I think that what people are arguing is that China doesn't practice a political ideology which is pure enough to be communism properly so called.

If somebody names their political ideology as 'communism', it seems churlish to start picking holes in that. "Oh, it's not what I'd call communism. For one thing, you're not even Russians."

It's nothing to do with arbitrary personal definitions based on Stalinism, Maoism or Trotskyism, but with proper labelling. Taking ideological purity as the baseline, a communist society properly so-called has certain features:

-a lack of state machinery, meaning no state interference or control;
-no class system;
-communal ownership of goods and the means of their production;
-communal ownership of property;
-equal weight given to each individual in the decision-making process;
-equality of opportunity
-rules which enforce the maxim that each gives according to their ability and takes according to their need.

Doesn't look much like China, does it? It's not surprising; there isn't much explanation given by Marx as to how all this is supposed to work economically and how you're meant to ensure a flat society.

It's a bit like grammar pedantry, I'll give you that, but I believe it's what the people who are saying China =/= communist are saying. (Note this is not my argument, just trying to shed some light on it. I'm going to stop typing now.)

@Killik, the North Koreans call themselves a Democratic Republic but that doesn't make it so.