[Savinkov]

In the words of comrade Koba from [No advertising]:

A popular topic concerning the 'Revision' of Marxism has become a shattering force in the workers movements across the globes... We have factions upon factions preaching Marxism but very few actually committing to the requirements of Marxism to work.

It is easy to say that we are all against the bourgeoisie; but if that is the case how is it that we are unable to obtain complete and solid victory over the bourgeoisie?

The simple solution in reguards to the revision of Marxism is quite simple.

1. Defy all forms of Nationalism

2. Defy all forms of Opportunism.

With this two points in mind it is clearly easy to see destruction revisions can cause Marxism in it entirety. These notions of revision have been debated and debated by great minds in the past century and all the answers are readily available exposing the holes of nationalism and opportunism that exist in revisions of Marxism.

The only 'Revisions' or 'Updating' that can truly be made to credit Marxism is by applying the ideals of Marxism to the situations in the world today... Some may argue that 'todays standards' will call for 'reforms' or needs to change Marxism... These people obviously have not studied Marxism as todays current events are a model example of the progression of Imperialism Marx blueprinted throughout the 19th century.

It is more clear today than it was 100 years ago about the tight grip that corporations not only hold over the people; but now over the governments of the national states.

I ask; who demands revision and who has good examples to prove to us why revisions are demanded.

and let the debates begin!

[Savinkov]

no one wanna take a stab at this?

scorched? kokos? nico?

[Siberian Fox]

It sounds like self-serving rhetoric "Either you're with me or you're not a communist".

IMHO.

[sokath]

Perhaps it would help for someone to ACTUALLY DEFINE the word opportunism. It is something which is bandied about far too much (as is revisionism, etc) without anybody actually knowing what it means.

I think half the people who use it as an insult don't know what it means. They just associate it with negativity. I myself don't even really know what it means. Anybody care to define?

S./

[Savinkov]

Opportunism =

One who takes advantage of any opportunity to achieve an end, often with no regard for principles or consequences

[Wilhelm]

Well, Marxism COULD be flawed, so such revisions and 'perversions' of Marxism could sometimes be useful. I favour Fox's economic theory against socialim installed in previous experiments.

[Savinkov]

i'm not familiar with such thoery.

second, in what way is Marxism flawed?

and please, no "well the USSR failed because Marxism is wrong".

we know the USSR had applyed it incorrectly and its leaders wanted benegits for themselves.

[Wilhelm]

i'm not familiar with such thoery.

Check out the Economics forum here. It is expanded at SE.

second, in what way is Marxism flawed?

I said it COULD be flawed. Does Marx have to be perfect?

Maybe not Marxism, but how it is applied, and when people apply Marxism in some way, and then somebody opposses it, they are called 'revisionists'.

For example, the USSR. The hardliners seeked to keep everything the same while the world around was changing. Socialism must evolve along with its surroundings to fit the way in which people live.

I favour Fox's theory for it to later evolve into communism, and not apply the socialism that has failed in previous experiments for some reason or another (doesn't have to be Marxism).

[Skullers]

the only thing that ever needed to be changed in Marxism is the "euro-communist" view that revolution can ONLY originate in advanced industrialized capitalist countries...

[Savinkov]

i believe that if people didn't think of themselves, it can be very easily applied.

too bad people are never satisfied.

second, when people get educated, they learn that Marxism is as credible as it was 100 years ago. look at all the corporations and imperalism thats going on today...[/quote]

[Evan Roberts]

I said it COULD be flawed. Does Marx have to be perfect?

By all means not, but he did spend much of his life developing marxism, and understood much on philosophy and economics. Sure he could be wrong, but his obvious genius would atleast make me read his views before declaring him definitly wrong.
Yet many here imediately decide Marx is wrong the second they find a problem with marxism which they can't argue against. If I continued with such polilicy I would have revised and reverted back to marxism a thousand times.

Maybe not Marxism, but how it is applied, and when people apply Marxism in some way, and then somebody opposses it, they are called 'revisionists'.

What do you mean, applying marxism. Marx made many conclusions, so he in effect applied his own observations himself. marxism is to me, the communist manifesto, and all the conclusions made in it.

If you (dramaticly) revise marxism, you are a "revisionist", but that by all means is no terrible thing. I'd say most people here are revisionists (of marxism) to a certain degree.

socialism must evolve along with its surroundings to fit the way in which people live.

Why? What is so "old fasioned" about socialism?

[Savinkov]

you didnt have to post that 3 times comrade

[Wilhelm]

By the way, please only click on on "submit".

Fox or sokath, can you fix this?

Ok, I'm only saying that one must not assume Marx is right on EVERYTHING.

I am also asking, is being a "revisionist" automatically wrong? Because that's what some hardliners assume.

"Question everything, accept nothing"

[Savinkov]

in a sense because when you revise marxism (or anything else for that matter) you have created something else...

but back to the original question:

I ask; who demands revision and who has good examples to prove to us why revisions are demanded

[Evan Roberts]

By the way, please only click on on "submit".

oops, I pressed the submit button the first two times because it kept on saying "sending request" and not actually doing anything, and I thought the site must be down. Sites fault not mine

[Siberian Fox]

Only re-submit if it actually times out.

[The_Communist_Threat]

I think that at one point revisions might be 100% necessary...and without revisions people might be trying to fit a square block into a smaller circle hole...and this would not work and only cause more problems....

in a sense because when you revise marxism (or anything else for that matter) you have created something else...

Not necessarily....we revise the american constitution with amendments but we still keep the basic core...over time things continue to change...society will not stay the same, and thus, revisions may become necessary, especially if a flaw in Marxism becomes present...the constitution was a fine piece of work (although it isn't followed completely now)...it gave the rights to the people (unless you were black, which is bullshit)...but it has stood for 227 years and we haven't made too many revisions to it..and we haven't destroyed the original meaning of it...revisions can be a good thing

[Skullers]

revisionism means changing the fundamental parts of marxist theory, not small "revisions" like what color the flag is...
(but i'd be damned if i let anyone change it to BLUE)

small changes/inoovations in socialist/revolutionary practice/methods are not revisionism but innovation/contributions...

but for example FOXISM (new meaning - following his theory) would be terrible revisionism
(is it supposed to be Socialist or what?)

but hmm that's a good question what to consider "revisionist" and what's not, and where to draw the line...

some could consider me a revisionist because i oppose the "euro-communism" and i support "socialism in one country"...

[scorchedCCCP]

A quote from a text I recently read:

They (Revisionists) renounced the use of violence and virtually abandoned the theory of class warfare, which is so central to Marxist doctrine; instead, they affirmed their belief in democracy as the one and only road to socialism. At the same time, they re-defined socialism so as to strip it of all utopian features. Rathen than see it in the abolition of commodity production and of private property, they identified it simply wihth a more equitable distribution of consumption goods and services. The Revisionists did not want to abolish the capitalist system; they merely wished to mitigate its alleged inequities. Together with the theory of class warfare, they also turned their backs on the notion of international proletarian solidarity. Instead, they stated their loyalty to their own country and placed it higher than their identification with fellow workers across the borders. Revisionism furthermore abandoned the Marxist theory of the crisis and breakdown of capitalism and affirmed, instead, the staying power of the free enterprise system. Finally, the Revisionists thoroughly repudiated the most important Marxist methods of analysis, and also some philosophical assumptions that were mistakenly believed to be Marxism. Thus they replaced the so-called economic determinism attributed to Marx with a much more open-minded eclecticism. They denounced dialectics-that curious heritage from Hegelian phiolsophy which marx adopted and adapted for his own thought-as meaningless hocus-pocus; and for the Marxist belief in certain inevitable trends in contemporary history they substituted a renewed affirmation of the duality of existence-a view of life which makes a strict separation between reality and ideals, between facts and values, between who is and what ought to be. In the thought of Marx, this difference had been virtually obliterated.

Take that as you will. Frankly, I see it as saying that Revisionists are not Marxists at all, but complete and utter opportunists.

[Savinkov]

I see it as saying that Revisionists are not Marxists at all

thats exactly what its saying.