On the scale from Enver Hoxha to Eduard Bernstein, how revisionist are you?
Josip Broz Tito
Which is to say, not revisionist in the least
Upholder of the immortal science of Posadist-Hoxhaist Thought of course
TITO GANG TITO GANG TITO GANG TITO GANG TITO GANG TITO GANG TITO GANG (Tito gaaaang!)
Tito was pretty revisionist but in a way that wasn't all that bad.
Somewhere between Lenin and Luxemburg.
Tito was the fucking greatest, and nobody can fuck with his social patriot theory
Don't get me wrong I love Tito, it's just that market socialism isn't even socialism and was still pretty based anyway.
Hoxha is a fucking gorbachevite compared to me
Did it have workers owning the means of production? Yes.
Did it have democratic control over the means of production? Yes.
Did it have wage labor? No.
That makes it socialism.
Did it socialize the means of production? No, they were still owned privately, just collectively by the people who worked there instead of absentee porkies.
Isn't that kind of how it should be? Why should it be fully socialized? You work there, it's your, you don't if you don't work there, this is how it should work imo.
How would you define socialisation then? Legit question.
The implementation of a planned economy and elimination of private, for profit production. The issue here is less about who owns the factory on paper than about whether production is oriented towards profit or use.
Market socialism has some definite benefits, but it doesn't fit the definition of socialism.
>You work there, it's your, you don't if you don't work there, this is how it should work imo
Gotta agree, I mean I don't come into your house to tell you how your home should work. I don't gather up the neighbors in my community, come into your house, and reach a consensus thru direct democracy about what you're going to eat for dinner.
I’m a M-L, but I have trotskist sympathies. If the USSR invaded the Allied power in Permeant Revolution just after WW2, we’d be living under Global Communism. Also exiling Trotsky from the USSR is unjustified. However 99.9% of Modern Trots are liberals who get the bullet too.
THEORY IS A GUIDE TO ACTION, NOT A DOGMA
If I say that Deng while a Revisionist and while Bad was still better then Gorbachev and most leaders of the eastern bloc in the 80s where does that put me?
This post was made by common sense gang.
Not to be a party pooper here, but:
Can someone explain why "revisionism" is inherently a bad thing, especially since political theory needs to evolve in order to be relevant to the material conditions? Isn't dogmatism objectively worse?
"The, highest lofty feelings and most self- sacrificing devotion become an empty phrase if the theoretical essence of the situation does not render it possible to carry into effect true revolutionary practice."
t. Lukac on Lenin
Lukacs was good but his work still leaves more questions than answers.
It's backpeddling on the communist project.
Absolutely. "Revisionism" is in most cases just a hollow smear word.
Literally Mao cause I don't read books.
he wasn't though.
most eastern bloc leaders in the 80s were better than deng xiaoping.
Revisionism refers to rejection of the fundamental aspects of Marxism, like historical materialism or class struggle. As you can probably guess, most communists accused of this were not actually guilty of such, and merely refused to toe some cult personality's party line. The idea that there is no room whatsoever for debate and disagreement within Marxism is hypocritically idealist.
So much that Marx and Engels spent their lives fighting against it
Bernstein's critique of historical materialism re:capitalism has been completely vindicated in 2018
How could you not be Bernstein-tier revisionist in the current year
What exactly is wrong with idealism? Marx wasn't a hard materialist nor did he even refer to himself as "materialist" in any of his works.
I think it would be better to explain what idealism and materialism really are, before hastily chastising "idealism."
>What exactly is wrong with idealism?
Marx wrote a text to answer that. It's called the German Ideology. See attachment.
>Marx wasn't a hard materialist nor did he even refer to himself as "materialist" in any of his works.
??? Marx was certainly materialist, in the sense that he thought that each set of material conditions would lead to a certain outcome eventually. He did however believe that the dialectic could be accelerated or decelerated by the propagation of ideas like his own and the action of individuals.
Marx thinks idealism completely misses the ball, because the reigning ideas of an era are wholly dictated by that era's mode of production (which is essentially people's material relations to things).
What is Hegel's idealism, according to you?
Which other socialist states asides from those that adopted Dengism with the exception of Korea has Lasted till today?
A succinct definition of the metaphysics and ontology of German Idealism is beyond me, but I can explain Hegel's concept of Dialectical Idealism.
It is a conception of history based on the evolution of reigning ideas through the dialectical process of thesis, antithesis, synthesis. For Hegel, this process is inexorably moving towards a universal hegemony of perfect (protestant) christcuckery.
That is probably totally incomprehensible to you. You aren't going to understand Hegel's dialectic by asking some anon about it. Read the attached book by Engels. It explains the roots of Marx's (dialectical) Historical Materialism in Hegel's Dialectical Idealism, and Feurbach's Historical Materialism. Fuerbach was a contemporary of Marx and also a "Young Hegelian". He was also materialist but also a christcuck. Marx removed the christcuckery from Feurbach's materialism, and added class struggle and crisis.
If you are feeling brave, try to read Hegel, then go watch a bunch of youtube lectures on him, and then read Hegel again.
For better results, take LSD before reading.
Feuerbach is gay tbh fam
also Hegel's an idiot for even half following Darwin's stupid trash
>m-muh opposing points
>i-it's only possible to have a percentage of a pie chart and the rest of antithesis
>implying the existence of such a conceptualization of dialectics doesn't mean your entire foundation isn't garbage
fuck ur revisionism, the entire idea doesnt have ground to stand on bb
>Marx wasn't a hard materialist
Yes, he kind of was. The far left considers "vulgar materialist" an oxymoron.
What he criticized was literal determinism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism#Warnings_against_misuse
>also Hegel's an idiot for even half following Darwin's stupid trash
Hmm??? Hegel died almost 30 years before Origin of Species was published. Darwin had no influence on Hegel.
And I don't follow your greentexted critique.
>fuck ur revisionism,
I'm not endorsing Hegel or Fuerbach or Marx.
Ask yourself: did Marx truly understand Hegel at that point?
Yeah. Odd question.
He had a Phd. at 21.
a phd in philosophy specifically.
If you were a student in Berlin in the 1830s, it was all Hegel all the time, particularly if you were a student of philosophy.
Hegelian thought was unambiguously the Zeitgeist during Marx's formative years, particularly in Berlin where he studied. Everyone was talking about Hegel all the time. People like Marx formed clubs to specifically to talk about Hegel.
For instance: Marx's critique of Philosophy of Right is bullshit.
haven't read that one
What's wrong with idealism? Can you lay it out without resorting to "READ MARX?"
ideas are a function of material world more than vice versa
also you shouldn't expect to understand this well without actually reading
What's wrong with is that Hegel, while being undeniably a genius, still operated in a worldview where philosophical systems and ideas as such took precedence over human social practice. Hegel sees development and the inner unfolding-sublating of concepts which play themselves out through history ; he can (and has been competently) interpreted as talking about a sort of collective social reason and describing its laws of motion, from a simple undivided immediacy to a higher comprehension of its own development. But Hegel talks about philosophical systems like they are a final expression of a whole historical period - he describes social practice only in a secondary way.
I don't think Hegel should really be blamed by being "idealist". The whole apparatus of social science only came into being after his death, he was still part of that admirable, but nonetheless clearly limited conception where philosophy could be completed theoretically "from the inside", where you didn't really need anything outside of philosophy. With Marx we had a fundamental break with this worldview - one could talk about a Marxist philosophy but it was not separable from social history, political economy etc., the revolutionary point of the 'Theses on Fauerbach' was that theory and social practice form a continuum which could no longer be divided coherently, and that philosophical questions would see themselves "actualized", unfold through social practice. This conception was unique and unpredecented for its time, which makes Marx a historical materialist ; he was not analysing pure concepts but social relations and their grounding in man's material life through history. The ideas were now an acquired comprehension of existing life, not revealing themselves as higher forms of reason which precede that material life.
>revisionism is when there's not enough portraits of lenin around
at last i see
99.9% is a bit Harsh, there are still a lot of Orthodox Trotskyist groups out there.
It is a symptom tho
Are you sure your interpretation of Hegel is correct?
It's rather ironic coming from a man who was praised even in math textbooks as a great teacher of the people.
A factory is not a household, it takes inputs from and provides outputs for the whole society, in a sufficiently advanced economy. It is just as much the business of the workers who depend on it to supply them, or whose livelihood is bound up in supplying it. That's not even beginning to touch on those industries with obvious societal significance, like rail, hospitals, and so on.
Production is wholly social.
So what is matter then?
People who say Titoism and Market Socialism aren't real socialism are just the opposite extreme of the lolbertarians who call anything the government does socialism.
>Refused Greek communists after they fled Greece following their civil war
>Vehemently refused to side with actual socialist powers
>Didn't have a long-term plan
Tito's overrated tbh
>Refused Greek Communists
Nigga the entire reason for the Tito-Stalin split was that Tito supported the Greek Communists.
Wasn't what I was talking about – Tito closed the border to the communist Greeks as they were being defeated, meaning they couldn't have fled to his country. The Greeks either had to deal with the vastly inferior Albanian refuge or remain in Greece after just having fought the government and failed. Tito helped a party that didn't win any of the three phases of the war and that he ultimately turned his back to anyways.
Even if every enterprise was worker owned, markets would still be wasteful and force worker exploitation.
Criticism of markets is well and good, but Titoism is still just past the line of what constitutes socialism. Tito still BTFO liberals that wanted privatization.
Explain to me how they aren't a useless terrorist and drug trafficking gang?
They have been since being decapitated, but before they controlled a good amount of Peru and were relatively close to taking state power, basically the other group that came the closest to achieving its short term aims before devolving and being crushed was the Tamil Tigers. The old Sendero used to kill coke dealers all the time. If you want to see a real useless group look at the Tupac Ameru Revolutionary Movement.
Alright. I've heard a lot of criticism of their tactics before Guzman was captured and whatever too though, what's that about? Didn't they massacre a bunch of peasants or something?
They were also violently sectarian and assassinated trade union leaders and attacked the Soviet and Chinese embassies.
Apparently, they were as autistic as Hoxha and thought all existing socialist states were revisionist.
Also when Guzman was captured the authorities seized his computer which had every detail of his forces in each region of the country.
Now he's in the same prison with the leader of the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary movement. Ironically, the former leader of the Peruvian intelligence service who served under Fujimori is also there with him.
One notable incident was the Lucanamarca massacre.
>In the face of reactionary military actions… we responded with a devastating action: Lucanamarca. Neither they nor we have forgotten it, to be sure, because they got an answer that they didn't imagine possible. More than 80 were annihilated, that is the truth. And we say openly that there were excesses, as was analyzed in 1983. But everything in life has two aspects. Our task was to deal a devastating blow in order to put them in check, to make them understand that it was not going to be so easy. On some occasions, like that one, it was the Central Leadership itself that planned the action and gave instructions. That's how it was. In that case, the principal thing is that we dealt them a devastating blow, and we checked them and they understood that they were dealing with a different kind of people's fighters, that we weren't the same as those they had fought before. This is what they understood. The excesses are the negative aspect… If we were to give the masses a lot of restrictions, requirements and prohibitions, it would mean that deep down we didn't want the waters to overflow. And what we needed was for the waters to overflow, to let the flood rage, because we know that when a river floods its banks it causes devastation, but then it returns to its riverbed…. [T]he main point was to make them understand that we were a hard nut to crack, and that we were ready for anything, anything.
t. Presidente Gonzalo attempting to justify this action in an interview with a pro-Sendero Luminoso newspaper
What if he was a good teacher? Revolutionaries are some of the greatest teachers. How could they lead a revolution without teaching people how to do shit?
Define "revisionist" in a clear manner.