Khrushchev.
Marxism Leninism does not have an extraordinarily precise and constrained definition, seeing as the ideology is a materialist framework built to form around the material conditions of a given people, nation, point in history, and society. There’s no such thing as a “real” Marxist Leninist, because anyone building off of the framework provided by Marx and, in turn, Lenin are Marxist Leninists, and at that point the individual can either thoughtfully apply materialist analysis while making necessary changes and novel insights, or simply not be a Marxist at all. Either the person is using materialist analysis or not.
Lenin, and later leaders such as Mao warn of the dangers that blind ideological adherence can result in should the individual chose to thoughtlessly uphold Marxist literature as scripture. As without considering how the precise conditions of the reader necessitate changes, alterations, and potential deviations given the material conditions of the society the reader finds themselves in, the reader boxes themselves into a corner where new avenues of approach seem impossible.
Theory is just that. Political theory, not scripture.
Theory necessitates “deviation” because what worked for Mao and other leaders will not necessarily work for others; however, whether those deviations are sound or based in material understanding are other questions entirely.
Most deviationists don’t remain ML though. I would have said Pol Pot but the grifter wasn’t even an ML. He was just a primitivist.
Pol Pot expressly boasted how Marxism was merely an aesthetical framework useful for preying upon the hopes and desires of the oppressed agricultural masses.
If anything Pot drew greater inspiration from Mussolini and early fascist writing, with a healthy dose of Nazi lunacy as inspiration for governance.
Pol Pot was just straight up a national socialist. Thats how reading up on him makes him sound.
To be honest, I don’t think it’s helpful to focus on “deviations” or “revisions” in the abstract, because every revolution will occur under different circumstances and so they will be forced to act in their own unique ways, and times are always changing, so there may be specifics in the details of theory that needs to be updated with the times.
That is to say, literally everyone and everything is constantly deviating in some way, and so talking about deviation in the abstract is not particularly helpful. We should be applying more nuanced analysis as to whether or not their practice makes sense given the theory and their current material circumstances.
This requires a much broader analysis taking into account the whole picture, which of course know-nothings despise, because they want to essentialize entire revolutions as “good” or “bad” based upon whether or not they have puritanically adhered to some eternal principle.
