Log in

View Full Version : Deng Xiaoping Theory



getfiscal
4th February 2012, 18:10
Historical Background

Following Mao's death in 1976, a power struggle took place within the Communist Party of China (CPC). The leftist Gang of Four were imprisoned by Mao's designated successor Hua Guofeng. Hua tried to rally the country behind him by adopting what has been called "the two whatevers". That is, party officials ought to follow "whatever Mao said and whatever Mao did". After the disastrous failure of the Cultural Revolution, this was widely seen as a lack of vision, with little evidence it would lead to something better. Real wages had stagnated in China for two decades and military leaders were concerned that Mao's ideological strategy of relying on popular guerrilla warfare had no relevance to China's contemporary situation.

In this vacuum, the formerly disgraced "rightist" Deng Xiaoping had his allies arrange a power struggle that ended with Deng in the position of "paramount leader". Deng's influence led to dramatic agricultural reforms that were based on a price increase and decollectivization. The immediate and large benefits of this policy impressed people. Deng pushed for an end to "political campaigns" and the emphasis on class struggle and announced that China would focus on "reform and opening" in order to modernize the economy. This was an uneven process, continuing to this day, that included marketization of the economy, export-oriented growth, limited cultural freedoms and more foreign investment. However, Deng insisted this must happen within a stable framework under the leadership of the Communists.

China has experienced rapid economic growth since the reforms started. This growth has been very uneven. There is a layer of well-off city-living Chinese that has benefited greatly from the reforms. These people enjoy most material privileges that the West does, and consider themselves well-educated professionals. Then there is a large layer of an urban working class that struggles, but has access to a lot more material and cultural consumption than previously was available in China. However, below these two layers are poor migrant workers (the "floating population") and a huge impoverished rural class that has not benefited as much from the reforms. Other problems include the brutal repression of dissent (such as at Tiananmen Square in 1989) and the economic problems associated with land (displacement, land speculation, etc.).

The Theory

Deng Xiaoping Theory holds that Mao was "70% good", but that Mao often deviated from the core of Mao Zedong Thought in order to engage in leftist campaigns that proved disastrous. Deng emphasized "seeking truth from facts" - that is, officials should try to see what "works" instead of always trying to be perfectly ideologically correct. Deng believed China should developed a "socialist market economy" that used the market framework to build "socialism with Chinese characteristics".

The idea of a market framework as socialist was accepted by the Chinese leadership because they believed that Mao was correct that socialism had been built "in the main" in China. This meant that a higher level of productive capacity was built and that backsliding towards feudalism and capitalism was unlikely. This is criticized by leftists, who believe that markets are intrinsically capitalist. A wide variety of people tend to believe that China is presently capitalist.

Jiang Zemin added to Deng Xiaoping Theory a theory called The Three Represents. This basically was a strategy to try to integrate entrepreneurs into the party as an advancing or leading sector of production. This shift, to essentially allow capitalists into the party, was criticized by leftists as abandoning the working class nature of the Party. Likewise, China has revised its constitution to refer to the CPC as a "ruling" party rather than a "revolutionary" one. This is because they see the core of the revolution as being consolidated and are emphasizing "rule by law."

More recently, Hu Jintao has focused on concepts such as "socialist spiritual civilization" which emphasizes the need for everyday morality and non-corrupt practices. Both Jiang and Hu's ideological contributions have been seen as limited and largely unimportant compared to the huge shifts introduced by both Mao and Deng.

DXT Today

Deng Xiaoping Theory is typically seen as a sort of ideologically gloss for pragmatism. However, many people inside China take DXT seriously and it is widely taught and debated. The Chinese New Left includes people who press for a dramatic shift to the radical left through party channels or a new revolution from below, but also much more moderate contributions from social-democrats like Wang Hui.

What do you think of Deng Xiaoping Theory? Is it totally bogus? Or useful to you in some way?

Ismail
4th February 2012, 18:36
It's basically a "smarter" version of Gorbachev's program: super-Perestroika with a gimped version of Glasnost. Although Maoists like to portray Deng as the guy who came in and ruined everything (just like Brezhnevites do the same with Gorbachev), Deng was building upon the rightist domestic and foreign policies of Mao Zedong and Hua Guofeng coupled with a need to defang any "radical" sentiments by depoliticizing history (outside of certain areas) and social life in general.

A good summary of the rise of Deng can be found in the last two parts of Bill Bland's Class Struggles in China:
http://ml-review.ca/aml/China/historyofmaopt4.html
http://ml-review.ca/aml/China/historyofmaopt5.html

Deng was influenced by Tito and continued Hua's policy of promoting reconciliation with Yugoslavia in both foreign affairs and in the ideological field (which Mao also attempted.)

Enver Hoxha noted in his work Imperialism and the Revolution (http://enver-hoxha.net/content/content_english/books/books-imperialism_and_revolution.htm) that Deng, like Hua and Mao, sought to transform China into a world superpower with imperialist ambitions.

Zulu
5th February 2012, 04:46
The rationale behind Deng's theory is similar to that of the Soviet NEP of the 1920s. That is not at all surprising, seeing how Deng had studied in the USSR's University of Sun Yatsen, which was established specifically to train Chinese revolutionaries in Marxism, exactly during the NEP period. So it's quite possible that he was influenced by Bukharin's and Plekhanov's thought that basically capitalism should run all its course in an underdeveloped country even if communists take control in it. Only once the necessary productive forces naturally emerge the transition to socialist economy must be undertaken.

Paulappaul
5th February 2012, 21:57
Sounds like Capitalism.

Kassad
5th February 2012, 22:16
Is this a joke?

GoddessCleoLover
5th February 2012, 22:27
What do Revolutionary Leftists think about the way Deng Xiaoping Theory was put into practice in June 1989? Not only was there a massacre of students, but Chinese workers who attempted to protest the fact that the "vanguard party" ordered the PLA to attack the people were either summarily executed or sent to prison. I agree with Kassad; this smells like a bad joke.

getfiscal
6th February 2012, 00:55
Is this a joke?
I don't think Maoism is a complete joke. It's true that most of its adherents have little understand of theory or history. It's also true that it isn't a well thought out theory in itself. But it is useful to talk about.

getfiscal
6th February 2012, 00:57
What do Revolutionary Leftists think about the way Deng Xiaoping Theory was put into practice in June 1989? Not only was there a massacre of students, but Chinese workers who attempted to protest the fact that the "vanguard party" ordered the PLA to attack the people were either summarily executed or sent to prison. I agree with Kassad; this smells like a bad joke.Yes, this points to one of the major flaws of DXT. If you abandon the need for tightly controlled planned economies based on essentially a police state, then why not democratize the system?

GoddessCleoLover
6th February 2012, 01:00
Because that would likely result in the "vanguard party" being defeated at the polls.

getfiscal
6th February 2012, 01:06
Because that would likely result in the "vanguard party" being defeated at the polls.
One Western watcher of China suggests that a "continuist" reformist party largely drawn from ranks of the CPC would win an election. It could be a direct legacy party like most post-communist states have.

GoddessCleoLover
6th February 2012, 01:18
Possibly, since the CCP is seen by many a "patriotic", as promoting China's national interests. OTOH there is a great deal of public dissatisfaction with official corruption and economic inequality, so I doubt that the CCP would be likely to take their chances at the polls.

Zulu
6th February 2012, 01:56
Yes, this points to one of the major flaws of DXT. If you abandon the need for tightly controlled planned economies based on essentially a police state, then why not democratize the system?

Because "democratization" of the system will create unnecessary obstacles for the return to a planned economy, which is devised at some point in the future.

getfiscal
6th February 2012, 03:44
Because "democratization" of the system will create unnecessary obstacles for the return to a planned economy, which is devised at some point in the future.One leading party member suggested the period of transition to advanced socialism could take 600 years. All that time without democracy?

Zulu
6th February 2012, 05:58
One leading party member suggested the period of transition to advanced socialism could take 600 years. All that time without democracy?

Mmmmm... Yes?

But if you've got an idea how to hurry it up a bit, join the Party and announce it at the next congress, I guess. Can't really see anything wrong with such a system.


(Also, just for the record, there is no democracy in the rest of the world either. What they have in the West is oligarchy or, more specifically, plutocracy.)

getfiscal
6th February 2012, 06:26
Mmmmm... Yes?

But if you've got an idea how to hurry it up a bit, join the Party and announce it at the next congress, I guess. Can't really see anything wrong with such a system.

(Also, just for the record, there is no democracy in the rest of the world either. What they have in the West is oligarchy or, more specifically, plutocracy.)
First, plutocracy is an epithet, not a real term. Most Western countries are democratic. They aren't democratic enough, but workers in these countries have some level of control over what happens. They are mostly pro-capitalist, unfortunately, but that's how it goes.

Second, if you can't see anything wrong with 600 years of dictatorship then I'm happy your views will probably fade away soon.

Paulappaul
6th February 2012, 06:55
Most Western countries are democratic. They aren't democratic enough, but workers in these countries have some level of control over what happens.

The choice of who gets to rule over you, making decisions not by your mandate, every four years is not a democracy.

getfiscal
6th February 2012, 07:21
The choice of who gets to rule over you, making decisions not by your mandate, every four years is not a democracy.
I would agree that democracy could be much deeper and apply to a wider range of institutions. I think liberal-democratic countries qualify as democracies, though.

Zulu
6th February 2012, 08:25
First, plutocracy is an epithet, not a real term. Most Western countries are democratic. They aren't democratic enough, but workers in these countries have some level of control over what happens. They are mostly pro-capitalist, unfortunately, but that's how it goes.

Second, if you can't see anything wrong with 600 years of dictatorship then I'm happy your views will probably fade away soon.

We could play semantics all day, or I could tell you that some the Ancient Greeks themselves already commented on democracy's being not the "rule of demos" but rather the "rule of demagogs". But I'd better just remind you that democracy is not a sacred cow for the Marxist-Leninists. They just expect it to be a by-product after a certain period of functioning of the socialist economy, along with the classless society, erosion of state, etc.

And if the workers are pro-capitalist, well, that's too bad indeed. Either they are not such a force of progress old Marx thought them to be, or they need some serious guidance and education by a vanguard party, like Lenin suggested. So yeah, I can't see anything wrong with a system where any person interested enough to do so can contribute to politics via participation in such a party, instead of casting their worthless votes for a bunch of clowns paid by capitalists to entertain the proletariat.

Minima
6th February 2012, 09:32
Because "democratization" of the system will create unnecessary obstacles for the return to a planned economy, which is devised at some point in the future.

The current party is in no shape to lead the masses back to a central planned economy and is intimately embedded in the class of the new rich in china today. many of the billionaires are relatives of officials, whom were granted easy industry contacts, unchecked corruption, empty symbolic government labour institutions, it would be a stretch to say that 'ethical' reforms under state capitalism could return the party back to the glorious days of Mao within even say 300 hundred years. It would take a democratization, (to bourgeois interests) and then subsequent revolutionaries to get back to where we were in terms of political conciousness. Unless somehow the current anti-corruption pro-democratic liberalization ideology which permeates china is somehow overcome and the current party really really reaaaaally fucks up, things will continue to look pretty bad, from the point of view of what's possible.


Alternatively we can wait until china is completely overcome by ecological catastrophes that there is no choice but to impose martial law and impose a kind of whacked out central planned economy based on pure survival... you know there are a lot of really shitty apocalyptic scenarios and you don't even need to bother to speculate.

enver criticism
6th February 2012, 10:08
Bill Bland's Class Struggles in China is good but lack of understanding of China.I am Chinese,Maoism and Dengism give China people disaster,I think Hoxhaism is real Marxism

Zulu
6th February 2012, 11:07
it would be a stretch to say that 'ethical' reforms under state capitalism could return the party back to the glorious days of Mao within even say 300 hundred years.

Theory and practice are, of course, entirely different matters, and I agree that the practice of the today's CPC is quite at odds even with Deng's revisionist theory. Although I've seen some interviews with the Chinese new rich who wanted to emigrate permanently from China with their capitals, citing the moot political future of their "honestly earned" property there...

Anyway, I don't think that "democratization" and the resulting balkanization of China, like the transnationals would like it, can help at all. If it takes the Chinese economy to go down for the things to be straightened out, it'd better be the last one, when the rest of the capitalism in the world has already tanked.

Minima
6th February 2012, 19:59
i can agree with that. china is largely analyzed as the end of the road by some world systems theorists.

btw how the fuck did getfiscal get banned?

Ismail
6th February 2012, 23:35
btw how the fuck did getfiscal get banned?He was judged by the admins as a right-winger and a troll. The latter got him banned.