Talk:Marxism–Leninism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Redirect?

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 Stalinism...it 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 Marxists.org: "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.

"As carried forward by Joseph Stalin. "

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

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.

Bye.

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. --85.20.0.137 15:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Major cleanup and rework needed

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

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)

Trimming

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)

Observations

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 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC) 

POV Dispute

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.--82.57.145.75 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 jstor.org 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. 24.115.53.129 (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Leninism should be merged into this article

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. --81.77.24.251 (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 76.19.48.167 (talk)

Oppose. To merge Lenunism into this article would be very stupid. Long live communism! // Lars Ohly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.67.185.43 (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per Duncan – PasswordUsername (talk) 04:13, 27 April 20

From an outside POV, not a Communist philosphy scholar

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!

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)

Closure on above

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)

Untitled thread on vandalism

"Well-known communists in the United States include Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama." No comment needed on this addition...where is the proof? 96.227.23.108 (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 83.92.112.234 (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.75.201.177.191 (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Country list

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)

Falsification college

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)

Marxism-Leninism as a totalitarian movement

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

are there any other versions of the Marx-Engels-Lenin flag? --99.101.160.159 (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Grammatical

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)

Marx-Leninism

Surely? What reference or source decided the current parsing? Gramatically I think Marx-Leninism more correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.177.218 (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)

"Idealism" in ML, probable bias

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.

• Second assassination of Trotsky
• Revolutionary Betrayed
• Start of 4 part series by a 4th International claimant group

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. 72.228.190.243 (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)

more citation?

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 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)

Proposed merge with Communism

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)

• Totally Favorjohncheverly 18:57, 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)
  •  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.