Decades after the fall of the Soviet Union, the legacy of the Sino-Soviet split stands out sharply in the history of socialism and the Cold War as a major turning point, impacting conflicts all over the world and within the movement, the collapses of 89-91, and China's relationship with the West and embrace of foreign investment.
How do Marxists in China (inside and outside of the CPC) think of it? As justified, as a mistake, as well-intentioned but with bad consequences? What works of theory analyzes its causes, effects? And in light of China's reform and opening up, how is "revisionism", in general and as an ideological rebuke of liberalization in the post-Stalin era in particular, understood?
Any and all answers appreciated, let me know if another comm is better suited for this post.
Like I keep saying, the day the Chinese economy stops being capitalist is the day I will happily tell all the dengists they were right. So far it’s just been 40 years and counting of capitalist exploitation except with the promise that “communism is coming in another decade or three, trust us bro”.
Luckily because of the CPC still retaining control, capitalist restoration isn’t as set in stone in China as it is in the former USSR for example. The course can still be corrected.
It's been 40 straight years of life improving year over year for the workers, rising wages, rising life expectancy, the end of food insecurity, incredible development of infrastructure and technology and the state run by the communist retaining control of the commanding heights of the economy while responding dutifully to the needs and wants of all its people. What's the sense in acting like your way would be better than the near miracles they've managed to achieve?
Nobody gives a shit lol.
Life expectancy, access to food, development of technology and infrastructure, and even “wage rises” can all rise under capitalism and indeed usually do in the initial stages of capitalist development.
I’m not “acting like my way would be better”. It’s a very simple and provable point that china’s economy is arranged in a capitalist manner. Whether you want to argue about if that capitalist economy is being steered towards socialism by a party that cares to do so, and if/when they’ll get around to steering it that way is a whole different discussion.
Marketisation under a socialist party is possible for strategic reasons, see the NEP. Although I’d argue the circumstances are very different, there’s an argument to be had there.
What can’t be argued is the capitalist orientation of the Chinese economy 🤷♂️
No, that's not really true. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X22002169
That's the other thing about this dumb "chinas just capitalist" argument, it's reactionary in the sense that if you accept it, you essentially have to accept that capitalism is or could be good for people generally, since Socialism with Chinese Characteristics has been unequivocally and inarguably good for people generally.
Capitalism overseen by a well-entrenched socialist party clearly can be good for people generally. That fact doesn’t change the definitions of capitalism and socialism though. Words mean things.
Capitalism is not and cannot be good for people generally, it can only benefit a small percentage of people at best, by brutally exploiting the rest. The illusion of capitalism benefiting people generally in the imperial core is built on the rape and pillage of the imperial periphery, not the case for China where Socialism with Chinese Characteristics has benefitted the masses without resorting to imperialism. China is a socialist country because the masses successfully took state power and direct the economy and society via the Communist party, which explains why their economy and society actually work for the benefit of the masses. Your initial assertion is that China is not Marxist, yet you haven't made a single convincing argument for that notion. Retaining some elements or degree of the capitalist mode of production under a dictatorship of the proletariat is not inconsistent with Marxism, Mr "Words mean things".
As far as I’m concerned the people who rule China are dengist, ipso facto they are revisionists and not marxists. As far as you’re concerned they are staunch Marxist-Leninists upholding everything good about socialism.
Clearly we’re never going to agree and there’s not much point going back and forth, we’ll just have to sit and wait for communism by 2050.
"Communism by 2050" is not even a thing so idk what you're talking about. There's no way to expect any country to achieve communism by then given the power still wielded by the empire of capital today.
It’s not? Then you should probably let your fellow true believers know
Communism, a stateless, moneyless and classless society could not possibly be achieved by 2050. Maybe if the Russian revolution had spread to Europe and from there to the rest of the world we could be close by then. What China seeks to be by 2050 is a modern prosperous socialist society and I have no reason to doubt they will achieve that as they have generally achieved all that they have set out to do (like eradication of absolute poverty by 2020 for example). There's little reason to doubt a communist party that has consistently done right by their people and met their stated goals when they state their goal to be a prosperous modern socialist society by 2050. What that really means to me is that before 2050 they will be in a position to begin doing away with private property relations and no outside actors (eg the US) will be able to do anything about it. Until then the state will continue to control the commanding heights of the economy as they do now and have since the revolution.