Socialism is defined as an economic system in which the Proletariat owns the means of production and state apparatus, not to "improve living standards". By that definition, every economic system in history - Primitive Communism, Slavery, Feudalism, and Capitalism must have been "Socialism", as they were at one point in history progressive to society.
"In the Soviet Union, where public ownership was implemented, backward light industry hindered the improvement of living standards"
You sound exactly like Liberals and other Capitalists. The reason why living standards were somewhat hindered later on in the existance of the USSR was because they had to instead spend money and resouces on the military in order to defend aganist the Western nations (and later on, China, when it betrayed the USSR). It was not as if the people in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were poor, they all had free housing, healthcare, jobs, and education, whereas in the People's Republic of China, thing such as healthcare are often privately owned, unemployment levels are higher than that of the United States of America, and wealther families can get tutors and such.
"In this case, you call these systems public ownership but they are not supported by the people, so how do you think socialism should develop?"
False, publically-owned economies in Eastern Europe and Asia were supported by the people. Even today, most people in Eastern Europe enjoyed their economy more when it was publically-owned. Socialism will first appear from State-Capitalism. For example, with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, this phase was the New Economic Policy. However, unlike the People's Republic of China, the Soviet Union was able to leave this State-Capitalist phase, and create a Socialist and Planned Economy within 20 years. It was a similar case in Cuba, or Korea, or Albania, or really in any other Socialist state.
"The sale of products in poor areas by e-commerce platforms at negative profit margins is not the conscience of capitalists, but they have to follow the requirements of the Communist Party. Moreover, China's energy, medical care, water supply, education and other fields related to national economy and people's livelihood are all state-owned. How can it be called that it is mainly in the hands of the bourgeoisie?"
Of course, many other Capitalist nations have some requirements for the bourgeoisie, such as environmental regulations. That still does not mean that the bourgeoisie do not exploit people and rule the government. In China, the "Communist" party and bourgeois class have mixed; many Communist party members are Bourgeois as well, therefore, many of these state-owned economic fuctions maintain Capitalist relations.
In short, you sound exactly like a European Social Democrat who falsely calls themselves a "Socialist". China is as Socialist as Sweden is - that is to say - it is Capitalist.
Translation/翻译
社会主义被定义为无产阶级拥有生产资料和国家机器的经济制度，而不是为了“提高生活水平”。根据这个定义，历史上的每一个经济体系——原始共产主义、奴隶制、封建主义和资本主义都必须是“社会主义”，因为它们在历史上的某个时刻向社会发展。
“在实行公有制的苏联，落后的轻工业阻碍了生活水平的提高”
你听起来很像自由主义者和其他资本家。苏联存在后生活水平受到一定阻碍的原因是，他们不得不在军队上花钱和资源以保卫反对派的西方国家（后来，中国背叛了苏联） .不是说苏维埃社会主义共和国的人民很穷，他们都有免费的住房、医疗保健、工作和教育，而在中华人民共和国，医疗保健之类的东西往往是私有的，失业率是比美国高，有钱的家庭可以找家教之类的。
"在这种情况下，你将这些制度称为公有制但却得不到人民的支持，那么你认为的社会主义该如何发展？"
东欧和亚洲的虚假公有经济得到人民的支持。即使在今天，东欧的大多数人都更喜欢公有经济。社会主义将首先出现在国家资本主义中。例如，对于苏维埃社会主义共和国联盟，这一阶段是新经济政策。然而，与中华人民共和国不同的是，苏联能够在 20 年内摆脱这个国家资本主义阶段，并建立社会主义和计划经济。在古巴、韩国、阿尔巴尼亚，或者实际上在任何其他社会主义国家，情况都是类似的。
“电商平台以负利润在贫困地区销售产品，这不是资本家的良心，而是必须按照共产党的要求。而且中国的能源、医疗、供水、教育等涉及国计民生的领域都是国有的，怎么能说主要掌握在资产阶级手里呢?"
当然，许多其他资本主义国家对资产阶级也有一些要求，比如环境法规。这还不是说资产阶级不剥削人民，不统治政府。在中国，“共”党与资产阶级混杂；许多共产党员也是资产阶级，因此，这些国有经济职能中有许多保持资本主义关系。
简而言之，你听起来就像一个错误地称自己为“社会主义者”的欧洲社会民主党人。中国和瑞典一样是社会主义的——也就是说——它是资本主义的。