KKSankara

Hello, I'd like to first say as someone who is not Chinese and well-versed in the theory surrounding one country two systems, I'm asking this more for educational reasons.

From my ignorant perspective I understand the important practical usage of the policy regarding the handing over of Hong Kong and Macau, and hopefully soon Taiwan, into the control of the PRC. If, like many Ultras and Maoists wanted, the PRC had immediately brought the former colonies, with highly entrenched and developed capitalist systems, under the direct control and supervision of the CPC, than most likely the UK and Portugal wouldn't had even agreed to let them go, or if they did would immediately instigate color revolutions and mass violence. It was necessary, if undesirable, to maintain stability and social cohesion between the economies, west, and peoples of the former colonies by allowing a degree of independence and separation between them and the PRC. This is why the same policy is directed at the eventual reunification of Taiwan.

(As well its so hypocritical that the west demonizes China over its handling of Hong Kong given that China has been extremely lenient and hands-off compared to most governments, especially western ones, faced with the same situation of gaining control over new territory with a completely different, and opposed, economic model. We only have to look at the disastrous and quick implementation of decommunization to see such hypocrisy).

But will the policy end? And if so what are the preconditions which must be met in order to change the policy? Essentially, when will the PRC abolish the privileges Hong Kong and Macau posses and directly incorporate them within the economic and political system of the PRC? When will the CPC gain complete control over them? For many like myself I actively look forward to this day, to see the full freedoms the PRC grants given to the people of the former colonies. But what must be done in order for this process to begin? Is it a gradual process which has been actively taking place since reunification, or will it take place more rapidly in the future?

Again, I think China has bigger problems to worry about then this, and I believe the policy is itself correct and necessary. So I'm not proposing Xi must press the socialism button on Hong Kong now or else he's not a real comrade. Rather, I'm curious as to how this entire situation is to be resolved, or how the CPC currently sees this happening.

Currently the CPC is anticipating to move into a higher stage of socialism, or becoming a fully socialist country, by 2050. This will obviously change much of China, but how will it effect their foreign policy? China has famously had many bad takes in terms of foreign policy, but their post-Mao non-interventionism is important practically in retaining peaceful and favorable relations with global capital. They know that, even now, funding revolutionaries will only isolate them internationally.

But once China's productive forces are high enough to allow the socialist transition then they no longer have to remain non-interventionalist for practical reasons. They could still try and justify it, but at that stage it would be hard for China to reject the internationalist principles of Marxism. The USSR could afford, to an extent, to wield hard power in support of revolutions and their governments, and of course without the USSR it could be argued that most socialist states would have collapsed soon after gaining state power. The soviets could do this due to their high level of industrialization, military, and global economic power.

When China is able to realize the same stage of socialism as the USSR they will undoubtedly be the largest and strongest economy in the world. While the west will still have some influence and power with which to threaten and hurt China over supporting international socialism, they ultimately won't be in the position of power to isolate China then as they did with the USSR. So there could be even less consequences for Chinese interventionism at this stage. Do you believe, then, that China would adopt foreign policy similar to the Soviet Union? And could even create an international version of the Warsaw Pact, that is an economic and military alliance between socialist states?

From my ignorant non-Chinese POV, there appear to be neither a practical or ideological reason for a fully socialist China not to be internationalist.

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 know the two groups view post-Mao China in very different ways. MLM denounce everything, claiming that the entire party has succumbed to capitalist revision, that they were all pretend communists who truly believed in nothing.

Or the views of MLs who say that the CPC was right to open up like the NEP, to improve material conditions in order to develop to a higher stage of socialism. But how does this contradict anything from Mao?

How does this contradict New Democracy? Coalitions formed through the class system under the leadership of the CPC. That sounds like Deng propaganda!

Deng allowed for the creation of a new bourgeoisie that it nonetheless kept under the rule of the Party. Xi currently shows this best of all with the anti-corruption campaigns. If these billionaires lived in any other country they'd be the ruling class, but in China they're not. It still is a DotP.

How is the improvement of material conditions not a vitally Maoist position?

Regardless of your opinions on the Cultural Revolution, for most of Mao's life his theory was incredibly pragmatic. What mattered most was actually creating a proletarian state, and so most of his ideas comes from that war perspective.

And even the name Dengism, it's not a real -ism. Deng is right, he was a a committed Marxist, but his thought is really just a continuation of Mao and Lenin. As such modern China is not Dengist but are still committed to ML.

But again why is there this ideological split? It seems the only aspect of MLM that ML reject is a denunciation of the CPC. Because I don't think there's anything from Mao that contradicts or majorly reverses previously held ideas. (thus as ML inverting the idea of revolution in the imperial core to outside it in the periphery). In the same way I don't see much of the reform phase that is antithetical to anything from Mao.

I don't know if I'm being overly paranoid or what, but I can't tell if it's safe for me openly publish some spicy stuff under my legal name. Not to sound like I think I'm the most popular girl at school, but don't most prominent leaders go by pseudonyms the rest of their lives? Not saying I'm Lenin but...

EDIT: Alright comrades you've won me over. New name, new me.