The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Anti-Revisionism V. Revisionist Marxism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,680 times Debate No: 41458
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Resolution: Pro will argue that Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninism is a better model to achieve Communism then anyother Marxist Doctrine. The burden of proof is shared, however Con most sugest a sounder model.


Communism: The final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably.

Anti-revisionism: The doctrine which upholds the line of theory and practice associated with Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin, and either Mao or Hoxha.

Revisionism: Any Marxist model which rejects or revises the theory and practice of Marxist-Leninsist-Stalinist-Maoism.

First Round Is For Acceptance!



I accept this debate!

First off, I'd like to thank my opponent for challenging me on this topic.

Let's break down Anti-Revisionism:
Anti-revisionism: The doctrine which upholds the line of theory and practice associated with Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin, and either Mao or Hoxha.

My opponent and I have agreed to focus on Mao, and so that is the main point of this refutation.

China's Great Famine: The largest famine in all of human history took place in Maoist China, under Maoist policies which enacted from the late 1950's to the early 1960's, (The great leap backwards). Although drought was a contributory factor, this was largely a manmade catastrophe for which Maoism bears the greatest of responsibility. We cannot currently know the precise number of casualties, but the best demographics show about 30 million dead. Is mass starvation the best possible way to achieve a communist society? I should hope not. On this argument alone Con should win.

Maoism and Today: Let's look at the effect Maoism has had in modern day China. It has all but nearly destroyed China. Talk of it propelling China into the 20th century neglect to note that an extremely troubling amount of the Chinese population still lives at a subsistence level of farming, near starvation and without access to clean water or medical care. As long as the vast majority of China remains in this state, the nation will never succeed in the long-term. Do we currently see any progress towards a Communist society in China, by looking at the demographics, it is quite obvious that the answer is no. Maoism in China has so far only brought on mass suffering. You must vote Con on this.

*The Super Cool and Groovy Alternative*
I present my alternative as such: The root structure of Luxemburgism, a democratic revolutionary socialist struggle to achieve communism.

As I have found a worthy definition, I shall now present it:
"It is a form of Left-Communism, in opposition to Leninism at the time of the 3rd international; also referred to as "Council Communism". It is a theory developed upon by Rosa Luxemburg and other founders of the German Spartakus Bund, which would later become the Communist Party of Germany. Council Communism holds onto most of the traditional views of Marxism, including the necessity of insurrection against the bourgeois capitalist state and world revolution. Where it breaks with Leninism is on the issue of economic organization after the revolution."

Just a Little Something on Council Communism:
It is presented as each industry would be run by a workers’ council and this decentralized workers’ government would be managed by an executive council
Council Communists seek a less-centralized alternative, which differs from the centralization of governments in marxist-lenninsm.

Why YOU should choose Luxemburgism!
Luxemburgism would prove to be an overall better way to achieve communism than that of an anti-revisionist government for more than one reason. Knowing that these council communist policies don't involve rapid industrialization of that attempted by Stalinist and Maoist societies, thus decreasing the body count by the millions. Not to mention Luxemburgism would provide more of a voice (hence the social democratic policies) to workers, peasants, small communities, and all other marginalized and silenced people of an anti-revisionist society. So, to conclude, Luxemburgism is a "better" way to achieve communism because, empirics would show it would not lead to mass starvation, it has more democratic policies, and its form of council communism provides a more fair government for the people of its society.


Debate Round No. 1


First I will reply to the attacks on Maoist China

1. The Great Leap forward was indeed a leading factor in the Chinese Great Famine of the late 1950’s and early 1960’s[1]. However you must understand that this doubled China’s agricultural output and ended the famines which took the lives of well over 50 million in the century preceding the revolution[2]. The costs were extreme but China has been without a single famine under Mao nor the later revisionist leaders.

2. Maoism and today. It is true that China has made little progress towards a stateless and classless society since Mao’s death. However the policies that have regressed China are not those of Anti-Revisionist leaders but “Socialism With Chinese Characteristics” as affirmed by Deng Xiaoping. The “Communist Party” today does not represent the practice nor theory of Mao, Stalin, Lenin or Marx. The current state of affairs in China does not represent the revolutionary socialism of the Anti-Revisionist tendency.[3]

The Historical Devolpment Of Marxist-Leninism:

Paris Commune

In 1870 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels witnessed the fruitless attempt that was the Paris Commune.That year socialists and radical democrats seized Paris by force and attempted to establish a revolutionary government. The Commune passed wide sweeping and radical reforms that set about to construct a new nation. The nobles fled to Versalis and after a few months they gathered an army and crushed the Commune. Many anarchist and anti-Authoritarian socialists(Luxemburg included) look to the Paris Commune as their inspiration. However Engels in 1872 provides us with criticism to those positions which will go on to be a core tenet of Marxist-Leninism: A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois?

World Revolution

In the early 1900’s socialist movements around the world continued to grow. At the end of WW1 Lenin and his bolshevik comrades successfully overthrew the Tsar and established the first socialist state. Building on Engel and Marx’s theory and observations, Lenin established the “dictatorship of the proletariat” with single party democracy to carry out the revolution[3]. Left communists in Western Europe yielded no such success. I ask that Con name one successful Luxemburgian or even Left Communist revolution. The Marxist-Leninist Structure for revolution and the state has been applied to successfully create 22+[4] socialist states. Luxemburgism has yieled none. From these facts we can conclude the superiority of the Marxist-Leninist theory over it’s competitors.


The process of liberalizing and market reforms is known as revisionism for it is a deviation from the revolutionary thought. The Soviet Union engaged in revisionism throughout the 1950’s, 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s via a series of these reforms which ultimately led to the collapse of first her European allies then the Soviet Union herself. In China, as I mentioned earlier, Deng Xiaoping’s

reforms brought China to the state of corruption and massive inequality which was unknown in the Mao years[3]. Anti-revisionists posit that conformity to the Marxist-Leninist theory without revisions leads to success as the past has shown us. Marxist-Leninist nations in the end faltered but they have achieved more development of socialism then Council-Communism and other revisionist strains. To conclude, the communist must adopt the Marxist-Leninist theory as a mechanism for change over all alternatives.


1.1959:Socialism,China Shakes The World Again,Prometheus Books.


3. Revolution, Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party USA, No.323




Sickle-Boy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Con Forfiets. Extend all of my arguments. Anti-Revisionists triumph.


Sickle-Boy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
This looks interesting. Communist vs Communist. I will vote when the time comes.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by STALIN 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con FF. Pro also managed to refute all of Con's arguments and had better arguments of his own. Good to see a picture of me on a debate:D