4 Answers

  1. In order to identify bad people among the followers of Marxism, there were quite a lot of “abusive” terms : revisionists, opportunists, renegades, etc. Such Marxists were accused of scoundrelism and dogmatism, of apostasy and distortion of the glorious theory . However, these are just words with no real meaning behind them, and there was only the desire of the accusers to look like the only true followers of Marx, while at the same time presenting their opponents as distorters of the most important revolutionary theory. If we recall the same Lenin, he once said a remarkable phrase:”Marxism is not a dogma, but a guide to action.” Translated into the language of native aspens, this means that the theory does not need to be understood as a set of mandatory rules and it only sets a certain vector for the development of revolutionary forces. In Soviet times, the thesis about the need for creative development of Marxism was popular. And in general, the name of Lenin was added to the name of Marx, and as a result, a hybrid called Marxism-Leninism was born. My point is that Lenin and the Bolshevik Party as a whole can easily be described as revisionists. However, this did not prevent the valiant party and its glorious leaders from branding their opponents, both real and imaginary, with”abusive” terms. Any step to the side in the 1930s, for example, in our country could be considered as a departure from Marxism with all the conclusions that follow from this. It follows from what I have said that both the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks in general, as well as other socialist parties, as well as individual members and participants of party factions, can easily be called revisionists and find a suitable basis for this. As for the” correctness ” of the views of the parties you mentioned, I think it is incorrect to call any views as such. Views are a given, a statement of fact. No more than that.

  2. The answer will be too long. Too much arbitrary data and viewpoints. It requires clarification of definitions: how the Bolsheviks differ from communists and Trotskyists… and how it is all connected with the backstage. It's easier to send to the source. See the COB materials.

  3. Marxism is a doctrine that is as extreme as possible. �It is not for nothing that the State Duma of the current “military” fold, like the previous “pre-war” one, consists of the CP and its SS. �Thus, the more peaceful Mensheviks are revisionists-by definition. They are less of an extremist.

  4. Let's take two simple criteria to assess who is or isn't a revisionist:

    1. Definition of revisionism. According to the definition, revisionism is a revision of the basic principles of the theory, associated with the rejection of part of the provisions, while the revisionist does not abandon the whole theory. For Marxism, revisionism is a revision of the attitudes of dialectical or historical materialism. Such a revision, in my opinion, would include the rejection of the necessity of a socialist revolution, the abolition of private ownership of the means of production, the rejection of class theory, the rejection of a formative approach to history, the rejection of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the rejection of dialectics. This will be revisionism in the narrow sense.

    2. Public practice. Based on the fact that the criterion of truth in Marxism is social practice, revisionism in the broadest sense can be called trends that, in the course of the development of Marxism, have gone along the path of rejecting a fundamental understanding of the new socio-historical conditions.

    Now let's look at those who can be called revisionists.�

    1. The Bernsteinians. For the first time, the term revisionism was applied to some German social Democrats of the 19th century (E. Bernstein), who argued that the welfare of workers increases and does not fall during the development of capitalism, divided social classes not on the basis of private ownership of the means of production, but on the basis of the level of social wealth, and rejected revolution. Their main postulate was a peaceful, evolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism, without revolution, through gradual social reforms. Bernsteinism then gradually became the basis of modern social democracy and turned out to be revisionism both in the narrow sense (rejection of the Marxist method) and in the broad sense (its postulates were not justified in the course of historical development (no country in the world has ever experienced a peaceful, evolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism).

    2. “Legal Marxists”. (P. B. Struve, N. A. Berdyaev, S. N. Bulgakov) �Then we will have domestic supporters of the evolutionary development of capitalism from the beginning. XX century. Almost all “legal Marxists” not only put forward arguments that capitalism is a progressive system for Russia, but also denied the possibility of a revolutionary path for Russia, replacing it with a reformist one. And all of them very quickly ceased to be Marxists in general-P. B. Struve became a liberal-constitutionalist, N. A. Berdyaev and S. N. Bulgakov moved towards something similar to Christian reformist social-democracy. History has completely refuted the arguments of the “legal Marxists” about the progressive development of capitalism in Russia, which quickly led Russia to participate in the First World War and to collapse, followed by a socialist revolution (the possibility of which they denied).

    3. The Mensheviks. The Mensheviks did not deny the need for a socialist revolution, but considered Russia fundamentally unprepared for it, and advocated a broad coalition with liberal forces, the overthrow of the autocracy, and the workers ' opposition. It is difficult to call the Mensheviks revisionists, because there was no uniform position among them. After the victory of the October Revolution, the majority of Mensheviks first supported the thesis of a “homogeneous socialist government”, then, after the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, split, some of them continued to recognize the Soviets, others chose to actually temporarily withdraw from the struggle, and a third joined the “Union for the Rebirth of Russia” and participated in the armed struggle against the Bolsheviks. In August 1918, the Central Committee of the RSDLP (Menshevik Party) publicly called on the Mensheviks not to take part in the armed struggle against the Soviet government, and in December 1918, the Central Committee of the RSDLP (Menshevik Party The party conference of the top Mensheviks declared recognition of Soviet power, “political solidarity with the Soviet Government,” and support for the struggle against interventionists, counter-revolutionaries, and occupiers. But it was too late. Most of the Mensheviks refused to obey their leaders, and the Bolsheviks began repressions against the Mensheviks, which ended in the final collapse of this party. As we can see, the Mensheviks can rather be called “tailgaters”, they trailed in the “tail” of historical events and recognized the rightness of the Soviet government even when it was quite obvious, while the other part of them can no longer even be called social democrats, but rather “patriot statesmen” who took right-wing positions and fought together with the right SRS and whites against the Bolsheviks. The main thesis of the Mensheviks, that it is impossible to build socialism in an agrarian country and that only factory workers can be recognized as proletarians, has been refuted by reality.

    4. “Soviet Marxism” or “Soviet isthmus”. The question of whether the official “Soviet Marxists” can be recognized as revisionists after the second half of the 50s of the twentieth century is the most debatable question. �On the one hand, at this time the party finally becomes above the state and gradually the very concept of “dictatorship of the proletariat” dies, Marxism as such ceases to develop, Marxists in the USSR are subjected to repression for protesting against the official position. Dialectics and isthmus are reduced to quoting the classics; at the same time, there is no Marxist analysis of Soviet society in principle, and there are practically no discussions in the party on fundamental issues (and they were conducted under I. V. Stalin and after his death until the Twentieth Party Congress). There was also the emergence of a Soviet state and party bureaucracy with a system of privileges, but without any responsibility to the courts or the law for their affairs. This is on the one hand. On the other hand, at the same time, in the USSR, Marxism as a method (albeit in a reduced form) continues to be the basis of teaching scientific disciplines, philosophy is based on dialectics, the principle of abolishing private ownership of the means of production remains, as well as the principle of public ownership, the country is developing, social benefits for working people are increasing, the income gap between different groups of the population is gradually Therefore, the “Soviet isthmus” can be recognized as semi-revisionism – Marxism as a method was not completely abandoned, but its scope was reduced, the theory of Marxism was not developed, but at the same time they retained most of the gains of socialism in the social and economic sphere – abandoning these gains in the political sphere.

    5. Modern “Marxism” of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. In fact, this is the worst version of the Soviet history department, which has preserved all its theoretical illnesses and in fact has not preserved any advantages. Gradually, the political position of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation shifted from confrontation with the authorities to soft compromise (1998) and finally to integration into the system of “legal opposition” (2004). At about the same time, the “Marxism of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation” represented by the works of its theorist G. A. Zyuganov was supplemented with such additions as Russian nationalism, patriotism, Orthodoxy, and so on. and so on. Naturally, all this was not brought together into any single system and is simply a post-Soviet eclecticism, and not a consistent ideology. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation is a classic revisionist movement, like the “legal Marxists”.

    Everything else – if you take the neo-Marxism of Lenin-Stalin or such things as the hegemonic theory of A. Gramsci, Maoism, modern Russian neo-Marxism (Yu.Semenov) and so on. — these were attempts not to abandon the method or theory, but adding to it and revisionism can not be. They can be erroneous or not, this is usually shown by public practice, but they do not suggest any revision of the basic provisions.

Leave a Reply