By successful I mean in maintaining relative party unity, work with the masses, and thus the masses trust in the party, and political and economic stability.
With the exception of the latter years of the Cultural Revolution, the CPC has been remarkably stable, ideologically consistent, and have maintained power and dominance over the Chinese state and economy. All of this is even more impressive given the fall of communist states in Europe and the rise of western/American unipolarity.
While similar tendencies have been found in the CPSU, the rise of figures like Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and especially Gorbachev, and of course their supporters within the party, makes the CPSU appear less stable and ideologically consistent compared to the CPC. Added onto this the fact that the CPC has a much larger and diverse membership, including the national bourgeoisie.
Rather than viewing this question through great man theory, I want to know how the structural formation and process of the CPC itself maintains stability, and how it’s party structure is different from the CPSU. While both parties are founded on democratic centralism, how does this manifest differently between the two? In an interview with Marxist Paul, Hakim said the ban on factions within the CPSU, while imperative during the civil war and early years of the revolution, ultimately hurt the party. He then praised the informal factionalism of the CPC: Dengists, Maoists, liberals, etc. From the outset it would appear that such a situation of factionalism should rip the party apart, but it doesn’t. Why,?
Looking at the relatively young history of communist movements and parties show that many, for material reasons, were/are unable to be stable and ideologically consistent. Again, outside factors and capitalist sabotage are of course a major contributing factor, but could there be structural elements within various parties which explain, to a certain extent, their successes or failures?
Seeing the immense progress the CPC has brought their own people and, increasingly, the people of the rest of the colonized world, means we must understand how they operate. Every party and movement will be different and adjusted to their particular circumstances and material conditions, and thus copy and pasting the CPC anywhere else will not yield positive results. However, could/should the structural basis of the CPC be applied and modified to other countries and contexts?
I get the impression that the mindsets in both US and USSR were shaped by WW2. Both saw military power as the ultimate form of strength, and focused primarily on the competition in the military tech sector. However, China was not a superpower after the war and was in no position to compete militarily wither either superpower. The party realized that they needed to catch up technologically, and so we saw the whole opening up approach that allowed for rapid technology transfer from the west while also integrating China deep into the world economy. This allowed China to create soft power globally that didn’t rely directly on its military strength.
Chinese approach has a lot of benefit over the one USSR pursued. It allowed China to maintain a relatively modest military until recently, and to focus their productive forces on rapid infrastructure development, and this is now being exported globally. Instead of having to preach the virtues of socialist ideology, China demonstrates them.
US is also finding it very difficult now to decouple from China or to have a war with China because that would have a huge detrimental impact on US economy. On the other hand, China is now able to start doing some decoupling of their own with dual circulation, BRI, and BRICS.
In fact, the decline of US on the global stage continues to drive countries towards China out of necessity. Everybody can see that US system is headed for another crash akin to 2008 crisis, and countries obviously want to insulate themselves from it. The best way to do that is to be as independent of western economic system as possible.
I think it’s going to e very interesting to see what happens when the crash finally does come. It’s possible that it could be the final nail in the coffin of the capitalist model that US champions. If western economy crashes while BRICS doesn’t that’s going to utterly discredit the west.
I’d also recommend this book, it’s a pretty deep dive into socialism in China https://redletterspp.com/products/the-east-is-still-red
Have a feeling that this setting up of multiple, overlapping, support networks for Chinese trade and influence is going to go down in history as a masterstroke.
The US also has different networks that support it’s hegemony but they’re interconnected in a different way and ultimately rely on everyone else going what the US says because otherwise the US will otherwise destroy them. That’s no basis for mutual development.
China’s approach could surprise us and fall apart but the recognition of contradiction/antagonism built into the Chinese model hints at it’s longevity.
absolutely
People in the imperial core would never be told of this. The next crash, regardless of where its effects fall, will be described as a worldwide phenomenon. If you point out other countries are doing fine libs will call you a shill and reactionaries will make some racist joke about the rest of the world living in huts/the U.S. is better even while its economy crumbles.
It’s gonna be pretty hard to hide in the long run. I’m sure there will be a wave of propaganda coming, but people are already losing faith in the system in the west as is.