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
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.
💯