Revisionism (Marxism) Puns

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is Maoists view cultural revolution as necessary to prevent revisionism from arising. This is the main point of contention between Maoists and Marxist-Leninists and the thing which separates Maoism as qualitatively different from ML. If MLs reject cultural revolution, then what strategy or strategies is used instead to prevent revisionism?

There is a well-known saying that if geometrical axioms affected human interests attempts would certainly be made to refute them. Theories of natural history which conflicted with the old prejudices of theology provoked, and still provoke, the most rabid opposition. No wonder, therefore, that the Marxian doctrine, which directly serves to enlighten and organise the advanced class in modern society, indicates the tasks facing this class and demonstrates the inevitable replacement (by virtue of economic development) of the present system by a new order—no wonder that this doctrine has had to fight for every step forward in the course of its life.

Needless to say, this applies to bourgeois science and philosophy, officially taught by official professors in order to befuddle the rising generation of the propertied classes and to “coach” it against internal and foreign enemies. This science will not even hear of Marxism, declaring that it has been refuted and annihilated. Marx is attacked with equal zest by young scholars who are making a career by refuting socialism, and by decrepit elders who are preserving the tradition of all kinds of outworn “systems”. The progress of Marxism, the fact that its ideas are spreading and taking firm hold among the working class, inevitably increase the frequency and intensity of these bourgeois attacks on Marxism, which becomes stronger, more hardened and more vigorous every time it is “annihilated” by official science.

But even among doctrines connected with the struggle of the working class, and current mainly among the proletariat, Marxism by no means consolidated its position all at once. In the first half-century of its existence (from   the 1840s on) Marxism was engaged in combating theories fundamentally hostile to it. In the early forties Marx and Engels settled accounts with the radical Young Hegelians whose viewpoint was that of philosophical idealism. At the end of the forties the struggle began in the field of economic doctrine, against Proudhonism. The fifties saw the completion of this struggle in criticism of the parties and doctrines which manifested themselves in the stormy year of 1848. In the sixties the struggle shifted from the field of general theory to one closer to the direct labour movement: the ejection of Bakuninism from the International. In the early seventies the stage in Germany was occupied for a short while by the Proudhonist Mühlberger, and in the late seventies by the positivist Dühring

current communist parties include Cuba, China, Laos, Vietnam and North Korea.

I suspect that China (since 'socialism with chinese characteristics') and North Korea (since all references to communism in the constitution were removed) will be met with scorn around here, but have any of the other ones remained atleast somewhat within the orthodox Marxist/Leninist/M-L/Maoist line?

I've been studying Marxism-Leninism for the past few months and what really seems like a major problem to me is revisionism. I've completely gotten rid of any bourgeois views of the USSR and past socialist countries but it's always revisionism which seems to be "ruining everything". Of course, I know revisionism doesn't just grow by itself, but where I seem to think that a socialist leader made the best out of a situation, there will almost always be a revisionist after him to betray and distort Marxism. So, can any of you help me sort this out?

Views on Enver Hoxha and PLA, which stood firmly with Stalin and socialist construction in USSR till 1953, under the leadership of CPSU?

Also, views on the PLA, under the leadership of Enver Hoxha held firmly the dictatorship of the proletarian class?

So, as of 2022, the majority of new age communist movements identify with one form of Maoism or another. The primary difference between the two is that MLM was formally formulated in Peru by the Shining Path, and MZD Thought is the Chinese application of Marxism-Leninism implemented by Mao Zedong himself. The Peruvian, Colombian, Nepalese, and Filipino Maoists adhere MLM, leaving the Naxals in India and the Maoist Communist Party of the US (the latter not engaged in People’s War) as the sole representatives of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought in the present day. There are also deviations of Maoism such as Hoxhaism, although Hoxha is more or less MZD Thought for white supremacists.

I adhere to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as taught primarily by the Peruvian and Filipino Maoist guerrillas. However I’m curious as to the positions of other Maoists, and would like other Maoists to comment the ideological line that they follow. I’m very curious about Maoists’ feelings of Abimael Guzmán, who is the most polarizing figure between the MLM and MZD Thought split in ideology. If you’re a Hoxhaist, comment your thoughts as well.

The 20th Century Homosexual’s fight has been completely rebranded in the west. Apparently it’s always been about gender as well. Descriptions have been changed to people fighting for “LGBTQ+ Rights.” The Mattachine Society apparently fought to end gender norms. Drag queens are re-imagined into transgender people and black transwomen now started the entire movement.

This plain never happened.

The vast, vast majority of gay rights activists of the 20th Century, especially before the 90s, fought explicitly about homosexual rights. The right for men to love men and women to love women. Trans people were largely on the periphery of the movement when they were even involved at all. Almost all the drag queens of the 20th Century were just gay men who dressed as women. Marsha P Johnson, the so-called transwomen of color who “literally founded the LGBT movement” (according to a particularly dumb twink I know), went on record to say he’s a man, not a woman.

In other words, gay men and women by and large were always fighting for other gay men and women.

To be clear, I am not anti-trans. Trans people are fine and my anger has nothing to do with them. My anger is directed at the (largely straight) liberals who decided to rewrite our history.

I am particularly angry at this because the western liberal will preen on and on about right-wing historical revisionism and how that’s been used to push and uphold white supremacy. And they’re not entirely wrong when they say that! Yet they are more than willing to do that to gay people and they’ll tell us we’re being bigoted when we call them out for it! Ridiculous.

There was a situation once where I have had to get up and leave the room because some spicy straight was mocking gay men who “deny trans people are responsible for gay rights today.” I was not about to kill the vibe (FYI to incel posters here, you get invited back to parties by deciding to not kill the vibe with facts and logic).

It’s a cruel irony. And once again gay men aren’t allowed to celebrate their own accomplishments. Same as it ever was.

Article by Henri Rol-Tanguy sent to the Central Committee of the French Republican Workers’ Party, December 1957

Issues have sprung up in the Party regarding the path France should take towards socialism. Some say we should follow the Soviet Union, others China, and others that we should “liberalize” and condemn certain practices that we uphold.

In the camp of the Soviétiseurs and Sinisateurs, we find varying levels of dogmatists. They demand that we must follow Kaganovich or Mao, for they are the only ones who truly follow Marxism-Leninism and the line of Stalin. These people hold no creativity, and foolishly look towards slavishly following the processes of other countries and nations, completely disregarding the history and material conditions of France and the nations that make up our country. In this camp we find those who reject the French path to socialism, and all of the intricacies of our country and nations. The dogmatists are the deviationists of the left, sometimes heading towards the failure of Trotskyism.

In the camp of the libéralisateurs, we find the revisionists. Here, they believe that our People’s Democracy and our Marxism-Leninism is not enough, and that we must “progress” in the name of “liberty” towards a more “free” state. These revisionists criticize Stalin and Thorez and the entire party leadership as being backwards and ineffective. And in this camp we also find the strongest proponents of excessive cooperation with other European countries; those who wish to see a federal Europe to stand against both America and the Soviet Union. The revisionists are the deviationists of the right. Behind the revisionists stand the forces of cosmopolitanism and degeneracy, ready to destroy France.

Meanwhile the formalists are those of the bureaucracy, those who made themselves useful yet uncreative and lazy in the new Republic and our People’s Democracy. They apply neither Marxism or Leninism in their work in the Party and in government, simply basing all actions on habit or “tradition without thought.” In the formalists we see the main risk of corruption and spies. Formalists are the ones who will be very quick to take bribes and be blackmailed into becoming an agent for Imperialist intelligence. It is also within the formalists that we find the most brutal and harsh members, those who are not harsh against the People’s Enemies, but against the People themselves. As such, it is necessary that the Party stays vigilant in the purging o

I think we can all (or almost all) agree that there is much to love in socialist values. Particularly that it is immoral to profit at the expense of one's fellow countrymen, and a more egalitarian division of wealth is more preferable to a more hierarchical division of wealth.

But.

I've had some run-ins with users on this forum who like to pretend that the USSR was democratic (wtf) or that they didn't outlaw and imprison people for political dissent (wtf) or that the gulags just straight up didn't exist. I've even seen some users glorifying North Korea, of all places.

Denialism of the dark side of history helps no one. Also, it's pretty gross. Socialist values can be fought for and won in the context of a liberal democratic framework, so let's please not glorify authoritarian states that were so convinced of their own ideological purity that they locked up or killed anyone who disagreed.

Also, let's please stay openminded. I, like most people here, do not believe that unbridled capitalism leads to good outcomes. But it would be unhealthy for me or (anyone else) to be so self-assured that I am infallibly correct. There always exists the possibility that I or any one of us could change our political views in favor of another ideal. No matter how fervent we are in our current political beliefs, we must also remain committed to the ideals of liberal democracy -- that every person be allowed to decide for himself what policies he wants, and that every person be given the freedom to form and vote for opposing political parties.

I'm pretty new to marxism and i'm not that well versed in various terms so i thought i'd ask here.

Do demsocs want to achieve communism or are they only socialists? If i'm not mistaken both revisionists and demsocs want to achieve socialism/communism with democratic means(voting).

Obviously Pam and Roy should have broken up earlier, and definitely shouldn’t have gotten back together, but framing it as though Pam is the toxic one and Roy is the victim is completely ludicrous.

All these posts that suggest that Roy only grows after he’s free of Pam completely disregard Roy’s emotional neglect (talking about how he’s annoyed when Pam wants to talk about her day, not supporting Pam’s decision to take art classes, of all things) and anger problems (yelling, assault & battery, physical violence at the bar).

Yes Roy and Pam were bad for each other, and it’s great that Roy finds love and grows and deals with his problems, but he was a borderline abusive partner. Pam was not the cause of Roy’s issues.

When Leni wins, what happens next?

During this time, the evil partylists will do their best to continue spreading false information, converting even more gullible people to their cause.

Sara Duterte will have her own YouTube channel. More money will be stolen to fund their marketing.

Marcos Jr. will continue posting in its YouTube channel, guesting in TV shows to gain even more exposure, and all the while refuting the crimes against it. It will give interview answers that will make crimes seem not as bad. Maybe even do more pictorial sessions during natural disasters. And it will work. They will have more fans, which will become more voters in the future, because of course they will.

As such, once Leni's term ends, Sara Duterte will just run again. Marcos Jr. will just run again.

And it's not like the people who voted for them before are gone. They'll still be there. And if we stop bringing up how evil they really are, if all this unrest at their evil deeds just stop after the 2022 election is over, they'll have even more votes waiting for them.

So, don't stop. Keep doing your best to educate the gullible. Continue contesting the evil voters who only seek to spread the lies of their evil politicians.

#Halalan2028

isn’t Marxism-Leninism inherently revisionist?

Basically the title. I've been hearing many leftist say that we have to reject revisionism, if not you'll do a gorbie. But can someone explain to me why exactly this way of thinking is bad?

Referring to the (ongoing) Wheatley family arc btw,

I remember more than enough people wouldn't stop gushing over it early on, now fast forward after the Albanian arc ended and shifted focus back to the Wheatley family, I've seen some lukewarm comments over it....?

I say this as someone who greatly enjoyed the Albanian storyline btw.

I've been studying Marxism-Leninism for the past few months and what really seems like a major problem to me is revisionism. I've completely gotten rid of any bourgeois views of the USSR and past socialist countries but it's always revisionism which seems to be "ruining everything". Of course, I know revisionism doesn't just grow by itself, but where I seem to think that a socialist leader made the best out of a situation, there will almost always be a revisionist after him to betray and distort Marxism. So, can any of you help me sort this out?

I've been studying Marxism-Leninism for the past few months and what really seems like a major problem to me is revisionism. I've completely gotten rid of any bourgeois views of the USSR and past socialist countries but it's always revisionism which seems to be "ruining everything". Of course, I know revisionism doesn't just grow by itself, but where I seem to think that a socialist leader made the best out of a situation, there will almost always be a revisionist after him to betray and distort Marxism. So, can any of you help me sort this out?

What's revisionism and why do Marxists hate it so much? Isn't revising old theory to update it to the modern day a smart thing to do? Thanks!

This is long and I won’t apologize.

The 20th Century Homosexual’s fight has been completely rebranded in the west. Apparently it’s always been about gender as well. Descriptions have been changed to people fighting for “LGBTQ+ Rights.” The Mattachine Society apparently fought to end gender norms. Drag queens are re-imagined into transgender people and black transwomen now started the entire movement.

This plain never happened.

The vast, vast majority of gay rights activists of the 20th Century, especially before the 90s, fought explicitly about homosexual rights. The right for men to love men and women to love women. Trans people were largely on the periphery of the movement when they were even involved at all. Almost all the drag queens of the 20th Century were just gay men who dressed as women. Marsha P Johnson, the so-called transwomen of color who “literally founded the LGBT movement” (according to a particularly dumb twink I know), went on record to say he’s a man, not a woman.

In other words, gay men and women by and large were always fighting for other gay men and women.

To be clear, I am not anti-trans. Trans people are fine and my anger has nothing to do with them. My anger is directed at the (largely straight) liberals who decided to rewrite our history.

I am particularly angry at this because the western liberal will preen on and on about right-wing historical revisionism and how that’s been used to push and uphold white supremacy. And they’re not entirely wrong when they say that! Yet they are more than willing to do that to gay people and they’ll tell us we’re being bigoted when we call them out for it! Ridiculous.

There was a situation once where I have had to get up and leave the room because some spicy straight was mocking gay men who “deny trans people are responsible for gay rights today.” I was not about to kill the vibe (FYI to incel posters here, you get invited back to parties by deciding to not kill the vibe with facts and logic).

It’s a cruel irony. And once again gay men aren’t allowed to celebrate their own accomplishments. Same as it ever was.