Revisionism

[Faceless]

What is revisionism?
I've been labelled one by Stalinists as one. I have guessed that it is someone who revises the marxist-leninist, authoritarian nature of Stalinism. I have more often heard it used to describe China and the likes. Those who revise the economy of Communism, denationalising.
So is it political or economic? or both?

[Scottish_Militant]

Stalinists will call anyone who dares disagree with them 'a revisionist' (or 'a trot')

The irony is, the biggest revisionist of all time was Stalin himself

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 09:33 AM
Stalinists will call anyone who dares disagree with them 'a revisionist' (or 'a trot')

The irony is, the biggest revisionist of all time was Stalin himself
Too true!

[Saint-Just]

In China the state is regarded as revisionist after 1976 when they started to claim that the ideas of Marx and Lenin were not relevant today etc.

You are correct in saying that a revisionist is those who revise Marxism-Leninism.

[redstar2000]

When I was new to "left" politics, I was curious about the term "revisionism" myself.

It seemed "neutral" or possibly even "good"--why shouldn't we "revise" our views in the light of new evidence?

It took a while for me to "pin down" why this word had and still has such pejorative connotations.

It's not some kind of objection in principle to revising Marx's views in the light of new evidence...people do that all the time.

Rather it's a particular kind of revising, one that essentially eliminates the revolutionary content of Marxism that provokes the snarl "revisionist!"

In this sense, the "revisionist" is one who rejects proletarian revolution as "no longer necessary" or "impossible" or even "undesirable" while still claiming to be a "Marxist".

The various strands of Leninism naturally extend this definition to cover their own arses...in their eyes, a Marxist who rejects "the leading role of the vanguard party" is likewise a "revisionist" in the bad sense of the word.

On the whole, I don't think it is a very useful word. In my view, someone who rejects proletarian revolution is not any kind of Marxist at all, regardless of their claims to the contrary. The bourgeois parliamentary road "to socialism" is simply reformism period.

There are many kinds of reformists; some promise a little and some promise a lot...none will deliver anything of consequence. Capitalism no longer permits its own state organs to be used against it.

But if the word appeals to you, use it correctly.

Revisionism = opposition to proletarian revolution.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

I see.

In your view its the process of revolution which is important not the end result.

But I'll bet you take a damned lenient view of what revolution means when it comes to evaluating yourself; because after all what you are advocating is communicating the advantages of redstarism to people and waiting till things get shitty, then hoping people spontaneosly rise up in support of it.

By any normal view of what a revolutionary means you are a revisionist (and a reformist apparently) yourself according to your definitions.

Can I magically become a 'proper' Marxist if I tag on 'but I'm suggesting all this in the hope that people spontaneously rise up in revolution instead' ?

bloody nonsense Redstar.

[redstar2000]

You have become tiresome, squire.

Should you someday find yourself capable of an articulate response to something I say, I may discuss it with you.

But recently you have only combined deliberate obtuseness with personal abuse.

It is a waste of my time to respond to your tedious belligerence.

Piss off!

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Saint-Just]

Why have you assigned sc4r the nickname 'squire' redstar2000? Is it because he is British? (If indeed he is British)

I agree with the first half of your post redstar2000, on what revisionism is in a basic sense. But the last part of it seemed to refer to sc4r than the issue in general terms.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 12:14 PM
You have become tiresome, squire.

It is a waste of my time to respond to your tedious belligerence.

Piss off!

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
Then fucking well dont you twat. It aint exactly a conundrum.

You aint doing me no favours by posting obtuse BS and insults. Whats the real content of that last post ? it is 'ooeeer missus I wish this bloke Scar would shut up and let me insult him insttead of him fighting back'. Guess what I NEVER STOP FIGHTING perverters of socialism, NEVER.

Obviously I woiuld not want you to waste yout time old man. You have few years left to bolster your ego while spoiling young comrades. I'd guess you should want to make the most of it. Or yoiu can try arguing with me, whoich will indeed queer your pitch somewhat wont it? TOUGH, yoiu should have tjhought of that before you revealed to me waht you are and got belligerent.

You refused a truce, wanted a fight, and now you got it. You dont appear to like it. tough.

I'm not here to socialise or make friends. I'm here to talk realities with people who actually care about socialism and maybe help to crystallise actual action by genuine berlievers. Your pposy academic young buddies whio ' jist want everything to be nice' mean nothing to me. Zip. They'll be gone from the cause in a year or four anyway.