The discrepancy between the stance of Marxists and yourself is in your analysis of “Capitalism” as the private sector and “Socialism” as the public sector. This form of compartmentalization does indeed imply that everything is a balance, but that isn’t the analysis of Marxists. When I describe public ownership above as the principle aspect of the PRC’s economy, I mean that the large firms and key industries are firmly and overwhelmingly in the public sector. The reason this is relevant is because this means the public has dominion over the entire economy, not private Capital. It isn’t a blend of Socialism and Capitalism, or a halfway point, it’s a Socialist economy.

When you outline your ideal society, having antitrust laws, strong regulations, etc, you leave out analysis of political power. Which class has control of the state? Which class controls media, and the large firms and key industries? Without such analysis, these antitrust laws and corporate lobbying laws will only be passed in a manner that serves Private Capital, including the public sector.

So, circling back around, there isn’t an in-between of Capitalism or Socialism/Communism. A country is either on the Capitalist road, or the Socialist road, ie it is either under the dominion of private Capital, or public ownership. The ratio of socialization of the economy will vary depending on economic development, but the direction it is moving and the power dynamics of the classes within society are relatively binary.

That’s why I say you haven’t actually engaged with Communists and their ideas, legitimately, and likely would agree with us.