In as simple or complex terms as you’d like. I have always described it as a “Deviation from the revolutionary line for purpose of capitalization, consolidation, or destruction of the Mass line in favor of the party bourgeois, landholders, etc” and a fundamental abandonment of scientific socialism in favor of pragmatic adoption of anti-socialist policy that does not lay the groundwork for communism.
There are, however, retreats back while remaining on the socialist road. In the USSR the NEP was used to maintain the socialist road after the civil war in a time of crisis (as opposed to the capitalist roading in the CCP on the back of steady economic, poltical and population growth during the GPCR), which still remains on the socialist road. The revolutionary line is still upheld and the contradictions of state are still resolved by a party of the proletariat.
Do you disagree? Have something to add? Let me know! Just remember to keep it civil and principled.
You must log in or register to comment.
I definitely agree that the NEP was NOT revisionism.
I would define revisionism as a bad faith interpretation of theoretical texts or historical events used to pass opportunism off as genuine socialism. I do think people can be revisionist without being intentionally deceitful, either by ignorantly parroting an opportunist’s lies or by unwittingly letting their baser instincts influence their rational thinking. The latter facilitates lying to oneself all the time in many ways and I think this is the nature of a “well intentioned” revisionist.
Of course. Sometimes a minor diversion done on good faith can slowly lead away from the socialist road without intentional reversion to the capitalist system. It’s why a principled party capable of self-criticism with a mass line is so necessary
