What is Revisionism and why must we combat it?

Introduction

Revisionism is a term commonly employed in Marxist discourse. Many groupings, concepts, and stances
within the context of Marxism maintain a character which we understand to be revisionist. 

Yet infrequently is revisionism ever elaborated upon. To one unfamiliar with Marxism, revisionism may seem difficult to comprehend, and even more difficult to differentiate with other Marxist concepts. Yet despite this, in the present predicament which the international revolutionary communist movement finds itself, the understanding of revisionism—what it constitutes, what dangers it poses, and where revisionism has taken hold presently—is nothing less than critical. 

What constitutes revisionism?

Revisionism is, in a word, the adherence to a revision of something. Within non-communist ideology, 'revisionism' is frequently taken to be that of 'historical revisionism'. Yet when employed by Marxists, revisionism means to revise Marxist theory, to degrade the potency of the revolutionary vanguard party, if not to sent the vanguard upon a bourgeois, capitalist course against the proletarian movement. 

 

As stated by Vladimir Lenin in his 1908 work Marxism and Revisionism, revisionism represents a trend 'internal' to Marxism (that is to say, those revisionists disguise themselves via still attempting to retain and uphold themselves as 'Marxists') which impedes the communist movement, collaborates with the bourgeoisie, and otherwise attempts to distract the workers from the prospect of revolution. In short, "[...] a trend hostile to Marxism."

 

At the time of Lenin and the emergence of Bolshevism, revisionist ideologists were common, particularly during the time of the opportunist and social-chauvinist Second International. Such figures were of the likes of Eduard Bernstein, Karl Kautsky, and others. Among these figures, common trends may be identified: 

• A negation of class struggle in favor of class collaboration with the bourgeoisie, often including support for the inter-imperialist world war (the Great War).
   
• Espousal of bourgeois nationalism and reactionism. The mass adoption of opportunism.
  

• Propagation of the concept of a "peaceful" transition from capitalism to socialism and negation of class antagonisms without the need of revolution; reformism.  

Just as how the revisionists of the era of Lenin maintained these fundamental characteristics, they similarly sputtered away within a matter of a few decades into liberal social democracy with not even the meekest trace of revolutionary socialism remaining.

Yet one aspect is absent. None of these revisionary groupings ever seized power of an existing socialist state to destroy its revolutionary theory from an 'internal' prospective. Indeed, the opportunists of the Second International were not holders of state power themselves, for they were merely collaborators of the existing imperialist bourgeois state.

However, while Bolshevism would succeed in establishing the first socialist state in human history, revisionism would nonetheless reappear and, unlike the past examples of revisionism, destroy the socialist state from within. 

Thus, we can further analyze what the consequences of revisionism in a much broader scope the better satisfy the question of revisionism. 

What are the consequences of revisionism?       

One of the first true examples of a socialist state falling to revisionism is in that of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. From the great building of socialism and fight against the forces of external and internal reaction and capitalism as conducted by the Soviet Communist Party as led by Joseph Stalin, a revisionist clique headed by Nikita Khrushchev seized control of the government and party, and, within a matter of years, denounced and slandered the great developments and ideological contributions provided by Stalin and comrades. 

 

From the rise of Khruschevism came the similar rise of other forms of revisionist ideology. However, while the rise of then-modern revisionism was in fact a tragic setback for the international communist and workers' movement, it nonetheless provided an opportunity to develop an articulate analysis of revisionist policy and ideology. In other words, from revisionism, came anti-revisionism.

 

One such anti-revisionist, Enver Hoxha, stated brilliantly about the nature and ultimate fate of revisionism:         

"[...] Revisionism, which is capitalism in a new form, the enemy of the unity of peoples, the inciter of reactionary nationalism, of the drive towards and establishment of the most ferocious fascist dictatorship which does not permit even the slightest sign of formal bourgeois democracy. Revisionism is the idea and action which leads the turning of a country from socialism back to capitalism, the turning of a communist party into a fascist party, it is the inspirer of ideological chaos, confusion, corruption, repression, arbitrarily, instability and putting the homeland up for auction."

Every word stated by Hoxha in this quote represents, from known facts, truth. To attain full comprehension of the truthfulness of Hoxha's statement, we must not concoct an explanation in abstraction, but apply this to historical (and indeed modern) examples of revisionary ideology.

What is the ultimacy of revisionism?

Let us partition Hoxha's quote into its component statements.

 

"[Revisionism] is capitalism in a new form, the enemy of the unity of peoples, the inciter of reactionary nationalism [...] Revisionism is the idea and action which leads the turning of a country from socialism back to capitalism [...]"  

 

Revisionism, where ever it has sprang into governance of a socialist state, has inevitably devolved the socialist state into a capitalist state. From this, capitalism had been restored in the Soviet Union during the rule of the Khruschevite-Brezhnevite cliques. In instances where socialism had never taken hold, where the country is imperialized and semi-feudal, and where the 'revolutionary communist' party which is in truth a revisionist party had gained power, while it has often led to success in a national liberation war and allowed for the society to develop into capitalism, it has prevented socialism from developing; destroying the hopes for socialism and communism held by the people before even attaining socialism. The latter instance is what took place in the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Republic of Cuba, and others. 

Revisionism is the enemy of unity of people, the inciter of reactionary nationalism in the manner that revisionism nearly always includes the negation of class struggle in favor of support for bourgeois nationalism and class collaboration. In one such example of revisionism, Yugoslavia, the 'socialist' state was encumbered with ethnic nationalism and hatred, bourgeois nationalism, and other regressive ideology. 

 

"[Revisionism represents] the drive towards and establishment of the most ferocious fascist dictatorship which does not permit even the slightest sign of formal bourgeois democracy [...] the turning of a communist party into a fascist party [...]"

 

Fascism, as understood by Marxists as being a stage within the context of capitalism (of which is restored under revisionist governance) when the state and capital have reached a state of total, clear harmony with each other in a maximally repressive alliance against the communist and workers' movement, when imperialism has developed yet is in decline, and when capitalism itself is moribund.

 

The Soviet Union under Brezhnev and the modern People's Republic of China under Xi particularly embody this fascistic state. However, unlike the German Hitlerites, Italian Fascists, or Japanese imperialists who staunchly repudiated any form of socialism, the social-fascists' rhetoric and demagogy attempt to preform the antithesis of this; instead of building power from opposition to revolutionary communism, the social-fascists attempt, with all their power, to hijack the legacy of their non-revisionary, socialist past in order to misinform the people into believing that their class dictatorship over the bourgeoisie—the dictatorship of the proletariat—still exists, that their society is still advancing to communism, etc., etc.. 

 

However, this manner of demagogic propaganda is rarely effective in maintaining the revisionist state—the dictatorship of the new bourgeoisie. Thus under social-fascism, the revisionist state must also cultivate bourgeois nationalism, class collaborationism, and anti-internationalist chauvinism. This particularly exists in the modern social-fascist state of China, wherein the 'Communist' Party of China maintains Han-Chinese ethno-nationalism, fascistic corporatism, and chauvinism against foreign proletarians in favor of an ultranational concept of 'national rejuvenation for the Chinese nation' in addition to their external social-imperialist efforts.   

 

In addition, social-fascism is merely the internal front of revisionism; the external front is that of social-imperialism. As Hoxha stated:

 

"Social-fascism in the home policy has social-imperialism as its direct continuation in foreign policy; and while they seek to camouflage fascism with 'socialist' phraseology, the Soviet leaders strive to conceal their imperialism with the slogan of 'proletarian internationalism.'"  

Social-imperialism, as with social-fascism, is merely socialist internationalism in words and rhetoric yet bourgeois imperialism in action. The Soviet social-fascists attempted to obfuscate their imperialist aggression against the people of Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, and other victims of social-imperialism by asserting that such aggression was in truth merely 'defending another existing socialist state' under the banner of 'proletarian internationalism.' In the case of the modern Chinese social-fascists, they attempt to justify their social-imperialist plundering by claiming it is done in the name of 'mutual development' between countries.   

How is revisionism distinct from progressive advancement of theory?

It may be a point of confusion regarding the matter of what separates revisionism from a progressive development of theory. A potent distinction must be drawn between a development and expansion of Marxist theory and the revision of it. To revise Marxism is to weaken it, to remove its revolutionary content. Whereas to make a progressive advancement of Marxist theory is to maintain its revolutionary contents if not make them more empowering to the proletarian movement. 

 

It is commonly stated, particularly amongst followers of revisionism, that aspects of Marxism must in fact be revised or otherwise omitted due to temporal developments; that since the time of Marx and Engels, or even Lenin and Stalin, are so distant from our own, that their words and ideas no longer hold meaning to the proletarian movement. 

 

This notion represents a falsehood. As Joseph Stalin stated:

 "Consequently, when we speak of 'subjugating' natural forces or economic forces, of 'dominating' them, etc., this does not mean that man can 'abolish' or 'form' scientific laws. On the contrary, it only means that man can discover laws, get to know them and master them, learn to apply them with full understanding, utilize them in the interests of society, and thus subjugate them, secure mastery over them."

 

In this context, even if it were the case that the words of Marx and Engels are so temporally distant that they lack meaning in our modern, digitalized society, it is not the case that their words were incorrect. It is rather the case that the economic laws which governed the age of Marx and Engels have simply become inapplicable to our modern conditions; those laws have not disappeared from reality, they still exist, yet we have moved beyond them. But if we were to return to the relatively primitive capitalism as seen by Marx, those laws would be noticed again and would be applicable.

 

However, the understanding of capitalism as held by Marx and Engels has not become inapplicable to even our present condition. The expansions of our understanding as given to us by Lenin and Stalin regarding imperialism and other concepts do not negate or replace the core content of Marxism, they rather augment it; build on to it.   

Conclusion

Revisionism represents among the most destructive threats to the revolutionary communist movement. In all instances where revisionism has taken hold in place of socialism, the movement which was intended to be comprised of the proletariat and in favor of the creation of a proletarian dictatorship has never transcended a total betrayal of the proletariat in favor of the class interests of the petite-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie-proper. 

 

Revisionism dulls the blade of proletarian revolution, regresses our efforts by a margin of decades, and serves the interests of the bourgeoisie. 

 

Thus to Marxist–Leninist–Stalinists, we must commit to the struggle against revisionism, reveal to the workers its true, bourgeois, and reactionary countenance, and take hold of the anti-revisionist struggle as a struggle which is merely one front in the ultimate struggle against capitalism.

 

[PDF available] 

What is "Hoxhaism"?

 

Introduction

The term “Hoxhaist” is very commonly used by non-Marxists as a label to refer to people and organizations which have historically sided with, or uphold the legacy of, the former People’s Socialist Republic of Albania in regards to the Sino-Albanian split of the 1970s (before such a split, most soon-to-become “Hoxhaist” parties were regarded as “Maoist” and there largely existed merely a single Anti-revisionist grouping). In a more contemporary manner, parties which uphold consistent Anti-revisionism and concur with Enver Hoxha and his works, yet reject Maoism, are associated with this term. Such examples of the latter meaning include the American Party of Labor, the Voltaic Revolutionary Communist Party, the Revolutionary Communist Party of Brazil, and many others. The most notable feature of these modern “Hoxhaist” parties is their common membership in the International Conference of Marxist–Leninist Parties and Organizations (Unity & Struggle).

However, while both anti-Marxists and revisionists alike deem these parties to be “Hoxhaist”, such a term is rarely, if ever, employed by these parties, with the members of these parties very commonly calling themselves simply Marxist-Leninists or in many instances Marxist-Leninist-Stalinists, or simply Stalinists (as Hoxha did himself).

How is "Hoxhaism" used as a term?

In certain instances, “Hoxhaist'' is even utilized as a mere insult by, among others, revisionists to attack anyone who does not share their views on the People’s Republic of China, with even clear Trotskyites being labeled “Hoxhaist'' by revisionists. Of course, this is very much false, with Enver Hoxha’s criticism of the revisionist ideologies such as Khruschevism, Titoism, and Mao Zedong Thought being directly based in material reality and articulated with a clear Marxist perspective, rather than the phantom “degenerated bureaucracy” and other opportunist rhetoric of the Trotskyites.

Enver Hoxha was fundamentally a follower of Stalin and Lenin. His theoretical contributions to Marxism thus are not a distinct ideology, but an advancement with Stalinism. This is in fact the manner in which Hoxha viewed his Anti-revisionist struggle against the numerous anti-Marxist trends present at his time.

Who "Hoxhaists" truly are

Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism (MLS) is the socialist theory formed after the successful development of socialism in the Soviet Union and Socialist Albania. For instance, Socialism in one country as a theory has been tested and made more potent after fascist invasions and social-imperialist encirclement, of the former, the Soviet Union had to bear that, and of the latter, Socialist Albania had the similar survival.

Regarding the term “Hoxhaism” itself, it largely disregards the greater foundations from which Hoxha expanded Marxism. To call oneself a “Hoxhaist” would be to implicitly omit the other four classics of Marxism, and to dilute our revolutionary theory.

Thus, from both is historical and modern employment as a term, we can understand that “Hoxhaism” is not a product of Enver Hoxha, or even most of his followers, but a term concocted by revisionists and anti-Marxists who maintain a vested interest in countering Anti-revisionist trends for their opportunistic ambitions.

With Enver Hoxha and his ideological contributions representing an expansion of existing theory of Stalin and Lenin, and not a distinct ideology, and with him being a follower of the classics of Marxism, we can conclude that individuals and organizations which fall under the label “Hoxhaist” are not aligned with that term.

Rather, “Hoxhaism” may be understood as an informal term or perhaps even pejorative for Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism.