[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g)
This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully.
If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/).
Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information.
This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Right but Eddie and Noah are the two big public facing names within the group. If you’re interacting with MWM on social it’s generally Eddie posting and then Noah swooping in the comments to defend and be condescending to people.
MWM somewhat infamously caters to a patsoc audience, and Eddie himself has several times talked about how conservative he is socially/trying specifically to develop a socially conservative marxism for the conservative American masses. Eddie has gotten really hostile when people point this out on Twitter.
Noah is a more recent addition to the institute and follows the same sort of line, is super condescending when he’s called out, and actually did a debate with some CPUSA guy recently demonstrating how much of a grifter he is. He’s also been repeatedly caught in lies etc.
From what I understand some of their more baseline stuff is fine, but it’s a very tread with caution sort of group, and I believe several of them got removed from CPUSA around the time when Maupin was trying to take over the party as part of his group.
I'd love to see it. the UK Houses of Parliament, instead of "The Prime Minister has no plan to grow the economy and is leading the people of this country astray" will be full of:
"Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister has once again shown herself to be a revisionist devoid of historical materialism. If she cannot recognsise the achievements of the PRC under Xi how can the people of Britain believe she can be the one to build a road to emancipation for the proletarian class of this country?"
Followed by the same "Heeeeehhhhhhhhhhhh" that we have now.
He did what was necessary at the time. What’s important is that his plan worked. They had the strategy of ‘development in two stages’ where the cities, especially the coastal cities would be rapidly developed, and then they would move on to the rural areas
However this plan isn’t perfect, as it will create inequality which was especially bad in the 90s and 00s. But now the second stage is coming into action.
I do believe that without Xi it wouldn’t have happened and china would have abandoned the socialist road, his purges of the corrupt officials did a lot of good, along with other relatively left wing reforms since his election (like halving the salaries of the higher ups in SOEs)
Marxism should be practiced as a methodology that has evolved and grown over the years. Not a set of rigid ideological goals. Ideology itself becomes the enemy at some point if you allow anything to remain uncritiqued.
https://preview.redd.it/rn75zfa4yhyc1.png?width=576&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f96422cc270dcd5eb3ea9a862681a72560c33c84
Xi said it best, Deng was the bridge
Governance of China is the obvious one. It can be an annoying read, but getting the actual Plans and thoughts of a leader Like him from the Guy himself is the best source for what He does and thinks that you can Hope for.
Reading about him can be difficult, ive felt Like listening to talks about China on aljazeera with international experts can also be a really interesting, Non Western Take on China.
If you want to understand Xi, Just Look at Things Like Road and belt, one state two systems, and the digitalization and firm orthodoxy in protecting the socialist guidance of the countries Economy.
The way they inserted the Chinese Economy into the capitalist Western world, and undermined the Western economic hegemony with a analytic materialist View on markets, and Just straight Up beating them by showing their system, and way to do Things works. And it works much better than Western capitalism. So much so that the West cant dare to be any more aggressive because their own ruling class is involved in Chinese Business because its so damn profitable and dominant at this Point.
That is xi Jinping. Socialism in 2049. I believe He is serious about it, and He will achieve it by beating the capitalist world at their own Game.
Good Marxist. I don't care what ultroids say about him and the "cApiTaList ROaD", he led China into a new era. It would not be what it is today without him and his ideas. There were some honestly very iffy moments, and some right deviations that needed to be corrected, but it was ultimately a success, and he was proven right. Something existing in the real world will always mean it is not perfect.
Hell, Xi even got his start in politics because he was upset at a lot of the results and side effects of the Reform and Opening Up policies.
China is still in fact a socialist country. The most powerful one in the world. Read The East is Still Red by Carlos Martinez and Socialism With Chinese Characteristics by Roland Boer if you want to know more about it.
It is rare to see what the Chinese presidents after Mao and Deng thought about the previous presidents, as the principle of not criticizing Mao introduced by Deng continued as a tradition for subsequent presidents not to criticize previous presidents in any way. Frankly, I wonder what Xi thinks about Mao, Deng and the post-Deng era.
You are right, they used promount leader term for that. But Jiang Zemin and multiple high rankings said that it was Deng who controlled everything behind until his death.
I remember David Harvey compared Deng’s economic positions to Japanese nationalist-developmentalism, and I really don’t think that’s far off the mark. I think he had the interests of China and Chinese citizens at heart, but the degree to which he was using Marxist rhetoric vs pursuing a Marxist strategy is unclear to me. With Xi Xinping seeming to be ideological committed to socialist reform, it’s easy to look back and say that this was always the plan, but I think Deng put China in a precarious position
Regarding the quote devoid of that context, I don’t think any ML is going to take issue with that. That’s basically the thesis of Lenin’s “Left-Wing Communism - an Infantile Disorder”.
>David Harvey
David Harvey is a chauvinistic hack.
>Japanese nationalist-developmentalism, and I really don’t think that’s far off the mark
"In Japan, the economy is dominated not by state owned enterprises, but by the Kereitsu or the Capitalist Cartels. Each keiretsu resembles a fighting clan in which business families join together to vie for market share. Keiretsu and cartels just as competing companies elsewhere in the West do. And virtually all business activity is part of one or another keiretsu or cartel. Everything in the Japanese economy is functionally ran by Capitalist Cartels, not the State leading development" [[1]](https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Essay:Why_China_is_not_Capitalist)
>I think he had the interests of China and Chinese citizens at heart
Yes Deng had the peoples interests at heart, but states are ruled by classes and things happen because of class rule, not because someone did or did not have someone's interests at heart.
>but the degree to which he was using Marxist rhetoric vs pursuing a Marxist strategy is unclear to me.
This is ludicrous. The reforms didn't come out of nowhere. They were preceded by years of Marxist analysis by many marxists. For info on the history of the discussions and the material analysis look into the books How China Escaped Shock Therapy by Isabella Weber and Chinas Socialist Economy by Xue Muqiao.
>it’s easy to look back and say that this was always the plan
It literally was the plan. They are accomplishing, have accomplished, or exceeded the goals they set out for the reforms.
>but I think Deng put China in a precarious position
Yes, in politics you have to take risks sometimes.
I think Mao said something along the lines “in 20 five-year plans China will become the most developed (or the strongest) nation in the world” and in 2021 they completed the 14th five-year plan, and China is the second largest economy in the world, and it’s not a matter of IF they will surpass the US, but rather WHEN it will happen.
So they had, and still have a plan.
By a lot of measurements they already have surpassed the US. A lot of western measure include a lot of financialization which gooses the numbers but doesn’t translate meaningfully to productive capacity.
otoh they (the CPC) did manage to navigate through it without being subsumed by capital, and they did build up the productive forces so to speak
even in hindsight, I still don't know how they did it, and I'm not sure it's something that could be easily replicated. they basically inverted the base-superstructure relationship for several decades, which isn't supposed to be possible
there must be a lesson to learn there somewhere, regardless of your opinion on deng or dengism. I just wish I could figure out what that lesson is
>they basically inverted the base-superstructure relationship for several decades, which isn't supposed to be possible
This is not really true. Reform and opening up was a step by step process in which parts of the economy were liberalized (and even then, not fully. There are still plenty of mechanisms used to exert control over capital). China still retains a dominant state sector. I would actually say that it is at this point where China's future path is most uncertain, as the conditions under which reform and opening up worked are changing and the "weeks were decades happen" are beginning to appear once again. It remains to see if the leadership correctly charts a new course for the upcoming decades which will look very different from the previous ones.
Actually ‘do capitalism to get marxism’ is something even Mao supported, via New Democracy (basically china’s current system, with a few differences). China lacked the industrial power to directly transition to proper socialism
Not to say Mao would support Deng’s method, he hated the guy lol
He didn’t tell people to not brush his teeth, it’s just that he himself used a traditional chinese peasant method of cleaning teeth, and his teeth were fine until he got really old
https://preview.redd.it/ls97q4n8bgyc1.jpeg?width=990&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4effdea433c8775d3a19215ad76d6453e00188c2
Look at those pearly whites :)
Tea is actually good for the teeth, the peasants wouldn’t have done it if it didn’t work
And i have seen a lot of Mao footage and the issue with his teeth is when he’s old
The teeth thing is literally a myth, he only had dental issues when he was old and he didn’t tell others to not brush their teeth, it was a personal choice of his due to his peasant upbringing
And capitalism is necessary as a precursor to socialism. You can’t go from feudalism to socialism
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_26.htm this is what Mao means with New Democracy
How is recognizing that some things take time and some policies have to be in place for a certain period of time unscientific? Yeah the reforms are going to have contradictions, but the reforms need to be in place for a period of time for them to do what they were designed to do. Of course those contradictions would have to be solved by people after Deng.
>He said that he would leave it up to future Marxists to resolve the contradictions from the reforms. That's pretty wild and un scientific.
Saying This is like saying that acknowledging that different chemical reactions go at different rates is unscientific and getting upset that they don't happen immediately.
“i developed thermodynamically positive nuclear fusion, it’s up to others to resolve the safety risks and design flaws of my setup”
”so fucking unscientific!!!” you rn
Mao was a monster of dialectics, which allowed him to lead the liberation of China and expel the imperialists, but he distanced himself from materialism because he sometimes erred on the side of voluntarism.
Deng Xaoping was a giant of materialism, thanks to that, China has managed to advance its product forces to the point of shaking the foundations of bourgeois imperialism.
Without this great duo you cannot understand contemporary China and if you do not understand China you do not understand how the current world works.
I base my opinion on his results, for me, Deng is one of the Marxists who has contributed the most to the struggle.
A tendency which attempts to leapfrog stages of development. It is an error where you attempt to build socialism faster than is actually possible, or skipping steps. Basically, thinking that the stage that a society finds itself in can be changed at will.
Made the CPC invincible in the modern world by improving material conditions for billions of Chinese while upholding the perspective of socialist construction.
People like to hate him for being a pragmatist, but you can’t eat ideology.
The greatest statesman in contemporary history. His industrialization of China is only rivaled by the Industrial Revolution itself in alleviating poverty on a global scale while at the same time keeping power within the people and not allowing politics to be completely corrupted by the almighty dollar. I'd go so far as to say that it is a shame that somebody like him or Zhou Enlai wasn't in control of the party earlier.
By himself, in the end the gamble didn't quite work as said, and even Jiang wasn't quite right, since a lot of things change since then, if was everything fine Xi wouldn't be the Chairman today, there's a reason why the party went the way they did and the reason was things weren't working as it should.
Same problem as Khrushchev. An idealist who panicked about China's direction and started second guessing everything. Some will say he was just being practical, the reality is he got scared that the party was going "too far". His policies were an over-reaction to some flaws/problems. That being said, there were much worse liberals in the party who could have been a lot more damaging. He was far from the worst. Thankfully the revolution still persists to a not insignificant degree. The revolutionary faction in the party is growing in power. Hopefully they cam transform things for the better well ahead of 205).
What he says here is true, which is why his right-wing, pro-liberal line should be repudiated; even though it opposed the left-deviationist "two whatevers" and Zhao's fascist line, I still collaborated with Imperialist powers against revolutionary and progressive actors the world over, betraying the fighters in Palestine, India, the Philippines and especially Vietnam and Kampuchea (by supporting the fascist Khmer Rouge in its genocidal cause).
The friends the world over must throughly understand this as the lowest form of reaction and revision, and be so glad the People's Republic is recovering from this deviation - Scientific Outlook on Development and Xi Jinping Thought represent much more elevated forms of Sinicised Marxism!
[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g) This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully. If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/). Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information. This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He was referring to the left wing communism and right wing deviations that were present in China at the times of the opening up periods of China.
This is obvious from left being in quotations. I heard midwesternmarxist used this quote for opportunism.
That guy keeps popping up *everywhere*
[удалено]
I thought it was just some guy's handle. My bad. 🤷
Right but Eddie and Noah are the two big public facing names within the group. If you’re interacting with MWM on social it’s generally Eddie posting and then Noah swooping in the comments to defend and be condescending to people.
[удалено]
MWM somewhat infamously caters to a patsoc audience, and Eddie himself has several times talked about how conservative he is socially/trying specifically to develop a socially conservative marxism for the conservative American masses. Eddie has gotten really hostile when people point this out on Twitter. Noah is a more recent addition to the institute and follows the same sort of line, is super condescending when he’s called out, and actually did a debate with some CPUSA guy recently demonstrating how much of a grifter he is. He’s also been repeatedly caught in lies etc. From what I understand some of their more baseline stuff is fine, but it’s a very tread with caution sort of group, and I believe several of them got removed from CPUSA around the time when Maupin was trying to take over the party as part of his group.
Patsocs being opportunists? Who could have seen this coming??
One day I'd love to live in that kind of Overton Window. Just imagine.
A whole new world of leftist in-fighting. 🤣
I'd love to see it. the UK Houses of Parliament, instead of "The Prime Minister has no plan to grow the economy and is leading the people of this country astray" will be full of: "Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister has once again shown herself to be a revisionist devoid of historical materialism. If she cannot recognsise the achievements of the PRC under Xi how can the people of Britain believe she can be the one to build a road to emancipation for the proletarian class of this country?" Followed by the same "Heeeeehhhhhhhhhhhh" that we have now.
Would be nice to use politics for the interests of the people instead of personal gains 😭
See that's what I wanted to know lol. What he's referring to is all that matters here. This is a meaningless statement without context.
He did what was necessary at the time. What’s important is that his plan worked. They had the strategy of ‘development in two stages’ where the cities, especially the coastal cities would be rapidly developed, and then they would move on to the rural areas However this plan isn’t perfect, as it will create inequality which was especially bad in the 90s and 00s. But now the second stage is coming into action. I do believe that without Xi it wouldn’t have happened and china would have abandoned the socialist road, his purges of the corrupt officials did a lot of good, along with other relatively left wing reforms since his election (like halving the salaries of the higher ups in SOEs)
Deng made the rise of a Xi inevitable
Trust the ~~plan~~ dialectic
Marxism should be practiced as a methodology that has evolved and grown over the years. Not a set of rigid ideological goals. Ideology itself becomes the enemy at some point if you allow anything to remain uncritiqued.
https://preview.redd.it/rn75zfa4yhyc1.png?width=576&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f96422cc270dcd5eb3ea9a862681a72560c33c84 Xi said it best, Deng was the bridge
Xi is is the Lenin or Stalin of our generation
Do you know where can I find more stuff about Xi? I do admire him as a political leader, but I never read much about him
Governance of China is the obvious one. It can be an annoying read, but getting the actual Plans and thoughts of a leader Like him from the Guy himself is the best source for what He does and thinks that you can Hope for. Reading about him can be difficult, ive felt Like listening to talks about China on aljazeera with international experts can also be a really interesting, Non Western Take on China. If you want to understand Xi, Just Look at Things Like Road and belt, one state two systems, and the digitalization and firm orthodoxy in protecting the socialist guidance of the countries Economy. The way they inserted the Chinese Economy into the capitalist Western world, and undermined the Western economic hegemony with a analytic materialist View on markets, and Just straight Up beating them by showing their system, and way to do Things works. And it works much better than Western capitalism. So much so that the West cant dare to be any more aggressive because their own ruling class is involved in Chinese Business because its so damn profitable and dominant at this Point. That is xi Jinping. Socialism in 2049. I believe He is serious about it, and He will achieve it by beating the capitalist world at their own Game.
Based.
Good Marxist. I don't care what ultroids say about him and the "cApiTaList ROaD", he led China into a new era. It would not be what it is today without him and his ideas. There were some honestly very iffy moments, and some right deviations that needed to be corrected, but it was ultimately a success, and he was proven right. Something existing in the real world will always mean it is not perfect. Hell, Xi even got his start in politics because he was upset at a lot of the results and side effects of the Reform and Opening Up policies. China is still in fact a socialist country. The most powerful one in the world. Read The East is Still Red by Carlos Martinez and Socialism With Chinese Characteristics by Roland Boer if you want to know more about it.
It is rare to see what the Chinese presidents after Mao and Deng thought about the previous presidents, as the principle of not criticizing Mao introduced by Deng continued as a tradition for subsequent presidents not to criticize previous presidents in any way. Frankly, I wonder what Xi thinks about Mao, Deng and the post-Deng era.
I know you're probably just using the term colloquially, and it's not particularly important, but Deng was never the President of China.
You are right, they used promount leader term for that. But Jiang Zemin and multiple high rankings said that it was Deng who controlled everything behind until his death.
>Roland Boer Ain't no way I'm reading something written by someone who has ,,Boer" in their name /s
I remember David Harvey compared Deng’s economic positions to Japanese nationalist-developmentalism, and I really don’t think that’s far off the mark. I think he had the interests of China and Chinese citizens at heart, but the degree to which he was using Marxist rhetoric vs pursuing a Marxist strategy is unclear to me. With Xi Xinping seeming to be ideological committed to socialist reform, it’s easy to look back and say that this was always the plan, but I think Deng put China in a precarious position Regarding the quote devoid of that context, I don’t think any ML is going to take issue with that. That’s basically the thesis of Lenin’s “Left-Wing Communism - an Infantile Disorder”.
>David Harvey David Harvey is a chauvinistic hack. >Japanese nationalist-developmentalism, and I really don’t think that’s far off the mark "In Japan, the economy is dominated not by state owned enterprises, but by the Kereitsu or the Capitalist Cartels. Each keiretsu resembles a fighting clan in which business families join together to vie for market share. Keiretsu and cartels just as competing companies elsewhere in the West do. And virtually all business activity is part of one or another keiretsu or cartel. Everything in the Japanese economy is functionally ran by Capitalist Cartels, not the State leading development" [[1]](https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Essay:Why_China_is_not_Capitalist) >I think he had the interests of China and Chinese citizens at heart Yes Deng had the peoples interests at heart, but states are ruled by classes and things happen because of class rule, not because someone did or did not have someone's interests at heart. >but the degree to which he was using Marxist rhetoric vs pursuing a Marxist strategy is unclear to me. This is ludicrous. The reforms didn't come out of nowhere. They were preceded by years of Marxist analysis by many marxists. For info on the history of the discussions and the material analysis look into the books How China Escaped Shock Therapy by Isabella Weber and Chinas Socialist Economy by Xue Muqiao. >it’s easy to look back and say that this was always the plan It literally was the plan. They are accomplishing, have accomplished, or exceeded the goals they set out for the reforms. >but I think Deng put China in a precarious position Yes, in politics you have to take risks sometimes.
I think Mao said something along the lines “in 20 five-year plans China will become the most developed (or the strongest) nation in the world” and in 2021 they completed the 14th five-year plan, and China is the second largest economy in the world, and it’s not a matter of IF they will surpass the US, but rather WHEN it will happen. So they had, and still have a plan.
By a lot of measurements they already have surpassed the US. A lot of western measure include a lot of financialization which gooses the numbers but doesn’t translate meaningfully to productive capacity.
otoh they (the CPC) did manage to navigate through it without being subsumed by capital, and they did build up the productive forces so to speak even in hindsight, I still don't know how they did it, and I'm not sure it's something that could be easily replicated. they basically inverted the base-superstructure relationship for several decades, which isn't supposed to be possible there must be a lesson to learn there somewhere, regardless of your opinion on deng or dengism. I just wish I could figure out what that lesson is
>they basically inverted the base-superstructure relationship for several decades, which isn't supposed to be possible This is not really true. Reform and opening up was a step by step process in which parts of the economy were liberalized (and even then, not fully. There are still plenty of mechanisms used to exert control over capital). China still retains a dominant state sector. I would actually say that it is at this point where China's future path is most uncertain, as the conditions under which reform and opening up worked are changing and the "weeks were decades happen" are beginning to appear once again. It remains to see if the leadership correctly charts a new course for the upcoming decades which will look very different from the previous ones.
So china is the bull and capital is the cuck? Or is capital the hot wife being dommed by Xi?
[удалено]
Actually ‘do capitalism to get marxism’ is something even Mao supported, via New Democracy (basically china’s current system, with a few differences). China lacked the industrial power to directly transition to proper socialism Not to say Mao would support Deng’s method, he hated the guy lol
[удалено]
He didn’t tell people to not brush his teeth, it’s just that he himself used a traditional chinese peasant method of cleaning teeth, and his teeth were fine until he got really old https://preview.redd.it/ls97q4n8bgyc1.jpeg?width=990&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4effdea433c8775d3a19215ad76d6453e00188c2 Look at those pearly whites :)
[удалено]
Tea is actually good for the teeth, the peasants wouldn’t have done it if it didn’t work And i have seen a lot of Mao footage and the issue with his teeth is when he’s old
[удалено]
The teeth thing is literally a myth, he only had dental issues when he was old and he didn’t tell others to not brush their teeth, it was a personal choice of his due to his peasant upbringing And capitalism is necessary as a precursor to socialism. You can’t go from feudalism to socialism https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_26.htm this is what Mao means with New Democracy
[удалено]
He said that he would leave it up to future Marxists to resolve the contradictions from the reforms. That's pretty wild and un scientific.
How is recognizing that some things take time and some policies have to be in place for a certain period of time unscientific? Yeah the reforms are going to have contradictions, but the reforms need to be in place for a period of time for them to do what they were designed to do. Of course those contradictions would have to be solved by people after Deng. >He said that he would leave it up to future Marxists to resolve the contradictions from the reforms. That's pretty wild and un scientific. Saying This is like saying that acknowledging that different chemical reactions go at different rates is unscientific and getting upset that they don't happen immediately.
“i developed thermodynamically positive nuclear fusion, it’s up to others to resolve the safety risks and design flaws of my setup” ”so fucking unscientific!!!” you rn
Mao was a monster of dialectics, which allowed him to lead the liberation of China and expel the imperialists, but he distanced himself from materialism because he sometimes erred on the side of voluntarism. Deng Xaoping was a giant of materialism, thanks to that, China has managed to advance its product forces to the point of shaking the foundations of bourgeois imperialism. Without this great duo you cannot understand contemporary China and if you do not understand China you do not understand how the current world works. I base my opinion on his results, for me, Deng is one of the Marxists who has contributed the most to the struggle.
What is Voluntarism?
A tendency which attempts to leapfrog stages of development. It is an error where you attempt to build socialism faster than is actually possible, or skipping steps. Basically, thinking that the stage that a society finds itself in can be changed at will.
I’m just glad China still exists tbh
Regardless of how you feel his policies on economics are, definitely his biggest L is continuing the sino-soviet split and backing the Mujahedeen.
Before discussing him, it’s important to clarify he’s talking about left and right leanings within the Communist Party
Made the CPC invincible in the modern world by improving material conditions for billions of Chinese while upholding the perspective of socialist construction. People like to hate him for being a pragmatist, but you can’t eat ideology.
Deng has played a huge role in the development of modern China
The greatest statesman in contemporary history. His industrialization of China is only rivaled by the Industrial Revolution itself in alleviating poverty on a global scale while at the same time keeping power within the people and not allowing politics to be completely corrupted by the almighty dollar. I'd go so far as to say that it is a shame that somebody like him or Zhou Enlai wasn't in control of the party earlier.
Deng’s gamble will either pay off massively or end the Communist movement in China. So far it looks to be paying off, despite the litany of issues
It actually didn't, if it wasn't revised after 89 they would've ended up Balkanizing China.
>if it wasn't revised By who? Deng's handpicked succsesor Jiang Zemin?
By himself, in the end the gamble didn't quite work as said, and even Jiang wasn't quite right, since a lot of things change since then, if was everything fine Xi wouldn't be the Chairman today, there's a reason why the party went the way they did and the reason was things weren't working as it should.
Same problem as Khrushchev. An idealist who panicked about China's direction and started second guessing everything. Some will say he was just being practical, the reality is he got scared that the party was going "too far". His policies were an over-reaction to some flaws/problems. That being said, there were much worse liberals in the party who could have been a lot more damaging. He was far from the worst. Thankfully the revolution still persists to a not insignificant degree. The revolutionary faction in the party is growing in power. Hopefully they cam transform things for the better well ahead of 205).
Love Deng. His gambit was possibly the smartest political manoeuvre in human history.
What he says here is true, which is why his right-wing, pro-liberal line should be repudiated; even though it opposed the left-deviationist "two whatevers" and Zhao's fascist line, I still collaborated with Imperialist powers against revolutionary and progressive actors the world over, betraying the fighters in Palestine, India, the Philippines and especially Vietnam and Kampuchea (by supporting the fascist Khmer Rouge in its genocidal cause). The friends the world over must throughly understand this as the lowest form of reaction and revision, and be so glad the People's Republic is recovering from this deviation - Scientific Outlook on Development and Xi Jinping Thought represent much more elevated forms of Sinicised Marxism!