[panick21_]

He can say whatever he likes, but in reality, what he did is literally throw in the garbage the complete intellectual baggage of the European socialist/communist movement and basically copied what Western allied South East Asian nations were already doing.

If it makes him feel good not to call that 'capitalism' then that's fine. I guess it wouldn't have played well with the base back then.

But in reality and operations, its is how capitalism has worked in practice.

[ever1337]

The state that one-sidedly 'threw away' the baggage of communism was the USSR, and we all know how that went. Any China scholar could tell you that China was already implementing market reforms before Deng, and that their controlled transition, managed by a strong party-state, is the grounds for their success. China is still a country operated on the basis of five-year plans. China is still a country governed by a Communist party adhering to democratic centralism. China is still a country where the state owns all land. China is still a country where capital is not allowed to usurp the public interest. And the judge of that is not any logical syllogism of 'definitions' of capitalism or socialism that exist in your head but do not premise the actual world. It is outcomes, observations of material reality. In this, the reforms of Deng and the continued path of Xi are simply the highest synthesis of communism, in the Chinese context. They are the most faithful to Marxism, which has never preached any kind of static dogma, especially as it relates to economic policy.

[panick21_]

> The state that one-sidedly 'threw away' the baggage of communism was the USSR, and we all know how that went.

That's not actually what happened, you should look up some history.

The USSR didn't throw away, communism, the member states just simply left.

And many of those states were then free of the communist party actually did quite well. Russia didn't, Ukraine didn't, but that's the reality when a country splits apart, some parts do well others don't.

> Any China scholar could tell you that China was already implementing market reforms before Deng

Part of it wasn't even voluntary on the party front, they simply accepted what was already happening instead of reversing it again.

> China is still a country operated on the basis of five-year plans.

hose plans are mostly projects of what they hope they can encourage private business to do and some public investment. Guess what many countries do, planning and public investment.

Lots of things they plan don't happen, lots of things that happen aren't planned. The planning is constantly adjust to what actually happens in the economy, including the global context.

> China is still a country where the state owns all land.

Legally maybe, but if you hand out control for 100 years the relevance of that isn't all that great. And that land can be freely traded between people. So in practical terms it works far more like private land ownership then anything the socialist thinkers of the late 19 and early 20th century.

> China is still a country where capital is not allowed to usurp the public interest.

That is just factually false, large companies in China regularly do things that hurt public interest. Unless you mean 'interest of the party leadership' and even then its only mostly true.

> In this, the reforms of Deng and the continued path of Xi are simply the highest synthesis of communism

Lol, they literally copied other East Asian economic models almost 1 to 1. They are just a log bigger and have more people. But I guess copying other successful clearly capitalist countries can be resold as 'highest synthesis of communism' to people who have irrational hate for capitalism.

And China economic growth or wealth isn't all that magically, its simply that China is much bigger then most others who have done it.

> They are the most faithful to Marxism, which has never preached any kind of static dogma, especially as it relates to economic policy.

I love Marxism, since he didn't actually define any outcome beyond maybe 'stateless and moneyless' you can just make up whatever the fuck you want as long as you are claiming to 'get there'. And China doesn't seem to go into a stateless moneyless direction.

Marx's "Historical materialism" is wrong for Western Europe and laudably false for China.

His critic of capitalism seems to be mostly ignored in China. As is his theory of class struggle as in China there is an ever growing Bourgeoisie.

But I guess copying what Taiwan and friends did and calling it 'Marxism' is one way to go.