>>797966> You are a bourgeois state twisted by markets and revisionism into a crude mockery of Marxism's perfection.Marx won. Deng Won. Deng shed his own blood for Communism in the Global Anti-Fascist War, fighting Japanese Imperialists. You didn't.
Marx was "Dengist:"
>I have, which will surprise you not a little, been speculating—partly in American funds, but more especially in English stocks, which are springing up like mushrooms this year (in furtherance of every imaginable and unimaginable joint stock enterprise), are forced up to a quite unreasonable level and then, for the most part, collapse. In this way, I have made over £400 and, now that the complexity of the political situation affords greater scope, I shall begin all over again. It's a type of operation that makes small demands on one's time, and it's worth while running some risk in order to relieve the enemy of his money. Karl Marx, Letter to Lion Philips. 25 June 1864, preserved in Marx-Engels Collected Works, Vol. 41
Deng was Marxist:
>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! Deng Xiaoping, Excerpts From Talks Given In Wuchang, Shenzhen, Zhuhai And Shanghai, 1992
Consider Lenin:
>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
>To make things even clearer, let us first of all take the most concrete example of state capitalism. Everybody knows what this example is. It is Germany. Here we have “the last word” in modern large-scale capitalist engineering and planned organization, subordinated to Junker-bourgeois imperialism. Cross out the words in italics, and in place of the militarist, Junker, bourgeois, imperialist state put also a state, but of a different social type, of a different class content; a Soviet state, that is, a proletarian state, and you will have the sum total of the conditions necessary for socialism. Socialism is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest discoveries of modern science. It is inconceivable without planned state organization, which keeps tens of millions of people to the strictest observance of a unified standard in production and distribution. We Marxists have always spoken of this, and it is not worth while wasting two seconds talking to people who do not understand even this (anarchists and a good half of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries). At the same time socialism is inconceivable unless the proletariat is the ruler of the state. This also is ABC. And history (which nobody, except Menshevik blockheads of the first order, ever expected to bring about “complete” socialism smoothly, gently, easily and simply) has taken such a peculiar course that it has given birth in 1918 to two unconnected halves of socialism existing side by side like two future chickens in the single shell of international imperialism. Lenin, “Left-Wing” Childishness, 1918
>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
BUT BUT BUT I hear you say:
<The NEP was a highly restricted temporary measure to get the Soviet Union from emerging capitalism to higher-stage capitalism, so that they could then step in and move to socialism.Lenin's New Economic Policy (NEP) and Deng Xiaoping's Reform and Opening Up (ROU) were both attempts by communist-party-led governments to use market mechanisms to strengthen socialist states. However, they differed significantly in scale, duration, goals, and outcomes.
The NEP was introduced in 1921 after the Russian Civil War and allowed peasants and small businesses to engage in limited private trade while the state kept control of major industries. Deng's reforms began in 1978 after the Cultural Revolution and also reduced economic controls, but they went much further by encouraging private enterprise, foreign investment, and participation in global markets. Both policies reflected a pragmatic belief that some market activity could help achieve socialist goals, but Lenin saw the NEP as a temporary measure to restore economic stability, whereas Deng's reforms became a long-term transformation of China's economy. The NEP helped the Soviet economy recover but was ended by Stalin in the late 1920s, while Deng's reforms continued and contributed to decades of rapid economic growth in China. In short, both policies used markets to revive socialist economies, but Deng's program was broader, more enduring, and far more integrated with the global economy.
However, just because Stalin ended the NEP, does not mean he ended foreign direct investment in the Soviet economy. Consider:
<"The modern factories that defeated the Germans in World War II had their origin in the many technical agreements signed with foreign firms […] By March 1930 the [USSR] had signed 104 contracts. Of the 104, 81 were with American or German companies […] Over 400 American engineers made the architectural drawings for the Magnitogorosk plant, the largest project in the First Five-Year Plan. […] In May 1930, McKee waws hired to supervise the construction as well. By 1931, 250 American engineers were working on the project […] McKee brought in engineers from General Electric to work on the huge electrical installation. New open-hearth furnaces were designed by the Freyn Company […] the American Morgan Engineering Company […] and the German Demag A-G.” - Walter Dunn Jr., The Soviet Economy and the Red Army 1930-1945, 1995
Formally, Joseph Stalin ended the NEP by abolishing private agriculture, collectivizing the countryside, and imposing centralized planning through the Five-Year Plans. In that sense, the NEP clearly ended. The limited domestic market economy that Lenin had permitted was largely dismantled.
Stalin's industrialization drive was not based on complete economic isolation or pure autarky. During the late 1920s and early 1930s, the Soviet Union purchased foreign technology, hired Western engineers, licensed industrial processes, and contracted with American and German firms to build factories and infrastructure. The massive industrial complexes that became the foundation of Soviet heavy industry were often designed or assisted by foreign experts. In that respect, Stalin's policies retained a form of Leninist pragmatism. Ideologically, the Soviet government condemned capitalism, but practically, it was willing to use capitalist expertise and technology when it served Soviet development. Ironically, what followed the NEP was in one waty closer to the ROU than what came before: Lenin's NEP allowed market activity within the Soviet economy, but Stalin's industrialization, even though it eliminated domestic market mechanisms, it still continued to draw on foreign capitalist resources from outside the Soviet economy. Foreign direct investment: An opening up.
Regarding the perennial bugbear of "commodity production" Stalin said:
<Certain comrades affirm that the Party acted wrongly in preserving commodity production after it had assumed power and nationalized the means of production in our country. They consider that the Party should have banished commodity production there and then. In this connection they cite Engels, who says: "With the seizing of the means of production by society, production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer". These comrades are profoundly mistaken. Let us examine Engels' formula. Engels' formula cannot be considered fully clear and precise, because it does not indicate whether it is referring to the seizure by society of all or only part of the means of production, that is, whether all or only part of the means of production are converted into public property. Hence, this formula of Engels' may be understood either way. Elsewhere in Anti-Duhring Engels speaks of mastering "all the means of production," of taking possession of "all means of production." Hence, in this formula Engels has in mind the nationalization not of part, but of all the means of production, that is, the conversion into public property of the means of production not only of industry, but also of agriculture. It follows from this that Engels has in mind countries where capitalism and the concentration of production have advanced far enough both in industry and in agriculture to permit the expropriation of all the means of production in the country and their conversion into public property. Engels, consequently, considers that in such countries, parallel with the socialization of all the means of production, commodity production should be put an end to. And that, of course, is correct. There was only one such country at the close of the last century, when Anti-Duhring was published - Britain. There the development of capitalism and the concentration of production both in industry and in agriculture had reached such a point that it would have been possible, in the event of the assumption of power by the proletariat, to convert all the country's means of production into public property and to put an end to commodity production. - Stalin, Economic Problems of the USSR, 1951
Also:
<In speaking of the capitalists who strive only for profit, only to get rich, I do not want to say that these are the most worthless people, capable of nothing else. Many of them undoubtedly possess great organizing talent, which I do not dream of denying. We Soviet people learn a great deal from the capitalists. - Stalin, Marxism Versus Liberalism, An Interview With H.G. Wells, 1934
So it may be more accurate to say that Stalin ended the NEP's economic structure but preserved a certain pragmatic willingness to use capitalist tools for socialist ends. In that limited sense, one can argue that the NEP survived "in spirit," though not in its actual institutions or policies. Many historians would also note that this pragmatic borrowing from the capitalist world resembles one of the features later associated with Deng Xiaoping's reforms.
China remains socialist because the state retains control over the commanding heights of the economy and because political power remains in the hands of the Communist Party. In this view, markets are tools, not the defining feature. The CPSU meanwhile, dissolved itself and caved to a neoliberal counter revolution. Critics say the CPC may as well have dissolved because they have betrayed socialism. They point to billionaires, stock markets, and trade with Israel. What are your thoughts?
In short, "Dengism" is inescapable until you have a global revolution that puts an AES state in a hegemonic position where the US used to be… Just like worker-owned cooperatives get criticized for existing in a national capitalist economy, AES states get criticized for existing in a global capitalist economy.
But how do you overthrow a global capitalist economy without at the very least having the strongest country (currently the USA) become socialist? It is my fault as an American prole, not China's fault, that this hasn't happened yet.