Khruschev Revisionists

[The Man]

What does it mean to be one?

[bailey_187]

well when Hoxha and Mao said it, it refered specificaly to Krushchev and his political supporters who were supposedly "revising" Marxism-Leninism.

Nowdays the term "revisionist" seems to be preffered (as Krushchev is gone and irelevent today), which refers to anyone who doesnt follow the line of Lenin-Stalin-Mao (to the Maoists), or Lenin-Stalin-Hoxha(to the Hoxhaists) or just Lenin-Stalin-Other Soviet leaders bad but still socialist. The Maoists (less so to Hoxhaists) and Hoxhaists would also consider eachother and the other group i mentioned as revisionist.

yeah, stupid stuff.

[The Man]

well when Hoxha and Mao said it, it refered specificaly to Krushchev and his political supporters who were supposedly "revising" Marxism-Leninism.

Nowdays the term "revisionist" seems to be preffered (as Krushchev is gone and irelevent today), which refers to anyone who doesnt follow the line of Lenin-Stalin-Mao (to the Maoists), or Lenin-Stalin-Hoxha(to the Hoxhaists) or just Lenin-Stalin-Other Soviet leaders bad but still socialist. The Maoists (less so to Hoxhaists) and Hoxhaists would also consider eachother and the other group i mentioned as revisionist.

yeah, stupid stuff.

So they are basically people who want to change fundamental Marxist ideas?

[bailey_187]

thats what some would say. others would say they wernt, other would say the marxism they changed was already changed and not true anymore

[Savage]

Why is the term "Khrushchev Revisionist'' used at all? How is this grammatically correct as a description of someone's political affiliation?

[Ismail]

Hoxha and Mao used the term "Khrushchevite revisionists."

But yes, Khrushchev was a revisionist to Marxism-Leninism, just as Kautsky became a revisionist of Marxism in the 1910's and 20's, and Bernstein became a revisionist to Marxism in the 1880's and 1890's.

Three reads:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1964/phnycom.htm
http://www.marxists.org/subject/china/documents/polemic/peaceful.htm
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/revisionists.htm

[Imposter Marxist]

If you look back at Khruschev and his reforms, he butched marxism and the world Leninist movement. It seems so unreal that he was able to make such huge deviations from what should have been concerete strategies.

[ComradeOm]

So they are basically people who want to change fundamental Marxist ideas?That's the accusation. The slur 'revisionist' dates back to the late 19th C and doctrinal disputes within the Second International in which Bernstein was accused of 'revising' Marx's theses. Its basically a way of labelling your opponents as less ideologically pure than yourself

[RATM-Eubie]

I guess it means anyone who is not an extreme authoritarian leftist????
Thats what i get from all this Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Hoxha stuff...

[Ismail]

That's the accusation. The slur 'revisionist' dates back to the late 19th C and doctrinal disputes within the Second International in which Bernstein was accused of 'revising' Marx's theses. Its basically a way of labelling your opponents as less ideologically pure than yourselfThe Marxists Internet Archive calls (http://marxists.org/glossary/people/b/e.htm#bernstein-edward) Bernstein the "chief exponent of revisionism and reformism for over twenty five years," so is MIA using it as a "slur" too?

[Obs]

I guess it means anyone who is not an extreme authoritarian leftist????
Thats what i get from all this Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Hoxha stuff...

As much as the word "authoritarian" makes me cringe, I'll play ball with you because it seems you yet have the political literacy of a middle schooler with a "Change '08" poster in his room. To answer your question, no. For instance, Ceausescu of Romania was very much a revisionist, and so would many (including myself) label Kim Jong-Il. Revisionism has to do with deviating from theoretically sound Marxism/Leninism - in practice as well as in theory. For this reason, "Maoist" Third-Worldists are also revisionists, in that they forgo class analysis and simply pit nation-states against one another in some genocidal, apocalyptic fantasy.

[Red_Struggle]

Basically revisionism means revising or distorting Marxist theory's most fundamental points on foreign, domestic, and economic policy. "Hoxhaists" view Mao's foreign policy as revisionist because he supported people like Savimbi, Pinochet, and Mobuto because he made the claim that Soviet social-imperialism was more of a threat than American imperialism, not to mention his "three worlds theory".

As for economic revisionism, anti-revisionists point to the Kosygin reform in the USSR which enabled state enterprises to compete with one another in order to offer incentive to its managers and in turn, boost production. But the exact opposite happened: it slowed down.

[RATM-Eubie]

As much as the word "authoritarian" makes me cringe, I'll play ball with you because it seems you yet have the political literacy of a middle schooler with a "Change '08" poster in his room. To answer your question, no. For instance, Ceausescu of Romania was very much a revisionist, and so would many (including myself) label Kim Jong-Il. Revisionism has to do with deviating from theoretically sound Marxism/Leninism - in practice as well as in theory. For this reason, "Maoist" Third-Worldists are also revisionists, in that they forgo class analysis and simply pit nation-states against one another in some genocidal, apocalyptic fantasy.

I wish i would love Obama sooo much :crying: he really sold me with his whole Change and Hope slogans, i really love the man :crying:

[Impulse97]

Can someone explain the political stance of this group, as compared to M-L's etc. etc., instead of defining who or what revisionism is?

[Obs]

I wish i would love Obama sooo much :crying: he really sold me with his whole Change and Hope slogans, i really love the man :crying:
Another, more generally socially acceptable response would be "Okay, thanks for clearing that up."

[Ismail]

Can someone explain the political stance of this group, as compared to M-L's etc. etc., instead of defining who or what revisionism is?"Khrushchevites" don't exist anymore, or are about as numerous as non-Yugoslav "Titoists." Meaning, they basically don't exist. Those that were particularly predisposed towards Khrushchev were pro-Soviet CP persons who later backed Eurocommunism and other reformist endeavors.

Brezhnevites exist but don't call themselves by that name. As MIM once said:

Leonid Brezhnev led the Soviet Union from 1964 (after Khruschev) till his death in 1982. His long rule shaped much of modern day revisionism and until the 1990s was the greatest influence numerically amongst those calling themselves communist in the West.

Because he ousted Khruschev and adopted a "neutral" policy toward Stalin, the Western imperialist press reviled him as harboring Stalinists. Although he replaced Khruschev, he kept the Soviet Union on a course to the right of Mao Zedong in China. Indeed, under Brezhnev, the phony Soviet Union actually carried out a border war against China and asked Nixon for permission to drop nuclear weapons on China.

Brezhnev's rule was known as a time of superpower contention with the United $tates. He pushed detente, but he also provided "aid" to Third World liberation struggles willing to adopt his party's revisionist theses. At the same time, people like Yeltsin and Gorbachev thrived under Brezhnev's rule and later came to criticize it for "stagnationism."

As a result of the open capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union, Brezhnevites are now much more friendly to Maoists. Many contend they are considering Mao's theses and no doubt in some cases it is a true claim.The Workers World Party, the relevant variant of the FRSO, PSL, a "hardline" grouping within the CPUSA, the CPGB-ML, etc. can be called Brezhnevite. Basically those that take a pro-Soviet position post-1956 (although most would say Khrushchev was a rightist and that the USSR after him made some "right-wing errors"), defend the invasion of Czechoslovakia, defend the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and adopt the view that the USSR was socialist until Gorbachev came along. They also tend to defend modern-day China (again, some say its leadership is "rightist" or that China is in "serious danger" of capitalist restoration) and back the government's actions during the Tienanmen Square protests.

[Gorilla]

Can someone explain the political stance of this group, as compared to M-L's etc. etc., instead of defining who or what revisionism is?

If the party is in power, it relaxes dictatorship of the proletariat and proclaims a "state of the whole people".

If the party is out of power, it advocates a "peaceful road to socialism." Ironically, the British and American parties started that shit during Stalin's time, but still.

When Kruschev was on his tour of the US and said "your grandchildren will be Communists" he didn't mean "capitalism will go into crisis and class-based revolution will break out, leading to a socialist worker's government." Instead he meant "you will see how superior our method of scientific socialist planning is and adopt it yoursevles in a spirit of peace and brotherhood of all people."

[ComradeOm]

The Marxists Internet Archive calls (http://marxists.org/glossary/people/b/e.htm#bernstein-edward) Bernstein the "chief exponent of revisionism and reformism for over twenty five years," so is MIA using it as a "slur" too?Yep. It sure as hell isn't a compliment

Let's be clear here: there is no objective way of defining revisionism. Its a label, typically applied by others with the intention to denigrate, that implies a departure from conventional orthodoxy. Its certainly not limited to socialists - almost every field (particularly within academic) will have its 'revisionist' schools

[TC]

"Khruschevite Revisionists" is a label whose definition presupposes the correctness of anti-revisionist ideology - just as "Stalinist" is a label whose definition presupposes the correctness of Trotskyist ideology and "Authoritarian Socialist" is a label whose definition presupposes the correctness of Anarchist ideology. This makes it basically unilluminating and useful only for internal discourse against political enemies.

[thälmann]

by the way: the british road to socialism wasnt meant as a peaceful way to socialism, but to use the parlamentary to achieve peoples democracy. very wrong, and something stalin is also not unguilty for. but the peaceful stuff came later...