The quote in Capital Volume 2 does not match the implication of the picture.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch01.htm#4
>True, the capitalist must also be there, must also live and consume to be able to perform the function of a capitalist. To this end, he has, indeed, to consume only as much as the labourer, and that is all this form of the circulation process presupposes. But even this is not formally expressed, since the formula concludes with M', i.e., a result which can at once resume its function as money-capital, now augmented.
>C' — M' directly contains the sale of C'; but C' — M', a sale on the one part, is M — C, a purchase, on the other part, and in the last analysis a commodity is bought only for its use-value, in order to enter (leaving intermediate sales out of consideration) the process of consumption, whether this is individual or productive, according to the nature of the article bought. But this consumption does not enter the circuit of individual capital, the product of which is C'. This product is eliminated from the circuit precisely because it is a commodity for sale. C' is expressly designed for consumption by others than the producer. Thus we find that certain exponents of the mercantile system (which is based on the formula M — C … P … C' — M') deliver lengthy sermons to the effect that the individual capitalist should consume only as much as the labourer, that the nation of capitalists should leave the consumption of their own commodities, and the consumption process in general, to the other, less intelligent nations but that they themselves should make productive consumption their life’s task. These sermons frequently remind one in form and content of analogous ascetic expostulations of the fathers of the church.It seems Marx is not promoting Dengism but rather attacking those that support "sound money" fiscal conservatives. This line stands out:
>individual capitalist should consume only as much as the labourer, that the nation of capitalists should leave the consumption of their own commodities, and the consumption process in general, to the other, less intelligent nations but that they themselves should make productive consumption their life’s task.<That is foreign countries can live above their means while we must be autarkic>These sermons frequently remind one in form and content of analogous ascetic expostulations of the fathers of the church<Greed is bad, live within your meansTldr Marx did not promoting Dengism, he was attacking Blue Dog democrats.
This begs the question, is there any definitive Marxist statement that unapologetically promotes Dengism?
the image does not say or imply marx promotes something called "dengism." in fact it suggests china is a "nation of capitalists" who "leaves the consumption of their own commodities, and the consumption process in general, to other, less intelligent nations" like the USA
this explains how China becomes strong while the USA becomes weak.
>This begs the question, is there any definitive Marxist statement that unapologetically promotes Dengism?
Dengism isn't a real thing.
Anyway Marx said this:
>No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.
Engels said this:
>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.
Deng said this:
>I am convinced that more and more people will come to believe in Marxism, because it is a science. Using historical materialism, it has uncovered the laws governing the development of human society. Feudal society replaced slave society, capitalism supplanted feudalism, and, after a long time, socialism will necessarily supersede capitalism. This is an irreversible general trend of historical development, but the road has many twists and turns. Over the several centuries that it took for capitalism to replace feudalism, how many times were monarchies restored! So, in a sense, temporary restorations are usual and can hardly be avoided. Some countries have suffered major setbacks, and socialism appears to have been weakened. But the people have been tempered by the setbacks and have drawn lessons from them, and that will make socialism develop in a healthier direction. So don't panic, don't think that Marxism has disappeared, that it's not useful any more and that it has been defeated. Nothing of the sort!
>So, to build socialism it is necessary to develop the productive forces. Poverty is not socialism. To uphold socialism, a socialism that is to be superior to capitalism, it is imperative first and foremost to eliminate poverty. True, we are building socialism, but that doesn’t mean that what we have achieved so far is up to the socialist standard. Not until the middle of the next century, when we have reached the level of the moderately developed countries, shall we be able to say that we have really built socialism and to declare convincingly that it is superior to capitalism. We are advancing towards that goal.