From Engels to Lenin to Mao, all have expressed their sheer repulsion towards dogmatism. Mao has even written one text after another and spoken in multiple meetings about battling this problem in the party. He, along with other materialists, has made it clear that the Markets are a historical category that have existed since before capitalism. Capitalism =/= Commerce.
Then how is it some Marxists who claim to have read theory call China capitalist and label its supporters as ‘Dengists’? Socialists created the fastest growing economy ever observed in human history that lifted hundreds of millions of people out of absolute poverty. And now these dogmatists wanna give its credit to capitalism!?
Their entire prejudice is based on the misconception that Deng Xioping did not follow on Mao’s thoughts. Deng literally heeded Maoist ideas such as “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend” and “The masses are the real heroes, while we ourselves are often childish and ignorant”. He built the productive forces for the Chinese people based on—not in spite of—the continuing influence of Mao Zedong’s ideology. Now Xi Jingping is continuing both of their legacies.
So people who make such non-materialist and often times liberal critique of the Chinese economy have either not read theory or did not develop any dialectical and historical materialism to understand the theory!
As Marxists and materialists, it is our responsibility to confront these reductionist elements in our movement and bring back the pendulum at its correct course when it swings too much to either sides; right-wing revisionism or left-wing dogmatism.
“No investigation, no right to speak.” - Mao Zedong
The material conditions, including for westerners, comes before the idea. It is why theory doesn’t always change their mind and break their orientialist perspective. As long as one treats the “conversion to marxism” along positivist lens then we will be confounded that when someone reads the same theory we do come to a different conclusion along imperialist lines. And if one is a westerner then it is worthwhile examining how one’s personal material conditions allowed them to be more receptive to marxist ideas.
This reminds me of my occasional encounters with ultra-left under some YouTube comment sections. They said that China and Vietnam are “not real socialism”. Some even name China as “imperialism”.
One of them said that Vietnam doesn’t fit the “definition of socialism”.
I told one of them that definitions don’t create things, things necessitate defintions.
They tried bringing physics (Newtonian Gravity) into the debate which is quite sloppy because I believe I have a slightly better understanding of it than them. Regardless, I separate mechanical materialism (which is most natural science where things are largely static) from dialectial materialism (which are historical, economic, and political analyses where the subjects are aware of being observed). I also distinguish between dogma vs. science.
Then they said that “dialectial materialism is a philosophy, not a scientific method”.
Then I thought to myself “Why the fuck do you lots follow it in the first place, then?! Some kinds of religions?”
Then I told them it’s very much a scientific project. I also told them that, whilst I cannot convine them to drop dogmatism, if they want to preach their ideas, they better prove it on the grounds rather than sabotaging other people’s socalist projects (i.e. actually existing socialist countries) on the Internet.
They stopped responding.
That post got at least 140 upvotes on TankieTheDeprogram before the mods got to it, OP lied about the kick and they linked it to anti-communist Tankie Takes Twitter and ultra subs because somehow they think I can’t reverse search that. The Hasanites on that post is incredibly stupid and upvoted anything they assume as dogmatism while don’t understand jack shit about the theory. That OP dropped “Dengism” is immediately red flag from the beginning and people didn’t like I called their whole ass out.
There are levels to this left-wing stupidity. If you think Marxists are off track, you should see the anarchists and prog-libs complaining about China.
But I think the focus should be on opposing the right wing at the moment because they are going absolutely nuts. China is going to be fine regardless because they can’t be fucked-with by any country.
I know Mao says “no investigation no right to speak,” but from what I’ve seen, it’s basically been “proof by just look at it.” Take Rosemedia for instance. They’ll spend an entire video on one quote by Engels and then handwave away Vietnam and China as “they have mcdonalds.”
I have noticed a lot of this lately as well, I feel like many people are being radicalized but not everyone bothers to read and understand theory, and not everyone bothers to unlearn western propaganda, etc. I was anti China maybe a couple of years ago, before I was a socialist and back when I was a part of the compatible left.
I know many Maoists who are convinced that Dengism is a real thing and that everything China did after Mao was bad, without bothering to engage with a material analysis. But I don’t bother fighting them since my time is better spent learning more theory at this stage lol.
I know many Maoists who are convinced that Dengism is a real thing and that everything China did after Mao was bad
Literally like the Trots with their “Stalinism”.
There is a problem I have noticed among western Marxists in transforming Marx’s descriptive claims into normative prescriptions as to how to run a society. In Marx’s Capital, he argues that societies have a centralization tendency as industry develops, and this tendency gradually reduces the scope of money, markets, and small enterprise. Once it reaches a national scale, it becomes a hindrance to production itself, and so Marx argues in the Manifesto in favor of nationalizing these large-scale enterprises.
However, people see the descriptions and how contemporary societies are progressing and then transmute them into prescriptions on how a society should be run. They come to believe that socialism is about outlawing money, markets, and small enterprise, yet if you read the Manifesto Marx never advocates this at any point, and somehow this does not lead them to reconsider that they may be misinterpreting what Marx was saying.
They double-down on this belief that Marx’s writings on money, markets, and small enterprise are all normative prescriptions about we should run a future society, and insist anyone who doesn’t make money, markets, and small enterprise illegal are not TRUE Marxists, but again, Marx never advocated for that, neither did Engels, neither did Kautsky, neither did Hilferding, neither did Lenin; in fact Lenin said it would be “economic suicide” for the party that tried to do so.
I think part of it is that these people don’t read much on the philosophy so they think in black-and-white rather than dialectical terms. They don’t understand that no society is pure and that everything contains internal contradictions, so we only define societies based on their principal aspect, which sublates all other aspects and thus determines the qualitative character of that society. Since they think in black-and-white terms, they assume socialism can only be pure or else it’s not “true” socialism.
Left-communists will unironically argue that if the entire planet has one giant planned economy where everything is owned in common operating according to a common plan, but some kid has a private lemonade stand somewhere, then it’s capitalist. The idea of not defining socialism in absolute puritanical terms does not even occur to them because they don’t read philosophy so they think like a metaphysician seen socialism as only existing in its more pure metaphyiscal definition without any internal contradictions.
If you think it must necessarily be absolutely pure, then of course things like money, markets, and small enterprise will have completely disappeared.
The purpose of the Party is not to make money, markets, and small enterprise illegal. You will notice that Marx never proposes this as a policy suggestion in the Manifesto at all. The purpose of the Party is to (1) nationalize large-scale enterprises, (2) expand participatory democracy in the economic sphere, and (3) rapidly encourage the development of the forces of production.
It is that third point, #3, which brings about the gradual dissolution of money, markets, and small enterprise, not as a law that declares them illegal but as a natural consequence of the development of industry. This is core to Marx’s analysis but seems to be something most western leftists struggle to wrap their head around for some bizarre reason.
It is the difference between simply reading a text and actually understanding it. Also, many of the ultras who denounce China have not actually read that much theory. Often the opposition is essentially vibes-based: markets = capitalism = bad. It is a knee-jerk response. And partly for some it’s simple chauvinism.
It’s hard for Westerners (and those who are immersed in western culture) to break through the “China bad”, “China = enemy” conditioning. It’s a very similar thing we see with Russia. They will acknowledge that Ukraine is backed by NATO and full of Nazis, but Russia is still “the bad guy”, Russia is still “a threat”.
Why? Because everyone around them, their educational system, their media, their peers, etc. told them so.
It is baffling not gonna lie. Craziest example i can think of is the youtube channel “socialism4all” who makes audiobooks of socialist works and even adds very helpful comments here and there about context and clearing up terminology and even he denies china being socialist. Like, mf that is your entire damn job! How the fuck did you read through all of that, add comments, make a playlist for beginners out of it and then not realise that china is one of the most successful examples of what you read and recommend?!
And then, in his added notes, he goes on to make fun of anarchists, social democrats and, ironically enough, left coms.
Really sullied his great work with those takes imo
S4A is very strange in his “anti-dengism” along with being, if I may say, annoyingly petty. For example he actively discouraged support to the PSL, stating that the US shouldn’t be forming a vanguard yet, and therefore socialists should get behind the greens to first form a “mass party” which I frankly don’t understand. His reasoning, although initially I followed it, even if I disagreed, started with the idea that since the US is so far from any kind of revolutionary moment, then any attempt at making a vanguard which would need to perform revolutionary praxis in order to arrive at the correct political line, was premature.
Again I don’t entirely agree with the position, but it at least was argued. However the next point he made to support the greens over the PSL, was that the PAL was revisionist and Dengist. Along with how often he makes schpeals about dentists and how anticommunist they really are, I can help but assume that his real reason he opposes joining the PSL is because he sees them as Dengists.
He’s also been chauvinistic against Muslim Communists going out of his way to degrade them for being religious, but that’s a separate issue.
about dentists and how anticommunist they really are
I knew that my fear of dentists was justified!
Lol, I just don’t try with the autocorrect anymore. Most people here probably know what I’m trying to say so the reason for language is bring fulfilled.
Weirdly I actually quite enjoy the dentist. It can be a little tedious but there’s something satisfying about a scheduled cleaning.
If PSL is Dengist then what is the Green party? At least one of those two is explicitly socialist.
I’m not saying supporting the Greens is always bad. I have argued in the past that if you have no choice to support actual socialists, then in the US at least, any third party that opposes war, imperialism and the corporate duopoly is a better choice than the uniparty.
But if you have the choice between a progressive but still just socdem party on the one hand and actual socialists on the other, then clearly the socialist one is superior, no?
Apparently an undisputed Mass party is preferable to a “revisionist” vanguard party when the time of struggle can’t produce a disciplined vanguard.
Like I almost see his point, which is that as long as revolutionary practice can’t be applied a socialist party’s theoretical line will be flawed, and therefore no party is going to have a perfect line so the first step is to bring up class consciousness enough to where an actual vanguard can form.
It’s not exactly a perfect argument but again I can see the points that ate being made. There’s clearly respectable amounts of thought being put into it. However his obsession with calling out “Dengism” causes that argument to just come off like a pretense to bash China and socialists who support the PRC.
The counter I’d probably say is, “if the material conditions in the US are not capable of producing a vanguard party, then helping any anti-fascist party at the moment is equally valid. Therefore supporting PSL or the greens are compatible measures for a Marxist to take.” That’s not even getting into the fact that if you need a mass party as a prerequisite to making a vanguard party, then wouldn’t it be easier to transform a revisionist but still explicitly revolutionary party into that Mass party?
All around its frankly a strange bone to pick especially considering the circumstances.
To me that just feels like a post-hoc rationalization. You proceed from the position that you don’t like modern China and you work backwards to construct an argument that will allow you to justify why a pro-China party should not be supported.
Exactly. For example someone posted in the Deprogram sub at one point about some niche communist party that they’d heard of in the US. I took the time to read their psrty platform and positions and deduced they were a Hoxhaist party. From there I didn’t immediately go on to comment how these people should not be supported whatsoever but decided to approach the situation thoughtfully.
Instead I simply stated, they seem to be a Hoxhaist party according to their program but if they are doing good community work and opposing US fascism, then they seem like comrades. I noted my disagreement with their party policy while also acknowledging that what’s most important at the current moment is organizing against US fascism, and stated that unless they’re in your own company, I’d recommend PSL over them. Both due to their the theoretical line and their national reach.
Petty interdisciplinary squabbles are poison to any Marxist mobilization in the US. The things we should be most critique are practice and how their theories manifest into real action. I do not care if a party denounces China as “revisionist” if they’re not going out of their way to demand the US be hostile to the PRC.
💯
Yes, he has openly stated that he believes the PSL is “Dengist” and tells people to avoid it for that reason. He makes a lot of wild bad-faith claims about the PSL, and he has plenty of other very problematic and/or confusing views. I appreciate his work on the audiobooks, but it’s unfortunate that that gave him a platform to spread his own ideas. He should be a cautionary example of what happens when you read a lot without the kind of deep collective study and practical work that allow you to understand what you read correctly and stick to unfounded opinions rather than letting evidence change your mind.
Oh no that guy has anti China brain worms!? Shit…
Yep, that’s why I have to be pretty careful with linking audiobooks in the reading list I made.
Dessalines makes audiobooks. You can link them.
Yep, probably shifting over in that direction for rev 3, would be nice if they had tankie.tube links for them as well.
It’s funny because I definitely used that dudes audio book for WITBD. What part of
What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.
Do these people not fully understand? Do they think Feudalism was destroyed in a matter of years and not decades and centuries? One thing we have to accept NOW is that this version of socialism that isn’t “stamped with the birthmarks of the old society” is something our grandchildren might experience, and that’s if we started TODAY.
Yep, and that might even be too soon.
Yeah, we’re definitely not starting today, heh. May my great great grandkids rest in the shade of the trees we plant. Or something like that, you get what I mean. I should add, too, that Lenin acknowledges this in his own writings post revolution:
Our state apparatus is so deplorable, not to say wretched, that we must first think very carefully how to combat its defects, bearing in mind that these defects are rooted in the past, which, although it has been overthrown, has not yet been overcome, has not yet reached the stage of a culture, that has receded into the distant past.
From Better Fewer, But Better. The second part of Lenin’s letter to the 12th Congres “How we Should Reorganise The Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspection”.
I’m not sure how he can look at Lenin, and then also the NED, and somehow not see the through line from the Lenin, the NED, and the Deng reforms. As socialists, are we supposed to believe that our state exists in a vacuum, unbothered by the global economy and global capitalist dominance? How is a socialist state supposed to maintain a command economy fully surrounded by capitalist economic schemes? The deal the Chinese made regarding technology sharing during the reform and opening up is what allowed them to own their productive capacity, instead of it being owned by the west.
I could go on and on, but to deny China’s path, is to deny Dialectical Materialism, to deny the Laws of Uneven and Combined Development. It’s dogmatic, plain and simple.
That’s an excellent excerpt, comrade, hadn’t read that before! I agree, there’s no one true socialism, and China’s choice to take advantage of market forces for developing themselves while retaining the principle aspects of the economy in the public sphere is fully in line with Marxism-Leninism. Fantastically well-said.
Yeah i am trying to figure out where exactly he mentioned those takes so i can link it, but it’s an audiobook that i have listened to at work and i don’t even know the specific videos lmao. Will report back when i find itEdit: never mind, he has a full on video on it haha https://youtu.be/Zt9k8SymAcA
Wow…
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
I honestly think there’s a lot of racism people who are left-wing or are shifting towards the left need to unpack, speaking as someone from a place with lots of Chinese diaspora one of the main reasons even “progressive” people shy away from any sort of socialist politics or imagery is mainly that it gets you labelled as a dirty Chinese spy or traitor who sides with the former group. I could be wrong but let me know what you guys think.
It can, but in my experience when I’ve been told that for my involvement in my local org or for my admiration of China I just say “Yup, what does your country offer?” and list out all the reasons why I would be a “dirty Chinese spy/traitor”. This has worked a few times, because either their brain malfunctions and they go into hardcore anti-communist mode or they actually have to sit there and wonder why someone wouldn’t love this country dearly so. Even if they don’t acknowledge socialism itself, they can acknowledge that a socialist nation is beginning to lead the world in universities, quality of life improvements and technology while their nation begins to fall more and more behind.
In short: it’s because of Immaturity and/or clinging onto the currently existing Cultural Hegemony, which has Capital on it’s side.
It’s not really that complicated if you look at material interests and I’ll try to keep it simple. If you’re someone who is just interested in short term goals, you just go with whatever is popular.
Because of contradictions, capitalism becomes more unpopular the better it works. Being a rebel becomes popular, cool.
These rebel forces then take the Communist teachings to the absolute (Dogmatism), which is impossible to practice in the current material state of the world.
So it’s kind of complicated, but it’s also common sense. You know the saying: “Common sense isn’t common.” ?
That’s not true, “Common Sense” Isn’t Profitable.
I really agree with this “cool rebel” idea, because what else are anarchists lol
The people I referred to as “cool rebels” is more in line with the petit bourgeoisie, but where I’m at I think a lot of anarchist tendencies stem from the horrendous structure. I’ve talked to working class anarchists and many of them like communism, but they ask me: okay, where do I sign up?
And I don’t know. I’ve been trying to get in touch with groups that agitate on the streets sometimes, but they can’t even send someone for an interview. It’s so far obvious they’re organized by a clique of friends, that no matter how radical personally, won’t accomplish much more than a rush from leading a crowd or personal adventurism. I’d love to be proven wrong.
I think it is basically correct that China deviated from a vast majority of ML practical principles since the laze 1970s, including the Nixon deals, the Carter administration collusion, support of the Khmer Rouge, liberalization of the RMB and the commodification of land, et cetera.
I also believe that this did not happen in a vacuum and was instead a result of an ever-rising Sino-Soviet split that went from theoretical disagreements in times of Mao to realpolitik ideological warfare in times of Brezhnev-Deng, and as a result of the seriously isolated PRC on the international stage and an industry that began to lag behind because of trade-imposed limitations that hampered the developmental potentiality of a voucher-based, relatively commodity-free economy.
You are basicall correct when claiming that many detractors of contemporary China also abandon marxist analysis and instead blindly regurgitate western discourse, from the debt trap to surveillance myths.
However, I believe you slip into dogmatism as well when analysing dengist China. China does not necessarily need critical support in its current condition, as it merely presents itself as an ideological fetish if not conducted on a state-level.
What I mean by that is, that, unless you lead a party or even a foreign ministry, critical support changes nothing with regards to China. How we can better ours and other people’s understanding of China is through genuine, historical materialist analysis and Marxism.
This requires us to concede the fact that Dengism was a deviation. That is okay. It was a deviation forced by both circumstance and by several political errors of a China that was completely fresh and alone on the international scene.
Errors are to be rectified. Let’s give it time. Personally, through studies of Minqi Li, of China’s contemporary monetary policy and worrying trends of further liberalization, and through the worrying combination of private investment coupled to SOE investments in the BRI led me to conclude that errors are still being conducted.
So, if you were to remain Maoist on the issue, you would have to admit these errors. China won’t fall because of them. Not in the next few years. But they need to be analyzed. And in order to analyze, you cannot be, as you say, dogmatic and just push them under the rug.
This is what it means to confront contradiction. It is messy, and real. And China needs to be analyzed through what it is, not through prisms of rightist deviatonism, western imperialism or liberal constructivism.
I don’t see what you mean by “Dengism” as a deviation, or Maoism (in the context of China itself, not Marxism-Leninism-Maoism) as counterposed to it. Both Mao and Deng were Marxist-Leninists applying Marxism-Leninism to China’s conditions as they were contemporary to. China remains socialist, and course-corrected from the error of ultraleftism under the Gang of Four, returning to more traditionally Marxist understandings of economics in doing so.
Thanks for your comment. What I mean with dengism is the introduction of capitalist incentive on party level. It rose out of the 80s, luckily it was still backed up by enough of the correct line that it didn’t completely collapse in light of the neoliberal tiananmen protest. But the seed is there, in the party.
I believe ultraleftism was an error. I also believe that errors are conducted with the liberalization of the economy, particularily with regards to monetary policy and foreign policy. Some, like introduction of money circulation, were done out of need. But out of those sprout contradictions that I see are not in the process of vigilant enough resolution, in my view.
I don’t see why, for example, private investment should accompany SOE in BRI. It literally serves no purpose other than to lead to inefficient deals that lead to costly renegotiations and extractive arrangements. It is a concession to the interests of capital. It erodes the strongest aspects of infrastuctural deals.
Similiar things can be said about the liberalization of the Yuan. If trends that steer it towards floating exchange persist, China’s qualitative differences with regards to investment when compared to the west will falter.
That is my concern. Those contradictions were ushered in by dengism. That in itself is not an error as contradictions always occur. But what will negate them? Where is the negation?___
I don’t believe your analysis is that of a dialectical materialist.
What I mean with dengism is the introduction of capitalist incentive on party level. It rose out of the 80s, luckily it was still backed up by enough of the correct line that it didn’t completely collapse in light of the neoliberal tiananmen protest. But the seed is there, in the party.
Corruption and market forces existed pre-Deng. Deng did not introduce them. Class struggle continues under socialism, and you cannot instantly go from an underdeveloped, agrarian focused economy to a publicly owned and planned economy overnight.
I believe ultraleftism was an error. I also believe that errors are conducted with the liberalization of the economy, particularily with regards to monetary policy and foreign policy. Some, like introduction of money circulation, were done out of need. But out of those sprout contradictions that I see are not in the process of vigilant enough resolution, in my view.
How was the economy “liberalized?” I understand that private sector expansion occured, but this isn’t against Marxist analysis, which focuses on the large firms and key industries. It does not make sense to nationalize the small proprietors outright. Money circulation existed pre-Deng as well. I also do not share your opinion that the CPC is not vigilant enough, the presence of contradictions and anti-corruption campaigns does not mean that the anti-corruption campaigns are insufficient or failing.
I don’t see why, for example, private investment should accompany SOE in BRI. It literally serves no purpose other than to lead to inefficient deals that lead to costly renegotiations and extractive arrangements. It is a concession to the interests of capital. It erodes the strongest aspects of infrastuctural deals.
Private investment accompanies SOEs because private ownership and market forces govern small, medium, secondary industries in China, with strong CPC presence within these firms. Markets are useful for centralizing production and distribution, and the CPC keeps them in control through controlling what they rely on. Competition with the state forces the state into better efficiency without relying on the profit motive. BRI is not extractive, it’s a form of mutual development.
Similiar things can be said about the liberalization of the Yuan. If trends that steer it towards floating exchange persist, China’s qualitative differences with regards to investment when compared to the west will falter.
This remains to be seen.
That is my concern. Those contradictions were ushered in by dengism. That in itself is not an error as contradictions always occur. But what will negate them? Where is the negation?___
These contradictions were not ushered in by “Dengism.” In almost all cases, they existed pre-Deng. The CPC’s focus internally is on developing the productive forces, which Reform and Opening Up stablized and slightly accelerated, while maintaining proletarian control of the state, large firms, and key industries. The CPC’s focus internationally is bringing about a multi-polar world and undermining US imperialism. Both are proceeding steadily. This gradual transformation is one that proceeds dialectically, and contains contradictions, yes, but these contradictions do not mean China is at odds with Marxism-Leninism.
“Dengism” is just Marxism-Leninism applied by Deng Xiaoping to conditions contemporary to China at the time of Deng, called Deng Xiaoping Theory. China follows Xi Jinping Thought, an advancement on Deng Xiaoping Theory and Mao Zedong Thought, which is also Marxism-Leninism applied to current conditions. China isn’t “dengist,” nor is it deviating from Marxism-Leninism.
My initial reply was too hastily written, and I made crucial errors due to the urgency with which I was writing. You have rightfully pointed out some inconsistencies. I will attempt to resolve them with my reply. However, a crucial one - your claim that China isn’t deviating from Marxism-Leninism: I will try to resolve this one through a continous line of argument. I think that deviation is essential for China’s development, but correction is crucial for its future.
Corruption and market forces existed pre-Deng. Deng did not introduce them. Class struggle continues under socialism, and you cannot instantly go from an underdeveloped, agrarian focused economy to a publicly owned and planned economy overnight.
I didn’t argue that they didn’t exist before. I argued that the influx of money ushered in by Deng and his economic advisors was meant to stabilize growth, where growth of the economy was and is inherently pinned to China’s position in the global production and value chains. The policies suceeded by moving China from a steadily peripheral to a semi-peripheral country in terms of world production. However, I think that expansionist strategy itself failed to successfully understand the logic of contradictory capitalist expanse with the falling rate of profit co-existing with rising organic composition of capital.
That is, Chinese expansion is understandable when we look at it in terms of “development”. Of course, Maoist china couldn’t catch up to Deng’s reforms in terms of the rate of development of the productive forces. What I argue is that the Reform and Opening up ushered in capitalist ownership to accelerate the rate of development - with a crucial blindspot with regards to China’s position itself: a position where expansion itself is contradictory, as the limits to growth are dictated by the Imperialist forces of the global north. China cannot become the core. China cannot become the imperialist. China will, as long as capitalism persists, never seriously challenge the global North. [Good source on the topic: https://vuir.vu.edu.au/37770/]
But, Dengist policies were an attempt to do exactly that. Therefore, the capitalist road was taken, where expansion has to come through exploitative, extractivist relations with some portions of the global south. That in itself is the price of capitalist development of a peripheral state.
China has been systematically overinvesting to avoid the same modulation of this “developmental path” that led to US’s balooned national debt (which in itself is only sustainable by having an imperialist position). So, the answers were: overinvestment, a trade surplus, etc.: all but bandages to this problem. Do you believe they are sustainable? I believe that the only solution is the acceleration of full nationalisation of not only key, but also investment portions; and the full abandonment of profit incentive. [Good source on the topic: https://monthlyreview.org/articles/surplus-absorption-secular-stagnation-and-the-transition-to-socialism-contradictions-of-the-u-s-and-the-chinese-economies-since-2000/].
Minqi Li writes:
By the mid-twenty-first century, the rapid decline of China’s labor force could drag China’s economic growth rate down to zero. If that happens, China’s rate of return on new investment is likely to be so low that private capitalist investment will completely collapse. Only much larger state sector investments can help stabilize the disposable capitalist surplus. Eventually, society may find it desirable to intentionally lower the disposable capitalist surplus until it is eliminated. This would necessitate the transition to socialism, because only socially owned means of production can operate sustainably in an economy with zero profit. In such a socially owned economy, all economic surplus would be appropriated by the society as a whole and used for purposes determined by democratic decisions.
I think this claim is indicative of the party’s contradiction:
BRI is not extractive, it’s a form of mutual development.
BRI in itself is not set up as an extractive policy. That is correct. The schema infrastructure-for-minerals, for example, is in theory exactly that - mutual development. But it is exactly due to the fact that private investment is an integral part of BRI, that the schema leads to unsatisfactory arrangements. In practice, infrastructural agreements aren’t materialized, projects are underfunded or done slopply - to maximize profit for the private investment front. For example, the 2024 Sicomines renegotiation was a huge concession to China, as now, royalties have to be paid and further investment is pegged to the prices of copper. This renegotiation was inevitable becuase the infrastructural projects were not on time, on target, and were underfunded. Thus, private sections of investment strategies lead to balooning of costs for China’s crucial mineral and rare-earth processing value chain. In my view, that is a fundamental error - let alone for how the DRC feels. On the other hand, the SOE elements of BRI have consistently displayed desire for mutual development by writing off debts and reinvesting, and that is a positive countertendency in terms of that policy - but again, indicative of a strategic overinvestment.
China is deviating from Marxism Leninism by following an unsustainable development path that is hitting the limits of the capitalist world system. This is indicative of secular stagnation. Capitalism generates more surplus than it can profitably reinvest. This is not a conjunctural crisis but a systemic overaccumulation problem. Maoist China did not have the same issue - because capital was not the dominant form of production. Here, about the role of money: https://monthlyreview.org/articles/renminbi-a-century-of-change/
I also do not share your opinion that the CPC is not vigilant enough, the presence of contradictions and anti-corruption campaigns does not mean that the anti-corruption campaigns are insufficient or failing.
The US will not go peacefully, and China will not “carry out socialism” in the existing configuration of the global economy by remaining passive and reactive. Its role is not predetermined, It can still turn to socialism, but it will not be a passive process because the tendencies of capital are too strong. It has to be combated. Socialism has to be the path of active political decision.
This article goes into detail. https://monthlyreview.org/articles/on-the-nature-of-the-chinese-economic-system/
It is essentially correct with regards that cadres with capitalist investment at stake have strong roles in the party. That doesn’t mean that the bourgeoisie holds political control - it doesn’t. The PRC is esentially handling it, as you point out with the anti-corruption campaigns. But internal dynamics of the Party are not as linear as we would hope. A lighthearted joke would be that this is Mao’s ontological error - not all contradiction is infinite. It is capital that displays this, with its active negation.
Both are proceeding steadily. This gradual transformation is one that proceeds dialectically, and contains contradictions, yes, but these contradictions do not mean China is at odds with Marxism-Leninism.
I believe they are not proceeding steadily. I think that essentially multipolarity was always present under a veener of “peaceful hegemony” of the US. The US is sliding into fascism, but that doesn’t mean that its power is steadily diminishing, or that its imperialist grip is lessening. It is precisely here that the transition from Deng to Xi must be situated: an effort to reassert state control over capital after marketization had fulfilled its developmental function. The presence of private capital itself under these conditions does not by itself indicate its political dominance - however, it points to the limits imposed by China’s continued integration into the global capitalist economy. It can only proceed by shifting away from capital.
Comrade, I appreciate you taking the time to write this out, but you are deviating heavily from dialectical materialism, towards metaphysics. Allow me to explain, as I don’t want this accusation to hang un-backed and un-correctable.
However, a crucial one - your claim that China isn’t deviating from Marxism-Leninism: I will try to resolve this one through a continous line of argument. I think that deviation is essential for China’s development, but correction is crucial for its future.
The underlying principles of Marxism-Leninism were applied by Deng. The shift towards Reform and Opening Up was made with Marxist-Leninist analysis, and is not to be “corrected,” but to continue to be followed through. You’re treating the presence of private capital in China as something created by Deng, rather than by the material conditions of the underdeveloped industries in China. As a consequence, you erase the centralization of markets as a key observation of Marx, and miss the connecting line between the private sector being gradually subsumed by the public. This mistake of yours is highlighted in your statement here:
However, I think that expansionist strategy itself failed to successfully understand the logic of contradictory capitalist expanse with the falling rate of profit co-existing with rising organic composition of capital.
The CPC knows that markets trend towards socialization and that the rate of profit tends to fall. As this happens, industries are gradually folded more into the public sector of the economy. Markets are useful in preparing the ground for socialized production.
What I argue is that the Reform and Opening up ushered in capitalist ownership to accelerate the rate of development - with a crucial blindspot with regards to China’s position itself: a position where expansion itself is contradictory, as the limits to growth are dictated by the Imperialist forces of the global north. China cannot become the core. China cannot become the imperialist. China will, as long as capitalism persists, never seriously challenge the global North. [Good source on the topic: https://vuir.vu.edu.au/37770/]
But, Dengist policies were an attempt to do exactly that. Therefore, the capitalist road was taken, where expansion has to come through exploitative, extractivist relations with some portions of the global south. That in itself is the price of capitalist development of a peripheral state.
There are a few key errors here.
-
Private capital existed pre-Deng, and its expansion in secondary industries and via foreign investment did not impact the large and key industries, which remained public, nor the sole proprietorships and cooperatives, which remained as such from before.
-
China is not trying to become the core, the empire, to become imperialist. China is not capitalist to begin with, because public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. You confuse the presence of private capital for the dominance of capitalism, but private ownership is not principle, nor does it govern the financial sector.
-
China is already undermining the global north. Through win-win economic development, the global south is becoming less captured by the imperialist global north. An alternative to the IMF and austerity is rising, which is what is propelling the death of the US Empire, forcing the west’s sharp rightward turn as austerity is turned inward.
So, the answers were: overinvestment, a trade surplus, etc.: all but bandages to this problem. Do you believe they are sustainable? I believe that the only solution is the acceleration of full nationalisation of not only key, but also investment portions; and the full abandonment of profit incentive.
The CPC is already pivoting towards domestic consumption over trade surplus. “Full nationalization” is a long, protracted process, where it is critical for the large firms and key industries to be nationalized, and gradual appropriation of the small and medium firms as they themselves are socialized by market forces is the CPC’s strategy. The world is not static, but your analysis that nationalization is not a priority for the CPC because the small and medium firms are largely private treats it as such, metaphysically. The CPC already agrees that full nationalization is necessary, and abandoning the profit motive. See Cheng Enfu’s diagram of the “Stages of Socialism:”
BRI in itself is not set up as an extractive policy. That is correct. The schema infrastructure-for-minerals, for example, is in theory exactly that - mutual development. But it is exactly due to the fact that private investment is an integral part of BRI, that the schema leads to unsatisfactory arrangements.
Private capital is involved not because it is superior to SOEs, but because they fill in gaps left by SOEs. SOEs are superior, and deliver superior results, but collectivization of production and distribution is a gradual process that takes time to build.
China is deviating from Marxism Leninism by following an unsustainable development path that is hitting the limits of the capitalist world system. This is indicative of secular stagnation. Capitalism generates more surplus than it can profitably reinvest. This is not a conjunctural crisis but a systemic overaccumulation problem.
You’re confusing China’s present proportions of private/public capital as a static ratio, and are ignoring that private capital is relegated to small and medium firms, where markets facilitate growth, and the large firms that dominate the economy are public. You’re asking China to shift towards a plan they are already on, that being one of gradual nationalization. The level of development of the productive forces determines what can be effectively nationalized, not sheer willpower, and so this process is gradual and proceeds dialectically.
Maoist China did not have the same issue - because capital was not the dominant form of production. Here, about the role of money: https://monthlyreview.org/articles/renminbi-a-century-of-change/
Private ownership isn’t the dominant form of production in the PRC today either, public ownership is. China’s development under Mao was positive, but uneven, introducing foreign capital in strategic areas made growth more even and more positive:
The US will not go peacefully, and China will not “carry out socialism” in the existing configuration of the global economy by remaining passive and reactive. Its role is not predetermined, It can still turn to socialism, but it will not be a passive process because the tendencies of capital are too strong. It has to be combated. Socialism has to be the path of active political decision.
Again, the PRC is already socialist, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. The economy is socialized gradually with respect to the level of development of the productive forces. The “tendencies of capital” are subjugated to the public sector. The rubber factory has control over the rubber ball factory, so to speak. By maintaining control of the large firms and key industries, socialism is maintained, and socialization continues.
It is essentially correct with regards that cadres with capitalist investment at stake have strong roles in the party. That doesn’t mean that the bourgeoisie holds political control - it doesn’t. The PRC is esentially handling it, as you point out with the anti-corruption campaigns. But internal dynamics of the Party are not as linear as we would hope. A lighthearted joke would be that this is Mao’s ontological error - not all contradiction is infinite. It is capital that displays this, with its active negation.
Contradictions do exist, and ideologically impure cadre with class interests in favor of capitalist restoration do exist within a party of 100 million. These, as you say, do not hold power.
I believe they are not proceeding steadily. I think that essentially multipolarity was always present under a veener of “peaceful hegemony” of the US. The US is sliding into fascism, but that doesn’t mean that its power is steadily diminishing, or that its imperialist grip is lessening.
The US Empire is sliding to the right because its power is diminishing. Austerity is necessary domestically to cover for the weakening of the empire, and it is using its current millitary advantage to try to solidify control in its hemisphere to try to buy time as it loses in Africa. Europe is being demoted to periphery as we speak.
It is precisely here that the transition from Deng to Xi must be situated: an effort to reassert state control over capital after marketization had fulfilled its developmental function. The presence of private capital itself under these conditions does not by itself indicate its political dominance - however, it points to the limits imposed by China’s continued integration into the global capitalist economy. It can only proceed by shifting away from capital.
The PRC is already gradually shifting towards further socialization with respect to development, state control already dominates the economy. Markets are still fulfilling their role, as are the firms that grow to more entrenched state control, as are the large firms and key industries. The PRC is actively shifting away from export-focused to consumption-focused. China must remain integrated within the international system to continue undermining imperialism.
Essentially, in short, your analysis is metaphysical because you see the composition of production and distribution as fixed, not as a moving and transformative process where socialization increases with respect to development of the productive forces. Dialectical materialism shows its true nature.
What an incredible comment, Cowbee! Thanks for taking the time to write this down!
Thank you for the kind words, comrade!
Thank you for your time, your in-depth reply and your contribution to the debate. Some of my key ideas were addressed, and I will take time to study this issue further.
Please, by all means. A dialctical approach to education and self-education strengthens all of us.
-
Do you have a successful socialist project?
I think China is as close as we can get in its context.
Edit: I also don’t appreciate the way you just responded with a bait level answer. I think this space lacks analytical debate on China. The fact you think you “got me” is funny to me, as I have studied chinese development for the past few years and have found no contemporary equivalent to its successful policies in practice. Therefore, it is the closest to socialism I personally can envision in the current real-political situation. But I argue that this is a result of the limits of both this context and of chinese errors. Do I think things could be done better? Yes. Do I think supporting the PRC is essentialy correct? Yes.
No no no, I am not trying to bait. I seriously want you to do better! I want more socialist projects to pop off that are closer to Marxist principles. Because if we don’t build better and more successful AES projects, we have no right to tell people of one nation on how they should ‘pursue socialism’. Especially a country that had the largest illiterate and the poorest population on earth at the start of its socialist state.
I understand your angle. I think, however, that you persistently mistakenly believe that I am “telling” anyone on “how to pursue socialism”. I believe that you have me for a reactionary, and that what you are basically telling me is: abandon marxist analysis for the sake of critical support.
I already “support” the PRC, as far as anyone that isn’t a Chinese national and lives thousands of km away can. It is an abstract, fetishistic support, and I recognize it as such. I still offer it, because I recognize the mobilization power of “debunking”.
But, my attempt is to do marxist analysis. Whether I support the PRC or whether I would hate them, it means nothing. Not to the chinese, not to the party. What I am trying to abstract are the lessons of governance we can take from china’s development. It is, afterall, each nation’s problematic that takes the forefront when pursuing a revolution. Each nation has their fundamental contradiction, their secondary contradictions. Studying China helps us, by analysing their contradictions, to navigate our own.
We cannot abandon criticism. Do you believe Mao had no right to criticize Stalin’s writings on the economic problems of the USSR? If yoh see this through a prism of debatelordism, yes, it can appear as detraction. In practice, this is the essence of marxist analysis.
So, the fact you still approach me as if I were a detractor is confusing to me. Particularily in light of your readings of Mao’s essays, which you mention in the post.
What you call ‘Dengism’ is just MLM. You’re more focused on the 2nd part of “Unity -> Criticism -> Unity” than the 1st one.
