this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2025
38 points (100.0% liked)
GenZedong
4962 readers
83 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
See this GitHub page for a collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, that seems fair. Like the impression I get is people who throw the accusation (in the best case) are meaning to say that some communists or other are abandoning core principles while still having a communist aesthetic, but at that point we could just say they're communists in name only, if it was actually proven to be true. On the other hand, doing stuff some of the time that is not textbook is just what happens when you put theory in practice; doesn't mean it's necessarily in opposition to communist goals. Marxism and related theory is, as you say, a science. It's not a religious dogma. A betrayal isn't using theory and practice poorly, it's abandoning the science and/or ethical goals.
That's kinda the problem. It's not just they specifically are communists in name only, but that they also spread their incorrect ideas. And they, like Carrillo, don't often say "we're revising marxism away from marxism," they often don't even say they are revising marxism. So revisionism [like moralism] is something that has to be abscribed. I.e, peaceful reform is revisionism not because the revisionist say it's revisionism but because we prove that it is
I may be under-equipped on the subject myself. I just got the sense that Muad's point was something like "marxist theory inherently revises in order to meet the conditions, so calling misuses of it revisionism could be a bit confusing" and I was kinda running with that thought.
It's approaching the right direction.
The key difference in my experience is adaptation vs revision.
For example, saying "revolution can be led by a vanguard party leading the working class" isn't revisionism, because it still holds the fundamental truths of class conflict
But "Socialism can be formed by a small group of conspirators taking control of the state and imposinh socialism" is revisionism, as that is, essentially, a form of utopianism or ideologism [I know Blanqui wasn't a marxist obviously, but you get the point. I'm also debating whether to include economism as a form of revisionism or not]
Edit: This didn't really answer that adaptation part.
A better example would be that if someone said "Socialism could have been reformed into via universal suffrage in early 1800s Britain that [presumably, since that's what Marx believed] isn't revisionism [not just because it was what marx believed. I think there's a section on this in "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific].
But if someone said "socialism can be reformed into via universal suffrage in modern britain" that would be revisionism. It's one lense seeing two different things and coming to two different conclusions.
I think I get the distinction you mean. Adaptation may be a better word for how theory morphs in response to conditions.