Revisionism A Dirty Word?

[StarCityPartisan]

I have long been sickened by sectarian fighting amongst the radical left. We often have delusional faith in our tendencies, having the emotional responses of a dogmatic/religious nature, do to the pseudo-deification of major revolutionary writers and leaders. Marxism was founded with logic and reason. I am well versed in history and know that the most popular revolutionaries had wonderful ideas... and major faults. We would be absurd to say any one tendency is superior due to the fact that no strong socialist country exists today. Of course we know that outward forces such as imperialism weakened the progress of every revolution; however not a single one has been overwhelmingly successful looking at a world map in 2011. I propose an analogy to make my point:

I need to cut a piece of wood (capitalist power holdings in one country). I have piece of metal, a stick, a stone, a piece of twine, and a ruler (tendencies).

I first take my plastic ruler and try to cut the wood, doesn't work.
I quickly realise the twine is not helpful.
I use the stick and it bounces off the other wood.
The stone makes a round dent when I swing, but it is very tiring.
The metal chips the wood and is not efficient.

The solution? Use the stone to fashion the metal into a blade, and the ruler to make the edges even. Split the stick a little and place the new blade in it. Take the twine and secure the blade to the handle. I know have an axe. I can cut my wood very easily, and in fact cut many more pieces.

It may be simple, but the principle is sound.

I ask this question: have we lost our rational nature and gone the way of the religious fanatic, or is there a rational solution? Can't we use logic to problem solve, take our best ideas and combine them, and leave the rest in history?

[praxis1966]

Moved to Learning.

[StarCityPartisan]

[QUOTE]Moved to Learning[QUOTE]

Praxis, I know the arguments for and against every tendency. My intent was to ask the forum to use logical arguments (a science) for their often emotional and militant adherence to failed or unproven principles, and thereby understand the psychological motivation for the destructive sectarian nature of today's political left as an initial study to formulate a proper thesis for one of the books I am writing. I am not questioning that you had a good reason to move the thread, but would like some clarification as to why it was put in a thread for people with minimal knowledge of leftist ideology?

[praxis1966]

I am not questioning that you had a good reason to move the thread, but would like some clarification as to why it was put in a thread for people with minimal knowledge of leftist ideology?

Sure thing. It's because the question you asked, according to the way things are organized here, is more typical of this forum than Sciences... Which is a forum devoted pretty much to things like engineering and technology. On the other hand, what you will find in Learning is a bunch of people who are knowledgeable to answer your question. So it's not so much that I was making a commentary on how much you know, rather it's more to do with how things are organized here.

[Rafiq]

Anti-Revisionism in itself(That Revisionism could pose as a problem to economic prosperity) is vehemently Idealist and AntiMarxist.

[StarCityPartisan]

Anti-Revisionism in itself(That Revisionism could pose as a problem to economic prosperity) is vehemently Idealist and AntiMarxist.

Exactly my understanding of Marxist thought. Marx often revised his theories until he was sure he had found the best solution for the world. If this was not the case he would have written hundreds of books, that I am sure would have been of little sociological/economic importance. Instead he moved forward to a better understanding of the material world. If only more comrades thought this way we could be decades closer to our goal.

[Dogs On Acid]

Anti-Revisionism is so Anti-Materialist...

[Rodrigo]

"Revising your own theories" (self-criticism) is not the same as revisionism.

[StarCityPartisan]

"Revising your own theories" (self-criticism) is not the same as revisionism.

That is understood, but it shows a willingness to learn and develop. We can't just read a text and have a permanently biased view on the best way to implement a revolution. A materialistic study of history has to be made in the case of every socialist revolution. If we abandon Historical Materialism, we lose the hard evidence that a classless state is inevitable. To ignore historical facts is to discredit the entire method that gave us modern radical theory, and in certain cases science (as many of Marx' principles have been tested and found to be true)

[o well this is ok I guess]

If we abandon Historical Materialism, we lose the hard evidence that a classless state is inevitable Is this a problem

[StarCityPartisan]

Is this a problem

If we want to educate the masses so that the revolution will be as swift and painless as possible. After the Cultural Revolution in China the people began growing more reactionary, as a result the country is just a totalitarian capitalist country laden with revolutionary slogans. Working Class consciousness can't be forced. There is a need for a better understanding of the way revolution works, or it could take centuries of reactionary shifts in political power: left to right, right to left. This would cause civil war and is not necessary.

[o well this is ok I guess]

If we want to educate the masses so that the revolution will be as swift and painless as possible. After the Cultural Revolution in China the people began growing more reactionary, as a result the country is just a totalitarian capitalist country laden with revolutionary slogans. Working Class consciousness can't be forced. There is a need for a better understanding of the way revolution works, or it could take centuries of reactionary shifts in political power: left to right, right to left. This would cause civil war and is not necessary. So then education is merely a function of tactics? We must teach Historical Materialism in order to further the cause, rather than for the truth of Historical Materialism itself? Isn't this more or less a form of dishonesty? Or is this the main function of education?

[StoneFrog]

I believe that the problem is party organization, its a tactic which is only hurting the left, making it impossible to build a revolution. Tendencies are rife with squabbles based on the past, not the present or the future. Its to the point that no matter the other side wont back down, rushing to the aid of their tendency without evaluating what is being said. We have all become close minded, the past is there to show us how to develop from it, not to cast blame and "if only".

Party tactics are as such that they have to trying to poach each others members, instead of consolidating themselves for the sake of the proletariat.

I support regional assemblies of independent socialists, so that party line and tendencies can be broken down into their core concepts and democratically put forward to the assembly. Non of this toting the party line crap, our duty is not to create a revolution in our own eye, it is to bring about a revolution of proletariat power, with democratic structures of the proletariat.

[StarCityPartisan]

I believe that the problem is party organization, its a tactic which is only hurting the left, making it impossible to build a revolution. Tendencies are rife with squabbles based on the past, not the present or the future. Its to the point that no matter the other side wont back down, rushing to the aid of their tendency without evaluating what is being said. We have all become close minded, the past is there to show us how to develop from it, not to cast blame and "if only".

Party tactics are as such that they have to trying to poach each others members, instead of consolidating themselves for the sake of the proletariat.

I support regional assemblies of independent socialists, so that party line and tendencies can be broken down into their core concepts and democratically put forward to the assembly. Non of this toting the party line crap, our duty is not to create a revolution in our own eye, it is to bring about a revolution of proletariat power, with democratic structures of the proletariat.

I am working with other revolutionaries and will have a site up soon dedicated to this very idea. Perfectly said StoneFrog.

[StarCityPartisan]

So then education is merely a function of tactics? We must teach Historical Materialism in order to further the cause, rather than for the truth of Historical Materialism itself? Isn't this more or less a form of dishonesty? Or is this the main function of education?

Our means and ends are the same thing. Without proper education, the historical factors that lead to great civil unrest, and dramatic change, can be steered in a negative direction.
(i.e. Fascism, Military State, Religious State, and any variation). The Revolution is not a board game, so I don't view it in tactics. Education of the working class is scientifically beneficial to mankind.

[thefinalmarch]

Revisionism is defined as "the advocacy of a revision of some accepted theory, doctrine or a view of historical events."

Hence, revisionism is not inherently good or bad. It is simply a means to an end. I believe revision of theories and interpretations of events would definitely be of use to communists if a particular theory or interpretation of events is determined to be disproved or obsolete by the emergence of new social conditions we did not predict, etc. or by the occurrence of events of significance to communists and the working class. Personally, I'm not sure that there's much in Marxism that I really disagree with.

However, in the context which MLs, MLMs and Hoxhaists use this term, it specifically refers to the lines of Khrushchev, Deng, et al. which are basically all denounced by MLs, etc. For most of them, it's not the concept of revision (as described in the previous paragraph) itself which they oppose, but it is the official position of the above individuals and their successors, etc. which they denounce. It's important to recognise this distinction. I personally don't see much difference between Khrushchev and Deng, and their predecessors - they're capitalists all the same.

If you do meet someone who considers Marx's or Engels' or Lenin's or Stalin's or Trotsky's or Mao's or Hoxha's or Luxemburg's writings to be a collection of sacred texts or who is otherwise invariably opposed to the idea of revision itself, feel free to kick 'em in the pants because they're probably a fucking wanker.

[StarCityPartisan]

Revisionism is defined as "the advocacy of a revision of some accepted theory, doctrine or a view of historical events."

Hence, revisionism is not inherently good or bad. It is simply a means to an end. I believe revision of theories and interpretations of events would definitely be of use to communists if a particular theory or interpretation of events is determined to be disproved or obsolete by the emergence of new social conditions we did not predict, etc. or by the occurrence of events of significance to communists and the working class. Personally, I'm not sure that there's much in Marxism that I really disagree with.

However, in the context which MLs, MLMs and Hoxhaists use this term, it specifically refers to the lines of Khrushchev, Deng, et al. which are basically all denounced by MLs, etc. For most of them, it's not the concept of revision (as described in the previous paragraph) itself which they oppose, but it is the official position of the above individuals and their successors, etc. which they denounce. It's important to recognise this distinction. I personally don't see much difference between Khrushchev and Deng, and their predecessors - they're capitalists all the same.

If you do meet someone who considers Marx's or Engels' or Lenin's or Stalin's or Trotsky's or Mao's or Hoxha's or Luxemburg's writings to be a collection of sacred texts or who is otherwise invariably opposed to the idea of revision itself, feel free to kick 'em in the pants because they're probably a fucking wanker.

absolutely brilliant assessment FinalMarch. Having coffee and reading this has brightened my day.

[Rodrigo]

Some people insist that "revisionism" is not bad because the revision of theories and actions has to occur; as I said, this is called self-criticism, and it is defended (ou should be) by every marxist-leninist in the world. Revisionism is the distortion of Marxism (nowadays Marxism-Leninism); it seeks the destruction of the revolutionary nature of socialism; it "revises" the class struggle theory throwing it in the trash, preaching class conciliation; denies the importance of the Communist Party; rejects proletarian internationalism; and so on.

Not just Khruschev and Deng are revisionists. Before them there were also Kautsky, Bernstein, Jaurès. Also there are Titoists, Trotskyists, Eurocommunists, Hoxhaists (about "Mao"); Kamenev, Zinoviev, Brezhnev, etc. Their key-theories were all properly refuted by others communists. Insisting in a mistake, like defending revisionism, is the consequence of ignorant criticism.

Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao; every of these great revolutionaries revised some things they once said or did and every of these also struggled with other tendencies, even Marx and Engels, against radical Hegelians, Proudhonists, positivists. Also: Lenin's brilliant "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky"; Stalin's "Trotskyism Or Leninism?"; Chinese Communist Party's refutation of Khruschev's and Tito's revisionist theories; Hoxha's "Eurocommunism Is Anticommunism" and many other works, by other people. There's also in Enver Hoxha a bit of revisionism and opportunism towards Mao Zedong, and his points against "Maoism" were also proven wrong by Maoists around the world; here in Brasil I know about Albênzio Dias de Carvalho's "O Revisionismo Albanês de Amazonas e Sua Crítica 'Demolidora' do Maoísmo" (The Albanian Revisionism of Amazonas and His "Demolishing" Critique of Maoism), in reply to João Amazonas' book "O Revisionismo Chinês de Mao Tsetung" (The Chinese Revisionism of Mao Zedong).

That's why studying one's theories is important before criticizing. In the present we have to know the polemics of the past. "Present" and "past" are strictly correlated and the counter-revolutionary revisionism still lives among the left; it's caused by the class struggle, which also reflects inside the Communist Parties and inside the leftists movements from everywhere. The real Marxists always triumphed in the ideological struggle against revisionists and reformists, but sadly they still exist, primarily because of capitalist propaganda against communism and communists, spreading ignorance.