reading through this but does developing the productive forces necessitate the restoration of private property?
another critique i have also seen in relation to the ‘private property is necessary’ is that Dengs own theory was that private property should only exist in the context of china then, and that it would be only limited and without and capitalists emerging. Deng considered it to still be socialist if 90 percent of the economy was publically owned and that no national capitalists would develop.
Deng himself states:
“Socialism has two major requirements. First, its economy must be dominated by public ownership, and second, there must be no polarization. Public ownership may consist of both ownership by the entire people and ownership by a collective. The publicly owned sector of our economy accounts for more than 90 percent of the total . . . As to the requirement that there must be no polarization, we have given much thought to this question in the course of formulating and implementing our policies. If there is polarization, the reform will have been a failure.”
What deng means by ‘polarization’ is the circuit of exchange of capitalists profiting from exploitation. Deng advocated for allowing foreign markets and investments but without the existence of a new capitalist class. If such a class arises, the reform is a failure and capitalism will have been fully restored.
“Is it possible that a new bourgeoisie will emerge? If we took the capitalist road, a small number of people in certain areas would quickly grow rich, and a new bourgeoisie would emerge along with a number of millionaires — all of these people amounting to less than one per cent of the population — while the overwhelming majority of the people would remain in poverty, scarcely able to feed and clothe themselves. Only the socialist system can eradicate poverty. That is why we do not allow people to oppose socialism.”
Again I reject maoism but the concerns of capitalist restoration in china have ground even under dengist reason. I definitely dont want to start a china hating thing but such critiques need examining.
again not trying to do a ‘denounce china’ thing im not a big fan of the sino soviet split kinda nonsense, i just have some new perspectives that i want to bring up and test.
Like I said, I personally do not fully understand it, and thus I am hopeful more well-read Marxists can offer clarification.
What we can observe, is that China is rising, and it doesn’t appear to be practicing Imperialism. China is aiding other AES states, and is maintaining a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Poverty is decreasing. By metrics, there absolutely is a bourgeois class, to the contrary of Deng and Stalin, but there is an increase in Proletarian metrics in the context of the global stage.
I am not Xi. I do not have a doctorate in Marxism. What I do know is that the US’s Hegemony is not beaten, Imperialism is still at large, but it is weakening. All we can hope for is that the Long Game and its Contradictions pays off, US Hegemony is overthrown, and the CPC can more rapidly Socialize the economy without risking Capital Flight as the industrial backbone of much of the world.
Edit: I recommend reading the full thread. There is a lot of back and forth there that is entirely understandable, and ultimately loops back to Historical Materialism. Ultimately, I find myself agreeing with the quoted comrade, especially after seeing them defend their initial comment after questioning.
Like I said, I personally do not fully understand it, and thus I am hopeful more well-read Marxists can offer clarification.
similar for me, im new to this and trying to get some help to reason it out. Marxism is hard lmao.
What we can observe, is that China is rising, and it doesn’t appear to be practicing Imperialism. China is aiding other AES states, and is maintaining a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Poverty is decreasing. By metrics, there absolutely is a bourgeois class, to the contrary of Deng and Stalin, but there is an increase in Proletarian metrics in the context of the global stage.
although people’s welfare is a central and extremely important part of socialism, it is not what makes something socialist. Otherwise Finland could be called socialist for having state ownership and social welfare. Not just deng and stalin, but all heads of marxism leninism reject this restoration of capitalism especially if private property was already eliminated to a large extent. Lenin’s NEP could be referenced but that was very very short and in a different situation, and was fortunately reversed by Stalin after it had outlived its short usefullness.
the increasing proletarian class is just a feature of any economy developing the productive forces. As well is the fact that the working class will always grow fastest due to them being the masses themselves.
I am not Xi. I do not have a doctorate in Marxism. What I do know is that the US’s Hegemony is not beaten, Imperialism is still at large, but it is weakening. All we can hope for is that the Long Game and its Contradictions pays off, US Hegemony is overthrown, and the CPC can more rapidly Socialize the economy without risking Capital Flight as the industrial backbone of much of the world.
I more or less agree with this. Again I will always reject maoist third world theory, new democracy, and PPW for being dogmatically applied incorrectly to every situation. I do appreciate china’s growth and its contribution to more independent economies, but this does not mean they are socialist or non revisionist. Revisionism in my view being ideology that leads to or allows the expansion and existence of private property.
But even then, the reds gotta stick together even if they’re ‘revisionist’ or not, the sino soviet split was dogmatic opportunism on mao’s part and revisionist nonsense on kruschev’s and just generally a disaster for the world communist movement that would only contribute to its downfall. If a large socialist country emerged i would hope for them and china to seek close relations.
Of course I also recognize that I could very well be wrong and of course retract my positions or adjust them if incorrect. My main concern with all of this is the existence of private property, i do not care for state ownership critiques as ‘state capitalism’ is a dogmatic critique in my eyes.
similar for me, im new to this and trying to get some help to reason it out. Marxism is hard lmao.
I agree! You can see my personal growth even looking at the oldest comments in my 8 month old Lemmy.ml account, and I was far worse back on Reddit. Learning takes time (and reading theory, and matching it to practice).
although people’s welfare is a central and extremely important part of socialism, it is not what makes something socialist. Otherwise Finland could be called socialist for having state ownership and social welfare.
Important bit here, Finland is a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, and practices Imperialism to fund its safety nets. The PRC has a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and funds its safety nets and infrastructure from itself. Additionally, we see increased privitization and sliding worker protections in Finland, and rising public infrastructure and worker protections in the PRC. Their power dynamics, trajectories, and sources are different.
Not just deng and stalin, but all heads of marxism leninism reject this restoration of capitalism especially if private property was already eliminated to a large extent. Lenin’s NEP could be referenced but that was very very short and in a different situation, and was fortunately reversed by Stalin after it had outlived its short usefullness.
I think you would benefit from reading the entire thread. Development of Material Conditions determines Mode of Production, China cannot skip to full socialization even if everyone knew how to do it, hence Deng’s original reforms.
Of course I also recognize that I could very well be wrong and of course retract my positions or adjust them if incorrect. My main concern with all of this is the existence of private property, i do not care for state ownership critiques as ‘state capitalism’ is a dogmatic critique in my eyes.
I again want to stress the importance of the entire thread. Many comrades had the same or similar concerns, and ultimately it loops back to Historical Materialism and the Marxist Theory of Development, rather than the Maoist.
Important bit here, Finland is a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, and practices Imperialism to fund its safety nets. The PRC has a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and funds its safety nets and infrastructure from itself. Additionally, we see increased privitization and sliding worker protections in Finland, and rising public infrastructure and worker protections in the PRC. Their power dynamics, trajectories, and sources are different.
Although I agree these things are true, a communist party in charge shouldn’t be the end all be all behind being communist. tito’s ‘market socialist’ system directly led to its own downfall through the empowerment of petite and national bourgeoisie backing nationalist splitters. Though Tito’s Yugoslavia was ruled by a communist party it still facilitated the growth of private property, speculation, and the capitalist class, even if it was alongside the proletariat. Like I highlighted how it was different for lenin’s NEP done under lenin and stalin, which destroyed its revisionist elements, but under Yugoslavia the communist party was building up capitalism in the name of socialism.
of course China does not practice imperialism, but there is a medium between neoimperialism and the USSR’s Mutual aid that china is between and sometimes leans too closely to extractive relations. again i dont think that china or the soviet union were or are imperialist, but the trade of china is sometimes cooperation between unrestrained capitalists in china developing private markets in the rest of the developed world. Not grouping them in with the actual imperialists, not in the slightest, and it is important to highlight that many projects (especially that of the Belt and Road) are done in co-operation with CPC SOCs and the governments of that nation, and are far more beneficial to the underdeveloped country (like that of soviet trade and foreign investment). China gives a good deal, far better than the west, but it could be improved and they are capable of making that improvement.
Again not everyone has to be the soviet union or the bolsheviks, but a consensus must be reached on what is necessary for material conditions and when that goes too far and becomes truly revisionist. Revisionism led directly to the fall of the soviet union and the temporary collapse of socialism across the world, it must be treated as the grave threat it is.
I think you would benefit from reading the entire thread. Development of Material Conditions determines Mode of Production, China cannot skip to full socialization even if everyone knew how to do it, hence Deng’s original reforms.
I again want to stress the importance of the entire thread. Many comrades had the same or similar concerns, and ultimately it loops back to Historical Materialism and the Marxist Theory of Development, rather than the Maoist.
sorry did you link the thread?
I referenced in an earlier comment that under Deng’s own conditions listed from those quotes the reform has removedd into a capitalist restoration. Development is a primary concern but that does not mean throw away communism to do so, as it is rather successful at doing so in many instances. I do not think Deng’s original reform was inherently revisionist either, especially with the goal of furthering development and getting the capitalist powers to warm relations, but after deng there was an immediate un-tethering of capitalism. Capitalist relations were fully re-introduced (of course majority remained in state control but a lot became privately owned). Healthcare privatization was completely unnecessary at the time and still is, and is exploitative, although the party has recently helped ensure 90 percent coverage as of recently it is still under private insurance. Capitalists dictate far too much in the economy where they shouldn’t, as seen with the re-introduction of the landlord class in the 90s only causing massive issues in the modern day that the party must amend.
China can of course reverse these revisionist tendencies and is capable of doing so, but their ‘pragmatism’ has itself become dogmatic. I have a decent amount of hope that the party can be reigned in and thus the capitalists, but only time will tell. Until then its a good trading partner, a peaceful country, and a vital part of resisting US capitalism. Very important, but the efforts can be improved.
Again, I do not claim maoism or its many critiques, i am a marxist leninist whose read mostly everyone but mao lmao.
also definitely supporting them retaking taiwan the US can fuck the hell off.
any critiques are most welcomed, as I know I have much to learn.
I’ll fully admit that I am not familiar enough to challenge anything you’ve said here correctly, no investigation, no right to speak. I don’t want you to think I didn’t read your reply, but I do not intend on trying to answer it either, as I do not know enough to give a good answer for you or myself.
Revisionism in my view being ideology that leads to or allows the expansion and existence of private property.
Private property is not eternally bad or good, and capitalism is not simply private ownership or commodity production; the “superstructure” is not just a product of the “base”, but reinforces it and shapes it onwards, as Engels said, not cause and effect but reciprocation. You cannot split the dialectic apart (although sometimes it’s necessary for explanation), as people try to do with imperialism, narrowing Lenin’s “definition” to exclude the political and falling into vulgar materialism. China has private property, but it is itself public property extended, and the state in its ideological and practical spheres has shown itself to be a state of the workers.
If you read Anti-Dühring, Engels gives insight into the negation of the negation, that there are special conditions required for the sublation of the negation, i.e. you can negate capitalism by destructive madness, but you make it impossible to sublate this negation, and so everything resets. The negation of primitive classless society provides the groundwork for its own negation, advanced classless society (communism) by expanding production/socialization (put simply). There is no way you can get to socialism without private property, commodity production, etc., as Lenin says: “Socialism is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest discoveries of modern science” (The Tax in Kind).
Or Marx: “even when a society has got upon the right track for the discovery of the natural laws of its movement — and it is the ultimate aim of this work, to lay bare the economic law of motion of modern society — it can neither clear by bold leaps, nor remove by legal enactments, the obstacles offered by the successive phases of its normal development. But it can shorten and lessen the birth-pangs” (Capital Vol. 1).
Leninism, emerging out of imperialism, showed that communists could take power where imperialism was most concentrated, so mainly less developed countries, and this was the case with China. Mao himself acknowledged that private property was necessary for China’s development: “In the new-democratic republic under the leadership of the proletariat, the state enterprises will be of a socialist character and will constitute the leading force in the whole national economy, but the republic will neither confiscate capitalist private property in general nor forbid the development of such capitalist production as does not ‘dominate the livelihood of the people’, for China’s economy is still very backward” (On New Democracy].
China and the USSR had no choice but to not only let private property exist but grow in some cases, of course while maintaining control over it, and you point to the fact that the NEP
was very very short
But as you say it was Stalin who ended it, not Lenin, and I think maybe that was a mistake, but maybe it wasn’t. In The Tax in Kind, Lenin talks about transitioning from a wartime economy, but it’s lucky this transition was reeled back, because later the USSR would be threatened by Hitler’s colonial invasion, and things like collective farming would play a big part in the Soviet victory against fascism.
reading through this but does developing the productive forces necessitate the restoration of private property?
China allowed the restoration of private property because that was the Faustian deal for them to get ahead of the USSR while avoiding major confrontations with the US. Since 1991, there isn’t a network of socialist allies to help you build your forces. The few socialist countries that exist today are either blockaded in the globalized economy, or have unresolved issues that transcend ideology.
Now everyone’s economies are intertwined, no one cares about ideology, so your options are appealing to the institutions that have the resources for your people, or gamble on the lives on a billion people by being pure. Even then, becoming neutral and allowing controlled capitalism is still gambling on the lives of billions, but as we’ve seen, less disastrous than Russia post 1991, at least for now. But China has goals to develop its resources domestically and with developing nations. They likely won’t eliminate the diet of western trade, but cutting reliance on the ideological enemy is one way of hopefully cutting reliance on compromise with capitalists internationally and domestically.
You’re right that allowing a capitalist class to emerge will inevitably lead to destruction of socialism, but I don’t think it’s possible to engage in a capitalist world economy without experts in the system. And even though a lot of Marx’s work is about explaining capitalism, it doesn’t mean that every adherent of Marx is an adherent of communism. Michael Hudson wrote his books to explain the US’ parasitic drain of the world - he did not support this system, but you know who did? Neocons, the White House and the CIA - they were so drawn and needed him to break it down for them because even they didn’t know how they were pulling off the hegemony. And even then, Marx’s theories are on the backburner in China. Most of the economists in the government and in academics are western trained, but like I said, this doesn’t mean they support capitalism, just like experts and believers in Marxian economics aren’t automatically communists.
Deng is right in that we cannot allow people to oppose socialism, so ultimately, it comes down to whether China’s ideological agenda is able to retain a socialist end goal in its experts and businessmen who, on paper, support China and socialism, but in reality are free agents.
reading through this but does developing the productive forces necessitate the restoration of private property?
another critique i have also seen in relation to the ‘private property is necessary’ is that Dengs own theory was that private property should only exist in the context of china then, and that it would be only limited and without and capitalists emerging. Deng considered it to still be socialist if 90 percent of the economy was publically owned and that no national capitalists would develop.
Deng himself states: “Socialism has two major requirements. First, its economy must be dominated by public ownership, and second, there must be no polarization. Public ownership may consist of both ownership by the entire people and ownership by a collective. The publicly owned sector of our economy accounts for more than 90 percent of the total . . . As to the requirement that there must be no polarization, we have given much thought to this question in the course of formulating and implementing our policies. If there is polarization, the reform will have been a failure.”
What deng means by ‘polarization’ is the circuit of exchange of capitalists profiting from exploitation. Deng advocated for allowing foreign markets and investments but without the existence of a new capitalist class. If such a class arises, the reform is a failure and capitalism will have been fully restored.
“Is it possible that a new bourgeoisie will emerge? If we took the capitalist road, a small number of people in certain areas would quickly grow rich, and a new bourgeoisie would emerge along with a number of millionaires — all of these people amounting to less than one per cent of the population — while the overwhelming majority of the people would remain in poverty, scarcely able to feed and clothe themselves. Only the socialist system can eradicate poverty. That is why we do not allow people to oppose socialism.”
Again I reject maoism but the concerns of capitalist restoration in china have ground even under dengist reason. I definitely dont want to start a china hating thing but such critiques need examining.
Stalin’s position is also that under socialism class conflict will escalate and must be a major focus to solve it. Disputing this was literally the line of the Bukharin right-deviationists. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1929/04/22.htm#IVb
again not trying to do a ‘denounce china’ thing im not a big fan of the sino soviet split kinda nonsense, i just have some new perspectives that i want to bring up and test.
Like I said, I personally do not fully understand it, and thus I am hopeful more well-read Marxists can offer clarification.
What we can observe, is that China is rising, and it doesn’t appear to be practicing Imperialism. China is aiding other AES states, and is maintaining a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Poverty is decreasing. By metrics, there absolutely is a bourgeois class, to the contrary of Deng and Stalin, but there is an increase in Proletarian metrics in the context of the global stage.
I am not Xi. I do not have a doctorate in Marxism. What I do know is that the US’s Hegemony is not beaten, Imperialism is still at large, but it is weakening. All we can hope for is that the Long Game and its Contradictions pays off, US Hegemony is overthrown, and the CPC can more rapidly Socialize the economy without risking Capital Flight as the industrial backbone of much of the world.
Edit: I recommend reading the full thread. There is a lot of back and forth there that is entirely understandable, and ultimately loops back to Historical Materialism. Ultimately, I find myself agreeing with the quoted comrade, especially after seeing them defend their initial comment after questioning.
similar for me, im new to this and trying to get some help to reason it out. Marxism is hard lmao.
although people’s welfare is a central and extremely important part of socialism, it is not what makes something socialist. Otherwise Finland could be called socialist for having state ownership and social welfare. Not just deng and stalin, but all heads of marxism leninism reject this restoration of capitalism especially if private property was already eliminated to a large extent. Lenin’s NEP could be referenced but that was very very short and in a different situation, and was fortunately reversed by Stalin after it had outlived its short usefullness.
the increasing proletarian class is just a feature of any economy developing the productive forces. As well is the fact that the working class will always grow fastest due to them being the masses themselves.
I more or less agree with this. Again I will always reject maoist third world theory, new democracy, and PPW for being dogmatically applied incorrectly to every situation. I do appreciate china’s growth and its contribution to more independent economies, but this does not mean they are socialist or non revisionist. Revisionism in my view being ideology that leads to or allows the expansion and existence of private property.
But even then, the reds gotta stick together even if they’re ‘revisionist’ or not, the sino soviet split was dogmatic opportunism on mao’s part and revisionist nonsense on kruschev’s and just generally a disaster for the world communist movement that would only contribute to its downfall. If a large socialist country emerged i would hope for them and china to seek close relations.
Of course I also recognize that I could very well be wrong and of course retract my positions or adjust them if incorrect. My main concern with all of this is the existence of private property, i do not care for state ownership critiques as ‘state capitalism’ is a dogmatic critique in my eyes.
I agree! You can see my personal growth even looking at the oldest comments in my 8 month old Lemmy.ml account, and I was far worse back on Reddit. Learning takes time (and reading theory, and matching it to practice).
Important bit here, Finland is a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, and practices Imperialism to fund its safety nets. The PRC has a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and funds its safety nets and infrastructure from itself. Additionally, we see increased privitization and sliding worker protections in Finland, and rising public infrastructure and worker protections in the PRC. Their power dynamics, trajectories, and sources are different.
I think you would benefit from reading the entire thread. Development of Material Conditions determines Mode of Production, China cannot skip to full socialization even if everyone knew how to do it, hence Deng’s original reforms.
I again want to stress the importance of the entire thread. Many comrades had the same or similar concerns, and ultimately it loops back to Historical Materialism and the Marxist Theory of Development, rather than the Maoist.
Although I agree these things are true, a communist party in charge shouldn’t be the end all be all behind being communist. tito’s ‘market socialist’ system directly led to its own downfall through the empowerment of petite and national bourgeoisie backing nationalist splitters. Though Tito’s Yugoslavia was ruled by a communist party it still facilitated the growth of private property, speculation, and the capitalist class, even if it was alongside the proletariat. Like I highlighted how it was different for lenin’s NEP done under lenin and stalin, which destroyed its revisionist elements, but under Yugoslavia the communist party was building up capitalism in the name of socialism.
of course China does not practice imperialism, but there is a medium between neoimperialism and the USSR’s Mutual aid that china is between and sometimes leans too closely to extractive relations. again i dont think that china or the soviet union were or are imperialist, but the trade of china is sometimes cooperation between unrestrained capitalists in china developing private markets in the rest of the developed world. Not grouping them in with the actual imperialists, not in the slightest, and it is important to highlight that many projects (especially that of the Belt and Road) are done in co-operation with CPC SOCs and the governments of that nation, and are far more beneficial to the underdeveloped country (like that of soviet trade and foreign investment). China gives a good deal, far better than the west, but it could be improved and they are capable of making that improvement.
Again not everyone has to be the soviet union or the bolsheviks, but a consensus must be reached on what is necessary for material conditions and when that goes too far and becomes truly revisionist. Revisionism led directly to the fall of the soviet union and the temporary collapse of socialism across the world, it must be treated as the grave threat it is.
sorry did you link the thread?
I referenced in an earlier comment that under Deng’s own conditions listed from those quotes the reform has removedd into a capitalist restoration. Development is a primary concern but that does not mean throw away communism to do so, as it is rather successful at doing so in many instances. I do not think Deng’s original reform was inherently revisionist either, especially with the goal of furthering development and getting the capitalist powers to warm relations, but after deng there was an immediate un-tethering of capitalism. Capitalist relations were fully re-introduced (of course majority remained in state control but a lot became privately owned). Healthcare privatization was completely unnecessary at the time and still is, and is exploitative, although the party has recently helped ensure 90 percent coverage as of recently it is still under private insurance. Capitalists dictate far too much in the economy where they shouldn’t, as seen with the re-introduction of the landlord class in the 90s only causing massive issues in the modern day that the party must amend.
China can of course reverse these revisionist tendencies and is capable of doing so, but their ‘pragmatism’ has itself become dogmatic. I have a decent amount of hope that the party can be reigned in and thus the capitalists, but only time will tell. Until then its a good trading partner, a peaceful country, and a vital part of resisting US capitalism. Very important, but the efforts can be improved.
Again, I do not claim maoism or its many critiques, i am a marxist leninist whose read mostly everyone but mao lmao.
also definitely supporting them retaking taiwan the US can fuck the hell off.
any critiques are most welcomed, as I know I have much to learn.
I’ll fully admit that I am not familiar enough to challenge anything you’ve said here correctly, no investigation, no right to speak. I don’t want you to think I didn’t read your reply, but I do not intend on trying to answer it either, as I do not know enough to give a good answer for you or myself.
I linked the thread in my original comment, but I will link it again here: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/230000
Again, I appreciate your analysis, and I don’t want you to take this as dismissive.
thank you sorry i will read this
thank you, your arguments are much appreciated and i hold many of your opinions as well. We are communists, comrades, at the end of the day!
Private property is not eternally bad or good, and capitalism is not simply private ownership or commodity production; the “superstructure” is not just a product of the “base”, but reinforces it and shapes it onwards, as Engels said, not cause and effect but reciprocation. You cannot split the dialectic apart (although sometimes it’s necessary for explanation), as people try to do with imperialism, narrowing Lenin’s “definition” to exclude the political and falling into vulgar materialism. China has private property, but it is itself public property extended, and the state in its ideological and practical spheres has shown itself to be a state of the workers.
If you read Anti-Dühring, Engels gives insight into the negation of the negation, that there are special conditions required for the sublation of the negation, i.e. you can negate capitalism by destructive madness, but you make it impossible to sublate this negation, and so everything resets. The negation of primitive classless society provides the groundwork for its own negation, advanced classless society (communism) by expanding production/socialization (put simply). There is no way you can get to socialism without private property, commodity production, etc., as Lenin says: “Socialism is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest discoveries of modern science” (The Tax in Kind).
Or Marx: “even when a society has got upon the right track for the discovery of the natural laws of its movement — and it is the ultimate aim of this work, to lay bare the economic law of motion of modern society — it can neither clear by bold leaps, nor remove by legal enactments, the obstacles offered by the successive phases of its normal development. But it can shorten and lessen the birth-pangs” (Capital Vol. 1).
Leninism, emerging out of imperialism, showed that communists could take power where imperialism was most concentrated, so mainly less developed countries, and this was the case with China. Mao himself acknowledged that private property was necessary for China’s development: “In the new-democratic republic under the leadership of the proletariat, the state enterprises will be of a socialist character and will constitute the leading force in the whole national economy, but the republic will neither confiscate capitalist private property in general nor forbid the development of such capitalist production as does not ‘dominate the livelihood of the people’, for China’s economy is still very backward” (On New Democracy].
China and the USSR had no choice but to not only let private property exist but grow in some cases, of course while maintaining control over it, and you point to the fact that the NEP
But as you say it was Stalin who ended it, not Lenin, and I think maybe that was a mistake, but maybe it wasn’t. In The Tax in Kind, Lenin talks about transitioning from a wartime economy, but it’s lucky this transition was reeled back, because later the USSR would be threatened by Hitler’s colonial invasion, and things like collective farming would play a big part in the Soviet victory against fascism.
thank you for this response!
China allowed the restoration of private property because that was the Faustian deal for them to get ahead of the USSR while avoiding major confrontations with the US. Since 1991, there isn’t a network of socialist allies to help you build your forces. The few socialist countries that exist today are either blockaded in the globalized economy, or have unresolved issues that transcend ideology.
Now everyone’s economies are intertwined, no one cares about ideology, so your options are appealing to the institutions that have the resources for your people, or gamble on the lives on a billion people by being pure. Even then, becoming neutral and allowing controlled capitalism is still gambling on the lives of billions, but as we’ve seen, less disastrous than Russia post 1991, at least for now. But China has goals to develop its resources domestically and with developing nations. They likely won’t eliminate the diet of western trade, but cutting reliance on the ideological enemy is one way of hopefully cutting reliance on compromise with capitalists internationally and domestically.
You’re right that allowing a capitalist class to emerge will inevitably lead to destruction of socialism, but I don’t think it’s possible to engage in a capitalist world economy without experts in the system. And even though a lot of Marx’s work is about explaining capitalism, it doesn’t mean that every adherent of Marx is an adherent of communism. Michael Hudson wrote his books to explain the US’ parasitic drain of the world - he did not support this system, but you know who did? Neocons, the White House and the CIA - they were so drawn and needed him to break it down for them because even they didn’t know how they were pulling off the hegemony. And even then, Marx’s theories are on the backburner in China. Most of the economists in the government and in academics are western trained, but like I said, this doesn’t mean they support capitalism, just like experts and believers in Marxian economics aren’t automatically communists.
Deng is right in that we cannot allow people to oppose socialism, so ultimately, it comes down to whether China’s ideological agenda is able to retain a socialist end goal in its experts and businessmen who, on paper, support China and socialism, but in reality are free agents.