It's not that Norway and Sweden are "too integrated with capitalism" while being socialistic (or I would argue China is capitalist) but that these countries are explicitly not socialist at all. These are capitalist countries with social welfare programs and will therefore continue to suffer from the failures of the capitalist mode of production regardless of how many social welfare programs are introduced. Social welfare programs are not socialism. Capitalist and socialist countries both utilize social welfare programs. Capitalism and socialism are modes of organizing production and can be differentiated by exploring the following questions:

• Which class owns and controls the means of production and how the economy is organized? (Alternatively, who is the dictator? Until we are all in the same class, there will always be a dictatorship and oppressed people.) The workers and their parties = socialism, the financiers/owners and their parties = capitalism. There can be exceptions within a system, but one will be strongly favored.

• Is production aimed at profit or meeting human needs? Often has a messy answer, but profit will usually be favored under capitalism and usually at the expense of workers and their needs.

• Is the economy planned at a large scale or is it directed by the profit-seeking whims of the market? Socialist economies are centrally planned at a large scale and while corporations often use central planning, this is across companies, not entire industries. Capitalist economies are driven by the needs and desires of corporations rather than planned for the good of the country as a whole.

• Are key industries collectivized? In capitalism, they tend to be owned by individuals, in socialism, they tend to be nationalized or otherwise collectivized, though exceptions exist under both systems.

Norway, Sweden, and Russia all check the capitalist boxes. China checks the socialist boxes, but yes, oppression, inequality, and exploitation still exist as it is transitioning from capitalism to communism and the underlying class contradictions and subsequent conflict has not been resolved. They run a partially mixed economy because capitalist organization can be beneficial to building up industrial forces. You'll also notice that they nationalize large and key industries before they became monopolies to prevent capital from holding parts of the economy hostage (as is often done in actual capitalist countries) and are shifting away from capitalist organization as a whole. It was a tool to modernize and does not make them defacto capitalist because capitalists never held political power.

I would never hold either Russia nor China up as some shining example of perfect countries. Russia is not socialist in any way and no socialist argues that they are. They happen to be be in a position that is directly opposed to US/Western imperialism right now, but not by choice. They hold this spot because the West forced them into it.

This is what socialists are arguing Russia is doing, not that they are a shining example of a socialist society that should be emulated. Socialists do not like Putin, but they do seek to understand him. To argue that socialists hold Russia up as a model country is to argue against a straw man.

I do argue that China is a socialist country despite their mixed economic system. Political control of the country resides in the hands of the communist party and the key industrial sectors and land is owned by the state rather than existing as private property. Again, I do not argue they are perfect. My argument is that they are a socialist project working towards communism and that undertaking such a change is a long and messy path that takes more than the 80 or so years the communist party has been in power. I think they genuinely aspire to accomplish the goals they say they are pursuing, but the road to liberation is messy and they definitely have made mistakes. To expect perfection at each individual moment along the path of change is unreasonable. Likewise, it's not my country. I can learn from them and implement what I think works well in my own country. The Chinese people can direct their country as they see fit. Socialist projects are unique to their societies everywhere they spring up and no two will look the same.

I meant both this and the first comment to help explain these stances in good faith, but I get the feeling the first might not have been taken that way? I'll leave any discussion of the topic here because the China one is deeper than I want to get into in an online thread. If you truly want to understand why socialists take these stances, I recommend you research socialist theory directly including the topic of imperialism as defined by Lenin and have some deep conversations with people who hold these views.

I hope this better explains not just why we argue what we do but what it is we are actually arguing for.