Dengism and the Western Left

Why are so many """"Leninists"""" in the West today Dengists? Why not acknowledge a historic failure, and that China today is a young imperial power? Why not understand the reasons for the USSR collapsing, other than just muh evil Gorbahev? Why give apologia for the Soviet war in Afghanistan, led by that heroic revolutionary Brehznev?
What do these PSL people actually do, besides having formed their own ☭TANKIE☭ D*SA?
If you believe in the glorious Chinese Characteristics (tm) today, is there anything left to be done? Or will Chinese Communist Party do the job of international revolution?

Why can't these people acknowledge the shortcomings of Leninism? I say this as the worst kind of ex-PSL ☭TANKIE☭, complete with Tianamen Square apologism, until some MLM comrades set me straight.

Attached: 5a38c074a3108bc89ada4e78.jpeg (600x438, 61.95K)

Other urls found in this thread:

ft.com/content/9d25d432-3be1-11e5-bbd1-b37bc06f590c
jpost.com/Israel-News/Israel-China-sign-agreement-worth-500m-to-boost-Israeli-exports-573425
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

...

They were supporting the socialists though?

Maoists are literally just the leftcoms of ML.
but anyway i don't really know what you're on about, like 99% of MLs i see deny the existence of socialism in China, and recognise the problems that existed in the USSR. also there's nothing wrong with "apologia" for the Soviet-Afghan war. religious fanatics and warlords wanted to overthrow the socialist government and Hafizullah Amin was retarded, so the PDPA asked the Soviets for help. anyone who thinks that the Soviets were "imperialist" needs to read a fucking book, especially people who go as far to support le based mujahideen wanting to take away education and women's rights.

...

Right, and Americans are supporting the "democratic" forces in the middle east. Technically they were supporting the 'socialist' pol pot too.
Either you oppose imperialism, even when its done under a red banner, or you don't

Its not a question of Lenin was right/wrong. What became of the Leninist states eventually? Most of them became bureaucratic in nature, with bureaucrat party members becoming the new petty-bourgeoisie. Incidentally, after the collapse of the USSR, most of the new billionaires were ex-communist party members

Easy answer: pragmatism.

Do you deny the historic failure of ML states, decaying into states like Ceausescu's Romania? Do you deny that the state apparatus of Leninism can and has been derailed by opportunists and revisionists?

what has that got to do with anything? for someone who claims to be an ML you sure seem to be willing to cry about the "failures of ML states" and Leninism as a whole.

Quite a few I've come across in PSL or on twitter still stan China. Strangely, some even like Putin.

Religious fanaticism in Afghanistan was created as a reaction to the Soviet invasion. Why weren't the PDPA popular enough to not need Soviet intervention? No one supports the mujahideen, but the Soviets were social-imperialist.
Your argument sounds the same as an American boomer defending the US wars

I'm much closer to MLM than ML.
Why not be honest about historical failure and revisionism?

Imperialism isn't when the military does stuff.

no it wasn't. religious fanaticism has existed in Afghanistan for yonks, it only increased when threatened by the socialist government. what did happen in response to the invasion was a unification of all the different religious groups, which would then split again when the Soviets left and the civil war resumed.

"Dengism" doesn't really exist, it's just Deng reacting to the material conditions of China at that time, he didn't have much choice. China wasn't self-sufficient in terms of energy and food (and still isn't today), so it was forced to attract foreign investment. De-collectivising the agriculture though and re-introducing literal Kulaks was a very bad choice, but otherwise, he didn't actually touch the socialist system build by Mao.

The problem was that he opened Pandora's Box, and his successors eagerly expanded on the capitalist mode of production in China, slowly transforming the socialist sector into a state capitalist sector in terms of management, as the percentage of private business for their GDP increases and CPCh officials increasingly benefiting from it. If you discard the Twitter ☭TANKIE☭s who read Sakai and cheer for yellow ethno-nationalism whenever they find it, most MLs who do not denounce China do not want to emulate the Chinese model for every other country, they just recognise China had little choice at that time. An exception is the retarded CPRF, who wants Dengism for Russia, a country that is and was (under the USSR) completely autarkic in terms of energy and food production. There is no reason to not introduce a wholesome planned economy for every industry, but for smaller countries, like the DPRK and Cuba, the Chinese model will remain not only attractive, but their only viable choice for the future.

That's a cursed image.

China was actually aligned with the US in that war.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (780x428, 469.97K)

You literally pick out the only ML state which really crashed and burned (despite many Romanians still having nostalgia for it), every other ML state increased quality of life and the economy quite consistently, except for maybe the African ones, who chose the label ML to align with the USSR, not for ideological reasons.

Nobody says every system is foofproof, but I wouldn't call Ceausescu a revisionist or opportunist, but merely a megalomaniac who introduced bad social policies and wanted to establish Juche with Romanian characteristics, which didn't fly with the Romanians. There was no "revision" of socialism under Ceauscescu, just bad policy decisions like aligning with some Western powers, the huge loans, the natalist policies, etc.

You know very well that Pinochet wasn't in power back then and served under Allende.

Come again?

Because that's a fucking retarded position. Social imperialism is a reactionary concept. You are no better than a leftcom if you peddle this shit.

They were reactionaries and deserved it. Only liberal cretins think otherwise.

Did those retards also "set you straight" on how the DPRK and Cuba are revisionist state capitalist abominations that need to be destroyed too?

autism

Attached: 3.jpeg (311x441, 29.6K)

They want to believe. Without faith in the CCP they would fall into the blackpill as there is only a bleak future.

But regular imperialism isn’t, and Xi’s China fits the bill.

China under Deng was opposed to the Soviet backed government of Afghanistan and supported the Mujahideen with weapons and training. Even following the Soviet withdrawal.
This seems to be conveniently ignored by modern supporters of Chinese Characteristics (tm).

Deng literally broke up the agricultural cooperatives and rural schools built by Mao during the cultural revolution.

Dengoids are reactionaries pure and simple.

No MLM says DPRK and Cuba need to be destroyed, yes they're revisionist but the primary contradiction is between US imperialism and these countries, not the Petit bourgeois ideology of their respective ruling parties, Investigate before you speak

Why are so many Stalinists Putinists?
Why are so many Trots Neo-Cons?

Why are so many Trots Neo-Cons?

Attached: trotmsky.png (2388x810, 2.59M)

But thats what every revolutionary needs to accept: without the revolutionary work, there is no future.

I have more respect for the armchair'd gentlemen
than the fucking dengoids

Communist students deserved it for protesting Deng? The gang of four deserved it?

The primary contradiction is imperialism, so they should be defended against the US.

Those who worship Stalin as some sort of exceptional god, are more interested in Russian nationalism and Russian idpol than socialism.

Anyway, why haven't self-avowed Leninists moved on and accepted the need for something like MLM? So may are stuck in the past and in hero-worship, they have no real revolutionary position in the world today.
I remember, a bunch of twitter ☭TANKIE☭s and tankettes started attacking the Indian Communist Party (maoist) for criticising China as an imperialist power. Some even laughably called them "white" despite them allying with and including the Dalits, the lowest and most downtrodden caste in Hinduism, as well as Indian Muslims who face persecution under the Hinduvta fascist government

neither of those have happened

Yes they have.

Like user said above, the only "stalinist" putinists are russian chauvinists with no relation to ML or communism. Same type of people who equate the Tsar to Stalin. As for the "Trots = neocons" meme, see pdf related

China did largely fail to develop itself under Mao though Deng's reforms eventually solved most of these issues
Stagnating living standards and lack of Luxury goods and high quality Consumer products
Defence against counter Revolution
I'm not sure how the fact that Brehznev himself didn't personally lead the October revolution diminishes his character as a socialist
No that's like claiming that CPSU will just "Handle it" so no point exists to revolt
Why should it be "Apoligism" to not support counter revolution?

Everything I don't like is counter-revolution: the ☭TANKIE☭'s guide to politics

If you read my post propery, you would have realised that I criticised this exact aspect (the de-collectivisation of agriculture).

You got this straight from the Roo, and it's not what Mao meant with "primary and secondary contradiction". Primary and secondary contradiction is not some ying-yang bullshit or a Chinese version of the Fichtean triad. Maoism means investigating every situation by itself, and not to apply mechanistic concepts to it, otherwise you might literally support Hitler because he's only the secondary contradiction.

No. It's counter-revolution as it fits all the criteria a Reactionary movement to abolish a Marxist goverment and reinstate capitalism

The Agricultural Collectives of China were extremely poorly mismanaged and created famines / food Shortages among other Crisis's
Deng reforms while yes inviting a Petite-Capitalist element into the Agricultural sector of China ultimately payed off as Shortages all but stopped and Living standards skyrocketed

Most of these developments are capitalist in character, which means that they do not show hallmarks of socialist development, the problem of a piss-poor countryside still exists (check average Chinese GDP per capita), there is massive inequality, China still can't feed itself or supply itself with energy. (State) capitalism can be good at raw development by total GDP metrics (which is the main metric the CPCh works with, they literally build empty cities to raise their GDP), but it's bad at solving the systemic problems of capitalism, like homelessness, unemployment or raising inequality.

I am not saying that life was better under Mao - it objectively wasn't - but to pretend that socialism was never touched in China and Deng just improved development while maintaining the gains under Mao is simply dishonest.

Dengism is basically what NEP would have been.

Read some fucking Lenin. Especially everything from 1918 onward

Prove the correlation you made up just then. Because I am pretty fucking sure famines stopped already when the Cultural Revolution started, and while it is right that the communes were a bit of an idealistic project with obvious flaws, the only alternative is not outright de-collectivisation. China still is not food self-sufficient, while a massive mechanisation program would have done the job without inviting these capitalist elements. Criticism of Mao's policies does not mean that the only alternative is capitalism.

Living standards "skyrocketed" because of foreign investments and a massive export economy, working off the industrial base built under Mao, the de-collectivisation of agriculture merely solved a short-term allocation and productivity problem, but didn't achieve that much in the long term, it's 2018 now and Xi has literally stated that unequal development is the main problem for the next five year plan.

Yes Deng's reforms were State-Capitalist in Nature this was necessary as Mao's attempts to transform a nation on a borderline feudal level of development to a socialist state had all but failed and by 1976 most of the country was still stuck at this level of development
Deng admitted that Mao's attempt at an Instant transition to socialism had failed and effectivly admitted the need for a state-Capitalist period for the building of Productive forces advancing technology etc to improve the standard of living of the population and to better equip the nation for the eventual transition to socialism

And yes while disparity between the city and the rural areas still exist the overall standards of living in China have been on an almost constant upwards trend since the 1980s

Hi Bukharin, these two examples are not comparable. The USSR didn't have significant industry during the NEP, and the ramping up of industrial goods led to the scissor crisis, the NEP was already not delivering what it promised during Lenin's lifetime. China on the other hand already had an industrial base standing ready when Deng took over.

Just because Lenin would have let the NEP run a few more years than Stalin doesn't mean that he was correct.

He never made any efforts to return to socialism as the dominant mode of production in China. I mean, did Deng expect to live forever? His successors like Hu Jintao are almost neoliberals (I mean, compared to that guy I can totally see why Xi appears a better option), as I already explained he opened Pandora's Box and he forgot to close it before he croaked. I mean, this whole choir of "no alternative, muh Chinese conditions, muh productive forces" sounds like a broken record at this point with little efforts are made to do even baby steps for socialism (like universal healthcare would be a start?!). If they would have abandoned their state capitalism by the mid-90s or 2000, would that have been so bad?
ft.com/content/9d25d432-3be1-11e5-bbd1-b37bc06f590c
My suspicion is that it was simply complacency and laziness to not do any step in that direction, because never change a running system and all that.

As I have stated in previous posts the Soviet NEP mainly failed because of the National-Capitalist class being uncooperative even with the concessions being given to them and a almost universal blockade on the soviet economy by capitalist powers (With Weimar being the only European state of significance that collaborated with the USSR to any decent extent) unwilling to invest in the USSR

Compare this to China in which Deng was not only able to successfully court the National-Capitalist class of the PRC but at the same time managed to increase foreign investment into China while Maintaing goverment oversight of the economy and State-Capitalism

Even in 1997 at the time of Deng's death China was still nowhere near developed enough to consider a transition to a socialist economic model

While I'm unsure about the exact positions of Hu Jintao i will state that the CCP has dealt with many Liberals attempting to be Yeltsin within in their ranks (Zhao Ziyang comes to mind who at first allied himself with Deng and supported his reforms to gain influence in the party before quickly defecting and attempting to make himself de-Facto head of the Tiananmen Square Counter-Revolutionary Movement) and most of them have been dealt with

Wtf are u insane. China was industrially developed in the 70s? Lmao.

Compared to the USSR in the 20s, yeah it was

No, it was somewhere at that level though. A few industrial cities and a gigantic countryiside of peasants that have never seen a factory. Even today hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens haven't seen a factory up close.

I beg you ignorant masses. Please, please, go read some Marx and especially Lenin. At least try reading Győrgy Lukacs' short book (100 pages) on Lenin, if nothing else.

Are you okay?

Burger reading ability much? There was hardly any big industry in China, similary as in tsarist Russia - there was some industrial development, but almost negligible compared to the size of the country. Butan idiot above is trying to claim that China was somehow industrially well developed lmao. They became "developed" only in the last 10 years, and still they will have to face the mass migrations of half a billion people from the countryside to the cities.

proofs

If not, we're probably pretty fucked. The only even mildly socialist movement with any kind of chance at taking power any time soon in a country with developed productive forces is Corbynite Labour in the UK. For all the renewed appeal of socialism among the western intelligentsia, there are no other mass parties on the horizon. We'll likely get climate wars before this changes, and building socialism in the wake of those will be fraught with the same problems the SU faced in 1917 and beyond.

You can oppose the right wing policies of Deng without going full retard and dismissing China as imperialist and the CCP as secret conspiratorial capitalists. Khrushchev's revisionist bullshit didn't negate the fact that the USSR continued to be an indespensible ally of the global proletariat and a formidable enemy of imperialism and colonialism. MLM faggots and Hoxhaists throw the baby out with the bathwater, just like anti Bolshevik leftcoms. They are idealistic liberal children who hysterically deride any socialist project that displays any imperfections or deviates from the dogma of their holy scriptures.

You people are as idiotic as the demsoc retards that fold behind the reactionaries apologizing that "–bbut that wasn't REAL socialism".

Calling the USSR and China "imperialist" and the DPRK and Cuba "state capitalist" is an incredibly reactionary and pernicious attack against proletarian internationalism. Against the revolutions that liberated half of humanity. Against the masses who sweat and bleed to preserve the monumental gains of the communist revolutions against constant subversion and economic violence from the imperialists.

An overwhelmingly neoliberal dominated protest with gushing support of the Western imperial media magically becomes revolutionary because a microscopic handful of anti revisionists may or may not have marched with them too.

I agree wholeheartedly. So why is your reaction to the Tianenmen crackdown indistinguishable from the pear clutching propaganda of the Western imperialists?

Is capitulation to neoliberalism and Western hegemony a better alternative to crushing a protest with an undeniably right wing and pro imperialist character?

Attached: 1543527978285.png (600x471, 421.8K)

literally "it's scoialism when it has red flags"
It definitely is. A benevolent character of imperialism on a surface level doesn't change the materialist reality of Chinese monopoly capital. Are you saying that when capitalist countries hit the stage of monopoly capitalism, the Chinese aren't affected because of their wizadry of "Chinese conditions"?
lmao there are literal capitalists in the CPC because state and bourgeoisie are deeply intertwined in China. Also, Xi and friends have not been saying anything substantially socialistic, "Chinese dream", "developed country" etc. mean nothing, in Xi's book there is not a single reference to proper Marxist socialism. Marxism in China is only alive in fringe sections of the party, or in academia, or conferences which sometimes are financed by the party or the government but have no significant influence on their politics.
China called the USSR social imperialist, even after Mao and supported the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan under Deng
Current CPC is right of DemSoc.

Also, stop burning your strawmen. Nobody is talking about the DPRK. Nobody is talking about China. Not everybody who disagrees with the offical line of the CPC in every detail is a Maoist who hates Cuba or whatever.

meant to say: "Nobody is talking about Cuba."

Put your flag back on, black cats cunt.

Wasn't me you idealist "the revolution is not 100 % perfect" faggot.

you while you typed this out

Attached: download (1).jpeg (259x194, 9.07K)

Literally idealism.

Good post, I don't see why all the spergs are getting upset by this. Give the Chinese comrades the benefit of the doubt, will you? At least they haven't totally disintegrated as the communist party in the Soviet Union did. And for all the whining about muh Chinese billionaires, inequality has ceased growing under Xi Jinping and might even be declining, so it's not like they are just unabashedly grabbing cash while waving the red flag.

Attached: 4c1202cab62eb4693e03910dea71664fda49f56a06388c60e47224d0af17f58e.jpg (487x695, 35.8K)

Lenin would be spinning in his fucking grave, Erbert was more of a socialist than you.

*the embalmed mummy of Lenin would spin in his glass sarcophagus where he lies like a saint in a reliquary

Fair enough, point still stands tho.

Why should we? Communists should ruthlessly criticize all that exists. You wouldn’t tell Marx to give Lasalle the benefit of the doubt.
That doesn’t mean jack shit when that party is stacked with porkies from top to bottom.
Right because capitalism is when there’s inequality.
Tell that to the workers in the iPhone factories or African miners.

...

watch your mouth reactionary

Deng and everyone who follows him in the CPC are reactionaries in disguise, you are a fool for not seeing right through their masks.

Motherfucker, Leninwould and did take exactly this route. Analyse your material conditions and adapt, don't treat Marxism as holy scripture that has a true and forever correct recipe. He got foreign investments into the state to develop the economy. He willingly incorporated market capitalism under strong control from the state. NEPmen were becoming rich. Fucker, Dengism is what USSR would become if Lenin lived for another 15 years. Now it is up to the proles and advanced communists of China to dispose of the Dengists and establish a socialist society. But it will have to be better than my Mao revolution which destroyed industry and agriculture.

Because for all its faults the CCP has turned China into a technologically advanced superpower in record time. More though dirigisme than socialist development, but still. Meanwhile all which that Jewish nigger Lassalle ever did was to get outplayed by Bismarck.

And don't poo-poo the idea of developing the productive forces. Sufficiently developed productive forces mean the difference between being able to militarily confront (or be so powerful as to deter) American intervention, or being bowled over when push comes to shove.
It's a good proxy for the power of the bourgeois elements in society. China is a mixed economy, and it has all the attendant internal struggles. Gotta measure the relative power some way or other.
The workers in the iPhone factories are fully engaged in class struggle. China is a country with some of the highest labour militancy in the world, reflected in rapidly rising wages.

I'm not saying they have it all figured out, or have established socialism. It's a communist party steering a mostly non-socialist country. Dengism remains a gamble - a gamble that a vanguard party can "ride the tiger" of a mixed economy before finally muzzling the beast. So far, by and large, little by little, it seems that they are succeeding.

I’m not denouncing them for that. Capitalism is a necessary stage of development.
Yeah they’re struggling against the CCP and Chinese porkies that dominate it.
That’s pure idealism. Historical materialism dictates that a society’s class structure is what determines the political character of its state. China is a capitalist country, therefore the ruling class there is the bourgeoisie. The communist party cannot maintain a proletarian character while governing an economy like China’s. As such it has not become a bourgeois party protecting bourgeois interests, and will need to be deposed. Deng’s reforms may have been progressive from a histmat point of view, but they have outlived their usefulness and the CCP has become purely reactionary.

Excellent post tovarish, I admire your energy in explaining obvious things to all the ignorant burgers and other cunts here.

Good post? It’s pure idealism. He’s literally saying that China’s state can maintain a political character independent of its mode of production. If you believe this then you aren’t a Marxist.

It did so fae. Pls go read history of USSR from 1920 to 26. You absolutely can and probably must have a communist party that oversees a capitalist state for a while. You cannot magically implement a socialist society in a horribly capitalist or near feudal one. A new world will be built on the remnants of the old one. It will take a generation to get rid of the most basic forms of thinking and doing - the wage labor form, profit, rent, muh lazy people don't deserve solidarity etc.
And here we have a similar barrier as natural sciences have (unifying QM and gravity). Of course the barrier we haven't passed yet in our field is that we have a party that carries the revolution, but then turns and becomes reactionary and revisionist. And on the other hand we have something like the Zapatistad and EZLN that engage in revolutionary practices on a very local level, but don't really have a real industr, economy or any teal power in the real world. Our task is to combine this local level practices with communist revolution on a vastly larger scale. To combine Marx and Bakunin.

Too simplistic of a view. When the Bolsheviks took charge of Russia in 1917 they too had to contend with a society that was capitalist, and even in parts feudal. That did not render them suddenly capitalist or feudal themselves upon seizing power - it in stead meant that they had to engage in a protracted struggle against capitalist elements in society that they supposedly ruled, with by the way a great early capitulation in the form of the NEP. If your view is taken, it would rule out the possibility of even having a vanguard party at all, as you posit the total impossibility of having a state or ruling party that is socialist without already having transformed the relations of production.

That's leftcom garbage.

Comparing the NEP and today's China is dishonest and betrays a very surface level understanding of the NEP. NEP wasn't capitalist, it was market socialist. Core NEP reforms concerned market competition between worker-controlled enterprises. Private ownership existed but was extremely limited, to 20 or so employees. Enough to run a grocery store maybe. While some NEP-men did manage to make fortunes by exploiting the system, private ownership of MoP did not become the rule. The USSR never "adopted capitalism to build productive forces".

Meanwhile China has gucci stores and billionaires owning enterprises with thousands of employees.

The NEP is not an accurate comparison. It was only in place for a couple of years and was overseen by a party made up of actual revolutionaries. If the NEP had outlived the actual veterans of the revolution in the CPSU the Soviet Union likely never would have achieved socialism. There aren’t any veterans of the Chinese Civil War in the leadership of the CCP, and the country has been capitalist for more than 40 years. In that time wealth and power has been accumulated in the hands of the bourgeoisie who have used it to take direct control of the Chinese communist party. To believe that the CCP will ever return to socialism of its own accord is to believe that the porkies that rule it would act against their own economic self interest.
The workers transform the relations of production when they sieze the factories and stage a revolution. The vanguard party is just the political organ by which they do this. There’s also the issue of timelines and class composition of the party at play here. A socialist party composed of workers and revolutionaries may well rule over a capitalist society for a short time, but the laws of histmat dictate that this cannot last, and China is living proof. Capitalist societies follow certain laws of motion, which may be temporarily disrupted (as with the NEP) but will always assert themselves in the long term (as with China).

No it wasn't. It was purely capitalist under strict worker state control. The agriculture was also market oriented and even Lenin proposed it be this way under they find a good solution. NEP was Dengism on a shorter time scale. Muh Gucci stores mean the Chinese revolution was really fashionist.
Chinese part has control of billionares - at one point they literally give all of their billions back to the state as well as their firms. Xi is culling them by the tens. As to why is he cracking down on "marxist" students idk and I don't trust fucking CNN telling me what is really going on.

Until*

MBS also arrested a bunch of Saudi billionaires a little while ago I guess Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship of the proletariat now.

jpost.com/Israel-News/Israel-China-sign-agreement-worth-500m-to-boost-Israeli-exports-573425

I guess China isn't big on BDS?

...

The Soviet Union traded with the nazis up to the moment they went to war, so you can't judge a socialist state by whom it trades with. Selling you the rope to hang them with, as the say goes.

To be fair Germany was an industrial powerhouse, probably the 2nd or 3rd economy in Europe and right across the border from the USSR. Meanwhile China has to actively go out of its way to trade with Israel despite BDS.

To be fair, some BDS activists seem to think their movement is a lot more significant than it actually is to the point where they think anyone not on board with them is pure evil. Never mind the fact most westerners probably couldn't point to Israel/Palestine on a map, much less have heard about BDS.

t. BDS activist who can't stand the liberals in the movement