A couple of questions

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

Hi there, I'm new to the forum having finally joined after being a regular 'guest' for a long time.:o

I have a couple of questions::confused:

What exactly do the terms 'Reactionary' and 'Revisionist' mean?

I've seen them on these forums quite a lot and I'm not sure if they some form of insult or is it a genuine political system?:lol:

Thanks.;)

[punisa]

What exactly do the terms 'Reactionary' and 'Revisionist' mean?

As I understand it:
Reactionary:
One that tries to stop a progress by promoting and old paradigm, an old idea.
I consider social-democracy reactionary because they abandoned the idea of a revolution - thus progress, in favor of some mild reforms but with capitalism still in place.
The word is often used in communist systems of the 20th century to label those people who would prefer to go back to the previous state.
If you believe in socialism and consider it to be the road to communism then such reactionary individuals pose a great threat to that goal.

Revisionist:
Revisionism is an interesting one and should not be confused with reactionary, but there are some similarities.
If you talk about historic revisionism, that means that you try (fabricate, find "new" evidence, make discoveries etc) to "rewrite" history in a different light.
For example, if you would start spreading the idea that Hitler never operated concentration camps you would be engaging in the historical revisionism - you would try hard to create a "new" history where Hitler was not that bad. And if you had a huge propaganda (media) at your disposal - over a period of time you might even succeed at this task.
Historical revisionism is taking place daily, it was especially significant in the countries of the eastern bloc. After the fall of communism, new rulling elite did everything they could to portray communism as the most wicked, genocidal, unfair system known to man.

That's historical revisionism. But there is also a type of revisionism that it thrown around when referring to Marx and Marxism.
Thus these "revisionists" are considered those people who deviate away from original Marxists texts (mainly "The Communist Manifesto") and put forward their own versions of it.
For example, if you preach socialism where workers have no control over the means of production, or you claim that revolution is unnecessary, then you are a revisionist from a Marxists perspective.


I'm aware that there are more precise definitions for these terms, but as I said before, these are my interpretations :)

p.s. welcome to the forums !

[Hit The North]

Reactionaries want to return society to an older form, based on older values. Culturally, anyone who harks back to some 'Golden Age' is a reactionary. Social Democrats are not really reactionary, although they may be conservative with a small 'c', being generally less favourable to sudden change.

The term 'revisionist' in Marxist circles originally referred to late 19th century Social Democrats who wanted to abandon the revolutionary platform of Marxism, but hang on to its economic analysis. These days it is an uninteresting insult exchanged between various shades of dogmatist.

[black magick hustla]

twenty percent tip said "revisionist is a term used by mentally damaged people" i wouldnt phrase it that way but long story short if someone uses it you dont wanna hangout with them

[PhoenixAsh]

Reactionary is a position which wants to counter a current change of political development.

In practical application it can either mean changing back to a previous state of politics or maintaining some of its structures. Or in a more abstract application it can revert back along the line of political reasoning back towards and earlier point on that line.

In both applications social democrats are reactionary on some of their policies....on others they are not. From our perspective they are or should be.

Reactionary is not necessarilly a negative term....though from our perspective it usually is.


Revisionism simply means: wanting to see or applying some change to an existing theory.

If that is good or bad is up for debate. Revisionism can be applied to all existing theories, dogma's, idea's or ideologies....and is not something which is clearly defined.
Revisionism can be either done from a new interpretation or from new evidence or for political and ideological purposes.IF its done based on empirical evidence this is not necessarilly bad unless the evidence proofs to be baseless, falsified, false or wrongly interpreted. If it proofs to be correct empirical evidens...revisionism turns into mainstream theory.


In our perspective we usually mean the changes to core philosophy to Marxism; Marxist-Leninism or Maoism other -isms. In anti-fascist debates revisionism means holocaust revisionism and denial.

[Zanthorus]

On 'revisionism' I think BTB is almost there:


The term 'revisionist' in Marxist circles originally referred to late 19th century Social Democrats who wanted to abandon the revolutionary platform of Marxism, but hang on to its economic analysis.

However the revisionists did not want to hang on to Marx's 'economic analysis' either. One of Bernstein's central points was that through various means of adaptation capitalism was overcoming the central tendency towards crisis which Marx had identified in various parts of his work. He concluded that it was necessary to replace the justification for socialism based on an analysis of trends within the development of capitalist society with a moral justification rooted in Kantian ethics.

The practical conclusion was that the Social-Democratic parties should drop their supposed intransigence and participate in governmental coalitions with the liberal and reformist parties to secure changes to the system which would lead to a gradual replacement of capitalism by socialism. This latter point was the concrete one which the opposition between the 'revisionists' and the champions of orthodoxy revolved, with the latter being against what they saw as attempts to violate the class autonomy of the proletariat. See for example Kautsky's 'The Two Tendencies (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1902/02/tendencies.htm)'.

[Bronco]

Historical revisionism is not necessarily a bad thing, not at all

[Ocean Seal]

Hi there, I'm new to the forum having finally joined after being a regular 'guest' for a long time.:o

I have a couple of questions::confused:

What exactly do the terms 'Reactionary' and 'Revisionist' mean?

I've seen them on these forums quite a lot and I'm not sure if they some form of insult or is it a genuine political system?:lol:

Thanks.;)

Reactionary- those who want to turn back the hands of time. People who generally don't simply oppose progress, but want to destroy progress to return to an earlier time (ie: monarchists, feudalists, fascists, neoliberals).
Also used as a generic insult on the left, as someone who opposes socialism.

Revisionist-means two things. The first definition refers to those who follow evolutionary socialism set forth by Eduard_Bernstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Bernstein). Revisionist, in the sense that we should revise capitalism instead of embracing revolution to end capitalism. Revisionist also means someone who has not thoroughly followed a certain socialist leader. For example, some would call Lenin a revisionist for not directly following Marx. And likewise Stalin/ Trotsky revisionists for not directly following Lenin. However, the much more common use of it is used by Anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninists/Stalinists/ Hoxhaists (ARMLSH) to describe those who don't adhere to the philosophy of Stalin. Typically Krushev is called a revisionist by the following groups above along with Maoists. Maoists are seen as less revisionist than Krushevists, but the ARMLSH still consider them revisionists. ARMLSH consider all post-Stalin leaders of the USSR revisionists along with several other socialist leaders. Revisionist is another term which is used generically as an insult (albeit a much softer insult than reactionary).

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

Thank you all for the warm welcome and the way you have have answered my questions in a simple yet sophisticated manner. I think it could be a long and fruitful relationship between myself and RevLeft :)