Being the economic center of the world is not bad in itself, at least not in my opinion. China getting out of being a poor country is actually good, improving life conditions for 1.3 billion people as absolutely stellar.
But unfortunately we have seen China becoming more aggressive as they have become more powerful. It was not healthy that USA was unchecked for many years, and it will not be healthy if China becomes unchecked either. There needs to be balance.

Oh please, we've seen China exert all kinds of political pressure on neighboring countries, and even EU countries. To control aspects that are none of their business. Like what books about China should be allowed in European libraries.
If you think China is better than USA, you are deluding yourself.

yet they still prolong civil wars for selfish gain

Would be interested in what specific conflicts you're referring to. I am definitely critical of China for engaging in trade with essentially zero care for the conditions of the state they are trading with. Israel being the obvious criticism. Are those types of trade relations with countries what you're referring to? I agree if that's what you mean.

They still let their companies do whatever

This is in conflict to the normal complaints of China "disappearing" people. So, are you saying they don't do that? Because the famous cases of this are from businessmen that start speaking against the party, or doing actual social crimes.

I have criticism of China's free speech restrictions on individual citizens. But to say that China "let's companies do whatever they want" is in complete contradiction to the countless "violations of freedom" that the Western media speaks about. Because those are entirely made up of the capitalist of China stepping out of line with the party; or engaging in social murder like crimes.

They aren't better out of benevolence, but because they have a different imperial strategy.

I hear the language of the left here being used in a non material way. If you're someone that has the word "imperial strategy" in your vocabulary it shocks me to hear someone describe a system based on idealism as the core. "The purpose of a system is what it does." Its odd to conclude with a point of criticism that is rooted in idealism. It is rooted in the western idea that China is just "waiting for its moment of attack" with no material reason to conclude that.

If China wanted to start being aggressive and start it's Imperialist expansion there was no better time than the Iran invasion. You think America was ready to defend Taiwan when it was taking interceptors out of Korea to send them to Israel? Yet China decided to "wait" and instead reduce its purchases of oil to assist it's trade partners in East Asia.

At a certain point this "waiting for the right moment" Imperialist China narrative needs to die. They have proven their intentions are based entirely on offering a less parasitic form of trade than the US offers. One that is entirely without the use of military conflict.

I'm not sure how you can call that imperial strategy in a world where US Imperialism still exists. If the US was gone. Sure, it would be insane to engage in trade relations with states like Israel. But, you're criticism is in a vacuum and not in the context of the cold war being waged against China by the west.

Most people don't even realize Xi is more educated than all US presidents and most US elected representatives, and has written more than a half dozen books explaining every bit of the current party philosophy, including all of China's failures and his own contemporary failures and how the party has improved.

Sounds like Woodrow Wilson to me. Funny thing about him is that all his education and intellect did not make the liberal world order he envisioned any better, nor did it make the racism he promoted justified. It's not like the League of Nations did anything for world peace, and I doubt you want to defend the rigid nation-state framework and neoliberal fiscal policies of the UN.

On top of that, I can't take the "philosophy" of politicians seriously; it coming from a head of state makes it propaganda to justify their own authority. Philosophy works best as a conversation, an open dialectic where one side of it doesn't have the absolute authority of a superpower backing them up. It just comes across more like cult shit from a technocratic state capitalist.