How was he so based, and why has no other socialist leader even come close to accomplishing what he did? I don't 100% love everything the guy did, but I really do think that he's greatly underappreciated as both a theoretician and a leader.
145 posts and 26 image replies omitted.>>2611026*Deng was not a revolutionary.
>>2611037Deng was not a communist
Deng xiaoping is Stalin's most succesful disciple, actually.
bruh I left this board sometime in idk 2019 or what. How do you guys still fucking suck this guys dick.
Like damn. I was one of the original lenin hat supporters of Deng Xiaoping when everyone was against that in the 8chan days. But sometime they switched.
Ive now turned more to leftcom / Gegenstandpunkt. But you guys cant move with the times it seems….
>>2611060He actually won compared to other movements, he's the reason Communism survives despite being symbolic
>>2611066communism survives in being a commodity based society that produces surplus values, preservers class, money, property, state ??? so much communism, wowzers
>>2611066Capital won you mean. Chinese state serves capital.
>>2611095>great man theoryChinese people won.
>>2611068>>2611070Yeah, what about it? Did George Washington betray the revolution because he allowed British aristocrats to buy land in the US?
>>2611099>nation statesProles won.
Deng won.
>>2611102What revolution?
>>2611104>doesn't understand different modes of productionslmao
>>2611102I have a question, was liberalism and democracy historically bourgeoisie? What did Marx think about the American revolution?
>>2611107What mode of production?
For a long period, until the late 1980s, Lenin was demagogically used as a weapon in the fight against the memory of Stalin, the best systematizer and propagandist of Leninism. Since the publication of Stalin's works ceased, and the published texts were removed from libraries, our scientific, educational, literary, and journalistic communities pretended not to notice the inherent falsehood of this policy. The main goal of this reaction, often unconscious of itself, was to impose on society, in place of the supposedly Stalinist, "administrative-command" (G.Kh. Popov's later term) model of socialism—which, even after Stalin, languished due to a lack of attention to the pace of the actual socialization of labor and production—a supposedly Leninist model combining planned methods and levers of control with the market. Initially, this model represented a "NEPization" of the economic concept of socialism, although Lenin himself saw the NEP as merely a passing detail "of development (from the standpoint of world history, these are undoubtedly details), like the Brest Peace or the NEP, etc." (Compiler's Notes, Vol. 45, p. 381). This ensured a slow evolution toward a return to capitalism. A similar tendency had been evident in literature since the late 1950s, and even the slightest hint of its dangerous, restorative potential was decisively suppressed even then. We are not writing about this “out of thin air,” but because we are relying on the words of those who personally witnessed and participated in, even became victims of, a number of the aforementioned conflicts.It would take a long time to list what Lenin and Stalin understood about Marxism and what their like-minded colleagues missed, but we will touch on just one mere "trifle," which nevertheless seems quite significant. This is the connection between the fate of commodity production and socialism. A connection that is either long-lasting but temporary, or organically inherent to socialism and therefore irreducible. If someone chooses the first answer, they are an unquestionable Marxist; if they hesitate and hesitate, they cannot yet be considered one; if they choose the second answer, they are an opponent of Marxism. But it was precisely this choice that was pushed toward by the entire climate among professional economists, created in the late 1950s and maintained until the late 1980s, when the collapse ensued…It was necessary to humanize the political economy of socialism, and it was precisely this work that Stalin set about.The word "began" used here by no means implies absolute innovation or that no one has tackled this task before. On the contrary, all of Marxism (and its utopian predecessors before it) is permeated with a commitment to returning to Protagoras's insightful ancient principle, "Man is the measure of all things," naturally, on a completely transformed scientific-production and moral-political foundation. That capitalism asserts the postulate of "production for production's sake," concealing behind it the ruling class's unbridled pursuit of profit—that is, the appropriation of the unpaid (surplus) labor of others—has been stated thousands of times by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and their followers. The same applies to the opposition to this order of things of the socialist mode of production, which pursues an entirely different goal: affirming the unity of the universal right to work and the universal duty to work, thereby eliminating the exploitation of man by man, and subordinating all production to the growing and "increasing" needs of the workers themselves, that is, the bulk of the people. Stalin reiterated this opposition in "Economic Problems," drawing on incomparably more solid practical foundations than his predecessors—namely, 35 years of experience in socialist transformations, Victory in the Patriotic War, and the completion of the post-war reconstruction period. Clearly counting on the strategic reserve of historical time thus won, as well as the expanded spatial possibilities of the new world system, he formulated the fundamental economic laws of capitalism and socialism. "The goal of socialist production is not profit," Stalin emphasized, "but man and his needs, that is, the satisfaction of his material and cultural needs." And he harshly corrected L.D. Yaroshenko with his “primacy” of production over consumption, seeing in it “something like the “primacy” of bourgeois ideology over Marxist ideology.”https://msk.kprf.ru/2022/02/17/211744/ [Source]
>>2611118B-but what about the phase D of capitalism?
>>2611118USSR was a bourgeois state, though
>>2611060>but you guys cant move with the times it seemsbut what changed for u. china has only got more obviously commie
>>2611068>commodity based societydid u also forget the material premise of communism? and the real movement?
>>2608598authors don't just state facts, but assert tone and add interpretation. sometimes they will even pretend to adopt the standpoint of their opponents in a deliberate act of reverse psychology. Hence the capitalist western academics criticizing Deng along ultra lines because seething about how he won (like Hillary did) is too mask off usually.
>>2611153>authors don't just state factsI know that, I clearly stated a well researched [maybe a better term, politically developed] person, can see the biases, and make their own opinions,
>Hence the capitalist western academics criticizing DengThe author wasn't criticizing Deng [But the author does clearly side with the "gradualist" pro capitalist wing over the shock therapists wing]. The author stating historical facts, that Deng intervened in 1988, and supported shock therapy, and then backtracked after it caused inflation.
>>2609594>"The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as an immense accumulation of commodities"The given statement can be transformed into an if-then statement as follows:
If a society has a capitalist mode of production, then its wealth presents itself as an immense accumulation of commodities.
This is not an "if and only if" (iff) statement. The original statement only describes a characteristic of societies where capitalism prevails; it does not imply that the converse is true. In other words, it does not claim that if a society's wealth presents itself as an immense accumulation of commodities, then it necessarily has a capitalist mode of production. Thus, it is a one-way conditional (if P then Q), not a biconditional (P if and only if Q).
>>2611188Marx is using Hegelian language to introduce commodity fetishism. This is why Lenin said it is necessary to read Hegel before reading Capital. That might be a
slight overstatement from Lenin, but "appearance" has non-colloquial definition there.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/slappear.htm >>2611234>>2611188Sorry forgot to mention, in some translations "presents itself as" is translated as "appears as" which is more loyal to the Hegelian concept being employed there.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/slappear.htm I made a poll to know the proportion in which various tendencies are represented on leftypol.
https://strawpoll.com/Q0Zp7GDMDgMPlease vote it takes half a second
https://strawpoll.com/Q0Zp7GDMDgM>>2611245>no votes for dengism + bukharnism so faroof
>>2611234>>2611236I am in no way modifying the verb, or claiming it has another meaning. So I don't understand the counterpoint.
Moreover, I think that people incorrectly equate commodity production with generalized commodity production (production, where also labor-power is a commodity sold on the market).
I've yet to see someone explain to me then, if the USSR had a planned economy, if there was guaranteed employment, hence no labor market, and if the money-form circulating was just a reflection of value (abstract human labor power measured in time crystallized in commodities) and not a commodity you could speculate with, if there was no capitalist class (in the political sense) commanding/dictating the economy - how it was still capitalism.
The same general line of thought is also my go-to with China today.
>>2611266Have you heard of the le phase D, as in dick, of capitalism as described by Engels in Anti-Duhring?
>>2611266because
>money-form circulating was just a reflection of valuewas determined externally by the capitalist world market. so their planning was distorted by exports of gold and grain necessitating by importing technology to develop. so it wasn't totally free to plan on its own terms
still not capitalism tho
>>2611140>did u also forget the material premise of communism? and the real movement?china is not contributing to the real movement. they are actively working against it.
>>2613389They are the main force behind dedollarization, this makes them part of the real movement.
>read article 24 of Communist Korea constitution https://dprknotes.home.blog/2024/02/24/socialist-constitution-of-the-democratic-peoples-republic-of-korea-2023/
<ARTICLE 24. Private property is the property for the private and consumptive purposes of the workers.
<The private property of the workers is obtained through socialist distribution according to work and additional benefits from the state and society.
<Products that came from kitchen gardens and other private sidelines of the residents and income earned through other legal economic activities are also under private property.
<The state protects private property and guarantees the right to inherit them by law.Yep that's going in the Dengism Elder Scroll
Deng was a wodigger
He was the same as wodigger warlord mao
>>2611247Dengism = Marxism Leninism
>>2613696Dengism = wodigger
>>2613699it's amazing how reactionary and white supremacist channers are default, that they turn the war on drugs, something which targeted black people, into another "play on" the N slur
>>2613713
>wuddabout this other thing
I've also called that out as well.
>>2613716
give it a rest kid
>>2611245this link is giving 404
does anyone have the quote where deng says he has forgotten how to be communist? preferably as an image
>>2614815but only if you have the source
Does anyone have the pic of Deng with Epstein? But only if you have the source
>>2614851Deng didn't kill himself.
>>2614851Quote from the document:
>In China there was significant support for Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping, with 14 per cent between them, and had those respondents considered only the living, Xi Jinping would have scored even more highly. Unique IPs: 22