It really seems to break some people's brains that China, a self-declared communist nation, is actually successful and the most probable contender to break American hegemony
Ironically this is very similar to what happened with Xi. Rumor had it that the party elders picked him over his rival (Bo) because he seemed to be a more moderate guy. Didn't expect the purges and power consolidation that quickly followed, ouch.
I would even go further and argue that a truly benevolent person will never opt to take power this immense for precisely this reason. Yes, you may be able to do a lot of good during your reign, but the amount of power you amassed during it will almost certainly fall to the wrong hands. Not being able to foresee this is enough to disqualify one from being such a benevolent ruler in my book.
In this regard, China seems to be closer to Marx' vision of a communist society.
I predict that China will not achieve the communism that Marx had in mind neither. Why? Because I don't believe in predictions about radical changes in highly complex systems. You can make changes, but then you need to watch and see what actually happens instead of sticking with what some guy came up with in his room 150 years ago. Past performance of communism (so-called, but the only one that has ever existed) and current indicators (the autocrats like their power) are stronger predictors than what Marx wrote.
In a possible future if(!) and when AI can do all the work, we might need something like communism, or better extreme social democracy (democracy with massive redistribution), because the alternative is a an economic inequality that makes the Industrial Revolution times in the UK look like 70s Sweden.
However, it is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. Post-scarcity and automation do not guarantee a transition to communism