It’s mostly semantics.
Karl Marx defined communism but with many concepts that were never realized.
Then there’s the communism of the USSR with its different phases.
The communism defended by parties in Western Europe that distanced themselves from the communism established in the USSR.
And what is happening in other communist countries in Asia like Vietnam, which has a different system.
But this is what China has as attributes of a communist society:
It is not possible to own land in China, all the land is state-owned and it is only available for limited time leases. Any business creation in strategic sectors and which would become powerful enough must quickly come to an arrangement with the state so that the management and interests of the state are not threatened. Most large companies are state-owned. The main bodies of transport, energy, health, education, banking and telecommunications are national or regional public enterprises. There is no class in China, no nobility. The state seeks to organize the territory to provide public services to everyone. Spiritualities that are not based on humanism and collectivism are strongly discouraged. The dictatorship of the proletariat is praised in the national message and competing thoughts are censored .
However, the Chinese regime is sometimes very far from the socialist aspects of communism. There are few minimum services for the underprivileged classes. The monetary system is totally liberal and the Chinese RMB can be used as in a capitalist country. Moreover, there is the right to speculate with this currency. Even if Chinese culture is a more collectivist culture with a little less individuality than other models, modern China is very far from the working-class society it once was.
But who is legitimate to define communism, if the Chinese Communist Party (over 80 million members) describes a new defnition of its neo-communism, is it less legitimate than the Communist Parties of Europe?