"Wallace: To get rich is glorious. That declaration by Chinese leaders to their people surprises many in the capitalist world. What does that have to do with communism?
Deng: We went through the “cultural revolution”. During the “cultural revolution” there was a view that poor communism was preferable to rich capitalism. After I resumed office in the central leadership in 1974 and 1975, I criticized that view. Because I did so, I was brought down again. Of course, there were other reasons too. I said to them that there was no such thing as poor communism. According to Marxism, communist society is based on material abundance. Only when there is material abundance can the principle of a communist society — that is, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” — be applied. Socialism is the first stage of communism. Of course, it covers a very long historical period. The main task in the socialist stage is to develop the productive forces, keep increasing the material wealth of society, steadily improve the life of the people and create material conditions for the advent of a communist society.
There can be no communism with pauperism, or socialism with pauperism. So to get rich is no sin. However, what we mean by getting rich is different from what you mean. Wealth in a socialist society belongs to the people. To get rich in a socialist society means prosperity for the entire people. The principles of socialism are: first, development of production and second, common prosperity. We permit some people and some regions to become prosperous first, for the purpose of achieving common prosperity faster. That is why our policy will not lead to polarization, to a situation where the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. To be frank, we shall not permit the emergence of a new bourgeoisie."
Interview to Deng Xiaoping
To be frank, we shall not permit the emergence of a new bourgeoisie.
We gotta be honest, they did permit the emergence of a new bourgeoisie. Nobody is gonna argue that people like Jack Ma aren’t a Chinese bourgeoisie.
The important part is that they didn’t take control of the state, and that it remains that way.
He’s often regarded as a right-deviationist for a reason
Even petty bourgeoise are bourgeoise, and in fact, even more dangerous than the big ones. At least the big ones’ actions are easy to monitor and control.
“Communists want to abolish the rich!”
“No, we want to abolish the poor.”
Rich and poor are relative categories, you can’t abolish one without abolishing the other.
Very dialectical
And then his policies did produce polarization and a new bourgeoisie. I think it shouldn’t be controversial to say that he was substantially revisionist, and that a circumstance where some are prosperous and some are not is opposed to the principles of a socialist society because it is the product of stratification of social position in the population, i.e. not conducive to achieving the “classlessness” thing.
