Why so Anti-Revisionist?

[JPSartre12]

Hey comrades :)

Alright, just making a quick disclaimer here - I don't want to start a thread that's just straight up revisionist vs anti-revisionist fighting and name calling and bashing each other, etc etc. I'm actually curious and want to learn!

What do people think about revisionism? You know, the whole "Eduard Bernstein we can get to socialism peacefully through reform" sort of revisionist Marxism? Can someone shed a bit of theory on me as to why revisionism/evolutionary is so frowned upon while orthodox/revolutionary views are seen as better?

The world's changed a lot since Marx wrote the Manifesto ... why it is so bad to look back at his ideas and tweak them a little bit?

Curiosity :rolleyes:
Thoughts?

[Positivist]

I don't think its wrong to adjust theory to evolving material conditions, that's not usually the context that "revisionism" is used in (but it is occasionally.) Usually its attached to straying from materialism, or from rejecting fundamental precepts of the socialist movement such as internationalism, or from the proletarait as the leading revolutionary class. Though, I will grant that it is overused, and often applied to anything that isn't verbatim of Marx or Lenin. (Or others, but usually those two.)

[Teacher]

See the links in my sig

[jookyle]

Revisionism is not about evolving marxism, it is about changing the past. To come up with new ideas in marxism to fit today isn't revisionism, it's continuing the process. Also, reform is not a marxist stance. Marxism is a revolutionary tendency, you can be a reform socialist, but you can't be a reform marxist.

[Manic Impressive]

What do you mean by revisionism? There's the stalinist version when they're talking about Kruschev and Brezhnev or do you mean revisions to Marxism? Because well every single theory since is a revision of Marxism, even Orthodox communism is a revision of Marxism which came out of the reformist 2nd international.

It seems you are asking why is reformism or gradualism bad. It's easy just look at every attempt to reform capitalism in the interests of the working class. Each time it has failed miserably from the soviet union to the various labour parties. It does not destroy capitalism and that is the goal of a revolutionary not to affect mere political change but to end the current economic system.

[lenin1988]

I think naming the long term unemployed people as lumpen should be revised because it goes too far and is kinda Capitalist to degrade a person who has been hurt by Capitalism.. Some people who are unemployed are very revolutionary

[Manic Impressive]

I think naming the long term unemployed people as lumpen should be revised because it goes too far and is kinda Capitalist to degrade a person who has been hurt by Capitalism.. Some people who are unemployed are very revolutionary
That's not in Marxism and is a misunderstanding of the term. There was no welfare state or long term unemployed in Marx's time for him to write about.

[lenin1988]

Ah I see..I understand now

[Homo Songun]

What do you mean by revisionism? There's the stalinist version when they're talking about Kruschev and Brezhnev or do you mean revisions to Marxism?
Same thing.


Because well every single theory since is a revision of Marxism,
No.

even Orthodox communism is a revision of Marxism which came out of the reformist 2nd international.
No.


It seems you are asking why is reformism or gradualism bad.The truth of this...


It's easy just look at every attempt to reform capitalism in the interests of the working class. Each time it has failed miserably ...Is not proved by that. Revolution happens when the proletariat, as a class in itself acts for itself. That will happen when enough of them realize reforms aren't enough. There is no way around that step, so I hardly see how it is a bad thing to arrive there. To the contrary actually.

It has nothing to do with the reformism-as-ideology of the labor misleaders and leftist parliamentarians.

[Manic Impressive]

Same thing.
No.


No.
Yes.


No.
Yes.

WTF was the point of your post?

[JPSartre12]

It seems you are asking why is reformism or gradualism bad. It's easy just look at every attempt to reform capitalism in the interests of the working class. Each time it has failed miserably from the soviet union to the various labour parties. It does not destroy capitalism and that is the goal of a revolutionary not to affect mere political change but to end the current economic system.

I guess I'm thinking about a gradualist approach to socialism, yeah. I'm pretty pro-reform but a lot of what I've been hearing over the past couple weeks is slowly converting me to being pro-revolution instead :tt2: baby steps but I'm making progress!

I guess I should rephrase my question then .... do you guys think that it's possible to have a non-violent revolution?

[Revolution starts with U]

Anything's possible. I could fart and lift off into space. ... I mean, it's possible.

To answer your question a little more historically tho; you're going to be hard-pressed in finding a place where the working class struck first.

[Manic Impressive]

I guess I'm thinking about a gradualist approach to socialism, yeah. I'm pretty pro-reform but a lot of what I've been hearing over the past couple weeks is slowly converting me to being pro-revolution instead :tt2: baby steps but I'm making progress!
yes the labour rose in your avatar pretty much gives it away.


I guess I should rephrase my question then .... do you guys think that it's possible to have a non-violent revolution?
Well it depends on the definition of non-violent. If you take the liberal definition then smashing a window is violence. On the other hand if you mean is revolution possible without a full scale civil war then yes it is if there is enough support. But if it were reformist then it would get side tracked. As reforms are inherently compromise with the ruling class. Compromise which leads to capitulation. Reforms are always used as a bucket of water to throw over the fire of revolution.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

Revisionism is the regressive opposition to Marxism, who leftist would support that?

[Ostrinski]

First, let's define revision and it's relationship to Marxist theory.

[JPSartre12]

Reforms are always used as a bucket of water to throw over the fire of revolution.

Love this line, you're totally right.

I guess that sums up what made my switch from being a "let's keep capitalism and just reform it so that it's nicer and more gentle" social democrat to an actual "i'd rather replace the capitalist mode of production with a socialist one" democratic socialist. The more I read and the more I hear from you guys, the more I'm thinking that reformism isn't the wisest way to go.

I guess my major issue with revolution is the concern that some weird mutated authoritarian regime of some sort. My ambivalence is that while reform is preferable cause it's non-violent (yeah, I'm sort of really a pacifist), it's non-preferable because it puts the breaks on systemic reform and the proletariat gets pretty complacent.

[khad]

Revisionism is bad, anti-revisionism is worse like AIDS.

[mew]

Love this line, you're totally right.
My ambivalence is that while reform is preferable cause it's non-violent (yeah, I'm sort of really a pacifist), it's non-preferable because it puts the breaks on systemic reform and the proletariat gets pretty complacent.
check out "How Nonviolence Protects the State" by peter gelderloos

[Zukunftsmusik]

OP should read Reform or Revolution by Rosa Luxemburg, as it deals with exactly Bernstein. Quite easy and fast read.


I guess my major issue with revolution is the concern that some weird mutated authoritarian regime of some sort. My ambivalence is that while reform is preferable cause it's non-violent (yeah, I'm sort of really a pacifist), it's non-preferable because it puts the breaks on systemic reform and the proletariat gets pretty complacent.

I wouldnt say progressive reforms in favour of labour make the working class complacent. With reforms they gain more consciousness, and learn as a collective the limitations of reform. Reform isnt preferable over a violent overturn of society, because they are different means, or completely different things. Reform is often defensive, revolution is what happens when the working class takes power as a class, which is only possible after theyve reached a certain level of consciousness. The working class reach consciousness through reform.

[Book O'Dead]

Hey comrades :)

Alright, just making a quick disclaimer here - I don't want to start a thread that's just straight up revisionist vs anti-revisionist fighting and name calling and bashing each other, etc etc. I'm actually curious and want to learn!

What do people think about revisionism? You know, the whole "Eduard Bernstein we can get to socialism peacefully through reform" sort of revisionist Marxism? Can someone shed a bit of theory on me as to why revisionism/evolutionary is so frowned upon while orthodox/revolutionary views are seen as better?

The world's changed a lot since Marx wrote the Manifesto ... why it is so bad to look back at his ideas and tweak them a little bit?

Curiosity :rolleyes:
Thoughts?

There's more to Bernstein's problem than merely believing in reforms as a path to socialism. In fact, Bernstein argued that the class struggle was dying out by itself. He maintained that as a result of improving material conditions for the working classes of the most advanced countries social antagonisms were waning and consequently revolutions were unnecessary.

He was wrong for reasons Marx himself had anticipated and pointed out, for example, in "Wage Labor & Capital".

It would seem reasonable to assume Marx's discoveries could be "tweaked" provided those things he discovered had really changed since he spelled them out.

For example, what has fundamentally changed in the Law of Value since Marx laid it out in Capital? To my reckoning, nothing. What has changed fundamentally in the class struggle between capital and labor? AFAICS, only that it has expanded and become more generalized throughout the world (something Marx had clearly anticipated, as evidenced in the Manifesto).

And, what has changed in the revolutionary character of the working class? If anything, that despite the cultural hegemony of capitalism, the working class has, without really trying, imposed most of its moral and intellectual force upon the rest of the world, as evidenced in music, the plastic arts, drama, and speech.

Nothing fundamental has changed within capitalist social relations that requires us to "revise" Marxism in the way some its traducers have desired.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I guess I'm thinking about a gradualist approach to socialism, yeah. I'm pretty pro-reform but a lot of what I've been hearing over the past couple weeks is slowly converting me to being pro-revolution instead :tt2: baby steps but I'm making progress!

I guess I should rephrase my question then .... do you guys think that it's possible to have a non-violent revolution?

It isn't impossible, but highly unlikely that the bourgeoisie would just give away their power. A violent-revolution is the only weapon to defeat the enemies of the proletariat. This doesn't mean that we should want violence, but not hold back from violence when it's needed to defeat the reactionaries.

[Igor]

The question of violent revolution is kind of pointless because regardless of whether we're willing to shed blood or not, they are. If we show up with nothing but placates and signs, they will answer with their batons. We see in this protests all the time, it'd be naïve as fuck to think a non-violent revolution is possible because violence is the standard response ruling class has for anything that threatens them in any way - and we're talking about complete dismantling of class system here, not mere individual strikes or tuition fee protests here, so the response is quite unlikely to be less harsh than we've seen in countries like UK, Spain and Chile recently.

[Manic Impressive]

The motto of Marx and Engels was peacefully if we can forcibly if we must. We should strive to create the correct conditions for a peaceful revolution. The only way that will be possible is with a majority of the working class in who know what socialism/communism is and want it. If the ruling class are faced with insurmountable odds then it's unlikely to launch a military war against the working class. So yes revolution is possible without millions dying but it's only possible with at least the threat of violence.

Igor is completely right to say that the standard response from the ruling class is violence. They try violence and if that fails they'll try reforms.