Difference between post-Marxism, critical theory, and revisionism

[tao_oat]

I'm currently reading a very basic primer to Marxism, and it writes about post-Marxism as if it's synonymous with critical theory, and states that revisionism is a term used by "conventional Marxists" against e.g. the Frankfurt circle.

Is this roughly correct? Are there any differences between post-Marxism and critical theory?

[Asero]

Well, I don't know much about the differences between post-Marxism and Critical Theory. I know they are different being that post-Marxism is its own school of marxism that takes certain theoritical principles from Critical Theorists, while though it takes a lot of inspiration from Marxism, Critical Theorists don't necessarily have to be Marxists, and Critical Theory isn't it's own branch of Marxism, rather it's a branch of philosophy.

I know more about revisionism, though. The term revisionism used to refer to the tendency (sub-ideology) within Social-Democracy (before the Menshevik-Bolshevik split was finalized) that transformed what was orginally, a form of working-class revolutionary socialism, into what it is today. After the radicals (the Bolsheviks in Russia) split from Social-Democracy, they renamed themselves the Communists.

After the death of Joseph Stalin and his subsequent denounciation, the definition of revisionism, among the Marxist-Leninists transformed. Revisionism no longer refered to a form of bourgeois reformism. The definition now meant (and still means) the opportunist bastardization of theory, and of the abandonment of key marxist principles. Anti-revisionism is associated with 'Stalinism' (not the term used to refer to leftist totalitarian excess, but really the 'ism' of Stalin/Stalin's ideology). Only the ideological 'Stalinists' (pro-Hoxha Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, etc) tend to use the word.

Marxism-Leninism was the conventional form of Marxism during the time of the Frankfurt school, so they're probably crying about how their opponents accusing them of abandoning key marxist principles and/or bastardizing Marxist theory.

[1xAntifa]

Well, I don't know much about the differences between post-Marxism and Critical Theory. I know they are different being that post-Marxism is its own school of marxism that takes certain theoritical principles from Critical Theorists, while though it takes a lot of inspiration from Marxism, Critical Theorists don't necessarily have to be Marxists, and Critical Theory isn't it's own branch of Marxism, rather it's a branch of philosophy.

I know more about revisionism, though. The term revisionism used to refer to the tendency (sub-ideology) within Social-Democracy (before the Menshevik-Bolshevik split was finalized) that transformed what was orginally, a form of working-class revolutionary socialism, into what it is today. After the radicals (the Bolsheviks in Russia) split from Social-Democracy, they renamed themselves the Communists.

After the death of Joseph Stalin and his subsequent denounciation, the definition of revisionism, among the Marxist-Leninists transformed. Revisionism no longer refered to a form of bourgeois reformism. The definition now meant (and still means) the opportunist bastardization of theory, and of the abandonment of key marxist principles. Anti-revisionism is associated with 'Stalinism' (not the term used to refer to leftist totalitarian excess, but really the 'ism' of Stalin/Stalin's ideology). Only the ideological 'Stalinists' (pro-Hoxha Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, etc) tend to use the word.

Marxism-Leninism was the conventional form of Marxism during the time of the Frankfurt school, so they're probably crying about how their opponents accusing them of abandoning key marxist principles and/or bastardizing Marxist theory.

Really there is nothing more to add. I would concur that these are reasonable definitions within Marxism Leninism. What would you consider to be the key principles of Marxism and its opportunist bastardization?

Of historical interest why shouldn't Kruschev be considered revisionist? Why shouldn't Mao, given his turn towards the west [and the same peaceful co-existence they so rabidly condemned], to counter the perceived Soviet threat? From an outsiders perspective, it was, and remains, an immensely silly and destructive intercenine argument. Isn't the goal workers of the world unite?