[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives

File: 1663673708958.jpg (100.21 KB, 750x563, lenin2.jpg)


Bit of a beginner question, but as far as I can see Marx specifically warned against revolution in countries that that were not at the correct stage of development e.g. semi feudal countries like Russia and China. From my observation, the main lesson of communism in the 20th century is that you can't just leapfrog entire stages of historical development. ML thought seems like a giant treatise on why its ok to completely ignore Marx on this, yet I never see it treated as revisionism. Why is this?


Marxism Leninism is revisionist as it has been superseded by Marxism Leninism Maoism not to be confused with the revisionist Maoism Third-Worldism.

It was the correct ideology at the time but as of (not sure on exact date) around late 80s to early 90s Maoism became the new stage of Marxism.

Leftypol is a revisionist board you will find people such as Dengists and Russian war supporters here.


Bolsheviks chose to do their coup despite the context because they were afraid the tsarists and the bourgeois would ally which would have been very bad. Then Stalin made Marxism Leninism and a lot of idiots saw the October revolution as some sort of blueprint.


They didn't "leapfrog" stages of development, in periphery countries the communists were the only ones that could take upon themselves the duty of developing an industrial economy, something liberals and the comprador bourgeoisie couldn't/wouldn't do, because imperialism keeps periphery countries in a perpetual state of underdevelopment, so they serve as a cheap source of commodities.


For the last time, the words of Marx are not some holy dogma. Revisionism is not when you have a different analysis than Marx. Marx died before the imperialist stage of capitalism fully developed, there are things he could not have known.

What revisionism is is using Marxist concepts/terms to smuggle in liberalism - which is what one is doing if one denies the revolutionary potential of colonies, semi-colonies, and neocolonies in the imperialist system. If one were alive today, but believed the exact same things as Marx, then one would be a complete revisionist. Conditions are always changing. If one doesn't keep up with change and fails to grasp the actual world situation today, then one is revisionist.


What did Marx say that is now dated?


Also revinisionism is inventing shit Marxists said or distorting it/misunderstanding it to the point of being untrue. More common than you'd think.


Op did a sectarianism and an anti-communism


MLs are the catholics of marxism
Like most marxist they treat Marx as a buddha while saying that their departure from marxism was neccecary(the same argument eurocomms used) and you cant question them cause Lenin is a saint of the one holy apostolic church

The serious take whould be that while Marx made key observations you can be a normal person and develop your own ideas and oppinions


>Marxism Leninism is a religion
No, you are just a sectarian shithead


There is a difference between liking lenin,stalin etc
And being an ml
Also i literally said that many marxist hold this beleif ,how am i sectarian


>There is a difference between liking lenin,stalin etc
>And being an ml
This doesn't make sense to me.
How can you BE a theoretical tendency of Marxist ideology ?

>how am i sectarian

by comparing a theoretical tendency to religion, you literally implied it was a sect



Unless you don't know any leftist in real life you can't possibly claim many Marxists don't treat Marxism like a religions


I think i know what you mean, but you are frustrating me by implying that the Marxist ideological framework can also be a religion. It doesn't make any moral prescriptions.


revisionism is not when something gets superceded. revisionism is when something gets revised. The "updated" version is always the "revisionist" version. People have gotten so used to using "revisionism" as a pejorative for theoretical developments they dislike that they forget that revisionism, in some cases, can be good. Things get revised as new information comes in and old ideas get disproven. We revise our ideas when history proves us wrong. That is a good thing, as long as we keep doing it, and don't try to fix things that aren't broken.


The definition of revisionism in a Marxist sense that I found helpful is over-focusing on the particular at the expense of the general or common (there's a dialectic between the two), like focusing on individual scenarios or debating about which jobs count as working class and which don't to the neglect of overall class dynamics. The opposite of that, dogmatism, would deny the role of particularities, like neglecting the role of colonies and semi-colonies within the capitalist world system, or just saying "argh we need a social class struggle" while neglecting secondary contradictions about race and gender.

This has a specific meaning though and it's different from "revisionist history" which can be a good thing, like updating our understanding of history based on new information.


>Then Stalin made Marxism Leninism and a lot of idiots saw the October revolution as some sort of blueprint.
What was the bolshevization of the Comintern.


adaptation to material conditions is built in to the theory so "updating" for specific conditions is not revisionism. revisionism is deviation from the core principles like class struggle and revolution.

also someone posted Marx on Russia yesterday


Read Marx's Zasulich letters, his correspondence with a Russian Marxist in the 1870s. He changed his mind, you could revised his ideas.




That literally isn't revisionism though. "Revisionism," as used by Marxists is a technical term with a specific meaning. It is not, in fact, just when you update your analysis.

Reminder that the origin of the term, as it is used by Marxists, is Bernstein saying that he was "revising Marx" in his book Evolutionary Socialism. Bernstein claimed that he was still a Marxist, and used Marxist language, but in fact abandoned the class struggle and thought socialism could be attained via reform within the German empire. That's what revisionism is.

You may normally call updating stuff "revising it," but that is not what Marxists mean by "revisionism."


>ML thought seems like a giant treatise on why its ok to completely ignore Marx on this, yet I never see it treated as revisionism. Why is this?
Because "revisionism" as a political slur was defined with respect to Marxism-Leninism (which is really Stalin's interpretation and synthesis of the two of them, neither Marxism nor Leninism exactly).


'Anti-Revisionism' is Anti-Communism, specifically anti-communism targeted towards Marxists to allow them to be Anti-Communist without seeming as such. We should all be against the Bernsteins and Gorbachevs of the world, but attacking people for straying from the Holy Thought of Saint Marx/Mao is self destructive and just leads to you declaring yourself to be the only 'real' Marxists in the world. (pic very much related)


its not revisionism if it works



<Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line

<Anti-Revisionism and the Anti-Revisionist Movement

>Historically, in the Communist lexicon, the term “anti-revisionism” has been used to describe opposition to attempts to revise, modify or abandon the fundamentals of revolutionary theory and practice in a manner that was perceived to represent concessions to Communism’s adversaries.

>In recent times, however, the term has taken on a more specific meaning. It describes a trend that developed in the pro-Soviet (as opposed to the Trotskyist) Communist movement after World War II. The growth of this anti-revisionist trend was particularly noticeable at several critical moments in the history of the Communist movement – the shift from WW II-era collaboration between the Soviet Union and the Western Powers to the Cold War, and the crisis inaugurated by the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1956.

>Initially, the anti-revisionists presented a critique of the official Communist Parties “from the left” for having abandoned orthodox Marxism-Leninism (becoming “revisionist,”), and for being insufficiently revolutionary. Once the official Communist Parties joined in Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin, the defense of Stalin and his legacy became a hallmark of “anti-revisionism.” Later on, the anti-revisionist movement expanded and diversified to encompass those communists who rejected a pro-Soviet orientation for one aligned either with Chinese or Albanian positions.

>Anti-revisionism enjoyed its moment of greatest size and influence with numerous “Marxist-Leninist” and “Maoist” parties, groups and publications springing up around the world in the period which began with the Sino-Soviet split of the early 1960s. Its growth was greatly accelerated by international enthusiasm for the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China, but it began to decline in response to controversial Chinese foreign policy decisions in the last years of Mao’s life, his death and the subsequent defeat of the Gang of Four. While some anti-revisionists soldiered on, adapting to these changes, these later events spurred other elements to argue for a non-Trotskyist “left-wing” communism, independent of allegiance to foreign authorities or models.

>The goal of the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism is to document this trend.

- https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/what.htm


<Anti-Revisionist Periodicals, Magazines and Newspapers by Country


<United States

>The First Wave of Anti-Revisionism, 1946-1950
>The Second Wave of Anti-Revisionism, 1956-1962
>The Third Wave of Anti-Revisionism and the First U.S. Maoists, 1960-1970
>The New Communist Movement: Origins and Early Groups, 1969-1974
>The New Communist Movement: The Movement Proliferates
>The New Communist Movement: Initial Party-Building Campaigns, 1973-1974
>The New Communist Movement: Party-Building Efforts Continue, 1975-1977
>The New Communist Movement: Birth of the Anti-Dogmatist Trend, 1976-1977
>The New Communist Movement: Crises, Splits and More New Parties, 1977-1980
>The New Communist Movement: Anti-Dogmatists Unable to Unite, 1978-1980
>The New Communist Movement: Collapse and Aftermath
>The New Communist Movement: Major Issues and Debates
>New Communist Movement: Major Issues and Debates

<Index of topics covered in this section (by alphabetical order)

>Afro-American National Question and Racism
>Asian-American Liberation and the National Question
>Capitalist Restoration in the USSR?
>Chicano Liberation
>Communist Party USA and Revisionism
>Homosexuality and GLBT Liberation
>Labor and the Trade Union Question
>A Marxist-Leninist Communist Party – Its Theory and Practice
>Puerto Rican Liberation
>Study Guides
>Women’s Liberation
>Youth and Students


lots of good stuff in here


kind of depends on if you mean Lenin's contributions to Marxism (which is basically just plain ol Marxism, he just managed to read and understand the stuff instead of being a posturing pseud - which was common even back then!), or if you mean Stalin's thought which he put into the mouths of Lenin and Marx.

Lenin attested that before socialism takes up strong footing, it'll have to be tried and lose a few times, just like happened with capitalism. There won't be any easy formula to get it right. It's a science, and data has to be collected. (Tho getting it right the first time would be great for many people!) So essentially, why not try? If you lose you give others data for analysis, and if you win you better the lives of millions of people. Also one of his points was that the bourgeoisie in Russia was weak since the government basically implemented industrial investments from above, and kept the feudal thing going, not leaving much room for the bourgeoisie to develop on their own. So he thought that the proletariat had the best chance of leading the revolution against Tsarism.

There are lots of shit which happened as an explicitly provisional measure (allying with peasants, allowing national federation).

Some shit was just revisionism tho. Like fucking up internationalism by dominating all other communist parties thru the comintern, by making them do what was pragmatic for the USSR instead of teaching them their revolutionary methods and pushing them to make revolution in their own countries. They did the exact opposite, as well as how stupid it is on the surface to put all socialists worldwide beneath russian socialism, instead of the other way around!
stop trolling the n00b
it was the top-down restructuring of the many international communist parties to conform to the demands of the russian model and even to force the upholding of various russian ideas. It didn't impart the good shit and help our collective revolutionary knowledge, just the paranoia, the anti-fascist fears, etc. (i.e. the revisionism)
revise yourself out of existence
ye tho how often do you get to try out socialist revolution? Marxism embraces the value of theoretical thought, is not empiricist, etc. It's no defense of something to say "lets try it and see". You posted tautology bro.


File: 1663738074701.jpg (224.36 KB, 546x500, maoist.jpg)


First learn what revisionism means in Marxism instead of ascribing a dictionary definition to it.


Even if that were the sole definition then East Germany and a few other Bloc countries still fit the bill.


Encyclopedia of cope from completely inconsequential groups


Marx never warned against revolution "revolution in countries that that were not at the correct stage of development" - the fact this sentence contains the words "marx" and "against revolution" should be your first hint its bullshit. Marx (correctly) asserted it would be far more difficult if not impossibly for undeveloped countries to transition to socialism quickly. The idea Marx was against revolutions in undeveloped countries is the first piece of ML revisionism.

Marxism-Leninism and therefore its derivatives such as Maoism are revisionist for the simple reason that they revise Marxism to support their own capitalist and nationalist agendas, simple as. Stalin bent, contorted and contradicted Marx and Engels (and Lenin) at every turn to support the ideas like that commodity production could exist in socialism, socialism in one country, that nationalism and "social patriotism" could be supported and that coalitions with liberals and fascists a like could be cynically used (a flaw both Trotsky and Stalin had).

Overall, Marxism-Leninism has been a disaster for the left we've never really recovered from. The Kautskyite revisionism is something that is widespread among liberals, but all least those who identify as communist can diagnose and spot it. Marxism-Leninism on the other hand is a cancer that envelopes practically the whole Communist movement.


>t. CPC


Marx and engels never claimed that and even discussed developing socialism and collectivizing agriculture in Russia using the commonly owned peasant lands remnant of feudalism.
Read Marx I guess.


>but as far as I can see Marx specifically warned against revolution in countries that that were not at the correct stage of development e.g. semi feudal countries like Russia and China.
Bull fucking shit. Marx in his older days is way different from young Marx. To the point of pointing out that revolutionary potential for the Russian empire was very possible due to the inherent contradiction of serfdom.
>Now what application to Russia can my critic make of this historical sketch? Only this: If Russia is tending to become a capitalist nation after the example of the Western European countries, and during the last years she has been taking a lot of trouble in this direction – she will not succeed without having first transformed a good part of her peasants into proletarians; and after that, once taken to the bosom of the capitalist regime, she will experience its pitiless laws like other profane peoples. That is all. But that is not enough for my critic. He feels himself obliged to metamorphose my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into an historico-philosophic theory of the marche generale [general path] imposed by fate upon every people, whatever the historic circumstances in which it finds itself, in order that it may ultimately arrive at the form of economy which will ensure, together with the greatest expansion of the productive powers of social labour, the most complete development of man. But I beg his pardon. (He is both honouring and shaming me too much.) Let us take an example.
>In several parts of Capital I allude to the fate which overtook the plebeians of ancient Rome. They were originally free peasants, each cultivating his own piece of land on his own account. In the course of Roman history they were expropriated. The same movement which divorced them from their means of production and subsistence involved the formation not only of big landed property but also of big money capital. And so one fine morning there were to be found on the one hand free men, stripped of everything except their labour power, and on the other, in order to exploit this labour, those who held all the acquired wealth in possession. What happened? The Roman proletarians became, not wage labourers but a mob of do-nothings more abject than the former “poor whites” in the southern country of the United States, and alongside of them there developed a mode of production which was not capitalist but dependent upon slavery. Thus events strikingly analogous but taking place in different historic surroundings led to totally different results. By studying each of these forms of evolution separately and then comparing them one can easily find the clue to this phenomenon, but one will never arrive there by the universal passport of a general historico-philosophical theory, the supreme virtue of which consists in being super-historical.
Marx was living in the time when Russian narodniks, revolutionary socialists and anarchists were active. He even corresponded to them about Russian revolutionary potentials. He straight up admitted that the Russian revolution won’t strictly follow the path like in Western Europe which was where the major extent of das kapital’s analysis was formed.


because marxism-leninism is a cult and mostly not theoretically serious. here is an exhaustive list of ML theorists worth reading:
-mao tse-tung
-dominico losurdo
-jean-paul sartre
-louis althusser
-imre lakatos
-alexander kojeve
-gyorgy lukacs
-angela davis
and with the exception of the first two, all of these theorists eventually abandoned MLism. and even those two modified it considerably


Notice how he conspicuously avoids Stalin

Unique IPs: 28

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]