what do you think the contradiction between being pro stalin, pro deng, anti kruschev and anti gorbachev is, considering it is essentially the position of the communist party of china
I have noticed certain ML/MLM’s who will stan the modern Dengist economy of China, but then will also shit on market socialism for being reformist or too acquiescing to liberalism. Which feels like it’s embracing Dengism out of a default support of socialist states without understanding Dengist economics. Or to put it another way, there’s a contradiction in saying that traditional, Soviet Marxist-Leninism had no problems and didn’t need to be changed, but also that the Dengist reforms were good and needed.
Of course, it’s completely valid to argue that Kruschev’s path of change was fundamentally flawed while the Dengist one was proper.
it’s completely valid to argue that Kruschev’s path of change was fundamentally flawed while the Dengist one was proper
I think that is the typical argument. Basically, in the situation in the USSR at the time, there was no need to do what Khrushchev did (IMO, some changes should have been done, but not what was done), but the correct reforms were taken in China, given their situation (I'm not 100% on board with that, but I am somewhat on board). That's the default ML line these days.
what do you think the contradiction between being pro stalin, pro deng, anti kruschev and anti gorbachev is, considering it is essentially the position of the communist party of china
I have noticed certain ML/MLM’s who will stan the modern Dengist economy of China, but then will also shit on market socialism for being reformist or too acquiescing to liberalism. Which feels like it’s embracing Dengism out of a default support of socialist states without understanding Dengist economics. Or to put it another way, there’s a contradiction in saying that traditional, Soviet Marxist-Leninism had no problems and didn’t need to be changed, but also that the Dengist reforms were good and needed.
Of course, it’s completely valid to argue that Kruschev’s path of change was fundamentally flawed while the Dengist one was proper.
I think that is the typical argument. Basically, in the situation in the USSR at the time, there was no need to do what Khrushchev did (IMO, some changes should have been done, but not what was done), but the correct reforms were taken in China, given their situation (I'm not 100% on board with that, but I am somewhat on board). That's the default ML line these days.
deleted by creator