{"id":1837,"date":"2010-06-22T04:00:22","date_gmt":"2010-06-22T04:00:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/theredphoenix.wordpress.com\/?p=1837"},"modified":"2010-06-22T04:00:22","modified_gmt":"2010-06-22T04:00:22","slug":"myths-concerning-non-revisionist-marxism-leninism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/redphoenix.news\/es\/2010\/06\/myths-concerning-non-revisionist-marxism-leninism\/","title":{"rendered":"Myths Concerning Non-Revisionist\u00a0Marxism-Leninism"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/redphoenixnews.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/06\/socialismscience.jpg\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" class=\"aligncenter size-full wp-image-1841\" title=\"socialismscience\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/redphoenixnews.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/06\/socialismscience.jpg?resize=474%2C298\" alt=\"\" width=\"474\" height=\"298\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/redphoenix.news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/06\/socialismscience.jpg?w=400&amp;ssl=1 400w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/redphoenix.news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/06\/socialismscience.jpg?resize=300%2C189&amp;ssl=1 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 474px) 100vw, 474px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color:#000000;\">In our time as revolutionaries, we at the APL have been exposed to a  great many myths propagated about our ideology, our historical  perspective and our method of work. In this essay, we will address some  common misconceptions concerning our ideology as put forward by our  opponents and offer a rebuttal for each. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color:#000000;\">The first myth about  non-revisionist Marxism-Leninism is that by understanding the latter  USSR and China for being social-imperialist in their actions and ends,  anti-revisionists, in essence, supported the mass murder of revisionist  progressives for the reason that they did not completely agree with or  accompany Albania in the Sino-Soviet or the Sino-Albanian split.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color:#000000;\">The  notion that not supporting revisionist states is comparable to  supporting their annihilation at the hands of Western imperialism is  absurd. It is also every bit as absurd as Brezhnevism&#8217;s tacit approval  of everyone who flies a red flag. The bottom line here is that being  &#8220;progressive&#8221; in comparison to the grossest manifestations of  imperialism and reaction does not make one into a communist. For  instance, we at the APL remain consistently anti-imperialist, and we  support Cuba and Democratic Korea&#8217;s right to not be invaded or  controlled by the forces of imperial capitalism. Yet, while we do this,  we continue to understand that Castroism and Juche are revisionist  ideologies, and that both states are objectively not socialist, are not  ruled by the dictatorship of the proletariat.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color:#000000;\">The second myth is  that those who don&#8217;t conform to &#8220;Hoxhaism&#8221; are automatically considered  revisionist in our eyes, and it is implied that our referring to someone  as being &#8220;revisionist&#8221; comes from some &#8220;sectarianism&#8221; or  &#8220;ultra-leftism&#8221; on our part, rather than the practiced application of  Marxist-Leninist dialectics. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color:#000000;\">First, it must be noted that  &#8220;Hoxhaism,&#8221; like &#8220;Stalinism,&#8221; does not exist as a separate tendency from  Marxism-Leninism. While we uphold Enver Hoxha and Joseph Stalin as  theoreticians, revolutionaries, and leaders of the revolutionary  proletariat, we do not see these figures as revolutionizing Leninism in  the way that Lenin restored and advanced the revolutionary character of  Marxism. Hoxha and Stalin were defenders of Leninism, and put these  theories to practice in the Soviet Union and Albania, and their  theoretical works served to defend and elaborate on the existing theory  of Leninism, not to alter it.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color:#000000;\">On the other hand, there exist  political sects which assert that their leaders, such as Trotsky and  Mao, &#8220;advanced&#8221; Marxist-Leninist theory through their work. These groups  even go so far as to call themselves &#8220;Trotskyist&#8221; and &#8220;Maoist&#8221; to bring  attention to the &#8220;advances&#8221; made by their particular theories. The  reality is, however, that nothing particularly new or revolutionary was  asserted in the case of Mao or Trotsky. In addition to plagiarizing  existing theorists and asserting classic theory as their own (albeit  with minor adjustments in phrasing), Mao Tse Tung and Leon Trotsky  adopted opportunistic and counterrevolutionary stances when it suited  their immediate political needs. Their theoretical line was reflected in  this opportunism, and it is the deviance of revisionist theory from the  fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism that has led such trends down the road  of ineffectualism.<br \/>\n<\/span><br \/>\n<span style=\"color:#000000;\">A revisionist is not a revisionist because  we don&#8217;t like them. A revisionist is a revisionist because they wander  off of Leninism&#8217;s revolutionary path. Those who advance anti-Leninist  positions such as &#8220;peaceful coexistence with capitalism,&#8221; submitting to  the economic domination of the Soviet Union or People&#8217;s Republic of  China rather than building one&#8217;s own socialist industry (as was the case  in Eastern Europe and Kampuchea), and head down the path of peaceful  reformism are revisionists. Those who would see the construction of  socialism in a country halted and reversed, following a theoretical line  that would have us throw up our hands because &#8220;there aren&#8217;t enough  proletarians&#8221; and &#8220;we must allow more advanced capitalist construction  before we can attain socialism&#8221; are revisionists (as well as  counterrevolutionary traitors). There is nothing arbitrary about who the  APL calls revisionist, and we are happy to explain who we&#8217;d call a  revisionist and why.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color:#000000;\">A third myth has it that we are &#8220;mechanical&#8221;  and &#8220;dogmatic.&#8221; At this juncture, we must confess that we are dogmatic,  in that we insist on world communist revolution, we insist on the  establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat, and we intend to  follow Marxism-Leninism, the revolutionary method which has been tried  and proven as the proletariat&#8217;s theoretical mainstay against the forces  of capitalism, imperialism, and revisionism. In short, we are dogmatic  in our intention to win, and the whole of our ideology and activity  conforms to the demands of such an intention.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color:#000000;\">It is for this  reason that we continue to be open to debate, and conduct ourselves on  the basis of democratic centralism. Marxist-Leninists must always be  willing to struggle, because it is in struggle that we find the correct  path. It was Lenin&#8217;s struggle against the revisionism of the Second  International which, in a time when other &#8220;communists&#8221; were willing to  retreat and cling to the trouser-legs of the bourgeoisie in the name of  nationalism, gave birth to our theory. It is in struggle that we  Leninists are able to remain consistent to the scientific method which  Marxism-Leninism provides.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color:#000000;\">This particular line of attack is the  favorite of the Maoists, who assert that it is their theory and theirs  alone which offers a historical analysis and revolutionary path that is  neither revisionist nor &#8220;dogmatic.&#8221; Yet, the reality is that Mao&#8217;s  Philistine theory traded science for bourgeois metaphysics, and in this  opportunism concocted such anti-Leninist positions as &#8220;the Theory of  Three Worlds&#8221; and the notion that a society somehow between capitalism  and socialism (New Democracy) could exist. These revisionist ideas would  inevitably lead to allowing the old bourgeoisie to maintain leadership  positions in industry, the support of US imperialism and a whole host of  reactionary regimes, including those of Pinochet and Mobutu Sese Seko.  Certainly Mao cannot be blamed for subjecting himself to the &#8220;mechanical  dogma&#8221; of Marxism-Leninism in these cases! We at the APL have no need  for unquestioning dogmatism, yet we refuse to throw out what is correct  and revolutionary in our understanding, or adopt petty-bourgeois and  post-materialist positions simply because they are popular among the  &#8220;left.&#8221;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color:#000000;\">Going along this line of attack, our critics accuse us of  supporting every action taken by Enver Hoxha and Joseph Stalin. This is  untrue. For instance, we are critical of Stalin for not doing enough to  battle his cult of personality. Even though Stalin didn&#8217;t actively  encourage his personality cult like Mao and Kim Il-Sung did, and even  spoke against it, we cannot forgive his failure to act in this matter.  We are also critical of Enver Hoxha for banning religion all together,  which our party has no intention of doing. Yet, while we hold these  criticisms, we must disagree with the Maoists&#8217; 7\/10ths assessment of  Stalin, being that their method contains more metaphysical garbage than  sound dialectical thinking, and hence results in a less than useful  synopsis of Stalin&#8217;s work.<\/span><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In our time as revolutionaries, we at the APL have been exposed to a great many myths propagated about our ideology, our historical perspective and..<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1841,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[18,21,92],"tags":[296,192,320,322,333,348,273],"class_list":["post-1837","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-history","category-international","category-theory","tag-albania","tag-china","tag-cuba","tag-democratic-peoples-republic-of-korea","tag-germany","tag-revolutionary-history","tag-soviet-union-ussr"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/redphoenix.news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/06\/socialismscience.jpg?fit=400%2C252&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/redphoenix.news\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1837","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/redphoenix.news\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/redphoenix.news\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/redphoenix.news\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/redphoenix.news\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1837"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/redphoenix.news\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1837\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/redphoenix.news\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1841"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/redphoenix.news\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1837"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/redphoenix.news\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1837"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/redphoenix.news\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1837"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}