Left-Wing Discussion Thread II: Behind 700,000 Bunkers

[Noraika]

As for charges of determinism, Marx and Engels wrote bitterly about their colleagues use of what became histmat. Marx late life polemical work was mostly "I'm not deterministic and don't let those damn Frenchmen tell you otherwise."

Marx is more focused on the fundamental ideas of Hegel, in the way of the dialectic. To call Hegelian Dialectic, and subsequently the Marxian Dialectic Materialism, deterministic is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of both. They do not predict, with 100% accuracy, the direction of free will of people, but it's about understanding the fundamental material influences which can shape people's actions and perspectives, as well as changes in society.

[Irona]

Historical materialism is interesting and sometimes useful but I wouldn't go so far as to say subscribing to it is required. It's almost dead as a historical approach, Marxist historians are in the vast minority.

There are very few who use it exclusively.

But it is far from dead. Every historian I have read uses the Marxist approach, whether they are classical or modern, and most of them use other approaches to cover the gaps in it (as they should).


But using it as one of several approaches is pretty much required to do history in an academic sense. You won't write much of academic standard if you don't use it as at least one approach.

To suggest it's almost dead seems to imply you don't know much about how history is studied in the present day. It is very, very far from it.

That's simply not correct. Most historians know Marxist history and reject it as an approach. Very few use it in any serious way. I'm studying History at university and I'm confident Historical Materialism has been throughly rejected beyond being seen as an interesting but flawed approach.

Just because a historian talks about class does not mean their using a Marxist approach. To subscribe to Marxist history is to believe that history is determined to result in communism and that all history can be explained through economics and class warfare.

[Smernosh Smercova]

On the poll topic, my favorite right-wing protest would be the Women's March in 2017.

[Community Values]

What counts as "revisionist" in marxist thought? Is it nothing more than a buzzword?

On the poll topic, my favorite right-wing protest would be the Women's March in 2017.

You mean, left-wing?

[Jelmatt]

What counts as "revisionist" in marxist thought? Is it nothing more than a buzzword?

On the poll topic, my favorite right-wing protest would be the Women's March in 2017.

You mean, left-wing?

Originally "revisionist" referred to evolutionary social democrats, but many Marxist-Leninists (particularly those of the Stalinist, Maoist, and certainly Hoxhaist persuasion) have fashioned it into a term of abuse to be used against everyone on the left who they don't like.

[Mattopilos II]

What counts as "revisionist" in marxist thought? Is it nothing more than a buzzword?

On the poll topic, my favorite right-wing protest would be the Women's March in 2017.

You mean, left-wing?

This person seems to be trying to act like a parody of a Hillary supporter or something. Just look at their sig.

[Kubra]

What counts as "revisionist" in marxist thought? Is it nothing more than a buzzword?

it's a term that began as a very dubious theoretical label and ended as an empty political slur.
It began as a way for stalin to throw doubt on the marxist credentials of trots and certain socdems. Y'know, say they're not marxist and you're the only marxists around, so if you're into marx you better be into us buddy.

[Jelmatt]

What counts as "revisionist" in marxist thought? Is it nothing more than a buzzword?

You mean, left-wing?

This person seems to be trying to act like a parody of a Hillary supporter or something. Just look at their sig.

"LGBTQQIP2SAA+"

Nah, they're totally serious. Because we all know that LGBT rights movements support pedophilia and put the "+" although they've already inserted 8 things despite the entire point of the + being so that the rest doesn't have to be written out in its entirety! *nod*

[Individual Thought Patterns]

On the poll topic, my favorite right-wing protest would be the Women's March in 2017.

Ebin parody.

[Community Values]

What counts as "revisionist" in marxist thought? Is it nothing more than a buzzword?

it's a term that began as a very dubious theoretical label and ended as an empty political slur.
It began as a way for stalin to throw doubt on the marxist credentials of trots and certain socdems. Y'know, say they're not marxist and you're the only marxists around, so if you're into marx you better be into us buddy.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, since it seems that most marx-based ideologies are 'revisionist' in one way or another.

[Irona]

it's a term that began as a very dubious theoretical label and ended as an empty political slur.
It began as a way for stalin to throw doubt on the marxist credentials of trots and certain socdems. Y'know, say they're not marxist and you're the only marxists around, so if you're into marx you better be into us buddy.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, since it seems that most marx-based ideologies are 'revisionist' in one way or another.

Marxism is meant to evolve and be under constant revision. To call use 'revisionist' as an insult in Marxism is as ridiculous as using it as an insult in Biology or Physics. Can you imagine if scientists accused each other of 'revisionism' every time they developed a new theory.

[Josepf Stalin]

On the poll topic, my favorite right-wing protest would be the Women's March in 2017.

which has been taken over by liberals and revisionists, so it's no longer left wing in the true sense.

The best left wing revolution would have to be russia's.

[Josepf Stalin]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, since it seems that most marx-based ideologies are 'revisionist' in one way or another.

Marxism is meant to evolve and be under constant revision. To call use 'revisionist' as an insult in Marxism is as ridiculous as using it as an insult in Biology or Physics. Can you imagine if scientists accused each other of 'revisionism' every time they developed a new theory.

Revisionism goes against communist thinking.

[Jelmatt]

Marxism is meant to evolve and be under constant revision. To call use 'revisionist' as an insult in Marxism is as ridiculous as using it as an insult in Biology or Physics. Can you imagine if scientists accused each other of 'revisionism' every time they developed a new theory.

Revisionism goes against communist thinking.

Exactly, comrade! Lenin was a revisionist because he should've stuck to Marx's theories that a revolution was impossible in Russia! Stalin was a revisionist because he should have stuck to Marx's theories that socialism was not possible in one country! They weren't real communists! *nod*

You see how meaningless the term is? Almost every Marxist has changed Marx's theories in one way or another. Which is good, because sticking to one theory or another dogmatically and not changing your views is pretty terrible.

It seems that those who claim Marxism is scientific are particularly adverse to revising their theories based on new information...

[Kekonistan]

Marxism is meant to evolve and be under constant revision. To call use 'revisionist' as an insult in Marxism is as ridiculous as using it as an insult in Biology or Physics. Can you imagine if scientists accused each other of 'revisionism' every time they developed a new theory.

Revisionism goes against communist thinking.

Thinking goes against communist thinking

[Irona]

Marxism is meant to evolve and be under constant revision. To call use 'revisionist' as an insult in Marxism is as ridiculous as using it as an insult in Biology or Physics. Can you imagine if scientists accused each other of 'revisionism' every time they developed a new theory.

Revisionism goes against communist thinking.

Quite the opposite. To oppose revisionism is to oppose Communism. Marxism is a science not a faith.

[Community Values]

Marxism is meant to evolve and be under constant revision. To call use 'revisionist' as an insult in Marxism is as ridiculous as using it as an insult in Biology or Physics. Can you imagine if scientists accused each other of 'revisionism' every time they developed a new theory.

Revisionism goes against communist thinking.

Vanguardism is revisionist.

[Noraika]

Revisionism goes against communist thinking.

Exactly, comrade! Lenin was a revisionist because he should've stuck to Marx's theories that a revolution was impossible in Russia! Stalin was a revisionist because he should have stuck to Marx's theories that socialism was not possible in one country! They weren't real communists! *nod*

You see how meaningless the term is? Almost every Marxist has changed Marx's theories in one way or another. Which is good, because sticking to one theory or another dogmatically and not changing your views is pretty terrible.

It seems that those who claim Marxism is scientific are particularly adverse to revising their theories based on new information...

It is rather ironic that the group that claims to be 'anti-revisionist' the most (Marxist-Leninism and its subsequent branches) was, in its birth, a massive revision of the general marxist perspective and orthodoxy. It completely altered a lot of the fundamental characteristics and structures of socialism, to a much greater extent from other 'revisionist' ideologies. It's kind of ironic.

We need not to pretend that Marxism exists currently in an ideological group that isn't a revision from the Orthodox Marxism of old. And that's a good thing. Circumstances change and ideological positions must alter themselves to new and arising circumstances both locally and globally.

[Valgora]

Since we're on the topic of revisionism:

To me, revisionism is when a government official/government/etc. wants to go back to capitalism by changing/revising socialist polices to increase the free market. It can also mean that a socialist government stops helping the workers and does harm to them by changing/revising socialist polices that lets the working class be exploited and such.

[Mattopilos II]

Revisionism goes against communist thinking.

Vanguardism is revisionist.

Shhhh or the Bolsheviks will get ya!

[Josepf Stalin]

Revisionism goes against communist thinking.

Quite the opposite. To oppose revisionism is to oppose Communism. Marxism is a science not a faith.

You say this as some one who is a "labor party" member, and apparently you are an islamophobic.

Since we're on the topic of revisionism:

To me, revisionism is when a government official/government/etc. wants to go back to capitalism by changing/revising socialist polices to increase the free market. It can also mean that a socialist government stops helping the workers and does harm to them by changing/revising socialist polices that lets the working class be exploited and such.

Correct. That is also why the bolsheviks and other vanguard leaders were so "strict" and got rid of certain politicians by force. They had to get rid of the revisionists.

c that the group that claims to be 'anti-revisionist' the most (Marxist-Leninism and its subsequent branches) was, in its birth, a massive revision of the general marxist perspective and orthodoxy. It completely altered a lot of the fundamental characteristics and structures of socialism, to a much greater extent from other 'revisionist' ideologies. It's kind of ironic.

You say this, yet you also support monarchism.

Vanguardism is revisionist.

Shhhh or the Bolsheviks will get ya!

And? what's wrong with the bolsheviks?

[Noraika]

c that the group that claims to be 'anti-revisionist' the most (Marxist-Leninism and its subsequent branches) was, in its birth, a massive revision of the general marxist perspective and orthodoxy. It completely altered a lot of the fundamental characteristics and structures of socialism, to a much greater extent from other 'revisionist' ideologies. It's kind of ironic.

You say this, yet you also support monarchism.

With all due respect, your point? Plus that doesn't negate my argument of how Marxist-Leninist is revisionist in itself.

[Irona]

Quite the opposite. To oppose revisionism is to oppose Communism. Marxism is a science not a faith.

You say this as some one who is a "labor party" member, and apparently you are an islamophobic.

To attack the person and not the arguement just serves to demonstrate that you can't think of an actual response.

The *Labour Party is the only political tool that the left have in Britain. The other left-wing parties are marginalised to the point of non-existence. I'm proud to actually be active in promoting left-wing politics and actually helping the working class. It's hardly an insult to call me out on that!

Clearly you didn't follow the link. If it's islamophobic to oppose Muslim reactionary's then I'm islamophobic. There's a civil war going on inside Islam - between a liberal and moderate left and a reactionary right. The left should be fighting the reactionary's within Islam and expressing solitary with liberal and left-wing Muslims. That's something I advocate for every chance I get.

[Mattopilos II]

You say this, yet you also support monarchism.

With all due respect, your point? Plus that doesn't negate my argument of how Marxist-Leninist is revisionist in itself.

Yeah, I don't get this comment either. I have GREAT disdain for monarchism... but it isn't revisionist in any sense of the word. If anything, it is highly traditionalist and doesn't really change much. I mean, the only major change was that of absolute monarchism and a gradual shift to constitutional monarchism in modern times.

[Noraika]

With all due respect, your point? Plus that doesn't negate my argument of how Marxist-Leninist is revisionist in itself.

Yeah, I don't get this comment either. I have GREAT disdain for monarchism... but it isn't revisionist in any sense of the word. If anything, it is highly traditionalist and doesn't really change much. I mean, the only major change was that of absolute monarchism and a gradual shift to constitutional monarchism in modern times.

Personally, I believe the monarchy, so long as it is ceremonial, can play a wide number of rules and benefits towards a modern state, but I can understand not only the wariness people have with it, and the outright opposition of others. However, I don't necessarily understand how it is revisionist or un-socialist. Un-communist I could definitely understand, as the end goal is the establishment of a fundamentally new society, but not un-socialist, as the head of state is not an inhibitor of democracy in politics or economics.

In fact, I've found having an elected head of state actually distracts the people from parliamentary elections, in terms of their being an association between an elected head of state, even if they're ceremonial, and lower voter turnout in legislative elections. It's not solid evidence, but the implication does lead me to question which is better. That's only one reason of many of course. I feel it benefits political democracy while doing no real damage to economic democracy in a socialist economic system.