Log in

View Full Version : Specificism as Revisionism



kromando33
29th December 2007, 08:03
I think I would like to reflect here today on the relationship between nationalism and class struggle, and the so called 'regional variants' of socialism, which in effect are anti-Marxist and deeply revisionist in root. Building socialism, that is an imperfect implementation of collectivist principles, in contradictive times, brings many challenges to building socialism, and that the party and movement can be overtaken by revisionist elements. Mao's theory of 'bourgeois in party' was never so rightly proven as with the revisionist state capitalist, and eventually full-blown bourgeois takeover of China. Mao built upon Marxist class struggle in theorizing 'Criticism and Self Criticism', in which a process was formulated to expel bourgeois elements from society (that is to build socialism). My point is pretty clear, by Marxist definition socialism is class struggle, the current governments exist as the 'dictatorship of the bourgeois', and it's institutions exist to protect that class. Socialism is by nature the revolutionary 'dictatorship of the proletariat', which is simply when the working class overthrows the bourgeois dictatorship and replaces it with their own.

My point is that socialism is by definition imperfect, which means until communism is achieved imperfect structures like the state/nation and party must be used to build socialism, although as socialism develops more such reactionary institutions would be lessened in relevance.

It should be remembered that socialism does not assume everyone is innately altruistic, but in reality socialism assumes everyone is innately imperfect, and therefore sets out a process by which society identifies reactionary tendencies and expels them from society, and moves towards creating the said 'perfect society' through a practical building process.

We true Marxists must differentiate ourselves in the most fundamental way to the emerging 'Left' of revisionists political opportunists such as environmentalists, liberals, Trots etc. And the way we differentiate ourselves is simple, class struggle, it's the sure way to find a true Marxist, revolutionary class struggle is the fundamental way to build socialism, negotiation and compromise with the bourgeois is revisionism. The modern 'Left' in essence is defeatism and capitulation to capitalism, it's a childish disorder that obsesses with the effort to 'elect' members to the bourgeois liberal conception of modern parliaments and congresses. It comes down to an infantile 'political game' with the 'Right' to 'win', and in essence compromises the revolutionary movement of the working class in so doing. 'Regionalism' then, or 'specificism', is fundamentally this defeatist attitude of conformism to bourgeois standards, brought on by the 'failure' of 'communism' in the form of the revisionist Khrushchevist USSR.

But more specifically regionalism is the degenerate ultranationalist attempt of idealism in contradiction, which always ends in reaction. The 'Zionist Socialist' Kibbutzim of Israel eventually turned into bourgeois private enterprises, the Ba'th movement eventually became a fascist movement, and so too did the revolutionary movements of Africa (Marxist inspired) became an ultra-nationalist racist reaction to the 'white power structure'. For example, Mussolini in Italy started out as a Marxist but was eventually compromised completely by revisionism, because Italy was a proletarian country 'class struggle' became 'national struggle' which eventually justified the meaningless butchery of WWII and imperialist expansion and exterminations in Africa.

Our enemy therefore is the Hegelian 'idealism' which tries to make a utopia overnight, and which ensures the 'ideal', a near spiritual anti-materialist (Marxist) concept, is never achieved - either through ignorance of it's leaders and failure ending in reaction, or in a sinister and cynical manipulation by the bourgeois - which in itself placates the population with great ideals and religion, to keep themselves in power. Either way, the result is stagnation and does not only fail to build socialism, but destroys the worker movement. Internationalism becomes ultranationalist imperialism, in essence progressivism becomes reactionism. Without socialism there is no transition to communism - true utopia, and that can only be achieved once reactionary tendencies are weeded out of society, class struggle.

Ismail
29th December 2007, 15:03
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 03:02 am
and so too did the revolutionary movements of Africa (Marxist inspired) became an ultra-nationalist racist reaction to the 'white power structure'. For example, Mussolini in Italy started out as a Marxist but was eventually compromised completely by revisionism
I disagree with the movements in Africa becoming racist movements. Any examples?

Also, I'm pretty sure Mussolini was your average "Socialist", not specifically a Marxist as far as I understand it.

Besides that though, the rest of what you say is correct.

Dros
29th December 2007, 17:45
I largely agree.

However, it is important to acknowledge the utility of nationalism when it comes to opposing imperialism. For instance, in order for socialism to be built within a society, it is necessary to drive out imperialist forces. Mao often catches a lot of slack for his temporary alliance with the nationalist KMT. However, that alliance allowed Mao to free China from Japanese imperialism and thus allowed him to build socialist society.

Rawthentic
29th December 2007, 23:31
Mrdie, are you calling Mussolini some type of 'socialist'?

kromando33
30th December 2007, 00:30
Originally posted by Mrdie+December 29, 2007 03:02 pm--> (Mrdie @ December 29, 2007 03:02 pm)
[email protected] 29, 2007 03:02 am
and so too did the revolutionary movements of Africa (Marxist inspired) became an ultra-nationalist racist reaction to the 'white power structure'. For example, Mussolini in Italy started out as a Marxist but was eventually compromised completely by revisionism
I disagree with the movements in Africa becoming racist movements. Any examples?

Also, I'm pretty sure Mussolini was your average "Socialist", not specifically a Marxist as far as I understand it.

Besides that though, the rest of what you say is correct. [/b]
The best example is Zimbabwe, but my point is broadly designated to all the decolonization movements which were socialist inspired, this goes for Nasser, Afluk and others for the Arabs, as well as in Africa. Angola is of course a good example of a strong Marxist-Leninist state gone down the revisionist, and eventually bourgeois path.

drosera99, I agree with you, and I probably should have put more of that in. 'Socialism in One Country' is of course the only way to build socialism because the state and party must be used in aggravation of the class struggle under socialism.

Ultimately when it comes down to it those who criticize Stalin are stuck in the same naive 'teenage utopianism' that I myself suffered until becoming a pragmatic and scientific Marxist-Leninist. They are not interested in building socialism, but instead sit in their tiny factions, parties or whatever and 'critique' the legitimate worker movement without doing anything to build on the science Marx bequeathed to us.

spartan
30th December 2007, 00:35
Mrdie, are you calling Mussolini some type of 'socialist'?
Mussolini was a Socialist until WW1 started (At which point he became a Nationalist who was all for the war and the Italian annexation of certain parts of Austria-Hungary).

I dont think either of the Mussolini posts were advocating that he was a Socialist when he first came into power either if thats what you meant?

Ismail
30th December 2007, 00:59
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 07:29 pm
The best example is Zimbabwe
We all know Zimbabwe isn't Socialist, but I seriously doubt it is a racist state. I would like you to take a look at this thread. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=74424)


Mrdie, are you calling Mussolini some type of 'socialist'?Whatever pseudo-Socialism he believed in before he abandoned it.

kromando33
30th December 2007, 01:38
Yeah maybe 'revisionism' wasn't right, because he didn't have anything Marxist to revise in the first place. Same with Trots, we should stop calling them revisionists because it implies they are revising Marx, but in reality they weren't even Marxists to begin with. Trotskyism is closer to a spiritual-idealist cult these days, as opposed to Marxism-Leninism which is a fully-fledged science.

spartan
30th December 2007, 15:30
Trotskyism is closer to a spiritual-idealist cult these days, as opposed to Marxism-Leninism which is a fully-fledged science.
:lol:

Marxism-Leninism has nothing to do with Socialism but everything to do with Bureaucratic State Capitalism.