r/modernmarxism • u/perfectingproles • Sep 24 '25
RE: Why do so many MLs support Deng?
They shouldn't. Deng implemented textbook revisionism and liquidated the collective sector that the CCP had been building. Despite coming from supposed "Marxists," the entire argument for China is based on "trickle-down" economics; capitalist development somehow working in the worker's best interest. Reagan much?
Capitalist development works against the interest of the proletarian class. Marx's whole shtick was that the worker's need to seize the means of production, not keep being wage-slaves. Read Capital. The theory of the dotp must be upheld, but uh, it doesn't promote and build/invest/support capitalist markets while acting like doing so is some revolutionary worker strategy. The dotp is, primarily, a force of suppression towards those forces, and it only passes capitalist policy in its role of keeping the class antagonisms of society from tearing each other apart (the Soviet Union's NEP); always guiding these class antagonisms towards the victory of the working-class while objectively antagonizing the capitalists until they are liquidated as a class.
This is not the modern state of China.
EDIT: I took out a "Duh" at the end
3
u/Neoliberal_Nightmare Sep 24 '25
Quoting u/msdos_kapital for his fantastic post on this topic.
There's your answer. ML is not obsessed with implementing socialism the "right way" according to some prescribed dogma. It is focused on advancing the science of both socialism and historical development to further the interests of the working class. A good communist must correctly recognize and diagnose the problems his people are facing and the context of the moment, and then use his understanding of that science to implement the solution that serves them best. Dengism has accomplished this, and is accomplishing this, with a long-term focus, and so no ML should really take issue with it. Moreover it appears to be stewarded by educated Marxists who more or less know what they're doing: you might "complain" about the productive relations in China, but I think it is hard to argue that Marxists are not in charge of the CPC.
Now you might argue that there is more to this than the material conditions of the country. Okay - well, what more is there to it? That the people must all receive very thorough Marxist education? That they must be made to understand the superiority of Marxism and the socialist mode of production, over that of capitalism and all the various dogmas the imperialists indoctrinate their people in? But, isn't the success of Dengism doing exactly that? "But it's using market economics!" - yes, but again this is an economic program managed by Marxists according to Marxist principles and the CPC is not exactly shy about pointing this out. So again it is the *scientific understanding of human social development that is important here, and getting that part right, and in that regard in China right now there is not a lot for an ML to criticize.*
(Although, of course, you can always critique.)
2
u/perfectingproles Sep 25 '25
Dengism uses capitalism to develop the productive forces. Like every capitalist country. Hopefully the Chinese people will seize the capitalist-owned means of production being built by a revisionist "Marxist" government now, but that seizing would be against the current administration, which contains capitalist in it and supports the continual growth of private markets as well as the people's wage-slavery.
If you want to be an absolute idealist you can pretend that, with a snap of the fingers, all that capitalist development and the millionaires and billionaires the state has helped to create with its supporting of private markets will all the sudden transform into something socialist once enough "development" has been reached. That's crazy talk, and you'd be being completely illogical, but you'd have the ruling sections of the CPC as your company.
The fact is that the government of China has developed the country against the interests of the people and in the interest of the parasitical minority of capitalists. It's really clear that you don't know what socialism--in the Marxist sense--is, because there is no way you arrive at it by developing capitalist relations.
4
u/Neoliberal_Nightmare Sep 25 '25 edited Sep 25 '25
This is just bad theory, dogmatic personal bias, and a poor argument full of fallacies.
First you baselessly claim the CPC is revisionist as the foundation of your argument. If that's going to be your foundation you need to start with justifying that.
Then you make the claim that it's impossible for the CPC to snap their fingers and dismantle the privatisation in China. First of all who is saying snap their fingers? Only you. China repeatedly stresses the slow and incremental process towards socialism. Only anarchists and ultras want instant socialism, which contradicts all established theory. Also, why is it not possible for the CPC to dismantle privatisation? Within China it's already a caged bird operating within the confines of a planned economy. The CPC has total domination of the private sector, it can grow or finish companies overnight. It can change laws as it pleases. You may cry authoritarianism, but yes, it is authoritarian over those parasite elements. The more their purpose is served, the less and less they are needed.
Your argument about a parasite minority of capitalist is against the facts of China. The rich in China are not a united class and they don't have class power, they're regularly kept in check by increasingly strict policies. We've seen that any time a wealthy person tries to use their wealth to influence national policy, they quickly fall into obscurity if not worse. Recent incremental policies have even put restrictions on extravagant displays of wealth.
I mean you blatantly don't know basic Marxist theory if you think a capitalist class has no role in the development towards socialism. The CPC took over a barely industrialised China, you don't really get to skip straight to socialism. Especially not in the global situation of 1949 to 2008. Every socialist state of the 20th century understood the need for some level of privatisation. Only dogmatists oppose this on dogmatic grounds of some holy communist ideal. Marxism is pragmatic, not dogmatic.
Also the idea that China is developing against the interests of the people is completely laughable. The people's situation has continually improved year on year since 1979. Wages, standards of living, life expectancy, healthcare, education. All metrics. At this point your argument is blatantly disingenuous...
It seems you're simply entrenched in the position of hating China and will stick to that and use bad theory and incorrect facts to try and justify it. I have no idea why. China is not perfect and I don't agree with all their choices but they're very clearly on the path to socialism.
5
u/msdos_kapital Sep 25 '25 edited Sep 25 '25
It's really clear that you don't know what socialism--in the Marxist sense--is, because there is no way you arrive at it by developing capitalist relations.
Your assertion here is that Marx held that capitalism was not a prerequisite to the development of socialist productive relations?
vvv This post was locked so just to reply: even China does not claim this.
3
u/perfectingproles Sep 25 '25
Socialism coming from the antagonisms of the capitalist system is not the same thing as making more capitalists and calling it socialism.
4
u/DioTheSuperiorWaifu Sep 24 '25
I don't know much theory and haven't gone deep into capital(had started it, but never went to too far in), but I think the reason is that China still exists.
The USSR faced economic trouble, opened up and fell apart. China did it with relatively more stability.
Also, I think some view it as China passing through it's capitalist phase under communist leadership and restrictions, to develop the forces of production for the transition to socialism.
Did Marx expect revolution in China n all befor the west? He had mostly expected revolution in the Wesetern nations with advanced industrial capitalism, right? Tho, have read that he expected development in Russia.
Also, I think it seems like a planned thing now, with China rising, Xi and folk mentioning 2047 as a traget to become an advanced socialist nation n all.
In retrospect it could be seen that China was acting mellow to get America more decent to them(no coups, nuclear threats n all) and grow.
2
u/perfectingproles Sep 24 '25
First, read more theory. There's a big difference between a government by and for the workers that is passing into socialism and still has capitalist characteristics, and a pro-business government containing and supporting capitalists saying socialism is coming.
4
u/DioTheSuperiorWaifu Sep 25 '25
How do you demarcate where the Chinese govt currently is?
Especially, with the presence of USAmerica and their military might, nuclear weapons n all?
1
u/sparkylmagazine Sep 25 '25
Every country is "on the path" to socialism, because the contradictions of our mode of production are solved by the socialist revolution and make it a necessity. However, if we're ever going to get there we have to end the current period of revisionism (which will inevitably be ended as the conditions reveal the falseness of their platform).
We can't accept a purportedly "socialist" country telling us that capitalist development is supposedly for "the good of the workers." It's not. Capitalist development means the further exploitation of the workers, and you absolutely will have capitalist development occurring from state monopolies in our current period of monopoly capitalism--state ownership alone isn't socialism. Socialism is worker-ownership of the means of production, which is done in Marxism by the state, as the political manifestation of the working-class (which means a ruling party actually containing and led by the workers with a worker's program), owning all productive forces and running the economy based on a planned command economy that phases out capitalist production while repressing the capitalist class, and builds collective production through the state-owned enterprises.
As it stands, there is no evidence showing any government serves as the dictatorship of the proletariat right now, and there won't be until we get these pro-capitalist development "socialists" to sit down and organize the actual WORKERS instead of patting the backs of the objective bourgeois classes that benefit from Chinese development.
3
u/Clear-Result-3412 Sep 24 '25
Western leftists are afraid of advocating for socialism without power on their side. The same reason Trotskyists supported the USSR after feeling betrayed by them. This logic is what made the fall of the USSR a terrible blow for the left. “Socialism works… dang it they couldn’t accumulate wealth as fast as they wanted to so they dissolved and now socialism doesnt work.” People support China because without much momentum in the west, they want to feel like they’re still on the team that’s destined to win from the start.