news

not a very comrade-ly comment at the top but we can let it slide

your reference to the supposed benefits of the opening up period to the average individual in china are references to bourgeoisie statistics and various propaganda outlets.
the truth is murkier and less clear as to what exactly took place. but your confidence in speaking for the 100's of milliions of hokuo workers as well as workers in africa who supply the raw materials at poverty wages is notable. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13563467.2023.2217087

what you are referencing in the final comment was known as war communism and would be another thing entirely. the NEP was due to the backwards state of rural russia after the civil war. The decision to collectivize afterwards was the topic of intense debate in the 20's but by the 30's stalin and trotsky and others all agreed that collectivization was the way forward. Modern chinese analysis on the maoist period likes to associate it with "war communism" but such analysis does not stand up to actual analysis on the breakthroughs and advancements that were made during that period.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1929/12/27.htm

again please read these sources I am sending, I fear we will not be speaking on the same page otherwise.

capitalism is not the only system that can industrialize. the soviet union and maoist china are critical examples of this. the most basic postulate of socialism is that it is superior system of productive relations. that was the core of the NEP, enabling these systems to battle it out, and the less productive one lost. And at the same time the party could strengthen its grasp on power. Nothing of the sort is happening in china today, and the reverse happened to agriculture and industry during the opening up period. Again please read the plenum I sent earlier from 2024 and grasp what china is saying nowadays and how they are continuing to prioritize the market and privately owned enterprises. They are not retreating and consolidating their forces, they have no plans to change the current system. The recent BRICS meeting further reinforces this point given the nature of their speeches there and overall contentedness with the state of the world.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1928/11/19.htm

regarding your question about capitalist encirclement, fortunately stalin has once again anticipated this.
two presumptions about the need for rapid industrialization

1. speedy industrialization is not ideal but somehow necessary because of extreme conditions

2. Fascism is extreme and requires extreme action are both veils for revisionism. Both are used both by you and the chinese writers here to justify chinas path as a return to the NEP. First point, socialism is superior and concessions to kulaks are only necessary when socialism is weak. Please review the chinese TVE system and explain why it was destroyed to justify dengism. Rapid industrialization and collectivization are good should be implemented. decollectivization must be justified on its own terms and china has failed to do so(because the implicit reason of opening a reserve army of labor to keep wages down in china is kind of not really socialist of them). Secondly, if fascism is extraordinary, then was , the lack of fascism after the second world war an indicator that peaceful coexistence was not only justified but good for development (or worse, that the social fascist USSR necessitates cooperation with the bourgeois democratic USA)? Taken to an extreme, differentiating between the forces of bourgeois democracy and fascism within bourgeois politics would become the main task of non-revolutionary times, https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1927/12/02.htm additional reading here

and to put a final cap on it and raise a few questions https://www.marxists.org/subject/china/documents/polemic/peaceful.htm https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sino-soviet-split/cpsu/openletter.htm should provide two points on encirclement and peaceful coexistence that should be useful to anyone further defining their thoughts on the matter. When is peaceful coexistence possible? what are the limits? what defines the line between rightism ultraleftism and the correct line? I will leave this for people reading this comment to chew on, but its non trivial.

It is worth mentioning at this point, that technically the NEP was barely considered by the architects of the chinese opening up periods. much more considered were singapores opening up, eastern europe's reform period, and others. the post-hoc justification with the NEP is another propaganda tool. http://sg.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/jbwzlm/xwdt/200711/t20071129_2016862.htm

Again happy to speak further but I am requesting you spend a little more time reading these documents, defending dengism in circuitous ways is not a productive use of our time here.

https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii130/articles/joel-andreas-paths-not-taken "Weber argues, in response to popular anger at growing corruption among party officials, profiting from their role as gatekeepers in a semi-marketized system. Liberalizers argued that all-out privatization would do away with profiteering bureaucrats altogether. In 1988, Deng himself took up the banner of radical price reform, and this time central authorities actually took the first steps. The August 1988 Politburo meeting at Beidaihe announced the liberalization of all prices. The immediate result was runaway inflation—soaring from 12 per cent in July 1988 to 28 per cent in April 1989—exacerbated by panic buying and bank runs. Within weeks, the pragmatic Deng backed away. Chen Yun was called in to reverse the liberalization and impose stabilized prices on key goods. China had escaped full-blown shock therapy by a whisker, Weber argues, yet Deng’s aborted 1988 price-reform push came at a high price: its destabilizing effects helped to catalyse the political crisis that culminated in the massacre of June Fourth. "

and chapter 8 of escaping shock therapy might be of interest to you in the realm of dengism