This is a copy of what he sent to me after I wrote my "What even is 'Dengism'?" essay. Here's what he said lol:
I have read your essay on ProleWiki, "What even is "dengism"?", and I must say, it is absolutely repugnant, as are the other essays (or rather, screeds which are little more than dengist propaganda and pseudo-socialist nonsense) you have concoted on the revisionist hive that is ProleWiki.
The contents of your scribbles is, in short, nothing beyond citing a few examples of Deng Xiaoping's propaganda in which he allegedly affirms his socialist ideology. You totally omit the true aspects of his bourgeois ideology (even claiming quotes he is well-known to have said were "fake" and "made up by Maoists").
Yes, of course it would be the case that if you took this-or-that Deng quote, while removing everything else he said, you could misinform your readers that he is a socialist. Of course, this is both false and intellectually dishonest.
Deng Xiaoping omited class struggle in favor of the "development of the productive forces". To this day, the revisionist CPC keeps ill-informed revisionist propagandists such as yourself servile to their social-fascist ideological line by merely "kicking the can down the road" as to when they are going to become truly "socialist". Once the year 2049 arrives, the revisionists in China are simply going to move the target for "reaching socialism" to 2100, and then 2200, and so on. I believe comrade Enver Hoxha wisely noted this trend when he said:
"In a demagogic way, Mao Tse-tung and the Communist Party of China have subordinated all their declarations about the construction of the socialist and communist society to their pragmatic policy. Thus, in the years of the so-called great leap forward, with the aim of throwing dust in the eyes of the masses, who, emerging from the revolution, aspired to socialism, they declared that within 2-3 five-year periods, they would pass directly over to communism. Later, however, in order to cover up their failures, they began to theorize that the construction and triumph of socialism would require ten thousand years."
Otherwise, you, in your essay, refuse to view things from a Marxist and dialectical view. You remove, among many other features, one of the most critical aspects of socialism: the removal of the bourgeoisie from economic power in favor of the proletariat.
Developing the productive forces is important, but it must be given lesser importance to class struggle, the creation of public ownership of the means of production, and so on.
Using your (very much poor) standards of "proof" for the ideological nature of these leaders, with which you use in this context to make Deng Xiaoping seem to be a Marxist, you could deceit others into viewing Adolf Hitler as a socialist. Your writing is nothing but propaganda to promote dengist ideology, an ideology which the rest of ProleWiki maintains with great zeal.
In the middle of your essay, you use the "cultural revolution" in China under Mao Zedong as a justification for Deng's coup and rise to power over the Gang of Four. However, you fail to account for the fact that, as comrade Hoxha once again correctly noted:
"The course of events showed that the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was neither a revolution, nor great, nor cultural, and in particular, not in the least proletarian. It was a palace Putsch on an all-China scale for the liquidation of a handful of reactionaries who had seized power."
It is correct Deng Xiaoping was merely following Mao Zedong Thought (albeit a extremely bourgeois interruption of it), however, it is the case that Mao Zedong Thought was, at its core, a revisionist and anti-Marxist ideology, with reactionary elements it attained from religion, among other sources.
Of all, it is your conclusion which is the most revisionary and false.
Not only do you imply that it is exclusively supporters of the capitalist state of China who constitute "legitimate" Marxist-Leninists, you effectively say that only Dengists (additional note, Stalinism does in fact exist) are real Marxist-Leninists.
Not only do you pollute Marxism via attempting to claim pseudo-socialists such as yourself are theoretically genuine, you are engaging in what is effectively dogmato-revisionism; the adoption of revisionism, and attempt to make said revisionism seem like truthful Marxism, and the rejection of all non-revisionists as being "revisionist".
While it is true that Marxist-Leninist-Maoists are revisionists, you attempting to claim that all Anti-revisionists are "revisionists" is nothing but a dogmatic attempt to defend your revisionism.
Regarding what dengism is, it is true that not all Marxists who support the People's Republic of China are dengist, rather, most of them are simply misinformed or have made a correctable ideological mistake. Rather, dengists are those "Marxists" who persist in this mistake, and defend it, which is what both you and the rest of the ProleWiki community is doing.
I wish to present to you a definition of what dengism is from a well-informed and wise Anti-revisionist who is a comrade of mine:
"Dengism is a revisionist and pseudo-Marxist ideology which originated during the full restoration of capitalism in China in the late 1970s. With regards to its followers in this context, it refers to the “Communists” who maintain the view that state-capitalism is socialism, class struggle is trivial and secondary in comparison to the development of the productive forces, that maintaining the bourgeoisie in power is socialist, and that working towards a revolution in one’s own country is useless, and all effort of the Communists must be towards defending supposed “actually existing socialism.”
Dengism is the ideology of counter-revolution, stagnation, and social-imperialism..."
We call you revisionists dengists not because we seek to vacuously attack you, but to separate Marxists from pseudo-Marxists like you.
It is groups such as ProleWiki, GenZedong, and others which have motivated me to cease calling myself a "Marxist-Leninist", and instead refer to myself as a "Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist". You people are giving outsiders to Marxism a bad view due to your crypto-capitalist ideology, your defense of revisionist and social-fascist state such as China, Vietnam, the DPRK, and so on. "Marxism-Leninism" has long since been hijacked and corrupted by revisionists starting with Trotsky and Khruschev, and presently with people such as yourself.
I hope you reconsider your views regarding dengist revisionism. Thank you and good day.
(I suggest you post this criticism on the talk page of your essay to give others an alternative view on this subject.)
When you have reached the point that you are so ultra left that the DPRK is not socialist enough for you, you have to ask yourself how is it that your theoretically pure "anti-revisionist" ideology coincidentally just so happens to end up denouncing every single one of US imperialism's most hated geopolitical enemies as revisionist and not worth supporting?
Practice is the ultimate test of theory. If your theory does not lead to you siding with the anti-imperialist forces of the world it is simply wrong. And if Hoxhaism is correct why is it that it failed to build a lasting socialist state in Albania? The PRC is still around. The DPRK is still around. Communist Vietnam and Socialist Cuba are still around. Clearly they did something right.
Productive forces matter because without them you have neither the economic nor social stability required to defend your socialist society against external and internal threats. Color revolutions and counter-revolutionary imperialist plots succeed when the people lose faith in the system, that is when you do not uplift their level of material wellbeing.
The anti-imperialist struggle is itself a class struggle. Building productive forces in socialist and anti-imperialist states, in the global south - in the imperial periphery - means engaging in global class struggle. Breaking the economic dominance of the imperial center is key. Socialism cannot thrive until the imperialist hegemonic stranglehold on the world is ended.
What lack of dialectical materialism does to mfer