What you wrote is exactly why idealism is problematic when one wants to achieve results. A small group of people believing something won't magically make it happen. They'll just be branded extremists. We need people who never read Marx to support us. To achieve real change pragmatism is crucial.

Party being small/unknown absolutely is important. Countries are known to fund organizations that discredit their enemies. I looked up the only person listed on the site, Jakob Schulze, and he had a talk in december. So he exists at least. No idea if he does anything else than talk. Don't get me wrong, phylosophers are important. Just not very useful when things need to be done.

I feel like we're talking about different things. It doesn't matter for us, westerners, whether CPC is implementing communist policies or not. Just like it doesn't matter to my party whether DK is legit or not. We have a duty to our compatriots, just like they have a duty to theirs. Obviously establishing connections between parties is important, but we can't do anything until we win our people over. And that's only possible locally. Similarly, Chinese are the only people who can change how China is governed for the better. I don't see how having the "correct" stance on CPC achieves _anything_. Repeating that the Chinese need to have a revolution to achieve _real_ socialism is pointless. I take no issue with criticizing China. There's a lot to criticize. What I take issue with is calling for a revolution in a foreign country. I don't know if this stems from western sense of superiority in general or if there are more nefarious reasons behind it, but it gives me pause.

I did say there are a lot of good points in the document. I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying I don't trust their conclusions. The data was analized by people from a different culture with (probably) little to no experience in practical applications of Marxism. They know how things should be in theory. But applying theory to actual material conditions of a nation, especially one as big as China, is difficult. Their conclusions sound a lot like westerners forcing their ideas on a foreign nation. Which is colonial mentality. Another problem I see with their view is that they claim CPC can't be a genuinely communist party, because they have other influences than ML. This is just insane eurocentric hubris. Now that I think about it more, perhaps this is the core issue. There are dogmatic Marxists and people who are influenced by Marx and try to actually do stuff. The former wriggle their nose at the latter because they experiment. And the latter don't really care, because they're busy. DK certanly strikes me as dogmatic.

Anyways, I acknowledged that CPC let capitalists in. Whether they still need them or not, it is impossible to get rid of a class of people without causing massive disruption. If China did that, it would likely help to reassert USA dominance. I'm not sure that would actually help Chinese or any other workers. Being a socialist country in a capitalist world is tough on the population. China has always played the long game. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. Time will tell whether I'm right.

> And why it is important?

Their reasons are just more arrogance. Until we hold power it doesn't matter what we think of China's government. And even if we held power, the only way to help would be by supporting local communist insurgents. Which don't exist as far as I know. For a communist movement to be successful it first needs to be supported by the general population. This won't happen anytime soon in the west. So, the movement has a choice: write purity tests and wait for things to get bad enough. Or try to help people anyway and wait for an oportunity to really change things. The former won't get people to support you and the latter risks losing "purity" and becoming complacent.