So all moderation is wrong? Also you seem to very clearly not understand what anarchism is beyond the infantile “tyranny of bedtime” surface.

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.

The linked definition doesn’t match with you calling the vote/outcome authoritarian.

Authoritarian/authoritarianisn is so widely defined that literally every country, organisation and movement fits it by necessity in class society

Authoritarian is a pejorative used by idiots to avoid grappling with the reality of one class necessarily suppressing another in class society.

Authoritarian is a basically meaningless word already but “people voting for something I don’t like” is an especially idiotic way to define it.

“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.

Can you please type out the post word for word then explain exactly which line is telling people to call anyone Nazis.

Then you need to hit the books

Through the fact that they are reactionary, genocide backing, war hungry, imperialist, bourgeoisie owned enemies of the working class who are shifting right as the capitalist crisis deepens, increasing Gestapo funding and suppressing real working class organisation.

I’m sure you would crackkker.

Death to Amerikkka 🔥 🔥 🔥

This implies that the democrats aren’t on the fascist side. That is clearly not true. The antifascist side has always been the left wing(communists and anarchists). If you support the “nice fascists” or the “mean fascists” you’re still a fascist.

I have been neutral at worst. Why should I go out of my way to grovel be extra nice to you who has done nothing but spout off arrogantly about things you clearly don’t understand. Also I have pointed out issues and even recommended some reading across my other comments. Grow up.

Ok so you haven’t. You should. Also it’s a bad habit to lie to act like you know more than you do.

Cowbee “have you studied marxism”

You “I have”

???

The PRC was founded and has been led by the CPC for over 70 years. Why hasn’t it become just as bad as the capitalists? Why does anti corruption still reach the highest rungs of power?

It’s almost like a socialist state led by a communist party is qualitatively different to a capitalist one under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

Ok. So capitalism observably doesn’t work. And you have decided a proletarian state is impossible. So what is your solution? Is organising futile? Do we just wait for a magic spark of simultaneous global revolution? Do we wait for the world to end? Is it all just futile and we kill ourselves now?

You are very invested in idealist “human nature” metaphysics for someone who allegedly studied Marxism.

There is so much wrong with such a short comment it’s genuinely quite impressive.

You should read:

Lenin’s What Is To Be Done?, The State and Revolution, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder

Stalin’s Foundations of Leninism, The Role of the Communist Party in the Proletarian Revolution

Chairman Mao’s On Practice and On Contradiction, Serve the People, On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People, Combat Liberalism, Oppose Book Worship and 红宝书 (especially chapter 1).

You can also look at modern China and how nearly a billion people were lifted from abject poverty. How the party has over 80% support. How infrastructure and the people are invested in without the need to wring them for profit. The party is neither all powerful nor perfect it is simply the tool through which the people wield their power.

Voting for a genocide backing fascist because they are more personable than the cruel mean fascist rather than doing anything constructive makes you a fascist. The real leftist option is not voting for fascists and then yes ideally overthrowing the capitalist system(sort of a core part of being a leftist).

Looks pretty accurate for those of us outside the imperial core.

I guess the saying holds.

If you can remember what happened over a week ago that makes you a tankie