Isn’t the worst socialism still better than the best capitalism? Why try to destroy “revisionist” socialism when you have capitalism to destroy? Wouldn’t it be easier to fix a revisionist socialist country than trying to convince a capitalist one to be socialist?

  • pencil_nerd@mander.xyzEnglish
    55·
    3 days ago

    So how is Dengism not revisionism, though? I know that’s not part of this question, so you don’t have to answer, but the rise of Dengism after the Sino-Soviet split seems disingenuous to me.

    • freagle@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
      121·
      3 days ago

      Dengism doesn’t make changes to Marxism to make it compatible with liberalism.

      • pencil_nerd@mander.xyzEnglish
        64·
        3 days ago

        The acceptance of capitalist structures into Chinese communism. Granted, China 100% would not be the superpower it is today without those structures in place, but it still rubs me the wrong way that there are billionaires in China.

        • Lemmygradwontallowme [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
          18·
          3 days ago

          but it still rubs me the wrong way that there are billionaires in China.

          Funny, I have the essay for you.

          But just so you know

          It is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real world and 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.

          (Note: As long as, of course, ruling class dynamics direct their efforts to it and adapt or not to this change)

          Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke? No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.

          Would it be ripe time for China to prolly go socialist, yes, but the only way I see Communism overcoming and becoming the dominant system as it is, is if it the previous rivaling economic mode of production of Capitalism is destroyed, with only feudal and lower remnants to be dealt with. However, Neoliberalism still reigns as far as I’m concerned, albeit under a weakened condition.

        • Commiejones@lemmygrad.ml
          11·
          3 days ago

          Socialism is the process of building communism. Its a dangerous path fraught with dangers on all sides. Deng made market reforms to preserve the forward momentum of the socialist project in China. Had he not made some market reforms it is more than likely that China would not survived as a socialist state at all.

          Deng did not accept capitalist structures into the country. At the end of the day no matter how rich individual billionaires might be the Party still controls the central bank and the means of production. They are still subject to the will of the people.