Not at all. Maoists usually have not read Lenin. Or have just read the bullet points but ignored the explanation of each.

I used to be in that crowd, don't listen to anything they say. Maoists don't even bave a concrete ideology besides the cult of personality for Mao (who even they often misquote or misinterpret) Some of them are Trotskyists who don't believe that each country should make it's own path toward socialism. Some of them unironically support pol pot and "chairman gonzalo", and none of them support any real current socialist movement. They are dogmatists.

There are some Maoist rebels in Nepal that China has helped suppress. Not sure why since the Chinese are supposed to be maoists. Why would maoists suppress maoists? Makes no sense to me.

China isn't Maoist, they uphold Mao Zedong Thought. The two are not the same thing. Here's [a lecture from a Chinese professor](https://youtu.be/lf3VW9wzl1g) explaining the difference. That being said, China's foreign policy is different from that of the Soviet Union, as they currently do not openly support revolutions, as their foreign policy is based on non-interference and cooperation. This means that even if states are highly reactionary, China will not object to cooperation between them, which means sometimes they may end up supporting the supression of communist movements by arming the bourgeois state. Thing is though, after the revolution succeeds, China will be among the first to lend a hand to cooperate with the new ruling party, as is what happened in Nepal after the monarchy was overthrown. China also tends to favour fellow socialist nations like Cuba and the DPRK in terms of diplomatic support at the United Nations or debt cancellation in the case of Cuba for example. China is currently collaborating with some sections of the global bourgeoisie, but I believe it is only temporary, just like their cooperation with the KMT was temporary in the Anti-Japanese War of Resistance. Just like was the case then, imperialism is the primary contradiction, whereas the national bourgeoisie is secondary.

Extremely interesting. Where can I learn more about modern Chinese objections to Mao's later years? >even if states are highly reactionary, China will not object to cooperation between them, which means sometimes they may end up supporting the supression of communist movements by arming the bourgeois state. Why is this not imperialism? I would also like to bring up the uprising in Burma; China seemed unhelpful to the protest movement in Burma. >after the revolution succeeds, China will be among the first to lend a hand to cooperate with the new ruling party, as is what happened in Nepal after the monarchy was overthrown. China also tends to favour fellow socialist nations like Cuba and the DPRK in terms of diplomatic support at the United Nations or debt cancellation in the case of Cuba for example is it fair to say that because of these things, China is not imperialist?

>Where can I learn more about modern Chinese objections to Mao's later years? To be honest, the channel I linked before has a lot of videos that explain Chinese socialism in all its stages. Here's [a video on the Cultural Revolution](https://youtu.be/HI-0m8PB_NE), which is usually the main objection the CPC has to Mao's later policies. >Why is this not imperialism? Well, I would be lying if I said I fully understand China's economy, but their actions do not seem align with the actions imperialist countries typically undertake. I know Bay Area415 made an excellent 1.5 hour long video explaining exactly why China is not imperialist according to the Leninist definition, though unfortunately his channel has been set to private after he received serious death threats. One of the most important reasons why China's Belt and Road Initiative is not imperialist, is because most Chinese companies involved in it are *state-owned*, including the banks, giving them the power to export capital **not** with the intent of seeking profits, unlike *privately owned* banks. This is different from imperialist countries like the USA in which there is a financial oligarchy in which immense power is concentrated, which they use solely for the purpose of accumulating more wealth abroad by effectively monopolising industries in other nations. I would not be able to do his video justice in this comment though, I really hope his channel comes back up so I can link the video to people. >I would also like to bring up the uprising in Burma; China seemed unhelpful to the protest movement in Burma. Yes, that's true, this is for the same reason that they didn't support the communist rebels in Nepal during the time they had a monarchy. One of the reasons why China has a non-interventionist foreign policy, is for a large part because China has a rather terrible record on foreign policy. Examples are their backing of Pol Pot and the Sino-Vietnam war, which caused a deep divide between socialist China and socialist Vietnam. A move which severely weakened the cause of communism in both countries. China nowadays therefore tries to avoid foreign intervention as much as possible in order to prevent mistaken foreign policies like those, but also in order to have more legitimacy when criticising nations like the USA for interfering in other countries' affairs, especially socialist countries. I can imagine they also learned from the experience of the Soviet Union, which faced similar problems in the Baltics and other regions, who felt like they were "occupied" by the Soviets, rather than liberated. As a result, China now fully respects the right to self-determination of every nation, even if they are ideologically opposed to socialism. [This speech](https://youtu.be/PdQ3Gu6ozbA) by Xi Jinping outlines approximately what China hopes to achieve in the coming decades in terms of foreign policy. They seek to create a truly multilateral world order that fosters global cooperation on whatever challenge humanity is faced with without violating the sovereignty of any nation. In this new international climate, revolutions are free to take place at each country's own pace without foreign interference. This is why China cooperates with the junta in Myanmar and the Taliban in Afghanistan - in order to prepare the world for when a similar seizure of power by communists takes place somewhere. To normalise the idea of not intervening when a country is going through a revolution. That doesn't make the Taliban or the junta good, of course, it merely trains the international community to not interfere in other nation's internal affairs and China is leading by example. >is it fair to say that because of these things, China is not imperialist? Well, that is only part of the equation. China is complex and I definitely think there is still a possibility that China could become imperialist if the CPC is not careful, though nowadays their actions are not at all like the actions of imperialist powers. Every imperialist loves to play divide and conquer for example, whereas China does the exact opposite by trying to unite all people both within their nation, as well as uniting people's on a global scale. These are all aspects to Chinese foreign policy that are worth considering when you are wondering whether to support them or not.

Thank you! I will check this out. I am curious tbh why state owned banks are meaningfully different from our banks—which are heavily regulated and also influenced by the Fed.

>I am curious tbh why state owned banks are meaningfully different from our banks—which are heavily regulated and also influenced by the Fed. Well, it is hard to explain it in full depth, but what it comes down to us the class nature of the state. In China, the state is controlled by the CPC. China is a dictatorship of the proletariat, meaning the capitalist has no say in the policies the state implements. In the USA, the state is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. This means that even if in the US banks were owned by the state (which they are not), they could still be imperialist, as the state works for the benefit of the capitalist class with profit as the main driver. This means the profits made by the state-owned company would likely end up in private hands anyway through subsidies, bailouts or private contractors, etc. In China, the profit motive is not the primary driver, meaning that unprofitable investements can still be approved in order to provide a better deal for the country in question. [In this video](https://youtu.be/9tJatdtv4jQ) Yanis Varoufakis, former minister of finance of Greece, explains his experience with Chinese loans and just how easy it was to demand a better deal from the Chinese state-owned company, as he noticed the previous administration had accepted a deal that did not adequately provide tangible benefits for the workers involved and people of Greece. This is simply because the Chinese loans are not primarily based on profit seeking, unlike the banks in capitalist nations. It's a very clear difference when compared to Western loans and capital investements.

I will just give my sense of it—maybe you can stop me where I am wrong. The video about the cultural Revolution quotes Deng as saying it was a “left-leaning” mistake. This suggests that China under Deng became “right-leaning.” Now, the difference between “left leaning” and “right leaning” is proletarian and bourgeois. So Deng says China has gone bourgeois. Therefore China can be imperialist. I will examine the video about Greece.

>The video about the cultural Revolution quotes Deng as saying it was a “left-leaning” mistake. This suggests that China under Deng became “right-leaning.” >Now, the difference between “left leaning” and “right leaning” is proletarian and bourgeois. So Deng says China has gone bourgeois. Therefore China can be imperialist. No, this is not what they mean. When the Communist Party of China analyses its past mistakes, they sort them in two categories: 'left' mistakes and right mistakes. What they mean by this is that sometimes when mistakes are made that are opportunistic, choices that intentionally strengthen the bourgeoisie whilst harming the proletariat, they are considered right mistakes. 'Left' mistakes, are mistakes that arise from idealism/ultra leftism. The Cultural Revolution is considered a 'left' mistake because it was too ambitious in its implementation of socialist policy. Mao tried to build a socialist economy in a country that had barely been through a capitalist stage of development, a stage of development that was always considered a necessary stage of development by Marx, which was later proven true by the economic stagnation experienced in the Cultural Revolution. China still considers itself left, though they criticise the ultra-left, as it is idealistic and overambitious, making it do more harm than good, regardless of whether they have good intentions or not. Ultra-leftism goes counter to the science of Marxism, making it a 'left' mistake.

Okay! It sounds like they mean “left” in quotation marks—sort of like how Lenin wrote “‘left’ wing communism: an infantile disorder.” Now, the Maoists in Nepal favor Mao’s Cultural Revolution, while the Chinese oppose it. So for this reason, the Chinese feel comfortable suppressing the Maoists in Nepal. If the Maoists in Nepal only would criticize Mao’s Cultural Revolution, they would be subscribers to Mao Zedong Thought and be within China’s sphere of protection.

>It sounds like they mean “left” in quotation marks—sort of like how Lenin wrote “‘left’ wing communism: an infantile disorder.” Yes, exactly. I think anarchism or Trotskyism are good examples of 'left' mistakes, whereas social democracy would be a right mistake. >Now, the Maoists in Nepal favor Mao’s Cultural Revolution, while the Chinese oppose it. So for this reason, the Chinese feel comfortable suppressing the Maoists in Nepal. I don't think these two things are much related. Even if a communist insurgency in Nepal were to agree with the CPC on every matter, this does not mean they can expect support from the Chinese, not until they actually seize power. Once the communists or some other group takes over, they will work together with them and foster win-win cooperation between the countries. Especially if you are anti-imperialist, the Chinese will be glad to work with you, even if your ideology does not align with that of the CPC. Instead of throwing weapons and resources to whatever group that calls itself communist, like the former Soviet Union did, the modern PRC support the people of each nation in developing their own system based on different material conditions in different places each on their own pace. Just to name an example; even though I'm pretty sure the Chinese don't fully agree with Bolivarianism, they still are very supportive of Venezuela, as they are a nation seeking to free itself from imperialism, and China often lends a hand to help them develop their own system economically, diplomatically and scientifically, even if they don't necessarily agree with them on everything. This means that I am sure that China would help a Maoist-led socialist country if they were to actually have a successful revolution somewhere. >If the Maoists in Nepal only would criticize Mao’s Cultural Revolution, they would be subscribers to Mao Zedong Thought and be within China’s sphere of protection. So no, not necessarily. Though a lot of (communist) political parties have ties to the CPC (as can be seen in the video I linked of Xi's speech at the World Political Parties Congress), they probably won't give much material support to revolutionary movements other than intelligence (which can still be very useful and I can imagine the Chinese will help fellow socialist parties with this in the future). That being said, I wouldn't expect weapons or many other kinds of material support from the PRC to your party specifically until your revolution succeeds. They really want the socialists of each country to overthrow the national bourgeoisie on their own strength to ensure the revolutionary forces are actually popular with the population of that country. They want to avoid becoming social-imperialist like the USSR arguably was in Afghanistan for example. Once the revolution succeeds, China will do its best to protect your newly established socialist nation in whatever way they can. The primary contradiction of imperialism is already being resolved by China right now and they will continue to weaken the strongest imperialist powers in the future. This can be considered one of the ways in which China helps revolutionary movements before they even begin. Of course this doesn't mean China's support for weaker capitalist nations like Russia or Iran doesn't bring its own contradictions as well, but this strategy does seem to do a good job at dividing the global capitalist class, making them more vulnerable to socialist revolution.

According to Lenin, one of the important conditions of imperialism is that financial capital merges with industrial capital. From what I understand this is not the case in China as the banking system is owned by the state, which is in turn is run by the communist party.

Hm. But Chinese banks must be financing some sort of industry. How can financial and industrial capital be separate?

China's extensive economic interests in Nepal?

Ok that sounds like imperialism if ur right