How to get passed this argument?

[The Man]

I keep getting the argument that "Mao was a revisionist because China wasn't fully developed."

[Commissar Rykov]

I keep getting the argument that "Mao was a revisionist because China wasn't fully developed."

Wouldn't that also make Lenin a revisionist?

[Ocean Seal]

I keep getting the argument that "Mao was a revisionist because China wasn't fully developed."

I'm not sure why one would want to get past that argument. Saying that China should not have become socialist because it wasn't fully developed is in effect saying that China should have been capitalist. So Mao and the People's Liberation Army should have just packed up and let Chiang Kai-Shek lead the country. To me that doesn't sound like the socialist thing to do, and it certainly doesn't sound like the right thing to do. It would be letting the United States have a target for imperialist objectives and a very large work force which could be exploited to the benefit of capitalism. If anything Mao accelerated China's prosperity a thousand fold. And of course you can argue that Deng turned China into a capitalist-imperialist nation, but that is something that will dig the grave of capitalism. The capitalist system cannot function with too many imperialists in the same way that Feudalism could not function because the royal families grew too large and parasitic. That is not to say that we should support Deng as he was a capitalist reactionary, but that Mao is the reason that China has moved millions out of poverty and he is also the reason that capitalists can call China prosperous.

In addition, revisionist is not an insult. It is merely an empty word which should not be taken as an offense by anyone. Revisionist or not, it doesn't change what Mao did: take an almost feudal regime and turn it into an industrialized nation, increase the people's lifespan from 35 to 65, bring rural healthcare to millions of Chinese, etc. etc. etc. It also doesn't take away from his failures: Over-industrialization, Famine of (58-61) etc. etc.

So don't judge the man based on whether he adhered to a philosophy judge him based on what happened while he was in control.

[The Man]

In that case, how can Marxist-Leninists claim to be Anti-Revisionist, when Lenin revised the whole Marxist ideology of how "The Country must be developed"?

[Revolutionair]

I think Marx changed his position on that. At first he held the belief that the revolution should take place in one of the industrialized countries, like France, Germany, Great Britain or the United States. Later in his life he said that the revolution could also take place in undeveloped countries.

I'm not completely sure though!

[Ocean Seal]

In that case, how can Marxist-Leninists claim to be Anti-Revisionist, when Lenin revised the whole Marxist ideology of how "The Country must be developed"?

They can't. But a healthy dose of revisionism is a good thing. I can't imagine a world where every socialist was an orthodox Marxist. Reality should dictate ideology. If the pieces don't fit you can't force them to fit. Mao adapted, Lenin adapted, Stalin adapted. Marx wasn't perfect, he didn't have all the answers.

[Sword and Shield]

I keep getting the argument that "Mao was a revisionist because China wasn't fully developed."

It seems plenty of people are passing you that argument. So just do what you're already doing and you'll get passed the argument.

In all seriousness though, what do people mean by that? Are they pro or anti Mao? Do they support or oppose revisionism?

[Commissar Rykov]

It seems plenty of people are passing you that argument. So just do what you're already doing and you'll get passed the argument.

In all seriousness though, what do people mean by that? Are they pro or anti Mao? Do they support or oppose revisionism?

I would imagine they are anti-Mao most people don't throw around revisionist if they like someone. Though as RedBrother said revisionism isn't a bad thing otherwise everything just becomes dogmatic.