"Capitalist roader" is the moniker Mao and the left faction of the CPC used for the right faction that wanted to slow the transition to socialism or reverse moves towards it because they wanted to keep "on the road to capitalism" according to Mao. Deng was notably in the right faction.
That criticism is one of the main splits between the the M-L-Maoists/anti-Deng MLs and Deng-sympathizing MLs, because China under Deng drastically changed course to liberalize the economy in a state capitalist way to "build the productive forces".
So if Deng's ideology (the "right-wing" of the party) hadn't prevailed, do you think China's current economic structure would look significantly different? And would they be closer to the end stage of communism?
America would have shipped its production elsewhere if concessions weren't made. There's a reason Mao invited Deng back into the party, and why Deng enshrined Mao Zedong thought instead of repudiating it like Kruschev.
The point of contention is whether the Communists will be able to retain control of the State, public ideology and the strategic sectors of the economy through the accumulation stage of development.
The value of the technology exchanges can't be overstated, most of the world's most advanced means of production are currently in the hands and territory of Communists because of that gamble. China can't be encircled, isolated and destroyed without taking the capitalist world along with it.
The Maoist path to victory was probably foreclosed by the Sino Soviet split and especially once the revisionists under Kruschev succeeded Stalin and Lenin's faction.
"enshrined Mao Zedong thought", yeah as in immediately betraying Mao after his death, denounce the cultural revolution and completely twisting Mao's theory and praxis. It's enshrined alright, but only a perverted version.
Not the guy you replied to, but as someone who still has family in China, I don't think the PRC would have survived, not just because of its status as a pariah state under siege, but because Chinese people would not have taken it. Certainly Mao's model of economic development could have worked, and it might have resulted in a more equitable but slower developing economy, but I don't think there was the patience for that after everything they'd been through. For context, my great-grandparents' generation lived through the Xinhai revolution, the establishment of the ROC, the warlord era, and the sino-japanese war. My grandparents' generation went through the sino-japanese war, the Chinese civil war, the Korean war, and the GLF and cultural revolution. My parents' generation lived through the greatest era of peace and prosperity in the last 300 years of Chinese history. If you told Chinese people in the 1970s "you'll have to suffer through this another century but by then surely your great grandkids will have communism" they would have had a counterrevolution on the spot.
I don't know to what extent this is true, but I've been told that the peasants in the countryside were begining to recreate capitalist relations on their own because the Maoist model wasn't working for them. As in, they weren't seeing the economic benefits of their work to feed the industrialization in the cities.
If this was widespread, I don't see any way the Maoist model could have continued.
It would definitely look drastically different, although it's hard to say if they'd be closer to the full communism. In a vacuum we can say that Mao's slower development was definitely more equitable than going through Deng's reforms, but apply that to reality and a lot of geopolitical pressures end up steering things in a different way. Structurally they may have had a more socialist economy in terms of ownership, but their economy probably wouldn't be contending the USA like it is now. But there's a million possible outcomes to speculate about.
That criticism is one of the main splits between the the M-L-Maoists/anti-Deng MLs and Deng-sympathizing MLs, because China under Deng drastically changed course to liberalize the economy in a state capitalist way to “build the productive forces”.
I mean, they DID build the productive forces :shrug-outta-hecks:
"Capitalist roader" is the moniker Mao and the left faction of the CPC used for the right faction that wanted to slow the transition to socialism or reverse moves towards it because they wanted to keep "on the road to capitalism" according to Mao. Deng was notably in the right faction.
That criticism is one of the main splits between the the M-L-Maoists/anti-Deng MLs and Deng-sympathizing MLs, because China under Deng drastically changed course to liberalize the economy in a state capitalist way to "build the productive forces".
So if Deng's ideology (the "right-wing" of the party) hadn't prevailed, do you think China's current economic structure would look significantly different? And would they be closer to the end stage of communism?
America would have shipped its production elsewhere if concessions weren't made. There's a reason Mao invited Deng back into the party, and why Deng enshrined Mao Zedong thought instead of repudiating it like Kruschev.
The point of contention is whether the Communists will be able to retain control of the State, public ideology and the strategic sectors of the economy through the accumulation stage of development.
The value of the technology exchanges can't be overstated, most of the world's most advanced means of production are currently in the hands and territory of Communists because of that gamble. China can't be encircled, isolated and destroyed without taking the capitalist world along with it.
The Maoist path to victory was probably foreclosed by the Sino Soviet split and especially once the revisionists under Kruschev succeeded Stalin and Lenin's faction.
"enshrined Mao Zedong thought", yeah as in immediately betraying Mao after his death, denounce the cultural revolution and completely twisting Mao's theory and praxis. It's enshrined alright, but only a perverted version.
deleted by creator
Not the guy you replied to, but as someone who still has family in China, I don't think the PRC would have survived, not just because of its status as a pariah state under siege, but because Chinese people would not have taken it. Certainly Mao's model of economic development could have worked, and it might have resulted in a more equitable but slower developing economy, but I don't think there was the patience for that after everything they'd been through. For context, my great-grandparents' generation lived through the Xinhai revolution, the establishment of the ROC, the warlord era, and the sino-japanese war. My grandparents' generation went through the sino-japanese war, the Chinese civil war, the Korean war, and the GLF and cultural revolution. My parents' generation lived through the greatest era of peace and prosperity in the last 300 years of Chinese history. If you told Chinese people in the 1970s "you'll have to suffer through this another century but by then surely your great grandkids will have communism" they would have had a counterrevolution on the spot.
I don't know to what extent this is true, but I've been told that the peasants in the countryside were begining to recreate capitalist relations on their own because the Maoist model wasn't working for them. As in, they weren't seeing the economic benefits of their work to feed the industrialization in the cities.
If this was widespread, I don't see any way the Maoist model could have continued.
It would definitely look drastically different, although it's hard to say if they'd be closer to the full communism. In a vacuum we can say that Mao's slower development was definitely more equitable than going through Deng's reforms, but apply that to reality and a lot of geopolitical pressures end up steering things in a different way. Structurally they may have had a more socialist economy in terms of ownership, but their economy probably wouldn't be contending the USA like it is now. But there's a million possible outcomes to speculate about.
I mean, they DID build the productive forces :shrug-outta-hecks: