What is the leftypol consensus on Western Neo-Dengist economics, specifically economists such as Isabella Weber, that are making huge waves right now?
>>2937404>Western Neo-Dengist economicsmy favorites are adam smith and karl marx
>>2937418Don't think they knew Deng. Also something tells me that Marx fellow wasn't much a fan of markets.
I'm German and I've seen her on some programs, she gets smeared as a antisemite as it is normal in Germany when you are left of neoliberalism - but can anybody give me a tl/dr what her economic proposals are? Are they influenced by the Chinese model, or why do you call her "neo-Dengist"?
>>2937428Marx wasn't prescriptive in his analysis. Nowhere in his work can you find "markets le bad" or "markets good" because his critique of political economy is deeper than just being about what method you use for allocation of goods.
>>2937435Tell that to his modern retarded followers who think the only way to achieve Trve Commvism(tm) is to commit sepuku for the sin of commodity production.
>>2937431It's exactly that. Weber is probably the most reputable scientist on China's economical transition, well-regarded even by the Chinese.
She is most famous for her groundbreaking research within China, on dispelling the notion that China underwent a post-Soviet-style shock therapy and not a gradualist path of development.
She is now using this to argue for quasi-dengist policies in Western countries, such as nationalization of strategic sector, a China-style tamed market, state control over financial Institutions, strategic price controls, especially on essential goods and energy. Her work inspired the energy price control measures across different European countries during the Gas shock.
>>2937440Nice. However, I still don't like the whole "anti-fascist economics" shtick. We recently had the bit with Annalena Baerbock's "feminist foreign policy" so any association with such a term is pure toxin.
I guess it's for marketing reasoning. If you call it a "socialist market economy", socialism with Chinese Characteristics, or generally any "ideologized" term, they tend not to take you seriously in the mainstream.
>>2937440>dispelling the notion that China underwent a post-Soviet-style shock therapy and not a gradualist path of development.NOOOOOOOOOOOO
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
DENGISM IS JUST YELTSINISM
LISTEN TO MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>2937428He was actually, of the simple commodity and distributive sort.
Im still pooping on your threas
Deng xiapoing was a pedo btw
>>2937435In lower stage socialism products are not made for exchange, products are not values, thus spoketh Saint Marx.
>>2937457>"anti-fascist economics" shtickHere's how we stop fascism: All within the state, nothing outside.
Anyone remotely dengist should be shot together with the other capitalists
>>2937439the trvthnvke that leftypol couldn't handle…
>>2937404Watched the Bad Faith interview with her. She doesn't want to socialize food, believes in gradualism, praises FDR for being brave, military spending might be inflationary and lead to austerity measures, Kalecki mentioned (capitalists don't want full employment), we need anti-trust, wealth tax, price stabilized basket of essential food stuffs, green energy, floor and ceiling approach, yada yada (44:35 she lists a bunch of stuff), the economy is political not a neutral machine.
Briahna Gray is pessimistic because the DSA is full of ass kissers who don't push the conversation and cuddle up to their opponents instead of exposing them.
Rate of profit enters the chat.
>anti-fascist economics
why title one's book like that? "here's what I'm against, not what I'm for"
western retards are not qualified to be either proDeng, antiDeng, Dengcurious or Deng-indifferent.
western retards must focus on becoming full human beings
>>2937651Bad faith or ignorant? Only the first few years were liberal leaning. Later the government increasingly involved itself in the economy.
>>2937662>bail out bankrupt industrialists and then put those same people in charge againdoesn't sound very liberal to me
>>2937695Pinochet bailed out firms that went bankrupt when the economy collapsed due to the retarded Chicago Boys. Libtards always bail out companies when push comes to shove. The Conservatives in Britain do the same. When a private company fails they take it over to refloat it with state money and then privatize it again afterwards.
What Dengism does that the european social democraties didnt from 1910-1990?
>>2937707having an army of nu-MLs that pretend their capitalism is socialism, thats the key difference I think
>>2937707As seen by this thread it makes glowies seethe.
Deng just discovered that the path to communism needed to be slower than previously though, applied that, instantly won and thus made imperialists and martyrism fetishists seethe forever.
>>2937439>the only way to achieve Trve Commvism(tm) is to commit sepuku for the sin of commodity productionits more like killing those that uphold commodity productions instead of waiting for them to kill themselves (they wont because the system benefits them) but thats pretty close, almost gigaquoteable, it seems you are finally starting to understand marxism, I'm proud of you!
Socialism is the process by which communist society emerges from capitalism. After seeing lots of socialist projects get assraped Deng figured out that keeping a bourgeoisie around but keeping them kneeling to the state and the party was the safest way to the start the path the communism in a world with a rabid roided up imperialist hegemon.
For capitalism to be capitalism you need porky to be the dominant class. China is not capitalist. Seethe.
>>2937729Only if you believe in communism being magically abolished overnight like some anarchist idealist. It's a good think Marx wasn't a retard and understod that communism is achieved over time rather than instantly. Now go back to the armchair ultra-retard.
>>2937731>Socialism is the process by which communist society emerges from capitalismthe process by which communist society emerges from capitalism is class struggle, what states like PRC do is the opposite of that, if you think "keeping the bourgeoisie around" is the way to overcome capitalism thats fine but you disagree with Marx's fundamental law of historical change
>>2937404She is a retard along with all the DSA-reformist retards. Only a One Party State under a Marxist-Leninist political programme will be able to smoothly transition to communism. Everyone else that allows bourgeois control to proliferate will collapse into barbarism.
>>2937746except he thought it would happen through proletarian rule rather than developmentalist party states
>>2937748>What states like PRC do is the opposite of thatProve it retard.
> if you think "keeping the bourgeoisie around" is the way to overcome capitalism thats fine but you disagree with Marx's fundamental law of historical changeProve it retard.
>>2937750What exactly do you think constitues "proletarian rule" as advised by Marx? I am quite certain that whatever you have in mind is not that.
>>2937751>Prove it retardyou literally described their class collaboration yourself you schizo
>>2937753So are you going to prove how Marx was of the view that modern Dengist policies somehow aren't capable of achieve communism or not?
>>2937746>communism being magically abolished overnightdid you mean to say established
>>2937757>The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.>Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.current (and past) CPC policy of class conciliation explicitly works against this process, which is the one that according to Marx and Engels will culminate in communist society
>>2937746today I learned Lenin is an anarchist, only on dengypol
>>2937749>Only a One Party State under a Marxist-Leninist political programme you mean nationalism, trademaxxing and diplomacycucking until your reform yourself into a regular liberal state like the PRC? how will this achieve communism?
>>2937752he was quite vague about it but by any reading, its constitutive elements are the abolition of private property and the immediate liquidation of the bourgeoisie, with the closest example of what it might look like being the government structure of the paris commune. what it is not is much easier to diagnose, and it's not a state where members of the bourgeoisie are allowed to hold office, nor one which manages the contradictions of capitalism for the sake of maintaining industrial export-driven capital accumulation, or one where elon musk feels safe to place a tesla factory, and certainly not one where the ones in charge of all of this call themselves the communist party while managing a fairly standard capitalist society. in the same way that if fdr in the us proclaimed the end of elections and renamed the democratic party to socialist party that wouldn't make the new deal communist.
dengists struggle to separate good governance and state direction from socialism episode #3837637482
>>2937746>Only if you believe in communism being magically abolished overnight like some anarchist idealist.>>2937764<today I learned Lenin is an anarchist, only on dengypol''We made the
mistake of deciding to go over
directly to communist production and distribution. We thought that under the surplus-food appropriation system the peasants would provide us with the required quantity of grain, which we could distribute among the factories and thus achieve communist production and distribution […] brief experience convinced us that that line was wrong, that it ran counter to what we had previously written about the transition from capitalism to socialism, namely, that it would be impossible to bypass the period of socialist accounting and control in approaching even the lower stage of communism […]
our theoretical literature has been definitely stressing the necessity for a prolonged, complex transition through socialist accounting and control from capitalist society (and the less developed it is the longer the transition will take) to even one of the approaches to communist society. […] Get down to business, all of you! You will have capitalists beside you, including foreign capitalists, concessionaires and leaseholders. They will squeeze profits out of you amounting to hundreds per cent; they will enrich themselves, operating alongside of you. Let them. Meanwhile you will learn from them the business of running the economy, and only when you do that will you be able to build up a communist republic. Since we must necessarily learn quickly, any slackness in this respect is a serious crime. And we must undergo this training, this severe, stern and sometimes even cruel training, because we have no other way out.
- Lenin, The New Economic Policy, 1921
>>2937766<For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.- Lenin, The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It, Section Titled: Can We Go Forward If We Fear To Advance Towards Socialism?, 1917
<The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry. - Lenin, To the Russian Colony in North America, 14th November, 1922
<[…] classes cannot be abolished at one stroke. And classes still remain and will remain in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship will become unnecessary when classes disappear. Without the dictatorship of the proletariat they will not disappear. Classes have remained, but in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat every class has undergone a change, and the relations between the classes have also changed. The class struggle does not disappear under the dictatorship of the proletariat; it merely assumes different forms.- Lenin, Economics And Politics In The Era Of The Dictatorship Of The Proletariat, 30 October, 1919
<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
<Our theory is a theory of evolution, not a dogma to be learned by heart and to be repeated mechanically. The less it is drilled into the Americans from outside and the more they test it with their own experience […] the deeper will it pass into their flesh and blood. When we returned to Germany, in spring 1848, we joined the Democratic Party as the only possible means of getting the ear of the working class; we were the most advanced wing of that party, but still a wing of it. When Marx founded the International, he drew up the General Rules in such a way that all working-class socialists of that period could join it – Proudhonists, Pierre Lerouxists and even the more advanced section of the English Trades Unions; and it was only through this latitude that the International became what it was, the means of gradually dissolving and absorbing all these minor sects, […] Had we from 1864, to 1873 insisted on working together only with those who openly adopted our platform where should we be to-day? I think that all our practice has shown that it is possible to work along with the general movement of the working class at every one of its stages without giving up or hiding our own distinct position and even organisation […]- Friedrich Engels, Letter to Florence Kelley Wischnewetsky, January 27, 1887
<[…] it is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real world by employing real means, that slavery cannot be abolished without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture, and that, in general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity. “Liberation” is an historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture, the conditions of intercourse.- Karl Marx, The German Ideology, 1845-1846
<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
>>2937770>Lenin, The New Economic Policy, 1921good thing we are talking about the PRC in 2026 and is nothing like the USSR back then so this isnt relevant
When did you realize this website has literal wumaos on 24/7 duty that spam Lenin quotes everytime the marxoyim starts noooticing chinese capitalism?
>>2937775except the posts i was responding to were two anons conjecturing about lenin
>>2937778there are marx quotes in there too. any time i "spam" these quotes 2 things usually happen.
>people ASSOOM the point i am trying to make with them instead of just reading them at face value
>people accuse me of "quotemining" or "taking marx and lenin out of context" but never establish what the correct context is the replies i get are usually short, low effort, full of accusations ,etc. these are the same anons who will just reply with "read marx" or "read lenin" usually but then when you actually quote marx and lenin they get very upset.
>>2937781>Resolutely denounce Deng Xiaoping's reactionary crimespretty sure the cultural revolutionaries killed more Communist Party members than Deng Xiaoping did, including veterans of the World Antifascist War, but as usual with you types, killing comrades is the goal, as long as you make sure to slander them as not real communists beforehand.
<The United States and the Soviet Union have held talks that showed an encouraging tendency towards disarmament. We are happy to see this. I looked forward to the end of the Cold War, but now I feel disappointed. It seems that one Cold War has come to an end but that two others have already begun: one is being waged against all the countries of the South and the Third World, and the other against socialism. The Western countries are staging a third world war without gunsmoke. By that I mean they want to bring about the peaceful evolution of socialist countries towards capitalism. We are not surprised at the developments in Eastern Europe. These changes were bound to take place sooner or later. The trouble there started from inside. The Western countries have the same attitude towards China as towards the East European countries. They are unhappy that China adheres to socialism. The turmoil that arose in China this year also had to come about sooner or later. We ourselves were partly to blame. As you know, two of our General Secretaries fell because of their failure to deal with the problem of bourgeois liberalization. If China allowed bourgeois liberalization, there would inevitably be turmoil.[…] the Group of Seven summit meeting issued a declaration imposing sanctions on China. What qualifies them to do that? Who granted them the authority? Actually, national sovereignty is far more important than human rights, but they often infringe upon the sovereignty of poor, weak countries of the Third World. Their talk about human rights, freedom and democracy is only designed to safeguard the interests of the strong, rich countries, which take advantage of their strength to bully weak countries, and which pursue hegemony and practice power politics. We never listen to such stuff. Nor do you.- Deng Xiaoping, Speaking to Julius Nyerere, We Must Adhere To Socialism and Prevent Peaceful Evolution Towards Capitalism, 1989
<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.- Deng Xiaoping, To Uphold Socialism We Must Eliminate Poverty, 26th April, 1987
<The mainland will maintain the socialist system and not turn off onto the wrong road, the road to capitalism. One of the features distinguishing socialism from capitalism is that socialism means common prosperity, not polarization of income. The wealth created belongs first to the state and second to the people; it is therefore impossible for a new bourgeoisie to emerge. The amount that goes to the state will be spent for the benefit of the people, a small portion being used to strengthen national defence and the rest to develop the economy, education and science and to raise the people’s living standards and cultural level. Since the downfall of the Gang of Four an ideological trend has appeared that we call bourgeois liberalization. Its proponents worship the “democracy” and “freedom” of the Western capitalist countries and reject socialism. This cannot be allowed. China must modernize; it must absolutely not liberalize or take the capitalist road, as countries of the West have done. Those proponents of bourgeois liberalization who have violated state law must be dealt with severely.- Deng Xiaoping, Bourgeois Liberalization Means Taking The Capitalist Road, 1985
<Then in 1966 came the “cultural revolution”, which lasted a whole decade, a real disaster for China. During that period many veteran cadres suffered persecution, including me. I was labelled the "No. 2 Capitalist Roader" after Liu Shaoqi. Liu was called "commander-in-chief of the bourgeois headquarters" and I "deputy commander-in-chief". Many strange things happened in those days. For instance, people were told that they should be content with poverty and backwardness and that it was better to be poor under socialism and communism than to be rich under capitalism. That was the sort of rubbish peddled by the Gang of Four. There is no such thing as socialism and communism with poverty. The ideal of Marxists is to realize communism. According to Marx, communist society is a society in which the principle of from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs is applied. What is the principle of to each according to his needs? How can we apply this principle without highly developed productive forces and vast material wealth? According to Marxism, communist society is a society in which there is overwhelming material abundance. Socialism is the first stage of communism; it means expanding the productive forces, and it represents a long historical period. Only if we constantly expand the productive forces can we finally achieve communism. The Gang of Four's absurd theory of socialism and communism led only to poverty and stagnation. […] Certain individuals, pretending to support the reform and the open policy, call for wholesale Westernization of China in an attempt to lead the country towards capitalism. These people don't really support our policies; they are only trying vainly to change the nature of our society. If China were totally Westernized and went capitalist, it would be absolutely impossible for us to modernize. The problem we have to solve is how to enable our one billion people to cast off poverty and become prosperous. If we adopted the capitalist system in China, probably a small number of people would be enriched, while the overwhelming majority would remain in a permanent state of poverty. If that happened, there would be a revolution in China. China's modernization can be achieved only through socialism, not capitalism. There have been people who have tried to introduce capitalism into China, and they have always failed.- Deng Xiaoping, We shall draw on historical experience and guard against wrong tendencies, April 30, 1987
>>2937789Kill yourself mao won
>>2937791>Kill yourself mao wonYes, let us remember the words of the Great Helmsman Mao Zedong:
<The upper petty bourgeoisie and middle bourgeoisie, oppressed and injured by the landlords and big bourgeoisie and their state power, may take part in the new-democratic revolution or stay neutral, though they are themselves bourgeois. They have no ties, or comparatively few, with imperialism and are the genuine national bourgeoisie. Wherever the state power of New Democracy extends, it must firmly and unhesitatingly protect them. […] It is absolutely impermissible to repeat such wrong ultra-Left polices towards the upper petty bourgeois and middle bourgeois sectors in the economy as our Party adopted during 1931-34 (unduly advanced labor conditions, excessive income tax rates, encroachment on the interests of industrialists and merchants during the land reform, and the adoption as a goal of the so-called "workers' welfare", which was a short-sighted and one-sided concept, instead of the goal of developing production, promoting economic prosperity, giving consideration to both public and private interests and benefiting both labor and capital). To repeat such mistakes would certainly damage the interests both of the working masses and of the new-democratic state. […] To sum up, the economic structure of New China will consist of: (1) the state-owned economy, which is the leading sector; (2) the agricultural economy, developing step by step from individual to collective; and (3) the economy of small independent craftsmen and traders and the economy of small and middle private capital. These constitute the whole of the new-democratic national economy. The principles guiding the new-democratic national economy must closely conform to the general objective of developing production, promoting economic prosperity, giving consideration to both public and private interests and benefiting both labor and capital. Any principle, policy or measure that deviates from this general objective is wrong. - Mao Zedong, The Present Situation and Our Tasks, 25th December, 1947. Preserved in The Selected Works of Mao Zedong
<”We want to do business.” Quite right, business will be done. We are against no one except the domestic and foreign reactionaries who hinder us from doing business […] When we have beaten the internal and external reactionaries by uniting all domestic and international forces, we shall be able to do business with all foreign countries on the basis of equality, mutual benefit and mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty.- Mao Zedong, On The People’s Democratic Dictatorship, 30th June, 1949
<The present-day capitalist economy in China is a capitalist economy which for the most part is under the control of the People's Government and which is linked with the state-owned socialist economy in various forms and supervised by the workers. It is not an ordinary but a particular kind of capitalist economy, namely, a state-capitalist economy of a new type. It exists not chiefly to make profits for the capitalists but to meet the needs of the people and the state. True, a share of the profits produced by the workers goes to the capitalists, but that is only a small part, about one quarter, of the total. The remaining three quarters are produced for the workers (in the form of the welfare fund), for the state (in the form of income tax) and for expanding productive capacity (a small part of which produces profits for the capitalists). Therefore, this state-capitalist economy of a new type takes on a socialist character to a very great extent and benefits the workers and the state. - Mao Zedong, On State Capitalism, July 9th, 1953
>>2937404>>2937440The problem is that there's literally no party or other institution that has the overwhelming legitimacy that the CPC has and nobody that would be willing to discipline the bourgeois to the degree that would be necessary. There would be capital flight and artificial shortages. Mamdani, Melanchon or whoever would get couped. If you want to see what trying to implement socialism under liberal democracy will fare, look at Venezuela. If the porkers tried to pull the same capital strike in China that they did in Venezuela, heads would literally roll. Maybe "anti-fascist economics" could have worked decades ago back when the rich feared ending up like the Romanovs but now we have a bunch of frat boys that will accept nothing less than total fascism.
>>2941546Fair point of critique.
>>2941546Yeah, because the bourgeoisie in the West has been deeply entrenched there for centuries.
The compradors and the landlords in China were eradicated under Mao, the new Chinese bourgeoisie is more like a nouveau riche that is completely dependent on the Party, and is not able to act as a class for itself.
In the West however, finance capital has the last say over the political when push comes to shove.
>>2937791>>2937795Maoist got humbled, lmao
>>2937440Doesn't this just make her a Keynesian of some kind?
>>2945775Weber goes beyond conventional Keynesianism. While Keynes classically focused primarily on managing aggregate demand Weber goes beyond and advocates for direct market intervention, such as price controls (big no-no until recently within Western mainstream econ) and actual state participation in commodity markets and her background as a China expert allowed her to have this platform and influence.
She is also influenced by Marxian political economy and institutional economics and which explains that's why she has a disproportionate influence economic history, power relations and the political construction of markets as in the central idea that markets aren't natural or neutral mechanisms, but institutions shaped by political decisions and state action, etc.
I mean you can call her post-Keynesian-influenced of some flavor but at this point this term is pretty meaningless because it's quite a catch-all term at this point.
>>2937795Interesting, so if I’m a petty bourgeois or a farmer, is there a place for me under Maoism? Will this always be the case, or will I eventually lose my property and communism arrives?
Is it just me, or do I see parallels with Strasserism in these quotes?
>>2945933>eventually lose my propertyThat's why things in China are technically not yours, they're just extremely long government leases that can be re-issued, since it's around 80 years on average it has not so far been contested so what would happen is speculation.
Dengism isnt really a thing.
Dengism is the collection over decades of somewhat rational decisions ('rational' assuming capitalist status-quo) taken by a government which has accepted capitalism as a simple, matter-of-fact reality, and either denounces or postpones revolutionary bifurcation.
even more simply: 'DENGISM' AS UNDERSTOOD BY THE WESTERNER IN 2026 IS DeGAULISM WITHOUT THE HASSLE OF (MULTIPARTY) ELECTIONS AND THE BOON OF A LARGE TERRITORY AND POPULATION.
Unique IPs: 35