How the Communist Party of China Became the Most Successful Political Party in the World

The Communist Party of China (CPC) is described as the most successful political party in the world, with over 100 million members. It aims to lead the strongest state by 2049, regardless of whether its ideology aligns with traditional Marxism. The article suggests that if the CPC achieves its goals, it may redefine global political and historical narratives. This success is contrasted with the struggles of capitalism, which faces crises like extreme inequality, climate change, and political instability. The CPC's rise is framed as a response to these failures, echoing how communism gained popularity in the 1930s as an alternative to fascism and collapsing economic systems.

The article highlights multiple crises afflicting capitalism and liberal democracy, including severe social stress from climate change, extreme inequality, unsustainable debt levels, and the resurgence of nuclear war threats. These issues are presented as reasons why some people, particularly in left-wing movements, view China's political system as a viable alternative. The text notes that while modern protests in the West advocate for human rights, climate justice, or higher wages, a minority of activists openly admire China’s system, despite its authoritarian nature. The comparison underscores the perceived failures of Western models to address global challenges.

The idea of communism predates Karl Marx and can be traced to ancient religious thinkers like Gautama (Buddha), Pythagoras, and Jesus, who advocated for shared property or renunciation of wealth. Early Jewish and Christian sects, such as the Essenes, practiced communal living within slave-based economies. From the 16th century onward, philosophers and reformers explored utopian classless societies, often drawing on creation myths that portrayed early human societies as egalitarian. However, modern anthropology shows that while some hunter-gatherer societies forbid private property, they also use coercion to enforce norms, challenging the Marxist belief that eliminating inequality automatically removes coercion.

Karl Marx believed that history is shaped by human activity rather than abstract forces, but he underestimated how easily history could be manipulated by extraordinary individuals. He famously declared the problem of communism 'solved' upon seeing an electric railway engine in 1840s London, suggesting that technological progress could enable a classless society. The article questions whether modern technology, like smartphones, could achieve similar goals today. However, it argues that the political power of billionaires and the fragmentation of organized labor present significant obstacles to realizing such a society.

By the 1920s, communism had become a global movement with interconnected networks, particularly through the Comintern (Communist International), an organization founded in 1919 to promote communist revolution worldwide. Events in one country could quickly influence others, creating a real-time 'nervous system' across borders. The article notes that while Soviet-era archives were opened in the 1990s, revealing confessions and atrocities under Stalin, China’s historical records remain largely inaccessible. Official Chinese documents exist but are often seen as propagandistic rather than transparent, making it difficult to study the Mao era with the same clarity as the Soviet experience.

The article warns that the struggle to uncover the truth about communism’s history is ongoing and may intensify. It references philosopher Walter Benjamin’s idea that historians must 'take control of a memory' in moments of danger, as the past is constantly reinterpreted by those in power. The text highlights recent efforts by authoritarian regimes, such as Russia and China, to distort historical narratives. For example, Russia has removed plaques commemorating victims of the Great Purge and closed Gulag museums, while China dismisses critical writing about Mao Zedong as 'historical nihilism.' The article suggests that if authoritarian states dominate global discourse, they may reshape historical records to serve their narratives.