u/ThePoopOutWest - originally from r/GenZhou
I know there are differences between Deng’s China and, say, Gorbachev’s USSR or post 1986 Vietnam, but I’m not sure what they are. I suspect it has to do with control by a principled party but I could be off. Can someone help?
Edit: to clarify, I’m not one of those who will say “China and America??? Basically the same!!!” or that Deng is revisionist. Was just more curious about what the reforms were in both examples and how they fall in a Marxist analysis
u/Green_Plant57 - originally from r/GenZhou
A good book on this subject is “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics a Guide for Foreigners” by Roland Boer, professor of Marxism at Renmin University in China. Most everything I will explain about SWCC comes from this book.The fundamental difference between revisionism and SWCC is its class character and its purpose, as well as the specific policies implemented. If the distinction could be made in one sentence, it would be that one.
China adopted market reforms with the intent of developing the productive forces and establishing a solid industrial foundation to build advanced socialism and eventually communism on. The CPC holds the belief that advanced socialism can only emerge through the laws of economic development under the DotP. They established the DotP, now what they have to do is focus on economic development and advanced socialism will be established when the economy is ready to do so. The market was also implemented to integrate them into the global economy to allow trade with the capitalists.
Another thing that should be noted is Deng Xiaoping’s famous quote about “black cat white cat, doesn’t matter as long as it catches mice” isn’t reductionist saying capitalism and socialism are both good and on equal footing. What he is referring to is the mechanisms that get used to distribute goods and services in the economy doesn’t matter, what matters is the results of their distribution; what matters is that mice get caught. Under socialism this distribution should be in the interests of the proletariat. These interests themselves will change depending on the material conditions, but the economy dominantly works in their favor with anything capitalist being secondary. It doesn’t matter if a socialist economy uses planing or markets as long as the end result is prosperity for the nation, dominantly establishing distribution according to work, curbing excess exploitation in the primary stage and all exploitation in advanced socialism and communism, and the pursuance of the interests of the working class.
The same is true for capitalism. It doesn’t matter if it is a Laissez faire capitalist or a social democracy (black cat white cat) they both catch birds as opposed to mice. Their goals are different. They are trying to benefit the capitalist rather than the worker. What the mechanisms are trying to achieve is different, regardless of which ones they use.
SWCC is just scientific socialism; developing an economic strategy for China to liberate the working class.
Contrast this with revisionism, which is the betrayal of marxism. Rather than saying we should change things within the socialist system, it says we should scrap the socialist system all together, it isn’t special. It is anti-materialistic analysis that ignores the truths of marxism in favor of ideas contrary to reality.
Desalinization is an example of how they gut socialism into a shell of appearance. Deng Xiaoping made principled criticisms of Mao, but said we will never do what Khrushchev did to Stalin because that is revisionist. We must material analyze the mistakes and merits of past leaders and policies. If you correctly analyze leaders like Mao and Stalin, as Deng Xiaoping said, you will come to the inevitable conclusion these were some of the best men in history. Not without faults, but still some of the best. Anti-materialism is what leads to the erroneous analysis conducted by the revisionists.
The other element of revisionism is opportunism. Some capitalists use un-dialectic arguments with the intent of weakening the socialist system to inevitably crush it. People like Boris Yeltsin are examples of this.
Essentially, SWCC is just a different take on socialist development taken by China while revisionism is the conscious or unconscious rejection of marxism and dialectical materialism in favor of idealistic jargon and unrealistic analysis.
Edit: destalinization not desalinization
u/aimixin - originally from r/GenZhouThe CPC holds the belief that advanced socialism can only emerge through the laws of economic development under the DotP.
It’s frustrating that this is a controversial take among internet leftists.
u/lil_oozey_squirt - originally from r/GenZhou
Because MLs who call market reforms revisionist have unwittingly bought into the mawkish utopianism of the anarchists.
u/mijabo - originally from r/GenZhou
Great summary and even included a recommendation for further reading. Imma need to get that book. Thanks comrade!u/therealwheeze - originally from r/GenZhou
Great response comrade. Does the book contain any examples of these anti-materialist analyses and anti-materialist/revisionist criticisms of Stalin and Mao? Also, is there another good resource on topics such as class character?I ask as I’ve been debating an anarchist recently who basically doesn’t agree that any of China’s positive economic and social developments mean anything, because they don’t believe the CPC has China’s best interests at heart and only want to consolidate power. They also don’t agree with using a market economy even for socialist purposes, as exploitation in any form is considered unacceptable by their philosophy. Hoping Boer’s text might prove useful for disproving some of this!
u/Green_Plant57 - originally from r/GenZhou
The book is mostly focused on SWCC and doesn’t talk all that much about revisionism or its criticisms. There are some but it refutes them by explaining the theoretical basis for SWCC rather than directly addressing the argument. It does however contain refutes to ultra-left maoist arguments against SWCC. If I’m remembering correctly, it specifically addresses the Gang of Four and the cultural revolution’s negative impact on China and why reform was necessary in the first place.It does have two chapters about Chinese democracy that would be of use for you argument however (chapter 8 titled “socialist democracy in practice” and 9 titled “socialist democracy in theory”). It explains their grass-roots democracy and meritocracy which can help with refuting the argument that they are all corrupt and the people don’t have a say in leadership, rather than being servants of the working class. There is also economic information through the first chapters talking about the socialist market economy that would be of use also.
The only other good book I know of in English (there are tons in Chinese) about the class character and theory of SWCC is “Marxism and Socialism With Chinese Characteristics” by Jin Huiming. It goes much more in-depth, being almost twice as long as the first book I mentioned, but I haven’t read as much of it so I don’t know what specifically it says about class character. It covers the theoretical basis very well though.
Hope this helps :)
u/sanriver12 - originally from r/GenZhouexamples of these anti-materialist analyses and anti-materialist/revisionist criticisms of Mao?
http://en.people.cn/n3/2016/0517/c98649-9059031.html
https://www.marxists.org/subject/china/documents/cpc/history/01.htm
u/dornish1919 - originally from r/GenZhou
Well said!u/cfgaussian - originally from r/GenZhou
Markets have some inherent properties that make them undesirable for a socialist project though. One of those is accumulation and the unequal distribution of resources, the tendency to create first a petty bourgeoisie and then a strata of bourgeois elites. Market commerce creates bourgeois individualist mentality in the people which is bad for social cohesion. Furthermore market systems are inherently unstable and prone to periodic crises, they obey the economic laws that Marx discovered including falling rates of profit and crises of overproduction.Not saying these problems can’t be kept in check by a strong socialist state, obviously China proves that the negatives can be suppressed or controlled while using markets to develop the entire economy, and i do believe China made a difficult but necessary compromise which is not comparable to what the Soviet revisionists did who outright renounced socialism, but this state of affairs is not one that should be allowed to dominate for any longer than absolutely necessary. Planned economies are superior in terms of their stability, their efficiency and their compatibility with a classless society (or one in which the bourgeois class is to be slowly liquidated and not be allowed to keep growing). Yes, the economy must have a certain level of development in order for a planned economy to be viable, China in the 60s and 70s was not yet at that point, but today…
I know this goes against the dominant thought in SWCC that so long as development and prosperity is achieved it doesn’t matter which economic mechanism is used. Imo markets are inherently un-socialist and lead to a buildup of harmful contradictions in a socialist society that the party needs to devote increasingly high amounts of effort to managing. So far the CPC has done a very good job, but it’s reaching a point where things have to slowly start to shift back into the direction of socialist planning.
u/Green_Plant57 - originally from r/GenZhou
Absolutely. Uncontrolled markets are bad. In China, they have been able to control the markets with SOE’s and market regulation, but there are still inequalities and inefficiencies. As 2050 approaches though, we are going to see a gradual shift to combat this. A good book recommendation is “2050 China” which outlines the development strategy they have. The markets will not be completely eliminated for a while, but in what they call the second half of the primary stage of socialism, they will start to focus on “common prosperity,” or in other words, going harder against these market forces causing inequality. There will be increased interference to combat this, but the markets and investment will remain for quite some time. The Beijing stock exchange just opened yesterday and with only 83 companies on it traded over $1 billion opening day. The Chinese economy also has the most new patents in almost every tech field and is developing at a rapid pace. Foreign investment is still going to be able to help with this, giving them access to even more capital than they would. However, with the size of the Chinese economy, they are no longer dependent on foreign investment. It helps, but isn’t required.Going forward, sometime in the future we’ll see the next plan published that will go to 2100 or 2075 perhaps, and this plan will be the first to feature development strategies not in the primary stage of socialism, but socialism socialism. This will be the plan featuring a true shift. Could they do it sooner? Probably, but they aren’t risk takers. As Deng said, they will keep their head low and work hard until we can be completely confident. 2050 is ~30 years away and by then, the Chinese economy is estimated to be $58 trillion USD, more than twice the size of the current us economy and ~1.7x the size the US economy is predicted to be in 2050. This is a massive industrial foundation and then China will end the second half and begin the development of socialism outside the primary stage.
u/Ganem1227 - originally from r/GenZhou
What weaknesses did CPSU have that made them turn their backs on socialism? Surely this was a problem that existed before Khruschev and finally exposed itself after Stalin’s death. There’s no way the CP just collectively pivoted in the wrong direction out of nowhere.u/Green_Plant57 - originally from r/GenZhou
You’re absolutely right. This was an issue that had existed within the party before Khrushchev and only manifested after the death of Stalin. I’m not well read on this issue and would also like to learn more if anybody has resources.That being said, it definitely wasn’t a collective pivot. The whole party didn’t abandon the core of marxism all at once. My guess for what happened was the party failed to screen for opportunists and revisionists and once they reached leadership above the party congress, they were able to corrode the integrity of the party, eventually leading to its demise. The purges attempted to get rid of them, but it’s clear that didn’t work considering they still remained.
u/eisagi - originally from r/GenZhou
I would give a parallel explanation - the USSR existed under a different set of external and internal pressures than the PRC.A. China was always relatively geographically sheltered (mountains, deserts, oceans) and dwarfed all its neighbors; Imperial Japan could challenge China, but then it was destroyed and occupied. Russia was always open to invasion and neighbored economically more advanced Europe where it was only one among several Great Powers. The USSR, even under Stalin, sought accommodation with Western Europe and buffer states to guarantee its security.
B. Having buffer states and great historic ethnic and religious diversity contributed to disunity within the CPSU. There were natural conflicts of interest between the center and the periphery, the developed West and the undeveloped East, etc…
C. During the Cold War, the USSR was seen as the source of all Communist movements in the world and was targeted for elimination. The US opened up trade with China in order to isolate the USSR.
In sum, the USSR always existed under a greater degree of threat and competition. Its leaders made choices accordingly - many wrong ones, as it turned out. But it wasn’t just that opportunists and revisionists appeared from thin air - their environment encouraged them to compromise principles, back down under pressure, and look out for the narrow interests of their own subgroup.
u/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
1: During the Great Patriotic War, the CPSU was all but depopulated, as most of the party members were killed at the front.2: Historically they were always understaffed.
3: USA infiltrated the economics areas of CPSU. in the 80’s nearly all of them were convinced that capitalism was just better.
4: USA was playing nice, and the cracks had not started to show.
5: a good chunk of CPSU just really thought things were gona get better. Sure, it sucks, but capitalism just works. We had a good run, but it’s over. Then the Looting and death happened, and they discovered that the hardliners were right, all along.
6: China had all this as a warning what would happen.
u/parentis_shotgun - originally from r/GenZhou
Excellent answer.
u/Jmlsky - originally from r/GenZhou
To speak quickly, the context can’t really be compared. In USSR, gorby era reform occured after a decade of weakening of party control over the state and the rise of nationalism in a lot of SSR. China isn’t remotely close, first it’s not an Union of republic, second they fought and still fight autonomous movement all around China, whereas USSR from the start had as à core rights, for republic to seceed if they wanted, which was logical given that most of those young republic were former Czarist colony.Second, the economical development level. USSR was way ahead of Deng China, they had one if not the biggest industrial complexe of the world, were planning their own internet, had a very much advanced space program which even included a spatial station (mir), whereas China just get out of the heavy focus on steel production and other heavy industrial sector, especially in the north east, in what is called now the Rust belt. It is easier to enjoy growth when you create a new sector, everything is to be build from scratch, it’s harder to revolutionarize or even reform an already existing and old industrial complexe.
Third, the reform themselves. China Opening reform are to be understood in the long history of EEZ in China history, aka the South coastal cities. What Deng did was something the Chinese always did, meaning opening à certain numbers of cities to foreign capital and restrict and control the income of capital on those specifical zone. It worked in the past, it’s also what allowed Western power to meddle in China internal affairs, so the risks were known and assumed.
What is truly a CPC innovative and vanguardist call was to bet on the développement of high technology sector, especially in late 70s post-mao China. Imagine Deng saying “There, we will soon lead the World technological sector”, pointing at Shenzhen, a poor fisher small town.
It paid off. The cost has been heavy, especially at the beginning, when they stopped to invest and focus as hard on steel production in the north east, when they putted thousands of workers who migrated from their hometown to go get an urban life there straight into unemployement, homelessness and misery, but it was a needed step. They could have worked it out better for those workers imho, but it is easier said than done, and one would have to be criminally blind to not admit that, at à macro-economical level, it paid off.
That’s my analysis at least.
u/ThePoopOutWest - originally from r/GenZhou
This answered my question exactly. Thank you comrade.u/Jmlsky - originally from r/GenZhou
You’re welcome, glad I was of any help, have in mind it’s just the (vaguely educated-ish) opinion of an Internet random so you do you with all that but that’s my 0.02€ on this topic.
u/emisneko - originally from r/GenZhou
check out this article: https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/u/sanriver12 - originally from r/GenZhou
‘markets’ in isolation, in general don’t exist. They only exist embodied by a particular mode of production.Markets are merely a method, a tool, which can be used differently by different MOP. that explains how markets under swcc pulled out 850 mil people out of extreme poverty while markets under Indian’s neoliberal order dont.
the question of Market Reforms vs Revisionism is a question of under what MOP markets are functioning, what is their orientation/purpose.
u/ThePoopOutWest - originally from r/GenZhou
This is going off of a historical material analysis right? Kinda like how there were markets in Ancient Rome or markets during feudal times?u/sanriver12 - originally from r/GenZhouThis is going off of a historical material analysis right?
hmm not exactly. it’s just basic understanding of what capitalism is, what it does and what is a market. this isnt “common sense”, you have to read to get a grasp of it.
here’s another odd example: non-capitalist markets under a capitalist mode of production.
u/AlanCrowley - originally from r/GenZhou
“Gorbachev is the most idiot man I’ve ever met in my life” - Deng Shiaopingu/Azirahael - originally from r/GenZhou
Comparison of Deng reforms vs Gorbachev:https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/articles/dengs-and-gorbachevs-reform-strategies-compared/
u/cadaver3 - originally from r/GenZhou
Deng was a roader. Xi is a bourgeois. China is going, in its own way, the way of the USSR.cpim.org/marxist/200102_marxist_deng_yang.htm