This is an old, stale debate. The common usage of the word "communist" is defined not by vague Marxist theorising or tiny enclaves nobody has ever heard of, but rather the typical end state of actual communist revolutions. That's how the word is used in practice.
This has the unfortunate property that at least for China the end-state is constantly evolving, but only in relatively unimportant ways. China has a freer market than the USSR did, but even the USSR had to abandon completely planned economics almost immediately after Lenin took power. After that it was mixed, just like China's. And in all other ways they are the same: no democracy, rampant censorship and propaganda by state-allied corporate entities, no real private property rights (if you can lose your IPO by giving a single speech criticising the government, it's fair to say whatever private property rights you thought you had don't really exist).
This has the unfortunate property that at least for China the end-state is constantly evolving, but only in relatively unimportant ways. China has a freer market than the USSR did, but even the USSR had to abandon completely planned economics almost immediately after Lenin took power. After that it was mixed, just like China's. And in all other ways they are the same: no democracy, rampant censorship and propaganda by state-allied corporate entities, no real private property rights (if you can lose your IPO by giving a single speech criticising the government, it's fair to say whatever private property rights you thought you had don't really exist).