>>2647779Kind of, not really.
In the context of Marxism, revisionism isn't just when you come to a different conclusion than previous Marxists. If that were the case, pretty much every form of Marxism that currently exists would be considered revisionist, because the Marxian ideologies dominant today are virtually unrecognizable from what was being done 50 years ago. No, revisionism is specifically when you reject the core axioms that unify the various different forms of Marxian thought, creating something that can no longer properly be referred to as Marxism.
One of those core axioms is dialectical materialism. If you read enough Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, etc, it becomes clear that dialectical materialism doesn't just mean the existence of a material world, but the absence of an ideal, or spiritual, one. If you want to
really stretch it, you could say that it permits a kind of limited Deism, but the architects of Marxism generally upheld atheism and metaphysical nihilism. Indeed, despite what Hazites will tell you, the Soviet Union treated religion with begrudging tolerance at best. As such, "religious communism" is, by all counts, revisionist, which is to say, not Marxist, and as such, not communist.
We cannot abide revisionism, because it throws out the basic intellectual tools that we use for scientific analysis. It's paramount to being an engineer and eschewing standard algebra for a system that states that 1 x 1 = 2. True, you might be able to luck your way into results that work on occasion, but ultimately you're building off a foundation of nonsense.