Defining revisionism

I don't know what to conclude from this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/real-revis...ht=revisionism) , so I ask it again.

What is revisionism? What is a revisionist?

Is there is difference between those who made mistakes (and clung to them) unintentionaly and those who simply revised marxism deliberately?

This is something that I find very confusing at times. I tend to stick to the definition that revisionism (in Marxism anyway) means to revise fundamental principals and premises of Marxism.

I agree so we have to determine what Marxism's fundamental principles are.

One, is that the revolution has to be the act of the working class itself. Therefore all attempts to impose a top-down (Parliamentarism) or substitutionist strategy on Marxist theory and practice should be considered revisionism.

Innovations and adaptations to new circumstances, such as one of Jacob's favourite targets, Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution should not be considered as revisionism as it's unclear what fundamental principle of Marxism it departs from.

This is something that I find very confusing at times. I tend to stick to the definition that revisionism (in Marxism anyway) means to revise fundamental principals and premises of Marxism.

I do think that this term is being thrown around to much, tho. If we stick to the above mentioned definition (which I am not certain if it is correct), then it means that most 20th and 21st century Marxist movements are revisionist, including all so-called communist dictators.

Actualy, I would go as far as saying that revisionism is not an inherently bad thing. If we find something wrong in the fundametal principals and premises of Marxism, then revising it and changing it can be a very good thing.

But all that is of course based on the definition of revisionism that I know, and am not certain if it is correct. I hope that Jacob will provide a better definition.

Here:

Revisionism

This one would have been more self-explanatory, had this term not been so abused in modern times for entirely personal reasons. Nevertheless, revisionism, objectively speaking, is merely an assault on the fundamental principles of revolutionary Marxism carried out by those claiming to adhere to those principles.

One such assault is what can be called "apocalyptic predestinationism," which invokes comparisons to the predestination theology of John Calvin. This "apocalyptic predestinationism" led Kautsky to believe that capitalism would soon collapse because of a crisis either in the here and now or on the horizon - hence his perception that no real revolutionary theory was needed. "Apocalyptic predestinationism" almost led Lenin to deem imperialism to be the last stage of capitalism, but he then reverted to a pessimism (saying that he would not live to see revolution) that led to a bonus. Worse, "apocalyptic predestinationism" can be seen as the ideological cause of both Stalin's revisionism – from “socialism in one country” to time-and-again compromises on the class struggle, includes ones from a position of strength (most notably the Greek episode) – and Trotsky's revisionist replacement of the minimum program with the transitional program.

Comrade, because of bad connotations associated with the term "revisionism," any positive additions / corrections should be labelled as "redefinitions" or "reformulations."

It is true that there have been both intended and unintended revisionist attacks on Marxism. Apocalyptic predestinationism has this danger of leading Marxists to propose lesser demands and then consider them to be "revolutionary." In the late 19th century, it came in the form of the Erfurt Programme. In the 20th century, it came in the form of the Transitional Programme.

Heck, even Stalin's SIOC was based on the notion that, because capitalism was about to go under, foreigners would "spontaneously" have their own revolutions while the USSR went along its way towards "building socialism."

Now, in terms of "redefinitions" and "reformulations," consider the last three merger formulas. In the thread on multiple merger formulas, the fourth merger formula wasn't formulated by Kautsky, but was unintentionally arrived at by Lenin (although he himself upgraded Kautsky's merger formula to go beyond the labour movement of union organization - the second merger formula was the one that Lenin intentionally arrived at).

Innovations and adaptations to new circumstances, such as one of Jacob's favourite targets, Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution should not be considered as revisionism as it's unclear what fundamental principle of Marxism it departs from.

Principle: Some form of capitalism cannot be avoided before introducing "socialism." The productive forces have to be considerably advanced.

Principle: Some form of capitalism cannot be avoided before introducing "socialism." The productive forces have to be considerably advanced.

Some form of capitalism - i.e. every nation being located within the chain of international capital - is accounted for in Trotsky's formulation - hence the emphasis on the revolution needing to become international.

As pointed out by Led Zeppelin in your recent "pissing contest" () nowhere does Trotsky argue that a single nation can magically leap from feudalism to socialism.

[FONT=&quot]Having read the definition of revisionism, it seems to be that “Apocalyptic predestinationism” is, at least in part, a consequence of thinking that history is a force onto itself pursuing its own ends, rather than, as Marx eloquently put it, what people do in pursuit of their ends. It is obvious that if everyone just sat around and waited for revolution to happen it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy that it won’t.

The term “spontaneity” further suggests, in its usage, that revolutions are something that happens ex nihilo, which, once again, is absurd. Both, I think, can be traced to a misunderstanding of historical materialism. A spontaneous revolution is to be understood as one that occurs suddenly, rather than one that happens for no reason. If a revolution is unlikely at any given time there are material explanations as to why this is the case.

(Anyway, I know I haven’t said much, but those are just some random thoughts on the subject). [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]

surely 'revisionism' in its worst form is such new 'reformulations' such as 'socialism in one country' which flys in the face of Marxist internationalism, is this not true?

[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana]Socialism in one country is hardly new. That being said though I’m not sure if it is the “worst” (i.e. most harmful to the movement) reformulation of Marxism. The issue with revisionism (which I take here is being used as a negative term) is that it is false. This isn’t to say that Marx didn’t make mistakes, or doesn’t need to be updated/reformulated, but only that some such reformulations have been based on empirical errors. It proved to be impossible to build socialism in one country (especially if that country was Russia).

Another quite harmful revision would be that of vanguardist substitutionalism (I’m not sure if this is a term that was already in existence, or whether I just picked it up from JR). That is, the notion that a vanguard party can on behalf of the working class seize state power, and that this somehow counts as a revolution. This flies in the face of the notion that the emancipation of the working class must be an act of the working class itself. As well, historically it has proven to be a failure. The entire Leninist branch of Marxism in the 20th century either turned reformist, or established state capitalism (only to eventually restore plain old ordinary capitalism).

Another error that has been committed frequently in the 20th century has been to ignore material conditions. Look at all the “communist” movements throughout the third world, for instance. I don’t doubt that their struggle for national liberation has been progressive and at times effective, but no more could one build socialism in Russia than one could have in China, or Vietnam, or, as one of the latest examples goes, Nepal. The material conditions for such are not present, for one these countries were (or still are) primarily agricultural and consist mostly of peasants. Marx has, I still think correctly, predicted that revolutions would first take place in the advanced capitalist countries when capitalism has ceased to be able to advance the productive forces of society. To date this has not occurred, either revolution in advanced capitalist countries (Germany did come close, and I would say France did as well in May 1968), and capitalism had not in Marx’s time reached the stage where it was unable to further advance the productive forces of society. Though, from the looks of trends in recent history it appears as though capitalism might indeed be nearing its end in the advanced capitalist countries. While, at the same time, it is booming in places like China and India (the parts of the world that have yet to really undergo industrialization on a mass scale). [/FONT]

i do not see who is ignoring material conditions but..
material conditions have presented themselves many times,

1926 Britian,

1968 France,

Germany could well have if not for such massive incohesion within the left,

and Spain could have also fallen if external conditions were no so stacked against them,

I think Hyacinth refers to those who thought they saw a proper socialist revolution where there wasn't and socialism where there wasn't either. There are many myths surrounding the character of the Russian Revolution and the character of the Soviet Union just like the character of the Chinese and other revolutions.

[FONT=Verdana]The issue with revisionism (which I take here is being used as a negative term) is that it is false. This isn’t to say that Marx didn’t make mistakes, or doesn’t need to be updated/reformulated, but only that some such reformulations have been based on empirical errors. [/FONT]

Well, it is a matter of definition as to what is "revision".

Is "revision" simply a misguided contradiction (that happened to be wrong) of Marx's theory (e.g., that socialist revolutions will happen in the advanced capitalist states first - the contradiction of which proved to be a historically unsustainable enterprise)?

Or is it a change of anything Marx said that forms the backbone of the movement (e.g., a repudiation of the labor theory of value)?


I think both approaches are used when one discusses revisionism. With respect to the former, I am in total agreement with you that indeed that is a problem with revisionism. But with respect to revisionism of the latter kind, I think it is ultimately healthy if the movement subjects itself to frequent re-examinations.

Sorry for the garbled post, I hope it makes sense :þ