The Albanian article referred to names a third distinguishing feature of modern revisionism: the “...speculation with new conditions and phenomena...”. F. Shehu contrasts this ’specific feature’ of modern revisionism with the technique of old revionism, which he describes as having “misunderstood” the new conditions of imperialism and proved unable to “...draw from the new conditions the correct theoretical and practical conclusions...” (Ibid. p.147-148). However, the distinction Shehu draws on this point is too superficial to serve as a guideline for understanding modern revisionism, and actually is far too generous with Social-Democracy and its role in the split in socialism.
Revisionism, as it appeared in the 1890’s and the middle 1930’s, represents the development of a bourgeois trend within and in struggle against scientific socialism. In its initial stages it must mimic the fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism, simply in order to survive and gain influence in the movement. From this position, it is possible to overtly revise those fundamental principles only through claiming that ’new conditions’, or ’changed, circumstances’ render the ’old’ content of revolutionary Marxism inapplicable. But this is precisely “speculation” with new phenomena, and is the basis from which Bernstein revised Marxist political economy and the doctrine of the class struggle. Such speculation is the foundation of what Lenin called “...the policy of revisionism...”, i.e. “...the movement is everything, the ultimate aim nothing...”. The “ultimate aim” becomes nothing, in the revisionists’ view, simply because “new conditions” has rendered it obsolete. As Lenin further noted,
...it patently follows from the very nature of this policy that it may assume an infinite variety of forms, and that every more or less ’new’ question, every more or less unexpected and unforeseen turn of events, even though it change the basic line of development only to an insignificant degree and only for the briefest period, will always inevitably give rise to one variety of revisionism or another. V.I. Lenin Marxism and Revisionism CW Vol.15 p.38
Both Bernsteinism and modern revisionism speculate with ’new conditions’, and both also ’misunderstand’ new conditions. But to state, as Shehu does, that Bernstein revisionism only “misunderstood” whereas modern revisionism “speculates” is to draw an altogether false picture of the mechanism of revisionism and makes it appear that old revisionism was only ’spontaneously’ so, whereas the modern revisionists are far more conscious. This in turn lays the emphasis on the insidious nature of modern revisionism, while portraying the old revisionists mere victims of ’misunderstandings’. The net result is that the historical continuity of the development of revisionism in general, from its beginnings as a deviation, its consolidation into a political trend, to its ’winning of state power’ and hegemony over what was formerly the international communist movement, this continuity becomes broken. What is lost sight of in the process is the means by which revisionism in its ’old’ form directly gave rise to revisionism as it exists today.
Revisionism emerged in a period of relative stability, of ’peaceful’ development of capitalism. It had as its immediate social basis the officials of the German Social Democratic Party who, during the long ’peaceful’ parliamentary struggle of the Party, had become accustomed to stability, the Philistine comforts of their Party careers, and were in ’close organic contact’ with the craft unions and ’society’. Bernstein in fact ’speculated with new conditions’ by attempting to portray this period of stable growth as the natural and final stage of capitalism before it passed quietly over into socialism. With the development of imperialism, this ’new condition’ too became an object of speculation. But ’old’ revisionism did not simply cease to exist with the development of imperialism, the outbreak of imperialist war, and the split in socialism. Not at all. It was given new ammunition by its former critics (Kautsky and Plekhanov, for example) and became organizationally consolidated in the form of the Second Internation al. Where revisionism had developed as a trend within Social-Democracy prior to the war, in the post-war period it became the sum and substance of Social-Democracy. In terms of theory, it claimed to be Marxist, but opposed itself to revolutionary Marxism, i.e. Marxism-Leninism. Social-Democracy continued to be the sole standardbearer of ’Marxist’ revisionism until a new variety was generated by the prospect of ’new conditions’ of world war during the middle 1930’s. There then developed, with the VII Congress of the Comintern, a wholesale adoption of Social-Democratic views in relation to fascism and imperialist war, an adoption of revisionist theses, within the Marxist-Leninist movement. The seed for this new species of revisionism, a form appearing not merely as ’Marxist’ but as ’Marxist-Leninist’, was thus supplied directly from the body of ’old’, Social-Democratic revisionism. Modern revisionism did not simply ’appear’ with the advent of Khrushchev. It did not arise, as the current fairytale has it, only ’sometime after WWII’, in isolation from Social-Democracy and the ’old’ revisionism. In reality, modern revisionism draws its theoretical and organizational heritage (through the influx of Social-Democrats into the Communist Parties during the United Front period) directly from ’old’ revisionism. The ’father and son’ now stand side by side: old revisionism in the form of the still-existent Second International and its allied Socialist and Social-Democratic Parties; and modern revisionism, far more successful, in the form of revisionist Communist Parties and state power in the revisionist and social-imperialist countries. But though they are separate organizational entities, and have peculiar distinctions in line, they both share a common source and employ the same ideological tactics.
This slight ’oversight’ on F. Shehu’s part is only too typical of the aversion that most theoreticians of the ’ML’ trend share in relation to the history of the international communist movement. It is nearly impossible to find anything of substance, especially on the question of WWII and the United Front period prior to it, in any of the journals circulated worldwide. And yet, how is it possible to wage a decisive struggle against modern revisionism when there is so little clarity on its origins and methods of development?