Talk:Anti-revisionism (Marxism–Leninism)

Party for Socialism and Liberation
I removed Party for Socialism and Liberation and their presidential candidate from this article. PSL is not an anti-revisionist party, they explicitly come out of a Trotskyist milieu and history. --Riot Fred (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning the “Anti-revisionist leaders“
Removed Pol Pot because he did not follow the Anti-Revisionist line. Removed Prachanda because he revised marxism and established a parliamentary instead of a socialist republic, and is thus not an anti-revisionist.

Before putting them back in, post here why.

I am removing your edit. Please someone block any obvious POV edits to this page.--24.44.187.72 (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Prachanda does not belong in this page because he's a revisionist, this is common sense and not “POV“. Removed again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.136.218 (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Also agreeing with the remover of Prachanda because anyone educated in basic Leninist theory knows that a leader of a Maoist party that won a 10 year long civil war against an age old monarchy, only to share power with several other bourgeoisie parties and set up a modern day social-democrat republic, is, clearly, revisionist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.192.211.252 (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I will be adding him again --Riot Fred (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * At least say why. I am removing him because neither of you have shown any proof he's anti revisionist, even if he's made claims in the past, my example from today is bloody obvious enough (starting up a capitalist power sharing republic). I will also be re-adding Khorloogiin Choibalsan, reading through his wiki article alone is enough to show he was a devout fan of Stalin and anti-revisionist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.192.211.252 (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There are certain things you miss in what Wiki is about - first the question whether or not Prachanda is "revisionist" is purely POV. Prachanda himself claims not to be a revisionist and therefore that merits him on this page listing as much as any other particular notable figure who has done so. All these figures, in fact, can arguably from many positions can be called revisionist or not - Hoxhaites claim Maoism a type of "revisionism" altogether, Maoists claim Hoxhaites to be "dogmato-revisionists," etc/

So this is why Prachanda stays on. Your argument on the other hand fits pure POV.

Secondly Choibalsan was removed because he was dead before even the anti-revisionist movement came to being - 1952. Being a fanboy of Stalin is simply not enough.--Riot Fred (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough on Choibalsan. I didn't read the intro to anti-revisionist leaders properly and yes, if you compare my arguements with the paragraph's definition it is POV. Apologies for childish stubborness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.192.211.252 (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger
I don't think that there is need to merge this article with Maoism. Even juche communists claim themselves as anti-revisionists because Kim Il Sung opposed Khrushchevite-Brezhnevite social-imperialism. --219.64.186.3, 18:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree! No merging, please! --84.58.42.171 20:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A lot of self-proclaimed anti-revisionists are very specifically stalinist without being maoist; some don't even have an interest in mao zedong thought. Some dabble with the albanian legacy, etc. due to these issues, no to merger. this article needs cleaned up a bit too. it might make sense to have a "historical" sub-section about revisionism pre-kruschev: bernstein, katusky, yugoslavia, whatever. the term has changed meanings a bit, but not altogether either. --71.162.24.213, 17:32 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the merging. The current of anti-revisionism was nit only consisted of Maoists. The things that characterizes anti-revisionism is the opposition to the Khrushchevite-Brezhnevite politics from a marxist-leninist point of view. -- Magioladitis 09:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree. Cursory knowledge of the term as used in the radical left, as self-description or as descriptor of others, proves this merge is misguided. A number of followers of Mao decry "maoist" as term to describe themselves, yet they are firm in describing themselves as "anti-revisionists". Since no one has supported the merger to date, I am removing the template.--Cerejota 05:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Kim Jong Il?
You could make a case that Sung was Anti-Revisionist, but what about his son? I don't really see how he is Anti-Revisionist nor have ever seen him show any traits/condemn revisionism. --Mrdie 12:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Kim Jong Il has several works, most notably "Respecting the Forerunners of the Revolution is a Noble Moral Obligation of Revolutionaries" in which he defends Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. He also has been very Anti-Revisionist and expressed this in articles such as "Giving Priority to Ideological Work is Essential for Accomplishing Socialism", "On Some Problems of the Ideological Foundation of Socialism", "On Further Improving Party Ideological Work" amongst others. So, I do think he deserves mention. END. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.87.80 (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Poorly defined
This article is really about the subcategory of Stalinist Anti-Revisionism. The usage of the charge of revisionism among Marxists goes back at least to Rosa Luxemburg's polemic against Eduard Bernstein. Trotsky later devoted a lot of energy to describing changes in Stalin's comments about socialism in one country during the year 1924 and how these changes showed that Stalin was revising his political line after Lenin's death. All of this should be a part of any overall discussion of anti-revisionism within the Marxist movements. Whoever put this together has simply adopted Hoxhaist terminology without specifying such. Hoxha's views on revisionism deserve a place in any general article, but the title is misleading at present. It would make more sense for an article on anti-revisionism to start off with a detailed account of the Bernstein-Luxemberg polemics, because that is where debates over revisionism largely began among Marxists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.37 (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article as it is currently written leads to the erroneous conclusion that modern anti-revisionism==Stalinism. I believe that could be helped somewhat by editing this paragraph in the introduction:


 * In recent times, however, the term has taken on a more specific meaning. It describes a trend that developed in the pro-Soviet (as opposed to the Trotskyist) Communist movement after World War II. The growth of this anti-revisionist trend was particularly noticeable at several critical moments in the history of the Communist movement—the shift from WW II-era collaboration between the Soviet Union and the Western Powers to the Cold War, and the crisis inaugurated by the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1956.

I would propose something like the following replacement paragraph:


 * Because different political trends trace the historical roots of revisionism to different eras and leaders, there is significant disagreement today as to what constitutes anti-revisionism. Therefore modern groups which describe themselves as anti-revisionist fall into several categories. They universally tend to oppose Trotskyism; however, some uphold the works of Stalin and Mao; some the works of Stalin while rejecting Mao; and some reject both Stalin and Mao, tracing their ideological roots back to Marx and Lenin. In addition, other groups uphold various less-well-known historical leaders, such as Enver Hoxha.

This is based in simple facts, supportable by references to the various groups in each category, and avoids any sort of POV issues. Because what constitutes anti-revisionism today is controversial, I think that any attempt to describe the historical roots of a "more specific meaning" to the modern term will necessarily either give preference to one or another view of "the real modern anti-revisionsim", or have to detail the perspective of every trend in world anti-revisionism. Ejrd1993 (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Che Guevara
I added Che Guevara as it's widely known among the radical left movement that Che was an admirer of Stalin and Mao in the 60's, and a critic of revisionism. Please say why not if you disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.192.211.252 (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I deleted him. If you define anti-revisionism by simply criticizing other branches of Marxism/Communism/socialism, almost all reds are such. But i know you didn't, so here's another reason - some Communists, especially in the past, viewed anti-revisionist people favorably because they were the face of Communism, and basically no other Communist groups had a chance of surpassing them in "success." They did not necessarily express anti-reivionism themselves; Guevara and Castro were their own types. For a modern-day example: The freedomroad.org faction of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization makes some positive comments on Mao, but they are definately not anti-revisionist. The Party for Socialism and Liberation and other U.S. Leninist parties sometimes defend North Korea, but they are not anti-revisionist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.241.60 (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Comrade José
Comrade José should be removed he is a Revisionist anti-Maoist, the Shining Path leadership has denounce José and his Shining Path remnant group operating in VRAE which no longer follow Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.238.220 (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Anti-revisionism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928061307/http://www.philippinerevolution.net/cgi-bin/cpp/pdocs.pl?id=stane;page=01 to http://www.philippinerevolution.net/cgi-bin/cpp/pdocs.pl?id=stane;page=01

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-revisionism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927221903/http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/lies.html to http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/lies.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.philippinerevolution.net/cgi-bin/cpp/pdocs.pl?id=stane%3Bpage%3D01

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Original research
It appears that this article consists entirely of original research, as not a single source is cited throughout the entire article (except for citing a Stalin book to itself). The only sources listed in the external links are pamphlets and articles by Marxist-Leninist political parties and authors, so aren't exactly reliable independent sources. I'm partial to dynamiting this article unless people can provide some reliable sourcing for literally anything contained in it. -- Grnrchst (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

This whole article is a mess and should be deleted.
The article as written treats "revisionism" as an undefinable polemical term, not an objective reality. The project of providing a list of anti-revisionist organisations while dedicating its first half to weaseling out of defining what anti-revisionism is is extremely stupid. As an example, it lists the CPI-M, which is explicitly Kruschevite, and also right under it the CPI-Maoist, which correctly considers CPI-M to be revisionist, and has been at war with CPI-M multiple times. It is as if the person who added the groups was not at all familiar with Marxism, and guessed at random.

Also, the weird effort to conflate Maoism and anti-revisionism is extremely wrongheaded. Maoism is Maoism and may consider itself to be anti-revisionist at times (mostly so that it can label its opponents as revisionists; when it does this, it often has Hoxhaism in mind), but ultimately is pretty open at this point about Mao's innovations, and embraces them. Anti-revisionism as an unqualified ideological label never credibly refers to anything except Hoxhaism.