How to stop revisionism?

What do you guys think is the most effective method of preventing revisionism that may develop or stop already ongoing revisionism?

please no "kill all revisionists" ok? We are past that guys, come on

What revision is happening at this point in regards to the original point of the term revisionism

By centralizing all power in a national Party bureaucracy and preventing any disagreement or dispute under threat of expulsion.

How do you prevent people from disagreeing? The was I see it, it's bound to happen eventually

Purges are pretty lit

I'm referring mainly to if a socialist movement occurs in the future how do we prevent it from falling to revisionism, like most historical socialism has

Purge revisionism by alienating the revisionists by becoming more and more extreme. It works for getting rid of liberals, and revisionists are basically liberals anyway. I would start by becoming unironically Posadist.

Disagreements may cause the party to split, but the correct faction will remain in power as long as it expresses the true will and interests of the proletariat.

This is what Bordigists actually believe.

I don't disagree

In all seriousness though, I believe the only people that should be killed once a socialist government is established are explicitly antisocialists that are likely to or already have attacked the government
explicitly based on their ideology

I think that the way the future is going to change is going to require some kind of nuance and where that nuance begins on where revisionism ends I'm not entirely sure.

I think the first problem is having a fatalistic view of revision being bad, and/or revision necessarily being inevitable as it once was during the height of the Cold War.

revisionism is a dated concept that only has meaning to ☭TANKIE☭s and Party people

the spectacle is the watchword of the day

Democracy, if Stalin would have been faster and more intelligent with the people he surrounded himself with, he could have pushed for he democratic reforms he wanted.
But as he failded in doing that, he lost it's political power, and after his detah the USSR went full revisionist.
If the poeple had a more direct form of voting , thsi would have been avoided.
I think in "Towards a New Socialism" how this could work is explained greatly if you are interested

While not all revisionism is bad, it can't get to the point where it embraces capitalism again, like what happened in China, Vietnam, Laos, etc

I don't think it's a dated concept, in the future a seemingly socialist government may seamlessly turn capitalist because they fall into revisionism. It can happen to anyone unless it's detained


not making people hate living in your countries socialism so much that they call for change, allowing revisionists and reformists to gain power and support? just a thought

I'm okay with this, as long as it doesn't return to capitalism

True. Never suggested as much. I just think a lot of revisionism can be choked up to Cold War pressure at the time. Which should be considered.

Directly democratic workers councils and have positions of leadership be re-callable so everything in society does not depend on the ideological purity of philosopher kings muh enlightened vanguard party.

actually give all power to soviets.

You don't.

Societal change has been historically accomplished by killing people until enough agree on a point to give the impression of a consensus. After that the winner writes the history books and that's that.

What we need is a form of socialism that doesn't turn people away. A more democratic and human form of it. It should be possible to construct a socialist state that isn't needlessly authoritarian and un-democratic with out it just being a capitalist state with red flags like China, Vietnam or the USSR during its last years.

What's the difference between reviosionists, and maoism, or hoxhaism?

How would you realistically accomplish that without a full cultural reformation? Political systems form organically based on the cultural mores of their respective homelands. You are asking for a kinder, gentler socialism to just pop up like it's nothing. Such a shift would be accompanied by turmoil that a democratic system is simply to slow and passive to handle.

read margs

Can you just give me a summary? I'm tired of people weaseling their way out of conversations by saying "read _" instead of arguing their own point.

Let me give you an example of where the victors didn't write history: I live in Chile, which albeit is by far the most right wing country in south america, every time there discussion of the military dictatorship we had, the "good guys" to more than half of the population were the socialists, which, if you remember, were overthrown by the rightists. Also, pretty much every documental and or book is told from a leftist perspective or at the very least, a liberal perspective that still condemned the dictatorship. You are more likely to find a random person in the streets that hates Pinochet than one that loves him. And Pinochet won, remember that

From what I understand, maoists and hoxhaists are pretty similar, but revisionists essentially are liberals that historically have leftist leanings without being socialist and or marxist. Think state capitalists, socdems, soclibs etc

Culture is shaped by your relation to the means of production. The same can be said of political systems.

That's actually fascinating. Forgive my ignorance, but do you have any idea how or why it happened that way? Do you think public opinion will stay that way in the future or is it possible that there be a shift of opinion in say, 50-60 years? I suppose a record of human rights violations would tarnish any chance of that but propaganda is one hell of a drug. On that note I'm now curious as to how Chileans views Pinochet compared to foreigners.

Gotcha. In that case it is possible that with ever-increasing automation a socialist system will be seen as more acceptable (I realize this is fucking obvious). The question then becomes what the arts seek to glorify. Let's take the psuedo-80's revival in the United States as an example. These are works created by already well-off members of society that are made as blatant appeals to nostalgia. They do not live in a world of struggle. They know comfort, television, Michael Jackson, a faceless enemy to unite against (the Soviet Union), endless pop culture references, and just enough minorities to escape claims of tokenism. That is their world, and it is reflected and celebrated in their art. As long as this sort of longing for a return to "how things were" remains prevalent, the base will attempt to recapture that lost history.

…at least that's my quick impression. It's possible I missed the point entirely.

I'm OP by the way, just posting from my PC instead of my phone. Anyway, the reason as to why I think that happened is because while I do believe Chile is the most right wing country here in South America, I think the fact that Allende was democratically elected heavily impacted public opinion on the coup. It wasn't the same situation in, say, Cuba, or pre soviet Russia, not by a long shot. The military had overthrown a leader elected by the people. And imo, I don't think this'll change in the future. While communism is still blindly hated here, Pinochetists will start withering away, more and more as the years pass. I think the human right violations outweigh the opinion and ideological fanaticism for Pinochet. Besides, think about it this way: there is a communist party in Chile (albeit revisionist) but there's not a single party self proclaimed as Pinochetist

Through full-throated proclamations that the USSR was not-a-true-Socialism

Revisionism is good, because history has shown, that marxism is very flawed.

join nazbol