in the literal sense, Deng was saying that it didn’t matter if China strictly adhered to ML-MZT or if it incorporated markets. The goal of the revolution is to build socialism, and it could do it either way.
But his argument was that the introduction of markets would strengthen China’s ability to build that revolution. Thusly, it shouldn’t matter if markets are introduced to China, as long as the revolution can still be built and defended, which MZT was failing at doing.
Which sheds some insight on why dogmatic, unprincipled, unmarxist opposition to industrial capitalism can act as a road block for understanding amd combating finance capitalism. There are so many people that get caught up in “capitalism is bad” that they stand in the way of socialist construction which is the heart of revolution. Its a kind of anti capitalism that reminds me of how libertarians hate cops because they gave them a speeding ticket instead of police being agents of capital/colonial state.
Exactly, and this actually gets back to Marx’s original intent (as opposed to distortions of it by ultraleft dogmatists). From the manifesto:
When people speak of the ideas that revolutionise society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.
And also:
We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c.
This has modern China written all over it. Nowhere does Marx say “abolish everything capitalist immediately,” or even “every form of capitalist production is always and everywhere invalid.” What he says is that the state, with a power base in the working class and a proletarian ideology, works on an accelerated timeline to raise economic production and sharpen the contradictions already present in society.
in the literal sense, Deng was saying that it didn’t matter if China strictly adhered to ML-MZT or if it incorporated markets. The goal of the revolution is to build socialism, and it could do it either way.
But his argument was that the introduction of markets would strengthen China’s ability to build that revolution. Thusly, it shouldn’t matter if markets are introduced to China, as long as the revolution can still be built and defended, which MZT was failing at doing.
I usually argue that, by expanding on Deng Xiaoping’s thought, China also managed to turn the tables and use Capitalism against Capitalism.
Which sheds some insight on why dogmatic, unprincipled, unmarxist opposition to industrial capitalism can act as a road block for understanding amd combating finance capitalism. There are so many people that get caught up in “capitalism is bad” that they stand in the way of socialist construction which is the heart of revolution. Its a kind of anti capitalism that reminds me of how libertarians hate cops because they gave them a speeding ticket instead of police being agents of capital/colonial state.
Exactly, and this actually gets back to Marx’s original intent (as opposed to distortions of it by ultraleft dogmatists). From the manifesto:
And also:
This has modern China written all over it. Nowhere does Marx say “abolish everything capitalist immediately,” or even “every form of capitalist production is always and everywhere invalid.” What he says is that the state, with a power base in the working class and a proletarian ideology, works on an accelerated timeline to raise economic production and sharpen the contradictions already present in society.