How do you reconcile that this revisionist is responsible for China being the only hope left for socialists? What does China‘s success change about Marxist thought?
Deng not revisionist
You revisionist
<Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875
<Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke? No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.
Friedrich Engels, Principles of Communism, 1847
Read the above, now consider the fact that China, which already had a proletarian revolution, having overcome their semi-feudal conditions, and having done a speedrun of capitalist production, is gradually building the system with the red box around it in pic related.
<not enough time cuz climate change
vid related. they lead in renewables and are 9 years ahead of holding up their end of the Paris climate agreement which the burger reich completely abandoned. How much more heavy lifting must they do? The USA is 4-5% of the world's population but consumes 25% of the world's resources. They refuse to build renewable energy, and even as they decouple from China and reindustrialize they double down on carbon emitting forms of energy. China is close to building fusion.
>The only hope for socialism is a foreign country
The absolute state of "socialism" nowadays.
When are you people going to admit this is just secularized religion to you?
>>2522861When are we gonna have a revolution at home? We've been waiting for 250 years.
>>2522861Dengists are not socialists they are anti-communists.
>>2522895How so? Marx wanted the productive forces to be built internationally so that international communism could be achieved.
The PRC is the greatest nationalist project of all time.
Hopefully in 50 years I can come back here and say it has become the greatest socialist project of all time. Anarcho-retards will still be bitching though. And yes, belgian boys , there will commodity production.
>>2522899>vulgar marxismFuck off and die anti-communist.
>>2522819where is that first table from?
>>2522940He is just a retard no need to ascribe a specific position.
bloodgasm never has real arguments, just snarky sneedposts and low effort bait
>>2522895absolute false nuke
>>2522899china didn't just wait for international communism, they stabbed it in the back
>>2522744He's a capitalist. China before the CCP was semi-feudalist. Even Marx acknowledged that capitalism was better than feudalism. That's why China is much better now than it was just a few decades ago. That doesn't make the CCP socialist, unfortunately.
>>2523021>I don't need to distort Marx, Lenin, or Mao like you losers do.This is
>>2522940 literally a whole paragraph from the German Ideology.
>>2523030Taking quotes from the classics in order to defend capitalism/capitalist restoration is distortion dumbass.
>>2522744Chat is this true:
>when deng actually governed (while mao was still alive) his planned economy policy was a totally failure and further depressed the Chinese economy. The actually Chinese Growth Miracle was engineered by Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang the people who actually lead the country whilst a senile deng ostenabily was in charge (despite basically not holding any real positions).I guess it's usually the leaders who get the credit/blame for what people under them do but yeah I dunno much about Chinese politics.
I don't know much about Michael Hudson but I was watching interviews with him and he seems to like China for putting finance rentiers in a box and unleashing industry like Adam Smith wanted. It's funny if you told me he was actually a libertarian I'd believe it but I guess he likes defending classic political economy to bolster Marx.
>>2522744He wasn't a revisionist. He resolutely opposed revising the roles of Stalin and Mao in history
Is there a reasonable middle ground between
>Engels: private property cannot be abolished in one stroke
and
>Just wait for 50 years for the Chinese bourgeoisie to build the productive forces, trust the plan
>>2523137AES countries like China, DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia are in a holding pattern while they wait for you to overthrow your own bourgeoisie in the imperial core. The required productive forces for defense of the revolution is always relative to the external forces that seek to overthrow it. A communist party governs over China in the transition from state capitalism to socialism to communism, but that transition will be crippled unless other countries have their own revolutions, because China is just 1 country in a global capitalist system. China will not violate your country's sovereignty to bring you socialism because it has strategically embraced non-interventionist foreign policy in defense of its own past revolution, and besides that, socialism is unlikely to be embraced by any given country if it is seen as a 5th column for some foreign power. It is up to the American proletariat to overthrow their own bourgeoisie. The same is true of DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia. They will not invade America to bring America socialism. That is not their job. They might provide socialist Americans strategic aid once a real movement is off the ground, but as of yet there is no such militant mass movement that can claim legitimacy at a national scale.
>>2523013And socialism should be better than both, right? So why was Maoist China prior to Deng‘s revisions so miserable in comparison to today‘s China?
>>2523194Because whatever his initial intentions, Mao ultimately did not end up pursuing socialism. As soon as he felt threatened he created a cult of personality, imposed authoritarianism and state repression even against people who agreed with him on many things but not everything, and created stupid policies that made no sense like the Great Leap Forward. He was a red fascist presiding over a semi-feudal state; of course Mao's China is going to be worse off than Deng's state capitalist China.
>>2523023the PRC is international menshevism, thus?
>>2523211Both the US and China are corrupt capitalist imperialists. Cope.
>>2523212Damn I didn't know China also has the world reserve currency, control over the world bank and the IMF, 800 military bases around the world and the largest military force ever assembled in history by far, which it uses for it's imperialist ends, stealing resources and killing millions of people across the world. But I guess they're both the same because china is also a big country and so is the US, so I see your point
>>2523212This is true because such a large state as China must be an empire and all competent empires(as opposed to the stagnant isolationism of historical Chinese empires) with the capability to do so will try to expand their power outwards and thus are imperialist. But you need an empire to destroy an empire, don't you?
>>2523212>Capitalist99% communist doe
>Imperialist????????
Me China, me love tradmaxing yummy yummy markets plz gib money
Bot-tier thread
>>2522819Yes, but the USA invented clean beautiful coal, so all is okay.
If Deng is a revisionist, so is Mao for inviting him back to the heights of the party
>>2523207
>socialism is le people centered economyyeah this is meaningless drivel that could be written by any government in the world
>>2523229>But I guess they're both the sameWhen did I say they were exactly the same in all aspects? Of course they aren't, because they're two separate nation-states. But if you told the CCP they could have all the power the USA does as long as they give up even pretending to be socialist, I guarantee they would do it.
>>2523247Even the CCP doesn't pretend to have reached communism. Nor do they claim to have achieved socialism yet either. See
>>2523207 they claim that they're "on the road to socialism"
>>2523236If they destroy each other, all is well and good. I just don't agree with people who naively think replacing one evil imperial power (USA) with another (China) will somehow significantly fix anything.
>>2524452>When did I say they were exactly the same in all aspects?You said they are both "corrupt, capitalist and imperialist". So for all the important defining characteristics they are the same in your eyes faggot. Of course in the real world, in terms of actual charactistics they are vastly different nations that share very few commonalities other than both being big countries.
>But if I make up an imagined scenario in my head that would never ever happen in a million years irl then I'm right, I guarantee it Kill yourself rerard
>>2524461>So for all the important defining characteristics they are the sameThey have the same essence, but they don't express that essence in the exact same way. The USA and Russia are both corrupt, capitalist and imperialist, does that mean they are the exact same? Of course not. The same applies to the USA and China.
>faggot>rerardCompelling argument. Gonna cry?
>only hope left for socialist
China never had a proletarian revolution
>China‘s success change about Marxist thought?
Nothing, China is capitalist state
Chinese proletariat will rise and rape the counterrevolutionary CPC members. Then, they will join in internationalism with USA proletariat who will rape american counterrevolutionaries.
>>2524464Whats with the titillating image
>>2524600What was the revolution in china of, then? If not proletarian idfk, geniuenly clueless and want to know
>>2524649Bourgeois revolution, Mao was Asia’s Simon Bolivar
>>2524669Can we appreciate the elegance of Mao's solution though?
>>2524679Solution to what?
>>2524649a peasent nationalist revolution.
>>2522744>revisionistwhy? he basically fullfilled the developement of productive forces and restraining of banking and land capital that is studied by classical political economy which marx culminated
>>2524722Which is ironic because Deng administration was collective, there wasn’t at all any sense of One Man Rile which there very much was with Mao and today with Xi
>>2524718>>2524722>le great man theoryok ok, by "him" i mean "the economic direction china took after dengism, for x and y material conditioners and a w number of other factors"
>>2524730and by "for x and y conditioners…" i meant "because of x and…" (esl…)
>>2524740It is, you being sarcastic isn’t changing that
>>2524742Welcum back Lassale
>>2524740>>2524748the state CAN be AN historic (relative, contingent upon material, class, productive… conditions) agent for communism IF it is a dictatorship of the proletariat, just as the capitalist state is and has been AN agent, but not THE historical agent by any means… Otherwise, if it is the case that the state lacks any historical agency, why should we communism seek to control it as a mean for our goal? and why has it been effectively used to hinder our goals by our class enemies?
>>2523063>Zhao Ziyangyep thats bait
If you are a Sino-Marxist, there is no contradiction. As Mao said, Praxis is the Sole Criterion of Truth.
>>2523063Like hideo kojima
>>2524763holy shit what??? hahahaha
>>2524464>they have the same essenceJust cut to the chase and say they have the same vibes or the same aura or whatever. If you can't actually say how they are the same in any concrete way, when in reality they are vastly different both historically and in terms of political economy, then you're just labelling them as identical based on nothing but your assertion that they are.
>russian imperialismIf imperialism is when a country is mean to it's smaller neighboring countries then sure
>Compelling argumentThe argument was that in order to justify your own argument you have to conjure an imagined world that doesn't exist and say "see in my imagined world I'm right!". Calling you retarded and a faggot were obviously just insults, you obtuse fucking moron
>What does China‘s success change about Marxist thought?
did the Scandinavian economic model change anything about marxist thought ?
China doesn’t exist, stop talking about it
>>2524933Scandinavian social model is just serfs with benefits, economic elites held over 70% of national wealth, but income was evenly distributed.
China is the Lenin-Deng gamble, do you trust a vanguard party or not?
How do you reconcile being an unloved cunt?
>>2525149Til nazi germany was not imperialist
>>2525169nazi germany does fit the 5 criteria
Unique IPs: 45