Question on Revisionism for Marxist-Leninists

[RedKobra]

Is revisionism acceptable in order to rebuild a class consciousness when none exists or has been destroyed? For example in Britain we do not currently live in a revolutionary epoch. The working class are not conscious of even the most elementary "true" socialist idea. To expect the working class to leap straight to a revolutionary consciousness seems implausible and highly unlikely barring events completely beyond our control (natural disaster, Capitalist crisis).

When the workers do not unionize, do not protest, do not strike, do not abstain from voting, don't cast their votes for radical candidates doesn't it make sense to view "true" Marxism-Leninism as a further step away? A future development after we have raised class consciousness to at least revisionist socialism? Which because of its bankruptcy is easier for brainwashed workers to incorporate. I don't mean to imply that workers are stupid, just to acknowledge that working class "consciousness" is at a 100 year low.

[contracycle]

I don't really understand in what sense you are using the term 'revisionist' here.

On the question of class consciousness, I'm not really sure it is that low. It is, largely, no longer equipped with a Marxist analysis, and does not use those terms, but I think there is quite a bit of awareness of being trapped beneath a sort of glass ceiling. What they are not confident in is the ability of autonomous working class organs to actually deliver anything useful, because its a long time since any of that has been seen to happen.

The view you describe seems to be quite commonplace on Revleft; I've seen other remarks to similar effect. I have to say I find that quite surprising; as mentioned in the thread on Greece, it seems to me that we are in a more volatile situation than any of us have ever lived through.

[RedKobra]

I don't really understand in what sense you are using the term 'revisionist' here.

Revisionist in that sense that it deviates from orthadox Marxism-Leninism.

[contracycle]

Ok but, deviating in what way?

[The Idler]

So-called 'Revisionism' is the only way scientific socialism can proceed. Revising theories is the essence of science. 'Revisionism' as used by Marxist-Leninists to witchhunt unorthodox thinkers was a part of the bigger strategy to stunt and repress class-consciousness.

Class consciousness is not as incremental as Marxist-Leninists claim. The popularity of the Occupy Movement's we are the 99% slogan proved this.

[contracycle]

Well, you know, a thing is neither automatically correct or automatically incorrect just because it changes an established view.

Moving to more concrete stuff, I am actually interested to hear what people on this board think about OWS, seeing as I wasn't here at the time. And as it seems to bear directly on the OP, this seems like a good time to ask.

[G4b3n]

This discussion is pointless. "Marxism-Leninism" is nothing but a historical relic and "revision" is simply jargon that is useless in the post Leninist context.

[John Nada]

So-called 'Revisionism' is the only way scientific socialism can proceed. Revising theories is the essence of science. 'Revisionism' as used by Marxist-Leninists to witchhunt unorthodox thinkers was a part of the bigger strategy to stunt and repress class-consciousness.Creative development of Marxism isn't revisionism. Marxism is obliviously going to be elaborated on with new theories and ideas. Revisionism is taking the revolutionary core and essence out of Marxism. I would hardly call Bernstein, Deng, Gorbachev and Kim ll-Sung theorists that raised class-consciousness. Their revisionism was not a development of Marxism, but an opportunist rejection of it.

If you mean "revising" the (dead) state doctrine "Marxism-Leninism", as opposed to Marxism, then yeah. Take what you need and leave the rest.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Sorry but I thought leninists were all about using reformist (or minimum) demands to appeal to workers "where they're at".

No one thinks going on about the revolution is actually going to convince anybody.

[RedKobra]

I distance myself from this thread and indeed others in which I explore Marxist-Leninist ideas. I toyed with it as a philosophy and immersed myself in it for a few days hard reading but in all honesty I'm drawing a line under it.

I'm back to where I was when I joined, a fairly orthodox Marxist.

[The Idler]

Creative development of Marxism isn't revisionism. Marxism is obliviously going to be elaborated on with new theories and ideas. Revisionism is taking the revolutionary core and essence out of Marxism. I would hardly call Bernstein, Deng, Gorbachev and Kim ll-Sung theorists that raised class-consciousness. Their revisionism was not a development of Marxism, but an opportunist rejection of it.

If you mean "revising" the (dead) state doctrine "Marxism-Leninism", as opposed to Marxism, then yeah. Take what you need and leave the rest.
Why is the best term for 'making Marxism non-revolutionary' regarded as being 'Revisionism' though? Doesn't it imply merely revising ideas is inherently bad. Doesn't 'revisionism' place the original idea on a pedestal as a dogma when all ideas should be open to critical evaluation? Surely there's a better description of the politics of Bernstein, Deng, Gorbachev and Kim Il-Sung than the one-size fits all label of 'revisionism'. It doesn't exactly encourage critical thinking or critical thought. Hence why 'revisionism' is a bankrupt term mainly used to stop critical thought.

[Subversive]

It definitely depends what you mean by 'revisionist'. Simply stating a "non-orthodox" Marxist view is not really saying much. There is no rigid definitions for what is an "orthodox" Marxist-view.
Many people throughout history have interpreted Marx differently, such as Lenin and Kautsky. Both of whom were later opposed to each other. This is despite the fact that in his early years Lenin looked up to Kautsky, as most socialists did, as a means of information and inspiration. Yet, Kautsky would later discredit the formation of the USSR and some of it's violent tendencies, and Lenin would discredit Kautsky as having changed his views and not understanding the needs of a true revolutionary force.

So who is more "orthodox" here? It would probably depend on whom you side with, if either one.
Today, most separate each group into all separate categories, but in the end everyone has their own interpretation.

It's kind of like religion. Who is more "orthodox", the Catholics or Protestants? The lines become rather blurry. There is no true socially-accepted principle. Again, regarding Christianity, you'd even have a very hard time arguing to Americans that strict Conservative-Christianity is not 'orthodox'.

My point being that you can draw a line practically anywhere and form your own beliefs that you call 'orthodox', simply because you believe that to be the case. What makes anyone in this situation correct? How do you know who to separate yourself from when each persons' beliefs are somewhat varying?

However, sometimes the distinctions are made clear. For example, the term 'revisionist' is often used to refer to Socialists who believe that Socialism can come about through political change, rather than revolution. This belief diverges from both the original form and the norm. It is, indeed, unorthodox.

So if it is these revisionists whom you refer to, rather than an arbitrary list of personally discredited groups, than these people are reactionaries and run counter to true Communists whom aim for revolution and the upheaval of the Capitalist system.

[John Nada]

Why is the best term for 'making Marxism non-revolutionary' regarded as being 'Revisionism' though? Doesn't it imply merely revising ideas is inherently bad. Doesn't 'revisionism' place the original idea on a pedestal as a dogma when all ideas should be open to critical evaluation? Surely there's a better description of the politics of Bernstein, Deng, Gorbachev and Kim Il-Sung than the one-size fits all label of 'revisionism'. It doesn't exactly encourage critical thinking or critical thought. Hence why 'revisionism' is a bankrupt term mainly used to stop critical thought.The term Revisionist comes from the rightists of the Second International. They thought that revolution was no long necessary, gave in to nationalism and capitulated to capitalism. They had some pretty chavinist (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1907/colonial/1-intro.htm) and racist (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bernstein/works/1907/07/patriotism.htm) positions. They opportunistically rejected Marxism, not updated it. All those revisionists I listed replaced Marxism with nationalist capitalism. Not out of some new development or improvement, but out of convenience.

Though like fascism, revisionism is an overused label. However even in a non-Marxian context, revisionist has a negative connotation, implying that the "revising" is done out of malice. It's not something that I think needs to be reclaimed.

[FSL]

The term Revisionist comes from the rightists of the Second International. They thought that revolution was no long necessary, gave in to nationalism and capitulated to capitalism. They had some pretty chavinist (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1907/colonial/1-intro.htm) and racist (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bernstein/works/1907/07/patriotism.htm) positions. They opportunistically rejected Marxism, not updated it. All those revisionists I listed replaced Marxism with nationalist capitalism. Not out of some new development or improvement, but out of convenience.

Though like fascism, revisionism is an overused label. However even in a non-Marxian context, revisionist has a negative connotation, implying that the "revising" is done out of malice. It's not something that I think needs to be reclaimed.
Revisionist is used in Germany for holocaust deniers, as they're trying to revise the accepted version of events.

Similarly, it is used in socialist politics to point those who are trying to revise some very basic concepts like those you mention.

Words don't always have a meaning that corresponds to their etymology and revisionism isn't critical thinking but actually it's opposite, adopting rather a-critically some different truth.

[The Idler]

I think the point is if you were to do away with Marxism and other great men of history, and you were to seriously look at class society, you would come to the same conclusion, the need for socialism. This necessarily wouldn't involve nationalism or Kautsky's adoption of it. What was Marx's attitude to 'revisionism'? 'If that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist', the ultimate statement in 'revisionism'? Marx rejected Marxism himself whilst still holding to believing society to be divided into classes, class struggle and the need for socialism. So what use is the term 'revisionism'? Not much. You can still call a 'nationalist' a 'nationalist' or whatever term is appropriate but 'revisionist' doesn't tell us much.

[John Nada]

I think the point is if you were to do away with Marxism and other great men of history, and you were to seriously look at class society, you would come to the same conclusion, the need for socialism. This necessarily wouldn't involve nationalism or Kautsky's adoption of it.Just to be clear, Socialism and Colonial Policy was written when Kautsky was still an orthodox Marxists. In that piece he's surprisingly anti-racist, with an anti-imperialists position closer to the Bolsheviks at that time. It's the Revisionists he quoted that I meant, though Pannekoek called him a "passive radical" "waiting for the apocalypse", and he sold out to social chauvinism later.
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) [b]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.
(...)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.(...)What was going on at the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_free_state Yeah, kinder, gentler, imperialist capitalism. :lol: These things alone should of warned the Marxists to break off with these people. Yet you can still see similar ideas floating around later and today, "capitalism can be reformed", "imperialism can be progressive", "be peaceful and patriotic", "Marx was wrong"(because it's politically inconvenient), ect.
What was Marx's attitude to 'revisionism'? 'If that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist', the ultimate statement in 'revisionism'? Marx rejected Marxism himself whilst still holding to believing society to be divided into classes, class struggle and the need for socialism. So what use is the term 'revisionism'? Not much. You can still call a 'nationalist' a 'nationalist' or whatever term is appropriate but 'revisionist' doesn't tell us much.Marx created Marxism(obviously). He obviously believed his own theories, and did get pissed when someone would misrepresent his ideas. He discovered some basic facts about capitalism, history, and the possibility of building communism. The revisionist deny his discoveries, not because someone like Deng or Gorbachev were geniuses, but because they're opportunists. They replace historical materialism with historical revisionism.

[FSL]

I think the point is if you were to do away with Marxism and other great men of history, and you were to seriously look at class society, you would come to the same conclusion, the need for socialism. This necessarily wouldn't involve nationalism or Kautsky's adoption of it. What was Marx's attitude to 'revisionism'? 'If that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist', the ultimate statement in 'revisionism'? Marx rejected Marxism himself whilst still holding to believing society to be divided into classes, class struggle and the need for socialism. So what use is the term 'revisionism'? Not much. You can still call a 'nationalist' a 'nationalist' or whatever term is appropriate but 'revisionist' doesn't tell us much.

Except these nationalists, keynesianists or whatevers "self-identify" as marxists and call what they do revolutionary politics.
What's the problem with having a word to describe these people? I don't see it.

[The Idler]

Except these nationalists, keynesianists or whatevers "self-identify" as marxists and call what they do revolutionary politics.
What's the problem with having a word to describe these people? I don't see it.
Why not call them nationalists or non-Marxists not something as meaningless as 'revisionists'.

[FSL]

Why not call them nationalists or non-Marxists not something as meaningless as 'revisionists'.

It's not meaningless, it does have a very specific meaning. That you don't like its meaning is actually a proof of it having one.

You can't simply call them nationalists because they don't portray themselves and they aren't generally perceived as such. Kautsky was considered a leftist, of the far left in fact. Just grouping him with the chauvinists would seem wrong, you need to explain why -despite what his "presentation" is- he doesn't differ at all from the chauvinists. Plain nationalists don't quote Marx and the Paris Commune at will, revisionists do. That's why it's trickier to deal with them even though their politics are alike.

[The Idler]

Okay was Hilferding and Kliman revisionists?
Was Mussolini and Thomas Sowell revisionists?

[parallax]

Is revisionism acceptable in order to rebuild a class consciousness when none exists or has been destroyed? For example in Britain we do not currently live in a revolutionary epoch. The working class are not conscious of even the most elementary "true" socialist idea. To expect the working class to leap straight to a revolutionary consciousness seems implausible and highly unlikely barring events completely beyond our control (natural disaster, Capitalist crisis).

When the workers do not unionize, do not protest, do not strike, do not abstain from voting, don't cast their votes for radical candidates doesn't it make sense to view "true" Marxism-Leninism as a further step away? A future development after we have raised class consciousness to at least revisionist socialism? Which because of its bankruptcy is easier for brainwashed workers to incorporate. I don't mean to imply that workers are stupid, just to acknowledge that working class "consciousness" is at a 100 year low.

Resorting to revisionism as a short cut to gain an audience will allow you to gain an audience, but for revisionist politics. It will not help you get any closer to socialism.

[Ismail]

Why is the best term for 'making Marxism non-revolutionary' regarded as being 'Revisionism' though? Doesn't it imply merely revising ideas is inherently bad. Doesn't 'revisionism' place the original idea on a pedestal as a dogma when all ideas should be open to critical evaluation?Not anymore than the term "opportunism" implies that taking advantage of opportunities is bad.


Okay was Hilferding and Kliman revisionists?As far as Hilferding goes, Lenin said that while Finance Capital had value some of his economic theories were an attempt to reconcile Marxism with opportunism. Hilferding's own political trajectory from WWI onwards wasn't exactly that of an internationalist or revolutionary, his analysis of capitalism in the 20s and 30s was actually denounced as revisionist and I recall reading that by the time of his death he was increasingly critical of Marxism itself.


Was Mussolini and Thomas Sowell revisionists?Certainly when Mussolini was in his "Marxist" stage he had plenty of nationalistic and idealist views, so yes while advocating for such views he was technically a revisionist, but that term isn't widely applied to him seeing as how he abandoned Marxism altogether and never posed as a Marxist theorist to begin with, whereas a whole theoretical edifice called "Deng Xiaoping Theory" exists as a key component of "socialism with Chinese characteristics."

Thomas Sowell is a conservative, his interaction with Marxism involves trying to debunk it. He can distort Marxist theory for the purposes of his arguments, but he has no interest whatsoever in claiming to "creatively develop" or "advance" it.

It's important to note that revisionism, like opportunism, very often has a social basis. Khrushchev and Co. didn't wake up one day and decide to have a shitty understanding of Marxism. Their position and aims compelled them to adopt right-wing views. The attacks on "Stalinism" and their calls for the attainment of "socialism" via the ballot box and nationalization of industry in bourgeois states at the 20th Party Congress, or declaring that India, Egypt and Burma were on the road towards "building socialism," or declaring that the Soviet state and CPSU had ceased to represent the interests of a class but instead came to represent "the whole people," were not accidental positions. Similarly the chiefs of the Second International didn't "defend the fatherland" in WWI, propagate reformism, etc. because they were sincerely misled, but because their interests were increasingly aligned with those of the bourgeois state via the privileges given to them as parliamentarians, as trade union bureaucrats, etc.