Are we Socially Conservative or Socially Progressive?

I would make the arguement that in a large part we are Socially Progressive, but in some ways Socially Conservative. Communism is a progressive ideology as you may know, and Marxism Leninism is a Communist ideology and is such. Yet, the anti revisionism is socially conservative. If anything, Marxism Leninism should be in the gray zone on matters such of these. Keep the ideas of the Revolution to be true, but yet progress as Marx called for.

Progressive, of course.

We don't base our social views on religion or idealism, so I don't see how we can be "conservative." Whatever conservative views exist are the result of backward customs and viewpoints.

Socially progressive. Social Conservatism is reactionary and bourgeios, and we should actively combat it at all times it rears its ugly head.

While we are on the topic of progressive v.s conservative I remember recently hearing the argument "Marxism is a science, not a religion. Science is based on the revision of hypotheses. Any real Marxist is simultaneously a revisionist." how exactly do you respond to this?

Yeah I agree with the above, but regardless I think the OP was trying to get at the whole "Anti Revisionism" aspect of Marxism-Leninism. Not the whole aspect of Marxism being a Science, as well as Communism.

progressive

The hint is in the "marxist" and the "leninist"

The question here is whether or not Marxist-Leninist are Socially Conservative or Socially Progressive.

I would really appreciate you takes on this.

The answer to this question is simple, if you believe that your civilizations Golden age was in the past then you are conservative, but if you believe your civilization Golden age is in the future then you are progressive. This is the same system I use to tell if someone is on the left or right wing of the spectrum. Many anti-revisionist do point to failures in the past, but they only point to them as lessons to learn, not as some lost Golden age. That's why I have many debates on the subject of a better plan economy with anti-revisionists off-line.

What an interesting question Haveee, I note the good Colonel is unequivocal a bright big YES for progressive. I should bloody hope so. We need to measure that by how much we know OUR own working class, its history its culture and ideas. We should immerse ourselves too in what we need to prosper. Study of events in other places at other times is wholly worthwhile, context is everything. So a grasp at least of struggle worldwide is of benefit. Perhaps we are over modest in not lecturing others about their country and revolution. A pitfall for the unwary, whilst hectoring others we should really be saying no Brit interference, and marshalling on that slogan. It is beyond common sense to say that our revolution will be utterly different in tone, form, line of march and we will need to do it ourselves. Our collective thought. Measured against our practice. Nobody near or far can do that for us. The start of revisionism is when you just stop kicking...progress flies out of the window. Along with thought.

While we are on the topic of progressive v.s conservative I remember recently hearing the argument "Marxism is a science, not a religion. Science is based on the revision of hypotheses. Any real Marxist is simultaneously a revisionist." how exactly do you respond to this?

Anti-revisionism doesn't mean dogmatically never changing the theory or hypothesis to adapt to current social conditions, or changing a plan that has shown to not work or to fail. Revisionism refers to the pointless watering down of Marxism and reforming it to essentially state capitalism/welfare statism *see Bernstein*. Revisionism is an ideological shift that contorts socialism to some sort of beurocratic collectivised capitalism.

No anti-revisionist opposes changing Marxist theory to adapt to newer social and material conditions. What we oppose is a counter-revolutionary force acting to reinstate capitalism.

I'm sorry if this post doesn't clear some things up, I'm certain another comrade will be able to explain this better.

While we are on the topic of progressive v.s conservative I remember recently hearing the argument "Marxism is a science, not a religion. Science is based on the revision of hypotheses. Any real Marxist is simultaneously a revisionist." how exactly do you respond to this?

Ask them what they think of the scientific analyses given by Eurocommunists, Gorbachev, Kim Jong Il or the Chinese leadership. If they reply, "That's not science, that's distorting Marxism," then that's what we mean by the term.

Revisionism signifies distorting Marxism and negating its revolutionary and scientific content. If one actually reads Albanian texts they talk about how the Party of Labour creatively applied Marxism-Leninism in the conditions of the country. There's a big difference between this and Kim Jong Il basically saying "we have creatively understood man and now know that the army is the vanguard class" or whatever.

Ismail pretty much summed up anti-revisionism perfectly

We are socially progressive we just usually don't go in for liberal-style nonsense (peado-advocacy, strange notions that seem to put "race" (which we all know is only an outdated construct), gender et cetera above class sturggle) that sometimes has us labeled by Ultra-Leftist as "conservative", that and the fact our ideology is associated with the "Stalinist era" in the USSR by those who think we just sit their with posters of WWII era tanks on our walls!

One of these days I should really write a introductory text on what revisionism is and shoot down all the lame strawman arguments. "LOL THEY ARE AGAINST SCIENCE AND THINK THAT REVISING MARXISM IS REVISIONIST, I GUESS LENIN WAS A REVISIONIST THEN LOLOLOL" is on par with "If the LTV is correct, why can't I sell my mudpie?" in terms of strawmen arguments relating to Marxism.

One of these days I should really write a introductory text on what revisionism is and shoot down all the lame strawman arguments. "LOL THEY ARE AGAINST SCIENCE AND THINK THAT REVISING MARXISM IS REVISIONIST, I GUESS LENIN WAS A REVISIONIST THEN LOLOLOL" is on par with "If the LTV is correct, why can't I sell my mudpie?" in terms of strawmen arguments relating to Marxism.

You really should. I think that really would help new users out and probably make our tendency more attractive if we debunk all the silly misconceptions about anti-revisionism.

Besides all the usual facts about the USSR's policies around abortion and homosexuality, back in the days of big Marxist-Leninists organisations, ranging from the 30s to the 70s, it was common for most anti-revisionists, maoists and albanians, as well as some Che-fetishists, to combine the usual Leninist party discipline to a really stoic and frugal ''personnal philosophy'' of sorts, it is common to see descriptions as harsh and disciplined about ML leaders from their bourgeois historians and journalists counterparts. This usually contrasted with the juvenile petty-bourgeois of other tendencies. This is also where the humourless, boring and old stalinist stereotype comes from. Personnally I thinks that was awesome, less che-ish and more stalinist-ish, true and mature, revolutionary leninist activism.

I never liked Che,he was not an ortodox ML.And,the boring old "ML's are boring and humourless" is getting really over-used,i mean,what,it's a problem if i don't insert a random insult/joke/sarcastic remark in my posts?

I mean,what's funny; (According to the "Anti-ML people here)

1.) Hoxha = Beards,bananas,bunkers,no colours,no sun and no laughter.

Hahah great comedy.Not.

2.) USSR - It was a stupid hell hole,Stalin was a dick.

Hahah so interesting and such a comedy value!Not.

3.) ML's like tanks and pictures of dead people.

Hhurhrhrhrh so much comedy.Not.

4.) The politics of ML's are a joke! Now let's get back to writing our newspapers and defending Cuba,or raising a Worlld Rrevvolution!

^I wish you could give rep in groups...

I never liked Che,he was not an ortodox ML.And,the boring old "ML's are boring and humourless" is getting really over-used,i mean,what,it's a problem if i don't insert a random insult/joke/sarcastic remark in my posts?

I mean,what's funny; (According to the "Anti-ML people here)

1.) Hoxha = Beards,bananas,bunkers,no colours,no sun and no laughter.

Hahah great comedy.Not.

2.) USSR - It was a stupid hell hole,Stalin was a dick.

Hahah so interesting and such a comedy value!Not.

3.) ML's like tanks and pictures of dead people.

Hhurhrhrhrh so much comedy.Not.

4.) The politics of ML's are a joke! Now let's get back to writing our newspapers and defending Cuba,or raising a Worlld Rrevvolution!

5.) well you see everybody who is a ML is an idiot who obviously never reads anything by my favorite extreamly obscure "revolutionary" so I guess everything they say is wrong and Stalin himself killed over 100,000,000,000,000 people; 290,000 of which he strangled the life out of with his mustache.

Oh and...

STATE CAPITALIST, NATIONSLIST, STALINIST FUCKING BAYBEHZ EETARZ!!!!!

thanks my utopian friends for the 30 thanks on this post! I know how I am the funniest and greatest communist of all time

One of these days I should really write a introductory text on what revisionism is and shoot down all the lame strawman arguments. "LOL THEY ARE AGAINST SCIENCE AND THINK THAT REVISING MARXISM IS REVISIONIST, I GUESS LENIN WAS A REVISIONIST THEN LOLOLOL" is on par with "If the LTV is correct, why can't I sell my mudpie?" in terms of strawmen arguments relating to Marxism.

I would like to put out that Lenin did in fact refine certain points of communism that is contradictory to a few statements made by Marx. This does not mean though that Lenin was anti-Marxist it just means that he is willing to adjust communism to fit the place, time and practice of the concept.

Yes, I know. Stalin was blunt on this point as well when he noted that some statements by Marx and Engels had to have the time and place they said these things taken into account.

Then you had revisionists, like Varga who argued that the People's Democracies were led by some "new force" that was neither a proletarian nor bourgeois dictatorship, and Khrushchev who said that the USSR had transcended the need for proletarian dictatorship and was by that time a "state of the whole people" which would reach communism by 1980.

Stalin himself killed over 100,000,000,000,000 people; 290,000 of which he strangled the life out of with his mustache.

Come on that is silly. Stalin himself only killed 99,99,999,999,999 but it is actually 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 if you take into account all those that officially were killed of enemies of the state, like Nazi soldiers as it was Stalin's fault that Hitler invaded as he actually invented Hitler as he needed a friend to join his mustache of the month club. Get the facts straight.

While I appreciate the Stalin humor, I'd just like to get on topic for a second and say that I think this idea of M-Ls being "socially conservative" does come from a small number of proclaimed leftists who carry some reactionary views on social issues.

These are probably often younger people who don't fully understand the issues and are just going along with how they were raised, though there are always some assholes out there. Unfortunately, more often than not, these folks seem to describe their tendency as Marxist-Leninist.

That said, these kind of crappy opinions belong to the random people who get banned from here about once a month for accidently outing their pro-life or homophobic ideas, and we certainly shouldn't embrace that trash.

^true enough.

It depends on if you are a marxist lennist of the new communist movement, I would assume, but no we are progressive so people think that we are social conservative base on the fact that some ML'S support excutation. But liberals sometime support executions so i don't know why they don't called them social cons.