China did not abandon Communism, they pivoted from their Left-deviationism that was based in idealism, not materialism. The Gang of Four tried to achieve Communism through Fiat, despite the Productive Forces being far below the level for that to be feasible. They rejected markets out of a miral fetishization of Poverty in an entirely publicly owned economy, rather than for Materialist reasons, so they course corrected to Marxian economics.
It was an adherance to more traditional Marxist economics than under the Gang of Four. Marxists don’t believe you can develop the productive forces to the level where public ownership is better through fiat, or by decree. If you go back and read Marx and Engels, and even Lenin, they make it clear that they believed even in developed Capitalist economies, only the large firms should be nationalized, while the small firms should be allowed to naturally develop, perhaps with a bit of a push.
China did not abandon Communism, they pivoted from their Left-deviationism that was based in idealism, not materialism. The Gang of Four tried to achieve Communism through Fiat, despite the Productive Forces being far below the level for that to be feasible. They rejected markets out of a miral fetishization of Poverty in an entirely publicly owned economy, rather than for Materialist reasons, so they course corrected to Marxian economics.
It was right-deviationism of using markets and foreign capital investment to build up productive forces.
It was an adherance to more traditional Marxist economics than under the Gang of Four. Marxists don’t believe you can develop the productive forces to the level where public ownership is better through fiat, or by decree. If you go back and read Marx and Engels, and even Lenin, they make it clear that they believed even in developed Capitalist economies, only the large firms should be nationalized, while the small firms should be allowed to naturally develop, perhaps with a bit of a push.