Results 1 to 7 of 7
Did revisionists put the Soviet Union in GREAT DANGER with....
I'm confused, if revisionist ideologies put the Soviet Union and the march towards international proletarian socialism in GREAT DANGER with their ineffective approach towards terrorism and their elimination socialism and planned economies, why did the Union collapse instead of having people revolting to bring it back?
If revisionists put movements in GREAT DANGER why are they allowed to participate in the communist movement? Are they enemies to communism?
I watched this video, made by an anti-revisionist.
+ YouTube Video
Last edited by Kingpin; 16th February 2010 at 01:01.
Revisionist only means, essencially "does'nt agree with Stalins ludacris brutal dicatorship." Thats it. Real SOcialism was dead before the "revisionists" came in, if there was a true peoples revolution during the revisionist period, I guarantee you it would'nt have been because they miss Stalins brutal dictatorship.
"Revisionism" is indeed a term coined termed by the status quo to describe those who seek changes. Just like the term "real socialism" is a term coined by people who naturally believes their views are correct, with the logical result that the opinions of other socialists to be "false."
The soviet union collapsed b/c it was run by monkeys and the revisionists just wanted to change it from one monkey state to another. So no matter who is in power as long as their is power in a state it will oppress its people and the more power it has the likely it is to collapse, unless it has all power. Then you become winston smith
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed.-Étienne de La Boétie
Sigh. Actually the term "revisionism" goes back to 1896 in Marxist history, when the first revisionists, most notably Eduard Bernstein, promoted their anti-Marxist theories. Since then revisionism has been consequently fought by all Marxists.
That e.g. formidable Mr Khrushchev and his clique were revisionists is not some "Stalinist" paranoia but a fact. Their policies and "theories" speak for themselves and you will find no genuine communist who subscribes to them.
Yes, they are and they are one of the most (if not the most) dangerous enemies of communism. They are of course not allowed to participate in the communist movement, as they are no communists. They disguise themselves as communists and reveal their true nature only when they are needed by the boruegoisie and feel save. Essentially revisionists distort the communist theory, claim that it is "outdated", "proven wrong by history/reality" or that it "only applied to the time Marx and Engels lived" and therefore they "develope" "advanced and improved" theories and promote them, such as e.g. Khrushchev's theory of peaceful coexistence (among many others). But in reality, as every genuine communist who ever read a word by Marx will very easily discover, these theories never improve communist theory in the very least. These theories are reactionary by nature, contradict Marxism(-Leninism) and aim at deceiving and misleading the working class.
The revisionists represent bourgeois interests within the communist movement and therefore they are far worse than reactionaries outside the movement. They consciously try to weaken the communist movement and the struggle of the working class in order to serve and support their masters, the bourgeoisie, in keeping the workers down and fighting communism.
The different tendencies also often accuse each of being revisionist. If you are interested, here is a post by Ismail, listing works that criticise different tendencies: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...38&postcount=2
Because, as mentioned above, the revisionists do not openly show their true nature, the ordinary people of the USSR did not realise what was going on as they were blinded and decieved by the pseudo-leftist phrases of the revisionists. The anti-revisionists within the party, the so-called "Anti-Party Group", of course realised Khrushchev's true nature and tried to fight him and his clique. But with the help of the military Khrushchev was able to secure his power. Here is a thread about the "Anti-Party Group": http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-revis...9/index.html?t
Such as?
I mentioned Khrushchev's theory of peaceful coexistence above, which states that the socialist and imperialist states - socialism and capitalism - can peacefully live together side by side. This is absolutely impossible. No genuine socialist (state) can ever coexist in harmony with any capitalist state, this contradicts class struggle. The bourgeois nations would never ever accept a socialist nation by their side becuase they had to fear that this state might - and must, if it is genuinely socialist! - support the workers in their struggle and work towards world revolution. And no socialist state can accept the imperialists exploiting the workers of other nations and oppressing their working class as well as the international proletariat while aiming at a capitalist restoration in the socialist state(s).
There is only one way how such a peaceful coexistence could ever work: the socialist state is not socialist (anymore). Then, of course, the bourgeoisie would have very little reason to feel threatened as well as the "socialists" don't have to be afraid of a capitalist restoration because this is exactly what they are aiming at themselves, as Mr Gorbachev showed in quite an impressive way.
Further examples of revisionism are:
- reformist theories, i.e. the claim that a (violent) revolution is not necessary to achieve communism but that the communists have to gain political power by elections and then as elected government are able to reform the capitalist state from within
- the economic reforms which were undertaken in the USSR, especially under Gorbachev
- the massive opening of the Yugoslav economy for foreign investors plus the privatisation there with all the results, e.g. the Balkan Wars
- Eurocommunism
- Third-Worldism
- the Juche ideology in the DPRK
and many more.
