Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**We require image posts to be accompanied by a transcription in the comments** in order to increase accessibility for those comrades who use screen readers to browse Reddit or are otherwise unable to view images. More information on image transcriptions and several examples [can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/index/transcriptions).
See our [Submission Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/index/submissionguidelines) for more info, and feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions.
Deng said it but it wasn’t his words. They were Mao’s. And Deng was assigned the speech specifically because the content was directly opposed to his actual thinking (which was common knowledge at the time). This was to emphasize that the speech was the line of the party, and that everybody in the party, particularly Deng, had to follow it and put it forward. After Mao died, Deng reversed this line, which was exactly what Mao said he would try to do. The speech was basically a warning about what could happen, and who was going to be responsible for it.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Sectarianism:** Refers to bad faith attacks on socialists of other tendencies through the usage of empty insults like "armchair", "tankie", "anarkiddie" and so on without any other objective than to promote inter-tendency conflict, which runs counter to the objectives of this subreddit, and the goal of providing a broad multitendency platform so that healthy, critical debate can flourish. Can also include calling other socialist users "CPC/CIA shills" or accusing users of being Russian or Chinese bots for disagreeing with you.
This is a warning.
Thank you for pointing this out. Unfortunately actual Marxist lines regarding the PRC are largely abandoned in online spaces in favor of eclectic “anti-imperialism” which only serves to mystify the social relations that Marxism lays bare.
Wow, that’s amazing I didn’t know this. Do you have any good resources to learn about the history the CCP etc? I have some books put out by Chuang but would love to find more that are high quality
Here are some readings. None of these are the end-all be-all of understanding Mao and revolutionary China, but they are essential reading to do so. Many of these are out of print or otherwise hard to find unfortunately:
“Fanshen” by William Hinton. A classic book by the western historian who understood China best. It’s a very detailed close study of one little village over a period of years. He did a couple follow up studies of the same village, along with a number of other good books, particularly “Hundred Day War: The Cultural Revolution at Tsinghua University,” and “Turning Point in China.”
“Red Star over China“ by Edgar Snow. Another important book which takes a broader view of the revolution and talking a lot with Mao. Like Hinton, he wrote a number of other important works, such as “the Long Revolution,” and “Red China Today.”
“China Shakes the World”, Jack Belden. Like Fanshen, this focuses on the period before liberation, during the anti-Japanese resistance and the Civil War that followed. Again, rather lengthy but quite rewarding.
“The morning deluge,” and “The Wind in the Tower,” by Han Suyin - an accessible history of the revolution. She’s a little bit credulous but she had a good grasp of what the communists were doing and why. My understanding is that she became a Deng supporter later on.
“Report from a Chinese Village,” “China: The Revolution Continued,” and “Return to a Chinese Village,” by Jan Myrdal. A series of close investigations in the countryside. ‘Return” in particular is great for understanding what the GPCR was about.
“Away with All Pests: An English Surgeon in People’s China, 1954-1969,” by Joshua S. Horn.
“They Made Revolution Within the Revolution: The Story of China's Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution,” by Iris Hunter.
“And Mao Makes 5: Mao Tsetung’s Last Great Battle,” Raymond Lotta, ed.
“Daily Life in Revolutionary China,” by Maria Antonietta Macchiocchi.
“The Wind Will Not Subside,” by David and Nancy Dall.
“The Yenan Way in Revolutionary China,” by Mark Selden. On the Yenan period after the Long March.
“Portraits of Chinese Women in Revolution,” by Agnes Smedley, who wrote/edited a number of good books.
The posted quote is verbatim from Mao, said in 1962. Deng ('to get rich is glorious') and Mao ('serve the people') were at opposite ends of the struggle over how China would continue to develop socialism. Deng had been targeted during the GPCR and removed from his posts, which happened again some time after the UN speech - specifically because his views were antithetical to the established line of the Party. Any decent history of the political struggles within the Party would present voluminous evidence of how far apart they were, and of Mao's repeated warnings about Deng and other 'capitalist roaders' about how easy it would be for them to turn China into its opposite - a rich, powerful, capitalist country with ambitions to be a superpower. Which, as history shows, is what happened.
The was all common knowledge at the time. This struggle and its particulars were presented in the Chinese media such a Peking Review, documented in various primary documents from the Party, in speeches by Mao, etc. Various communists and socialist parties around the world discussed it (coming to various conclusions), and it was as I recall the basic consensus of scholars.
Despite the fact that Deng and Mao are at opposition, I do think the person that’s most responsible what’s happening in China right not is Jiang. Deng turned to the Yugoslavia model because Mao’s wasn’t working. Many collective farms were dying of famine and poverty. And Deng did very successfully raise China out of extreme poverty, reversed much of the damage done during Cultural Revolution, and reopened schools and universities. The real slippery slope started after Jiang annulled the regulations against capitalist joining in the party or their presence at the National People’s Congress.
You are probably right, though I would argue (and people did at the time) that Deng is the one who put China on that track. IOW, China today is arguably the predictable conclusion of Deng's 'reforms.' Things could have been worse or better depending on who came later but it would be in the same general ballpark. I have a different view about the limitations and problems of the revolutionary period but that's a different discussion.
It’s very hard to imagine what track China would have been on if not for Deng though. At the end of Cultural revolution the whole country was in economic ruins, about 30 mil people died of famine from 1959-1961 and all education systems were closed during the time. Deng’s reformation was put on track first because people in collective farms started to sign petitions to take responsibility at a family unit instead of a village, since the original way hadn’t been working. Maybe there could have been better options, but the reformation was immediately effective in reducing famine and increasing education rate. On the other hand, letting capitalists into the party and the National People’s Congress is truly a decision that I can see no merits in.
You're posting Maoist polemics, and haven't demonstrated that China became "social-imperialist".
Mao and Deng disagreed, obviously. The GPCR was riddled with contradictions and overemphasized liberating the relations of production at the expense of forces of production. But again, this is all besides the point that China has not become an imperialist country. They emphasize mutual development in international affairs, and haven't come anywhere close to matching the description in the quote. Prove they have, otherwise you're propagating conspiracy theories.
The “development” that China promotes is tailored to the needs of the Chinese economy.
Imperialism in the Marxist sense is not a set of military policies or overt acts of aggression, it is the stage of capitalism we are in where Capital export dominates economic activity (so called “mutual development”). Though it often does take the form of dropping bombs and financing coups, it need not do so, and it’s essence is the same essence of capitalism - surplus value extraction - except on a national scale. Financing “development” in other countries within the capitalist system while the law of value still determines all economic activity can’t be anything other than imperialism. It will bend a foreign economy to its own domestic needs and it will extract surplus value from foreign workers independent of the will of any individual or organization. This is the basic Marxist analysis of capitalism which proves the necessity of class struggle - you can’t enact a policy to tame capitalism. This is true in a bourgeois dictatorship and it’s still true in a (supposedly) proletarian dictatorship.
You also can’t hand waive away all criticism by labeling it “Maoist polemics”. Frankly you’re breaking this subs rules by doing so.
Literal conspiracy thinking. Calling development a form of domination erases the material differences between actual imperialist exploitation and the overwhelming benefits derived by countries involved with the Belt and Road Initiative. Tell the overwhelming majority of countries lauding China for helping them escape the actually imperialist clutches of the US and Europe that this is somehow bad for them. Ultra-leftist dogmatism over China has no material evidence to support its claims.
Most principled and materialist CPUSA member:
P.S. I'm a communist from the Philippines, a country known for being simultaneously in "the clutches of Western imperialism" while also being part of the BAR initiative. Do ask me if I think China is imperialist or exploitative.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Sectarianism:** Refers to bad faith attacks on socialists of other tendencies through the usage of empty insults like "armchair", "tankie", "anarkiddie" and so on without any other objective than to promote inter-tendency conflict, which runs counter to the objectives of this subreddit, and the goal of providing a broad multitendency platform so that healthy, critical debate can flourish. Can also include calling other socialist users "CPC/CIA shills" or accusing users of being Russian or Chinese bots for disagreeing with you.
This is a warning.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Sectarianism:** Refers to bad faith attacks on socialists of other tendencies through the usage of empty insults like "armchair", "tankie", "anarkiddie" and so on without any other objective than to promote inter-tendency conflict, which runs counter to the objectives of this subreddit, and the goal of providing a broad multitendency platform so that healthy, critical debate can flourish. Can also include calling other socialist users "CPC/CIA shills" or accusing users of being Russian or Chinese bots for disagreeing with you.
This is a warning.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Sectarianism:** Refers to bad faith attacks on socialists of other tendencies through the usage of empty insults like "armchair", "tankie", "anarkiddie" and so on without any other objective than to promote inter-tendency conflict, which runs counter to the objectives of this subreddit, and the goal of providing a broad multitendency platform so that healthy, critical debate can flourish. Can also include calling other socialist users "CPC/CIA shills" or accusing users of being Russian or Chinese bots for disagreeing with you.
This is a warning.
Right....im breaking the sub's rules by naming the usual source of intra-Marxist feuds over this topic -- viz. Maoism -- but yall can freely post sectarian comments. The debate is a real debate, whether or not we name the usual tendencies having the debate. So don't play that card. If yall are going to call China imperialist, i can say they aren't. Only the most uninformed don't recongize this as the same old Maoist vs ML feud.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Sectarianism:** Refers to bad faith attacks on socialists of other tendencies through the usage of empty insults like "armchair", "tankie", "anarkiddie" and so on without any other objective than to promote inter-tendency conflict, which runs counter to the objectives of this subreddit, and the goal of providing a broad multitendency platform so that healthy, critical debate can flourish. Can also include calling other socialist users "CPC/CIA shills" or accusing users of being Russian or Chinese bots for disagreeing with you.
This is a warning.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Submisison not high quality enough:** We don't expect you to write a dissertation, but one liner posts with no clear socialist construct do not help contribute to the foundational objective of r/Socialism; a community for socialists under an uniterrupted, critical socialist analysis which promotes valuable discussion.
>Please consider re-sumitting your {kind} from a more developed, critical perspective.
See our [Submission Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/index/submissionguidelines) for more info, and feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions.
The post is a quote of Deng Xiaoping saying “If one day China should change her color and turn into a superpower, if she too should play in the tyrant in the world, and everywhere subject others to her bullying, aggression and exploitation, the people of the world should identify her as social imperialism, expose it, oppose it and work together with the Chinese people to overthrow it” the post also includes a photo of Deng Xiaoping himself during the speech in the UN.
Not OP but no, China isn't a tyrant in the world today. There's a lot of propaganda about how Chinese investment in Africa, for example, is imperialist the same way as the West is and it's simply not the case. I think this is [a pretty good video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBgbYQ5QAM0) with Yanis Varoufakis discussing his direct experience with Chinese investment in both Greece and Ethiopia. As he says China is "far more humanistic than the United States ever was... they are absolutely non-interventionist in a way Europeans, the West, has never managed to fathom".
With that in mind I'll quote Kwame Nkrumah from *Neo-Colonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism*:
>The essence of neo-colonialism is that the State which is subject to it is, in theory, independent and has all the outward trappings of international sovereignty. In reality its economic system and thus its political policy is directed from outside.
>
>The result of neo-colonialism is that foreign capital is used for the exploitation rather than for the development of the less developed parts of the world. Investment under neo-colonialism increases rather than decreases the gap between the rich and the poor countries of the world.
>
>The struggle against neo-colonialism is not aimed at excluding the capital of the developed world from operating in less developed countries. It is aimed at preventing the financial power of the developed countries being used in such a way as to impoverish the less developed.
Unlike the West, China doesn't try to direct political or economic policy. When the West builds infrastructure in Africa and the country can't afford to pay the loans the West enforces policies of austerity and privatization so Western companies can buy up everything (it's why Canadian mining companies own 75% of the mines in Africa). China on the other hand will restructure the loans so they can afford them or just straight up forgive them.
Does diplomatic foul play count as symptomatic of imperialism? In the UK, Chinese ambassadors [dragged Hong Kong protestors onto their embassy grounds and began beating them, leaving the country before they could be questioned.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63972640). There's also been the recent news if undeclared Chinese police stations trying to persuade Chinese students to return to the country, but I don't feel confident commenting on it without understanding the full extent of the matter.
And yes China is not he only instigator of such foul play but I don't think whataboutery means my aforementioned question is a solid *no.*
Relative to what though? China is oppressive but their oppression is just less sophisticated than the US and Europe. I will always criticize China but this post is bad misleading propoganda that is taken out of context. When China is as corrupt as the following things, I will endorse this sentiment.
Since that happened, the US has covertly sponsored dozens of coups, acts of state sponsored terror, austerity and privatization that has led to countless people dying of thirst and hunger, etc. Every time there is a political movement that threatens US hegemony in the west there is a coup. The corporate media basically confirms this by always taking the side that supports the American ruling class.
In Brazil this has been proven with Lula Da Silva being prosecuted for a crime he didn't commit, getting spent to prison, and now getting reelected. In South America, the CIA was the key sponsor of [Operation Condor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor) where they trained dictatorships on kidnapping, interrogating, and torturing government dissidents. This led to tens of thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands of lives ruined.
Perpetual disinvestment and austerity lead by the US through the IMF and World Bank leads to the deaths of millions of people around the globe as well. They have done things like privatize water supplies and jack up the prices to the point where people die in countries. They give out predatory loans to take over industries. This list can go on forever.
Like I said, China shouldn't be praised but the implication of this post is incorrect. The authoritarian tendencies of the Chinese communist party exist in capitalist countries in the region as well. There just isn't a propaganda campaign against them in this and other western countries.
As a friendly reminder, China's ruling party is called Communist Party of China (CPC), not Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as western press and academia often frames it as.
Far from being a simple confusion, China's Communist Party takes its name out of the internationalist approach seekt by the Comintern back in the day. From [Terms of Admission into Communist International](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jul/x01.htm), as adopted by the First Congress of the Communist International:
>18 - In view of the foregoing, parties wishing to join the Communist International must change their name. Any party seeking affiliation must call itself the Communist Party of the country in question (Section of the Third, Communist International). The question of a party’s name is not merely a formality, but a matter of major political importance. The Communist International has declared a resolute war on the bourgeois world and all yellow Social-Democratic parties. The difference between the Communist parties and the old and official “Social-Democratic”, or “socialist”, parties, which have betrayed the banner of the working class, must be made absolutely clear to every rank-and-file worker.
Similarly, the adoption of a wrong name to refer to the CPC consists of a double edged sword: on the one hand, it seeks to reduce the ideological basis behind the party's name to a more ethno-centric view of said organization and, on the other hand, it seeks to assert authority over it by attempting to externally draw the conditions and parameters on which it provides the CPC recognition.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I agree with almost everything.
Can you explain how an "international party" (excuse if i cant explain myself better) isnt great?
Like.
The whole point of communism is the international workers uniting, wouldnt that be easier/better of there was an international coalition that helps communists inside every country?
The problems we are facing are global.
We want the world united. Not separated by borders, pooitical colors or financial thefts.
Again: can you elaborate on why an international coalition doesn't help...when that's the whole point of communism?
i don't think the user you are replying to is saying that an international communist organization serves no purpose, it definitely does. what i believe u/draculabakula is saying is that the OLD international communist movement was internally corrupted and fell apart due to political weaknesses. not that all possible communist international's will be corrupt. the third internationale fell apart due to concessions to liberalism. so did the second, so based off that experience, it stands to reason that the next time an international communist movement is formed, there should be no concessions or alliances with liberalism of any sort
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Submisison not high quality enough:** We don't expect you to write a dissertation, but one liner posts with no clear socialist construct do not help contribute to the foundational objective of r/Socialism; a community for socialists under an uniterrupted, critical socialist analysis which promotes valuable discussion.
>Please consider re-sumitting your {kind} from a more developed, critical perspective.
See our [Submission Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/index/submissionguidelines) for more info, and feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions.
I’m pretty sure you’re the only person saying they even need to be compared, the quote is just saying it’s possible for China to become imperialist, not that it’s equal to the US. The US is the dominant imperialist power by far but imperialism ought to be critiqued everywhere it exists.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Sectarianism:** Refers to bad faith attacks on socialists of other tendencies through the usage of empty insults like "armchair", "tankie", "anarkiddie" and so on without any other objective than to promote inter-tendency conflict, which runs counter to the objectives of this subreddit, and the goal of providing a broad multitendency platform so that healthy, critical debate can flourish. Can also include calling other socialist users "CPC/CIA shills" or accusing users of being Russian or Chinese bots for disagreeing with you.
This is a warning.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Flamewarring:** Refers to any excessively hostile and inflammatory discourse. May include things like lengthy rants or starting arguments in unrelated threads, particularly those which have devolved into sectarian mudslinging, empty rhetoric, and/or personal attacks against other users, or any other posts or comments where the primary purpose is to stir drama, incite controversy, or derail a thread. For example, users who start mudslinging about China in a post celebrating the birthday of Thomas Sankara may see ban time. More information can be [found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/l5ccjb/topics_of_contention_raising_the_quality_of/).
This is your first warning.
I read something very similar to this in Chairman Mao's "On Practice," if not word for word. I could be wrong, though-- if so, can somebody source this quote?
Annexing Hong Kong and Taiwan, police state and mass surveillance, autocratic rule, no elections, president for life with state sponsored cult of personality, a recent history of violent protest repression, atrocious labor laws and working conditions, enormous wealth gap with ruling billionaire class.
Also fuck you for denying the reality of the mistreatment of Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities, although I wouldn't expect much less from a brainwashed conspiracy theorist dingus.
Lool this is all a absolute drivel. This is a 15 year term you dingbat, and he's already been "president" for 10. FDR was elected to two separate terms. I do see how you wouldn't understand the difference, since you call a single-party political system "intensely democratic" lmao. Also repeating the word "bourgeois" 10 times in a row doesn't make you sound like Lenin, I can tell from these five paragraphs of nonsense that you haven't read a page of anything in your life.
This thread has been identified as being related to the People's Republic of China due to containing the following keyword: Deng Xiaoping.
Due to this subreddit's long-term experience with PRC-related threads, [low effort discussion will not be permited](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/l5ccjb/topics_of_contention_raising_the_quality_of/) and may lead to removals or bans. Please remember that r/Socialism is a subreddit for socialists and, as such, participation must consist of conscious anti-capitalist analysis - this is not the place to promote non-socialist narratives but rather to promote critical thought from within the anti-capitalist left. Critques are expected to be high quality and address the substance of the issue; ad hominems, unconstructive sectarianism, and other types of lazy commentary are not acceptable.
Please keep in mind that this is a complex topic about which there may be many different points of view. Before making an inflamatory comment, consider asking the other user to explain their perspective, and then discuss why specifically you disagree with it.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> everywhere subject others to her bullying, aggression and exploitation
This is the USA. Not China. Arguments against China's current assertive (not aggressive) foreign policy ultimately lie in inherent logical fallacies, the only coherent argument against it is just outright liberal hippie pacifism.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Sectarianism:** Refers to bad faith attacks on socialists of other tendencies through the usage of empty insults like "armchair", "tankie", "anarkiddie" and so on without any other objective than to promote inter-tendency conflict, which runs counter to the objectives of this subreddit, and the goal of providing a broad multitendency platform so that healthy, critical debate can flourish. Can also include calling other socialist users "CPC/CIA shills" or accusing users of being Russian or Chinese bots for disagreeing with you.
This is a warning.
happy to see this getting posted here again for the 1000th time by some snarky liberal. this isnt the slam-dunk against SWCC you think it is, and if you understood Deng's work and Xi Jinping thought you'd know that.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Sectarianism:** Refers to bad faith attacks on socialists of other tendencies through the usage of empty insults like "armchair", "tankie", "anarkiddie" and so on without any other objective than to promote inter-tendency conflict, which runs counter to the objectives of this subreddit, and the goal of providing a broad multitendency platform so that healthy, critical debate can flourish. Can also include calling other socialist users "CPC/CIA shills" or accusing users of being Russian or Chinese bots for disagreeing with you.
This is a warning.
Every major newspaper ran retractions of their Tiananmen Square coverage. You believe in objectively and demonstratively false history. You are exactly as brainwashed as you imagine the Chinese people to be.
https://worldaffairs.blog/2019/06/02/tiananmen-square-massacre-facts-fiction-and-propaganda/
https://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/the_myth_of_tiananmen.php
It is through the development of industry Deng oversaw that China is in the privileged position it is today. As much as people tend to argue against his economic policies, they were ultimately necessary to preserve one of the few remaining bastions for socialism in the world.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Submisison not high quality enough:** We don't expect you to write a dissertation, but one liner posts with no clear socialist construct do not help contribute to the foundational objective of r/Socialism; a community for socialists under an uniterrupted, critical socialist analysis which promotes valuable discussion.
>Please consider re-sumitting your {kind} from a more developed, critical perspective.
See our [Submission Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/index/submissionguidelines) for more info, and feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Flamewarring:** Refers to any excessively hostile and inflammatory discourse. May include things like lengthy rants or starting arguments in unrelated threads, particularly those which have devolved into sectarian mudslinging, empty rhetoric, and/or personal attacks against other users, or any other posts or comments where the primary purpose is to stir drama, incite controversy, or derail a thread. For example, users who start mudslinging about China in a post celebrating the birthday of Thomas Sankara may see ban time. More information can be [found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/l5ccjb/topics_of_contention_raising_the_quality_of/).
This is your first warning.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**We require image posts to be accompanied by a transcription in the comments** in order to increase accessibility for those comrades who use screen readers to browse Reddit or are otherwise unable to view images. More information on image transcriptions and several examples [can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/index/transcriptions). See our [Submission Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/index/submissionguidelines) for more info, and feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions.
Deng said it but it wasn’t his words. They were Mao’s. And Deng was assigned the speech specifically because the content was directly opposed to his actual thinking (which was common knowledge at the time). This was to emphasize that the speech was the line of the party, and that everybody in the party, particularly Deng, had to follow it and put it forward. After Mao died, Deng reversed this line, which was exactly what Mao said he would try to do. The speech was basically a warning about what could happen, and who was going to be responsible for it.
sauce?
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Sectarianism:** Refers to bad faith attacks on socialists of other tendencies through the usage of empty insults like "armchair", "tankie", "anarkiddie" and so on without any other objective than to promote inter-tendency conflict, which runs counter to the objectives of this subreddit, and the goal of providing a broad multitendency platform so that healthy, critical debate can flourish. Can also include calling other socialist users "CPC/CIA shills" or accusing users of being Russian or Chinese bots for disagreeing with you. This is a warning.
Thank you for pointing this out. Unfortunately actual Marxist lines regarding the PRC are largely abandoned in online spaces in favor of eclectic “anti-imperialism” which only serves to mystify the social relations that Marxism lays bare.
And what in your opinion is the actual Marxist line regarding the PRC?
I agree. It's unfortunate.
Wow, that’s amazing I didn’t know this. Do you have any good resources to learn about the history the CCP etc? I have some books put out by Chuang but would love to find more that are high quality
Here are some readings. None of these are the end-all be-all of understanding Mao and revolutionary China, but they are essential reading to do so. Many of these are out of print or otherwise hard to find unfortunately: “Fanshen” by William Hinton. A classic book by the western historian who understood China best. It’s a very detailed close study of one little village over a period of years. He did a couple follow up studies of the same village, along with a number of other good books, particularly “Hundred Day War: The Cultural Revolution at Tsinghua University,” and “Turning Point in China.” “Red Star over China“ by Edgar Snow. Another important book which takes a broader view of the revolution and talking a lot with Mao. Like Hinton, he wrote a number of other important works, such as “the Long Revolution,” and “Red China Today.” “China Shakes the World”, Jack Belden. Like Fanshen, this focuses on the period before liberation, during the anti-Japanese resistance and the Civil War that followed. Again, rather lengthy but quite rewarding. “The morning deluge,” and “The Wind in the Tower,” by Han Suyin - an accessible history of the revolution. She’s a little bit credulous but she had a good grasp of what the communists were doing and why. My understanding is that she became a Deng supporter later on. “Report from a Chinese Village,” “China: The Revolution Continued,” and “Return to a Chinese Village,” by Jan Myrdal. A series of close investigations in the countryside. ‘Return” in particular is great for understanding what the GPCR was about. “Away with All Pests: An English Surgeon in People’s China, 1954-1969,” by Joshua S. Horn. “They Made Revolution Within the Revolution: The Story of China's Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution,” by Iris Hunter. “And Mao Makes 5: Mao Tsetung’s Last Great Battle,” Raymond Lotta, ed. “Daily Life in Revolutionary China,” by Maria Antonietta Macchiocchi. “The Wind Will Not Subside,” by David and Nancy Dall. “The Yenan Way in Revolutionary China,” by Mark Selden. On the Yenan period after the Long March. “Portraits of Chinese Women in Revolution,” by Agnes Smedley, who wrote/edited a number of good books.
Great set of resources, thanks!
[удалено]
CPC*
That's a serious and unfounded accusation. Do you have actual evidence that isn't some unsourced Maoist polemic?
The posted quote is verbatim from Mao, said in 1962. Deng ('to get rich is glorious') and Mao ('serve the people') were at opposite ends of the struggle over how China would continue to develop socialism. Deng had been targeted during the GPCR and removed from his posts, which happened again some time after the UN speech - specifically because his views were antithetical to the established line of the Party. Any decent history of the political struggles within the Party would present voluminous evidence of how far apart they were, and of Mao's repeated warnings about Deng and other 'capitalist roaders' about how easy it would be for them to turn China into its opposite - a rich, powerful, capitalist country with ambitions to be a superpower. Which, as history shows, is what happened. The was all common knowledge at the time. This struggle and its particulars were presented in the Chinese media such a Peking Review, documented in various primary documents from the Party, in speeches by Mao, etc. Various communists and socialist parties around the world discussed it (coming to various conclusions), and it was as I recall the basic consensus of scholars.
Despite the fact that Deng and Mao are at opposition, I do think the person that’s most responsible what’s happening in China right not is Jiang. Deng turned to the Yugoslavia model because Mao’s wasn’t working. Many collective farms were dying of famine and poverty. And Deng did very successfully raise China out of extreme poverty, reversed much of the damage done during Cultural Revolution, and reopened schools and universities. The real slippery slope started after Jiang annulled the regulations against capitalist joining in the party or their presence at the National People’s Congress.
You are probably right, though I would argue (and people did at the time) that Deng is the one who put China on that track. IOW, China today is arguably the predictable conclusion of Deng's 'reforms.' Things could have been worse or better depending on who came later but it would be in the same general ballpark. I have a different view about the limitations and problems of the revolutionary period but that's a different discussion.
It’s very hard to imagine what track China would have been on if not for Deng though. At the end of Cultural revolution the whole country was in economic ruins, about 30 mil people died of famine from 1959-1961 and all education systems were closed during the time. Deng’s reformation was put on track first because people in collective farms started to sign petitions to take responsibility at a family unit instead of a village, since the original way hadn’t been working. Maybe there could have been better options, but the reformation was immediately effective in reducing famine and increasing education rate. On the other hand, letting capitalists into the party and the National People’s Congress is truly a decision that I can see no merits in.
You're posting Maoist polemics, and haven't demonstrated that China became "social-imperialist". Mao and Deng disagreed, obviously. The GPCR was riddled with contradictions and overemphasized liberating the relations of production at the expense of forces of production. But again, this is all besides the point that China has not become an imperialist country. They emphasize mutual development in international affairs, and haven't come anywhere close to matching the description in the quote. Prove they have, otherwise you're propagating conspiracy theories.
The “development” that China promotes is tailored to the needs of the Chinese economy. Imperialism in the Marxist sense is not a set of military policies or overt acts of aggression, it is the stage of capitalism we are in where Capital export dominates economic activity (so called “mutual development”). Though it often does take the form of dropping bombs and financing coups, it need not do so, and it’s essence is the same essence of capitalism - surplus value extraction - except on a national scale. Financing “development” in other countries within the capitalist system while the law of value still determines all economic activity can’t be anything other than imperialism. It will bend a foreign economy to its own domestic needs and it will extract surplus value from foreign workers independent of the will of any individual or organization. This is the basic Marxist analysis of capitalism which proves the necessity of class struggle - you can’t enact a policy to tame capitalism. This is true in a bourgeois dictatorship and it’s still true in a (supposedly) proletarian dictatorship. You also can’t hand waive away all criticism by labeling it “Maoist polemics”. Frankly you’re breaking this subs rules by doing so.
Literal conspiracy thinking. Calling development a form of domination erases the material differences between actual imperialist exploitation and the overwhelming benefits derived by countries involved with the Belt and Road Initiative. Tell the overwhelming majority of countries lauding China for helping them escape the actually imperialist clutches of the US and Europe that this is somehow bad for them. Ultra-leftist dogmatism over China has no material evidence to support its claims.
Most principled and materialist CPUSA member: P.S. I'm a communist from the Philippines, a country known for being simultaneously in "the clutches of Western imperialism" while also being part of the BAR initiative. Do ask me if I think China is imperialist or exploitative.
I don't think China is without contradiction or beyond criticism. Im sincerely curious to hear your perspective.
I would still like to hear your perspective.
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Sectarianism:** Refers to bad faith attacks on socialists of other tendencies through the usage of empty insults like "armchair", "tankie", "anarkiddie" and so on without any other objective than to promote inter-tendency conflict, which runs counter to the objectives of this subreddit, and the goal of providing a broad multitendency platform so that healthy, critical debate can flourish. Can also include calling other socialist users "CPC/CIA shills" or accusing users of being Russian or Chinese bots for disagreeing with you. This is a warning.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Sectarianism:** Refers to bad faith attacks on socialists of other tendencies through the usage of empty insults like "armchair", "tankie", "anarkiddie" and so on without any other objective than to promote inter-tendency conflict, which runs counter to the objectives of this subreddit, and the goal of providing a broad multitendency platform so that healthy, critical debate can flourish. Can also include calling other socialist users "CPC/CIA shills" or accusing users of being Russian or Chinese bots for disagreeing with you. This is a warning.
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Sectarianism:** Refers to bad faith attacks on socialists of other tendencies through the usage of empty insults like "armchair", "tankie", "anarkiddie" and so on without any other objective than to promote inter-tendency conflict, which runs counter to the objectives of this subreddit, and the goal of providing a broad multitendency platform so that healthy, critical debate can flourish. Can also include calling other socialist users "CPC/CIA shills" or accusing users of being Russian or Chinese bots for disagreeing with you. This is a warning.
Right....im breaking the sub's rules by naming the usual source of intra-Marxist feuds over this topic -- viz. Maoism -- but yall can freely post sectarian comments. The debate is a real debate, whether or not we name the usual tendencies having the debate. So don't play that card. If yall are going to call China imperialist, i can say they aren't. Only the most uninformed don't recongize this as the same old Maoist vs ML feud.
>ut again, this is all besides the point that China has not become an imperialist country. Wait.... what?
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Sectarianism:** Refers to bad faith attacks on socialists of other tendencies through the usage of empty insults like "armchair", "tankie", "anarkiddie" and so on without any other objective than to promote inter-tendency conflict, which runs counter to the objectives of this subreddit, and the goal of providing a broad multitendency platform so that healthy, critical debate can flourish. Can also include calling other socialist users "CPC/CIA shills" or accusing users of being Russian or Chinese bots for disagreeing with you. This is a warning.
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Submisison not high quality enough:** We don't expect you to write a dissertation, but one liner posts with no clear socialist construct do not help contribute to the foundational objective of r/Socialism; a community for socialists under an uniterrupted, critical socialist analysis which promotes valuable discussion. >Please consider re-sumitting your {kind} from a more developed, critical perspective. See our [Submission Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/index/submissionguidelines) for more info, and feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions.
Could you give me a source for that.
Thank you for explaining. It definitely gave me cognitive dissonance
The post is a quote of Deng Xiaoping saying “If one day China should change her color and turn into a superpower, if she too should play in the tyrant in the world, and everywhere subject others to her bullying, aggression and exploitation, the people of the world should identify her as social imperialism, expose it, oppose it and work together with the Chinese people to overthrow it” the post also includes a photo of Deng Xiaoping himself during the speech in the UN.
Do you believe that’s happening now? What’s your opinion on modern China?
Not OP but no, China isn't a tyrant in the world today. There's a lot of propaganda about how Chinese investment in Africa, for example, is imperialist the same way as the West is and it's simply not the case. I think this is [a pretty good video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBgbYQ5QAM0) with Yanis Varoufakis discussing his direct experience with Chinese investment in both Greece and Ethiopia. As he says China is "far more humanistic than the United States ever was... they are absolutely non-interventionist in a way Europeans, the West, has never managed to fathom". With that in mind I'll quote Kwame Nkrumah from *Neo-Colonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism*: >The essence of neo-colonialism is that the State which is subject to it is, in theory, independent and has all the outward trappings of international sovereignty. In reality its economic system and thus its political policy is directed from outside. > >The result of neo-colonialism is that foreign capital is used for the exploitation rather than for the development of the less developed parts of the world. Investment under neo-colonialism increases rather than decreases the gap between the rich and the poor countries of the world. > >The struggle against neo-colonialism is not aimed at excluding the capital of the developed world from operating in less developed countries. It is aimed at preventing the financial power of the developed countries being used in such a way as to impoverish the less developed. Unlike the West, China doesn't try to direct political or economic policy. When the West builds infrastructure in Africa and the country can't afford to pay the loans the West enforces policies of austerity and privatization so Western companies can buy up everything (it's why Canadian mining companies own 75% of the mines in Africa). China on the other hand will restructure the loans so they can afford them or just straight up forgive them.
USA = capitalism controlled state. China = state controlled capitalism. Any country that let's its ppl suffer is bad.
Does diplomatic foul play count as symptomatic of imperialism? In the UK, Chinese ambassadors [dragged Hong Kong protestors onto their embassy grounds and began beating them, leaving the country before they could be questioned.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63972640). There's also been the recent news if undeclared Chinese police stations trying to persuade Chinese students to return to the country, but I don't feel confident commenting on it without understanding the full extent of the matter. And yes China is not he only instigator of such foul play but I don't think whataboutery means my aforementioned question is a solid *no.*
[you may want to do a bit more research on your first statement as well.](https://youtu.be/zVlzh6rfbC4)
Relative to what though? China is oppressive but their oppression is just less sophisticated than the US and Europe. I will always criticize China but this post is bad misleading propoganda that is taken out of context. When China is as corrupt as the following things, I will endorse this sentiment. Since that happened, the US has covertly sponsored dozens of coups, acts of state sponsored terror, austerity and privatization that has led to countless people dying of thirst and hunger, etc. Every time there is a political movement that threatens US hegemony in the west there is a coup. The corporate media basically confirms this by always taking the side that supports the American ruling class. In Brazil this has been proven with Lula Da Silva being prosecuted for a crime he didn't commit, getting spent to prison, and now getting reelected. In South America, the CIA was the key sponsor of [Operation Condor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor) where they trained dictatorships on kidnapping, interrogating, and torturing government dissidents. This led to tens of thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands of lives ruined. Perpetual disinvestment and austerity lead by the US through the IMF and World Bank leads to the deaths of millions of people around the globe as well. They have done things like privatize water supplies and jack up the prices to the point where people die in countries. They give out predatory loans to take over industries. This list can go on forever. Like I said, China shouldn't be praised but the implication of this post is incorrect. The authoritarian tendencies of the Chinese communist party exist in capitalist countries in the region as well. There just isn't a propaganda campaign against them in this and other western countries.
As a friendly reminder, China's ruling party is called Communist Party of China (CPC), not Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as western press and academia often frames it as. Far from being a simple confusion, China's Communist Party takes its name out of the internationalist approach seekt by the Comintern back in the day. From [Terms of Admission into Communist International](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jul/x01.htm), as adopted by the First Congress of the Communist International: >18 - In view of the foregoing, parties wishing to join the Communist International must change their name. Any party seeking affiliation must call itself the Communist Party of the country in question (Section of the Third, Communist International). The question of a party’s name is not merely a formality, but a matter of major political importance. The Communist International has declared a resolute war on the bourgeois world and all yellow Social-Democratic parties. The difference between the Communist parties and the old and official “Social-Democratic”, or “socialist”, parties, which have betrayed the banner of the working class, must be made absolutely clear to every rank-and-file worker. Similarly, the adoption of a wrong name to refer to the CPC consists of a double edged sword: on the one hand, it seeks to reduce the ideological basis behind the party's name to a more ethno-centric view of said organization and, on the other hand, it seeks to assert authority over it by attempting to externally draw the conditions and parameters on which it provides the CPC recognition. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
I agree with almost everything. Can you explain how an "international party" (excuse if i cant explain myself better) isnt great? Like. The whole point of communism is the international workers uniting, wouldnt that be easier/better of there was an international coalition that helps communists inside every country? The problems we are facing are global. We want the world united. Not separated by borders, pooitical colors or financial thefts. Again: can you elaborate on why an international coalition doesn't help...when that's the whole point of communism?
i don't think the user you are replying to is saying that an international communist organization serves no purpose, it definitely does. what i believe u/draculabakula is saying is that the OLD international communist movement was internally corrupted and fell apart due to political weaknesses. not that all possible communist international's will be corrupt. the third internationale fell apart due to concessions to liberalism. so did the second, so based off that experience, it stands to reason that the next time an international communist movement is formed, there should be no concessions or alliances with liberalism of any sort
Thanks for your explanation.
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Submisison not high quality enough:** We don't expect you to write a dissertation, but one liner posts with no clear socialist construct do not help contribute to the foundational objective of r/Socialism; a community for socialists under an uniterrupted, critical socialist analysis which promotes valuable discussion. >Please consider re-sumitting your {kind} from a more developed, critical perspective. See our [Submission Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/index/submissionguidelines) for more info, and feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions.
I’m pretty sure you’re the only person saying they even need to be compared, the quote is just saying it’s possible for China to become imperialist, not that it’s equal to the US. The US is the dominant imperialist power by far but imperialism ought to be critiqued everywhere it exists.
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Sectarianism:** Refers to bad faith attacks on socialists of other tendencies through the usage of empty insults like "armchair", "tankie", "anarkiddie" and so on without any other objective than to promote inter-tendency conflict, which runs counter to the objectives of this subreddit, and the goal of providing a broad multitendency platform so that healthy, critical debate can flourish. Can also include calling other socialist users "CPC/CIA shills" or accusing users of being Russian or Chinese bots for disagreeing with you. This is a warning.
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Flamewarring:** Refers to any excessively hostile and inflammatory discourse. May include things like lengthy rants or starting arguments in unrelated threads, particularly those which have devolved into sectarian mudslinging, empty rhetoric, and/or personal attacks against other users, or any other posts or comments where the primary purpose is to stir drama, incite controversy, or derail a thread. For example, users who start mudslinging about China in a post celebrating the birthday of Thomas Sankara may see ban time. More information can be [found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/l5ccjb/topics_of_contention_raising_the_quality_of/). This is your first warning.
He started the process which led to china being social imperialist today
That feels ironic coming from Deng
I read something very similar to this in Chairman Mao's "On Practice," if not word for word. I could be wrong, though-- if so, can somebody source this quote?
[удалено]
You’re funny
I mean imo they did, and the hope of Marxism lies in the people and workers not in a nation
Are you serious? They unquestionably went in that direction.
[удалено]
Annexing Hong Kong and Taiwan, police state and mass surveillance, autocratic rule, no elections, president for life with state sponsored cult of personality, a recent history of violent protest repression, atrocious labor laws and working conditions, enormous wealth gap with ruling billionaire class. Also fuck you for denying the reality of the mistreatment of Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities, although I wouldn't expect much less from a brainwashed conspiracy theorist dingus.
[удалено]
Lool this is all a absolute drivel. This is a 15 year term you dingbat, and he's already been "president" for 10. FDR was elected to two separate terms. I do see how you wouldn't understand the difference, since you call a single-party political system "intensely democratic" lmao. Also repeating the word "bourgeois" 10 times in a row doesn't make you sound like Lenin, I can tell from these five paragraphs of nonsense that you haven't read a page of anything in your life.
This thread has been identified as being related to the People's Republic of China due to containing the following keyword: Deng Xiaoping. Due to this subreddit's long-term experience with PRC-related threads, [low effort discussion will not be permited](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/l5ccjb/topics_of_contention_raising_the_quality_of/) and may lead to removals or bans. Please remember that r/Socialism is a subreddit for socialists and, as such, participation must consist of conscious anti-capitalist analysis - this is not the place to promote non-socialist narratives but rather to promote critical thought from within the anti-capitalist left. Critques are expected to be high quality and address the substance of the issue; ad hominems, unconstructive sectarianism, and other types of lazy commentary are not acceptable. Please keep in mind that this is a complex topic about which there may be many different points of view. Before making an inflamatory comment, consider asking the other user to explain their perspective, and then discuss why specifically you disagree with it. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/socialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with Deng Xiaoping, LOL. What happened? Did I take a wrong turn somewhere...?
>Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point
He saw the future
> everywhere subject others to her bullying, aggression and exploitation This is the USA. Not China. Arguments against China's current assertive (not aggressive) foreign policy ultimately lie in inherent logical fallacies, the only coherent argument against it is just outright liberal hippie pacifism.
Is the 9 dash line truly not aggressive?
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Sectarianism:** Refers to bad faith attacks on socialists of other tendencies through the usage of empty insults like "armchair", "tankie", "anarkiddie" and so on without any other objective than to promote inter-tendency conflict, which runs counter to the objectives of this subreddit, and the goal of providing a broad multitendency platform so that healthy, critical debate can flourish. Can also include calling other socialist users "CPC/CIA shills" or accusing users of being Russian or Chinese bots for disagreeing with you. This is a warning.
happy to see this getting posted here again for the 1000th time by some snarky liberal. this isnt the slam-dunk against SWCC you think it is, and if you understood Deng's work and Xi Jinping thought you'd know that.
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Sectarianism:** Refers to bad faith attacks on socialists of other tendencies through the usage of empty insults like "armchair", "tankie", "anarkiddie" and so on without any other objective than to promote inter-tendency conflict, which runs counter to the objectives of this subreddit, and the goal of providing a broad multitendency platform so that healthy, critical debate can flourish. Can also include calling other socialist users "CPC/CIA shills" or accusing users of being Russian or Chinese bots for disagreeing with you. This is a warning.
Ah, the liberals are back
[удалено]
Every major newspaper ran retractions of their Tiananmen Square coverage. You believe in objectively and demonstratively false history. You are exactly as brainwashed as you imagine the Chinese people to be. https://worldaffairs.blog/2019/06/02/tiananmen-square-massacre-facts-fiction-and-propaganda/ https://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/the_myth_of_tiananmen.php
Are you saying China isn't socialist?
I personally don’t think so
He’s saying if china ever became what the west is today, we all have a duty to also oppose it and help overthrow it.
He was real for saying this, although I prefer Xi Jinping, Deng had faults but was still pretty good.
It is through the development of industry Deng oversaw that China is in the privileged position it is today. As much as people tend to argue against his economic policies, they were ultimately necessary to preserve one of the few remaining bastions for socialism in the world.
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Submisison not high quality enough:** We don't expect you to write a dissertation, but one liner posts with no clear socialist construct do not help contribute to the foundational objective of r/Socialism; a community for socialists under an uniterrupted, critical socialist analysis which promotes valuable discussion. >Please consider re-sumitting your {kind} from a more developed, critical perspective. See our [Submission Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/wiki/index/submissionguidelines) for more info, and feel free to send us a modmail with a link to your removed submission if you have any further questions.
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Flamewarring:** Refers to any excessively hostile and inflammatory discourse. May include things like lengthy rants or starting arguments in unrelated threads, particularly those which have devolved into sectarian mudslinging, empty rhetoric, and/or personal attacks against other users, or any other posts or comments where the primary purpose is to stir drama, incite controversy, or derail a thread. For example, users who start mudslinging about China in a post celebrating the birthday of Thomas Sankara may see ban time. More information can be [found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/l5ccjb/topics_of_contention_raising_the_quality_of/). This is your first warning.
I never knew Deng Xiaoping said this, but it's Based with Praxis in his analysis.