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
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.