Anti-Revisionist

From Free net encyclopedia

In the Marxist-Leninist movement, an anti-revisionist is a communist who favors a stricter interpretation of the ideology in accordance with the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. The term is generally seen as positive, not pejorative, and used in self-description by the "anti-revisionists" themselves.

To an anti-revisionist, the populist/People's War core of Maoism and the anti-fascism of Stalin's policies are seen as fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism that cannot be abandoned lest the principles of communism as a whole be abandoned along with them. Anti-revisionism is seen by its followers as a healthy, solid, scientific ideological road, devoid of both the alleged corruption and elitism of Trotskyism, and the perceived idealism of Left Communism.

The opposite term, revisionism, is most often used pejoratively. In its original sense, "anti-revisionism" was used at the beginning of the twentieth century during the split between Leninist groups and Social Democracy. The Leninists called themselves "anti-revisionists" because they opposed the revisionists; that is, opposed the Social Democrats who believed that Marx's ideas should be revised to allow for the possibility of socialistic progress without revolution.

Self-proclaimed anti-revisionists firmly oppose the self-proclaimed socialist market economy reforms initiated in communist countries by leaders like Khrushchev in the Soviet Union and Deng Xiaoping in China. They generally refer to such reforms and states as state capitalist and social-imperialist.

The term anti-revisionist, while a positively-connotated term denoting an opposition to Trotskyism, reformism, left communist currents, and revisionism from the point of view of what adherents claim is a more truthfully revolutionary sector of the Radical Left, is nevertheless usually controversial among those who claim to adhere to it. Groups will sometimes fight over which of them is really the "true" anti-revisionist.

During the Sino-Soviet split, the governments of the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong and Albania under Hoxha proclaimed themselves taking an anti-revisionist line and denounced Khrushchev's policies. In the United States, those who supported China or Albania at the time were expelled from the United States Communist Party under orders from Moscow, and in 1961 they formed the Progressive Labor Movement. Anti-revisionist groups were further divided by the Sino-Albanian split, with those following Albania being loosely described as Hoxhaist.

Several other small Stalinist or Maoist political parties in the United States, such as the Revolutionary Communist Party USA, see themselves as anti-revisionist. Not every contemporary communist party adhering to elements of anti-revisionism necessarily adopts the label "anti-revisionist". These organizations may call themselves Maoist, Marxist-Leninist or even just simply "revolutionary communist".

The Workers Party of Korea still claims an anti-revisionist political line. However, this may not be an accurate label either in self-description or description by others, because of the official 'supersedence' of Marxist-Leninist thought in North Korea by the ideology of Juche.

A few anti-revisionists still positively regard the teachings of Enver Hoxha and/or Kim Il-Sung, but this is rare.

[edit]

Criticisms

Critics point out that anti-revisionists, like the communist leaders that preceded them, have an inclination towards the cult of personality, and that an indispensable principle of the scientific method is actually the desirability of revision. Critics also argue against the elevation of a doctrine to the status of unquestionable truth, which they say anti-revisionists do, and that therefore, while anti-revisionism may be ideologically pure, it would be far from scientific. Some critics of anti-revisionism call it a dogma and would even liken it to treating Marxist political theory as a type of religious faith.

Anti-revisionists counter that these criticisms amount to mischaracterization and slander; that there is a difference between development of a party line to arrive at different conclusions, and the attempt of revisionism to, in their view, revise Marxist fundamentals; and that critics' characterization of anti-revisionists, even taken alone, does not correspond to what anti-revisionists do in practice from day to day.

[edit]