The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
Surhone, L. M., Timpledon, M. T., & Marseken, S. F. (2010), Nicos Poulantzas: Political sociology, Marxism, structural Marxism, Leninism, Eurocommunism, social class, instrumentalism, cultural hegemony, Betascript PublishingCS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
Click the "show" link above for further details.
The characterization of Marxism-Leninism as a Pseudoscience is based on the self-characterization of Marxism-Leninism as a science: for example, "The open abandonment by the Soviet revisionists of the scientific Marxist-Leninist concept of socialism comes out clearly, also, when they proclaim the development of the productive forces as the only decisive factor of its construction." and "The frontal attack of Soviet revisionism on the fundamental questions of Marxism-Leninism could not leave the theory and practice of scientific socialism untouched." Fred Bauder 05:52, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
What is your point? Revisionists are, by definition, not Marxist-Leninists. Their abandonment of Leninist precepts is no indictment of Leninism.
It would be inappropriate to speak of Leninism as a pseudoscience in this article. Shorne 08:10, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Designating Marxism, Leninism or Marxism-Leninism as a psuedoscience depends on its proponents calling it science or scientific socialism. The nineteenth century definition of science was quite different from a modern definition. Marx believed he had demonstrated certain dynamics which he considered to have scientifically proved. Freud's work is similar, despite a lack of scientific rigor, certain conclusion are drawn which Freud considered proven. It is appropriate to note that some advocates and practitioners of Leninism consider it to have a scientific foundation and that others consider such thought pseudoscience. Fred Bauder 16:03, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
If you are prepared to present both sides of the dispute honestly, go ahead. Merely asserting that some people consider it a pseudoscience, however, is not helpful. We all know that some people are strongly opposed to Leninism. Shorne 17:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't buy the claim that the Soviet Union "began to move away from" Leninism and towards Stalinism. Stalin claimed to continue Leninism and to develop it, and many people share that opinion. Many others don't, and they are free to disagree, but we shouldn't push one or the other opinion here. Shorne 02:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
who shares this opinion? Freshraisin 19:09, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Me--CmrdMariategui 17:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't matter, this is a factually incorrect opinion. There are a series of differences between Leninism and Stalinism - in fact, every single important, defining characteristic of Leninism is reversed in Stalinism; the position of party democracy, the position on economics, the position on national self-determination, the position on how a revolution occurs in the first place. The Soviet Union didn't just "begin to move away from" Leninism - it completely shattered everything about Leninism that distinguished it as a particular philosophy. Stalinism called itself "Leninist" afterwards, but only because Lenin was a profoundly popular figure in Russia. Heck, North Korea calls itself a "Democratic Republic". - 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what opinion you share, it matters what historical events supposed, and this is, Stalin actually hardly contributed to turn Soviet Union, with his these, fashions and procedures, into just the opposite thing to what Lenin and most of bolshevik theoreticals had claimed in their man writtens and speeches, and had seeked to do and bring to practice. If there's someone who can be claimed to have continued with Lenin's proposals in a coherent way is Trotsky, and never Stalin, who turned democratic centralism into bureaucratic despotism and imperialism, and socialism into estatalism or estate-capitalism. It's a fact, if you take a time to profondly read and analyse Lenin's speeches and many writtens and later trotsky ones (since he evolved and later recognized to have initially adhered to mistaken theories or positions, that rectified, approaching more to Lenin's ones, making his own additions). DeepQuasar 05:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted a WP:GOODFAITH edit on 9 February 2016 by an unregistered user. The edit summary said "Fixed typo, clarified errors, added citations". In fact there were no typos were fixed and no citations added. The edit's purpose seemed to be to qualify the text to indicate the use of violence, lack of democracy and untrustworthiness of sources, presumably in order to address any possible WP:NPOV issues. Unfortunately the result was potentially less neutral and certainly no more sourced. I'll list the editors suggestions here in case any of them can be developed and referenced. Italics mark the editor's changes.
Lenininsm is… a political theory… for the purportedly democratic organisation of a revolutionary vanguard party…
Leninism comprises… Lenin’s interpretations of Marxist theory for radical and violent practical application…
Leninism was the violent and uncompromising Russian application of Marxist economics and political philosophy, effected and realised by the Bolsheviks, the militant, armed vanguard party who led the fight for the establishment of Bolshevik control and total dominance of all spheres of Russian society.
Functionally, the Leninist vanguard party was to ostensibly provide the working class with the political consciousness…
…in fact, the Bolsheviks considered it the only legitimate form and violently persecuted non-Leninist Marxists…
After the Russian Revolution, in History and Class Consciousness (1923), György Lukács, a now discredited adherent of Bolshevism, ideologically developed and organised Lenin’s pragmatic revolutionary practices…
Post-1924 Leninism and Philosophical successor sections
Clear consensus against adding the text. The RfC was started by the editor on the day his/her account was created, and he/she has not contributed to Wikipedia since.
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.
I think this section gives as it stands doesn't really clarify what Leninism is nor concerns around the theory. It reads like one side of a debate, when the observer isn't even here for it. I think that the section doesn't belong on this article and instead this should be redirected to criticism of another page or within the page. Furthermore, it doesn't really provide insights into the theory, Leninism, but rather a somewhat non-relevant historical account of what Stalin did wrong. While no doubt an important area of scholarship in its own right doesn't fit when discussing political philosophy of Lenin. It might be good under a page on Stalinism. The Philosophical successor component should be merged, but the exact mentions of a couple smaller communist parties removed and replaced with mentions around Mao Zedong Thought(Maoism) and albeit somewhat fringe: Hoxhaism. I propose delete deleting the existing paragraphs ins in this section and replacing it with the following verbage in bold:
In post–Revolutionary Russia, Marxism-Leninism, which detractors at that time referred to as Stalinism, and Trotskyism were the immediate principal philosophies of Communism that claimed legitimate ideological descent from Leninism. This lead to different tendencies to develop as factions within the Communist Party, each ideological faction denied the political legitimacy of the opposing faction. In the Soviet Union, Marxism-Leninism ended up winning authority. This political philosophy was likewise adopted internationally by Communist parties who belonged to the Comintern. Trotskyism found its voice through its own international forum, called the Forth International.
I think this would provide a much more concise section, remove issues around undue weight, remove mentions of small political parties(it would be impossible to provide a full list of every Lenin inspired political party), and allow for a better understanding of the topic. It would also upon up the topic for future expansion from academic fields that utilize Leninist philosophy instead of a debate around the vices and virtues of trotsky and stalin.
^Chambers Dictionary of World History (2000) p. 837.
Oppose removal - This is about the "Leninism after 1924" section. While that section indeed heavily focuses on Trotsky's thoughts, the purpose of the section is to explain the development from "Lenin's Leninism" to "Marxism-Leninism" (which in turn is closely associated with Stalin and thus with Stalinism). The article could be somewhat clearer in explaining how Trotsky's and Stalin's interpretations of Leninism differed and how, consequently, Marxism-Leninism differed from "Lenin's Leninism", but I do not think wholesale removal is warranted. Of course the fact that, near the end, Lenin was aligned with Trotsky against Stalin indicates that Trotsky's version might have been closer to "true" Leninism than Stalin's, so it's somewhat unsurprising that Stalin might be seen as being "in the wrong" ideologically. Huon (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose removal per all that Huon states. The section is not WP:UNDUEMarnetteD|Talk 21:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Clarification, the undue weight comment more specifically is focused regarding the 3 small political parties throughout the world that are listed as successors. Which I don't dispute they are but their historical significance doesn't seem any more prominent than any perhaps a hundred or so similar size parties who claim patronage to Lenin. Also I was wondering if you could comment on an alternative soluton: Merging Successor Parties with the above verbage and making the Trotskyism vs. Stalin a new section that needs further review CrisisSandwich (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Please note The original RFC has been refactored with this edit. This can make the responses made before the refactoring seem a little awkward. The clarification comment above was also refactored several times but no one has responded to it so that should not be a problem. MarnetteD|Talk 00:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out and thanks for engaging in this topic, I was hoping you would. I'm a little unsure the edits were made to clarify and fix several grammaratical errors and clarify the undue weight comment as it was more directed towards the Philosophical Successor party list, apologies for hastely writing. I am a terrible writer, so I try to be a better rewriter. What do think of the idea purposed to merge and make Trotsky vs Stalin into a new section for further revision later on. I'm curious on your take because you reverted the initial edits. I think everything above this section is well written but the parts below need a lot of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrisisSandwich (talk • contribs) 20:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose change. A radical edit down may be justified if it is demonstrably clearer, more accurate or better written. The proposed edit is not. It's high school essay standard in places ("Marxism-Leninism ended up winning authority"), there are statements I'd put a "citation needed" on ("Marxism-Leninism, which detractors at that time referred to as Stalinism", "various fields of international relation studies...have been said [by whom?] to be inspired by Lenin's book Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism") and most of the statements require expansion or explanation. Also – and I know it's not cool to criticise spelling, but I think it matters when you're talking about replacing text – things like "lead" for "led", "descendancy" for "descent" and "Forth" for "Fourth" really grate. I recommend leaving it alone for now, and maybe working on a better draft here on the talk page. Scolaire (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2016 (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.