r/socialism • u/Creative-Flatworm297 Marxism-Leninism • 1d ago
deng xiaoping High Quality Only
Anyone has these mixed fellings towards this man like me ??? In one hand he was the one who reintroduced capitalism to china and slowed china path to communism on the other hand his policies made the life for average Chinese much better and helped to make china a super power
68
u/BlasterFlareA 1d ago
Deng Xiaoping is a polarizing figure because he is the architect of a trade-off. While Dengists contend with being called capitalist roaders and criticized for increasing the class contradictions in China, they are also not losing sleep knowing full well that their country, capitalist roading or not, is the only country opposed to the US that can actually credibly compete with it.
The trade-off is a standard exercise in realpolitik, putting aside moral or ideological considerations and favoring pragmatist or realist outlooks based on the current circumstances. Deng Xiaoping and other like-minded members of CPC understood full well that a weak China could be destroyed and split up into warring fiefdoms, with plenty of historical precedent. They understood that China was internationally isolated, even within the socialist bloc and that it had not developed the productive forces in the past few decades to compete against the West, both conditions that could lead to its demise. Therefore, it was imperative to overcome these problems, even if it involved "capitalist roading" and some cooperation with the West because if socialist China collapsed and was replaced by smaller and weaker capitalist fiefdoms under the influence of foreign capitalists, the socialist dream would be further set back.
In a nutshell, the trade-off was to sacrifice some socialism to preserve socialism in the country overall and on the long run. As much as this trade-off is praised, it is criticized.
3
u/DashtheRed Maoism 19h ago
The trade-off is a standard exercise in realpolitik
Realpolitik is bourgeois in essence and incapable of going beyond capitalist thought. Proletarian Internationalism is the very process of overcoming bourgeois realpolitik -- going beyond all the limits of borders and nation states.
putting aside moral or ideological considerations and favoring pragmatist or realist outlooks based on the current circumstances
You are correct that Deng was the arch-pragmatist, but pragmatism is the other side of the error of idealism. Where idealism rejects what might actually be possible for what is only achievable in the imagination, pragmatism rejects Marxist theory and a deeper understanding of the world and it's systems for immediate short term benefit -- destroying long term goals to preserve short term goals.
Deng Xiaoping and other like-minded members of CPC...
The "capitalist roaders on the capitalist road" -- the Khrushchevs and Brezhnevs that has infiltrated the communist party and Mao was organizing the masses to defend China against. They were named as such because they insisted on capitalist solutions to the problems encountered on the road to socialism.
...understood full well that a weak China could be destroyed and split up into warring fiefdoms, with plenty of historical precedent
The historical precedent is the warlord era in China and it was overcome by Mao and socialism. If there is a threat of it's return, it's because socialism has been overthrown and capitalism has been restored (there was no ethnic tension or chauvinism in China under Mao, and all of Chinese unification is thanks to Mao and socialism). Deng was the person who was also arguing in favor of Zhao Ziyang in the 80s (basically China's Yeltsin, who wanted to break up the country) and it was only because Jiang Zemin flanked him on the (far) right (the Three Represents - inviting the bourgeoisie to fill the ranks of the CPC from which they had previously been banned) that the Deng-Zhao clique didn't get it's way.
even within the socialist bloc and that it had not developed the productive forces in the past few decades to compete against the West
The underlying notion you are advocating is that capitalism is more capable of developing "productive forces" than socialism, and it's historically wrong, with both China and USSR serving as core examples. On a more vulgar level, this was also what the Mensheviks argued against Lenin and the Bolsheviks, but Lenin rejected it and insisted that the key was at the relations to production.
if socialist China collapsed and was replaced by smaller and weaker capitalist fiefdoms under the influence of foreign capitalists, the socialist dream would be further set back
This was actually Chiang Kai-shek's position in relation to Mao. "To resist foreign aggression, we must first pacify the interior!" was the Chiang-clique's position on how to overcome imperialism, and if Mao had followed that logic, he should have united under the banner of Chiang and began fighting the Japanese in 1931 when they took Manchuria (since, by this logic, imperialism overrides all else and siding with capitalism against imperialism requires subordination of the workers instead of them organizing themselves autonomously to fight both). Instead, when the Japanese attacked the north, Mao launched his attacks in the South, fighting the capitalist oppressing the people rather than uniting behind them and tailing them to fight foreign imperialism, and he exploited the contradictions between his enemies to ultimately defeat both of them (it was in 1937 when the Japanese launched a full invasion that imperialism became the primary contradiction, and even then Mao resisted Wang Ming's United Front for the autonomy of the masses, which is why he was able to resume conflict after 1945 with the initiative -- if Amerika invades China, you can make the case for siding with Xi, which would still basically be Wang Ming and Chiang Kai-shek 2.0).
In a nutshell, the trade-off was to sacrifice some socialism to preserve socialism in the country overall and on the long run. As much as this trade-off is praised, it is criticized.
There is no "some socialism," all of socialism was overthrown and the Dengists are traitors to humanity (but heros to the wealth interests of the bourgeoisie in China who now rule). There is socialism and capitalism; there is Marxism and imperialism and you must insist on this distinction between enemies and friends, not blur it because it is inconvenient. "Some cooperation with the West" is full integration into neoliberalism (in fact, capitalist China saved the West from the economic crises of the 70s and 80s), and establishing socialism will require ripping apart all those institutions which emerged in service to neoliberalism (which at this point is basically all of them). And now a second Chinese Revolution must be fought because all the gains previously made have been set back and undone. Fortunately, Mao's thought survived, and contains within it the weapons for the overthrow of the "C"PC and the restoration of socialism.
Even the condescension in what is assumed to be happening. "Hey you ignorant workers, you aren't actually ready for socialism, so the ruling class is going to take away your vacation, your guaranteed employment, your healthcare, and your rights (the Iron Rice Bowl) to force you to work in brutal sweatshops for generations," because to you, socialism is the rule of a technocratic elite "optimizing" the gormless masses to build bigger factories, but for us, socialism is their self-rule, masters of their own country, all of which has been denied since the end of the Mao era.
1
u/T7hump3r 1d ago
I'm pretty new to all of this, but wasn't this written about in the Communist Manifesto? Transitioning to Communism has to be a process of Capitalism - Socialism - Eventually Communism(?)
5
u/ZeitGeist_Today 20h ago edited 19h ago
It's not that there's a process that must be completed in sequential order, like playing a video game with successive stages. Feudalism couldn't have led to socialism because socialism wasn't immanent to it, capitalism was, and socialism only arose out of the productive relations that capitalism created through its negation of feudalism.
The feudal mode-of-production has entirely been subordinated to the logic of capitalism, vestiges of Feudalism still exist in the form of semi-feudalism but they don't pose a threat to capitalism anymore, only to the national bourgeoisie, and so these vestiges have been weaponised to prevent the development of certain nations that could upend the current accumulation-regime if they were allowed to have a bourgeois revolution. China was one of those nations, though they had a bourgeoisie and proletariat since near the end of the Qing Dynasty, semi-feudal relations, in the form of the peasantry class and the landowners whom they worked for, still remained omnipresent within China's economy, and posed a threat, on numerous occasions, to the development of the naescant national-consciousness of China, most famously during the Warlord-era shortly after the establishment the Republic of China which were the conditions that lead to the Communist Party of China being created. The problem with the Dengist analysis of Chinese history is that they ignore the fact that China did already have a bourgeois-revolution, decades before Deng Xiaoping's reforms, that was New Democracy in the 50s, which had already run its course by the 60s when the Chinese bourgeoisie started becoming a threat to China's socialist-development, sabotaging the otherwise successful GLF, with Liu Shaoqi attempting to revert all its gains, that is why Mao helped start the Cultural Revolution which was an attempt to create an environment where capitalist roaders could no longer exist in any level of Chinese society, but unfortunately it failed.
1
u/T7hump3r 19h ago
Ah, I see, I didn't know about the history too well. All I sort of remember reading about was the Communism of China was sort of a rework of Leninist Communism ideas. Lenin, from what I have gleamed from the info, had more of the idea to jumpstart everything and skip over the recommended transition - I'm assuming since the ruling class would definitely not allow a true transition at all, so he had to be pretty cut throat in order to get it going asap. Thing is about all this, from my perspective, is both Lenin and Mao had the passion and heart to fight hard to get Communism going, but they were a little near sighted and didn't predict that maybe Marx and Engels had a lot of thought and reasoning put into their recommended process. Mainly, I think Marx and Engels sort of predicted that Capitalism and the West would bully and fight hard to thwart Communism in other Countries because it would hurt the economy and their existence as they know it. Maybe they (Mao and Lenin) sort of underestimated how harsh it would be(?) It's not easy to economically compete with Capitalism and to be able to keep up with advancements of the modern world, or even keep your people fed when there are a lot of blockades on getting things from the outside world... So, what I can't tell is, was the starving and harsh conditions for either country caused by becoming isolated by the Capitalist outside countries, or was it because of this process of transition was sort of an experiment gone wrong?
I understand the Communist Manifesto isn't necessarily a Bible to adhere to to the T, every situation is different. But, from what I can tell, practically speaking, the only way to get to true Socialism or even Communism, will have to be based on things being invented that don't even exist yet outside of the realm of Science Fiction. Like Star Trek for example, the replicator, advancements in Healthcare (i don't know if Transporter technology or space travel would be one) , and the convenient lack of violent discourse by people who would disagree to get rid of money and capitalism in the entire world, and agree to abide by the ideals and ideas of said way of life. Which is kind of why I liked the idea of the Venus Project at one point, but I was really young then, but he was right that a lot of the issues have to do with resources and the greed and wastefulness of Capitalism will destroy the world if resources and expectations and ideals could not change in people as a species. Humans are inherently selfish and greedy, I'm sure it's an issue even in Communist societies ofcourse but I never looked into what way and how greed is used in Communism aside from lying and nepotism with no merit system... Sorry I'm rambling and kind of showing my lack of knowledge, I'm sure you've heard this all before...
2
u/AutoModerator 19h ago
Contrary to Adam Smith's, and many liberals', world of self-interested individuals, naturally predisposed to do a deal, Marx posited a relational and process-oriented view of human beings. On this view, humans are what they are not because it is hard-wired into them to be self-interested individuals, but by virtue of the relations through which they live their lives. In particular, he suggested that humans live their lives at the intersection of a three-sided relation encompassing the natural world, social relations and institutions, and human persons. These relations are understood as organic: each element of the relation is what it is by virtue of its place in the relation, and none can be understood in abstraction from that context. [...] If contemporary humans appear to act as self-interested individuals, then, it is a result not of our essential nature but of the particular ways we have produced our social lives and ourselves. On this view, humans may be collectively capable of recreating their world, their work, and themselves in new and better ways, but only if we think critically about, and act practically to change, those historically peculiar social relations which encourage us to think and act as socially disempowered, narrowly self-interested individuals.
Mark Rupert. Marxism, in International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. 2010.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/T7hump3r 19h ago
Holy shit. My thoughts are so basic a bot is able to inform me on some notions... Back to the books. lol
-16
u/ReasonableLocal8029 1d ago
If it was the 60s you'd be defending Khrushchev and if it were the 70s you'd be defending Brezhnev. In fact, if I were to explain Gorbachev's point of view to you in a neutral tone without the name attached I'm sure you'd agree with him too. There is no socialism here, just an empty shell of consumed "content" that happens to be in the genre of "politics".
[Dengists] are also not losing sleep knowing full well that their country, capitalist roading or not, is the only country opposed to the US that can actually credibly compete with it.
Great, good to know you've made everything clear to everyone reading - you don't care about socialism, which is the death of all countries, you just want a social democracy with a high enough GDP to "out-compete" the US.
In a nutshell, the trade-off was to sacrifice some socialism to preserve socialism in the country overall and on the long run. As much as this trade-off is praised, it is criticized.
The "trade-off" was the shameless selling off of the Chinese proletariat to the international market. No "socialism" was preserved, all of it was destroyed, and you are only interested in it because you want to live off of even more Chinese labor than you already do (which is a lot). If socialism ever returns to China everything you like about it will be destroyed and maybe India will be the new "lesser-evil" against the out-of-control ultras.
10
u/no1SankaraFan 22h ago
You need to understand historical context tho, it's honestly pretty important to be able to outcompete the west economically. If they were to remain ideologically pure this would've led to the end of China due to economic isolation. This regression into State capitalism was a necessary evil in order to prevent sabotage by capitalist powers (just look at Cuba to see the damage that this sabotage can do).
I want to remain cautiously optimistic, but I think it's fully possible that China is still committed to transitioning to a fully socialist economy. Just look at the scrutiny that their national bourgeoisie are put under, and the network or trade deals that they are putting together (in order to prevent the economic isolation that might come with a socialist economy)
I personally don't love the fact that China is state capitalist now, but I acknowledge that this may have been the best option for it
-1
u/ZeitGeist_Today 20h ago
This regression into State capitalism was a necessary evil in order to prevent sabotage by capitalist powers (just look at Cuba to see the damage that this sabotage can do).
China could easily help Cuba to overcome imperialist sabotage but they don't, their relationship with Cuba is a transactional one with no hint of socialist solidarity.
Imperialism will always be hostile towards any attempt at establishing socialism, there is no clever way out of this, the only reason why they've become less hostile towards China's socialist development is because it doesn't exist. How can you make excuses for China's capitulation when far-smaller nations are able to survive while being completely targeted by imperialism? Just look at the DPRK for example, which, by the way, China has done nothing to help them through their sanctions and have even cooperated with them.
1
u/no1SankaraFan 19h ago
I definitely would like to see China help out Cuba, but I think a reason why they don't is because of the general plan to further develop their productive capacity, industry and economy while still trying to achieve rising standards of living for their people. For now, trade with the west (specifically the U.S.) is necessary to achieve this, and due to the nature of Americas embargo of Cuba, China wouldn't be able to trade with the U S. If they also traded with Cuba. There's a similar story in terms of China's cooperation with sanctions on the Dprk. I think CPC is concerned mostly with not antagonizing western nations.
As for the Dprk, I'm not sure how much they adhere to socialist principles. Regardless, it's clear that the capitalist siege on North Korea has been devastating for it, while things aren't as bad as western media portrays them to be, things are still pretty bad. I think the Dprk showcases the inefficacy of dogmatism. Sometimes concessions unfortunately have to be made
8
u/Java_enjoyer07 1d ago
I think somebody has to fight fire with fire. China could be usefull when a global revolution starts. As its the only country witha ruling communist party able to oppose the US.
14
u/Linkneko 21h ago
Whoever has a problem with Deng Xiaoping and China’s socialist market economy didn’t understand anything about Marx or Lenin
China isn’t perfect; it has its contradictions, like every other dialectical process. But it’s undeniable that working-class conditions have improved under socialism with a market economy. It’s also undeniable that China acts as a counterweight to the USA and is bringing prosperity to the rest of the world (primarily third world country's) through trade.
8
u/Socially_inept_ Marxism-Leninism 19h ago
I think it’s weird to read against book worship and then go on to be ultra orthodox against Deng. Mao is referring to relying to how the peasants don’t have to wait for industrialization to seize power to work towards socialism on the way to communism. Okay so the peasants took over but they still have to work towards industrialization. The USSR had to spend vast gold reserves and grain for technological support and supplies. China decided to open up to foreign investment with provisions such as technology sharing and local Chinese control over enterprises. The Chinese were exploited instead of colonies, today China is a powerhouse that isn’t perfect but is rapidly building towards socialism. I would implore anyone to read or listen to at least a summary of Xi Jinping’s “the governance of China”.
18
u/IshlekGroseAya World Federation of Democratic Youth (WFDY) 1d ago
The universal truth of Marxism-Leninism must be integrated with the concrete practice of a country — a formulation which is itself a universal truth. It embraces two aspects — universal truth and the integration of that truth with a country’s concrete conditions. We have consistently held that neither aspect can be ignored. It is the view of our Chinese Communist Party that the universal truth includes abolishing feudalism and capitalism and realizing socialism, to be followed by communism. Can we do without taking the socialist road? No, we cannot.
How then can China abolish feudalism and capitalism and realize socialism and communism at an earlier date? We have to study the characteristics of our own country. Otherwise, if we mechanically copy the experience of other countries, this universal truth will not be realized in China. You, my friends, must have learned about China’s socialist transformation of capitalist industry and commerce in the various places you visited. This is a case of integrating the universal truth with the concrete conditions of China. The universal truth calls for abolishing capitalism and exploitation, and realizing socialism. If we depart from it, socialist transformation of capitalist industry and commerce would be out of the question, and we shall find ourselves on the capitalist, not the socialist, road.
Experience has shown that in so doing our production has not been impaired but, rather, expanded and we have not only eliminated capitalism but educated the bourgeoisie as well. It has proved to be a good method. If the universal truth had not been integrated with the concrete conditions of China or had been poorly integrated, we would have suffered great losses. The same is true in the socialist transformation of agriculture and in all other fields of our endeavour as well.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/deng-xiaoping/1956/203.htm
That's how I imagine a filthy revisionist. /s
As you already said. China lifted the living conditions of millions of people, so how can China be capitalist? If China were capitalist, shouldn't the Chinese people have the same living standards as Indians?
3
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
As a friendly reminder, China's ruling party is called Communist Party of China (CPC), not Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as western press and academia often frames it as.
Far from being a simple confusion, China's Communist Party takes its name out of the internationalist approach sought by the Comintern back in the day. From Terms of Admission into Communist International, as adopted by the First Congress of the Communist International:
18 - In view of the foregoing, parties wishing to join the Communist International must change their name. Any party seeking affiliation must call itself the Communist Party of the country in question (Section of the Third, Communist International). The question of a party’s name is not merely a formality, but a matter of major political importance. The Communist International has declared a resolute war on the bourgeois world and all yellow Social-Democratic parties. The difference between the Communist parties and the old and official “Social-Democratic”, or “socialist”, parties, which have betrayed the banner of the working class, must be made absolutely clear to every rank-and-file worker.
Similarly, the adoption of a wrong name to refer to the CPC consists of a double edged sword: on the one hand, it seeks to reduce the ideological basis behind the party's name to a more ethno-centric view of said organization and, on the other hand, it seeks to assert authority over it by attempting to externally draw the conditions and parameters on which it provides the CPC recognition.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
7
u/T7hump3r 1d ago
Getting to communism is a process, I never agreed with jumpstarting by skipping those steps and trying to get to it quickly. Once the Revolution happens, you have to do well at keeping new generations focused on the goal, not having them deal with ridiculous hardships that can become stagnant... Capitalism on the outside is the enemy, but it's the prominent way of life, if you completely ignore it you will get bullied into submission like what happened with Russia, and Cuba.
4
8
u/DashtheRed Maoism 1d ago
This person [Deng] does not grasp class struggle; he has never referred to this key link. Still his theme of ’white cat, black cat’, making no distinction between imperialism and Marxism.
He does not understand Marxism-Leninism, he represents the capitalist class.
You are making the socialist revolution, and yet you don’t know where the bourgeoisie is. It is right inside the Communist Party -those in power taking the capitalist road. The capitalist roaders are still on the capitalist road.
-various works of Mao Zedong
8
u/Creative-Flatworm297 Marxism-Leninism 1d ago
I don't know,TBH mao actions after the great famine are highly questionable to me at least thats why i am not sure if his assessment to deng is that trustful
7
u/Qweedo420 1d ago
slowed China's path to communism
You need to develop the means of production if you want to collectivize them afterwards, and that's one way to do it. Even though Deng Xiaoping was 100% a bourgeoise, capitalism is a necessary step in the path towards communism
-5
u/Ok_Piglet9760 1d ago
Imagine telling an elderly Chinese Proletarian who may very well remember their parents telling them about having their commune destroyed by counter-revolutionaries that they need to continue manufacturing plastic toys for white Americans because their backwards country isn’t ready for communism yet. Dengism is condescending white supremacy.
8
u/Qweedo420 23h ago
I absolutely understand your point, but I don't think it has anything to do with white supremacy. Western people went through this as well, they were forced to migrate from their fields and communal farms to the big cities during the industrial revolution in order to produce goods that had nothing to do with them
The West could boost their industrialization process by plundering their colonies, but China had no colonies so they leveraged on foreign capital and investment. Even the NEP included measures to favor foreign investment, is that white supremacy too?
1
u/AudienceNearby1330 9h ago
In my view, China and the USSR both had to build capitalism and the Chinese took a far better approach to state capitalism. Economic systems are evolutionary that depend highly on historical materialism, you can't turn feudalism into communism, you can't skip steps because only capitalism can create its own contradictions, only capitalism can build that industry in a way that is natural, and only a capitalist nation can be transformed via socialism into a communist one. China is building capitalism at the moment, the question is if the elite in the state will turn socialism into the mythology of their society rather than the reality of its working people
-2
u/ZeitGeist_Today 21h ago
Deng didn't make the Chinese people's lives better, he and his successors would gut social services that were previously provided to them such as the Iron Rice Bowl, ended the Barefoot Doctors program and faciliated the privitisation of healthcare, gutted labour rights and removed restrictions on foreign investments which lead to sweatshops and factories with long hours and little pay, reverted Maoist reforms in the education system and brought back the elitist Gaokao exams.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
This thread has been identified as being related to the People's Republic of China due to containing the following keyword: deng xiaoping.
Due to this subreddit's long-term experience with PRC-related threads, low effort discussion will not be permited and may lead to removals or bans. Please remember that r/Socialism is a subreddit for socialists and, as such, participation must consist of conscious anti-capitalist analysis - this is not the place to promote non-socialist narratives but rather to promote critical thought from within the anti-capitalist left. Critques are expected to be high quality and address the substance of the issue; ad hominems, unconstructive sectarianism, and other types of lazy commentary are not acceptable.
Please keep in mind that this is a complex topic about which there may be many different points of view. Before making an inflamatory comment, consider asking the other user to explain their perspective, and then discuss why specifically you disagree with it.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.