“Dengism” isn’t even a thing, Deng Xiaoping Theory is just Marxism-Leninism applied to the conditions of the PRC at the time he was in power. Not every socialist leader needs an “ism” attached to their name, that’s usually reserved for major, universal updates on Marxism (be they valid or contested).
i mean, its pretty normal to add an ism to describe the thoughts/ideals of someone or group without going for an long specific name, it doesnt have to be reseved only for big updates on a science or belief and its not only used for marxists/socialists
Fair enough, but that’s not how OP seems to be using it. OP seems to be using it the same way anti-communists call Marxism-Leninism “Stalinism,” to evoke removal from genuine Marxism. I largely agree with this essay on the subject.
Dengism is when Deng does stuff, and the more stuff Deng does the more Dengism it is, and if he does a whole lot of stuff thats revisionism or something
Considering the competition between the left and right wings of the CPC historically, it seems like a good thing to have names for each of them rather than letting one camouflage as merely being an indifferent application of Marxism-Leninism, because it question-begs their legitimacy.
“Mao Zedong Thought,” “Deng Xiaoping Theory,” “Xi Jinping Thought,” etc. already exist. Are you saying more terms are necessary? Genuinely curious, I’m not opposed to your point.
We have a historical division in the terms “Maoism” and “Mao Zedong Thought,” but no such division exists for “DXT” and “Dengism” except that Dengism tends to be more derisive. I think overcorrecting people using the latter term is silly when it’s more succinct than the official terminology and communicates basically the same thing. You’ll see elsewhere in this thread our respected comrade Alaskaball refers to themselves as a “Stalinist” because it’s just the easy shorthand, not because they agree with the idea pushed by Trots of “Stalinism” as a novel ideology totally alien to Lenin. I recognize that it was also half-jokingly, but that makes it half-serious as well.
Alaskaball refers to themselves as a “Stalinist” because it’s just the easy shorthand
It’s more of a sectarianism play because every “stalinist” refers to themselves as either communist, marxist, leninist, marxist-leninist, so forth as a political claim on being the orthodox catholic position with all other tendencies being protestant splinters, with said splinters calling the Communists “Stalinists” as a means of squabbling for political legitimacy of being the default representation of what communist and communism is.
Ergo why maoists are called maoists even though they baselessly claim they’re the most successful, advanced, and contemporary marxist ideology, why trots are trots, hoxiaists hoxiaists, etc.
It’s basically wordplay power-dynamics and I’m being a catty bitch anytime I facetiously call myself a Stalinist whenever the prevailing topic of the post relates to some sort of marxist ideology
Fair enough, I still think “There’s no such thing as Dengism” is still just not a constructive conversation approach for reasons suggested by your reply, and “Stalinism” still has more coherent reference in your usage than a liberal sarcastically calling themselves a communist for being left of Hitler (on domestic issues), because you still (rightly) endorse many positions promoted by Stalin in a historical debate with Trots and others, while the liberal bears much less in common with a communist.
Deng Xiaoping Theory is not recognized as as major of an advancement as Mao Zedong Thought or Xi Jinping Thought. Theory comes second to Thought, the CPC upholds both Mao’s and Deng’s contributions while recognizing ultimately Mao’s advancements were more significant overall, and that Xi Jinping’s own advancements and upholding of both Mao and Deng are the only sets of policy positions and ideological thinking to earn the title of “Thought” after Mao.
Alaskaball already clarified “Stalinism,” which I see as similar to self-identification as a “tankie.” Self-identifying Stalinists are usually doing so as a play on those who try to slander Marxism-Leninism as more Stalin than Marx and Lenin. I see “Dengism” largely as the same way, the only ones calling themselves “Dengists” are generally taking something levied as an insult and owning it, not as an actual political line.
I largely agree with this essay on the concept of “Dengism” vs Deng Xiaoping Theory.
Then let me retreat back to my initial point, which is that it is question-begging, and exactly part of the rhetorical angle of “DXT” that it basically does not exist and it’s all just Chinese Marxist-Leninism with some contributions from our favorite cadaver Mao and the groundbreaking theory of Xi, which was that we must uphold DXT and also that environmentalism is cool. Seriously, I find Xi much more respectable than Deng, but the idea that he iterated more on state ideology than Deng did is just silly. Deng championed at risk to his own life his own nominal socialism for decades until it finally overtook Mao at the latter’s pitiful concession, but by casting out so much of what Mao did as deviationism, and just being “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics,” is such a flagrant sleight-of-hand that it’s more like swallowing the ball in a game of three card monte and then asking the contestant to pick which cup it’s under. As I said, it’s a smokescreen.
I can’t say I agree with your final assessment, but returning to the base of the question, I don’t really consider “Dengism” to be a thing just like I don’t consider “Stalinism” to be a thing. I suppose I will concede that they can be used when specifically talking about Deng’s policies in his era, and questions like Socialism in One Country for Stalin, but that “Dengists” do not exist as people who put Deng as a major, universalized advancement on Marxism-Leninism.
“Dengists” do not exist as people who put Deng as a major, universalized advancement on Marxism-Leninism.
Of course they do not, and that’s exactly my point. I thought I was repeating myself too much, but then you talk past me like this and I question what I could possibly to do make my thesis more understandable. I don’t say Dengist because I think the people to whom I would apply that label would also self-identify that way, and I don’t define Dengism in terms that those people would like, because they and I disagree about Marxism and especially about the historical reality of the ideological trends that led to our respective positions.
I don’t like Dengism in principle, but it worked so I have to adjust my principles to account for praxis challenging theory
“Dengism” isn’t even a thing, Deng Xiaoping Theory is just Marxism-Leninism applied to the conditions of the PRC at the time he was in power. Not every socialist leader needs an “ism” attached to their name, that’s usually reserved for major, universal updates on Marxism (be they valid or contested).
i mean, its pretty normal to add an ism to describe the thoughts/ideals of someone or group without going for an long specific name, it doesnt have to be reseved only for big updates on a science or belief and its not only used for marxists/socialists
Fair enough, but that’s not how OP seems to be using it. OP seems to be using it the same way anti-communists call Marxism-Leninism “Stalinism,” to evoke removal from genuine Marxism. I largely agree with this essay on the subject.
Dengism is when Deng does stuff, and the more stuff Deng does the more Dengism it is, and if he does a whole lot of stuff thats revisionism or something
Deng was on the cusp of fully implementing Dengism until he accidentally implemented cringe and became old
Considering the competition between the left and right wings of the CPC historically, it seems like a good thing to have names for each of them rather than letting one camouflage as merely being an indifferent application of Marxism-Leninism, because it question-begs their legitimacy.
“Mao Zedong Thought,” “Deng Xiaoping Theory,” “Xi Jinping Thought,” etc. already exist. Are you saying more terms are necessary? Genuinely curious, I’m not opposed to your point.
We have a historical division in the terms “Maoism” and “Mao Zedong Thought,” but no such division exists for “DXT” and “Dengism” except that Dengism tends to be more derisive. I think overcorrecting people using the latter term is silly when it’s more succinct than the official terminology and communicates basically the same thing. You’ll see elsewhere in this thread our respected comrade Alaskaball refers to themselves as a “Stalinist” because it’s just the easy shorthand, not because they agree with the idea pushed by Trots of “Stalinism” as a novel ideology totally alien to Lenin. I recognize that it was also half-jokingly, but that makes it half-serious as well.
It’s more of a sectarianism play because every “stalinist” refers to themselves as either communist, marxist, leninist, marxist-leninist, so forth as a political claim on being the orthodox catholic position with all other tendencies being protestant splinters, with said splinters calling the Communists “Stalinists” as a means of squabbling for political legitimacy of being the default representation of what communist and communism is.
Ergo why maoists are called maoists even though they baselessly claim they’re the most successful, advanced, and contemporary marxist ideology, why trots are trots, hoxiaists hoxiaists, etc.
It’s basically wordplay power-dynamics and I’m being a catty bitch anytime I facetiously call myself a Stalinist whenever the prevailing topic of the post relates to some sort of marxist ideology
Fair enough, I still think “There’s no such thing as Dengism” is still just not a constructive conversation approach for reasons suggested by your reply, and “Stalinism” still has more coherent reference in your usage than a liberal sarcastically calling themselves a communist for being left of Hitler (on domestic issues), because you still (rightly) endorse many positions promoted by Stalin in a historical debate with Trots and others, while the liberal bears much less in common with a communist.
It’s a whole field of academic study ultimately.
Deng Xiaoping Theory is not recognized as as major of an advancement as Mao Zedong Thought or Xi Jinping Thought. Theory comes second to Thought, the CPC upholds both Mao’s and Deng’s contributions while recognizing ultimately Mao’s advancements were more significant overall, and that Xi Jinping’s own advancements and upholding of both Mao and Deng are the only sets of policy positions and ideological thinking to earn the title of “Thought” after Mao.
Alaskaball already clarified “Stalinism,” which I see as similar to self-identification as a “tankie.” Self-identifying Stalinists are usually doing so as a play on those who try to slander Marxism-Leninism as more Stalin than Marx and Lenin. I see “Dengism” largely as the same way, the only ones calling themselves “Dengists” are generally taking something levied as an insult and owning it, not as an actual political line.
I largely agree with this essay on the concept of “Dengism” vs Deng Xiaoping Theory.
Then let me retreat back to my initial point, which is that it is question-begging, and exactly part of the rhetorical angle of “DXT” that it basically does not exist and it’s all just Chinese Marxist-Leninism with some contributions from our favorite cadaver Mao and the groundbreaking theory of Xi, which was that we must uphold DXT and also that environmentalism is cool. Seriously, I find Xi much more respectable than Deng, but the idea that he iterated more on state ideology than Deng did is just silly. Deng championed at risk to his own life his own nominal socialism for decades until it finally overtook Mao at the latter’s pitiful concession, but by casting out so much of what Mao did as deviationism, and just being “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics,” is such a flagrant sleight-of-hand that it’s more like swallowing the ball in a game of three card monte and then asking the contestant to pick which cup it’s under. As I said, it’s a smokescreen.
I can’t say I agree with your final assessment, but returning to the base of the question, I don’t really consider “Dengism” to be a thing just like I don’t consider “Stalinism” to be a thing. I suppose I will concede that they can be used when specifically talking about Deng’s policies in his era, and questions like Socialism in One Country for Stalin, but that “Dengists” do not exist as people who put Deng as a major, universalized advancement on Marxism-Leninism.
Of course they do not, and that’s exactly my point. I thought I was repeating myself too much, but then you talk past me like this and I question what I could possibly to do make my thesis more understandable. I don’t say Dengist because I think the people to whom I would apply that label would also self-identify that way, and I don’t define Dengism in terms that those people would like, because they and I disagree about Marxism and especially about the historical reality of the ideological trends that led to our respective positions.
Same. The idea sounds wack, but it worked, and I care about outcomes over ideology, so