I mean, China has sacrificed some specific Marxist ideas in the short-term (edit: meaning “dealyed until safe”, not “reverted” or “abandoned”) in order to avoid being destroyed by the West like the USSR was. So it makes sense that some paranoid Marxists want to wait and see how the situation evolves before making their minds on the issue. I believe in the Communist leadership of China, but I can’t blame others for being more skeptical.
No, I’m not talking about markets per se. But there are different stages of socialism and China is in a pretty young stage at the moment, compared to a country like NK. There are still plenty of changes ahead, which will need to happen as the complex geopolitical situation in the world allows, notably as the West starts becoming less of a threat to socialism worldwide.
I’m sorry, I mischose my wording. They did not abandon any ideas or revert any socialist policies. By “sacrificing” I meant they chose to remain in a particular stage of socialism and delay any further advances in the path of socialism until the conditions allow. This is in perfect accordance with the revolutionary principles outlined by Lenin and even Mao (e.g. On Contradiction), and I see no problem with that strategy.
Sorry for not being clear. By “sacrificing in the short term” I meant “delaying” rather than “abandoning” or “reverting”. Here is an explanation of my stance.
It scarcely needs proof that there is not the slightest possibility of carrying out these tasks in a short period, of accomplishing all this in a few years. Therefore, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the transition from capitalism to communism, must not be regarded as a fleeting period of “super-revolutionary” acts and decrees, but as an entire historical era, replete with civil wars and external conflicts, with persistent organisational work and economic construction, with advances and retreats, victories and defeats. The historical era is needed not only to create the economic and cultural prerequisites for the complete victory of socialism, but also to enable the proletariat, firstly, to educate itself and become steeled as a force capable of governing the country, and, secondly, to re-educate and remould the petty-bourgeois strata along such lines as will assure the organisation of socialist production.
Stalin
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.
I mean even Michael Parenti said China is capitalist in 1998. In 2023 we can clearly say it’s not the case but it was definitely looking very suspicious in the 90’s.
That said, most of western maoists are by no means Parenti who himself admitted being led astray by the western narrations in some cases. They are just petty bourgeoise posers who actually follows their own class interests by aligning with imperialism, even if unconsciously.
Deng made a huge leap of faith into the future. If the next generations failed, we would all be now calling him a next Gorbachev, regardless of his real intentions.
That’s pretty irrelevant in that discussion. I also don’t think everything he ever wrote and said needs to be cancelled because of it, even if that’s true.
is not an authoritative theorist
Agree, good that i never said that. What he is though, is influental and popular debunker of bourgeois myths and popularisator of basic marxist theory. And as such literally everyone here already heard of him and most likely read some of his books or articles - the most popular being “Blackshirts and Reds” which is where he made that conclusion about China. Which furthermore looks entirely like glossing over the topic in literally one sentence precisely because being misled by the US information bubble.
I mean, China has sacrificed some specific Marxist ideas in the short-term (edit: meaning “dealyed until safe”, not “reverted” or “abandoned”) in order to avoid being destroyed by the West like the USSR was. So it makes sense that some paranoid Marxists want to wait and see how the situation evolves before making their minds on the issue. I believe in the Communist leadership of China, but I can’t blame others for being more skeptical.
Markets are not capitalism just like governments are not socialism.
No, I’m not talking about markets per se. But there are different stages of socialism and China is in a pretty young stage at the moment, compared to a country like NK. There are still plenty of changes ahead, which will need to happen as the complex geopolitical situation in the world allows, notably as the West starts becoming less of a threat to socialism worldwide.
They did not abandon any Marxist concepts and elements.
I’m sorry, I mischose my wording. They did not abandon any ideas or revert any socialist policies. By “sacrificing” I meant they chose to remain in a particular stage of socialism and delay any further advances in the path of socialism until the conditions allow. This is in perfect accordance with the revolutionary principles outlined by Lenin and even Mao (e.g. On Contradiction), and I see no problem with that strategy.
Which Marxist principles do you think the PRC has abandoned?
Sorry for not being clear. By “sacrificing in the short term” I meant “delaying” rather than “abandoning” or “reverting”. Here is an explanation of my stance.
I mean even Michael Parenti said China is capitalist in 1998. In 2023 we can clearly say it’s not the case but it was definitely looking very suspicious in the 90’s.
That said, most of western maoists are by no means Parenti who himself admitted being led astray by the western narrations in some cases. They are just petty bourgeoise posers who actually follows their own class interests by aligning with imperialism, even if unconsciously.
Deng made a huge leap of faith into the future. If the next generations failed, we would all be now calling him a next Gorbachev, regardless of his real intentions.
Michael Parenti is also for U.S. patriotism.
Michael Parenti is not an authoritative theorist; stop treating him as one.
That’s pretty irrelevant in that discussion. I also don’t think everything he ever wrote and said needs to be cancelled because of it, even if that’s true.
Agree, good that i never said that. What he is though, is influental and popular debunker of bourgeois myths and popularisator of basic marxist theory. And as such literally everyone here already heard of him and most likely read some of his books or articles - the most popular being “Blackshirts and Reds” which is where he made that conclusion about China. Which furthermore looks entirely like glossing over the topic in literally one sentence precisely because being misled by the US information bubble.