• Gucci_Minh [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    deng-cowboy

    Its insane how much our favourite capitalist roader was vindicated holy shit. All that’s left is to press the communism button.

    • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’m not sure I would call him vindicated. He definitely bought into some of the free market economics of the 1980s which could have ended really badly. Reform and opening up only really succeeded because the Chinese government was willing to slow the pace of reform when Deng was pushing them to move faster. He also had China invade Vietnam which was a huge L.

      • Gucci_Minh [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        True, the Sino Vietnamese war was an L, as expected of post Sino Soviet split Chinese foreign policy. And yeah I had the same concerns over liberalizing too fast, esp in the Jiang and Hu era, but it seems like that’s been reigned in too. Trust the process I guess.

        • commiespammer@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          I might be biased, but didn’t Vietnam repeatedly raid the border with USSR support before China invaded, and withdrew within a few days after taking several cities?

          • Gucci_Minh [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            That is correct, there were border raids which prompted the invasion, but the Sino Soviet split is what caused the worsening relations which led to that. Basically, the invasion was cringe, even if there was some justification for it, but what was more cringe was the repudiation of Stalin and the revisionism in the USSR that followed by corn boy.

            • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              Idk I think the Sino Soviet split was pretty disastrous and is partially to blame for the fall of the USSR. Even if Khrushchev was wrong to denounce Stalin, there were reasons why Soviet leadership was trying to lower tensions with the west. It’s also not like allying with Nixon and Pol Pot was genuinely a better move geopolitically.

          • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            As far as I’m aware there were border skirmishes prior to China’s invasion. However, there was a context for that. The Sino-Soviet split led to China becoming very suspicious of Vietnam’s motives since they maintained good relations with the USSR. As such, China supported the Khmer Rouge in order to gain influence in the region.

            I don’t have to explain why that was a huge mistake. However for context, Vietnam was forced to invade Cambodia after the Khmer Rouge crossed the border and massacred thousands of Vietnamese civilians. As a consequence Chinese leadership basically believed they had been encircled by the USSR and its allies. IIRC there was a troop buildup at the border as China tried to incite rebellion from ethnic minorities including ethnic Chinese within Vietnam. This is the context for the border skirmishes and the eventual invasion.

            • USSR Enjoyer@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              For a little more context: The rise of the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot was basically triggered by the US carpet bombing Cambodia. After the US military got thrown the fuck out of Viet Nam, the direct invasion may have ended, but the CIA decided to double down and keep the war going through regional proxy forces, namely the Khmer Rouge, which the CIA was arming, funding and providing military intelligence to. The Khmer Rouge butchered a lot of civilians, but failed pathetically at invading Viet Nam and repelling counterforces. Border regions of Cambodia spent a decade under NVA occupation as a result, while the CIA and KR ran operations out of N. Cambodia and Thailand.

              The CIA also kept stirring up fear and conflict with Viet Nam’s other neighbors, which is where that narrative of “The NVA and USSR won’t stop at the border” came from. My understanding is that the CIA was directly in contact with and trying to convince the PRC that Pol Pot was the real communist revolutionary and needed help, and that the Soviets were using a puppet regime to encircle China. Ofc it was just projection and domino theory bullshit. Deng and the entire PRC should have fucking known better.

        • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Well this is why I think Deng was right to ensure the CPC maintained leadership within the PRC rather than pursue political liberalization alongside economic liberalization. The CPC may not be perfect. However, I do believe their structures allow them to course correct as needed and advance capable members into leadership.

          That’s why I think they were even able to pull back when Deng’s reforms went to far. It’s also why I think they’ve been able to address corruption and uneven development under Xi.

      • StalinIsMaiWaifu@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Short version: he opened china to investment from western capital. The plan was to use western capital to fund the construction of factories with the condition of technology sharing. Gambit was capitalism would willing sell all of its advantages in order to gain profit. The risk being that capitalists would have sway in China (and leftists constantly purity testing China).

          • Gucci_Minh [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Yeah that, and to expand a little, he was often derided by hardliners for being a sellout, and the plan to develop productive forces in China had some close calls from a full capitalist restoration. It seems to have worked out so far however, since the PRC was originally an impoverished pariah state, and now it is more advanced in many respects than the west. The work that needs to be done now is to take the productive forces that the capitalists gleefully supplied in exchange for cheap labour and turn it towards domestic production and consumption.