I personally believe it was and still is a totally valid strategy of China to use Capitalism as a means to bring about prosperity to its people, for it is impossible and irresponsible to build Socialism on poverty.
The strategy Mao implemented was formulated with the, at the time, current material conditions kept in mind. Deng did exactly the same for his time. "A very poor population, the lack of an industrial base and the lack of a large urban population" were the driving forces behind the "Reform and Opening Up" policy. These conditions were brought about by the policies made by Mao. That doesn't mean Mao's policies were 'bad': the average life expectency went up from 35 in the 1950s to 70 in the late 70s. But the average citizen still lived on less than 1$ a day.
So reforms are undertaken by attempting to improve certain aspects, but will inevitably have contradictions accompanying them, which the next reform will address in turn. And such is China's approach. Capitalism brought about fast industrialization which lead to wealth, but has also brought about pollution issues amongst others, which China is addressing now (reduction of reliance on coal, banning it in Beijing altogether, tho not completely eliminated, massive reforestation projects and becoming the global leader in green-technology)
What I don't know at all is if there was anything like a rivalry between Deng and Mao? I ran out of time so if anyone can shed light on that i'd be happy. Nevertheless I'm certain Mao would have been happy with the results of Deng's reforms.
There was general infighting over leadership (there still is) and while some may argue that Deng Xiaoping was never trusted by Mao, I would argue that they were very much bonded by the fucking wars they fought together. The actual dispute was with the Gang of Four and the loyalists that followed Mao's wife and imo that it was a Marxist dispute over how the country would move forward. There is speculation that it was between the mistress and the wife and while interesting, holds less weight without hard evidence.
There are bourgeois elements and there always were. The class cannot disappear simply because a Marxist party is formed.
More so, Sun Yat-sen's dream for China is closer to what it is now as a cumulative result of everything that has transpired since the revolution - not just the single step forward of the revolution itself. In his recorded lectures (in regards to the path of China), two points of note: 1. never trust the U.S and 2. The USSR are strong but (I'm paraphrasing here as I haven't read the text in a year) don't follow them blindly.
I think Deng was a pragmatic figure , he understood the theory of socialism more than Mao and its leadership in later years. Mao had a hard time relating to the rapid changes in the world. Deng opened up the economy and modernized China in thought and spirit. Although China had a revolution in 1949 but it had a huge gap in technological progress and technically skilled people w.r.t west. China did the right thing and by self correcting the course and again reorienting its policy towards anti west , it brought US to its knees . Marxism is about people's development not just in paper but in real time world,
Mao himself even said that if handled correctly, the relationship between the proletariat and the national bourgeoisie may not necessarily be antagonistic
It’s not like we’re saying “Communism means no commerce and absolute poverty until the machine god brings us to utopia.”
Mao himself even said that if handled correctly, the relationship between the proletariat and the national bourgeoisie may not necessarily be antagonistic
Critically, this is in the context of an imperialist world order. If imperialism is defeated, the class antagonisms of these two groups will be brought to the fore.
I personally believe it was and still is a totally valid strategy of China to use Capitalism as a means to bring about prosperity to its people, for it is impossible and irresponsible to build Socialism on poverty.
The strategy Mao implemented was formulated with the, at the time, current material conditions kept in mind. Deng did exactly the same for his time. "A very poor population, the lack of an industrial base and the lack of a large urban population" were the driving forces behind the "Reform and Opening Up" policy. These conditions were brought about by the policies made by Mao. That doesn't mean Mao's policies were 'bad': the average life expectency went up from 35 in the 1950s to 70 in the late 70s. But the average citizen still lived on less than 1$ a day.
^This is taken from Prolewiki's Deng Xiaoping article
So reforms are undertaken by attempting to improve certain aspects, but will inevitably have contradictions accompanying them, which the next reform will address in turn. And such is China's approach. Capitalism brought about fast industrialization which lead to wealth, but has also brought about pollution issues amongst others, which China is addressing now (reduction of reliance on coal, banning it in Beijing altogether, tho not completely eliminated, massive reforestation projects and becoming the global leader in green-technology)
^This is taken from leohezhao.medium.com "The Long Game and Its Contradictions" a generally great article imo.
What I don't know at all is if there was anything like a rivalry between Deng and Mao? I ran out of time so if anyone can shed light on that i'd be happy. Nevertheless I'm certain Mao would have been happy with the results of Deng's reforms.
There was general infighting over leadership (there still is) and while some may argue that Deng Xiaoping was never trusted by Mao, I would argue that they were very much bonded by the fucking wars they fought together. The actual dispute was with the Gang of Four and the loyalists that followed Mao's wife and imo that it was a Marxist dispute over how the country would move forward. There is speculation that it was between the mistress and the wife and while interesting, holds less weight without hard evidence.
There are bourgeois elements and there always were. The class cannot disappear simply because a Marxist party is formed.
More so, Sun Yat-sen's dream for China is closer to what it is now as a cumulative result of everything that has transpired since the revolution - not just the single step forward of the revolution itself. In his recorded lectures (in regards to the path of China), two points of note: 1. never trust the U.S and 2. The USSR are strong but (I'm paraphrasing here as I haven't read the text in a year) don't follow them blindly.
I think Deng was a pragmatic figure , he understood the theory of socialism more than Mao and its leadership in later years. Mao had a hard time relating to the rapid changes in the world. Deng opened up the economy and modernized China in thought and spirit. Although China had a revolution in 1949 but it had a huge gap in technological progress and technically skilled people w.r.t west. China did the right thing and by self correcting the course and again reorienting its policy towards anti west , it brought US to its knees . Marxism is about people's development not just in paper but in real time world,
Mao himself even said that if handled correctly, the relationship between the proletariat and the national bourgeoisie may not necessarily be antagonistic
It’s not like we’re saying “Communism means no commerce and absolute poverty until the machine god brings us to utopia.”
Critically, this is in the context of an imperialist world order. If imperialism is defeated, the class antagonisms of these two groups will be brought to the fore.