Like the title says, I'm new to Marxism and have only read a couple works relating to socialism. I don't think I know enough about Marxism to firmly define myself into any "type" (although council communism sounds pretty interesting.) Second Thought and Yugopnik are what got me into Marxism, but more recently I've been listening to Socialism For All's audiobooks and reaction videos while driving. In his reaction video to The Deprogram's China Episode, he makes some interesting points about how China could become "social imperialist" and succeed the US/NATO as the new imperialist global hegemon, among some other things. From an outsider's perspective, I don't consider the current China socialist because of the fact that private property and many other capitalist elements still exist within it, but I do appreciate how much it has been able to develop over the past few decades, like poverty reduction and massive infrastructure projects that wouldn't be possible with typical liberal democracies. People excuse the private property and "restricted" capitalism as necessary evils until China has the conditions to create socialism, but I have doubts about whether China's still even working towards socialism or whether the Chinese proletariat actually hold power over the bourgousie. China doesn't support communist movements internationally, and the liberalized economy has gone on far longer than the NEP in the soviet union despite both being created for the same reason, and I can't seem to find a good reason why it's lasted this long. (I also have concerns about privacy and the fact that access to the outside internet is restricted, although that's not really related to this topic.) I'd stumbled across this reddit thread a while ago, and while I know reddit isn't the best place for serious discussion, I think that the person in the video does make good points, as do the people in both the r/TankieTheDeprogram and r/ultraleft threads and I honestly don't know what to think or who to take seriously in that discussion. I would appreciate if anyone could give me a genuine response to these concerns, thanks.
Edit: Thank you all so much for the responses! I've learned quite a bit reading them, although I haven't had a chance to check out the links people have sent yet. I'll try to update this post with any new questions and respond to comments whenever I have time.
No problem for answering!
The difference in how we define socialism is because I am taking the Marxist understanding. State administration is not a class, the state is not outside class society but instead is within it and springs from it. The state is dominated by a definite class as it relates to production and distribution, proletarian administrators of socialism have the same class interests with respect to production and distribution as the rest of the proletariat, that being collectivization.
As for the presence of private property at all contradicting the existence of socialism, you are thinking in terms of "purity." This isn't how the real world works, though. What determines a mode of production is which class is in power, and what form of production is the principal, ie rising and dominant, aspect. No economy on Earth is "pure." If socialism is contradicted by a small number of capitalists, then capitalism is contradicted by public ownership, and this means capitalism has never existed either. It's a mental trap.
Returning to socialism, it is by definition a transition between capitalism and communism, and as a transitional period it has elements of each. This is also true of capitalism, which has elements of feudalism and elements of socialism. No mode of production is entirely disconnected from historical materialism, all are birthed from the old based on contradictions within the old creating the new and rising. Capitalism comes before socialism because the basis of socialism is in large industry and socialized production, 2 things capitalism inevitably creates.
I hope that helps!