Revisionism, Anti-Revisionism, what does it all mean?

[MrCharizma]

Title basically says it all.
It seems to be quite a confusing concept to grasp.
I'm constantly getting one confused with the other and then realising I don't understand either of them properly.
Could you please give me a nice, simple, yet in-depth definition of these terms.

Ps. Whilst defining, please refrain from using the word revision. (this seems to make matters even more confusing for me, sorry.)

Thanks in advance.

[Sir Comradical]

The word "revisionist" is ML-speak referring to anyone who questions Stalin's divinity.

I kidd, I kidd.

Wikipedia provides a pretty easy to understand explanation.

"Anti-revisionism refers to a doctrine which upholds the line of theory and practice associated with Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin, and usually either Mao or Hoxha as well. It is stated in such a way as to show direct opposition to the Marx-Engels-Lenin-Trotsky line of Trotskyism. Anti-revisionists claim that the Soviet Union under Stalin's leadership represented the final correct and successful practical implementation of the scientific socialist ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). However, the anti-revisionist movement is effectively split into two camps which are divided in their attitudes toward the People's Republic of China (PRC) under Mao: the Maoist faction advocates his ideas and policies, while the Hoxhaist faction does not."

[MrCharizma]

I see, I see. That helps a bit.
So if that's the definition of Anti-Revisionism, then what is Revisionism?
And so is it basically just an ideology within Marx-Leninism? Or am I mistaken?

[Shokaract]

Revisionism is altering and warping Marxism to the point that it is no longer revolutionary and will likely lead to Capitalist restoration. (ex. USSR–Khrushchev and on, PRC–Deng and on)

Anti-revisionism opposes this. Anti-revisionism is often paired with Marxism–Leninism.

[MrCharizma]

Oh okay, thanks for that easy to understand definition.
So seeing as:

Anti-revisionism is often paired with Marxism–Leninism.

What would Revisionism be 'paired' with?

[Bright Banana Beard]

Oh okay, thanks for that easy to understand definition.
So seeing as:


What would Revisionism be 'paired' with? There is some revisionist who upholds themselves as Marxist-Leninist such as Raul Castro, Kim Il-Sung, Samm Webb, and Evo Morales. This is where Anti-Revisionists come in to distance themselves from the people above.

[Nolan]

Revisionism is a blanket term for any capitalist roadist deviation from Marxist-Leninist principles. This can take various forms, from Khrushchev's reforms and anti-Leninism, to the opportunist "communist" parties of certain Soviet satellites (two are still holding on), to Deng's "market socialism."

Anti-revisionism is opposed to this, and upholds the line of Lenin, alongside other revolutionaries including Stalin and Hoxha.

[Barry Lyndon]

The word "revisionist" is ML-speak referring to anyone who questions Stalin's divinity.

Actually that's a pretty accurate description. The most extreme example would be Hoxhaists, who revere Enver Hoxha, the fanatically Stalinist leader of Albania who eventually cut off all ties with the outside world because he refused to associate with anyone who criticized Stalin, and moreover to preserve his status as Stalin's pure ideological heir.

It's a ridiculously unscientific and unMarxist line of analysis, in which you determine whether a country is 'socialist' or not not by its economic structure but by what its leadership said or thought about Stalin.

Really, the ultimate 'revisionist' was Stalin himself.

[Nolan]

Actually that's a pretty accurate description. The most extreme example would be Hoxhaists, who revere Enver Hoxha, the fanatically Stalinist leader of Albania who eventually cut off all ties with the outside world because he refused to associate with anyone who criticized Stalin, and moreover to preserve his status as Stalin's pure ideological heir.

It's a ridiculously unscientific and unMarxist line of analysis, in which you determine whether a country is 'socialist' or not not by its economic structure but by what its leadership said or thought about Stalin.

Really, the ultimate 'revisionist' was Stalin himself.

Please don't make stupid, strawman posts like this.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Actually that's a pretty accurate description. The most extreme example would be Hoxhaists, who revere Enver Hoxha, the fanatically Stalinist leader of Albania who eventually cut off all ties with the outside world because he refused to associate with anyone who criticized Stalin, and moreover to preserve his status as Stalin's pure ideological heir.

That is pretty much very inaccurate description and I say it as a Hoxhaist myself. You don't know shit about us and you just pull it out of your ass.


It's a ridiculously unscientific and unMarxist line of analysis, in which you determine whether a country is 'socialist' or not not by its economic structure but by what its leadership said or thought about Stalin.

Really, the ultimate 'revisionist' was Stalin himself.Hoxhaists doesn't jump the bandwagon on everyone who declares to socialist themselves is a socialist, look at what happen to the Socialist Bloc, they failed not because just of outside imperialism, but also because of their internal policies such as USSR demanding resources from the Socialist Bloc and paying back a little bit, in other words, they have becomes concerned with their national interests and abandoned the aim for worldwide revolution.

[Barry Lyndon]

Please don't make stupid, strawman posts like this.

Your entire ideology is stupid and strawman. Hoxhaists like yourself literally believe that the only revolutionary socialist states to ever exist in history was the Soviet Union 1917-56 and Albania 1944-85. Every other attempt at socialism, whether Cuba or Vietnam or China, is denounced as 'state-capitalist', 'revisionist', or even 'fascist'(to quote Ismail).

All the things that you anti-revisionists use to disqualify these states- experiments in market economics, lack of proletarian democracy, bureacracy, or tactical alliances with capitalists or reactionaries- could just as easily apply to your favored states, particularly the USSR under Stalin.

But you are so worshipful of Uncle Joe that you can't put 2 and 2 together.

[Jazzhands]

Please don't make stupid, strawman posts like this.

What exactly did Khrushchev do that made him a revisionist? He denounced Stalin and took the USSR to "peaceful coexistence" from but as far as I can tell made no changes whatsoever because the government did not change, the repression and destruction of the original Central Committee went unpunished, and the Cuban Missile Crisis occured under his watch. Clearly not peaceful coexistence. So the only thing he actually did differently from Stalin was denounce him in words only.

Really, revisionism is a meaningless term nowadays. The original revisionists were people like Bernstein, who essentially rejected revolution by "revising" Marx by saying that a violent revolution was not necessary to achieve communism. But after Stalin's death, it became essentially a slur with complete lack of meaning.

[Shokaract]

What would Revisionism be 'paired' with?

I guess Dengism, socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics, Khrushchev's policies and direction, peaceful coexistence, Đổi mới, Juche, Songun, and the like.


2. In open violation of the Declaration of 1957 and the Statement of 1960, he sought "all-round co-operation" with U.S. imperialism and fallaciously maintained that the heads of the Soviet Union and the United States would "decide the fate of humanity", constantly praising the chieftains of U.S. imperialism as "having a sincere desire for peace". Pursuing an adventurist policy at one moment, he transported guided missiles to Cuba, and pursuing a capitulationist policy at an other, he docilely withdrew the missiles and bombers from Cuba on the order of the U.S. pirates. He accepted inspection by the U.S. fleet and even tried to sell out Cuba's sovereignty by agreeing, behind the Cuban Government's back, to the "inspection" of Cuba by the United Nations, which is under U.S. control. In so doing, Khrushchov brought a humiliating disgrace upon the great Soviet people unheard of in the forty years and more since the October Revolution.

3. To cater to the U.S. imperialist policy of nuclear blackmail and prevent socialist China from building up her own nuclear strength for self-defence, he did not hesitate to damage the defense capabilities of the Soviet Union itself and concluded the so-called partial nuclear test ban treaty in collusion with the two imperialist powers of the United States and Britain. Facts have shown that this treaty is a pure swindle. In signing this treaty Khrushchov perversely tried to sell out the interests of the Soviet people, the people of all the socialist countries and all the peace-loving people of the world.

4. In the name of "peaceful transition" he tried by every means to obstruct the revolutionary movements of the people in the capitalist countries, demanding that they take the so-called legal, parliamentary road. This erroneous line paralyses the revolutionary will of the proletariat and disarms the revolutionary people ideologically, causing serious setbacks to the cause of revolution in certain countries. It has made the Communist Parties in a number of capitalist countries lifeless social-democratic parties of a new type and caused them to degenerate into servile tools of the bourgeoisie.

5. Under the signboard of "peaceful coexistence" he did his utmost to oppose and sabotage the national liberation movement and went so far as to work hand in glove with U.S. imperialism in suppressing the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed nations. He instructed the Soviet delegate at the United Nations to vote for the dispatch of forces of aggression to the Congo, which helped the U.S. imperialists to suppress the Congolese people, and he used Soviet transport facilities to move these so-called United Nations troops to the Congo. He actually opposed the revolutionary struggles of the Algerian people, describing the Algerian national liberation struggle as an "internal affair" of France. He had the audacity to "stand aloof" over the events in the Gulf of Bac Bo engineered by U.S. imperialism against Viet Nam, and cudgelled his brains for ways to help the U.S. provocateurs get out of their predicament and to whitewash the criminal aggression of the U.S. pirates.

Why Khrushchov Fell (http://marx2mao.com/Other/WKF64.html)


Khrushchov has substituted "material incentive" for the socialist principle, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work". He has widened, and not narrowed, the gap between the incomes of a small minority and those of the workers, peasants and ordinary intellectuals. He has supported the degenerates in leading positions, encouraging them to become even more unscrupulous in abusing their powers and to appropriate the fruits of labour of the Soviet people. Thus he has accelerated the polarization of classes in Soviet society.

Khrushchov sabotages the socialist planned economy, applies the capitalist principle of profit, develops capitalist free competition and undermines socialist ownership by the whole people.

Khrushchov attacks the system of socialist agricultural planning, describing it as "bureaucratic" and "unnecessary". Eager to learn from the big proprietors of American farms, he is encouraging capitalist management, fostering a kulak economy and undermining the socialist collective economy.

On Khrushchov's Phoney Communism (http://marx2mao.com/Other/KPC64.html)

[fa2991]

What exactly did Khrushchev do that made him a revisionist? He denounced Stalin...

I think you just answered your own question. :D

[Cyberwave]

Actually that's a pretty accurate description. The most extreme example would be Hoxhaists, who revere Enver Hoxha, the fanatically Stalinist leader of Albania who eventually cut off all ties with the outside world because he refused to associate with anyone who criticized Stalin, and moreover to preserve his status as Stalin's pure ideological heir.

Because Hoxha didn't want to become a neo-colony or have his industrial development halted he was a Stalinist! Herp a derp!

[MrCharizma]

I guess Dengism, socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics, Khrushchev's policies and direction, peaceful coexistence, Đổi mới, Juche, Songun, and the like.

Oh okay, so I'm hearing a lot about Nikita Khrushchev, would you be able to simply state his main policies that he made from 1955-1964, but mainly the flaws and incorrect decisions he made giving him the name of 'revisionist'

I have an essay to write on the USSR soon and it'd be handy to know some things about Khrushchev, to get me some extra brownie points :)

Thanks,

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Oh okay, so I'm hearing a lot about Nikita Khrushchev, would you be able to simply state his main policies that he made from 1955-1964, but mainly the flaws and incorrect decisions he made giving him the name of 'revisionist'

I have an essay to write on the USSR soon and it'd be handy to know some things about Khrushchev, to get me some extra brownie points :)

Thanks,

He presided over a number of "economic reform" projects that sought to emulate a capitalist economy, including, but not limited to, requiring state enterprises to be self-sufficient (show a profit).

His housing provision scheme was probably the only thing he did right; everything else was basically utter failure.

[MrCharizma]

So simply, he re-created the profit motive in the USSR?
Also, did he have much of a relationship with D. Eisenhower?

So if someone was to call Khrushchev a 'revisionist', may I ask what exactly what that would mean? i.e. What would you be 'accusing' him of, along with some sort of evidence/actions making him what he is.

EDIT: Nevermind, Shokaract answered my question nicely in regards to revisionism and phoney communism.

[Jazzhands]

I think you just answered your own question. :D

So to be a real socialist, one must unquestionably lap up everything Stalin has ever said or done. riiiight.:rolleyes:

[fa2991]

So to be a real socialist, one must unquestionably lap up everything Stalin has ever said or done. riiiight.:rolleyes:

Well, I was being sarcastic, of course, but yeah, that seems to be the idea put forth by most communists who insist on goofy "revisionist/anti-revisionist" labels. :D

[Jazzhands]

Well, I was being sarcastic, of course, but yeah, that seems to be the idea put forth by most communists who insist on goofy "revisionist/anti-revisionist" labels. :D

lol I can't ever tell whether they're joking or not.:laugh:

[Uppercut]

Well, I was being sarcastic, of course, but yeah, that seems to be the idea put forth by most communists who insist on goofy "revisionist/anti-revisionist" labels. :D

Actually Hoxhaists have criticisms of both Stalin and Hoxha. We criticize Stalin for not battling his personality cult enough and many of us criticize Hoxha and the PPSH for the outright banning of religion. Everyone makes mistakes or has shortcomings. We don't deny this at all.

[fa2991]

Actually Hoxhaists have criticisms of both Stalin and Hoxha. We criticize Stalin for not battling his personality cult enough and many of us criticize Hoxha and the PPSH for the outright banning of religion. Everyone makes mistakes or has shortcomings. We don't deny this at all.

Uhhh... I think he did a little more than not battling it. Actively fostering it, for example. And creating a personality cult around Lenin.

[Cyberwave]

Uhhh... I think he did a little more than not battling it. Actively fostering it, for example. And creating a personality cult around Lenin.

That did not happen. He may have allowed it to happen, but given the decreasing role of the orthodox church, it did in fact serve as a source of inspiration for the people, even if it was inherently un-Marxist. It may or may not have been wise to radically oppose it. At any rate, it was Party officials that were feeding the cult, not Stalin, who was otherwise generally modest.

[Kléber]

At any rate, it was Party officials that were feeding the cult, not Stalin, who was otherwise generally modest.
When the people accomplish something great, the Great Leader is to thank. When the leadership does something wrong, it was the fault of other people.

[fa2991]

That did not happen. He may have allowed it to happen, but given the decreasing role of the orthodox church, it did in fact serve as a source of inspiration for the people, even if it was inherently un-Marxist. It may or may not have been wise to radically oppose it. At any rate, it was Party officials that were feeding the cult, not Stalin, who was otherwise generally modest.

Modest? Stalin?

[Jazzhands]

It may or may not have been wise to radically oppose it. At any rate, it was Party officials that were feeding the cult, not Stalin, who was otherwise generally modest.



http://www.jhindin.com/posters/poster01.jpg

You expect me to believe that THIS counts as modesty? His ego was massive enough to fill a god-sized hole in Russian society caused by the fall of the church. Who wouldn't do something about that?

[Cyberwave]

When the people accomplish something great, the Great Leader is to thank. When the leadership does something wrong, it was the fault of other people. What in the hell are you getting it? It was democratic-centralism if anything that kept the cult in practice; the majority of people were in favor of it, even if Stalin wasn't. This is an incredibly baseless argument.


Modest? Stalin?

"When I met Stalin, I did not find him enigmatic. I found him the easiest person to talk to I ever met. He is far and away the best committee chairman of my experience. He can bring everybody’s views out and combine them in the minimum of time. His method of running committees reminded me somewhat of Jane Addams of Hull House or Lillian D. Wald of Henry Street Settlement. They had the same kind of democratically efficient technique, but they used more high pressure than Stalin did.

My first impression of him was vaguely disappointing. A stocky figure in a simple suit of khaki color, direct, unassuming, whose first concern was to know whether I understood Russian sufficiently to take part in discussion. Not very imposing for so great a man, I thought. Then we sat down rather casually, and Stalin was not even at the head of the table; Voroshilov was. Stalin took a place where he could see all our faces and started the talk by a pointed question to the man against whom I had complained. After that Stalin seemed to become a sort of background, against which other people’s comments went on. The brilliant wit of Kaganovich, the cheerful chuckle of Voroshilov, the characteristics of the lesser people called to consult, all suddenly stood out. I began to understand them all and like them; I even began to understand the editor against whom I had complained. Suddenly I myself was talking and getting my facts out faster and more clearly than I ever did in my life. People seemed to agree with me. Everything got to the point very fast and smoothly, with Stalin saying less than anyone." (Anna Louise Strong).

"I must say that Stalin did not decide and did not like to decide for himself important questions about the war. He understood perfectly well the necessity of collective work in this complex area, he recognized those who were experts on such and such a military problem, took into account their opinion and gave each their due." (Chtémenko, L'État-Major général soviétique en guerre (Moscow: Éditions du Progrès, 1976), vol. 2, p. 319)



"Each month he earns the five hundred roubles which constitute the meagre maximum salary of the officials of the Communist Party (amounting to between £20 and £25 in English money)....



"This frank and brilliant man is... a simple man.... He does not employ thirty-two secretaries, like Mr. Lloyd George; he has only one....



"Stalin systematically gives credit for all progress made to Lenin, whereas the credit has been in very large measure his own." (H. Barbusse: Stalin: A New World Seen through One Man; London; 1935; p. vii, viii, 291, 294).


Furthermore, the facts show that on numerous occasions Stalin himself denounced and ridiculed the `cult of the individual' as contrary to Marxism-Leninism. For example, June 1926: "I must say in all conscience, comrades, that I do not deserve a good half of the flattering things that have been said here about me. I am, it appears, a hero of the October Revolution, the leader of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the leader of the Communist International, a legendary warrior-knight and all the rest of it. This is absurd, comrades, and quite unnecessary exaggeration. It is the sort of thing that is usually said at the graveside of a departed revolutionary. But I have no intention of dying yet..."



More on the cult. (http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/StalinBB.htm)

[Ismail]

You expect me to believe that THIS counts as modesty?Are you saying Stalin painted this? In any case Lenin had a similar "cult" when he was alive, just on a more local scale (e.g. the Cheka passing through peasant villages giving them portraits of Lenin to put in their houses to replace Orthodox Saints).

In any case:

"On December 21, 1929, the nation celebrated Stalin's fiftieth birthday with unprecedented extravagance... It was the beginning of the Stalin cult, which developed on a phenomenal scale.

The frenetic adulation was in part the enthusiastic work of the party machine in Moscow and of the party officials throughout the country. They were praising and ensuring that the people joined by praising their chief, the General Secretary of the party. They owed their positions to him and they knew how his authority could reach into the most distant corners of the party organization. But servility and self-interest were accompanied by genuine veneration...

While accepting the need for the cult, however, Stalin probably took little active part in promoting it. The Yugoslav communist Milovan Djilas, meeting him in 1945, formed the opinion that 'the deification of Stalin . . . was at least as much the work of Stalin's circle and the bureaucracy, who required such a leader, as it was his own doing.'

Stalin was, in fact, not a vain, self-obsessed man who had to be surrounded by fawning and flattery. He detested this mass adulation of his position, and throughout his life he went to great lengths to avoid demonstrations in his honor. Indeed, he was to be seen in public only at party congresses and at ceremonial occasions on Red Square, when he was a remote figure standing on Lenin's mausoleum. He had the same lack of personal vanity as Peter the Great or Lenin....

Stalin had not changed greatly. He had power and position, but showed no interest in possessions and luxuries. His tastes were simple and he lived austerely. In summer he wore a plain military tunic of linen and in winter a similar tunic of wool, and an overcoat that was some fifteen years old. He also had a short fur coat with squirrel on the inside and reindeer skin on the outside, which he started wearing soon after the Revolution and continued to wear with an old fur hat until his death. The presents, many of them valuable and even priceless works of craftsmanship, sent to him from all parts of the country and, on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, from all over the world, embarrassed him. He felt that it would be wrong to make any personal use of such gifts. His daughter noted: 'He could not imagine why people would want to send him all these things.'"
(Grey, Ian. Stalin: Man of History. 1st ed. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1979., pp. 233-35.)

Molotov in his memoirs also notes that Stalin didn't care much for the personality cult. He regarded it as useful (as anyone would), but rebuked it in private and told people not to pay much attention to it.

And Khrushchev's "peaceful coexistence" was absolutely revisionist. See: http://www.marxists.org/subject/china/documents/polemic/peaceful.htm

The leaders of the CPSU have lauded their concept of peaceful coexistence in superlative terms. What are their main views on the question of peaceful coexistence?
(1) The leaders of the CPSU maintain that peaceful coexistence is the overriding and supreme principle for solving contemporary social problems. They assert that it is “the categorical imperative of modern times” and “the imperious demand of the epoch”.[1] They say that “peaceful coexistence alone is the best and the sole acceptable way to solve the vitally important problems confronting society”[2] and that the principle of peaceful coexistence should be made the “basic law of life of the whole of modern society ”.[3]
(2) They hold that imperialism has become willing to accept peaceful coexistence and is no longer the obstacle to it. They say that “not a few government and state leaders of Western countries are now also coming out for peace and peaceful coexistence”,[4] and that they “understand more and more clearly the necessity of peaceful coexistence”.[5] In particular they have loudly announced a U.S. President’s “admission of the reasonableness and practicability of peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems”.[6]
(3) They advocate “all-round co-operation” with imperialist countries, and especially with the United States. They say that the Soviet Union and the United States “will be able to find a basis for concerted actions and efforts for the good of all humanity”[7] and can “march hand in hand for the sake of consolidating peace and establishing real international co-operation between all states”.[8]
(4) They assert that peaceful coexistence is “the general line of foreign policy of the Soviet Union and the countries of the socialist camp”.[9]
(5) They also assert that “the principle of peaceful coexistence determines the general line of foreign policy of the CPSU and other Marxist-Leninist parties”,[10] that it is “the basis of the strategy of communism” in the world today, and that all Communists “have made the struggle for peaceful coexistence the general principle of their policy”.[11]
(6) They regard peaceful coexistence as the prerequisite for victory in the peoples’ revolutionary struggles. They hold that the victories won by the people of different countries have been achieved under “conditions of peaceful coexistence between states with different social systems”.[12] They assert that “it was precisely in conditions of peaceful coexistence between states with different social systems that the socialist revolution triumphed in Cuba, that the Algerian people gained national independence, that more than forty countries won national independence, that the fraternal Parties grew in number and strength. and that the influence of the world communist movement increased”.[13]
(7) They hold that peaceful coexistence is “the best way of helping the international revolutionary labour movement achieve its basic class aims”.[14] They declare that under peaceful coexistence the possibility of a peaceful transition to socialism in capitalist countries has grown They believe, moreover, that the victory of socialism in economic competition “will mean delivering a crushing blow to the entire system of capitalist relationships”.[15] They state that “when the Soviet people will enjoy the blessings of communism, new hundreds of millions of people on earth will say: ‘We are for communism!’”[16] and that by then even capitalists may “go over to the Communist Party”.They quote Khrushchev himself in the majority of that.

Even Marxists.org's Encyclopedia of Marxism (the entries largely submitted by Trotskyists) notes the following: "Since Lenin's first day in office, the Soviet government made every effort to establish peace with capitalist nations, while at the same time encouraging the workers of these countries, primarily through organisations like the Communist International, to overthrow their capitalist governments. The ideology of Peaceful Coexistence stipulated that helping workers to revolt would hamper the peace process with capitalism."

[Kayser_Soso]

http://www.jhindin.com/posters/poster01.jpg

You expect me to believe that THIS counts as modesty? His ego was massive enough to fill a god-sized hole in Russian society caused by the fall of the church. Who wouldn't do something about that?

Yes, Stalin personally made that poster. He was a great artist. One can argue about how much Stalin should have fought the cult of personality(as it did not originate with him); he sort of accepted this thing like he accepted a lot of assumptions about Russian culture. Of course if he had been more progressive and attacked Russian traditions more radically, we might be hearing the opposite condemnations about him today. Then again, maybe we wouldn't, because revisionism would have been avoided. Who cares?

[Kléber]

Since the topic has become Stalin's modesty, can anyone explain the photoshopping of this image?

http://www.newseum.org/berlinwall/commissar_vanishes/images/photos/12_lg.jpghttp://www.newseum.org/berlinwall/commissar_vanishes/images/photos/13_lg.jpg

[Ismail]

I don't see what that has to do with Stalin's modesty. Those that were convicted of treason and were subsequently executed were rather shoddily brushed out of history by the organs of the NKVD. Has no bearing on Stalin himself, and Stalin himself criticized authors who, in a book about the Red Army, totally left Trotsky out of it. E.g., "Stalin gave instructions that a portrait of Trotsky was to be included in the big official History of the Civil War, edited by Gorki..." (L. Feuchtwanger, Moscow, 1937, p. 96.)

Also, from Stalin in 1941: "Poster propaganda finds its way into the textbook. This will not do. An economist should study facts, and here all of a sudden: 'Trotskyite-Bukharinite traitors' what is the need to mention that the courts have established this thing and that? What is economic about it? Throw the propaganda out. Political economy is a serious matter." (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv4n2/5convers.htm)

[Sir Comradical]

Actually that's a pretty accurate description. The most extreme example would be Hoxhaists, who revere Enver Hoxha, the fanatically Stalinist leader of Albania who eventually cut off all ties with the outside world because he refused to associate with anyone who criticized Stalin, and moreover to preserve his status as Stalin's pure ideological heir.

It's a ridiculously unscientific and unMarxist line of analysis, in which you determine whether a country is 'socialist' or not not by its economic structure but by what its leadership said or thought about Stalin.

Really, the ultimate 'revisionist' was Stalin himself.

Do you think MLs address any economic issues when criticizing Kruschev of 'revisionism'?

[Ismail]

Do you think MLs address any economic issues when criticizing Kruschev of 'revisionism'?Of course we do, but then they're just brushed aside.

See: http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html
http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/RCSU75.html
http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/albeconint.htm

And so on.

As for Barry, here's some quotes to drive his point about "TEH EVIL STALINITZ" home:

"The modern revisionists and reactionaries call us Stalinists thinking that they insult us. . . . But on the contrary, they glorify us with this epithet; it is an honor for us to be Stalinists for while we maintain such a stand the enemy cannot and will never force us to our knees." (E. Hoxha, Speeches 1967-1968, p. 38.)

"Khrushchev remarked [at the International Meeting of Communist Parties in Moscow, 1960] that he 'could reach a better understanding with Harold Macmillan than with the Albanians.' To which Hoxha retorted: 'That you can come to terms with Macmillan, Eisenhower, Kennedy and their stooge, Tito, is a personal talent of yours which no one envies.' ... And Mehmet Shehu to Khrushchev's question as to whether they had any criticisms at all to make of Stalin announced: 'Yes, not getting rid of you!'" (William Ash, Pickaxe and Rifle: The Story of the Albanian People, p. 201.)

"In fact Hoxha's speech [at the 1960 Moscow meeting] so vehemently denounced Khrushchev that even the Chinese delegates looked embarrassed. Hoxha and Shehu left the summit early, travelling overland via Austria and Italy rather than risk an 'accident' in a Soviet plane. They never again returned to the Soviet Union. This was Hoxha's last public journey outside Albania." (Miranda Vickers, The Albanians: A Modern History, p. 186.)

[Kayser_Soso]

Do you think MLs address any economic issues when criticizing Kruschev of 'revisionism'?

Absolutely. Revisionism usually begins with political concepts, which are then used to justify economic changes. For example, the dictatorship of the proletariat is deemed unnecessary, and it can be replaced by a state of the whole people. Then, this justifies paying managers more and more bonuses, and lavishing privileges on intellectuals and so on.

[Kléber]

I don't think that guy was a victim of any repressions, he was just pointing Stalin's entourage in the right direction.

[Ismail]

I don't think that guy was a victim of any repressions, he was just pointing Stalin's entourage in the right direction.Do you have any actual evidence Stalin played a hand at all in the "retouching" of the photos?

[Kléber]

Do you have any actual evidence Stalin played a hand at all in the "retouching" of the photos?
I strongly doubt he gave the order, "remove this plebe from my photo at once." But I suspect the editors were afraid they'd be seen as having made the Great Leader look like a fool if they'd have left mr. handy helper standing. The mindset that the propagandists were operating on is simply fantastic. Even if Stalin himself can be 100% acquitted of any personal involvement in photo manipulation, then that still means the security services had the power to revise history and erase people on a whim under his administration.

[Kayser_Soso]

I strongly doubt he gave the order, "remove this plebe from my photo at once." But I suspect the editors were afraid they'd be seen as having made the Great Leader look like a fool if they'd have left mr. handy helper standing. The mindset that the propagandists were operating on is simply fantastic.

If you want the answer you could try to develop the anti-Communist Remote Viewing/Mind Reading Technique. This allows anyone to go back in time and determine what Stalin was really thinking. This way if Stalin's documented actions or lack of actions contradict a certain claim, you can use the technique to get into his head more than 60 years ago and tell the readers what his REAL plans were.

[Kléber]

If you want the answer you could try to develop the anti-Communist Remote Viewing/Mind Reading Technique. This allows anyone to go back in time and determine what Stalin was really thinking. This way if Stalin's documented actions or lack of actions contradict a certain claim, you can use the technique to get into his head more than 60 years ago and tell the readers what his REAL plans were.
Maybe he thought nothing at all, he was drooling instead of thinking. He had speechwriters stuffing the words in his mouth. Perhaps he was a robot and incapable of thought altogether? You could try to develop this analysis. Then every crime and betrayal can be handily blamed on a bad employee here, a crooked adviser there.

[Ismail]

But I suspect the editors were afraid they'd be seen as having made the Great Leader look like a fool if they'd have left mr. handy helper standing. The mindset that the propagandists were operating on is simply fantastic.Yes but that has nothing to do with Stalin himself. It had to do with a self-perpetuating culture of "Gardener of the Soul Joseph Stalin" which allowed the likes of Khrushchev and Co. to rise up simply by praising Stalin to the skies (and of course by blandly "adhering" to Marxism-Leninism), as Kaganovich noted in his 1980's recollections. It was easy to denounce one-another for being "insufficiently pro-Stalin and such.

[Kayser_Soso]

Maybe he thought nothing at all, he was drooling instead of thinking. He had speechwriters stuffing the words in his mouth. Perhaps he was a robot and incapable of thought altogether? You could try to develop this analysis. Then every crime and betrayal can be handily blamed on a bad employee here, a crooked adviser there.


Let's make a comparison of theories here:

1. Virtually everything that happened in the USSR from 1924-53 was either explicitly, or implicitly, the will of Stalin, or happened with his approval or on his orders, and if he didn't order it or seemed to be against it, he was secretly for it(evidence not required). This is the conventional view.

2. The USSR, like any large state, had a huge apparatus of various organs comprising hundreds of thousands of people, each having different motives, levels of education, goals, aspirations, relationships, etc. The Russian Empire had problems with communication and coordination, as does modern Russia today. This is called the "realistic view".

Which one is more likely?

[AK]

Please don't make stupid, strawman posts like this.
You mean like your previous one?

Revisionism is a blanket term for any capitalist roadist deviation from Marxist-Leninist principles. This can take various forms, from Khrushchev's reforms and anti-Leninism, to the opportunist "communist" parties of certain Soviet satellites (two are still holding on), to Deng's "market socialism."

Anti-revisionism is opposed to this, and upholds the line of Lenin, alongside other revolutionaries including Stalin and Hoxha.
Emphasis mine. I'm not sure where you get the idea that anarchists are capitalist roaders. I would even go so far as to say this is a strawman, no?

[Kayser_Soso]

You mean like your previous one?

Emphasis mine. I'm not sure where you get the idea that anarchists are capitalist roaders. I would even go so far as to say this is a strawman, no?


Well I wouldn't call them capitalist roaders anyway, I'd call them capitalist speed bumps.

[AK]

Well I wouldn't call them capitalist roaders anyway, I'd call them capitalist speed bumps.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Ismail]

Capitalist roaders (Maoist terminology) are those who hide behind a sheath of "Marxism-Leninism" while advancing capitalist stands (Liu Shaoqi, Deng Xiaoping, etc.), so obviously calling Anarchists "capitalist roaders" is both inaccurate and technically impossible anyway.

[Ehsivar]

Title basically says it all.
It seems to be quite a confusing concept to grasp.
I'm constantly getting one confused with the other and then realising I don't understand either of them properly.
Could you please give me a nice, simple, yet in-depth definition of these terms.

Ps. Whilst defining, please refrain from using the word revision. (this seems to make matters even more confusing for me, sorry.)

Thanks in advance.

Read State and Revolution, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, and Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder, all by Lenin. These will give you a clear outlook as to what is contrary to Marxist revolution as well as an understanding of what is/was happening in the world and how corporate entities affect the fabric of society.

[Chambered Word]

Revisionism is the mysterious phenomenon that gradually comes out of the woodwork and manifests itself in the governments of Stalinist regimes - presumably socialism already existed there, but somehow a group of powerful bureaucrats are able to usurp power and restore market capitalism. Whenever this happens, 'revisionism' is to blame.

[Kléber]

2. The USSR, like any large state, had a huge apparatus of various organs comprising hundreds of thousands of people, each having different motives, levels of education, goals, aspirations, relationships, etc. The Russian Empire had problems with communication and coordination, as does modern Russia today. This is called the "realistic view".
So then, anyone who denounces Tsar Nicholas' or Putin's government isn't being "realistic" because you have to either 1.) totally support the dear leader 100% and never be "revisionist" and criticize him or 2.) be a imperialist agent objectively working to hand Russia over to the western powers. No gray area there. That sounds more like the fanatic view.

[Roach]

Revisionism is the mysterious phenomenon that gradually comes out of the woodwork and manifests itself in the governments of Stalinist regimes - presumably socialism already existed there, but somehow a group of powerful bureaucrats are able to usurp power and restore market capitalism. Whenever this happens, 'revisionism' is to blame.

No.

Revisionism on the ´´Stalinist regimes`` were a collection of wrong economic policies that undermined,both politically and economically,the process of the creation of socialism.

Revisionists did NOT think ´´WE ARE GOING TO DESTROY SOCIALISM``they thougth -thanks to their bureaucratic position- that proper socialist economic policies ,like central planning, were inneficient.

So what they were doing on their vision was not to destroy socialism,it was rather to improve it.

[Kayser_Soso]

So then, anyone who denounces Tsar Nicholas' or Putin's government isn't being "realistic" because you have to either 1.) totally support the dear leader 100% and never be "revisionist" and criticize him or 2.) be a imperialist agent objectively working to hand Russia over to the western powers. No gray area there. That sounds more like the fanatic view.

This argument isn't very coherent but the fact is that no, not everything that happens in Russia today revolves around Putin. Understanding Putin's power means understanding that he rules by a sort of compromise. As long as governors and officials of autonomous republics don't make trouble for them, he lets them rule their little fiefdoms. He and Medvedev rule by creating an equilibrium among different corrupt people.

[Kayser_Soso]

Revisionism is the mysterious phenomenon that gradually comes out of the woodwork and manifests itself in the governments of Stalinist regimes - presumably socialism already existed there, but somehow a group of powerful bureaucrats are able to usurp power and restore market capitalism. Whenever this happens, 'revisionism' is to blame.

Stalinism, the mysterious force that appears out of nowhere in a revolution led by the Glorious Leon Trotsky and his plucky Old Bolsheviks, ruining everything.

[Nolan]

You mean like your previous one?

Emphasis mine. I'm not sure where you get the idea that anarchists are capitalist roaders. I would even go so far as to say this is a strawman, no?


What the fuck are you talking about?

[Proletarian Ultra]

Back in the day, the Soviet government under Stalin declared the official ideology of the state was 'Marxism-Leninism'.

Now, even though Trotskyists and Bordigists etc. are Marxists and Leninists, the term 'Marxist-Leninist' came to mean 'Stalinist' in common usage.

With me so far?

Okay, but then we have a wrinkle: Khrushchev denounces Stalin. But the anti-Stalin Soviet government still calls itself 'Marxist-Leninist'.

But there's still the Chinese, Korean and Albanian parties who didn't repudiate Stalin: they've got to come up with a way of describing themselves to stand apart from the Khrushchevites. Ergo, 'anti-revisionist'. Khrushchev's phony Marxism-Leninism is 'revisionist' and they're against it.

These days practically no one will admit to being a Khrushchevite, so Marxist-Leninist and anti-revisionist mean pretty much the same thing.

[AK]

What the fuck are you talking about?
I was pointing out the hypocrisy.

[Ismail]

These days practically no one will admit to being a Khrushchevite, so Marxist-Leninist and anti-revisionist mean pretty much the same thing.Not entirely, though they often overlap. The problem is that there are basically "degrees" of anti-revisionism to take into account. For instance, the FRSO in the US is "anti-revisionist" in that it regards Khrushchev and the Soviet leaders onwards as having been right-wing, but still regards the USSR as basically socialist and these leaders as having been basically socialist-minded, with the exception of Gorbachev. Ditto with China. So the FRSO (talking about the relevant FRSO, not the Maoist one) upholds the Chinese reaction to Tienanmen, upholds the Soviet invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, etc.

This is very different from Maoism and Hoxhaism, which regard Khrushchev and onwards as having been anti-communists who ended socialist construction in the USSR, and who strongly condemn the Chinese reaction to Tienanmen and strongly condemn the Soviet invasions of both Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan. If you ever wondered why some "Stalin-kiddies" or whatever criticize Maoists and Hoxhaists as "ultra-left," for instance, then that's why. (In turn, the "anti-revisionists" of the FRSO type are generally called Brezhnevites by Maoists and Hoxhaists)


Revisionism is the mysterious phenomenon that gradually comes out of the woodwork and manifests itself in the governments of Stalinist regimes - presumably socialism already existed there...What about when socialism didn't exist there, as Hoxha noted? E.g. in Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism in 1980, Hoxha said (p. 54), "When Khrushchev began to advocate these theses, the construction of communism in the Soviet Union not only had not begun, but moreover, the construction of socialism was not yet completed. True, the exploiting classes had been eliminated as classes, but there were many remnants of them still existing physically, let alone ideologically. The Second World War had hindered the broad emancipation of relations of production, while the productive forces, which constitute the necessary and indispensable basis for this, had been gravely impaired. The Marxist-Leninist ideology was predominant, but this does not mean that the old ideologies had been completely eradicated from the consciousness of the masses. The Soviet Union had won the war against fascism, but another war, with other means, and no less dangerous, had commenced against it."

Also it isn't "mysterious." Do the Rightists and Bukharin ring a bell? Only difference is at the same time the Rightists were defeated in the Moscow Trials, Khrushchev, who according to Kaganovich was an ex-Trotskyist (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv1n2/chuyev.htm), was praising Stalin to the skies and "outdoing" himself as a leading figure of the Great Purges in the Ukraine.

The problem is that a mentality developed that further revisionism manifested itself basically as spying or sabotage fanned by a foreign power. E.g. the following:

"The proceedings against Zinovyev and Kamenev, against Pyatakov and Radek, and against a group of military traitors (Tukhachevsky, Yakir, and others) prove that our enemies do not plan quietly 'to creep into socialism,' ... but they grab the most extreme, cruel, and filthy weapons for carrying on the struggle...

Capitalist encirclement is a real fact, whose significance for the entire cause of socialist construction in the USSR must not be in the slightest degree underestimated."
(Andrey Y. Vyshinsky, ed. The Law of the Soviet State. New York: Macmillan Co. 1948. p. 46.)

This evidently wasn't correct. The plots of the 1930's were extraordinary, but within them also (as J. Arch Getty, Robert W. Thurston, and others have noted) was an active anti-bureaucracy campaign, which occurred both during the purges and proceeding it. Still, Stalin himself recognized a rising revisionist sentiment within the field of economic study, hence the Leningrad Affair (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bland/1980/restoration-capitalism-soviet-union/appendix-3.htm) and the publishing of Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv1n1/marksoc.htm).

[Roach]

But there's still the Chinese,Korean and Albanian parties who didn't repudiate Stalin


That's something that people ''like" to ignore when saying that the only thing that Hoxhaists do is praising Stalin.We consider these parties revisionists,not because of their rhetoric,but because the ideas and policies that such parties endorse are harmful to the proletarian struggle

Thats called a materialist analysis

[Victory]

The distortion of Marxism-Leninism to the point it is anti-Working Class.

[Q]

I bet the anti-revisionists wished they had a revision control system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revision_control) back in the day.

Ba-da-bing (http://instantrimshot.com/)!

The term "anti-revisionism" is so full of irony, it isn't funny anymore. The true heirs of Marx's and Lenin's ideas, resting in the hands of those who represent the historical counter-revolutionary wave? Ugh.

[Ismail]

The term "anti-revisionism" is so full of irony, it isn't funny anymore. The true heirs of Marx's and Lenin's ideas, resting in the hands of those who represent the historical counter-revolutionary wave? Ugh.Khrushchev was an ex-Trotskyist (noted in my last post), Mao complained that Stalin viewed him as a quasi-Tito,* Brezhnevite (as in, USSR under Brezhnev) narratives of Stalin didn't differ from Khrushchev's,** the openly anti-communist (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv6n1/gorbach.htm) Gorbachev spoke of the collapse of "Stalinism" in 1989,*** the modern PRC de facto condemns Stalin, the Eurocommunists of course condemned "Stalinism," Ramiz Alia called East Germany "socialist" in 1989 (whereas Hoxha correctly noted its revisionist and state-capitalist nature) and claimed that Stalin was "not relevant" to Albania, etc., etc.

Looks like in this instance there's a correlation between revisionism (not to mention anti-communism) and condemning Stalin. The "historical counter-revolutionary wave" began in the 1950's and 60's, and was conducted under the wave of condemning "Stalinism" and "returning to Leninism," and it was the discrediting of Stalin that allowed economic revisionism to show itself.

* Mao, Selected Works Vol. V, 1977 Ed., p. 304. "When we won the war, Stalin suspected that ours was a victory of the Tito type..."
** A Short History of the World in Two Volumes Vol. II, 1974, p. 107. "The period under review was marked by gross violations of Party and Soviet democracy and socialist legality in consequence of the Stalin personality cult, which were in direct contradiction with the principles of socialist democracy.... Those personal shortcomings of which Lenin had warned manifested themselves with greater and greater insistence: his rudeness, capriciousness, intolerance of criticism, arbitrariness, excessive suspiciousness, etc. This led to unjustified restrictions of democracy, gross violations of socialist legality and repressions against prominent Party, government and military leaders and other people."
*** "By moving towards a market, we are not swerving from the road of socialism. What had collapsed [in Eastern Europe] was not socialism but Stalinism". (Mikhail S. Gorbachev: Report to 26th Congress, CPSU, in: 'Keesing's Record of World Events', Volume 36; p. 37,615).

[Tavarisch_Mike]

I dont know if it is some sort of lingvistic issue, but in swedish the word revisionism is often associated with all kinds of re-writing of history. The moste known sort is the denial of the holocaust.

[Kayser_Soso]

I dont know if it is some sort of lingvistic issue, but in swedish the word revisionism is often associated with all kinds of re-writing of history. The moste known sort is the denial of the holocaust.

Holocaust deniers would people to think they are revisionists. Historical revisionism is a legitimate thing whereas conspiracy theories and outright denial are not. In the context of history, we can look at a major act of revisionism in regards to the Holocaust, known as the debate between functionalists and intentionalists. The intentional argument said that the Nazis had planned to exterminate Jews all along, whereas functionalists argued that this policy evolved mainly due to Germany's changing fortunes in the war. Eventually, historical evidence began to favor the functionalists, and the history of the Holocaust has been "revised." Claiming that nobody was gassed at Auschwitz, or that only 200,000 Jews died and it was totally an accident, is denial, not historical revisionism.

This form of revisionism has nothing to do with revisionism in Marxism though.

[Barry Lyndon]

Actually Hoxhaists have criticisms of both Stalin and Hoxha. We criticize Stalin for not battling his personality cult enough and many of us criticize Hoxha and the PPSH for the outright banning of religion. Everyone makes mistakes or has shortcomings. We don't deny this at all.

No, they don't. Hoxhaists, or most 'anti-revisionists' for that matter, do not have any serious criticisms of Stalin or Hoxha, only peripheral, aesthetic ones. When you ask them for any, they fumble, grumble, and whine, or add endless qualifications and excuses onto their 'criticisms'.

Their religious reverence of Hoxha and Stalin is evidenced by the likes of Ismail, who, when addressing critics of Stalinism like me, merely quotes Hoxha, as if that counts as automatic evidence- much like a religious fanatic, in an argument with a atheist or agnostic, will quote Bible or Koran passages as 'evidence'.

And as Kleber pointed out, the attitude of so many 'anti-revisionists' toward Stalin is like that of the religious toward God- when anything good is accomplished, it is to their credit, but when something bad happens, blame it on subordinates/mere mortals. When I pointed out several Soviet foreign policy disasters during the Stalin era, Ismail sent me a message about how Molotov, one of Stalin's most trusted aides for nearly two decades and an obedient mouthpiece of his regime, was secretly a 'rightist'. So fanatical is the insistence that Stalin had to be right one every issue that virtually everyone else in the Soviet leadership, and perhaps among the Soviet people themselves too, had to be screwing things up.

Stalinists/Hoxhaists don't seem to able to explain how if the successful building of socialism depends on these semi-divine individuals, how are revolutions going to succeed in the future, since these revisionists seem to slither out of the ether every time a Great Leader dies? Does the Great Leader have to be made immortal, or perhaps we can cyrogenically preserve his brain, so he may guide us to the communist utopia?

[Chambered Word]

No.

Revisionism on the ´´Stalinist regimes`` were a collection of wrong economic policies that undermined,both politically and economically,the process of the creation of socialism.

Revisionists did NOT think ´´WE ARE GOING TO DESTROY SOCIALISM``they thougth -thanks to their bureaucratic position- that proper socialist economic policies ,like central planning, were inneficient.

So what they were doing on their vision was not to destroy socialism,it was rather to improve it.

Why were bureaucrats allowed to implement the 'wrong policies'? Are you implying that the working class cannot manage society effectively?


Stalinism, the mysterious force that appears out of nowhere in a revolution led by the Glorious Leon Trotsky and his plucky Old Bolsheviks, ruining everything.

There has been Trotskyist literature devoted to explaining the rise of Stalinism but I have yet to see a Stalinist explain revisionism to me in any other terms than those which I have outlined.

[Kayser_Soso]

There has been Trotskyist literature devoted to explaining the rise of Stalinism but I have yet to see a Stalinist explain revisionism to me in any other terms than those which I have outlined.

Because you obviously never checked. Revisionism of Marxism goes back to long before the Russian Revolution. Lenin fought the revisionism of Kautsky.

[Ismail]

Their religious reverence of Hoxha and Stalin is evidenced by the likes of Ismail, who, when addressing critics of Stalinism like me, merely quotes Hoxha, as if that counts as automatic evidence- much like a religious fanatic, in an argument with a atheist or agnostic, will quote Bible or Koran passages as 'evidence'.Rather than dismiss Hoxha you could actually address his claims. People quote Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc. because they were right, not because they do it to show their devotion to them or whatever.


When I pointed out several Soviet foreign policy disasters during the Stalin era, Ismail sent me a message about how Molotov, one of Stalin's most trusted aides for nearly two decades and an obedient mouthpiece of his regime, was secretly a 'rightist'.You mentioned nothing about foreign policy. You were talking as if Molotov were some fanatical devotee of Stalin, and basically insinuated (as you continue to do in every other thread) that people who support Stalin in some way or another are people who are basically akin to Holocaust deniers or religious fanatics.

The claim that Molotov was a rightist originates in Bland's review of his memoirs (http://ml-review.ca/aml/BLAND/Molotov.html). Bland also claimed that Dimitrov was an outright anti-communist, though I don't support this claim. Molotov certainly wasn't an anti-revisionist in the Maoist or Hoxhaist sense, since he considered the USSR into the 1980's as being socialist, and supported the Soviet invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan.


Stalinists/Hoxhaists don't seem to able to explain how if the successful building of socialism depends on these semi-divine individuals,"... had I not been present in 1917 in St. Petersburg, the October Revolution would still have taken place—on the condition that Lenin was present and in command. If neither Lenin nor I had been present in Petersburg, there would have been no October Revolution: the leadership of the Bolshevik Party would have prevented it from occurring—of this I have not the slightest doubt."
(Leon Trotsky, Trotsky's Diary in Exile, trans. Elena Zarudnaya (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958), p. 46.)

Is Trotsky having a "semi-divine" outlook towards Lenin there?


how are revolutions going to succeed in the future,It isn't through the so-called "creative development of Marxism-Leninism" à la Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev, Kim Il Sung, Mao, or any other revisionist leader, that's for sure.


since these revisionists seem to slither out of the ether every time a Great Leader dies?Well let's see, in order for Khrushchev to come to power and consolidate his power (and the power of revisionism over the CPSU in general) he had to do the following:



Condemn Stalin and "Stalinism."
Kill Beria.
Expel the "Anti-Party Group."
Purge the ranks of the CPSU. "Under the slogan of the 'fight against Stalin's personality cult,' or under the pretext of rotation, the Khrushchevite revisionists rode roughshod over the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Seventy per cent of the members of the members of the Central Committee elected at the 19th Congress of the CPSU in 1952 were no longer figuring on the list of the Central Committee members elected at the 22nd Congress in 1961. Sixty per cent of the CC members in 1956 were no longer figuring on the list of the CC members that were elected at the 23rd Congress in 1966. A still greater purge has been carried out in the lower party organs. For instance, during 1963 alone, more than 50 per cent of the members of the party central and regional committees in the Republics of the Soviet Union were relieved of their functions, while in the city and district party committees three quarters of their members were replaced with others. The purge of the revolutionary cadres has been carried out on a large scale also in the State organs, and especially in those of the army and State security." (E. Hoxha, The Party of Labor of Albania in Battle with Modern Revisionism, 1972, pp. 498-499.)
Suppress 1956 Georgian demonstrations (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv5n2/georgia.htm).

Seems a fair bit more than Stalin dying to me.

[Roach]

Why were bureaucrats allowed to implement the 'wrong policies'? Are you implying that the working class cannot manage society effectively?

Of course not!But you have to remember that Russia was an extremely backward country with almost 80% of its population iliterate,some still were living like in the middle ages,the Orthodox church played a huge part on people's lives and the other huge economic,social and political problems that such backward contry had.Or are you saying that after 1917 every worker from Vladivostok to Ukraine had read all of the Marx,Engels and Lenin's selected works,understanded them and were capable of solving all its regional economic problems despite the lack of any resources?

One of the main role's of the vanguard party after the revolution is the raising of class concious to a point that the party itself becomes obsolete.

As Ismail already pointed out,many individuals who cultivated reactionary ideas,including Nikita Kruschev himself,raised to the CPSU top ranks merely by praising of Joseph Stalin to gigantic heights.It wasn't just Stalin's ''will'' that kept the cult alive.The reputation and jobs of many depended upon it.

To know more read Bill Bland's Restoration Of Capitalism On The Soviet Union.

[Ismail]

But you have to remember that Russia was an extremely backward country...

One of the main role's of the vanguard party after the revolution is the raising of class concious to a point that the party itself becomes obsolete.Yes.

"Another weakness of left communism [left-wing opposition within the Bolshevik camp], which prevented its supporters from gathering around them any effective following against Lenin, was the demonstrable failure of the early experiments in workers' control of industry... Bukharin and Obolensky further advanced the criticism that Lenin's policy amounted to nothing more nor less than state capitalism; and that unless the masses exercised economic dictatorship, their political dictatorship would inevitably disappear. To this Lenin could reply that where the state embodied the interests and the will of the proletariat, economic control by the state meant economic control by the proletariat."
(Leonard Schapiro. The Origins of the Communist Autocracy. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1965. pp. 137-138.)

Furthermore:
"The case of the railways will suffice as an illustration.... the overall management of the railways was entrusted, and complete control by the workers decreed on 23 January 1918. Within a few months the railways were in a state of collapse. The 'complete and utter disorganization' was growing daily:

'The workers by present-day rules are guaranteed their pay. The worker turns up at his job . . . does his job, or not, as he pleases, no one can control him, because the [railway repair] shop committees are powerless. If the workshop committee attempts to exercise some control, it is immediately disbanded and another committee elected. In a word, things are in the hands of a crowd, which thanks to its lack of interest in and understanding of production is literally putting a brake on all work.'

Ironically enough it fell to Shlyapnikov, the future leader of the Workers' Opposition and advocate of workers' control of industry, to paint this deplorable picture before the Central Executive Committee, and to demand the restoration of work discipline on the railways. On 26 March the Council of People's Commissars centralized control of the railways under the Commissar of Communications, who was given complete dictatorial powers. Lenin drafted the decree. But the railways were only one instance out of many. The inescapable fact that workers' control had failed was Lenin's strongest argument in winning support for his industrial policy of work discipline, one-man management, and efficient methods of production."
(Ibid. pp. 139-140.)

Hence how a bureaucracy was able to develop in the first place. As Grover Furr said (http://clogic.eserver.org/1-2/furr.html) once (albeit from his rather ultra-left PLP-influenced viewpoint), "In short, social relationships in the USSR were 'reformed' capitalist relationships more than they were truly communist egalitarian relationships. This had to give rise to new class antagonisms and create resistance to the disappearance of old ones."

[The Red Next Door]

The word "revisionist" is ML-speak referring to anyone who questions Stalin's divinity.

I kidd, I kidd.

Wikipedia provides a pretty easy to understand explanation.

"Anti-revisionism refers to a doctrine which upholds the line of theory and practice associated with Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin, and usually either Mao or Hoxha as well. It is stated in such a way as to show direct opposition to the Marx-Engels-Lenin-Trotsky line of Trotskyism. Anti-revisionists claim that the Soviet Union under Stalin's leadership represented the final correct and successful practical implementation of the scientific socialist ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). However, the anti-revisionist movement is effectively split into two camps which are divided in their attitudes toward the People's Republic of China (PRC) under Mao: the Maoist faction advocates his ideas and policies, while the Hoxhaist faction does not."

don't get info from wikipedia.

[The Red Next Door]

Yes, Stalin personally made that poster. He was a great artist. One can argue about how much Stalin should have fought the cult of personality(as it did not originate with him); he sort of accepted this thing like he accepted a lot of assumptions about Russian culture. Of course if he had been more progressive and attacked Russian traditions more radically, we might be hearing the opposite condemnations about him today. Then again, maybe we wouldn't, because revisionism would have been avoided. Who cares?

velikiy stalin znamya druzhbih narodov SSSR. (stalin the great banner of friendship of the peoples of the USSR)