Dear Professor [REDACTED],

It is an interesting perspective. I have more recent works, but Deng ceased being China’s paramount leader in 1989. Furthermore, a socialist nation that is behind in productive force tends to do so by introducing markets and slowly encroaching on them as they develop. (See: Lenin’s New Economic Policy). Perestroika was a death knell of the USSR, yes, but I’m of the belief that the undemocratic dissolution of the Soviet Union and Yeltsin’s crackdown on dissension was the reason that communism was utterly stamped out in the USSR. The CPSU, the vessel for which soviet democracy was conducted, was flattened, destroying any remnants of the command economy that the USSR once boasted. Compare this to the CPC. The CPC, while loosening its grip on power, was never dissolved. If the four modernizations is to Mao Zedong Thought as perestroika is to Marxism-Leninism, then why does the command economy in China still exist? To maintain itself with enough influence and economic power to reclaim itself over the course of the period of 35 years (Four Modernizations-Xi Jinping Election), and catapult China from the original definition of the third-world power to the bipolar position it shares with the US currently whilst encroaching on capital… it has shown that Deng, whether or not he truly believed in his words, lived up to them. Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, from a current point of view and looking at Deng’s works, is an objective success as of yet to accomplishing its goals. It has maintained its command economy and one-party democracy, and has masqueraded itself in the shadows of cheap labor long enough for a Marxist thought leader to emerge and slowly reclaim the dictatorship of the proletariat.

If the plan has worked as they foretold, any speculation on the true meaning of Deng’s intentions is mere conjecture. Therefore, it’s only logical to view them through the lens of current China. The end-stage of state-capitalism within the bounds of SwCC that Deng outlined. If we cannot trust rhetoric, and we cannot trust outcome, it is folly to put any meaning in it at all. If rhetoric and outcome align, it is logical to trust the rhetoric.

mark up his response with every [CITATION NEEDED] and [EDITORIALIZING BY AUTHOR] you can muster and send it back

EDIT: ignore my petty bullshit answer for you have already destroyed him

Comrade Professor wrecks revisionist Dengist circa 2021 :mao-wave: :mao-aggro-shining:

But no seriously, your response in the comments shows you possess the superior understanding :deng-cowboy: :deng-smile:

lol @ 40 years ago what a clown.

Imagine being this intellectually insecure as a professor that's supposed to teach classes on this shit. Scratch that, this is exactly why your prof is acting like a R*ddit debate baby making obviously bad-faith arguments: they don't know this topic but feel the need to protect their auspices of expertise so that nobody notices they are teaching a subject they don't understand, i.e. they're bad at their job.

A good, secure professor would quickly recognize and admit their ignorance and challenge you with actually good ideas or readings even if they continue to disagree with your premise. This one is channeling Dinesh D'Souza because they're a fucking child.

Most likely, your prof is going to continue acting in bad faith and you should expect bullshitting in responses. Arguments that they know are weak or stupid but were all they could come up with in the five minutes they thought about you and this topic and they don't really care if it's dishonest hot takes in their ignorance. Set your expectations accordingly and craft your responses around the assumption that they're an insecure ignorant baby but you can't actually call them that or imply it, only demonstrate it through interactions. You need to be the "calmer" one at all times. Thorough and calm debunking drives these people insane.

Theory from 40 years ago doesn’t matter, but I’m going to keep shoving Adam Smith’s 300 year old Invisible Hand down your throats like it’s a fisted dildo. I am very intelligent. :very-intelligent:

arguin w/ profs ez a wast uv @tim bt i suport u

Lol "in so far"

love to be POLITICALLY a Maoist but not ECONOMICALLY hmm hmm yes

He has to say shit like that and play fool because if he doesn't that's his job on the line, at the very least. If you don't play the role of fed bourgeois academic and dare to even bark at the imperialist hand bad things happen. Academia is heavily monitored for any lil barks and dissent, but I don't need to tell you that.

No censorship in the west, my fat ass.

hi it is me, your professor :mao-clap:

China’s political economy, which seeks to introduce market capitalism and maintain Mao’s socialist thought. Such a feat is impossible.

Ope. Looks like this academic needs to be a little more aware of anthropology being a thing that exists. This is a go read Debt post. Markets can exist under all sorts of structures. Dengist political control over capitalist development is a classic move for China. Chinese economic history has a lot of this sort of thing apparently. What's new is the idea of building socialism rather than maintaining stability, the typical reason a government would keep a tight and somewhat violent control on markets. Your professor is trying to argue something that isn't true.

Yeah Marxist theory is all about how if things are contradictory they cannot possibly coexist. That's why everyone needs to study unilectic materialism.

less ridiculous than before but still 🌽🌽🌽🌽🌽

:maduro-salute:

Major respect to you for being so much more based than I was at your age.

I had a class taught by some piece of garbage who used to work for Tony Blair and I was too much of a lib to push back on his neoliberal bullshit.

Thanks for giving me hope for the future.

do you have a link to the essay you wrote? it seems really cool