Marxism != Maoism. There's "Marxism" in the popular meaning of "the family of political ideologies/regimes kicked off by the Russian Revolution" (so like Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.) and then theres "Marxism" in the sense of "historical materialism", a framework for investigating history and culture through the lens of a society's political economy and methods of production (the way that people make and use tools, food, commodities, etc). These two are very different, and one can (and many do) subscribe to the second meaning without subscribing to the first. You could be an arch-monarchist right-wing nutjob and still find Marxist analysis useful to understand history or economy.

That China liberalized and then gained dominance in several global industries was not "Marxist" in the first sense, indeed it was much the opposite as you note. However as OP was saying it can be analyzed, and I think somewhat effectively explained, through Marxist-style historiography, which prioritizes (A) the inter-class dynamics of different socioeconomic groups and (B) the relationships these groups have to the methods of production. OP is asserting that China used its Marxist historical framework (thinking about who owns factories, and what they get out of that ownership) to recognize weaknesses in the US political economy, which it then acted on to its own benefit. Not that this strategy was per-se "Marxist" in the sense of "communist"