That's all true, but doesn't seem particularly "communist" in a relevant way--- that was also true of Greece under the junta, or Spain under Franco. Wouldn't it be more accurate to just call China an authoritarian or one-party state?
Heck, even "socialism with Chinese characteristics" is a bit of an anachronism these days, and the people who take the old conception of it seriously are seen as left-wingers within the government; it's closer to "one-party capitalism with Chinese characteristics"...
doesn't seem particularly "communist" in a relevant way
Perhaps in some academic sense. On the other hand, can you name a single national experiment with communism that didn't become authoritarian? There are certainly plenty of ugly examples.
Oh, that wasn't the angle I was going for; I'm not arguing that "real communism will work" or something. Just that it doesn't seem meaningfully different from "non-communist" authoritarian states, so the label "communist" appears to be a historical anachronism that doesn't add any real information in 2011, versus just calling it a "one-party" or "authoritarian" state. In the 1960s, at least, it added the additional bit of information that the government was attempting to suppress market economics, but that part isn't true anymore.
Heck, even "socialism with Chinese characteristics" is a bit of an anachronism these days, and the people who take the old conception of it seriously are seen as left-wingers within the government; it's closer to "one-party capitalism with Chinese characteristics"...