Revisionism and other perversions of Marxism-Leninism
A curious comrade e-mailed us a question asking about revisionism. The question revolved around what constitutes revisionism and why is it so important to fight against it.
Revisionism, in reference to communism, is a distortion or deviation from the theoretical basis of Marxism-Leninism. In the broadest sense, it implies that one somehow detracts from the fundamental basis of Marx and Lenin’s conception of scientific socialism, which becomes a far greater concern when it follows into the practical chain of events.
Revisionists seek to destroy the revolutionary spirit of Marxism and to undermine the faith of the working class in socialism. They oppose the historical necessity of a proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. They deny the directing role of the Marxist-Leninist party. They reject the principles of proletarian internationalism, call for the abandonment of the basic Leninist principles of party building, and seek to transform the Party from a revolutionary organization into a discussion club.
Contemporary revisionism opposes Marxist-Leninist doctrine on all points. It rejects the necessity of revolution and asserts that capitalism should be reformed. It claims that the modern scientific and technological revolution is reshaping the structure of society and “erasing” class antagonisms. This transformation is supposedly leading to the humanistic rebirth of capitalism. As a result, the working class is alleged to lose its revolutionary traditions and leading role, which passes to intellectuals.
For instance, denying Marx and Lenin’s understanding that the bourgeoisie will never voluntarily share the state apparatus with the proletariat will ultimately lead to a reformist-style social-democracy, which believes in the legitimacy of bourgeois political institutions (such as voting). This revisionism is particularly contagious in imperialist countries like Great Britain and the United States, where the masses are pre-conditioned for it by a relative comfort that hides the most hideous elements of capitalist exploitation in the minds of the workers (thanks to the labor aristocracy).
So, while there are many different ways for one to be considered a “revisionist,” the contention originates more with the practical outcomes (i.e. what happens in real life).
The correct theory is inextricably linked with the victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie and in establishing the masses on the correct path towards socialism. Thus, the importance of theory is not insomuch as it sounds good, or gives intellectual credibility to Marxism-Leninism, but that it is intended to lead towards one and only one conclusion: the establishment of socialism, followed by communism.
Anti-revisionism understands that the line of thinking and application of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin (and sometimes Mao) is the fundamentally correct line. That does not mean though that it is rigid and inflexible. On the contrary, anti-Revisionism is anything but dogmatic. It understands that different conditions are unique and distinct to one’s own society through the economic base and political, social and cultural infrastructure. It doesn’t hold that workers in Bolivia ought to mirror the revolutionary efforts of the Bolsheviks in Russia.
Revisionism takes many shapes and forms. Sometimes it is explicit as is the case of the Communist Party USA. Other times revisionism comes in the outward expression of genuine Marxism-Leninism, only to contain within it the seed of revisionist deviation. That is why the struggle against revisionism, along with the struggle against factionalism, sectarianism and opportunism, are of such great importance to the success of the international proletariat.
Lenin himself issued a prophetic warning against the threat of revisionism and opportunism in the communist movement. His words today emphasize the need for the struggle against revisionist elements within the Marxist-Leninist movement and to condemn and expose those guilty of revisionism/opportunism. The defeat of imperialism, capitalism and revisionism are inevitable.
January 19th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Besoshvili/Berianidze and I had a similar discussion about this on the forum. He pointed out the difference between revisionism, which is claiming to follow Marx but twisting the message, and non-Marxist socialism, which is when you admit you aren’t following Marx. Chavez would be a non-Marxist Socialist, but Khrushchev would be a revisionist.
Analogously, there is a difference between a heretic in the Catholic Church, and a Protestant who admits he/she is not a Catholic, but nevertheless still worships the same imaginary God.
I, for one, do not understand revisionists/heretics who try to infiltrate movements- it never works. If you disagree with a historical figure, just admit it.