National liberation is a pretty key struggle, and I think there is every reason to believe that developing a national bourgeoisie is helpful in that struggle so long as they don't gain undue influence in politics. Even the phillipines communist party, no fan of China, supports national liberation through the national democratic front. You can't develop a communist society while imperialism is the principle dialectic in the world.
Love or hate Deng or China, it is undeniable that they are creating a multipolar world that is making it possible for other countries to follow their own socialist path.
The problem ultimately I think is in trying to discern what 'undue' influence is. I think what bothers me about this view is that it pretty much erases the historical fact that 1. Maoist China existed, 2. It survived despite imperialism and aggression from both superpowers, 3. The nationalist bourgeoisie were liquidated after New Democracy properly came to an end in 1954. What made China a success in my view compared to say India is in fact that they realized that the bourgeoisie could never be CURTAILED so much as they had to be abolished, which is why Mao was so paranoid about capitalist roaders propping up - the revolution would never be complete without them being sequestered from society.
In my view, what you have in China is a situation where many of the elites that Mao and the left of the Party disdained are suddenly in a much better situation. As a personal anecdote - I knew kids who joined the Party in college because it meant that they would be able to get better finance jobs. The Party has become a sort of quasi corporate entity in that as an institution it doesn't have a hostility to capital per se so much as it uses certain language to proclaim that it is against capital's dominance. But my bet is that of Mao's: an iota of capitalist influence will eventually corrupt any political project to overthrow it.
I would prefer if the Party had a hostile attitude to the idea of finance, frankly. Having posters at econ schools that have mottos along the lines of "March with the Party - start your own company!" does not scream hostile to capital to me. Yes, I am not joking - it exists.
Well we can prefer it until we are blue in the face, but it's not really going to stop them from doing it. I guess at the end of the day, after our revolution we will have to choose whether or not to implement dengist policies based on the material conditions at play in our own path towards communism.
Dengist policies were not pursued out of material necessity - it was an ideological choice. By erasing the Maoist legacy (read the Party's 1980 statement of the Party's historical achievements) they were able to suggest that there was no choice but the path they took and that ultimately nothing about their class character or driving political economical concerns changed. But these policies were opposed by plenty of intellectuals, workers, peasants etc and some of that opposition has lived several afterlives even today (wildcat strikes, resistance against forced removals etc). To say so matter of fact that ah the Party will just do what it says and if doesn't matter what anyone thinks seems to me to entirely ignore the conscious decisions made in favor and against certain types of policy.
I can't imagine they care very much what you think.
But let's pretend for a moment our opnions are even remotely important on how Chinese people should run their country. I don't really get your point. If the priniple contradiction is Imperialism seems to me their focus should be on anti-imperialism. What would you do differently?
National liberation is a pretty key struggle, and I think there is every reason to believe that developing a national bourgeoisie is helpful in that struggle so long as they don't gain undue influence in politics. Even the phillipines communist party, no fan of China, supports national liberation through the national democratic front. You can't develop a communist society while imperialism is the principle dialectic in the world.
Love or hate Deng or China, it is undeniable that they are creating a multipolar world that is making it possible for other countries to follow their own socialist path.
The problem ultimately I think is in trying to discern what 'undue' influence is. I think what bothers me about this view is that it pretty much erases the historical fact that 1. Maoist China existed, 2. It survived despite imperialism and aggression from both superpowers, 3. The nationalist bourgeoisie were liquidated after New Democracy properly came to an end in 1954. What made China a success in my view compared to say India is in fact that they realized that the bourgeoisie could never be CURTAILED so much as they had to be abolished, which is why Mao was so paranoid about capitalist roaders propping up - the revolution would never be complete without them being sequestered from society.
In my view, what you have in China is a situation where many of the elites that Mao and the left of the Party disdained are suddenly in a much better situation. As a personal anecdote - I knew kids who joined the Party in college because it meant that they would be able to get better finance jobs. The Party has become a sort of quasi corporate entity in that as an institution it doesn't have a hostility to capital per se so much as it uses certain language to proclaim that it is against capital's dominance. But my bet is that of Mao's: an iota of capitalist influence will eventually corrupt any political project to overthrow it.
Why is that a bad thing? Would you prefer if success in finanace wasn't contingent on joinging the party?
I would prefer if the Party had a hostile attitude to the idea of finance, frankly. Having posters at econ schools that have mottos along the lines of "March with the Party - start your own company!" does not scream hostile to capital to me. Yes, I am not joking - it exists.
Well we can prefer it until we are blue in the face, but it's not really going to stop them from doing it. I guess at the end of the day, after our revolution we will have to choose whether or not to implement dengist policies based on the material conditions at play in our own path towards communism.
Dengist policies were not pursued out of material necessity - it was an ideological choice. By erasing the Maoist legacy (read the Party's 1980 statement of the Party's historical achievements) they were able to suggest that there was no choice but the path they took and that ultimately nothing about their class character or driving political economical concerns changed. But these policies were opposed by plenty of intellectuals, workers, peasants etc and some of that opposition has lived several afterlives even today (wildcat strikes, resistance against forced removals etc). To say so matter of fact that ah the Party will just do what it says and if doesn't matter what anyone thinks seems to me to entirely ignore the conscious decisions made in favor and against certain types of policy.
We can stop pretending it’s anything but capitalism.
I can't imagine they care very much what you think.
But let's pretend for a moment our opnions are even remotely important on how Chinese people should run their country. I don't really get your point. If the priniple contradiction is Imperialism seems to me their focus should be on anti-imperialism. What would you do differently?
It’s not about convincing them it’s about what exactly our vision is here.
Let me rephrase. What's the biggest threat to China. Capitalism, or the USA?
Capitalism. Easily.
Capitalism is the biggest threat to the species.
Ok, let me try again. What's a bigger threat chinese national self determination.
The party is now populated by finance groups.
Do you see the issue yet?
Except it’s not a socialist path.