Pros and Cons of revisionism?

[Zanters]

The title says it all.

I would consider myself an antirevisionist, but I recently started to ask my self, why? What is wrong with revisionism? What are the revisionist tendencies? Why should one be an antirevisionist and not a revisionist, and vice versa?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Nuclear wars before revisionism: zero. Nuclear wars after revisionism: at least one. I'm just saying...

Seriously, "revisionism" can mean a lot of things. In fact there is a mutually assured accusation of revisionism between almost any two tendencies. But revisionism is harmful because Marxism is a science, a very precise and very successful framework in which one can make sense of society. Revisionism distorts the basic tenets of Marxism, meaning that the revisionist can't make sense of society anymore or be successfully guided in his political work by revisionist theory.

[Illegalitarian]

Revisionism is the idea that any deviation from Marxist-Leninism of the Stalinist variety is a big no-no and is what resulted in the fall of the USSR and Mao's China, among other former M-L states.


Which is a silly and simplistic analysis of why these nations ended up failing at implementing socialism, and supposes they were socialist to begin with.

It has no place in Marxism as Marx and Engels were meant to be read.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Revisionism is the idea that any deviation from Marxist-Leninism of the Stalinist variety is a big no-no and is what resulted in the fall of the USSR and Mao's China, among other former M-L states.


Which is a silly and simplistic analysis of why these nations ended up failing at implementing socialism, and supposes they were socialist to begin with.

It has no place in Marxism as Marx and Engels were meant to be read.

Except revisionism goes back to at least Bernstein and his "ethical socialism".

[Illegalitarian]

Nuclear wars before revisionism: zero. Nuclear wars after revisionism: at least one. I'm just saying...

Seriously, "revisionism" can mean a lot of things. In fact there is a mutually assured accusation of revisionism between almost any two tendencies. But revisionism is harmful because Marxism is a science, a very precise and very successful framework in which one can make sense of society. Revisionism distorts the basic tenets of Marxism, meaning that the revisionist can't make sense of society anymore or be successfully guided in his political work by revisionist theory.


I've always found it funny how anti-revisionists are usually the ones who mention Marxism as a science the most, yet they view Marxism as a dogma more than anyone, as if it's a theory that cannot be contributed to (Except by those they believe contributed while not deviating from Marxist thought), an unfalsifiable idea that must be taken and interpreted just as Stalin (usually Stalin, since most a-r's are Stalinist) laid down.

Which is, of course, the opposite of science. Imagine if this were applied to any other science. Imagine if those who contributed to the theory of evolution post-Darwin were discredited as revisionists, for not strictly adhering only to Darwin's analysis and daring to say that there is more that can be added to this theory by following Darwin's basic principles. Bah!


Except revisionism goes back to at least Bernstein and his "ethical socialism".

The OP is clearly talking in the context of anti-revisionism, the ideology, and viewing revisionism through that lens.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I've always found it funny how anti-revisionists are usually the ones who mention Marxism as a science the most, yet they view Marxism as a dogma more than anyone, as if it's a theory that cannot be contributed to (Except by those they believe contributed while not deviating from Marxist thought), an unfalsifiable idea that must be taken and interpreted just as Stalin (usually Stalin, since most a-r's are Stalinist) laid down.

Which is, of course, the opposite of science. Imagine if this were applied to any other science. Imagine if those who contributed to the theory of evolution post-Darwin were discredited as revisionists, for not strictly adhering only to Darwin's analysis and daring to say that there is more that can be added to this theory by following Darwin's basic principles. Bah!

Creatively developing Marxism is not revisionism - revisionism is denying the basic principles of Marxism while ostensibly developing Marxism further. There is an analogy in biology - the various weird people (Driesch and so on) who tried to revive orthogenetics under the cover of developing Darwinism. They aren't even denounced today, they're just viewed as silly cranks.

[Zanters]

Keep in mind, this isn't a thread about revisionist and antirevisionist, but rather what they are. Let people decide on their own what they are by telling why being a(n) (anti)revisionist is good/bad.:)

[Illegalitarian]

Creatively developing Marxism is not revisionism - revisionism is denying the basic principles of Marxism while ostensibly developing Marxism further. There is an analogy in biology - the various weird people (Driesch and so on) who tried to revive orthogenetics under the cover of developing Darwinism. They aren't even denounced today, they're just viewed as silly cranks.

Indeed, but tell that to the a-r crowd!

[John Nada]

I think calling someone a revisionist is like calling them a poser. Can't be repin' the red and yellow if you ain't down with class warfare!:lol:

It came from the SPD member Eduard Bernstein. He was a a leach, using his friendship with Engels to move up. Conveniently, he declared himself a Marxist upon meeting Marx and Engels, then after both were dead suddenly thought they were wrong. Business monopolies+growing petty-bourgeoisie+imperialism="German Socialism, no more class struggle!" in Bernstein's eyes.

Even before he basically threw his mask off, his writings were more focused on building up the SPD and showed sympathy towards the petty-bourgeoisie. He'd misquote and name drop Marx and Engels to back up his own bullshit. Also after Marx and Engels died, he started writing tabloid-style biographies about the Marxs and Engels. This might be why the Bernsteinites were called revisionist, because they were revising history and reality. Not because they're have principled disagreements with the Prophets Marx and Engels(PBUT) :rolleyes:

Closes thing he did good was speak out against Oscar Wilde's sodomy and libel trials in his newspaper. Even then, others in the SPD(think it was Kautsky, not sure) already condemned homophobia. He seemed more concerned about possible censorship against his party that existed not long before.

He's was a proto-neoliberal before it cool. Here's what he said about imperialism:
The fact of the modern national States or empires not having originated organically does not prevent their being organs of that great entity which we call civilised humanity, and which is much too extensive to be included in any single State. And, indeed, these organs are at present necessary and of great importance for human development. On this point Socialists can scarcely differ now. And it is not even to be regretted, from the Socialist point of view, that they are not characterised purely by their common descent. The purely ethnological national principle is reactionary in its results. Whatever else one may think about the race-problem, it is certain that the thought of a national division of mankind according to race is anything rather than a human ideal. The national quality is developing on the contrary more and more into a sociological function. But understood as such it is a progressive principle, and in this sense Socialism can and must be national. This is no contradiction of the cosmopolitan consciousness, but only its necessary completion. The world-citizenship, this glorious attainment of civilisation, would, if the relationship to national tasks and rational duties were missing, become a flabby characterless parasitism. Even when we sing “Ubi bene, ibi patria,” [1] we still acknowledge a “patria,” and, therefore, in accordance with the motto, “No rights without duties”; also duties towards her
The way the Volksstaat defended Motteler against misinterpretation of his speech was, in fact, equivalent to disapproval of the above words. To-day, on the contrary, the Social-Democracy is, and that unanimously, the most decided Imperial [4] party that Germany knows. No other party is so keen to make over more and more legislative authority to the Empire, and to widen its competence, as the Social-Democracy. Compared with it, even that once most energetic representative of the Imperial idea, the National-Liberal party, is particularistic. And if the Social-Democracy, as opposition party, now as ever refuses to vote for the complete budget, still it goes much further in the way of voting certain portions of it than in those days. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bernstein/works/1907/07/patriotism.htm
We may not occupy a purely negative standpoint on colonial policy, but must pursue a positive socialist colonial policy. (Applause), We must get away from the utopian idea which Leads to disposing of the colonies. The final, consequence of this approach would be to return the United States to the Indians. (Protests) The colonies are here to stay: we have to come to terms with that. Civilised peoples have to exercise a certain guardianship over uncivilised peoples – even socialists have to recognise this. Let us base ourselves on real facts, which will lead us to oppose capitalist colonial policy with a socialist one. Much of our economic life rests upon products from the colonies which the natives were not able to utilise. On all these grounds we must accept the resolution of the majority. http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1907/colonial/1-intro.htm

To put into perspective what the revisionist were defending: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_Genocide

When Lenin was calling them social imperialist and social chauvinist, he wasn't just talking shit, he was stating a fact. This weren't just men of their time, contemporary real socialist called him and his elk out. I don't see how any Marxist or even some liberals could work with these people.

Everything he predicted would be a joke if it wasn't so tragically wrong. Yet you can see how fake-ass liberals like him still use revisionism to cover their ass. 1. Appeal to authority.

2.Populous rhetoric about the "middle class"

3.We'll grow out of our current problems, be nice.

4. This small reform is good enough

5. Gossip and slander

6. Imperialism is progressive.

7. Jingoist gibberish.

8. Vote for me!

Almost like all of them are trying to copy him.

IMO revisionist is a label that shouldn't be thrown around willynilly , less it be debased. Same with fascism.

[Chomskyan]

Revisionist is a term that is used by radical (lol) Maoists and Stalinists to refer to those who reject the Soviet Union and Maoist China as Socialist societies.

Ex. Leon Trotsky, he considered Stalinism as a perversion "the Revolution Betrayed!"

Anti-Revisionist is a Stalinist or Maoist who upholds the Soviet Union or Maoist China. I found The Espresso Stalinist on the web when I was a Con, and I used it to hit Social Democrats (the French Presidential election was happening at the time,) over the head. "THIS is what you guys advocate!" :laugh:

[renalenin]

IMO revisionist is a label that shouldn't be thrown around willynilly , less it be debased. Same with fascism.

Agreed. It is often used to refer to those who call themselves communists yet they support capitalist parliaments and argue for a 'stage' of 'Left' government under capitalism before there can be true social change. Some of the documents of the Greek KKE are especially useful on this topic because the Greek comrades are aware of the 'Left' party problem in France, England, etc. Such ideas of a 'Left' party under capitalism look much the same as Bernstein's ideas, as noted by John Brown, so there seems to be a sort of 'history repeating itself' thing going on. Down with revisionists.

:hammersickle::hammersickle::hammersickle:

[renalenin]

Following from the previous post. This is from the Speech of Giorgos Marinos of the KKE at the 15th International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties in Lisbon:

“The choice of the intermediate stages violates a commonly accepted position, the position that between capitalism and socialism-communism there is no intermediate socio-economic system, no intermediate political power. Of course the communists struggle inside the bourgeois parliaments for the promotion and the defense of the people’s rights, combining and giving priority to extra-parliamentary activity, but this has no relation with the adoption of parliamentary views that sow confusion that a pro-people solution can emerge through bourgeois institutions. The parliamentary path which historically has been extolled by the opportunist forces is one of the most significant factors that leads to the assimilation of strong Communist Parties, to the reduction of the demands of the working people.”


:hammersickle::hammersickle::hammersickle:

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Closes thing he did good was speak out against Oscar Wilde's sodomy and libel trials in his newspaper. Even then, others in the SPD(think it was Kautsky, not sure) already condemned homophobia. He seemed more concerned about possible censorship against his party that existed not long before.

It was Bebel, one of the leaders of the Marxist wing of the SPD, although notoriously soft on revisionists. It wasn't anything new, either. When one of the leaders of the Lassalleans was found in the park with another man and disbarred, the Marxists defended him.

And the revisionists were called so because they "revised" the foundations of Marxism - substituting "ethical socialism" for the class struggle (which they considered to be waning). These people weren't just the ancestors of modern social-democracy. Some of them found the "ethical bourgeoisie" in fascist states (De Man) or helped found fascist movements (Deat).

[Illegalitarian]

Revisionism in Bernstein's time and today is characterized by its nature as a petite-bourgeois political tool to co-opt the broad "left" more than anything else.

We saw this most of all with Occupy, where a budding revolutionary consciousness was killed early on by appeals to "baby steps" and "working within the legal framework of the US" etc, which of course sterilized the entire thing and ended with the movement folding into the democratic political machine much in the same way many communist organizations that consisted mostly of minorities back in the 20's in places like New York and Chicago were brought into the fold, which coincidentally (I'm sure :rolleyes: ) coincided with the time period where Irish and Italian people started to finally be accepted as part of the white social order and lost their 'othering'.

It's a natural reaction to growing class consciousness by the petite-bourgeois above all else, I think, to try and co-opt movements born out of this growing consciousness and mold them in their own image. This is why they are the class historically associated with extremist right-wing political movements such as fascism that were at times so synthetic.

They're the shifty morphing lizard people of class struggle. :laugh:

[Tim Cornelis]

Revisionism in Bernstein's time and today is characterized by its nature as a petite-bourgeois political tool to co-opt the broad "left" more than anything else.

We saw this most of all with Occupy, where a budding revolutionary consciousness was killed early on by appeals to "baby steps" and "working within the legal framework of the US" etc, which of course sterilized the entire thing and ended with the movement folding into the democratic political machine much in the same way many communist organizations that consisted mostly of minorities back in the 20's in places like New York and Chicago were brought into the fold, which coincidentally (I'm sure :rolleyes: ) coincided with the time period where Irish and Italian people started to finally be accepted as part of the white social order and lost their 'othering'.

It's a natural reaction to growing class consciousness by the petite-bourgeois above all else, I think, to try and co-opt movements born out of this growing consciousness and mold them in their own image. This is why they are the class historically associated with extremist right-wing political movements such as fascism that were at times so synthetic.

They're the shifty morphing lizard people of class struggle. :laugh:

I don't think you can accurately label that 'revisionism' since those left-liberal reformists in Occupy have /had no pretence of being Marxist.

[Illegalitarian]

Historically speaking it is of the same essence, however. Most of what Occupy was railing against specifically, most of their points were misconstructions of what were originally marxist concepts, whether or not a great deal of occupy participants were marxist. Especially those who lead to its eventual decline

[David Warner]

Marxism (dialectical materialism) is a science not a dogma. Thus it's meaningless without "revisionism" -- if revisionism means constantly enriching the Marxist method under new material conditions through praxis.

On the other hand, if "revisionism" means rejecting the basic principles of Marxism (such as the fact that human society is not static but constantly evolving by the interaction between the relations of production and the development of the productive forces into more advanced forms, that ideas are representations of reality in our mind, that the victory of the proletariat is inevitable, etc.) and converting it into some variety of idealism (such as liberalism) -- then it has nothing to do with Marxism.

Clearly, there is a contradiction since it's difficult to draw a strict line between what are the basic principles / essence of Marxism and what are aspects that continuously evolve in relation to the material conditions. This can only be resolved through practice. So, in conclusion, there's no point in labeling people "revisionist" (in a negative sense) just because what they say isn't exactly the same as what classical Marxists wrote. One needs to scientifically demonstrate whether they represent the interests of the proletariat or not.

[newdayrising]

Revisionist is a term that is used by radical (lol) Maoists and Stalinists to refer to those who reject the Soviet Union and Maoist China as Socialist societies.

Ex. Leon Trotsky, he considered Stalinism as a perversion "the Revolution Betrayed!"

Anti-Revisionist is a Stalinist or Maoist who upholds the Soviet Union or Maoist China. I found The Espresso Stalinist on the web when I was a Con, and I used it to hit Social Democrats (the French Presidential election was happening at the time,) over the head. "THIS is what you guys advocate!" :laugh:

I don't think that's what it is.
For stalinist/maoist antirevisionists, the revisionism they're against is the one supposedly led by Kruschev when he denounced Stalin. An anti-revisionist is thus a "loyal stalinist" so to speak, as opposed to the official moscow led communist parties. This "revisionism" is, for them, the ideology of the post stalin USSR that became, according to them, "state capitalist", "social imperialist" and so on.

[Dodo]

here is an academic insight on the matter:
http://burawoy.berkeley.edu/Marxism/Marxism%20As%20Science.pdf

what constitutes revision and not is well explained here imo.

[Comrade #138672]

Revisionism is inherently bourgeois. It is used to transform Marxism into some impotent bourgeois ideology, which can only be used to serve the ruling class, or some ruling bureaucracy, if there is any difference between them at all.

[Rafiq]

For Marxists, revisionism means hacking up Marxism to conform, justify or perpetuate an ideological universe which is not Communist.