From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Is there any reason this shouldn't be redirected to Leninism?

Nope. Tannin

Yup, there is a reason. Marxism-Leninism is Stalins name of his policies, and hence Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism is the same thing. This in turn may or may not be distinct from Leninism, the opinions vary on that, but still, it SHOULD be redirected to Stalinism to allow for that distinction. So I'll do that. See also Stalinism :) Regebro 08:48, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What? Yes...that is what he called them...but that doesn't make Marxism-Leninism makes Stalinism a form of Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism is synonymous with the term Leninism, not Stalinism.

Yossarian 03:42, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
Well, still all sources I have fund claim that "Marxist-Leninism" is what Stalin called his theories, and that the correct term for Leninism is Leninism, and nothing else. The term arose with Stalin, and Stalin is seen as the creator of the ideology. From "The creation and development of Marxism-Leninism can be divided into two general categories: the creation and development by Stalin (1924-1953), and the revision by Khrushchev and continual revisions by the Soviet government to follow (1956-1991)." Maybe we should not redirect at all, but instead have a text about the history of the term and explain that it can be used to denote both Leninism and Stalinism, and that really, the differece aint that big anyway. ;) Regebro 21:36, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That whole argument is merely an appeal to authority. Politicians may be able to call one thing another, but it wont fly in terms of fact. Dan Quayle once said the United States was a part of Europe -- I should hope that a link to Europe dont redirect me accordingly. -- Oceanhahn 08:14, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Even Gorbachev regarded himself as a Marxist-Leninist, but certainly not a Stalinist. If the term "Marxism-Leninism" did originate with Stalin, which it would practically have to as it is hard to imagine Lenin using the term, it has a meaning distinct from the particular practices of Stalin, which is what Stalinism generally refers to (especially when used negatively). Stalin's expressed theories offer little deviation from Lenin's and are notable for their mild and reasonable character which contrasts sharply with his practices. I think we might add to the article the usage of contemporary activists and individuals who harken back to Stalin, rejecting what they view as revisionism, and call themselves "Marxist-Leninist" to emphasize their adherance to Communist fundamentals. That would make it a disambiguation page, not a redirect. I guess I would like the redirect removed completely and Leninism renamed Marxism-Leninism. That, I think, is the term in general use. Actually if you google the terms both seem to be used. But titling the article Marxism-Leninism offers the advantage that a least a note can be added regarding contemporary use of the term by Communist fundamentalists. Fred Bauder 11:21, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Marxism-Leninism was the official ideology of the Soviet Union since Stalin's rule, it just underwent a massive overhaul in the post-Stalin era. J. Parker Stone 9 July 2005 08:41 (UTC)

Before discussing Marx-Leninism perhaps it would be a good idea to ask a Marxist before going into completely inaccurate rubbish. Marx-Leninism is the name given to the philosophy of revolutionary socialists who supported the Russian revolution lead by Lenin and Trotsky as an attempt to change WORLD capitalism to WORLD socialism. Marx-Leninists do NOT and did NOT support the Stalinist bureaucracy that gained power in the Soviet Union by the physical elimination of the Bolshevik revolutionaries. At no point did Lenin or Trotsky believe in anything other that a true democratic world revolution, unlike Stalinism, that in order to cover its counter-revolution privilege espoused 'Socialism in one country'

READ Marx and Lenin and Trotsky to understand these questions. Do not swallow the rubbish put out by the bourgeoisie and in particular American 'pundits' David Nissen UK

Or you could read Stalin himself. Or read [1]. Marxism-Leninism was a term, which on one hand is differnet from Leninism and on the other hand was never used during Lenin's life-time. The by the time M-L was launched the Trotsky-Stalin split had already emerged. Notably Trotskyists preferred not to use the term M-L, instead using the description Bolshevik-Leninist. See [2]. --Soman 10:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Marxism-Leninism refers to the interpretation of Lenin by Stalinists, and later by Maoists and Reform Communists, where as Leninism refers to the interpretation of Lenin by Trotskyists and neoBolsheviks. There are exceptions to this rule, such as the Marxist-Leninist Party of the Second Spanish Republic, which was a small party founded as a true Trotskyist alternative to POUM. However, both historicly and in modern uses by Stalinists, Trotskyists, etc. this deffinition is upheld.

Useful material from 'Leninism'-- better here![edit]

Near the end of the 1920s in the Soviet Union, Marxism-Leninism was proclaimed the official ideology of the Communist Party. The concept of Marxism-Leninism is somewhat different to, although by no means contrary to, the concept of Leninism. Both terms have since been used by communist parties, although with different functions. Marxism-Leninism is used to describe the basic ideology of the Communist Party, whereas Leninism is often used when discussing the organizational model of the party. Dissident groups within the communist tradition, such as Trotskyists and Luxembourgists, often consider the term Marxism-Leninism to be a euphemism for "Stalinism".

Marxism-Leninism taught in Soviet academic institution was the discipline that consisted of four parts:

  1. History of the Communist Party
  2. Marxist-Leninist Philosophy (dialectical materialism)
  3. Marxist-Leninism polytical economy
  4. Scientific communism (discussion of how communism can be built)

"As carried forward by Joseph Stalin. "[edit]

There's a contradiction in this entry. Either ML is Marxism as carried forward by Joseph Stalin. and thence by others in differing ways, or both Stalinists or Trotskyists both claim to be Marxist Leninists, in which case Stalin's amplifications are in one branch but not all. The former makes sence to me: I do not think that Trotskyist claim to be ML: they see that ML is Stalinism's own word for itself, surely?--Duncan 12:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's correct. Scholars and partisans are in unity that Marxism-Leninism was the name given to the ideology of the Soviet Union (based on the writings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin) by Stalin. It includes also Stalin's own contributions and is the term used in all three major histories of the CPSU published in the Soviet Union (corresponding to the governments of Stalin, Khrushchev, and Breshznev). It is also the term used by Mao Zedong and anti-revisionist Marxists. I've never heard a member of a Trotskyist organization (either in person or in a text) self-describe as "Marxist-Leninist". The article should certainly identify Stalin's role in developing Marxism-Leninism. Comzero 20:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
In fact, I think this sentence, '"Stalinists" and "Trotskyists" also claim to be the rightful heirs of Marxism-Leninism' in the first paragraph needs to be cut. Now, it could be argued that both claim to be the rightful heirs of Leninism, but not ML. Comzero 20:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Excellent idea! I think this would be an excellent clarification. --Duncan 08:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

A contribution from a foreigner[edit]

Hi, I'm Italian. (My native language is Italian,) and my English is mediocre. I apologize for any mistakes I might make. It is for this reason that I won't contribute directly to this article. I agree with the opininion that Marxism-Leninism is Stalinist in nature. Also Leninism was first regarded as a theory, rather than an attitude, by Stalin. Marxism-Leninism is considered to be nearly synonymous with Stalinism (from a philosopical and theoretical point of view) by many communists. Two examples being Aldo Natoli and Pietro Ingrao (two Italian communists who played an international role at the beginning of WW2). I believe that this article should mention the work by Stalin that is generally considered to be the key essay in which Marxism-Leninism is defined. It is "THE FOUNDATIONS OF LENINISM", that can be found here [3]. It is part of a larger work, "Problems of Leninism". One of the key questions here is whether or not revolution must necessarily be a violent, military business, or can revolution be acheived through non-violent means? Marx and Engels considered a violent struggle not as necessary, but as an unfortunate - though probable - outcome in continental Europe. Stalin states that one of the main contributions to Marxism is the idea that that revolution must necessarily be a violent uprising worldwide, due to the changes in Capitalist structure. Another important question is about whether or not the proletariat should take the power in countries with a backward level of productive forces (i.e., backward bourgeois society). There was on this subject an endless and notorius dispute between Lenin and the 2nd Socialist International, and also with mensheviks and revolutionary socialists. The prevaling opinion in the worldwide labour movement was that proletariat revolution would need a preceding bourgeois stage, a developed society with bourgeois institutions, which was not the case in 1917 Russia. Here Stalin shows one of his typical attitudes in legitimizing past events with questionable theoretical (or pseudo-theoretical) argumentations.

BTW I prefer the English edition of wikipedia to the Italian one because Italian entries (at least on similar subjects, but this can be said in general) are not so good, sometime agiographic and POV, and with lack of narration and references. I'm considering the idea of simply translating some English entries in Italian to overcome this problem. I will be glad to hear opinions on doing so. I was communist and marxist years ago, and I knew a lot of (Italian) communists - some of them with a long-lasting personal history - which were clever and open-minded, and capable of quietly an reasonably debating with people of opposite opinions. Now I'm anti-communist (in the sense that I consider communism nonsense, rather than a bad thing). My knowledge of real-world communists leads me to believe that a communist could be able to write an encyclopedia article that can be considered interesting and useful by non-communist or anti-communist people. It seems to me that the new-generation of (the very few) communists lost this attitude. At least in Italy.


PS. Please correct my english!

I tried to correct it a bit, if I didn't stick to your original meaning I am sorry, but I made every effort. -- Humbabba 01:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Humbabba, you made a great job. The meaning of my considerations was both respected and claryfied. -- 15:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Major cleanup and rework needed[edit]

To the italian, your understanding of Marxism-Leninism seems to only be from the Stalin era. Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism, 1962, printed in the Soviet Union. States that a voilent revol ution is not neccessary but is forced on the proleteriat. This article needs major work and cleanup, it also sites no sources and has no references. Its especially important because it's one of the most influentcial schools of Marxism. Opetyan 23:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Different from Trotskyism[edit]

Should we not explain that the term was coined to clarify the differences between it and Trotsky's so-called 'Bolshevik-Leninism'? --Duncan 06:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


I made this edit with the purpose of ridding the article of commentaries, speculations and explicit pov-pushing. Some examples:

  • Self-contradiction: First stating "Marxism-Leninism, strictly speaking, refers to the version of Marxism developed by Vladimir Lenin; see Leninism.", an OR intrepretation without base in the arguments made in the rest of the article
  • "However, in various contexts, different (and sometimes opposing) political groups have used the term "Marxism-Leninism" to describe the ideologies that they claimed to be upholding." First of all, here and elsewhere in the text, there is a clearly insinuatory tone. This is not how liberalism, socialism, christianity etc., are described. Moreover, Marxism-Leninism is not 'ideologies'. It is one ideology, out of which there are different intrepretations.
  • "The label Marxism-Leninism is most often used by those who believe that Lenin's legacy was successfully carried forward by Joseph Stalin (Stalinists). However, it is also used by some who repudiate Stalin, such as the supporters of Nikita Khrushchev. Another branch of Communists who declare themselves Marxist-Leninist are the Maoists, who tend to downplay the importance of all other thinkers in favour of Mao Zedong." Is historically incorrect. The mainstream of the communist movement are of M-L orientation (regardless of whether they hav '(m-l)' in their name or not). Also these dictotomies are not that clear. Is, say, the Portuguese Communist Party 'supporters of Khrushchev'?
  • "Following the Sino-Albanian split, a small but substantial portion of Marxist-Leninists, such as Alliance Marxist-Leninist and to a lesser extent Ray O. Light Group, in the US" AML + ROL has a combined membership of say, 20 people? Undue weight in the article.
  • "The other three communist states existing today - Cuba, Vietnam and Laos - hold Marxism-Leninism as their official ideology, although they give it different interpretations in terms of practical policy." The communist parties hold Marxism-Leninism as their ideology, not the states.
  • "Marxism-Leninism changed slightly with each successive era of Party leaders. For example Marxism-Leninism of the Khrushchev era was strongly against the establishment of personality cults like that of the Stalin era, which it described as alien to Leninism. It is largely accepted that Marxism-Leninism was ended in the Soviet Union, by the openness of criticism and rejection of basic tenets of the ideology by Gorbachev's Perestroika and Glasnost" ML as such did not change, but of course ML like any other ideology passes through different influences as times change. Simply attributing these changes to individual party leaders in the Soviet Union is ahistorical.
  • "It is largely accepted that Marxism-Leninism was ended in the Soviet Union", ideologies are not 'ended' as such.
  • Main problem remains though: That the article says virtually nothing about what ML is.

--Soman 19:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

True, the article needs several improvement. But not censorship due to your Stalinist views. --Inbloom2 22:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
agree with Inbloom2--Francomemoria 10:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a revision war building up here. Can you use Talk, rather than revert? --Duncan 19:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think, for the discussion to progress, the reservations of Franco and Inbloom has to be developed beyond just labelling me as a stalinist. --Soman 20:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
You shouldn't do any censorship on this page in the first place. Plus, it's a censorship based on your stalinist POV. --Inbloom2 22:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
example of stalinist pov:

"Marxism-Leninism is communist ideological stream, that emerged after the October Revolution" this not true this emerged after Stalin take power in CCCP.

"After Lenin's death, his ideology and contributions to Marxist theory were termed as "Marxism-Leninism" ," (strange before emerged from revolution and now after Lenin's death) after Lenin's death Stalin ideology and contributions were termed ML (Stalin take follow Lenin in some aspects, but principally formal aspect, see CCCP history) --Francomemoria 11:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I weeded out some pov wordings and inconstitencies, see my comments above (and please, feel free to comment), but I do not claim that my version is a particularily good. As I myself as pointed out, the history of the development of ML needs to be developed. To answer your comment briefly: 'After' denotes, well, 'after' (as opposed to, say, 'before'). The notion that ML would be completly detached from Lenin's political labour or the experiences of the October Revolution, would be a quite strong pov statement. --Soman 11:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Certainly it's better to say that 'Marxism Leninism' arose after Lenin's death: the phrase was not used before then, and it's clearly the basis of innovations like the theory of socialism in one country. --Duncan 12:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC).
Can we pinpoint the exact moment when the term was first used? --Soman 13:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I seem to think it's Dimitriov at the Fifth World Congress. I don't think it's in The Foundations of Leninism, but certainly Stalin used the term in 1928. --Duncan 18:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
So, could we state that 1) Foundations of Leninism marks the formulation of the ML interpretation of Marxism ([4] uses the wording 'This was explicitly defined in Stalin's Foundations of Leninism as Marxist theory in an imperialist age. Aside from focusing on key points of orthodox Marxism (dialectical materialism, the proletariat as revolutionary class, etc.), Marxism-Leninism (or sometimes called just Leninism or even Bolshevism) also noted the importance of the Communist Party as revolutionary vanguard and focused on the specific nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Some key works in Marxist-Leninist theory include Stalin's Foundations of Leninism and Lenin's State and Revolution and Imperialism.', a wording we could use in an adopted form), 2) that the term ML was first used at the 5th Congress of Comintern (and at the same point adopted by Comintern?)? --Soman 19:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The first option seems weak to me. Clearly, Marxism-Leninism represented a major development within Leninism and Bolshevism. State and revolution preceded it, so it's mistaken to include it. The second option seems better: How are bout this -- The development of Leninism made by Josef Stalin and the Communist International in the years after 1924. DuncanBCS 18:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe the first paragraph should stay as it is. It gives good "nutshell" information and is hardly commentary. If needed, the paragraph can be revised to rid this tone of voice; however, this is needed to give readers and understanding. MasterXC 13:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I have put my objections above. To repeat, stating that "The purpose of this article is to give an account of the historical and present uses of the label "Marxism-Leninism"." is highly insinuatory, stating that Marxism-Leninism essentially would be an imaginary phenomena. --Soman 13:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
i'm not sure on "development" use in english but i'm not agree with "marxism-Leninism represented a major development within Leninism and Bolshevism" do you known that stalin is not a marxist for MIA (marxist internet archive)--Francomemoria 11:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant, because the majority of those who are involved with the "Marxist Internet Archive" are Trotskyists. The way they classify documents there is very biased, and does not reflect the world's position on this subject. There are 80-90 million members of Marxist-Leninist parties in the world today, but there are only 30-50 thousand members of Trotskyist parties. Cmrdm 22:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
surely chinese party is a marxist party --Francomemoria 12:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Moreover, this is a bit of a side-track, as I'm not sure what point Franco is trying to do. The comment on development was made by Duncan, and Franco has been reverting to the version last edited by Duncan. Resonably, Franco and Inbloom should develop their criticism of the versions edited by others. --Soman 22:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
On both sides, the way out of this is references. Inclusion or exclusion by the MIA is not useful.--Duncan 15:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Untitled thread on vandalism[edit]

"Well-known communists in the United States include Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama." No comment needed on this addition...where is the proof? (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Such a claim is pure nonsense. It's only within american context one can seriously get the idea that Hillary and Obama's views are based in communist ideologies. They are not even leftists, they're social conservatives. There is a huge distance between advocating universal healthcare and then a full-on socialization and of the means of production and planned economy. By K.T, 12:59 GMT+1, Oct 19th 2008 (damn I hope wikipedia will build a better system to do this). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Random potshot/graffiti by a neo-con. Ban his/her IP for a few days. Standard operating procedure. Lol its always best to find out if its just some college punk, and warn him that we might notify that student's college, it seems to do the trick. (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

POV Dispute[edit]

I have added the POV tag to the article. The current opening sentence, for example, calls it the revolutionary marxism adopted by the Comintern in the 1920s. This is misleading, and reflect PV. Marxism-Leninism describes the arc of Marxism founded by Joseph Stalin: it represented a major break during the 1920s marked by innovations such as socialism in one country, the third period and the popular front. These tactics represented major developments from Bolshevism. Often, these policies are seen as counter-revolutionary. Editors who dispute one or another version of this article are simply reverting (including Soman, who has been here long enough to know better). We need to find references to support these claims, and eliminate the unreferenced. Certainly, the notion that Marxism-Leninism did not mark a rupture within Communism is a highly POV standpoint. --Duncan 09:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Duncan, that is the Trotskyist POV of Marxism-Leninism. I think a better article on this topic would discuss the core components of the ideology: dialectical and historical materialism, democratic centralism for party organization, dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. And that Marxist-Leninist parties/individuals have mixed views on the role of Stalin, with some being more critical or supportive than others. It would also note that Marxism-Leninism remains the official ideology of communist parties who's combined membership is 80-90 million at present. I think that trying to bring the old "Trotsky vs Stalin" debate into this article is not appropriate. Surely there is already a separate article for that topic, such as the article on Trotskyism? Cmrdm 21:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Clearly we have a choice here: either Marxism-Leninism does not differ from Leninism, in which case we should merge the articles, or it has a distinct meaning. Clearly, the term Marxism-Leninism originated after Lenin's death. What distinguishes ML from other Leninism are socialism in one country, the third period and the popular front. So, what's the judgement -- it is distinct from Leninism, or should we merge the articles? --Duncan 21:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Personally, if the article was named "Marxism-Leninism" rather than simply "Leninism", I would not be opposed to a merger. No politically significant parties call themselves only "Leninist" (rather than Marxist-Leninist or Trotskyist), so I think that having a separate "Leninist" article is redundant and misleading. I think only two articles are necessary to explain the views of the notable currents in Marxism: Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism. Cmrdm 22:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Leninism is the tought and development of marxism of lenin, and it isn't relevant if some parties call themselves leninst.-- 23:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC) sorry i'm not logged. Francomemoria

My english is bad but i'm try. ML is a Stalin idea, is disputed that is a marxist theory, it became official ideology of cccp and comintern, after stalin's dead ML stay as ideology of soviet union and most communist parties but is not same ideology almost is not 100% same. after broke within China and cccp, maoist use the name ML for their ideology (and attack "soviet" parties with revisionist accuse). after brokewithin Albania and china they used ml for their ideology and use revisionist for "soviet" and "chinese" parties.

for Soman points: all points but last are now changed, i'm agree with ideology can't end but it's a referenced sentencies, i think we can't deleted, but is ridicolous for author of sentence, the idea can't dead/end--Francomemoria 00:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to respond to some quiries. I believe I started what led to the current revert war, but I would like to say that 1) from the onset explained my original edit in 7 points and 2) have briefly taked part in discussion on improving the article as to clarifying the origin of the term (which, if referenced, would be perhaps the key component of the article). I do agree that lack of references is the main problem, i tried to google at for decent reference on the history of the term, but came up with nada so far.
Wikipedia is guided by a very idealistic notion of neutrality. Neutrality is of course in this type of subjects something impossible to acheive, i don't think we'll ever get a perfect consensus that is likely equally by everone. Mind also that so far the discussion the last month between 5 registered users have pretty much been an intra-left affair. Thus with some realism we have to settle for whats least bad for everyone, and have an article that 1) is similar in style to how other major streams of thoughts are displayed and 2) is open to presented various major interpretations on the subject at hand. I do recognize that in the non-Soman/Cmdrm-version (or whatever to call it) some improvements have been made, but I retain some points of dissent:
  • Did ML surge after Lenin's death? Yes, at least in the sense that it was formulate in text and given a name. However, i think that making the point 'after Lenin's death' in the opening sentence is a statement in itself, namely that the formulation of ML was a rupture with previous line. We should also bear in mind that Marxism was a term not endorsed by Marx himself, and it is not strange that Lenin retained the decency not to put a label to his own thoughts.
  • Should then Leninism and ML be merged? No. Leninism is claimed not only by MLs, but also by other communist tendencies, most notably trotskyists, and it would be POV to say Leninism = ML. Leninism, in strict sense would equal the theoretical teachings in Lenin's writings (as opposed to ML, Leninism would be static from 1924 onwards. ML on the other hand is developed through theoretical contributions of ML writers and activists) and certain model of political organization (which has also been adapted by many non-left currents as well). However, if Leninism would be merged with any article, it should be merger with the Lenin article.
  • We must a middle way here, stating that MLs uphold that ML is a direct development on Marxism based on the contributions of Lenin, but that there are also critics who dispute the idea of continuation. This is however a matter to be discussed in the main body of the article, not making any attempt to resolve the issue in the intro heading.
  • Regarding the second sentence of the article, a compromise "It emerged as the mainstream tendency amongst the Communist parties in the mid-1920s (or late?) as it was adopted as the ideological foundation of the Communist International." would be factually correct. Putting 'after Stalin' is imho to attribute, as is extremly common, to much importance to the individual leadership of Stalin on the ideological development of the communist movement. I think we should avoid, at least in the intro, to speculate on causes. One could also see other causes for the emergence of ML, namely the adaptation of bolsheviks as a party in power, the need to an ideology which could be utlized as official state doctrine.
  • "However, in various contexts, different (and sometimes opposing) political groups have used the term "Marxism-Leninism" to describe the ideology that they claimed to be upholding." should go. It doesn't really contribute anything, its not uncommon for followers of one ideology to be in opposition to each other (4th international splits, anyone?). " that they claimed to be upholding." is highly insinuatory.
  • "The term Marxism-Leninism is most often used by those who believe that Lenin's legacy was successfully carried forward by Joseph Stalin (Stalinists)." (my boldening) is a classic wiki-mistake. Claims like 'most often' can never, never be used without a proper and clear reference. As a quick look reveals, the wording is incorrect. Most current (note that I'm stating this on talk page, not article namespace) ML parties have either a negative or ambivalent view on Stalin.
  • Furtermore, I think the entire passage should go. I think that one should not overvalue labelling of different tendencies, not all (if not most) major ML parties do not fit into any of the mentioned categories. Not all ML parties have their 'favorite' post-Lenin CPSU leader.
  • "The core ideological features of Marxism-Leninism are supposed to be those of Marxism and Leninism,", insinuatory wording.
  • Regarding "After Lenin's death, his ideology and contributions to Marxist theory were termed by the leaders of the CPSU "Marxism-Leninism" , or sometimes only "Leninism."" This is a part that needs to be developed further. ML wasn't just adopted at a VKP(b) CC meeting on sitting table, it had its own development. I'm really embarrassed that I cannot come up with the name of the guy who is said to have been the main writer behind 'Foundations of Marxism-Leninism', and who is essentially the main architect of modern ML ideology.
  • Regarding "and of communist parties that supported USSR around the world.", who supported who? If we talk about 1970s, we can talk about parties supporting Soviet Union or parties supporting China (in the sense of supporting the general political line of CPSU/CPC), but in the 1920s this differentation was not there. The correct thing to state is that ML was adopted by Comintern, and thus all its affiliated sections (including VKP(b)).
  • I think that 'dissident trends' in an accurate wording to describe the various tendencies that bolted out of the Comintern during the 1920s.
  • "(and later anti-Maoist)" is superflous (since Trots see Maoists as Stalinists), and trotskyism has not been specifically anti-maoist in the same way as it has been anti-stalinist.
  • Regarding the sentence "After the Sino-Soviet split..." it is more correct to talk about positions of parties rather than states. Both parties preceded the states they governed.
  • "Many parties today believe that the current leadership of China has abandoned Maoism." is a bit of an odd comment, which doesn't really fit into the main text. The role of wikis is not to pass judgements on who is the kosher ML and who isn't.
  • One can always discuss that weight to give certain term, but I think 'substantial' fits into the sentence "Following the Sino-Albanian split, a small but substantial...". The pro-Albanians were, if we look at the communist movement as a whole a small grouping. However, they have played notable roles in several Latin American countries (like Brazil, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, etc.), they were one of the two main groups in the politico-military opposition in Ethiopia, and had smaller groups in many other countries. If these guys are just labelled 'small', then how should we describe trotskyists or left communists?
  • Regarding 'Marxism-Leninism in the Soviet Union', in generally sceptical to having 'country subsections'. It is also necessary to clarify that the comment has an author, and is not a universal truth.
  • The second half of that chapter, which I've cut away in my version, is a bit odd. It describes ML not as an ideology, but as if was a mysterical living person, which could take different standpoints at different times. To say that Soviet policy in a certain period was so and so is one thing, but ML is not necessarily = to Soviet policy.
  • "was ended in the..." should go. Ideologies do not 'end' as such.
  • "Most comtemporary communist parties continue to regard Marxism-Leninism as their basic ideology", being well aware that I contradict a point made above, I would appeal to the other editors to make a quick count themselves. How many CPs are ML, how many aren't? The latter category has some members, the Spanish PCE for example (who use the term 'Revolutionary Marxist' instead). Would guess that French PCF would go there too. However, how many more really?
  • "Popular confusion abounds concerning the complex terminology describing the various schools of Marxist-derived thought. The appellation 'Marxist-Leninist' is often used by those not familiar with communist ideology in any detail (e.g. many newspapers and other media) as a synonym for any kind of Marxism." all terms confuse people not familiar with them, superflous commentary.

--Soman 22:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

i've made some modifications, for small of hoxhaist i don't know in my country maybe counted in some teen of members, troskyst is some thousands, think that small is ok, for soviet section deleted, is late i must go--Francomemoria 11:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC) i'm sorry i made a error in editing version --Francomemoria 11:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a short note, I do approve removing "After Lenin's death, his ideology and contributions to Marxist theory were termed as "Marxism-Leninism" , or sometimes only "Leninism."", this is far to complicated to be dealt with in a single sentence, and also contradicts the discussion above. Rather it could be correct to say that initially (say around 1924) the term 'Leninism' was used with similiar mening to the later usage of the term 'Marxism-Leninism'. --Soman 13:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
That is POV. Mainstream academic thinking is that 'Marxism-Leninism' represented a major break during the 1920s marked by innovations such as socialism in one country, the third period and the popular front.--Duncan 13:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand my point here. What I mean to say is that Comintern used the term 'Leninism' around 1924 in analogus manner to later usage of the term 'Marxism-Leninism' (for example 'Problems of Leninism', 'Under the banner of Leninism', etc.); I'm not putting leninism = ML. --Soman 16:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought you were making a point about the CI. Problems of Leninism was a work by Joseph Stalin; I don't think the CI or ECCI uses the term prior to the Fifth world congress. --Duncan 18:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Id actually say the disputes resolved.

I am a Marxist-Leninist with Hoxhaist beliefs (the one extreme of the scale) and i have ran this by a Trot comrade (the other extreme) and noone can see how this article leans one way or the other. (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Falsification college[edit]

I'm a little bit spectical about referencing "Trotskyists in particular believe that Stalinism contradicted authentic Marxism and Leninism" with "Лев Троцкий, Сталинская школа фальсификаций, М. 1990, с. 7-8(in Russian)". Trotsky in what work does not refer to the opinions of the trotskyist movement, rather he deals extensively on how "Trotkyism" (in brackets, note) was projected by his opponents. Just as Marx didn't refer to his thoughts as Marxism, Lenin with Leninism, Stalin with Stalinism, Trotsky found the wording 'Trotskyism' as problematic. If we are to assume that Trotsky = Trotskyism, we are back to square one in definitions. --Soman (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Лев Троцкий, Сталинская школа фальсификаций reads "Lev Trotsky, Stalinskaya shkola falsifikatsi" for what it's worth. Varlaam (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


I find that the presentation of ML on this page and in the discussion FAILS even to mention mere historical facts. I also find that the simple tool of RESEARCH is being set aside here for distorted opinions and unchecked data. History is one, and it runs through time, no matter what ideological differences may exist. Surely there are differences among all communists, but simple facts should still be simple facts by commonly accepted scholarly convention. This article (and the discussion page) is riddled with uneducated personal opinions that do not even bother to SIMPLY CHECK their stand against known data. You do not argue about facts. You research them and show your sources!

These are my observations to the ML page:

1. You do not offer a proper definition of ML. Historically speaking, the original definition of Marxism-Leninism is attributed to Stalin and/or his regime, and it should be the one given by Wikipedia complete with the appropriate references. Everything else is either poor research or malicious ideological rubbish. Also, ML is not a “separate ideology”. One has to be careful with our own constructs or language. The introductory paragraph of ML fails to establish that ML is first and foremost a doctrine. Strangely enough in this ML issue, the bulk of theoretical contributions and further development of ML by later Soviet intellectuals is sufficiently larger than Lenin’s own contributions, nevertheless, it does not amount to calling ML differently.

2. Marxism and Bolshevism were the terms prior to the term ML, of which Plekhanov is known to be the “father” of the later in Russia. Again, this is simple historical data.

3. Bolshevism. It was under the influence of Angelica Balabanoff that Lenin proposed to change the name of the Russian Bolshevik Party to the name Communist Party of Russia (b). I can cite texts from Lenin and Balabanoff here. In this respect, a more thorough historical background to the term ML must be included.

4. In Russia, after Lenin’s death, Lenin’s contributions to Marxist theory were identified as “Leninism” by Stalin in the work already cited in this page and by Zinoviev in his “Leninism” pamphlet, and later by Mao Tse-tung in his Long Live Leninism! speech in 1960. There seems to be an apparent ambiguous situation with both terms "Leninism" and "Marxism-Leninism", however, the term "Leninism" is applied SOLELY to Lenin's contributions while Marxism-Leninism is applied to the doctrine as a whole. Here we can also talk about the decision of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to rely on the latter theoretical constructions made by the Academy of Sciences to further ML scientifically.

5. In relation to Trotsky, Was he an ML? No, he was not. Trotsky questioned the term "Leninism" in his pamphlet "Philosophical Tendencies of Bureaucratism". ML is identified by Trotskyists as the doctrine of bureaucratic socialism forwarded by Stalin. They may use the term “Stalinism” to identify ML, but from a scholarly point of view, Stalin did not forward substantial theoretical contributions to Marxism at all (as to justify calling ML “Stalinism”), so the term “Stalinism” CAN ONLY refer to his own regime and practical rules he applied while in power. Yet, Trotskyists do not identify themselves as Leninists either, still, the works of Lenin are among their literature. A contemporary Trotskyist, James P. Cannon, says that “Trotskyism is not a new movement, a new doctrine, but the restoration, the revival of genuine Marxism as it was expounded and practiced in the Russian revolution and in the early days of the Communist International.”

6. In relation to Mao. He advocated ML as the doctrine of the Chinese Communist Party. When one reads Mao’s literature, he speaks of ML, so one can safely conclude that Mao was, certainly, an ML. Did he elaborate theoretical contributions to further Marxism historically as to honour him in a name of another current (Maoism)? If it is so, then, those contributions may fall out of the ML context and do not pertain to the ML page.

7. Castro and Che were MLs too. They identify themselves so in their writings. They also believe they forwarded new contributions to ML. Does Wikipedia include them under the term ML? Why not? I have many of their writings and I can even pull some quotes.

8. Certainly, with the break of the Communist International, ML ceased to be the only one doctrine in the communist movement. There are many splits and branches. There are major criticisms of ML by many authors. Does Wikipedia include them? Why not? There should be new sections of major criticisms and splits.

9. There are some current developments in the communist movement that give continuity to ML and for which a new section can be added. Why have not those been included? It’s a matter of simple research!

10. The section “Current usage” is too vague and clueless. Names and dates plus any other specific data should be added in order to make it more professional. During the existence of the Soviet Union, new ideas and concepts have entered ML such as Khrushchev’s “the state of all the people” and “Peaceful Coexistence” theses. Gorvachev’s Perestroika and Glasnost are also supposed to be part of ML and a myriad of concepts such as the Material Technical Basis of communism, and the furthering of dialectical materialism in the sciences.

11. Another issue: ML is also known in western academia as Soviet Marxism. If you search for the term ML you will only come up with Soviet texts. ML does not exist from the standpoint of western academia, and it is not due to ideological but to theoretical reasons. this is something that needs to be added. This calls for yet another section under ML, which is, the point of view of western academia.

I will forward my own contribution to the term ML, and will post it under my contributions page when finished.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinaldo Contreras (talkcontribs) 23:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC) 

From an outside POV, not a Communist philosphy scholar[edit]

I was reading a non-wikipedia story about North Korea, and it called them a "Stalinist" state, so I went to the Wikipedia page about Stalinism to see what the philosophy was defined as. After reading the page about Stalinism, I followed the link to this page, which looks like a disaster. Speaking as someone who just wanted to read what "Marxism-Leninism" is, this is a poor entry not suited for any encyclopedia. What decent listing covers the semantic history of a term but no definition of what the term actually means? A definition of what Marxism-Leninism is would be the most important thing for the entry to cover.

This entry seems to be the victim of minute hair splitting amongst people who follow (and argue about) communist philosophy, who have to be able to come up with at least a historically based basic definition of what Marxism-Leninism is; and sabatoge by sarcastic right wingers in the U.S. who want to add the names of non-communist liberal politicians such as Obama and Clinton, which is just childish and ridiculous. I think maybe an impartial person should take over this page. Blashyrkh66 (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Nyah-nyah, I'm purer than you are![edit]

I agree with the above post by Blashyrkh66 — and it is now over ten months later but apparently little has changed. I came here looking for a definition of Marxism-Leninism. If no-one is able to define Marxism-Leninism what does that say about the intellectual level of this article? Does Marxism-Leninism differ from Marxism? Apparently — it appears to add Leninism to it. Does Marxism-Leninism differ from Leninism? If so, say how, please. If not, this article should be scrapped and the term Marxism-Leninism should redirect to the Leninism article, where a paragraph might be devoted to the rationale, history and use of the term among communists, which is all I see discussed here. Apparently there is no real ideological difference between Leninism and Marxism-Leninism, and the term means only "Nyah-nyah, I'm purer than you are!" I could be wrong. —Blanchette (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The issue is that there is a POV dispute which we have not resolved. Marxism-Leninism has been the ideology of the pro-Stalin communist parties. In the opinion of some, it diverges from Marx and Lenin. In the opinion of others, it does not. All we can do it say that it's the ideology of the pro-Stalin parties, but we can't get consensus on the elements, such as socialism in one country, on which it diverges from Classical Marxism. --Duncan (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Leninism should be merged into this article[edit]

As this article is about Marxism-Leninism and the role of Lenin in it, I believe that the article Leninism should be merged into this article. It seems redundant to have two articles on the same topic of Lenin's influence on communist ideology.--R-41 (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Unlike the Leninism article, this article is not about "Lenin's influence on communist ideology," it is about the term used by the stream of Soviet-led communism from Stalin onwards. Both Stalin and Trotsky, and their followers, described themselves as Leninist, yet had very different interpretations of Leninism. -- (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Indeed, just as Marxism is independent of the Marxism-Leninism article.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Marxism-Leninism is post-Lenin, as is Trotskyism. It's not mainly about Lenin's influence, but about the distinctive evolution of direction under Stalin's leadership. --Duncan (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. You want to merge two different articles about two different topics. --EL-259 (talk) 07:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Thou shalt stop this tom foolery, and thou shalt kill thine self.--Jesus (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
Oppose. To merge Lenunism into this article would be very stupid. Long live communism! // Lars Ohly —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per DuncanPasswordUsername (talk) 04:13, 27 April 20

Closure on above[edit]

Apparently the current text reflects the resolution of the issues in the 2 and 3 year old tags. Presumably the contentious issue is what relation the subject has to its nominal components or some ideal of communism or socialism. This appears to have been worked out in the current text. The subject is essentially about terminology with the underlying subjects discussed elsewhere. Lycurgus (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Country list[edit]

I have started a list to indicate that it is more than just Nepal where this is relevant at election time. Varlaam (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Marxism-Leninism as a totalitarian movement[edit]

A user has criticized the claim that Marxism-Leninism is a totalitarian movement and claims that it denounces totalitarianism. Regardless of Marxist-Leninist proponents' claims to the contrary I believe in the views of scholars on the subject of totalitarianism who point to the origins of the term "Marxism-Leninism" to the Stalinist period and describe Marxism-Leninism in practice in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Romania, and Yugoslavia among a number of others, has produced totalitarian political systems. Regardless of the evaluation of the term totalitarian in a positive or negative manner, Marxism-Leninism has been regularly identified as totalitarian by many scholars.--R-41 (talk) 06:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

All we need to do is ask that user to provide a reliable source from a significant scholar of Marxism-Leninism. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Wrong, marxism-leninism supports, in theory supports the creation of a free socialist society. + nobody can tell me that Mikhail Gorbachev and Alexander Dubcek were totalitarian, they were both marxist-leninist and they both supported ending the internal repression in their respective countries and create a "socialism with a human face" (in Dubcek's own words). --TIAYN (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Red Flag[edit]

are there any other versions of the Marx-Engels-Lenin flag? -- (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


In the section titled HISTORY under subsection "Founding of Bolshevism, 1905–1907 Russian Revolution, and World War I (1903–1917)", a reference to Ulman's work uses the word "censored". It appears the word should be "censured" although Ulman uses "censored". Is there any reason it is not appropriate to add [sic] following the mis-used vocabulary? Hnojaime (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

"Idealism" in ML, probable bias[edit]

I haven't checked in detail, but Robert Service is a known academic anti communist whose defamation of Trotsky in particular has been discredited. As much of the article gives "Pons" as reference, this indicates a probable bias. In particular the statement that ML regimes attempt to purge "idealism" is a counterfactual calumny, albeit not without some slight basis in fact inasmuch as dialectical materialism can be claimed to be a rejection of philosophical idealism. However this in not the sense of "idealism" commonly used and in fact the general right wing screed is that socialism/communist are fantastically idealistic.

Lycurgus (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

As is comes across as a dishonest and crude trick polemic against "godless commies" lacking "ideals", so informed readers will be alerted to the bias of the article I suppose, the rest will have to take what the wiki process gives them. (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
These sources reviewing Robert Service have very strong POVs. I do not see a "defamation of Trotsky" in his writings. That sounds like hyperbole by someone who is demanding that Trotsky be unquivocally praised and not criticized for actions he took. Every person has had their faults, and it would be absurd for a reviewer who notices them to ignore them. Also, Marxism-Leninism is about realism as Marx was, idealism associated with socialism would from most Marxian points of view would be viewed as utopian socialism and dangerous to scientific socialism.--R-41 (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


Surely? What reference or source decided the current parsing? Gramatically I think Marx-Leninism more correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

What you think is neither here nor there. The sources overwhelmingly use the term Marxism-Leninism (some 100 times as many Google hits), so that is the term we use. RolandR (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Communism[edit]

There's nothing more to say here. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article has accumulated like hash with redundancy. johncheverly 21:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't even know what that means. Is it seriously meant as a rationale for a merger? Please explain why you think these articles should be merged. RolandR (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose the proposed merger. As it stands there is little reason for it. And the consequence will be a over bulking of the communism page.RedsaidFred (talk) 09:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Soviet Style Communism has been on the wane for years. There are too many articles that are too long. It's a topic that can be edited down to the essential nut of information and encapsulated into a longer, yet still concise article. In general, there are too many articles on this site that are just accumulating like a word hash and aren't doing anything for the average reader, except confusing him when all he wants is to learn a few facts about a topic. This is an encyclopaedia, not some site for a college kid to display all the overpriced, useless facts he is learning to his parents. Have I made my point???johncheverly 18:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but you seem to forget one thing, marxism-leninism is just an interpretation of communism, but its not the only thing communism is... Thirdly, while this article is pretty bad (seeing that it lacks any information on theoretical and ideological beliefs and is all about practice and the movements history) it is still important enough to warrant its own article. --TIAYN (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Marxist-Leninism is just one interpretation of communism. May as well merge Maoism, Stalinism, etc. Problem is that doing so will overtake the article as RedsaidFred pointed out.LM2000 (talk) 19:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Merging with stalinism isn't a really bad idea. It was Stalin who introduced the term "marxism-leninism", Lenin never named any ism after himself. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I largely echo the opinions of the other two opposing voters. Though there should be a reorganizing effort on the subject of Marxism-Leninism and its related ideologies on Wikipedia without watering it down or inaccurately portraying the complex evolution of Marxist socialist thought, let alone the even more general topic of socialism or communism. It would be like merging the page on 'Objectivism' with 'Liberalism'. Maphisto86 (talk) 05:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as per comments above that oppose the merger.--R-41 (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this is different vector of communism. --NovaSkola (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Marxism-Leninism is a specific post-Marx, post-Lenin current of thought rooted in the fifth and sixth congresses of the Cominterm. --Duncan (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

more citation?[edit]

There is a fair amount of un-cited material in this article, which leads one to wonder what the source of the information is (i.e. last sentence of the introduction). The article is protected (probably for good reason), so obviously [citation needed] or desired flags can't be added by myself or by most others. It's probably that the information that is not cited is from legitimate sources, but it would be nice to see those sources, and raises questions about the legitimacy/interpretation of the content that is not cited.AnieHall (talk) 05:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The intro of the article is highly defensive in nature towards Marxists and other socialists[edit]

I regard the current intro as of writing this to be utterly unacceptable. It immediately begins with a defensive nature that when read between the lines can be summed up as the following:

  • "Marxism-Leninism is a propaganda tool and fraud created by Joseph Stalin"
  • "It is not a genuine representation of socialism or communism and other Marxists and other socialists reject it"

This is not a neutral analysis of the topic. Instead it appears to have been written with strong pressure on others writing this article by those with Marxist and socialist POVs who want to make absolutely clear that Marxism-Leninism in no way represents a variant of socialism or communism. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources and acknowledgement of multiple POVs on topics with the intention of having a neutral point of view (NPOV) on the topic. To be clear, I agree that criticisms of the ideology can and should be included in the article in an appropriate section clearly titled as "Criticisms", but that such criticisms not be included in the very first sentence let alone first paragraph of the article without doing proper justice to the topic by first describing what the ideology claimed to purport, and then followed by a sentence or two at the end of the intro mentioning common criticisms of the ideology by various critics be they socialists, capitalists, etc.

WP:NOTTRUTH clearly describes that verifiability by reliable sources is what matters. I do not believe that the intro currently upholds that Wikipedia pillar because of its defensive nature.-- (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Stalin invented the term "Marxism-Leninism" to describe his own ideology, and "Trotskyism" to describe his opponent's ideology. Today, what do we have? "Marxism-Leninism" is used as a term for Stalin's, and "Trotskyism" is used as a term for Trotsky's. Hereafter, I will call Marxism-Leninism "Stalinism". That we use these terms today is down to the political victory of Stalinism in the Soviet Union. Even naming this article "Marxism-Leninism", or talking about "Marxism-Leninism" in the first place, is taking a Stalinist POV. But we make this concession. Not immediately giving facts to the reader, which allows him to notice that this may, in fact not be "the most accurate" representation of Marxism and Leninism (which the term "Marxism-Leninism" would suggest) would mean taking a Stalinist POV. In fact, we're not saying "Marxism-Leninism" is not a genuine representation of Marxism (which is what the sources say), we're making concessions here and merely presenting facts to the reader, making no judgement.
Here are the facts which have to be clearly presented:
  • "Marxism-Leninism" is not an actual term which came into existence in a manner similar to other ideologies. It is simply a term Stalin created for his own purposes. Sources back up this fact.
  • The term is clearly of a propagandistic nature, being named exactly so that it would seem like a natural successor of Marxism and Leninism. Wikipedia is calling this "Marxism-Leninism", which is taking a Stalinist POV (concession) in this particular matter. The reader has to be informed that it is, in fact, only one view. (when, in fact, reliable sources are saying that so-called "Marxism-Leninism" has nothing to do with Marxism)

I see nothing wrong with this. We have sources. For instance...

  • History for the IB Diploma: Communism in Crisis 1976–89. Allan Todd. Page 16. "The term Marxism–Leninism, invented by Stalin, was not used until after Lenin's death in 1924. It soon came to be used in Stalin's Soviet Union to refer to what he described as 'orthodox Marxism'. This increasingly came to mean what Stalin himself had to say about political and economic issues." [...] "However, many Marxists (even members of the Communist Party itself) believed that Stalin's ideas and practices (such as socialism in one country and the purges) were almost total distortions of what Marx and Lenin had said."
  • Hell on Earth: Brutality and Violence Under the Stalinist Regime. Ludwik Kowalski. Page 42. "Marxism-Leninism consisted of Stalin's own doctrine plus quotations selected by him from the works of Marx, Lenin and Engels. It should not be supposed that anyone was free, in Stalin's day, to quote at will from Marx, Lenin, or even Stalin himself: Marxism-Leninism comprised only the quotations currently authorized by the dictator, in conformity with the doctrine he was currently promulgating."
  • The Origins of Stalinism: From Leninist Revolution to Stalinist Society. Pavel Câmpeanu. Page 19. "Stalinism gave the name Marxism-Leninism to its aggressive empiricism; it is probably neither the one nor the other, but to both it owes the theoretical lacuna out of which it arose."
  • Terror, Force, and States: The Path from Modernity. Rosemary H. T. O'Kane. Page 101. "As illustration of how Marxism-Leninism was bent to Stalin's purpose, Daniels explains how Stalin's 'theory of socialism in one country', developed in the late 1920s, set the pattern. Derived from a single, old quotation from Lenin, taken out of context, and, crucially, supplemented by Stalin's own words, 'the method and machinery of doctrinal reinterpretation' was established (Daniels, 1993, p. 86) This was the method which was used to conjure Stalin's infallibility. First, any ad hoc decision taken by Stalin was legitimized by the use of some Marxist doctrine conveniently lifted from anywhere and given only one interpretation. Anyone later questioning the interpretation, attempting to restore the earlier context, would be accused of 'petty-bourgeois deviation' and eventually 'counter-revolutionary wrecking'."

Zozs (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The analysis of exclusively associating Marxism-Leninism with Stalinism does not acknowledge at least several key factors:
  • De-Stalinization that was initiated in the Soviet Union under Nikita Khrushchev involving the repudiation of Stalin's policies and especially the cult of personality built around Stalin.
  • The deviation from Stalin's policies and repudiation of Stalin by Yugoslavia under Josip Broz Tito
  • The development of Maoism in the name of Marxism-Leninism whereby Mao's views and policies took precedence in China and supporters of Mao's perspectives.
  • Attempted reforms in Czechoslovakia by Alexander Dubček during Prague Spring involving major liberalization.
  • The policies of Perestroika and Glasnost during the Mikhail Gorbachev era in the Soviet Union.

Of course Stalin played a leading role in the development of the original form of Marxism-Leninism, but it is inaccurate to assume that it exclusively can be associated with Stalin alone.-- (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

What you do not understand is that Stalinism (or "Marxism-Leninism", as its proponents call it) is an ideology which does not necessarily have to involve Stalin himself. De-Stalinization was about removing the figure of Stalin, not Stalinism. I do not understand how any of this is relevant. Sounds like someone wants to remove facts to make Stalinism looks better. Zozs (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
@ and Zozs: Stalinism and Marxism-Leninism are not the same, for instance, at the beginning (1985-87, when he initiated conservative reforms) Gorbachev was a anti-Stalinist Marxist-Leninist.. Marxism-Leninism was coined by the Soviet propaganda apparatus, Stalinism was coined by Lazar Kaganovich for an entirely different purpose.. They are not identical, and should not be treated as such... The term was not a propaganda term, it was an ideological construct. I don't care what the source say that is just plain wrong (its WP:FRINGE).. Why is this the third sentence; "There is no definite agreement between historians of about whether Stalin actually followed the principles of Marx and Lenin"? The consensus is that he was a devoted communist, Marxist and Leninist; Stephen Kotkin's new book, Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928, bases the premise on the Stalinist terror because he was a devoted communist. Deviations? Darn, even Leninism had deviations from Marxism, but thats not mentioned in the lead of the Leninism article.... At last, the lead is breaching WP:SYNTHESIS in every conceivable manner. I'm reverting to the pre-Zozs lead per WP:CONSENSUS. --TIAYN (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with TIAYN's decision.-- (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Zozs has reverted TIAYN's edit, he says that consensus has not been achieved on the matter. Thinking about this matter I have concluded that frankly, until there is greater input by other users to see where others stand, there appears to be no consensus for either Zozs' edit or TIAYN's edit. Zozs clearly appears to be saying that Marxism-Leninism is a propaganda term for Stalinism, therefore the debate must be direct on the topic - per Zozs' claim I request that a vote be held on whether to merge this article into the Stalinism article. However before that is done, I believe two things need to be done.

1) Experts be brought in on the topic of political ideology related to Marxism and the variants of Marxism developed within the Soviet Union and their offshoots in other countries

2) After the first step has been utilized, utilization of Wikipedia's Request for comment (RfC) procedure would be done to bring in a wider array of analysis and to review the arguments and then present their analysis and side of support in a straw poll determine whether to maintain this as an independent article or merge it into the Stalinism article.

-- (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. TIAYN summed up his stance well: "I don't care what the source say that is just plain wrong". Then he proceeds to do his typical edit warring to get his version through. Even though I already provided several sources, you both want to personally veto information in the article because it doesn't fit your own views. Well, this is not valid behaviour in Wikipedia. Either you provide sources or the article stays as I left it. Zozs (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I personally do not hold Marxist-Leninist views, or Stalinist views, or any Marxist views for that matter. To insinuate that of me to make some sort of justification to distrust my contributions with no evidence is ad hominem and inappropriate. I am attempting to examine this objectively and carefully. Both of you, TIAYN and Zozs need to uphold Wikipedia's principles. Both of you have demonstrated behaviour that is not constructive and is preventing a resolution from moving forward. Lastly, yes, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it is based on reliable sources and establishment of consensus, neither of you have demonstrated that you have consensus for your edits. I suggest an interim restoration of the article to a point prior to the current dispute that is acceptable to both parties of the current dispute.-- (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
@Zozs: You are edits are bad, first because it breaches WP:SYNTHESIS, and second, since you know to little about Marxist theory to actually do a proper synthesis. Lets look at reference 9 from you're version, in which you include a quote to prove you're point; "If one thing is certain it is that our party and the working class can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat"... Per definition the Soviet Union was democratic because the people were not exploited by private property, hence logically it was more democratic then its Western counterparts. Classical marxism, that is the Marxism of Karl Marx, Engels and co, all agreed upon the assumption that real democracy could only take hold when private propety was abolished, and that the abolishment of private property would lead democracy... While you're right that the dictatorship of the proletariat represents the majority, it does mean elections. The democratic element of the dictatorship of the proletariat is that the proletariat rule and private property is abolished, but society is still class dictatorship, which means the state has the right to oppress opposition as it pleas. To quote Engels himself (in Anti-Dühring);

"we accordingly reject every presumptuous attempt to impose upon us any dogmatic morality whatever, as eternal, final immutable ethical laws, under the pretext of that moral world has its permanent principles which stand above history and national differences. We maintain, on the contrary, that all past theories of morality are the product in the last instance of the contemporary condition of society. And just as society has hitherto moved in class antagonisms, so has morality always been a class morality; either it justified the rule and the interests of the ruling class, or as soon as the oppressed class became powerful enough, it championed the revolt against this rule and the future interests of the oppressed."

What makes Marxism so darn controversial is that it doesn't oppose the use of violent means in tandem with the fact that its a movement based on a premise of anti-moralism (literally the notion of a universal which goes through all classes) and is on the side of the proletariat... But alas, if you don't understand fine. Workers of these countries by definition controlled state property because it was public property. Alas, you're lead is also biased. You've forgotten Yugoslavia's workers' self-management and Gorbachev's reform in the 1980s which literally gave the employees the right to pay themselves, to elect their boss and so on. At last, you also don't seem to understand the point of the premise of the vanguard party. The Vanguard Party is the party of the proletariat, it is the party that represents the majority and so and so as the theory goes. And while I don't support this theory, every leader with the exception of Lenin and Gorbachev had been workers by profession. The majority of Politburo members had been workers by profession. Scholars often try to explain the Brezhnev Generation's ideological zeal by this and this alone; they were nearly all workers, and not surprisingly, in their minds the dictatorship of the proletariat had proved an outstanding success.
Of course, there are other things to (all of which the IP user explained), but he forgot some. For instance why is this in the lead (or even in the article); "Trotskyism describes itself as a Marxist and Leninist tendency.". Its a difference from a follower Marxism and Leninism and being a follower of Marxism-Leninism.. There is a difference between Maoism and Mao Zedong Thought (not in the West, but in China, and in Asia in general).. And agani, I'm mentioning Kotkin (one of the leading scholars in his field, his book is based on the premise that he was an ideological zealot who followed the basic premises of Marxism) and his book Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928 again.. Other problem, while Stalinism is not an official ideology in which any ruling communist party has adhered too, its an ideology in the sense that smaller communist parties continually call themselves stalininst rather than communist'
MOst importantly, and a reason for itself for a full revert its your blatant synthesising. Yes, you did with Engels quote, but that could be understood as basic misunderstanding of Marxism which isn't a bad thing really since nobody reads those texts anymore. Reference 4, 5 and 6 all source this sentence "It also contains deviations from both Marxism and Leninism, such as "socialism in one country".". First, this extremely controversial sentence is sourced by History for the IB Diploma: Communism in Crisis 1976-89, which is surpising to say the least. Get a proper scholar, not a cheap school book. And at, as seen in reference 4 it only states "socialism in one country, a pragmatic deviation from classical Marxism".. Lenin was pragmatist, Trotsky was pragmatist, literally every leading figure in the Bolshevik party were pragmatists. I can't think of one leading figure who ever complained that Lenin was too pragmatic. The only reason socialism in one country is highlighted .. And as always, you seem to think there is one interpretation of Marxism which is ironic to say the least since the reason why people say Stalinism is un-Marxist is because Stalin got in his head that he was the only person who could interpret Marxism correctly. There is not, and never will be, one interpretation of anything Zozs. If you want to live in a society which pretends to live in such a world move to North Korea. --TIAYN (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
TIAYN, please cease the ad hominem behaviour. It is not acceptable and it will only agitate the user Zozs. Zozs is correct on one point, you need to present reliable sources to verify the points that you are making, including here. I see one, but there needs to be others.-- (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
@ My point was this; his so-called sources are not sources at all; sources like these History for the IB Diploma: Communism in Crisis 1976–89 is nor written by a scholar, the book, Socialism Today and Tomorrow, is written by a couple ideologues (you wouldn't use a source by Fukuyama as a reference in the communism article would you? Why? He is a philosopher not a reliable scholar per say, Fukuyama thinks and intepretats he does not write facts). Fukuyama is a philosopher... He uses Marxist texts but the quotes only show that he doesn't understand what the meaning of them, which means its WP:SYNTHESIS. And literally, the Marxist movement is based upon these texts, how in gods name can these same texts be used as references in an article about the Marxist movement itself? ... Some of the references, as mentioned, don't even verify what the lead says. For instance, reference 4 in his version says "socialism in one country, a pragmatic deviation from classical Marxism" (which is a quote from the author). Okay Stalin was pragmatic, but that sentence does not imply " also contains deviations from both Marxism and Leninism, such as "socialism in one country".".. Pragmatism and deviations are not the same. I don't need source since what I'm showing you is that he is synthesising, and synthesising is not allowed on Wikipedia.--TIAYN (talk) 01:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
That you believe that you have nullified his use of sources does not make up for a current lack of sufficient reliable sources in the article describing what Marxism-Leninism is, and in particular, the claim that it has distanced itself from Stalinism. I think we are all very close to breaching WP:NOTTRUTH. There are various perspectives on it, not just one, an unusual agreement between Trotskyists and neoliberals would probably agree that all of Marxism-Leninism is Stalinism, whereas close devotees of Stalin would say that Khruschchev violated Stalin's legacy.-- (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I may sound like an asshole, but my point still stands. We even seem to agree, there are truths in this world so this lead should not act like it.. The current lead, which I reverted to, was just the first lead before Zozs changed it. I have not written it. Per WP:CONSENSUS you can revert to the version before the controversial changes took place. Thats what I did. At last, a lead does not need to be sourced since, per definition, whats mentioned in the lead has to be mentioned in the body of the text. --TIAYN (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I honestly couldn't care less if you think my knowledge about Marxism is "not good"; almost the whole of what you posted above is little less than a personal rant, not relevant to Wikipedia. I don't care what your opinions about Marxism, based on your original research over primary sources, are. And, the lead as I left it was as much as an interpretation and is the current lead. I'll skip to the only relevant part: the sources. The question is, is there any neutral source which says that socialism in one country is not a deviation? And, the only thing you seemed to dispute was the 'socialism in one country' thing: which does not provide reasoning for reverting the whole thing. You still have provided no reliable sources, I have provided several above. Zozs (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
What one calls a "deviation" from Marxism another could call a "modernization" of Marxism or a "pragmatic tactic" to achieve it. WP:NOTTRUTH applies, various perspectives exist on this, all major perspectives should be acknowledged.-- (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
IP, the intro does not say what you says it does and accusing other editors of bias is not likely to gain their support. You have not presented any suggestions. TFD (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
What I have been meaning to say is that there are multiple major perspectives on the relationship of Marxism-Leninism to Stalinism, as described above. Recognized major perspectives on this topic need to be included in the article. Such would include the claim that Marxism-Leninism is the same as Stalinism; and the claim that following World War II, the Tito-Stalin Split and the policy of de-Stalinization of Nikita Khrushchev were examples of Marxist-Leninist governments distancing themselves from Stalin's policies and legacy.-- (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
My lead said that "Marxism-Leninism" was a term created by Joseph Stalin, which describes the characteristics of the system implemented by Stalin in the Soviet Union - characteristics which were common with Kruschev and Tito's governments. It is irrelevant whether they distanced themselves from Stalin as a person or from his violent methods. Zozs (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
We have had a lot of arguments about what this term means and also other terms in articles about left-wing politics. Each article should be about a separate topic, otherwise they are confusing. From my reading the term refers to the ideology of the founders of the Soviet Union, their allies and successors, and it distinguishes them from other, mostly revisionist, Marxists who rejected revolution or at least the one in Russia. But today, non-Marxist-Leninist Marxists are rare. TFD (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
In response to Zozs, if you remove Stalin's "violent methods" as you say - the purges, persecution of political opponents and Kulaks, and the gulags, etc., then you are left with rapid industrialization, a commitment to focus on developing socialism in one's own country, a personality cult, and a few other elements. Now aside from the issue of the personality cult and environmentalist criticism of rapid industrialization, why would any of Stalin's successors disagree with rapidly developing an agricultural economy to an industrial economy? Many Cold War era African countries would be effectively be subscribing to Stalinism by that description if the violent methods are not included. I completely disagree, I think opposition to the violent methods is fundamental because aside from outside criticism of the economics of the Soviet Union, the extreme levels of violence under Stalin's regime towards people in the Soviet Union and aggression towards other communist figures in other countries are the very basis for opposition to it.-- (talk) 08:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The personality cult is part of Stalinism too. TFD (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: Stalinism and Marxism–Leninism are not the same. It was the same during Stalin's rule, but changed after his death (for instance, the leadership opposed the cult of personality, talked of collective leadership and some cases even made a break with Stalininsm; Khrushchev's peaceful coexistence was the exact opposite of Stalin's two-camp theory). They were the same under Stalin, but after Stalin Stalinism ment the same thing while Marxism-Leninism changed. --TIAYN (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
TIAYN, I never said Stalinism and Marxism-Leninism are the same thing. Why are you saying that I did? TFD (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I guess I didn't read it properly. Sorry.--TIAYN (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Not a problem. TFD (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Provide reliable sources that recognize what you have just said above and your points here will be more grounded. This site is based on reliable sources, not conjecture that we are all guilty to some degree of doing here to attempt to have other users understand the perspectives at hand.-- (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll be honest, if you want to improve the article, instead of asking me to verify my own statements, why don't do a quick book search and see if I'm right or wrong. Per WP:CONSENSUS I just reverted back to the old lead. I'm not defending this lead, I'm not defending anything. I'm just saying Zozs lead was unneutral and unfactual ,and you seemed to agree with me on point 1. This is how WP work, read WP:CONSENSUS yourself. .. I'll be honest, this article is terrible, and discussing the problem won't work. However, I'm not interested in fixing this article, I'm currently working on the 27th Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and Communist Party of China-related articles in general. --TIAYN (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I too do not have all the time in the world to devote to this article. Another user with expertise on this topic who has some time to spare would be valuable to request assistance from.-- (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
"Assistance" is already here - everything was already talked about. None of you have any sourced argument, all you do is apply a personal veto of information through edit wars. Exactly the wrong behavior. Zozs (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I must add people, Zozs is the guy who recommended at the Talk:Soviet Union, that the Soviet Union shouldn't be categorized as a socialist state. He is clearly trying to push his fringe view on Wikipedia. No Zozs, this is not a personal attack, just an observation. I can't think another Wikipedian who has lobbied so hard to not categorize the socialist states as socialist, and calling all the ideologies of communism a fraud. I've never read a serious philosopher, political party or any one really, who claims what you claim. Even Trotskyism just claims the Soviet Union was a degenerate workers state (of course, the most radical once claims they established deformed workers' state).. THe crux of the matter is this thou, the majority of reliable sources (those written by scholars in Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge, Berlin, Oslo and so on) categorizes Marxism-Leninism as an ideology and the communist countries as socialist states... Serious scholars, such as A. James Gregor notes however that communism, Leninism Marxism-Leninism are simplifications of Marxism, but thats not very surprising since ideology is a simpler form of philosophy. But Gregor still claims, even his book Marxism and the Making of China: A Doctrinal History, that present-day China's rulers are communist in the sense that they think communist, and as he notes, thinking is as important as doing. Of course, I'm going of topic. Me and the other dudes have made our observations clear; instead of reverting the edits, what about actually listening to the criticism and solve the riddle so I and the other wants can focus our attention on something else. Yes, you can have a paragraph of criticism of Marxism-Leninism, but as with all criticism, the criticism should not introduce the reader to the topic, rather the criticism should come after the mainstream observation, which is that Marxism-Leninism is a political ideology conceived by the Stalinist leadership to establish Marxism to present-day conditions. The problem with you're lead Zozs, is that you start the article not be actually telling the reader what Marxism-Leninism is, but rather, what critics claim Marxism-Leninism is not, and that doesn't help anybody, does it? --TIAYN (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
In response to Zozs, I am not opposing nor personally vetoing the adding of any relevant and reliably sourced information to the intro provided that it recognizes the fact that there are multiple perspectives on this topic and that is in line with WP:CONSENSUS. As I have said before, WP:NOTTRUTH applies and all major recognized perspectives need to be shown. I have suggested that outside help through a request for comment (RfC) or a request for experts on the topic be brought in to provide a wider perspective on the topics at hand. I agree with both TIAYN and you in general principle that the article needs a major overhaul with more reliable sources. However I do not have a lot of time to work on this, though.-- (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
In response to TIAYN, please cease the ad hominem remarks about Zozs, if you have criticisms of the content of Zozs' edits focus on the content not on the character of the editor. If you cannot at the present time out of frustration, then please consider taking take a break and then come back when you feel ready.-- (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: I am currently looking up reliable sources for both the argument of a post-Stalinist period in the Soviet Union, and the argument of Marxism-Leninism being the same as Stalinism, particularly after the changes in the Soviet Union brought about by Khrushchev. I do not know if the list of the arguments will be exhaustive, as I regularly do not have a lot of time to do so.-- (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources describing the relation of Stalinism to the post-Stalin era Soviet Union, especially in the Khrushchev era[edit]

(Please respond in the comment section after this list)

This list of reliable sources and the notes on them is not yet exhaustive, I will add more material to this list when I have time to find more, and will post notes in the comment section about new additions to the list.-- (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Sources speaking of Khrushchev both condemning components of Stalinism and creating a "post-Stalinist" period while also speaking of Khrushchev retaining other components of Stalinism[edit]

Khrushchev: The Man and His Era (2003)[edit]
  • Title: Khrushchev: The Man and His Era. Author: William Taubman, Publisher: W.W. Norton & Company. Year: 2003.
    • Notes: William Taubman is an American political scientist and this biography of Khrushchev won the Pulitzer Prize in 2004. The author speaks of a “post-Stalinist” period following the rise of Khrushchev to power, though also says that components of Stalinism remained.
      • In the preface on page XIII, Taubman describes the time period in which Khrushchev lived, saying: “Revolution, civil war, collectivization and industrialization, terror, world war, cold war, late Stalinism, post-Stalinism—Khrushchev took part in them all.”
      • On page 271 it describes in detail Khrushchev’s direct attacks on Stalin in the famous 1956 speech, showing Khrushchev stating Stalin was responsible for “grave abuse of power”, stating that during his reign “mass arrests and deportation of thousands and thousands of people, and executions without trial or normal investigation, created insecurity, fear and even desperation.”
      • From pages 271 to 272 it shows Khrushchev saying that Stalinist charges of counter-revolutionary crimes had been “absurd, wild, and contrary to common sense” and that innocent people confessed to crimes “because of physical methods of pressure, torture, reducing them to unconsciousness, depriving them of judgement, taking away their human dignity”.
      • On page 272 it shows Khrushchev saying that Stalin “personally called in the interrogator, gave him instructions, and told him which methods to use, methods that were simple—to beat, beat, and once again, beat.” It says that Khrushchev denounced Stalin for incompetent wartime leadership and for the “monstrous” deportation of the whole Caucasian peoples.
      • On page 272 it says that Khrushchev declared that Stalin had betrayed Lenin and that Khrushchev pledged to return the Soviet Union to Leninism.
      • On page 272 the book, speaking of Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin the following: “Despite all this and more, Khrushchev’s indictment was neither complete nor unalloyed. The Stalin he depicted had been a paragon until the mid-thirties. Although the Trotskyite and Bukharinist oppositions hadn’t deserved “physical annihilation,” they had been “ideological and political enemies.””
      • On page 273 it says that other members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union were in a state of shock by Khrushchev’s speech, as they had not anticipated it. On the same page it also describes one witness describing Khrushchev’s “emotion and agitation”. It says that Khrushchev displayed hatred towards Stalin when he was speaking of Stalin’s accountability for the defeats in Kiev and Kharkov from 1941 to 1942. The same witness stated that Khrushchev cried out in fury about Stalin saying, “He was a coward. He panicked. Not once during the whole war did he dare go to the front.” In short the author’s analysis appears to me to be saying that Khrushchev’s action was unknown in advance by many and that Khrushchev may have been emotionally committed to the denunciation of Stalin and that it may not have been a political ploy.
      • On page 274, the author puts forth his analysis of Khrushchev’s actions as being major ones, saying that “Khrushchev’s speech denouncing Stalin was the bravest and most reckless thing he ever did.” Going on to say how this action immediately threatened his leadership of the Communist Party months later with a majority of the members of the party’s Presidium voting in favour of removing Khrushchev as party leader, though he managed to politically outmanoeuvre his opponents and stay in power.
One could say that Stalinist is normally used to describe Stalin's specific ideology and rule and regimes closely modeled on his, such as Albania. The term is also used, often pejoratively, to describe later Communists, particularly the more hard-line ones. While we may mention that in the article, articles are supposed to be about topics, per disambiguation. I suggest that policy requires that this article be about Stalinism in the first sense, while Stalinism in the second belongs in the Marxism-Leninism article. TFD (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
”Lenin’s Legacy: The Story of the CPSU”, Hoover Institution Publication 192 (1978)[edit]
  • Title: “Lenin’s Legacy: The Story of the CPSU”, Hoover Institution Publication 192. Author: Robert G. Wesson. Publisher: Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. Year: 1978.
    • The author Robert G. Wesson was a scholar of international affairs and senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution.
      • From page 195-196. “…having risen as a product of the Stalinist machine and played on the Stalinist priorities of heavy industry, vigilance, and party control, Khrushchev reversed these priorities and promoted degree of relaxation at home and abroad. Worse he turned savagely against the former demigod, shattered his idol, and thereby endangered not only the sacred value of the Soviet system, party supremacy, but his own position as well. To be sure, he was not consistent in this course; several times he turned around to praise Stalin, tighten controls on the arts, and so on. Yet on the whole Khrushchev did much more than any other person to lead the Soviet Union away from Stalinism.”

Sources speaking of Khrushchev as still being a Stalinist after the official denunciation[edit]

Union Sovietique, Volume 14, University of Pittsburgh, University Center for International Studies (1987)[edit]
    • The author T.H. Rigby was a historian of the Soviet Union.
      • On page 125 the source notes describing Khrushchev as being a “Stalinist with a difference” “who won the post-Stalin succession struggle by combining Stalinist political skills and personal dynamism-a combination he failed to adapt well to the task of keeping power ...”

Comment section[edit]

One could say that Stalinist is normally used to describe Stalin's specific ideology and rule and regimes closely modeled on his, such as Albania. The term is also used, often pejoratively, to describe later Communists, particularly the more hard-line ones. While we may mention that in the article, articles are supposed to be about topics, per disambiguation. I suggest that policy requires that this article be about Stalinism in the first sense, while Stalinism in the second belongs in the Marxism-Leninism article. TFD (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I have moved your comment here as I requested that users do at the beginning of the post on the list. If you want to move it back that's okay, but I am going to be adding more sources there and it will be very confusing if comments are all over the place. I think we have to recognize that Stalinism is a very politically charged word with pejorative associations with political violence and political repression due to Stalin's track record. When using it we have to be very specific of what we are referring to. Marxism-Leninism in the Soviet Union from Khrushchev on continued Stalin's opposition to Trotskyism, the command economy that Stalin created remained in place, Khrushchev continued and escalated the Cold War that began with Stalin to the severe point of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and lastly heavy-handed measures to crackdown on anti-Soviet elements in the Warsaw Pact continued under Khrushchev. However it becomes even more complicated once Josip Broz Tito, Mikhail Gorbachev and Deng Xiaoping are brought into the perspective; as each of them publicly sought to replace the command economy with market socialism. Also in the case of Gorbachev there was major liberalization of politics in the Soviet Union prior to its collapse, far exceeding that of Khrushchev's political liberalization in the 1960s.-- (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

We have do decide what Stalinism is, an ideology or practice[edit]

I for one prefer ideology conceived and implemented under Stalinism.

  • In Soviet Marxism-Leninism: The Decline of an Ideology it reads "The mixture of old and new thinking was also evident in Khrushchev's main theoretical contribution to Soviet ideology concerning international affairs, his introduction of the notion that peaceful coexistence was the central principle that should govern the relationship between socialist and capitalist systems."... This was in contrast to "Lenin [who] had depicted international relations as dominated by the principle of class struggle, and Stalin had erected the thesis of the polerization of international relations between the camps of socialism and capitalism into ideological orthodoxy by the late 1940s."
  • "Gorbachev's statement in 1990 that Stalinism had made a sharp departure not only from the ideals of socialism but also from 'the European humanistic tradition' implied that the Soviet leadership, was in a substantial extent, responsible for the Soviet Union's estrangement from the West."
  • "At a joint Marxism-Leninism and history and theory departmental meeting in the fall of 1956, Pekelis urged teachers to speak honestly in class about their own culpability for the scholarly sins of Stalinism. "

" In Ideology and the Collapse of the Soviet System: A Critical History of Soviet Ideological Discourse, "The 'cult of personality' , Khrushchev claimed, was 'alien to Marxism-Leninism and not consonant with the principles of the party leadership and the norms of party life".

  • In Historical Dictionary of Marxism, "The term 'Stalinism' refers both to the nature of the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin's rule and to the interpretation of Marxism sanctioned by Stalin and promulgated by the Soviet Union while he was in power. Never official terms, "Stalinism" and "Stalinist" gained currency only after Stalin's death and, particularly, after his denunciation by Nikita Khrushchev [...]"
  • Imre Nagy, in Stalinism Revisited: The Establishment of Communist Regimes in East-Central Europe, "the Stalinist monopoly of Marxism-Leninism led to domination of the explanation's of Marx's and Lenin's teachings and of the workers' parties politics by the views that acknowledged the ways, forms and methods used to build socialism in the Soviet Union as the sole correct way to apply the principles of scientific socialism."
  • In A History of Modern Russia from Nicholas II to Vladimir Putin "Articles appeared in Pravda proclaiming that that the masses rather then a single leaders made history. Marxism-Leninism was stated to be hostile to any 'cult of the individual' and to favour '[[collective leadership'"., 332
  • The same book, Gorbachev "believed that Marxism-Leninism had been distorted since Lenin's time". 449
  • As mentioned in Developed Socialism in Soviet Ideology, the USSR went from a proletarian dictatorship to an All-People's State
  • I could have listed far more, but this is the conclusion I've reached (which is the same one as before); in practice, Stalinism continued to exist (no reintroduction of party democracy, Stalinist economic policy and no reversals of the institutions building, or destroying to say another word, of the Stalinist project, or as Gorbachev himself said (The Chinese Reassessment of Socialism, 1976-1992 page 245) the entire period after Stalin's death was "Post-Stalinism"..... However, Marxism-Leninism developed into a distinct ideology with the introduction of peaceful coexistence, the Khrushchev Thaw, later detente and the repudiation of the camp theory, the aggravation of class struggle under socialism (which rationalized killing the class enemy) and a new interpretation of People's democracy (Marxism–Leninism)... It was an ideological break with Stalinism, but not the system of Stalinism. This article is about ideology, therefore it should say a break took place. --TIAYN (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not see how any of these sources is relevant. (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Why remove this section?[edit]

I appreciate that you have some agreement with my new lead but cannot understand you removing this section. Also, note that the sources being used say that it was Joseph Stalin himself, the individual, who developed "Marxism-Leninism" as an ideology. The historian who wrote the sources traces the origin of "Marxism-Leninism" and its ideas to one book written by Joseph Stalin himself.

Also, it's often debated whether Marxism-Leninism is really about Stalin or not (this talk page is full of it), so I think it's really useful to have these two sources in the first paragraph which clearly associate it with Stalin.

The removed section says the following:

  • Other communist and Marxist tendencies have, however, a different view. They argue that Marxist–Leninist states did not establish socialism, but rather state capitalism.

Correct. Many tendencies of Marxism, represented by many well-known individuals and groups which are not Marxist-Leninist ("other tendencies"), clearly state that the Soviet Union was "state capitalist". Although the source says that the Soviet Union was not state capitalist, it clearly recognizes that it is true that non-Marxist-Leninist Marxist groups have upheld the theory of USSR as state capitalist. We're not saying the USSR was state capitalist here - we're saying that these Marxist groups have such a view.

Yes, it is true that many Trotskyists do not regard the USSR as state capitalist, but Trotskyists are once again only one tendency of the Marxist movement. Their view could be mentioned as well, but there's no reason for removing this information. Trotskyists are not the ultimate counter-position to Marxism-Leninism.

  • Marxism's dictatorship of the proletariat represents a democratic form of rule of the majority; single-party rule (which the Marxist-Leninist states made use of) cannot be a dictatorship of the proletariat under the Marxist definition.

As well, there is no reason for removing this. The given source quite clearly states that the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' represents a democratic concept, and also explicitly states that it cannot have the form of single-party rule.

  • Additionally, according to co-founder of Marxism Friedrich Engels, state property by itself is private property of capitalist nature

Yes, the quote from Engels says exactly this. It is well known that Marxists, from the beginning, have been concerned with the issue of socialization vs. nationalization - social property vs. state property. Original Marxism has supported the former and been critical of the latter, while "Marxism-Leninism" has supported the latter.

There is no reason for removing this, given that it is explaining the formerly listed groups' reasons for regarding the USSR as state capitalist.

  • To other communist tendencies, Marxism–Leninism is neither Marxism nor Leninism nor the union of both, but rather an artificial term created to justify Stalin's ideological distortion.

Correct - this is exactly what non-Marxist-Leninists Marxists say about Marxism-Leninism, and the source - as well as other sources used in the article - says exactly this.

Zozs (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The new edits replacing "Other communist and Marxist tendencies have, however, a different view" for "Some" is incorrect. For starters, "Some" is an extreme expression of weasel wording, and attempts to hide the fact that this is an actual view held by Marxists. "My" interpretation of Engels isn't being used - I limit myself to saying exactly what Engels said there. "cannot be a dictatorship of the proletariat under the Marxist definition they argue." is wrong - the source is not saying that some Marxist groups have said that the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot take the form of single-party rule. The source says that the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot take the form of single-party rule. The source is not written by a Marxist, and is not talking about Marxist groups either - it's simply explaining Marxism's original position in regard to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Zozs (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Zozs: I know Marxists who supported the Soviet Union.. Eric Hobsbawn, E. P. Thompson (and I could go on forever).... The lead literally says now "There is no definite agreement between historians if Marxism–Leninism is a form of Marxism.[3] Some argue that Marxist–Leninist states did not establish socialism, but rather state capitalism.[4] Marxism's dictatorship of the proletariat represents a democratic form of rule of the majority; single-party rule (which the Marxist-Leninist states made use of) cannot be a dictatorship of the proletariat under the Marxist definition they argue.[5] To other communist tendencies, Marxism–Leninism is neither Marxism nor Leninism nor the union of both, but rather an artificial term created to justify Stalin's ideological distortion.[6]" Its says exactly what you want it to say; that many people argue M-L isn't communist nor Marxist. --TIAYN (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
We're talking about Marxists who do not support the Soviet Union here. I've refuted each of your edits in detail, you haven't refuted my refutation. So I we should go back to my version? Zozs (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, saved too quickly. @Zozs:
To reply to the other points: "My" interpretation of Engels isn't being used - I limit myself to saying exactly what Engels said there". Wrong, since according to M-Ls and the Leninists, the party was based on the working class and therefore represented the interests of the working class, therefore, per definition according to rationalization public property in those states were socialist. You are saying their ideological rationalization is false while those that are critizign them are right... "The source says that the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot take the form of single-party rule" - if thats what the author believe, add the authors name in the introduction. ... This line, "The source is not written by a Marxist, and is not talking about Marxist groups either - it's simply explaining Marxism's original position in regard to the dictatorship of the proletariat", is complete BS (sorry, I'm breaching every conceivable WP guideline on not being an asshole). You're lead says outright that M-Ls ideological rationalization are completely false, while everybody elses ideological rationalization is completely spot on. How is that not bias? There are thousands of historians who believe Stalin had to come after Lenin. There are thousands of historians, political scientists who believe that communism had to lead to terror. I don't subsribe to those views, but why in gods name aren't you mentioning them? Why? Because for the sake of neutrality, they should be mentioned. And come on Zozs, the right-wing interpretation of communism has more mainstream hegemony then the left-wing has. --TIAYN (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
"Wrong, since according to M-Ls and the Leninists, the party was based on the working class and therefore represented the interests of the working class, therefore, per definition according to rationalization public property in those states were socialist." 1) We're explaining the views of non-Marxist-Leninist Marxists here. 2) Another of the sources says that the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Marxist concept, cannot take the form of single-party rule. 3) Then we could add this sentence back: "Additionally, according to Engels, state property by itself is private property of capitalist nature[10] unless the proletariat has control of political power, in which case it forms public property.[11] Whether the proletariat was actually in control of the Marxist–Leninist states is a matter of debate between Marxism–Leninism and other communist tendencies". "if thats what the author believe, add the authors name in the introduction." Why? It's not an opinion article. It is proper academic research. "Complete BS" - Your opinion. "You're lead says outright that M-Ls ideological rationalization are completely false, while everybody elses ideological rationalization is completely spot on". No. My lead explains both views, and you want to compromise the explanation of the other view. "There are thousands of historians who believe Stalin had to come after Lenin. There are thousands of historians, political scientists who believe that communism had to lead to terror." If you claim this, then you need a source which says exactly that the dictatorship of the proletariat, in a Marxist sense, can take the form of single-party rule. If you don't have that, then don't beat around the bush with "similar" claims. "And come on Zozs, the right-wing interpretation of communism has more mainstream hegemony then the left-wing has." Well, this article is not about that. There are several articles about that. I take it you agree with me on all other points you didn't reply to? Zozs (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
@Zozs: The current lead explains both views. Zozs, I don't know you, but if you've attended university or college (don't mean to sound like an arrogant asshole) you've probably learnt that a lead is supposed to introduce the reader to the topic. Having one minor paragraph on the subject of it being marxist or communist is fine, devoted more attention to it then to actually introduce the reader to the topic however is not fine... And of course, even worse. None of what you've mentioning is mentioned in the body of the article, therefore I have another reason to reduce because i defend basic, international text structures; leading, body, conclusion (wp does not have conclusions thought, so just lead, body...)
@Zozs: I don't need a source, I just need to point you Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the Czech communists, the german communists, the French communists, Eurocommunists - in genreal every movement accepts that you can have marxims-leninism and a single-party state. These things don't need to be sources, you don't need to source uncontroversial facts. The majority people on the street, who have never read Marxist or M-L texts, would call Soviet variant communist and many would call it Marxist. THis is uncontroversial, and you know this. Don't tell me that the majority of people you speak to don't think the Soviet Union was communist or M-L, because thats a lie and you know it.... Are you claiming that you know more about Marxism then Stalin or Eric Hobsbawn? IT does seem a bit strange that you know more about Marxism then Hobsbawn, but oh well. --TIAYN (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
"The current lead explains both views" Yet you're undermining the explanation of one of the views. "None of what you've mentioning is mentioned in the body of the article, therefore I have another reason to reduce because i defend basic" Then we will have to additionally fix that - but one wrong thing does not justify another wrong thing. "I don't need a source" Correct - this is your mantra. "I just need to point you Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the Czech communists, the german communists, the French communists, Eurocommunists - in genreal every movement accepts that you can have marxims-leninism and a single-party state" - Correct; Marxist-Leninism is compatible with a single-party state. Here we're explaining the non-ML view that a DOTP cannot take the form of a single-party state. "These things don't need to be sources, you don't need to source uncontroversial facts" So you can't find a source? "The majority people on the street, who have never read Marxist or M-L texts, would call Soviet variant communist and many would call it Marxist" Is Wikipedia written to give the opinion of the majority of people, who are additionally uninformed in the given topic? "Are you claiming that you know more about Marxism then Stalin or Eric Hobsbawn? ". I don't know. Are you claiming that you know more about Marxism than Wilhelm Liebknecht or Rosa Luxemburg? Really, almost every party you mentioned was just either ML or had roots in ML with social democratic deviation, and has little, if anything, to do with original Marxism. You've failed to produce a real argument or have a source which refutes my edits, I take it you agree with me on everything else you didn't reply to. Zozs (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
@Zozs: Rosa Luxemburg never said Lenin and co were not communist, she argued the way they sought revolutionary transformation was wrong, and would not give the intended results... Again, you're not telling the whole story.... Yes, Zozs, WP is literally about copying the dominant view of the narrative. Have you read Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Fringe theories.. WPs guidelines says you have to follow the dominant narrative. You don't discuss it, you state it: "Marxism's dictatorship of the proletariat represents a democratic form of rule of the majority; single-party rule (which the Marxist-Leninist states made use of) cannot be a dictatorship of the proletariat under the Marxist definition".. You are not saying someone argues for this position, you're actually stating this as facts.. Since you don't seem to know the actual guidelines, read Wikipedia:Citing sources; "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space.". You are the first user challenging this. Source? Here; Soviet Marxism-Leninism: The Decline of an Ideology. Good book, you should read it. --TIAYN (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
"You are not saying someone argues for this position, you're actually stating this as facts.." Because the source I've used, which is completely valid, says this exactly, as a fact. Exactly what page of your source, and how does your source contradict any of what I said? Throwing random books' names around is not helpful. And please stop argumenting each time a more reduced subset of what the other editor is saying, which starts to go into personal polemics rather than stay objective. Zozs (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@Zozs: Zozs, just because one author says something doesn't make it true. By you're logic and I can use Nazi literature to write and source the Nazism article.. First hit I got; "Marxism calls for the dictatorship of the proletariat to govern the state until the state itself withers away. V . I. Lenin articulated a model for the excercise of this dictatorship [...]", Encyclopedia of the Developing World. But who cares, as WP makes clear, if the majority of people think something, thats what WP focuses on. --TIAYN (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
How is my source about the dictatorship of the proletariat Marxist literature in any way, shape or form?????? And the model in Lenin's theory was rule by workers' councils, not single-party rule. Zozs (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@Zozs: I didn't say it was Marxist. This was my rationalization; you said he's truth deserved to be added just because he has an education and wrote a book, by that rationalization Nazi literature could be used on WP. But we don't, since they don't dominate the narrative. .... At the beginning, but things changed, and he began to support naked dictatorship; --TIAYN (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
<snipped out long quote>
Okay, so? You're still failing to provide a source which explicitly says that Marxism's dictatorship of the proletariat can take the form of a single-party state. You're beating around the bush and trying to get "something which says something similar to this" coupled with your own original research. "This was my rationalization; you said he's truth deserved to be added just because he has an education and wrote a book". No; it's added because it's what the sources say, and there's no contradicting sources. Zozs (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@Zozs: The section you read (and removed) literally said Lenin reinterpreted dictatorship of the proletariat to mean a practical dictatorship, as he said; "Dictatorship means nothing more nor less than authority untrammelled by any laws, absolutely unrestricted by any rules whatever, and based directly on force. The term 'dictatorship' has no other meaning but this". How in gods name you got not saying he supported one-party dictatorship out of that text is, well, incredible. --TIAYN (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
"reinterpreted" "reinterpreted" "reinterpreted" THE CORE KEY WORD HERE BEING "REINTERPRETED". EVEN YOU YOURSELF ADMIT THIS WAS A DEVIATION FROM ORIGINAL MARXISM. What you're doing is WP:SYNTH, taking one source which talks about Lenin's dictatorship of the proletariat in theory and another which talks about Lenin's dictatorship in practice and mixing them. Find me one source which says that Marxism's dictatorship of the proletariat can take the form of single-party rule. I'm tired of your intellectual dishonesty, constant edit warring, personal insults, arguing about 1% of what other editors is saying to keep 99% of your edits. Zozs (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@Zozs: This is unbelievable. The section I showed you, it was referenced line by fucking line.. By who? No other than by Neil Harding, the author of Leninism. Its impossible to discuss anything with you Zozs. THis is not my reinterpretation of Lenin. This is written by Harding. I wrote that section, based on Harding's book. YOu are simply amazing, I'll tell you that. Its absurd. Its like everything I tell you (or any else for that matter) meets a brick wall. --TIAYN (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm giving up, I'm reverting back to consensus version, that is the lead before you're version and before my version. --TIAYN (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
And exactly what justification is there for that? This proves just exactly what I had said about your behavior here in Wikipedia, which is of the most illegitimate kind. You pretend to "sympathize" with people, then slowly compromise everything in their version, one hour later you've reverted back to the version YOU agree with, which you portray as not being "your version" but merely one which someone else written (which is irrelevant, YOU're reverting with it under YOUR decision because YOU agree with it). I don't care about you "giving up" and edit warring to get your version through: I'm actually trying to have a GENUINE DISCUSSION here, so I WILL CONTINUE ARGUMENTING. IF YOU GENUINELY GIVE UP, THEN PUT MY VERSION AND DON'T EDIT WARR, INSTEAD OF REFUSING TO DISCUSS WHILE CHOOSING THE VERSION YOU WANT, WHETHER YOU WROTE IR YOURSELF OR NOT.
Lenin's views are irrelevant. Here we're arguing about whether non-ML Marxism views it is possible to have a dictatorship of the proletariat consisting of single-party rule. In fact your source agrees with me: "similar to Lenin, did not care if a bourgeoise state was ruled accordance with a republican, parliamentary or a constitutional monarchial system since in essence this did not change the overall situation.[4] These systems, even if they were ruled by a small clique or ruled through mass participation, were in the last analysis all, by definition, dictatorships of the bourgeoise who by their very nature implemented policies in defense of capitalism.[5] However, there was a difference; Lenin, after the failures of the world revolutions, argued that this did not necessarily have to change under the dictatorship of the proletariat" Meaning there is a difference between original Marxism and Lenin, in that original Marxism regarded dictatorship of the proletariat as needing mass participation, whereas Lenin did not. Your source talks about how the original views in Lenin's party were closer to Marxism and then started deviating from it. "However, with the ensuing Russian Civil War and the social and material devastation that followed, its meaning was transformed; from commune-type democracy to rule by iron-discipline." Meaning that in the original Marxist view, dictatorship of the proletariat meant "commune-type democracy", and then the Soviet/Lenin's version deviated into "iron-discipline". "These oppressive measures led to another reinterpretation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and socialism in general" Meaning a reinterpretation, in other words, an understanding of the dictatorship of the proletariat different from the original Marxist understanding. "Slogans and theoretical works about democratic mass participation and collective decision-making were now replaced with texts which supported authoritarian management." Harding talks about how at first Lenin's party stuck to the original Marxist view, and then stopped caring about "democratic mass participation", as the original Marxist view began being replaced by their own as it had to fit hte given situation. Zozs (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Zozs, you are taking Engels out of context. In your source he says, "But, the transformation—either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership—does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces...." But he then explains that the State (by which he meant existing states) were merely the agents of the bourgeoisie. That is a reference to Bismarck's nationalization of the railways, which according to Engels did not change the capitalist nature of Germany.
You should not be using 19th century writing to comment on 20th century ideology - it is original research and contrary to policy.
TFD (talk) 07:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure, that is exactly why I wrote the text: "Additionally, according to Engels, state property by itself is private property of capitalist nature[10] unless the proletariat has control of political power, in which case it forms public property.[11]Whether the proletariat was actually in control of the Marxist–Leninist states is a matter of debate between Marxism–Leninism and other communist tendencies" The quote wasn't about Bismarck; Bismarck was only one example, an example to show how even the most non-socialist would be seen as a socialist judging by the wrong standards. What Engels was saying was basically: (in my words) "state ownership by itself does not equate socialism -- if it did, then we'd have to name Bismarck as one of the founders of socialism!" And exactly how is this quote not relevant? It is not original research at all. I'm not making any conclusions by myself, I'm copying exactly what he said. The point is that the non-ML view is being explained. Non-ML Marxists, excluding Trotskyists, say that the USSR was state capitalist. This is part of the paragraph explaining the argument. Zozs (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@Zozs: JUst because there is a difference, doesn't mean its not classical Marxism. For instance ,just because there is a difference between Marxism-Leninism in the 1930 and the 1980s, doesn't make the M-L in the 1980s less M-L. Even TFD agrees with me, and as always, another user is formulating my point in a much better way.--TIAYN (talk) 09:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
TFD is talking about something else. My text says in Marxism's definition, not in Lenin's definition. Lenin may very well be a Marxist, but that doesn't mean his redefinitions (like your quote explains) of Marxism's definitions are Marxism's definitions. Seeing as you have no arguments, you concede that I am right on the point about the dictatorship of the proletariat? Zozs (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
In Engels' quote, he did not say, "the proletariat has control of political power", because he was writing about the bourgeois state. There were no socialist states. The fact that he includes corporations and trusts first makes it obvious what he is talking about. And he does not say it is not socialism because the proletariat do not control them, but because the bourgeoisie continue to control them. Obviously the Russian bourgeoisie did not set up and control state-owned corporations in Soviet Russia. That Engels would have seen it as a form of capitalism, and not socialism or something else is a judgment we should avoid making. TFD (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
He says exactly that later on. Engels: "Solution of the contradictions. The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property." Zozs (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
In the Russian revolution, the means of production "slipped from the hands of the bourgeoisie" and did not transfer to control of the bourgeois government, which had been abolished. Whether or not the Bolsheviks had set themselves up as a new bourgeois is something Engels did not discuss. I suggest you read No original research. We are not supposed to analyze primary sources and present our own conclusions, but report what reliable secondary sources say. TFD (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Like I said this is simply part of the paragraph explaining the arguments of the Marxist critics of ML. It explains first the ML view about how it accurately followed Marxism and then it explains the non-ML Marxist view about how it did not accurately follow Marxism. It does not say which is right. Zozs (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You cannot just say that some people say the Soviet Union was state capitalist, then present your own evidence that backs up that opinion. You need a source that says those people use the quote in Engel's book to back up their opinions. TFD (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Very well, here is the source. Note that although the source concludes that the Soviet Union was not state capitalist, it very well describes that non-ML&non-Trotskyist Marxists have an argument of the Soviet Union as state capitalist. Among others, it mentions a similar quote from Engels' book, see p. 111. (Socialism: Utopian and Scientific is a short extract from Anti-Duhring). We might very well use that quote instead of mine. Zozs (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes it mentions a similar quote but not as part of an argument that the Soviet Union was state capitalist, but that Prussia was. Instead of deciding what should be in the article and finding sources, a better approach is to identify good, relevant sources and reflect what they say. TFD (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion about Prussia only comes later and has no link to Engels' quote. In fact, the paper mentions the quote when talking about the concept of state capitalism, tracing the development of the concept as reflected in Engels' quotes even though the exact term was not used. "none of these [other] writers speculated on the potential emergence of a new, statist form of capitalism. The concept of ‘state capitalism’ was not, however, entirely absent from the socialist literature before 1917, though it was generally used to describe ‘the takeover of industries by a state controlled by or for private capitalists’ (Buick and Crump 1986, p. 118). Marx himself had predicted an ever-increasing role for the state as capitalism continued to evolve (Marx 1867 [1961], chapter XV, section 9), and in Anti-Dühring Engels had written that" and then proceeds to list Engels' quote. Zozs (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
In Oskar Lange's Papers in Economics and Sociology (p. 21-22), he also traces the development of the "state capitalism" concept to Engels' Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. "The Life and Death of Stalinism" (Chapter 2. The Revolutionary Epoch) also traces the development of the state capitalist theory to Engels' book Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Zozs (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
It's clear that Engels was talking about Prussia/Germany - in what other state had this development occurred? But he was not talking about a country that had expropriated the bourgeoisie, then turned ownership of the means of production over to party cadres. And the source you provide does not provide the link between the concept when applied to Engels comments and to Russia - it just says the same term has been applied to both. Could you please read WP:NOR which explains that we cannot put our own conclusions into articles. TFD (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious (there are tons of sources which talk about it) that Engels' quotes from his Socialism: Utopian and Scientific book have been instrumental in the current Marxist argument that the USSR was state capitalist. Engels, in my proposed lead, is merely referenced in the non-ML Marxist view about ML, listing the arguments the non-MLs use. Engels was quite clearly talking about state ownership in general, which he explains constitutes capitalism unless the proletariat has control of "public power" - something which I quite clearly summed up in my lead, which says that both MLs and non-MLs agree on this, but that the difference between MLs and non-MLs is that the MLs believe that the proletariat had control of public power. "And the source you provide does not provide the link between the concept when applied to Engels comments and to Russia - it just says the same term has been applied to both" Wrong - the sources (such as the paper and the Trotskyist book) trace the development of the "USSR as state capitalist" argument to Engels' quotes. That is all. Nothing more is implied. There is no 'original research'. Zozs (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
"It's clearly obvious" is insufficient to include. You need a source that says so. Please provide a passage in a source that says something like "critics of Soviet Russia called it 'state capitalist' because it met the criteria developed by Engels." TFD (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
"American Capitalism: Social Thought and Political Economy in the Twentieth Century", Nelson Lichtenstein. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011. p. 160-161. Zozs (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I have revised my lead to make it even more neutral. There should be no problem now. Zozs (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

More evidence needed to demonstrate that the term "Marxism-Leninism" was invented by Stalin himself[edit]

So far there is only one source being used to make the claim that the term "Marxism-Leninism" was invented by Stalin. And that source is from the Soviet Union - during the pro-Stalin days and after by Stalinist nostalgic writers, Soviet literature heaped immense praise on Stalin, claimed he invented things that he did not. It is well known that the term arose during the Stalinist era in reference to the form of Bolshevik communism that developed from the 1920s onward, however I do not regard that Soviet source used as being reliable for the reasons mentioned previously. What needs to be posted here (as done above in a previous discussion) are quotes of material from reliable scholarly sources able to be read in English that discuss the origins of the term "Marxism-Leninism".

Also, why is it in the first sentence of the intro? I think the first sentence should be explaining what Marxism-Leninism is. Then the origins of the ideology, including the term itself, should be described.-- (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Because what Marxism-Leninism is is a PROPAGANDA TERM designed to promote Stalin's own ideology. It has a very special history and definitely did not originate in the same way other ideologies may have. Especially considering that the term "Marxism-Leninism" is very prone to lead to confusion, the origins must be carefully explained. All reliable sources agree that "Marxism-Leninism" is the term that became used to refer to Stalin's ideology and movement. The origins are pretty clear. Zozs (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

To say that the term "Marxism-Leninism" was invented during the Stalin era is one thing, to say that it was invented by Stalin himself, that is another thing and that needs reliable sources to make that assertion. I'd like to see several reliable sources preferably authored by a scholar who has directly studied the subject, and published by a reputable institution such as a major publishing company or a university. One other point: please do not yell at people with caps, it is not constructive.-- (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Karmanatory's edit[edit]

My justification for reverting is that basically it was a full rewriting of content which looks more like a personal speech than an article. It does not add any new sources, re-writes the article so that it is only slightly based in the sources, and adds new ideas which are not found in the sources. It replaces the high-quality explanations that existed for new, confused and low-quality explanations. It removes and unjustifiably re-locates information. More specifically:

Marxism–Leninism is an ideology of socioeconomic and sociopolitical relations. Its proponents consider it to be based on Marxism and Leninism. Moreover, many of them have considered it to be the only legitimate version of either of those, although many other people with Marxian, Marxist, or Leninist ideas disagree. The Russian Civil War made Leninism the dominant form of Marxism in Russia, and after Lenin's death, Joseph Stalin and his supporters asserted the indivisible unity of Marxism and Leninism by renaming them both with a single name.

Marxism-Leninism is not an indivisible unity of Marxism and Leninism promoted by Stalin and his followers. It is the own ideological creation of Stalin and his followers, as the reliable sources clearly state.

is usually etically viewed as a totalitarian form of socialism (in contrast with democratic socialism) despite its own view (the emic view) that it is democratic because soviets are a form (the ultimate form) of democracy.

Whether it is genuinely a "form of socialism" really is a big matter of debate between the different socialist tendencies. Democratic socialism does not refer to a democratic kind of socialism, but is rather a specific tendency of social democracy. Many anti-authoritarian and democratic socialist ideologies are not known as "democratic socialist", and it would be completely incorrect to refer to them as so. Whether the USSR was actually "Soviet democracy" is only said by Stalinists and this makes it look like "Soviet democracy" is not regarded a form of democracy. The debate is whether the USSR was a Soviet democracy or not, not whether Soviet democracy is democratic.

The Sino-Soviet split was driven mainly by Mao Zedong's disapproval of de-Stalinization in the Soviet Union. He considered this Soviet reformism as revisionism in all the worst senses of that word, including negation of correct ideas. The reaction against such Marxist revisionism (called Anti-Revisionism) became a part of Maoism. Just as Lenin had aimed to take the Marxist label away from any Marxist who was not Bolshevik (most famously the Mensheviks), and just as Stalin had aimed to take the Marxist and Leninist labels away from any Bolshevik who was not Stalinist (most famously the Trotskyists), so too did the Maoists aim to take the Marxist–Leninist label away from any communist who was not Stalinist or Maoist. They did so by declaring that Marxism–Leninism–Maoism was now the only correct and legitimate form of Marxism–Leninism.

This information definitely belongs somewhere else.

There is no reason for moving out the summary of the views of the rest of the Marxist movement out of the lead. It is clearly marked as criticism, and is obviously relevant seeing as the article deals with an ideology which claims itself to be the legitimate heir of Marxism. Zozs (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Good-faith efforts all around, but I'm not convinced that my version is incorrect, nor that the restored version is better. I still think the reverse. From a writing and critical thinking perspective (regardless of a content-expertise perspective), it is a weak assertion that my opening paragraph (specifically, for example, and most importantly out of my paragraphs) has anything about it that is incorrect, based on the very information in the restored version that User:Zozs thinks is better. However, regarding a content-expertise perspective, I am not an expert in this field—rather, I am a university-educated person (who did not major in political science) who is trying to learn more and, along the way as I read various books, to improve Wikipedia articles that are incomplete or muddy. So, given non-expert status, I cannot really fight for reversion, and will accept the status quo for now. I can only hope that anyone with more expertise who reads my version above, and is able and willing to support the parts of it that they think are strong/valid/cogent, will reintroduce those portions at some point in the future.
Regarding "There is no reason for moving out the summary of the views of the rest of the Marxist movement out of the lead. It is clearly marked as criticism, and is obviously relevant seeing as the article deals with an ideology which claims itself to be the legitimate heir of Marxism"—my lede revisions did not move any summary of divergent views out of the lede at all. Other than changing the opening sentence away from the form "X is a term that refers to" (which is generally considered weak and not good enough in Wikipedia, and usually isn't in most instances, compared to "X is"), my version kept all of the same content of ideas, and cites all of the same references for those same ideas, as the restored version does. There seems to be some muddy thinking going on here, and I don't mean that as a personal afront, just as a logical analysis. I'd need more precise explication of this part of the argument to be convinced of it.
Regarding abstruseness, frankly, proponents of revolutionary ideologies do themselves no favors by being unable to explain clearly to others what their ideas even are—not least in ways that pin them down to responsibility and consistency. The easy excuse is that "it's all too advanced—the likes of mere average readers, like all you non-experts, just wouldn't understand." But the bullshit-detector likelihood is that "it's obfuscated bollocks". Compare If it's all so obscure that one can't write a clear Wikipedia article about it, one certainly is presumptuous to assert a right to violently overthrow anything in furtherance of it. I stand by the idea that my version is an etically correct one and furthermore has nothing to do with "a personal speech" whatsoever. It's a strong attempt at an etic analysis from a third-party observer. I'll have more respect for an expert who revamps my version to correct its weak points than from an expert who dismisses it entirely. (This isn't aimed personally at User:Zozs—it's just a logical rejoinder to anyone who asserts that my version is useless. Let's get analytical on a clause-by-clause basis, and see how the logic stacks up.) I'm plenty willing to be proved wrong if anyone has the pedagogical skills to show specifically, blow by blow, where and how each line is wrong. In the meantime, I won't try to edit-war, but I also won't believe in the analytical superiority of anyone else's arguments, either. To me it chalks up to "I can't help these people [experts in this particular field] to express themselves, because they refuse" rather than "these people know better, or think more clearly, than I do". Again, this isn't aimed at any specific user; this is just a logical corollary.
Fortunately, I actually think the restored version is factually accurate, which is vital, despite doing a poor job of explaining to, or teaching, layperson readers who are trying to learn from it. So I can live with it, as accurate, even if it's pedagogically weak (because it's in some way abstruse—one can read it and still feel by the end, "wait—so what is it, exactly, and what is it not?"). As for Marxism–Leninism being something wholly different from Marxism and Leninism (quote "Marxism-Leninism is not an indivisible unity of Marxism and Leninism promoted by Stalin and his followers. It is the own ideological creation of Stalin and his followers"), this is very weak. Very. In fact as I ponder it more, I think it shows either a serious lack of understanding or a non-NPOV view that, in wanting to show how Stalinism was bad (which it surely was), is trying to imagine it as some alien thing that didn't arise from Leninism. In short, wishful thinking that earnest Soviets from Khrushchev to Gorbachev needed to believe in. They were patriotic Soviets who needed to have a kind of de-Stalinization that could censure Stalin yet somehow didn't implicate dear Uncle Lenin; but such a notion was never realistic from a neutral viewpoint. One can empathize with them for needing it, though. But it doesn't make for NPOV. Stalinism as allegedly wholly divorced from Marxism and from the Bolshevism of 1917? It is certainly not, no matter how many legitimate gripes left communists have with it. It is one of various extrapolations that followed Lenin. In 1918, Lenin, Sverdlov, Stalin, and Trotsky were all killers and colleagues with a common Marxism-derived, Lenin-turbocharged ideology. It later forked into clashing branches, yes, but that's got nothing at all to do with two wholly separate trees. The idea that it does is an emic and inaccurate POV looking out from within each branch (within Stalinism, within Trotskyism, within even Khrushchev reformism). Best regards, Karmanatory (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll stick to replying to the latest paragraph, as all the others seem to be an extremely long, obfuscated way of saying "I don't see how my version is worse". Very well, but the lead does not claim that Stalinism is completely divorced from Marxism and Leninism. It merely explains the history of this ideology, and the views of the rest of the Marxist movement about it. Zozs (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say that the lede claims that. I was talking about your own comment here at talk (which is clear because I quoted it). As for "ideology", you reverted my opening sentence (simple, clear) which said "Marxism–Leninism is an ideology of ...", and yet now you're calling it an ideology, too. It is now clear to me that there's a substantial reading comprehension problem in this room. Karmanatory (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
@Zozs and Karmanatory: Karmanatory's version is the better of the two. --TIAYN (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The lead I restored calls it an ideology. Zozs (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Follow-up. I had assumed I was dealing with someone with expertise on this topic and thus that maybe I was missing something subtle that the better-initiated understood. After the reply above and the depth of historical ignorance in this edit's edit summary, I've discovered differently, so I won't be deferring in future. To not understand the conflict that arose in the 1920s and 30s between international communists (such as Trotsky) and advocates of Socialism in One Country (such as Stalin and Bukharin) is a whole other level. I may be an armchair student of these topics, but even I have gotten farther than the first-day orientation. It is honestly not my intention to feud with anyone, but come on, this is less than 101 stuff. Karmanatory (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what you're going on about here. Your speculations about what I understand or not relating to an edit on another article are, to be quite honest, absolutely irrelevant. TIAYN also seems to have provided no arguments. Zozs (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
All of his arguements are nail perfect, you're are inherently stupid. The lead will be changed. --TIAYN (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Great argument! Zozs (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for intro to fully address the influence of Stalin in Marxism-Leninism and criticism of Stalin by Marxist-Leninists[edit]

As mentioned above the Stalin era was crucial in building Marxism-Leninism as an ideology and after Stalin's death there was substantial criticism of Stalin's actions during the Great Purge and World War II by Khrushchev. Even Mao Zedong who was not as publicly condemning of Stalin's actions as Khrushchev, he famously stated that Stalin was 70% correct, 30% wrong.

Here is the proposal for a revised portion of the intro:

"Marxism-Leninism was developed as an ideology during the Stalin era of the Soviet Union that claimed to represent the communist ideology as developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and as modernized and further developed by Vladimir Lenin. Initially the ideology was indistinguishable from Stalinism itself, however several challenges to Stalin's policies as well as other distinct variations of the ideology arose. The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia broke with Stalin's policies in the Tito-Stalin Split and Yugoslavia moved out of the Eastern Bloc and was a leading country in founding the Non-Aligned Movement. Nikita Khrushchev in his famous 1956 speech on Stalin, denounced Stalin's actions in the Great Purge and Stalin's wartime leadership and distanced the Soviet Union from the legacy of political censorship repression of suspected opponents by enacting political liberalization. Mao Zedong's political theories led to new unique perspectives on Marxism-Leninism referred to as Maoism, including challenging the notion that industrial workers were fundamental to promoting communist revolution but that agricultural workers were crucial to it. Movement away from the command economy as developed in the Stalin era Soviet Union towards a form of market socialism occurred in several Marxist-Leninist-led countries, particularly in Yugoslavia and China."-- (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I like it... I will put in into the page against the POV anti M-L part of the intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinkinPark (talkcontribs) 12:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)