those are administrative arrangement. everything and everyone revises itself all the time. the leninists have constructed revisionism as a wedge to separate all that they cant properly analyse or reckon with against all other history
thats marxist language. adjustments, arrangements and the constant flux of change cannot be categorized as "revisionism" because that which have been charged as such arent any different to any other dynamic. states dont "degenerate", what in particular have led something to change class character? what are the regime changes and how do they influence material conditions and visa versa? We must discard this term and lobotimize that discourse. What happened? Did a national bourgeoisie consolidate as Mao would have it? Could we explain it through a concentration of vested interest or the weberian bureaucracy?
you havent clarified your terminology. "changes" and the grand concept of revisions arent the same
those are administrative arrangement. everything and everyone revises itself all the time. the leninists have constructed revisionism as a wedge to separate all that they cant properly analyse or reckon with against all other history
Right and the nature of those things change with the revisions, despite you claiming otherwise in the comment I responded to.
thats marxist language. adjustments, arrangements and the constant flux of change cannot be categorized as "revisionism" because that which have been charged as such arent any different to any other dynamic. states dont "degenerate", what in particular have led something to change class character? what are the regime changes and how do they influence material conditions and visa versa? We must discard this term and lobotimize that discourse. What happened? Did a national bourgeoisie consolidate as Mao would have it? Could we explain it through a concentration of vested interest or the weberian bureaucracy?
you havent clarified your terminology. "changes" and the grand concept of revisions arent the same