You're conflating "market systems" with "capitalism". All capitalist systems are market systems, but not all market systems are capitalist.
One of the most significant economic revolutions in all human history happened over the last few decades, under a socialist market economy rather than a capitalist market economy. Similarly, the actual industrial revolution started under mercantilist economy, before capitalist market economies in anything like their modern forms existed.
If you are talking about China, they have financial markets with private share ownership, a large percentage of their economy is private businesses, and their state owned companies are run for profit, with said profit retained by both private and state own companies within themselves rather than being distributed among the population in a social dividend or similar scheme, which is what people usually think of when they think of a socialist market economy.
Additionally, China doesn't have a policy of production for use instead of for profit, there is not widespread self-management or workplace democracy among companies.
Thus I argue they are state capitalism, since they do not actually have socialist policies and instead clearly are some form of capitalism with heavy government intervention.
> a large percentage of their economy is private businesses
Are these businesses actually private? Does the fact they all started teaching Xi Jinping Thought (TM) to their executives at the exact same time indicate who ultimately controls them?
> and their state owned companies are run for profit with said profit retained by both private and state own companies within themselves
If the central government can mandate those companies to invest that profit in <currently important sector>, can you really say it's theirs to keep?
> rather than being distributed among the population in a social dividend or similar scheme, which is what people usually think of when they think of a socialist market economy.
Which people? This redistribution has never happened in any socialist system that calls itself as such, only in systems like the West which one might call a "primarily private market economy with a large socialist appendage" (socialist as in social/public ownership).
> there is not widespread self-management or workplace democracy among companies.
There has not been widespread self-management in any socialist system and certainly no workplace democracy in any real sense.
> Thus I argue they are state capitalism, since they do not actually have socialist policies and instead clearly are some form of capitalism with heavy government intervention.
Why would you say their policies are not socialist? The lack of a social safety net and absence of human rights is exactly like other socialist governments. If you want to say such policies are not actually socialist, that's your prerogative. I cannot think of any Socialist government that actually existed which did things radically differently.
> One of the most significant economic revolutions in all human history happened over the last few decades, under a socialist market economy rather than a capitalist market economy
Where? China is a capitalist market economy, with a bit more state regulations than we have in the west, but they still have investors, billionaires, profits, buyouts, mergers, wage slaves etc. Before their economy went capitalist they remained one of the poorest countries on earth, then when they adopted capitalism that revolution happened.
State regulations are necessary for capitalism to get good results, but its still capitalism.
One of the most significant economic revolutions in all human history happened over the last few decades, under a socialist market economy rather than a capitalist market economy. Similarly, the actual industrial revolution started under mercantilist economy, before capitalist market economies in anything like their modern forms existed.