Dude, it's very simple, it's called POLITICS. Are you this naive to think or even believe that by 1949 the U.S. wouldn't have been able to essentially stopped ROC from gaining the permanent UN seat if it wanted to since the formulation of the UN and it's Founding charter were created by the FDR and his wife, Eleanor Roosevelt. By the end of WWII the U.S. was the undisputed KING in military and economic power, half of the world's GDP was produced by the U.S. which is also why the UN is situated in NYC, USA.ROC still existed in 1949, so that is why UN didn't change it's recognition. The civil war was not conclusively over despite Mao declaring PRC, since ROC is still alive, albeit a significantly reduced rump state in Taiwan island. UN is not obligated to recognize PRC because ROC still existed in 1949, not because some UN is beholden to US dictatorship.
If that's the case, then why did US still voted in UNGA resolution against PRC replacing ROC after it allegedly "stopped blocking it"?
If US stopped blocking it, then why did US vote against PRC to replace ROC at UNGA, and why did USSR voted in favor of PRC membership (allegedly a US plot to counter USSR)?
Gotta have some consistency bro. Either US is against it completely or it's against it but UNGA still overruled US objections anyways. The fact that Soviet Union supported PRC in UNGA vote (while US voted no) is the complete opposite of your argument that US "allowed it" to "counter USSR".
And yet UNGA's 2/3 majority overrode US objections to PRC membership in UN (and US also voted No during UNGA vote). If there was no mechanism for UNGA to override, then UN would repeat the flawed nature of League of Nations. Good thing it's UN Charter creator foresaw superpower abuse of power, and allows UNGA to override superpowers unjust exclusion of PRC.
I'm saying technically there is no reason why a draft resolution could not be introduced to invalidate Russia's claim to legal successor state to Soviet Union, as a response to it's power abuses. Perhaps retain permanent membership but strip it of veto rights. Whether it will pass is anyone's guess, but saying "it won't happen cuz it's powerful". People said the same thing about PRC replacing ROC because US is too powerful and objected. Well, thank goodness for power of UNGA majority.
When the U.S. established the relationship with the PRC in 1972 the American domestic politics didn't stop hating on Red China. And the eventual ejection of the ROC from the UN was calibrated with U.S. domestic politics in mind, as an American citizen you ought to have been more cognizant of this fact. Politics exist in everything America does. So what happened at the U.N. general Assembly can be described as a dog and pony show. So the idea that the ascension of the PRC into the UN was mainly due to the inner workings of rules and bylaws of the UN is hilarious and naive.