this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2026
49 points (100.0% liked)
GenZedong
5076 readers
96 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
See this GitHub page for a collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
honest opinion on dengism?
People who use the term “Dengist” are talking about us, when they’re not using the term “tankie,” anyway.
“Dengism” is a label invented by people who haven’t seriously read Deng, followed his speeches, or studied China and the continuity from Chairman Mao to President Xi. It tends to be used as a shortcut(thought terminating cliche) to avoid analysis and declare modern China “revisionist” or "capitalist" without actually grappling with material conditions, historical context or any real analysis.
After 1978, China was coming out of extreme underdevelopment, technological backwardness, and political upheaval. The productive forces were weak. The strategic judgment was thus comparatively straightforward. You cannot build socialism on generalized poverty. Socialism is not a poverty cult. Market mechanisms were introduced as tools under tight Party control to accelerate development. The state retained the commanding heights( land, finance, infrastructure, heavy industry) and long-term planning never disappeared (China is now in its 15th Five-Year Plan). The class character of the state did not and has not flipped.
People often mistake the presence of private capital or foreign investment for restoration. That only makes sense if the state itself becomes subordinated to capital. That very clearly hasn’t happened. The Party still directs development, owns or controls key sectors, sets national priorities, and intervenes when capital conflicts with the interests of the people and country. Real contradictions have emerged since reform and opening up (inequality, corruption, uneven growth) but these are treated as problems to be resolved, not permanent immutable features.
You can see that clearly in the current Xi era: tighter Party discipline, poverty eradication, strengthened SOEs, regulation of tech and finance, and renewed emphasis on “common prosperity.” This is built on the foundation laid by Deng Xiaoping thought, but it also responds to the contradictions it created (as well as the excesses under Jiang which were then allowed fester under Hu but that's a whole thing unto itself).
It’s also worth noting something you may or may not know. It’s Mao Zedong Thought and Xi Jinping Thought, but Deng Xiaoping Theory. Thought is used for foundational syntheses that represent a qualitative development in adapting Marxism to Chinese conditions. Mao’s contribution was revolutionary strategy and the initial construction of socialism in a semi-colonial, agrarian society. Xi’s formulation reflects a new synthesis around Party centrality, national rejuvenation, ecological constraints, and managing capital in a far more complex global environment.
Deng’s contribution is called Theory because it was strategic and developmental within an established framework. He did not found a new ideological line compared to Mao. He was addressing a concrete historical problem: how to develop the productive forces in the primary stage of socialism without surrendering political control. Reform and opening up was defined as methods, not as ends in themselves.
So when people talk about “Dengism” as if it were an ideology of its own it's really only a sign of them being uneducated in the history and happenings of the Chinese revolution and socialist project.
Quick question; when it comes to building a party, forming a fledgling state, etc does China have corrections or revision on Mao thought or new publications on it? Or do they just refer you to Mao's work?
The short answer is the CPC don’t treat Chairman Mao’s work as scripture, but they also don’t treat it as obsolete. It’s systematized, developed, and interpreted within later Party documents rather than “corrected” in the sense of being discarded. Chairman Mao's writings remain foundational. Cadre education still assigns his major works on party building, mass line, protracted struggle, and contradiction. But the Party does not rely on raw historical texts alone when addressing contemporary state-building.
See also Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party since the Founding of the People's Republic of China and the 70/30 line on Chairman Mao.
Thank you!
What do you mean by the term? Clarifying that helps a lot, most of us don't consider "Dengism" to be an ideology in itself.
The thing he did like opening up china for foreign capital, existence of billionaires, etc
China wouldn’t have made it this far without “opening up,” the purpose of which was to accelerate the development of the productive forces by importing capital, technology, and knowledge from advanced capitalist states.
The capitalist states didn’t realize this at the time, though. They thought China’s “opening up” was the “liberalization” of China, as happened to the USSR. China punked them. The West de-industrialized itself for “cheap” labor, and now China holds the cards.
https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/ not trying to be adversarial! but this is a useful writeup about china i refer a lot of people to a lot of the time about topics like this, if it's being brought up to argue a potential betrayal of socialism. in fact, whenever i see that phrase i perk up like a sleeper agent
Analyzed metaphysically, ie stripping it of the context for why this happened, can make it seem pretty bad. But when viewed dialectically, ie placing it in its correct moment in time and as a response to China's gross underdevelopment, it has paid off enormously. New contradictions arose, of course, but with it socialism has been maintained and we are now witnessing the era of imperialist decay and rising socialism.
I highly recommend this conversation I had with another user, one opposed to "Dengism" (initially, perhaps not by the end). Both of us flesh out our points and speak from a place of trying to understand one another, which was quite productive compared to liberal debate-as-bloodsport.
Deng was cool. I don't think he has an "ism" though because all he did was apply the lessons of the Marxists that came before him to the material conditions he and China found themselves in. Deng didn't develop theory he put it into practice.
As in the reform and opening up policy? Or is there some strain of ideology worshiping Deng specifically?
yeah those policies in general