). And we all have mass polling and opinion gathering.

And yet private ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, meaning the capitalist class has a hold of the state and thus manipulates it as it sees fit.

Those approval rates exist only at the federal level, not the provincial or municipal.

Nope, the approval rates at local and provincial levels are also 85%+.

Not coincidentally, it’s illegal to publicly criticize the federal government in China, or accuse it of failing to adhere to socialist ideals.

Not true either. What's punished is when groups try to undermine the socialist system for liberal ends, meaning capitalists are often punished.

Again, power leads to corruption.

Again, it does not. This is idealism, using the supernatural to explain real, material phenomena.

Is your point that having democratic elections and governments that do good things for the people makes a country socialist?

No, a country is socialist if public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes are in charge of the state. Democratic elections controlled by the working classes, and a government that uplifts the people over profits, are both outcomes of socialism, not the definition.

Because by all the criteria you’ve named, I can name a lot of countries that are even more socialist than China. Canada is more socialist than China and we don’t even call ourselves socialist.

Private ownership is the principle aspect of the economy in Canada, and capitalists control the state. Canada is not "more socialist," it's a capitalist settler-colony.

So what’s the difference? It sounds like just any other western capitalist country except you just call it socialist and publicly owned?

The difference is that socialist countries have public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy, and the working classes control the state.