One of the problems here is the use of the term "revisionism." I have noticed that this term is used within the Communist movement the way the term "commie" is used outside the movement; an almost always ad hominem attack discrediting the actor and not the action. For example, China, after and leading up to the Sino-Soviet Split, regularly called the Soviet Union "revisionist."
The fact is, Marxism is a system for analyzing the world and developing in accordance. As the world changes, our methods must change. China and Viet Nam, for example, I do not believe are "revisionist" because of their institution of a mixed market economy. These things are necessary, at present, to exist in the world.
The fact is, the world now is increasingly Capitalist, and Socialist nations, too, need to progress in order to keep up with the world technologically, industrially, medically, and so further. However, the resources are often not there. While the Soviet Union allowed many nations, such as Cuba, for example, to trade with it at greatly reduced prices and on a direct goods-only system, that convenience no longer exists. How is Viet Nam to get much needed resources if it does not engage in global trade?
Unfortunately, to engage successfully in global trade, an economy must be growing and profitable to the pirates on the other side. For China to trade with US Companies, while China does not seek profit and capital, the US Companies do want to line their pockets. To do this, China must generate capital not to serve itself, but to create incentive for trade; trade which is necessary to help China grow as a nation.
This example works not only for China, but for any modern Socialist state. When Socialism has arisen in other nations, such that we no longer need to use Capital to trade from nation to nation, then these mixed markets will inevitably be removed as part of social progression...at present, though, no nation has the material resources necessary to exist and develop without any outside trade; and because of this, mixed markets are not revisionist, they are necessary.
Marxism is not suicidal. We cannot allow the idealist views to negate the reality. We work to change the world to meet the idealist views, but abandoning capitalism entirely, while the world is capitalist, is the equivalent to economic suicide. In today's world, survival of a nation is not enough: development of Socialist states is the only way Socialism will be able to be spread and exported abroad.
Revisionism occurs when the ideas of Marx are abandoned in light of a different system of progression...in this case, Marxism has not been abandoned or even changed; it is simply being used to see clearly that survival at this points requires mixed markets or "state capitalism." It is not abandoning the ideal; it is adopting the reality so that the ideal can someday be achieved - preventing failure now from stopping the entire process.
|
