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.
Vietnam slapped his shit so hard he gave up after a month
Deng won.
He was a pragmatist and “practice is the sole criterion of truth” is rational.
>>2608532>Deng was a pragmatist.Wrong. You are revisionist imperialist. Deng was Marxist, not pragmatist.
>Some bourgeois philosophers try to liken pragmatism to Marxism on the ground that pragmatism continuously harps on action and relies on the practical test of ideas and theories. The revisionists, too, joined bourgeois propaganda in slandering Marxists and accusing them of pragmatism. In reality, Marxism has nothing in common with pragmatism, which is a false idealist doctrine that has been adopted as a weapon by the ideologists of the imperialist bourgeoisie. While speaking of practice and pretending to be a “philosophy of action”, pragmatism advances a bourgeois-individualistic, subjective conception of practice based on the unscientific notion that the world is irrational and unknowable.>Pragmatism is, first and foremost, the world outlook of “vigorous money-grabbers”—the U.S. financial magnates and monopolists who regard themselves as omnipotent masters of the capitalist world. By ignoring objective facts, the idealist philosophy of pragmatism fosters adventurist, aggressive tendencies in political thought and provides a theoretical basis for the policy of acting “from positions of strength”. By its failure to recognize the objective difference between truth and falsehood and by identifying truth and utility, pragmatism encourages unprincipledness and enables the ideologists of the ruling class to justify every profitable lie, and every criminal act. The justification of aggression, violence and fraud that follows from the very essence of the pragmatic philosophy suits the interests of the most reactionary imperialist groups. No won-der ᴉuᴉlossnW admitted that he had learned much from William James and thought pragmatism “the cornerstone of fascism”. bukharin was right
>why has no other socialist leader even come close to accomplishing
the secret to being the best socialist is to implement capitalism
Kruschev accomplished what he did (restoration of capitalism).
Jury's still out tbh. If China succeeds in overcoming its present state capitalist phase and reestablished a planned economy without markets, commodity production, private property, or wage labour, then he should rightly be regarded as a Marxist leader and theoretician on par with Lenin. If they undergo a full restoration and bourgeois power then he should be a considered a traitor and revisionist on par with Gorbachev.
>>2608545>>2608546Cope, take the L, admit you haven't read Marx, plus you're a trot
>>2608548Trots are fine with Deng and they think China post reaction is (degenerated) socialist. Only Maoists are genuinely opposed to the filthy imperialist dog-clique that destroyed the socialist experiment in China and continue to defile its name in favour of profits.
>>2608561S, its rare to see you here these days.
>>2608562I don't think I post less than I used to, idk though.
>>2608547You are 100% wrong. verdict is clear. China is Communist, not state-capitalist.
>The Thirteenth National Party Congress will explain what stage China is in: the primary stage of socialism. Socialism itself is the first stage of communism, and here in China we are still in the primary stage of socialism — that is, the underdeveloped stage. In everything we do we must proceed from this reality, and all planning must be consistent with it.>reestablished a planned economy without markets, commodity production, private property, or wage labourYou say "reestablish", yet this never existed in China.
>>2608537Marxism is pragmatic. You are annoying stupid contrarian troll who runs his mouth yapyapyapyapyap in every thread with "corrections." You think you are always right. If someone says "A" you say "Wrong. B." But if someone says "B" you say "Wrong. A."
CHAIRMAN XI PLS MAKE MY HYSR INVESTMENTS WORTH IT
>>2608574Read this several times until you understand
>Socialism itself is the first stage of communism, and here in China we are still in the primary stage of socialismSocialism is the first stage of Communism. China is socialist. China is Communist.
>>2608532He was honestly completely fucking right. His refusal to condemn Mao saved China. The LKY of China.
>>2608587
>>2608588
> Calling Deng "pragmatic" is a dog whistle for imperialists to call China capitalist
Capitalism is not pragmatic. That is your silly idea. Marxism is pragmatic because it is practical and materialist.
>>2608573Do you have more banger videos
>>2608572Incorrect. That theory you deny comes from Marxist-Leninist textbook. Calling Deng "pragmatist" is a dog whistle for imperialists to call China capitalist. The fascists call Deng "pragmatist" rather than admit his contributions to Communism lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty.
>>2608590>Who values the opinions of capitalist intellectualsAuthor's opinions on history is secondary. What should be cared about is what happened in history, and what sources the author uses to back up what is said. A knowledgeable reader can make their own opinions, that disagree with the author, if they believe the author to be wrong.
>>2608595>. Calling Deng "pragmatist" is a dog whistle for imperialists to call China capitalist. The fascists call Deng "pragmatist" rather than admit his contributions to Communism lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty.1. I'm pro Deng you idiot
2. Capitalism is not pragmatic
3. pragmatic /pɹæɡˈmætɪk/ (adjective)
Practical, concerned with making decisions and actions that are useful in practice, not just theory. >>2608634Hillary Clinton 🤝 Dengists
>>2608572He is obviously being satirical
Vietnam should have nuked Beijing
>>2608636>Hillary Clinton 🤝 Dengistsshe's literally seething that China outmaneuvered America economically
>>2608636Same analysis different view
>>2608523>and why has no other socialist leader even come close to accomplishing what he did?Stalin is actually more impressive.
>>2608572>You are annoyingWhy do radlibs think this is an argument?
>>2608777You're not wrong, Russia was a backwater in the middle of a political crisis. China was a backwater but it had stability for a while after Mao's political liberalization.
>>2608789What did he even do? He literally do nothing, he was the original Hu Jintao
>>2608523Lenin and Stalin mog literally everyone.
>>2608532It's funny when CPUSAcels think they are like Deng for voting blue no matter who and call that being "pragmatic".
>>2608547Correct. We can only let them cook.
>>2608547Pretty much. It all boils down to whether the Long NEP will turn out to be an Eternal NEP or not.
>>2608792>did he even do?There's academic research that indicate he started reform and opening up, not Deng.
>>2608809Really? I thought he was a hardline maoist
>>2608811lol no
hardline maoists apart from the Gang of Four were all 15 year old girls
>>2608813What… then what were the two whatevers about.. what happened to Maoism after Mao?
>>2608815>two whateversJesse what the fuck are you talking about
>>2608815maoism is an out-of-china jungle boy activity
there was no 'maoism' per se during Mao's lifetime
>>2608820yeah but we do not have any writing of those supposed 'instructions and testaments' of Mao. So both the Gang of Four and the anti-gang of four acted and propagandised in the name of 'Mao and his legacy'.
Who the fuck knows what Mao wanted, what he thought about the main actors of that period, or if he. thought anything at all, maybe he was a senile hag at this point who was
drained beyond recovery
>>2608561>le true maoismPurity spiraling idealist chud. The CPC applies Marxist analysis to the material conditions of China. Mao was a cringe left deviation anarchist (30%) based national liberation guerilla coopting marxist aesthetics (70%)
>>2608566Yeah? Well I wrote a constitution that says you're a little baby man who says goo goo ga ga and poops his pants. If you deny this is true then you're an imperialist and anti-communist.
Stagism
Industry is physical liberalism, no one should ever industrialize
>>2608545>>2608546>>2608547Socialism and markets are not mutually exclusive. If you read Manifesto, it's very clear that Marx called for the abolition of private ownership of things like land, buildings, infrastructure, etc. He probably wouldn't be 100% satisfied with modern China, but it's way more in-line with his proposition for socialism than you'd think.
>>2609055>Socialism and markets are not mutually exclusive. Yes they are. Marx and Engels are very clear that there is no competition or private exchange between producers under communism.
>but it's way more in-line with his proposition for socialism than you'd thinkI can accept their current policies as a valid means of socialist construction, but it's definitely still capitalism.
>>2608937second row isn't true though. I know that the concept of fascists lying is a difficult one but trust me on this
>>2609250I dont believe in that meme bro i just wanted to bait Dengist fury. I clearly failed.
>>2609060it's communist if it's on the communist path. communism is the journey, not the destination
>>2609252can't bait the autistics
>>2609253If your journey never ends and also doesn't abolish the core features of capitalism then it's not communism.
>>2609253You are wrong. You cede 3 inches of ground to the imperialist when you say China is Communist because China is moving towards Communism. This is incorrect because China has already achieved Communism because China has achieved socialism and socialism is the first stage of Communism.
>>2609060You are 100 percent wrong. Communism without competitive markets like in Communist China is ossified, pre-capitalist-like society where the prole gets same bread ration and same shoe after 100 years and gets no consumer product. Communism needs markets to create competition and develop productive forces. Social imperialist monopolist fascist russia never gave the proletarians cell phones like capitalist nations because the market mechanisms required did not exist like they do in Communist China.
If Communism has no competitive markets, the real wages of imperialists will rise faster as Communist wages stagnate like in Russia. That is why Communist China is correct to have competitive, non-state-monopoly-capitalist, Communist markets
Study Mao's line that destroys every lie you say:
>To negate the commodity aspects of socialist direct social products and to attempt to abolish commodity production is obviously erroneous. Ch’en Po-ta, a renegade and Trotskyite, clamored for the abolition of commodity production and exchange during the period of the rapid development of China’s rural people’s commune movement in a vain attempt to lead revolution and construction astray. Chairman Mao saw through this conspiracy in time and engaged him in a resolute struggle. In the resolutions of the Sixth Plenum of the Eighth Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party personally convened and chaired by Chairman Mao, this was pointed out: “This way of thinking which attempts to prematurely abolish commodity production and exchange, prematurely negate the constructive role of commodities, value, money, and price is detrimental to developing socialist construction and is therefore in correct.” >>2608589I think his refusal to condemn Mao allowed the Chinese state to create a sense of coherence. Krushchev condemning Stalin was silly because it was directly attacking the foundations of his own state. It's no wonder a kind of nihilism sunk in.
>>2609294>This way of thinking which attempts to prematurely abolish commodity production and exchange>prematurelyIn other words commodity production should still be abolished, but only when conditions are correct. Thanks for pointing out how Mao agrees with Marx that higher stage communism has no markets.
>>2609327>I can accept their current policies as a valid means of socialist construction, but it's definitely still capitalism.You call China capitalist. You are wrong. The socialist transformation of private ownership of the means of production has been completed, the system of exploitation of man by man abolished, and a socialist system established. The exploiting class, as a class, has been eliminated.
>>2609274there will always be work to be done anon
>>2609290poor bait
>>2609342I swear this guy sucked off a mod or something. He never posts anything of value, everyone hates him, and yet he still shows up any time anyone says anything about China, positive or negative, to spam the exact same quotes he mined ad nauseum, and never seems to get in any trouble for it.
>>2609468Mods are euro chauvinists. Anything apart from shitting on euros will not get you banned
>>2609250so dengism is fascism if it wasnt lying?
>>2609489ᴉuᴉlossnW did say that he considered Marxism-Leninism as practiced by Stalin fascism, so he probably would've liked Deng too.
>>2609468You seem to have anti-Communist motivations. It is every Communist's duty to correct anyone who says incorrect things (such as China is capitalist) with Communist theory.
>>2609468might be a dedicated bit
>>2609502fascism was just socialism with italian characteristics.
Nobody is ready for this truthnuke
>>2609516You're not correcting shit. You've "corrected" me a million times and I've never even once learned a single thing from anything you've ever posted. Saying "no, you are wrong" and then mining a quote that says
>This is the way things are, it's the truth because it's truthDoesn't actually convince anyone of anything. It makes you look like an annoying sperg who can't actually argue his points.
the mindless regurgitation of phrases as if they are arguments is the bane of online discourse
>>2609562What argument do you speak of? China is not capitalist. Deng is Marxist, not "pragmatist." Communist commodity production is not capitalism.
>>2609342>capitalis is when le bourgeoisieLe China is in le phase D of le capitalism as described by le Engels in Le Anti-Duhring.
>>2609572<Communist commodity production is not capitalism.absolute theorylet retardation, its literally marxism 101, at the very beginning of capital volume 1 Marx says "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as an immense accumulation of commodities", commodity production becoming generalized is literally the definition of capitalism and what distinguishes it from non capitalism.
Anyway china has progressed even beyond simple commodity production and has multiple stock markets and a full fledged bourgeoisie albeit one which is relatively under control (but that can change). I view China as more dirigisme type economy or more similar to gaullism or western ww2 wartime economies where markets and capitalist firms exist but are subordinated to national goals. That's better than libertarian laissez faire 19th century USA bullshit but not really socialism in any way unless your criteria for socialism is when any non western country other than japan or south korea becomes developed.
State-owned in China means state-controlled, not 100% state-owned which is why investors can buy shares of Chinese SOEs
Dirigisme / Gaullism:
- State-controlled "national champions"
- Partial listings & mixed ownership
- Strategic planning via indicative targets
- Heavy industry, energy, transport under state guidance
- Markets used within a national strategy
Dengists and Deng fans, please explain why Charles De Gaulle didn't already do socialism with "french characteristics"
Apologies in advance if this take is retarded, but I've always been confused when I talk to my mainlander Chinese coworkers, and they all say stuff like China is a too competitive rat race, the job market is brutal, the working hours are bad, etc, and how America is at least better because you make more money. How did China manage to have the classic problems of capitalism despite being technically socialist, isn't this Deng's fault?
>>2609594"on western country other than japan or south korea becomes developed."
wouldnt south korea and japan also fit in the dirigsme/ gaullism though
>>2609510Singapore is an anomaly and impressive. LKY has the equivalent of a state funded personality cult. It'll collapse in a decade or so though. Most apartments are sold, they are subsidized and citizens sell them to immigrants. It's a pyramid scheme of a country in a way.
>>2609342>china is socialistmy uygha read critique of the gotha program and state and revolution. There has never been AES only dictatorships of the proletariat the socialist mode of production requires the withering away of the state. The question is now is china is still the dictatorship of the proletariat or was ever one to begin with.
hot take restoring capitalism and letting the west kill and exploit your people isn't based. Mao and the Communist Party wiped out all westerners from China, Deng invited them in on hands and knees
No socialism with commodity production
Sorry but I dont make the rules dengoids
Hu Jintao is the most bureaucratic bureaucrat to ever bureaucratise. Dude is the definition of mid.
Jiang Zemin is often forgotten and underrated.
>>2609723Jiang was a chad. Hu Jintao is just an emotionless, expressionless dooood.
jiang was a frog. Jintao was a robot. Xi is Xi
>>2609311Problem with Krushchev was, he did not actually apply dialectics in his condemnation of Stalin, Deng on the other hand did (Mao is 70% good 30% bad and every man is good and bad both) also he targeted the Gang of Four thus legitimising the CPC and Mao.
Great Deng was a pioneer all the way.
>>2609737MaoAnon is a condescending asshole who has nothing of value to post. Shame on MaoAnon. He is not worthy of Mao's broad smiling face.
>>2609737You could tell us more of great leap forward and how it inspired Deng to reform China into a superpower it now is. Ultra retards cant stop losing.
>>2609594>Dengists and Deng fans, please explain why Charles De Gaulle didn't already do socialism with "french characteristics"because de Gaulle was not a communist
you will not find anything in capitalism that cannot be communist when used towards communist ends
>>2609594>Dengists and Deng fans, please explain why Charles De Gaulle didn't already do socialism with "french characteristics"He didn't rape the definition of socialism and built a neoliberal state on top of a failed national liberation revolution that had a red flag cause in the 19th century communism was in vogue in the world. That's true communism!
>>2610108How was 1949 a 'failed natlib revolution'?
Id argue its among the best if not THE best natlib rev of all time.
>>2610090'Communist ends' being?
>>2609723>>2609725>>2609735"Too simple, sometimes naive"
>>2609722He was probably corrupt too. Didn't even get to develop a personality cult unlike Xi and Jiang
Deng flew under the radar as a great thinker and was condemned as a “revisionist”. Little did people know that revisionism may actually elevate Marxist thought. Deng won, China won, and that will only get clearer in the next few decades.
>>2610214Deng saved Marxism and Communism from irrelevancy
>>2609719>hot take restoring capitalism and letting the west kill and exploit your people isn't based.In retrospect, that was a small price to pay to become the next world power in return. 40 years later and who‘s laughing last?
>Deng invited them in on hands and kneesThat only makes him more based that he sacrificed his personal dignity in pursuit of an intelligent strategy for the sake of his people.
>>2610217Now that they're a superpower, they just need to export the ideology. It's impressive how much China won.
>>2610217>>2610220People who want China to be America 2.0 freak me out.
>the next world powerimplies hegemony, which simply isn't the case.
>>2610220>Now that they're a superpower, they just need to export the ideology.They are exporting it. It's just liberalism lmao
>>2610123they have already said planning wil never come back ie communism is never happening its just dirigisme forever
>>2610251people who chinascare in order to perpetuate American hegemony FREAK ME PANTS OUT MAMAMIA
Based Deng thread
>>2608778That's right. Calling him annoying was not meant to be an argument, it's just a fact about that anon. a counter argument was also given in addition to the fact that he is annoying.
>radlib radlib radlibyou have sucked this word of all meaning and selectively ignored the actual argument given to whine about the fact that anon was indeed annoying, as are you.
>>2608631notice how quiet "Wrong." anon got after this post dropped
mfw my paramount leader will never have a Big Dengist Cock
>>2608789lol the chairman milley meme was based on this hua guofeng poster
>>2610290>>2610301No, seriously, can somebody get back to me on this?
>>2610565So Gorbachev should just have sucked Stalin dick. And we would have a neolib shithole USSR now with even more russophiles defending it. Kinda glad he didn't lmao.
>>2610565China2050bros… I'm not feeling so good…
>>2610580>Kinda glad he didn't lmao.there would be no ukraine war where millions are dying if he had done that
>>2610565>Source: Bloombergidgaf when stenographers for western capital say about china tbqh
>>2610290no they have not. what Xi has said is that the "old style" of planning is not coming back. a new style of planning is therefore on the table
>>2609468engagement = tshirt sales
>>2610391>notice how quiet "Wrong." anon got after this post droppedhes using a narrow dogmatic definition instead of the colloquial one, which he does with everything. its like saying dialectics isn't metaphysical because mao defined dialectics in opposition to metaphysics, or like how someone might say they are non-ideological while espousing an ideology.
its sort of a flex to imply that your position is beyond reproach, but its really not helpful if the language isn't shared or left unexplained. lenin probably wrote somewhere that pragmatism is opportunism as opposed to dialectical materialism which is correct(left unsaid: because its pragmatic). where the difference between opportunism and practicality would be if you break with fundamentals not merely using what works to achieve progress. pragmatism is also the name a specific philosophical school (that is not dialectics), so they could also be referring to that, even though practice praxis and pragmatism are related terms marxists get real hair splitty, and for good reason usually
>>2610215trvth drone swarm
>>2608631What decisions arent useful in practice?
>>2608631>3. pragmatic /pɹæɡˈmætɪk/ (adjective) Practical, concerned with making decisions and actions that are useful in practice, not just theory.This definition of "pragmatism" is a bourgeois slur which equates in practice to opportunism. Lenin and Deng proved that theoretical correctness and adherence Marxism is most essential precondition of most useful praxis. Science is not simply what happens to work. Therefore, even with your general definition, Deng nor Marxism can accurately be called "pragmatic." Marxism is antithesis to fascist "pragmatism."
>>2610908We must use the politically correct terms. This is not siberia. ᴉuᴉlossnW said pragmatism is a cornerstone of fascism. It is no coincidence that CPUSAnon calls Deng "pragmatist." To call Deng or Marxism "pragmatic" is to fail to grasp their profoundly scientific, theoretical essence
>>2610946What is this in service of? What larger point are you trying to make? Or is there no point at all, and you're just a psycho who likes getting into arguments for the sake of it?
>>2608530Won at what? The entire world is capitalist. Wageslavery runs every country. Dengists on this board think they're dabbing on someone when they're doing it on themselves.
>>2610966OP asks why Deng is great. Calling Deng a "pragmatist," or Marxism "pragmatic," is incorrect and bourgeois, and a means for imperialists to depreciate Deng's unprecedented achievements, including his scientific, theoretical contributions to Marxism, and revise Marxism as whole.
>>2610966Mods permaban this falsifier
>>2610946>We must use the politically correct terms.Thats fine but for less common terms you will have to include your definitions or people will get confused or not take you seriously because they think you are trolling to make China look bad.
If you are "China has no bourgeois the exploitation of man by man has ceased to exist" anon then I have also thought you to be trolling this whole time even if I agree because you sound totally unhinged.
>>2610901Every time Mao says something I assume it's made up or due to change when his mood does
>>2611014hes just so based that reality bends to his aura
>>2611018Not even wrong, he was a modern Qin Shi Huangdi but even cooler
Deng was not a communist revolutionary.
>>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: 68