The whole point of Deng's reforms was opposition to everything the Cultural Revolution was doing! Not just negating its changes but then moving in the opposite direction (as the CR was specifically instated to counter Dengists and their ilk). Saying China should do another CR is like saying it should do another country-wide land redistribution. It would be cool if someone had a magic wand but short of that, it's opposed to state ideology.
Besides, I think the place to start would probably be in the universities themselves and not hangout spots, since the amount of people studying liberal economics in China (better known there, as here, as "economics") is at minimum an order of magnitude larger than those studying Marxism, and that's still SWCC Marxism in the main, i.e. the ideology that got us to this condition where a completed CR is necessary.
Incidentally, I'm reading a book about this right at this very moment. Deng reforms were never meant to liberalize China or make it capitalist. It was a measure that was meant to allow China to catch up to the west. This has been accomplished now, and we're seeing a push from the party to wind down the role of private sector in the economy.
Again, what I described above isn't some drastic reeducation campaign, but rather firming up of the socialist ideological line within the intellectual sphere. Meanwhile, the notion that people aren't studying Marxism in China is frankly absurd. In fact, there's plenty of evidence that the opposite is the case.
This has been accomplished now, and we're seeing a push from the party to wind down the role of private sector in the economy.
Wake me up when Xi or that Shanghai liberal who is going to replace him actually call for struggle against the domestic bourgeoisie.
the notion that people aren't studying Marxism in China is frankly absurd.
Reread what I said. You read a lot, I'm sure you can manage my straightforward statements.
That first article -- aside from being a novella -- is a really strange thing to link in this context. You can read countless articles, mostly from neoliberal sources, wherein Maoist student protestors, union organizers, etc. get violently repressed by the state. I know that Maoism exists among segments of the people in China, these stories are even used by neoliberals to delegitimize China's ideological claims. This is a much better argument against Deng's legacy, taken at face value (though I am not just going to take neoliberal reporting on China at face value, I'm not a Trot). Also, just read through the footnotes to get a good handle of the authorial perspective there.
The second one is a collection of anecdotes, and they are nice anecdotes, but the fact remains. I'll definitely check out Awakening Age, though.
Two things, one: this standpoint epistemology stuff is bullshit. The Soviet Union was deeply revisionist for most of its existence thanks to Khrushchev's ideological coup, and I'm sure there were leftists back then smugly saying "It's cute that you think you understand how to do Marxism better than the Soviets" when met with this obvious fact. Two: The article you linked me highlights that, within China, there is very much dispute over how to do Marxism and people who object to the CPC and trying to do their own labor organizing being suppressed. Using "the Chinese" as some imaginary ideological monolith of enlightened Marxists who agree and are willfully collaborating is fantasy to the point of Orientalism.
The obvious fact is that China is a socialist country led by a communist party, and every serious analysis clearly shows that this is the case. Meanwhile, even the revisionist Soviet Unions was a far superior system to what we have in the west today.
Finally, the fact that there is vibrant political debate in China isn't some gotcha. It's an evolving social system and people are figuring things out as they go. That's how real life works.
Using “the Chinese” as some imaginary ideological monolith of enlightened Marxists who agree and are willfully collaborating is fantasy to the point of Orientalism.
That's a really cute straw man that has nothing to do with anything I said. What's actually being said to you is that people living in a socialist country understand how to apply socialism in practice than western LARPers.
Meanwhile, even the revisionist Soviet Unions was a far superior system to what we have in the west today.
Hey, if you'll bite the bullet that China's revisionist, I won't have further objections. I never said they were inferior or even merely equal to America, they are clearly superior and a historically progressive force in the world. We agree on that part, it's just not what I was arguing
Finally, the fact that there is vibrant political debate in China isn't some gotcha. It's an evolving social system and people are figuring things out as they go. That's how real life works.
You are leaving out of this "vibrant political debate" that a broad side of it is getting repressed.
What's actually being said to you is that people living in a socialist country understand how to apply socialism in practice than western LARPers.
As you have phrased it, this is a circular argument.
"China is revisionist"
"No, it is socialist"
"How do you know?"
"Because the Chinese [who aren't being repressed] know better and they say so"
I agree that what you are discussing is in line with the idea behind the Cultural Revolution. That wasn't my question.
I guess you have to be more specific regarding what about that you think is at odds with SWCC.
The whole point of Deng's reforms was opposition to everything the Cultural Revolution was doing! Not just negating its changes but then moving in the opposite direction (as the CR was specifically instated to counter Dengists and their ilk). Saying China should do another CR is like saying it should do another country-wide land redistribution. It would be cool if someone had a magic wand but short of that, it's opposed to state ideology.
Besides, I think the place to start would probably be in the universities themselves and not hangout spots, since the amount of people studying liberal economics in China (better known there, as here, as "economics") is at minimum an order of magnitude larger than those studying Marxism, and that's still SWCC Marxism in the main, i.e. the ideology that got us to this condition where a completed CR is necessary.
Incidentally, I'm reading a book about this right at this very moment. Deng reforms were never meant to liberalize China or make it capitalist. It was a measure that was meant to allow China to catch up to the west. This has been accomplished now, and we're seeing a push from the party to wind down the role of private sector in the economy.
Again, what I described above isn't some drastic reeducation campaign, but rather firming up of the socialist ideological line within the intellectual sphere. Meanwhile, the notion that people aren't studying Marxism in China is frankly absurd. In fact, there's plenty of evidence that the opposite is the case.
https://field-journal.com/issue-26/the-interwining-of-knowledge-affect-life-and-mentality-chinese-youths-turn-to-marxist-leninist-maoist-in-contemporary-china/
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202108/1230909.shtml
Wake me up when Xi or that Shanghai liberal who is going to replace him actually call for struggle against the domestic bourgeoisie.
Reread what I said. You read a lot, I'm sure you can manage my straightforward statements.
That first article -- aside from being a novella -- is a really strange thing to link in this context. You can read countless articles, mostly from neoliberal sources, wherein Maoist student protestors, union organizers, etc. get violently repressed by the state. I know that Maoism exists among segments of the people in China, these stories are even used by neoliberals to delegitimize China's ideological claims. This is a much better argument against Deng's legacy, taken at face value (though I am not just going to take neoliberal reporting on China at face value, I'm not a Trot). Also, just read through the footnotes to get a good handle of the authorial perspective there.
The second one is a collection of anecdotes, and they are nice anecdotes, but the fact remains. I'll definitely check out Awakening Age, though.
Westerners living under the dictatorship of capital thinking they understand how to do Marxism better than the Chinese will never cease to be funny.
Two things, one: this standpoint epistemology stuff is bullshit. The Soviet Union was deeply revisionist for most of its existence thanks to Khrushchev's ideological coup, and I'm sure there were leftists back then smugly saying "It's cute that you think you understand how to do Marxism better than the Soviets" when met with this obvious fact. Two: The article you linked me highlights that, within China, there is very much dispute over how to do Marxism and people who object to the CPC and trying to do their own labor organizing being suppressed. Using "the Chinese" as some imaginary ideological monolith of enlightened Marxists who agree and are willfully collaborating is fantasy to the point of Orientalism.
The obvious fact is that China is a socialist country led by a communist party, and every serious analysis clearly shows that this is the case. Meanwhile, even the revisionist Soviet Unions was a far superior system to what we have in the west today.
Finally, the fact that there is vibrant political debate in China isn't some gotcha. It's an evolving social system and people are figuring things out as they go. That's how real life works.
That's a really cute straw man that has nothing to do with anything I said. What's actually being said to you is that people living in a socialist country understand how to apply socialism in practice than western LARPers.
Hey, if you'll bite the bullet that China's revisionist, I won't have further objections. I never said they were inferior or even merely equal to America, they are clearly superior and a historically progressive force in the world. We agree on that part, it's just not what I was arguing
You are leaving out of this "vibrant political debate" that a broad side of it is getting repressed.
As you have phrased it, this is a circular argument.
"China is revisionist"
"No, it is socialist"
"How do you know?"
"Because the Chinese [who aren't being repressed] know better and they say so"
"How do they know better?"
"Because they live in a socialist state."
"How do you know?"
"Because the Chinese know better and . . ."