/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

No no no OP you just don't understand, see?
MY changes to the methods and theories of Marxist-derived politics -> The immortal science of Marxism Leninism
YOUR changes to the methods and theories of Marxist-derived politics -> Revisionist shit, the satan incarnate, the enemy of the people, shredder of puppies

>>1808121
On a more serious note: The most generous good faith interpretation of the word revisionism is
>I do not agree that the evidence supports your rejection of previously established theories. I instead believe you enact these changes because you do not hold true to the Marxist goals of the liberation of the proletariat as a class, and are thus lying to advance other goals.

In regular use its just a slur people use for other people they disagree with.

>>1808114
Consider that the OG 'revisionist' was merely trying to align his party with the current reality. The SPD was tacking more and more toward reformism as it grew and gained political influence, despite its program calling for revolution. Bernstein's solution was to look at current trends and suggest that reformism could be fruitful as an alternative path to socialism.

>>1808138
and it turned out to end in the SPD
Next one pls

>>1808114
I'd split revisionism into two types:
Historical revisionism, which is twisting or revising history, usually for nefarious gains. We all now the perverted historical revisionism of american history in general.
The other being theoretical revisionism which I agree with OP here that challenging theory isn't a bad thing. I'd exclusively call revisionism when Marxist terms and concepts are misused, misinterpreted, or just completely overwritten. Like self proclaimed Marxists saying that Russia invading Ukraine is imperialism. In general, I don't have a big issue with people being revisionists, more so than with people having retarded antirevolutionary beliefs and praxis. Being perfectly in line with theory doesn't immediately yield a good outcome.

>>1808138
lol

>>1808138
Well, the retconning of your program to align with what you do, rather than aligning what you do with what your analysis and ideological frameworks tells you you ought to do, then claiming it will achieve the same thing, is in fact one of the rare instances of true revisionism.

They did not arrive at the strategy of reformism through analysis and statistics after deliberation. They wrote ideology to justify their behaviour.

China is proof that revisionism work

>>1808114
>People who think revsionism in Marxism means a dictionary definition of the word
Read the history of the Second International, morons

>>1808154
In this sense, Soviet revisionism (Khruschevism and what came after) makes a lot more sense as a post-facto retcon of stated doctrine to bring it in line with the behaviour that already existed (Stalinism)

I think you and all the other charlatans ITT have zero clue what revisionism actually is. lunch breaks over in a sec will explain in a bit

>>1808238
>I think you and all the other charlatans ITT have zero clue what revisionism actually is.
Just minimise the thread anon it's not worth it.

>>1808238
I'm back and would like to explain what revisionism is. There are many of these old words from 100 years ago which in contemporary usage may have a new meaning, I had the same issue a long time ago understanding this. OP, if you think that "revisionism" just means "revise" then you misunderstood the meaning of the term. That's not what revisionism means. Revisionism means, when you say for example, that a new event in reality means that Marx and Lenin were retrospectively wrong. That's what decisive about revisionism.

Kautsky and them lot were revisionist because they used a new development in history to liquidate and deny Marx's original discovery. They didn't simply say that we need to update Marx, which is what Lenin and Stalin did objectively. As you say, it is inherent to science to update the standard model and all of our therories. However, they just said that retrospectively Marx was actually wrong, and this was "proven" because the "worker revolution" never happened and because of the rise of the middle class. Lenin was the one who actually saved Marx's original discovery precisely by being heterodox, for example.

>>1808247
I think its actually worth it because OP has the same exact misunderstandings I had when I was a baby marxist 5 years ago.

>>1808114
I'm not sure what revisionism really means. Marxism seems like it's supposed to be an open system that allows new information to either challenge or contribute to it. One definition of revisionism that I thought was interesting was overemphasizing the particular at the expense of the general. Or overemphasizing the private at the expense of the common. The opposite of this is dogmatism (like not accounting for differences in particulars, or particular conditions, ex: a dogmatic Maoist sect that wants to do a people's war in conditions not suitable for it).

So revisionism is a deviation but so is dogmatism. A lot of e-communists seem to be either revisionists or dogmatists or both depending on what they're talking about.

Related to this, it's like there's always a debate about what the "true" Marxist position is. But another way of getting to that is through the oscillation of deviations. There's no "objective" criteria to determine what that is, but you can identify dogmatism, and to take on dogmatism, you also have to recognize and challenge the revisionism that it's in some kind of relationship with (and this relationship can be antagonistic or opposed), so the "truth" emerges out of that process like a kind of zig-zag.

>>1847926
Source?

>>1808114
>revisionism is when you revise!
Yes OP. That's so true. And liberalism is when you liberate things. Conservatism is when you conserve things. Communism is when you have a community. Socialism is when you socialize. I fvcking love inferring the definition of highly specific political jargon from etymology alone. Language games? Wittgenstein? Never heard of it!

>>1808114
>How is revisionism bad?
It isn't.

We're still living under a capitalist mode of production. Revisionism just means 'revision' of Marxism in the sense of deviating from fundamental Marxist positions.
This is a useless thread because OP isn't even bringing up what points should be revised, so it can only discuss semantics and philosophical garbage.

>>1808122
it would be more helpful to call it opportunism or something since the issue isn't that the theory was revised but the reasons for doing it and the integrity of the revision

>>1848324
they were used interchangeably in the first internationale iirc

>>1808156
the love of having special little definitions for dictionary english-language words is one of the more tedious hobbies of marxists.
one of many reasons why any serious social movement should burn it all to the ground and start again. marxists have twisted Marx so many ways from sunday that the most effective way to filter his correct and incorrect insights are to start your analysis from scratch and see what comes up. If physics were as perverted, dogmatised, and religiously held as Marxism then your best route to understanding physics problems would be to ignore Newton and cut straight to throwing shit around the room and measuring it until you'd put it all back together from scratch. A clean room design without 200 years of cultural baggage, all of it shit.

but nobody really wants that. even the serious analysts want the little social group that comes with being a Marxist. a nice little label that quickly tells people what your deal is matters far more than understanding the world. if you want people to think you're a scientist, buy a white labcoat - not a textbook. if you want people to think you're a revolutionary, memorise these set phrases and chat shit, you'll go further than the physicist because your bullshit need never be tested empirically - and if it is you can always shit over the cracks with a second helping of cope.

burn it, burn it all to the ground. either it's rebuilt properly, or the ashes are better than the corpse that once stood there. the dead ought to be cremated.

>>1848331
>marxists are the only group with technical words
youre a complete fucking idiot

>>1848334
you're a retard (as is traditional for a TOR poster), pick yourself whether i intend the colloquial or dictionary meaning. the only circumstance in which you should reply to me again is in character as your mother informing me that you've killed yourself.

>>1848331
>If physics were as perverted, dogmatised, and religiously held
ever wondered why the standard direction of the flow of current in electrical systems is still the wrong way when we now have the knowledge its the other other way around ?

>>1848331
>The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living
and you cant escape it no matter how much it makes you seethe

>>1848331
What the hell are you even arguing about? Don't have words for things?

Thread about revisionism but nothing to talk about Benito ᴉuᴉlossnW, the most authentic revisionist in the world? You gotta admit, he's idea of throwing away class struggle in favor of class-collaboration and nationalism has certainly worked out in places like Egypt, Libya, and Iraq.

>>1808114
Revisionism

A fundamental alteration of a theory, essentially usurping (though taking elements of) the former theory and replacing it with a new one. While the attributes of a theory are subject to change in accordance to changing historic circumstances, changing the fundamental basis of that theory is to nullify it in place of a new one.

https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/r/e.htm

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/erol.htm

>>1848331
>the love of having special little definitions
all technical fields, hobbies, and specializations tend to have jargon where commonly used words have specific definitions unique to the subject being discussed. the alternative to this is to spend all day coining neologisms instead of appropriating existing words. It might be frustrating to deal with but you always have to ask "What is the definition of the word in the the context of the discussion". Do you confuse the characters on your keyboard with the characters in a TV show?

>>1848349
>his idea of throwing away class struggle in favor of class-collaboration and nationalism has certainly worked out in places like Egypt, Libya, and Iraq.

Benito ᴉuᴉlossnW did not invent postcolonial national liberation struggles. The postcolonial national liberation struggles of places like Libya, Egypt, and Iraq is fundamentally different from orthodox fascism. A developed imperial core nation with colonies like Italy under ᴉuᴉlossnW should not be compared with postcolonial nations. The nationalism of postcolonialism exists in a completely different context than the nationalism of imperial core jingoism and chauvinism. For postcolonial countries, nationalism is not based entirely in chauvinism, but is more developmental in nature. Once a nation is no longer a colony, and has achieved national liberation, it has a national bourgeoisie as opposed to a comprador bourgeoisie. The national bourgeoisie always play a historical role in developing productive forces and heightening the contradictions of capital. The comprador bourgeoisie on the other hand keep a nation underdeveloped and overexploited on behalf of foreign colonizers. Take Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran for example. Was he socialist? No. But socialists supported him. Why? Because he wanted to decolonize Iran and nationalize the oil.

So if fascism and socdem are revisionism then what isnt?

>>1848344
i can't say it's generated much interest.
>>1848346
the traditions are dead, all that's coherent melts into cargo-cult. i say we return to fire-worship.
>>1848347
my post is really two posts: a short point that jargon is a tedious little hobby, then a longer one about the left in general having so many tedious little flaws that it's better to burn it all down and start again than to engage with it. the biggest flaw, by far, is posturing. why try to understand the world as it is - as you'd understand a physics problem - when you can just decide who's based and quote mine marx/engels/lenin/stalin/mao/hoxha/me until the person you're arguing with gives up? why try to understand the world of today when you can defend the honor of the dead in the infinitely cooler world of 100 years ago? and if you do want to understand the world of today, why put up with any of this when you could put it all to the flame and start again? to repeat myself: the dead ought to be cremated.

>>1848775
my big-picture point would be that most of the discussions are pointless, their context completely unhooked from their purported practical purpose. there are zero circumstances in which a contemporary worker ought to learn a second meaning of the word "revisionism", but here we are. I have no difficulty getting my head around using language in specific ways: my problem is that when it comes to the left I am bored of it. It is too obvious to me that the reason most of these ideas are expressed the way they are is 40% historical baggage and 60% posturing for status: why something lame, low-class and germanic like "owners" when you can say something stylishly french like "bourgeoisie"? why have sheep when you can have mutton? if such a route guarantees that you go down a blind alley of discussing the bourgeois tastes of uni-students rather than any questions of private property ownership, what does it matter? that your interlocutor totally misunderstood just means you're smarter than them - and that's what it's about, bugger helping anyone understand how the world works.

i stand by the principle of burning it all to the ground and starting again - perhaps i ought to add a mandate to use only simple english and flow-charts as well. simple english may make complex analysis harder, but it would come with the beautiful side effect of destroying its prestige by making authors sound like simpletons. you might once again find analysis motivated by attempting to explain the world, rather than by positioning oneself socially within it as the smartest guy in a niche field.