u/VinceMcMao - originally fromr/GenZhou
It’s normally an insult but I think many who are posting answers here on this are in denial about some things internal to the eclectic politics which they hold. The reason being that while it’s used as a slur there’s also a scientific and accurate usage of the term which denotes a more formal slur to denote a very specific politics which are known as “Brezhenevite revisionism”. Within Marxism revisionism has a different definition then the revisionism generally, and it means the interpenetration of Marxism with bourgeoisie ruling ideology in which much of its core theoretical components representing the interest of the proletariat are revised. This specific type of revisionism was named after Leonid Brezhnev and his policies which have several features. They include what he called “real socialism”, the theory of “national democratic revolution”, replacing class analysis in realm of foreign policy with pragmatist expediency, and the tendency to treat contradictions among the people the same way you treat contradictions between the people and the enemy. It should be mentioned that while Brezhnev and the USSR are obviously gone this politics still takes a life of its own with other eclectic formulations.
‘Real Socialism’ was a term which meant that what the USSR had at the Brezhnev period was the most feasible and practical application of “Socialism” and thus it represented “Actually Existing Socialism”. The basic justification was that so long as even a state or party on paper said it was socialist that itself was enough. There was no room here to actually elaborate what actual transition to a classless society meant especially at the level of superstructure or even the engagement of the masses in this transition, so more than anything it served to justify the status quo.
National democratic revolution was a theory which revised basic theoretical and practical lines established by the experience of the road to the completion of democratic revolution in countries oppressed by imperialism. The whole idea was that instead of the proletariat in these countries leading the democratic revolution which could immediately transition to Socialist revolution, any class so long as they were a “popular” class(be they petty-bourgeoisie, urban middle classes, national bourgeoisie) etc., could lead the democratic revolution and the socialist revolution. There was no need for the working class and it’s party guided by Marxism to accomplish such tasks. And it would be even beneficial for the working class to play a passive or tailist role while such national democrats enact reforms from high on up while keeping the bourgeoise state apparatus intact. As a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist as much as I critically uphold Stalin this did originate with his advice to the CPC early during the Chinese revolution and also had quite horrible consequences for the Communist Party of Indonesia, many whose members are still being discovered in unmarked graves.
Interconnected with this was abandoning class analysis at the level of foreign policy for providing military aid to anyone who just claimed themselves to be a Communist or wave the red flag. It was guided by a bourgeoisie pragmatist outlook which instead of judging such aid by revolutionary conditions such as political line, organization, relationships to the masses, i.e. looking at developments internal to such countries as the criteria, aid was given based on the willingness for a given figure to just toe the line set by Moscow. This can be seen with the example of Mengistu a careerist military officer who in the midst of the Ethiopian Revolution against the monarchy only received aid from Moscow once the derg took power and claimed itself ‘Marxist-Leninist’.
This politics also has the tendency to treat contradictions among the people as those between the people and the enemy. All dissent within the first feature outlined almost becomes interpreted as primarily the work of outside forces, rather than the indication of something internal to a party, state, such as an incorrect policy taken, being the primary thing which generates such dissent in the first place. As such there’s a tendency to paint all dissent as enemy action and to treat it as such. And no attempts to resolve such dissent through persuasion or democratic methods, etc. It can explain why the Soviet backed forces in Afghanistan while able to make changes in the cities had a difficult time with their commandist approach to resolving problems related to the agrarian question in the rural areas, let alone incapable of engaging in self-criticism and genuine rectification. This specific feature would be the primary reason why many leftists figure the slur warrants usage especially with many of those with such politics have on views on particular situations such as the Hong Kong protests, Tiananmen Square 1989, etc.
Here are two good articles which talk more about this:
u/VinceMcMao - originally from r/GenZhouIt’s normally an insult but I think many who are posting answers here on this are in denial about some things internal to the eclectic politics which they hold. The reason being that while it’s used as a slur there’s also a scientific and accurate usage of the term which denotes a more formal slur to denote a very specific politics which are known as “Brezhenevite revisionism”. Within Marxism revisionism has a different definition then the revisionism generally, and it means the interpenetration of Marxism with bourgeoisie ruling ideology in which much of its core theoretical components representing the interest of the proletariat are revised. This specific type of revisionism was named after Leonid Brezhnev and his policies which have several features. They include what he called “real socialism”, the theory of “national democratic revolution”, replacing class analysis in realm of foreign policy with pragmatist expediency, and the tendency to treat contradictions among the people the same way you treat contradictions between the people and the enemy. It should be mentioned that while Brezhnev and the USSR are obviously gone this politics still takes a life of its own with other eclectic formulations.
‘Real Socialism’ was a term which meant that what the USSR had at the Brezhnev period was the most feasible and practical application of “Socialism” and thus it represented “Actually Existing Socialism”. The basic justification was that so long as even a state or party on paper said it was socialist that itself was enough. There was no room here to actually elaborate what actual transition to a classless society meant especially at the level of superstructure or even the engagement of the masses in this transition, so more than anything it served to justify the status quo.
National democratic revolution was a theory which revised basic theoretical and practical lines established by the experience of the road to the completion of democratic revolution in countries oppressed by imperialism. The whole idea was that instead of the proletariat in these countries leading the democratic revolution which could immediately transition to Socialist revolution, any class so long as they were a “popular” class(be they petty-bourgeoisie, urban middle classes, national bourgeoisie) etc., could lead the democratic revolution and the socialist revolution. There was no need for the working class and it’s party guided by Marxism to accomplish such tasks. And it would be even beneficial for the working class to play a passive or tailist role while such national democrats enact reforms from high on up while keeping the bourgeoise state apparatus intact. As a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist as much as I critically uphold Stalin this did originate with his advice to the CPC early during the Chinese revolution and also had quite horrible consequences for the Communist Party of Indonesia, many whose members are still being discovered in unmarked graves.
Interconnected with this was abandoning class analysis at the level of foreign policy for providing military aid to anyone who just claimed themselves to be a Communist or wave the red flag. It was guided by a bourgeoisie pragmatist outlook which instead of judging such aid by revolutionary conditions such as political line, organization, relationships to the masses, i.e. looking at developments internal to such countries as the criteria, aid was given based on the willingness for a given figure to just toe the line set by Moscow. This can be seen with the example of Mengistu a careerist military officer who in the midst of the Ethiopian Revolution against the monarchy only received aid from Moscow once the derg took power and claimed itself ‘Marxist-Leninist’.
This politics also has the tendency to treat contradictions among the people as those between the people and the enemy. All dissent within the first feature outlined almost becomes interpreted as primarily the work of outside forces, rather than the indication of something internal to a party, state, such as an incorrect policy taken, being the primary thing which generates such dissent in the first place. As such there’s a tendency to paint all dissent as enemy action and to treat it as such. And no attempts to resolve such dissent through persuasion or democratic methods, etc. It can explain why the Soviet backed forces in Afghanistan while able to make changes in the cities had a difficult time with their commandist approach to resolving problems related to the agrarian question in the rural areas, let alone incapable of engaging in self-criticism and genuine rectification. This specific feature would be the primary reason why many leftists figure the slur warrants usage especially with many of those with such politics have on views on particular situations such as the Hong Kong protests, Tiananmen Square 1989, etc.
Here are two good articles which talk more about this:
Marxism-Leninism or Eclecticism by Ray Nunes
Brezjnev and the National Democratic Revolution by Ludo Martens