Notes on Haz al-Din's Analysis of Deng Versus Bukharin Relating to Recent Cuban Reforms

17 September 2026. WORK IN PROGRESS COME BACK LATER

Link to the video being commented upon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFStK8NVJeg

0:11. Comparing the Cubanish Reform, especially in relation to the Chinish advice in favour of Cubanish economic reform and opening up, does in fact make sense. Nay one of intelligence is suggesting a strong similarity betwixt Cubanish and Chinish conditions. But Comrade al-Din is handicapping his analysis by renouncing any sort of comparison. Most experimentation, far from happening in a liberal scientistic vacuum, relies on historical analysis and some amount of reasoned indication thereof. By looking at the Chinsh Reform and its various results, the Cubanish comrades may pre-empt erroneous experimentation for that which might suggest superior benefit. Cuba does not have an infinite capacity to experiment with, after all, which beworths a success made the quicker and better.

0:27. One could retort that, adhering to the wishes of our gross Comrade Lenin, comrades who are 'too rude' in making such unpolite... capricious, et cetera statements as this ought to be purged from the office of general secretary or chairman by their party. But what does the ,,malding Trotskyite-Bukharinite intelloid'' Vladimir Ilyich know, I suppose!

1:05. If one is caused a drug-induced distemperance by the making of any political comparison, the I should recommend both sobriety and a removal from political discourse for a time. Of course, at the current breve new heights of cultural degeneracy, it is unsurprising to hear about the impossibility of reasonable political discussion. Violence over disagreement is now implied in the very parlance.

As for the topic of Bukharinism and Dengism, I think it is not too inconceivable to draw an evolutionary line from Comrade Bukharin to Comrade Deng— then to Reform-Leninism in the modern day —so long as their differences in method for advancing the peasantry's class-existence are kept account of. It ought to be remembered that, unlike the conspiratorialist Bolshevik Party, neither Comrade Mao nor the Communist Party of China imbued ridiculously stringent, even self-referential, dogmatism with a secret proof of political allegiance. The Cultural Revolution is perhaps the one exceptional span where it was remotely comparable, and this error was quickly resolved afterwards. Comrade Stalin erred deeply in his commitment to this mode of 'gnostic communication'. By coincidence (or perhaps unso), it is Comrade Bukharin who was least affected by this insidious Æsopian speech from the days underground. After the dogmatic turn in the Cultural Revolution, which similarily resembled processes occurring during Soviet collectivisation in this regard, is it truly that much of a stretch to locate a shared political concern betwixt the respective circles of Comrade Bukharin and Comrade Deng? I think not, nay indeed, we think not, as the intellectual lineage and historiographic analysis of Reform-Leninism testifies to.

1:38. Why must this question of policy be derrogated into a petty contest over whether the Folk's Republic of China proves ,,The Theory of Stalin™'' or ,,The Theory of Bukharin™'' to be ultimately correct? Besides the fact that a theory which is ultimately correct is an impossibly dogmatic conception in view of invariably changing material and social conditions, which full communism itself will not so recognise as valid. For communism is but the beginning of history.

Comrade Chet Ozmun, in his lecture on the work Governing the Party, by Comrade Xie Chuntao, mentioned a Chinish maxim which he renders wonderfully as 'neither æra shall negate the other '. This sentiment has been a corner-stone of Reform-Leninism in dealing with the whelming many factional and theoretical divides which compose the majority of Leftist history. It is hard for Comrade al-Din to recall, surely, but Comrades Lenin, Bukharin, Stalin, and Trotsky were all comrades in the same party at one point. In fact, is not the concept of one line from many theories the very function of democratic centralism? If this is not so, then I do not understand what the purpose of democratic centralism is— at least in the context of the ACP.

2:36. Comrade al-Din states that the peasantry 'did not ', rather than could not participate in the state dictatorship, that they were 'on the periphery'. The peasants are never 'on the periphery' in revolution. The Soviet comrades attempted to push them to the periphery, due to dogmatic theoretical preconceptions, and hostility to any semblance of Narodism or SRism, to say nothing of the peasantry's supposedly inescapably feudal world-view. Is this not what Comrade al-Din chides Comrade Trotsky as a ,,glasses-wearing urbanoid Jew-boy'' (or whatever) for? Comrade Trotsky, whilst I often disagree with him, is still capable of maintaining a coherent view from one sentence to the next. I am beginning to wonder, however, if the same may be said for Comrade al-Din, or not.

The simple inconvenience of fact for Comrade al-Din is that Comrade Mao, thankfully, did not follow the Soviet error in the spheres of the peasantry and agriculture. Who can say that Chinish peasants were not instrumental during the Resistance War against Japanish Aggression (should Comrade al-Din dare to)? Comrade al-Din perhaps considers the French revolutionaries as nay more than ,,Parisian legaloid coffee-cuck parasites'', but here again, the peasantry was not 'on the periphery' in advancing radical developments and garnering social and political influence. Yet I will grant to Comrade al-Din that Comrade Deng differed from Comrade Bukharin in pressuring the peasantry to proletarianise by reversing much of Comrade Mao's pro-peasant policy, exempli gratia the dismantling of the 'iron rice bowl'. This, in our view, set the Folk's Republic back from attaining communism, and even perhaps from socialism proper. Socialism is, in our view, the universalising synthesis of feudal culture and capitalist political-economy.

2:49. To abstain from discussing one of the most pertinent theoretical and policy contribution of Comrade Lenin for Cuba's current reform is blatantly not a Marxist view-point. The Cubanish comrades and we ought to be discussing the New Economic Policy at length, analysing it alongside Reform and Opening Up, as well as the Hungarian and late Soviet reforms, if we are good Marxists, that is. What Marxist could sincerely express such loathing for doing relevant study and analysis? I implore Comrade al-Din to reconsider this erroneous attitude.

3:10. Comparison and analysis for prospective discernment in this reform is not at all likening Cubanish condition to those presiding for those historical policies. It has been said that China and Vietnam have been advising Cuba to institute this kind of reform for a long while. Thus, Chinish and Vietnamish comrades must not consider Cubanish conditions too different from theirs for the successful implementation of similar policies to these. Ergo, a deep study and discussion of these historical policies is absolutely warranted by plausible utility. History can teach without rote repetition. And is it even considerably education if it is mere memorisation of flash-cards, unrooted therefrom?

It is quite ironic that the comrade denouncing a deep historical investigation of practically similar economic reforms is the same one decrying this as 'lazy and uncurious'. Examining historical precedents and experiments now constitutes uncurious laziness? What Æsopian Newspeakery have we descended to! You need not 'explain' any thing to us: nay investigation, nay right to [explain].

5:00. This WORK IN PROGRESS COME BACK LATER