Jump to content

Talk:Marxism–Leninism/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

One-party state ?

The section on Marxism-Leninism states that it favors one-party states I've never found such an assessment in Marx or Lenin's writings (but there are many). ON the contrary it is known that under Lenin parties were banned when they entered into armed struggle against the state, and since all parties present in Russia at the time did, that was it. But I don't see it as a principle. There are writings of Trotsky saying that they expected to have a multi-party system that would shape public debate on each decision but with the civil war that couldn't be put in place, and when the civil war was over, lenin was already dead and Stalin defended another policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.148.101.226 (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marxism–Leninism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

No criticism section?

How is it even possible that Marxism-Leninism has not criticism section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.245.240.162 (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marxism–Leninism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Dubious lede

Thee second para of lede is bull. It is so evident nonsense I can explain only because nobody gives a fuck about M-L today in WP. - üser:Altenmann >t 20:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Weird grammatical article title

Shouldn't this be "Marxist-Leninism"? That sounds better. "Marxism-Leninism" sounds off. -- Anonymous at 5:55 pm on May 2nd, 2018.

No. It's Marxism-Leninism or Marxist-Leninist. Marxism isn't being used as a description of Leninism, they are both components of one ideology called Marxism-Leninism.--Mundopopular (talk) 05:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
That does sound a bit weird tho. decearing egg <talk> 02:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead wrong

@Wingwraith: As always Wingwraith edits articles he doesn't have the faintest clues about. The lead is wrong for the following reason;

  1. "In political science, Marxism–Leninism was the ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), of the Communist International, and all communist parties loyal to Stalin and his successors" — Tito was not loyal to Stalin, neither was Khrushchev or Gorbachev.. This is WP:OBVIOUS. Per George Swan "Tito: A Biography" Chapter "Revising Marxism-Leninism" 83-108 The Leaguo of Communists of Yugoslavia were still committed to Marxism–Leninism... Its also hard to swallow that the Communist Party of China are still loyal to Stalin's legacy; they swapped the economic system from planning (in which Stalin created) to the market economy (more akin to Bukharin's original position).

This isn't a discussion. Its whether something is true or false. This is false.

Yay or nay for the first sentence of the lead to be changed to this; "Marxism–Leninism is the ideology of the Communist Party of China (CPC), of the current and former socialist states and of several communist political parties."

  • Support changes as nominator --TIAYN (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: The reason why I opposed this version of your article is because it said that Marxism–Leninism was the ideology of the Communist Party of China (CPC). I see that you've now fixed it in the proposed lead so that is welcomed, but there are grammatical errors (It should read: Marxism–Leninism is the ideology of the Communist Party of China (CPC), current and former socialist states and political parties.) but in the main I support the propose lead. Wingwraith (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the word several all communist parties subscribe to Marxist-Leninism (unless you can prove otherwise). Wingwraith (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@Wingwraith: Because not all communist parties are Marxist–Leninists... Trotskyism is an example, Red (Norway) opposes Marxism–Leninism and calls itself communist (nothing more specific than that)... The Workers' Party of Korea is a Juche party not M–L. Its WP:OBVIOUS. Not all communists are marxist–leninists. --TIAYN (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Rise of M-L in the US

Any thoughts how it's slowly creeping up to the point of a full resurgence in the USA? 25 years ago, the very idea of Socialists and Communists being elected to positions of national office via popular vote would have seemed like complete fiction, but the soviet efforts to influence the US higher education system seem to have paid off in the long-term. The old american cry of "we defeated communism" doesn't seem to be accurate anymore, now that it's become clear that the Marxist-Leninists were playing the long game. 2605:A601:C66:C00:E957:B24C:D55A:D38B (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to the article. However, to assuage your fears, no communist has been elected to national office since at least 100 years ago and there is only one person claiming to be a socialist who holds a national office, and he was first elected over 25 years ago. There are however two or three Trotskyists holding municipal offices. TFD (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Issues in the introduction

Opening this section to discuss the issues with the introduction, namely:

1. The use of the term "Stalinist" to describe contemporary Marxist-Leninist parties

2. Critiques of Marxism-Leninism in the intro, their placement, and what should be said.

In my opinion, it should be noted that Marxism-Leninism has been called Stalinist by its detractors (which I would be one of, I am not arguing that they are not Stalinist). Despite this it should not be stated as open fact, seeing as it is an opinion. Marxist-Leninists themselves would cringe at being called Stalinists, mostly because they do not see Stalinism as a real ideology. I also think it might be useful, as it was prior, to add minor examples, e.g. one party in power (Communist Party of Cuba or Communist Party of Vietnam) and one opposition party (Party for Socialism and Liberation, a large one in the USA, or French Communist Party or similar). This helps a reader unfamiliar with Marxism-Leninism visualize how it is still present today. Otherwise, a reader might think that it is now irrelevant, which is quite reductionist.

In regards to number 2, I am in agreement that the opinions of Bordiga do not need to be directly in the intro or fleshed out as such, but if they are there at all, they should not be a simplistic version that presents Bordiga incorrectly. Should a new section be created for Marxist/Communist criticisms of Marxism-Leninism? Perhaps in the history section, during the establishment of the Third International? Let me know what you think. I am not actively trying to push an agenda. LouieCXM (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Vif12vf:. Rupert Loup (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

On Marxist-Leninism

Essentially the main issue I find with this page is it’s Historically-Revisionist attempt to say that’s Marxist-Leninism is a theory developed only by Stalin, and the Article goes as far to say that Stalin deviated in some way from the line of Lenin to gain Political Power over rising Marxist States.

Now, not only is this incredibly biased but it also deviates from what should be the point of this article! The Point of this Article should be to give to people the run down of what Marxist-Leninism is, it’s principles, where it has been applied, it’s failures and criticisms and the movement today. It should not be, an Anti-Stalin article that places emphasis on History rather than Political Science. There are little to no citations that cite the works of Marx, Engles, Lenin, Bordiga, Luxembourg, Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-Sung, Trotsky, Gonzalo, Noam Chomsky or anyone else that has had anything to do with the Development of Marxist-Leninism or the criticism of it.

TL;DR: The Article in it’s current state is more of a one-sided Historical Focus, would it be okay, if it’s revised completely, so that it takes a Political-Science heavy approach? Comrade Owain McAllister (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

On a quick glance, it does seem as if there is too much emphasis on Stalinism in the article, which should be about, well, Marxism-Leninism. However, I'm not sure I agree with the suggestion that M-L is the basic underlying ideology here:
  • Marxism - the basic political philosophy as outlined by Mark and Engels, on which all subsequent permutations are built;
  • Marxism-Leninism - the ideology as altered by Lenin for its implementation in the USSR;
  • Trotskyism - Marxism-Leninism as interpreted by Trotsky;
  • Stalinism - Marxism-Leninism as altered by Stalin during his reign, primarily pragmatic changes to support his power, but also ideological adjustments;
  • Maoism - Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism altered by Mao for implementation in China;
  • etc.
In the beginning Communism would have referred to Marxism, and then to Marxism-Leninism while the Soviet Union was the first successful polity in the world based on Marxism, but has eventually referred to all of the various permutations of M-L, especially considering Stalin's long tenure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken: That is not completely accurate. Lenin's thought is referred to as Leninism (not M-L). As counter-intuitive as it may seem, Marxism–Leninism (M-L) is not any combination of Marxism and Leninism, but a particular combination put forward in the Stalin period. Trotskyism, while Marxist and Leninist, was never M-L. In the genealogy of Marxist currents, after Lenin, Trotskyism and Marxism–Leninism crystallized as two opposing currents. Maoism does, indeed, start from M-L. --MarioGom (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I think you overstate the case somewhat. Archie Brown, in The Rise and Fall of Communism, writes:

The short-lived and somewhat anarchic democracy inaugurated by the February Revolution might well, given the discontent within Russian society, have led to change with a revolutionary dimention even in the absence of Lenin and Trotsky. If the election to the Constituent assembly, in which the Bolsheviks received only a quarter of the votes, had been allowed to stand, a non-Communist socialist government would have emerged. Its ideas would, however have been different from those which, after Lenin's death, were to become known as Marxism-Leninism. (pp.57-58)

So, Marxism + Leninism = Merxism-Leninism per Brown, "the [Marxist] ideology as altered by Lenin" per me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
We should have few quotes from Marx and Engels, because their relevance is how they were interpreted by Marxist-Leninist. And note that Marxism-Leninism crystalized under Stalin, not Lenin. The historical emphasis is based on the fact that the ideology was hugely influential, but no longer is. However, this article should pay more attention to ideology than actions. For example, Marxism#Leninism#North America, which is entirely about the FLQ, a small nationalist terrorist group, describes their activities but does not explain how they were influenced by Marxism-Leninism. Yet there is nothing in the description of Marxism-Leninism that supports terrorism or nationalism. Also, it's strange that this obscure group is the only one mentioned in the section. It seems the article is a cut and paste of whatever various editors found met the definition, rather than a proper treatment of the topic. TFD (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
"Crystalized", yes, but it is still, essentially, Marxism as altered by Lenin, which then, altered further by Stalin, become Stalinism.
I agree re: the overempasis on FLQ. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
According to, "Marxism-Leninism is the official ideology of the Soviet-bloc countreis....[It] refers to the Soviet interpretation of Marx and Lenin at any given point in time."[1] Lenin'a successors struggled for power and how to interpret Marx and Lenin. The winners then adopted the name Marxism-Leninism. I don't know which of the three opposing groups were the true ideological heirs to Lenin. Do agree with Stalin that the Left and Right Opposition were wrong? TFD (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

This entire page is trash.

I'm not posting this 'in defense' of Marxism-Leninism. This entire page is written as a take-down of Marxism-Leninism and doesn't make a serious attempt to objectively describe it as a product of specific historical conditions in the development of Marxism and communist theory in the context of the Soviet experience. The title of this page might as well be 'Criticisms of Marxism-Leninism'. Michaelwuzthere (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Warning WP:Neutral POV, WP:Consensus

Moved from User talk:Chas. Caltrop

Hello!

You are making non-consensus changes to the article Marxism–Leninism. I think that they violate Wikipedia's rule Neutral point of view. You delete information confirmed by reliable sources.

Also your actions may be considered a violation of the Wikipedia's rule Edit warring.

Yours incerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

A reply

Thanks, for your comments, but let us communicate in the article talk page. There, you can be specific about where, in the article, there are errors of fact. The text you added to the introduction is not in the cited sources. Shall we try diplomacy? I'm game; so let me know.

Regards,

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Reply to Rainbow Bright

You are are voicing your opinion, because the Cook source is about M-L, not Stalin, you give undue weight to personality conflicts among Communists and Socialists in an article about done-deal history, rather than the political ideology that created the USSR.

Are you still at university? Insisting upon making the introduction about Stalin, rather than M-L is pov-pushing unsupported by the cited sources to which you have piggy-backed your opinions. Your pov-pushing is evident in the illogical presentation of the material: First is the personality tosh: Stalin! Stalin! Stalin! Second is the actual substance about Marxism–Leninism.

Moreover, despite your continually quoting the Rules to me, you 'refuse to practise what you preach : Follow the rules, or else! which indicates you are fighting the edit war of a turd party whose been indefinetly banned for being a pov-pushing puppetmaster. You are wearing the same ring as Largo. Edit-war trolls are all alike; much tough-talk and an invitation to play a rigged game on a queered pitch; always cosplay posturing, never a straight answer.

Competence is required in encyclopaedic editorial work, request you ignore, otherwise, why so much effort to start an edit-war based upon personality conflict (per your edit summaries), rather than facts? Are you a paid editor, like the puppetmaster? I asked you to abide the Wikirules and take it to the Wiki Authorities; yet you insist upon tag-team edit wars.

Regards

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit-war threats from editor Davide King

Dear Colleague Editor:DavidKing, please correspond with me in this article page, as I earlier asked you. So, here is your article business RE: Marxism–Leninism

Moved from User talk:Chas. Caltrop

You probably have no idea what edit warring means since you have done the same with Гармонический Мир and have been previosly blocked due to it, so stop accusing me of edit warring. As explained here by Str1977, "please stop writing the ever same stereotypical stuff in your edit summary that doesn't reflect your edits at all". And what did you even mean with "CE; reverted edit-war vandalism by Davide King" when you simply removed (leader of the Republic of Cuba from 1959 until 2008) from the image caption when it was already there befroe my edits?--Davide King (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Reply to Colleague Davide King

Take it up the chain of command; my work is by the Wikiregs. Please, re-read the THREAT you communicate in the first line; you wrote it; it is not an opinion . . . and then you reverted all of my edits, because you sez so; the threatened edit war. Moreover, why not just indicate where are the factual errors in the text; and resolve content disputes one by one, per the Wikirules. In what section, subsection, paragraph, line, and sentence are the factual errors? You demonstrated editorial bad faith by deleting the tags identifying British English as the language variety, and began to Americanise the text into an anti-communist polemic that dumbs down a communist history article, e.g. you claim that a quarrel between the wife of Lenin and Stalin is in Lenin's Testament as a reason to remove Stalin as Gen. Sec'y of the CPSU; sure, but provide a source; do not plagiarise the present sources, which do not support such a claim. Quoting the Wikirules whilst not following them . . . is an obvious, edit-war hustle.

Regards

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

What does that even mean? And how can you say here "Undid SECON EDIT-WAR" when I kept the lead intact and made other edits that I previously didn't do, like moving some image to the left, create subsections, etc.? You're the one who started edit warring with Гармонический Мир and now with me; and you clearly have a history of edit warring, so please stop. Again, stop writing false edit summaries; this is no harrassement.--Davide King (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
See dfferences in the above, edited Chas. Caltrop's comment here.
It certainly isn't easy discussing it with you when you simply revert all edits, use misleading edit summaries and the way you write and structure your comments on talk pages. You also kept removing minor edits I did and simply reverted to your favorited version (you didn't even keep the pics improvements such as having a balance between pics to the left and pics to the right as well as reducing their size when it was creating problems in the text such as being too big/large and ending up in the below section, etc. I at least tried to accomodate you and kept your lead, but you continued to revert; so, again, stop using words such as threating. I'm not threating anything, you're the one who started edit warring, removing sourced content and revert every edit. That's why the title section (Edit-war threats from editor Davide King) is misleading and I hope someone change it. Also, I'm sure I didn't delete any British tag; I was just unsure whether it was British English or Oxford spelling. I'm actually an anti-anticommunist, but that doesn't mean you, or the other redlinked user who I may have confused you with, can just remove sourced content, change sources to Furr and Martens, add Red Fightback (which you created but was speedly deleted) as external links, etc. You and the other user can't also remove the Lee sources while keeping the text sourced from there intact and just remove the references. Honestly, I just wish there was review of the article because you have dominated it ever since 2016 and I hope a revision differences and history revision check can be made to see whether what was removed or added since then was a good edit, whether the wording was improved, etc.
P.S. I also never claimed "that a quarrel between the wife of Lenin and Stalin is in Lenin's Testament as a reason to remove Stalin as Gen. Sec'y of the CPSU". That was something sourced you removed; and again, I wish other users could check and review the article to see whether your edits have been an improvement (which ones to keep, which ones to remove, which ones to keep with better wording or other changes and improvements, etc.).--Davide King (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into the rights and wrongs of the edits here but I feel I should point out that, before Davide King's comment was moved here by Chas. Caltrop, it was also edited by Chas. Caltrop to add the bolding of the text seen in the copy above. Moving other people's comments between pages can be dubious in itself, particularly if it is suggestive of venue shopping, but reformatting it to give a misleading impression of the original message is unacceptable. While I wouldn't automatically object to somebody tidying up, say, the indentation of other people's messages in a thread, this certainly can extend to fiddling with other people's formatting when it gives a misleading impression of the tone or content of the original message. Also, I fail to see how Davide's message and possibly be construed as a "threat". Clearly there is a problem with the edit summaries and it is legitimate to raise it. Chas might be right about one thing though. Taking it "up the chain of command" could be a good idea. If he is willing to risk the WP:BOOMERANG then that is his choice. If anybody else chooses to do so then that might be his misfortune. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: I'm also concerned by the fact that Chas. Caltrop has largely dominated the Marxism–Leninism article since at least early 2018 and more recently, along with Thatjakelad, removed sources and made other questionabily edits (adding Furr and Martens as sources or adding Red Fightback as external links; can you please check if they should be reverted or not? I think someone should check the difference between earlier versions in like 2016 and now to see if questioable edits have been made and if an older version was better so that we can restart and improve from there. See revision history.--Davide King (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
It's not really my subject, which is why I did not want to get into the rights and wrongs of the specific edits. Maybe formalise the questions a bit more and then start an WP:RFC? That could help to bring in more people with an interest in the subject. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@DanielRigal: The problem is that Chas. Caltrop doesn't let stand any bold edit and immediately revert it with the usual edit summaries, even accusing the other users of engaging in edit warring, among other questionable behavior as seen above and talk page.--Davide King (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Entire re-structure of article

okay so as far as I can see this Wikipedia entry is pretty bad especially in comparison with other pages on ideologies such as democratic socialism, which is odd seeing as there is so much to write about Marxism-Leninism. I intend to format the page to be in line with other pages based on ideologies. The content isn't that bad (although a few uncited lies are strewn about the article), but will require restructuring. The sidebar is equally bad, completely ignoring several key players int he history of communism. This is how I intend to structure it:

introductory paragraphs (most of which are fine tbh)

1. definition / overviews. -definition -overview -philosophy -ideology 2. history -Paris commune maybe -USSR -PRC -Vietnam -Korea -Cuba -Burkina Faso -eastern bloc -western parties (Italy France us black panthers etc.) -collapse (it needs to be less focused on Stalin and the USSR, and also mention the idea of revisionism and stages of development) 3.criticism this section needs to not just have trotskyite criticism but criticism from the left and the right, Maoists for example. 4. see also (and maybe list of famous MLs?) 5. references ideally this section would have a range of authors (not just conquest!) that also are credible (not like conquest!) 6. external links perhaps link to modern communist parties or important theoretical texts.

so before reverting edits please discuss here. much appreciated.Thatjakelad (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the article can and should still be improved but pushnig a Marxist–Leninist view is not the way. For example, the unnecessary addition of self proclaimed revolutionary science or similar wording that was already reverted before or how here you changed Stalin and his supporters gained control of the party to Stalin and his supporters were elected to control the party without adding any explanation or source while removing the legitimate sourced content By the late 1920s, Stalin established ideological orthodoxy among the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), the Soviet Union and the Communist International to establish universal Marxist–Leninist praxis. Remember that the lead is supposed to be a summary of the main body. I do not understand your mention of Conquest when he is not cited or sourced at all.--Davide King (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
The lead could be better. Marxism-Leninism is the official ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and its related and successor parties beginning with Joseph Stalin. That should be in the intro. It's not like other ideologies because it was capable of quick major shifts. So the opening statement that it is a political philosophy that seeks to establish a socialist state is wrong. It depends on the circumstances. Furthermore, the socialist state was established before Marxism-Leninism was invented. TFD (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I guess political philosophy that seeks to establish a socialist state is referring to modern Marxist–Leninist parties but you are probably right we should state it was the official ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and its related and successor parties beginning with Joseph Stalin as the first sentence. The establishment of a socialist state seems to be related to the two-stage theory of the revolutionary transformation of a capitalist state into a socialist state.--Davide King (talk) 03:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Useful material from 'Leninism'-- better here!

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)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.219.6.154 (talk) 08:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Draft:WP:Yes Marxism-Leninism

Article talk pages are not the place to discuss personal essays. Article talk pages are for discussing the article. If you wish to attract attention to an essay, use appropriate Wikiprojects.

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.


Inviting editors to contribute to the discussion at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:WP:Yes_Marxism-Leninism Vikram Vincent 07:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Since Crossroads thinks all ML discussions are motivated from the erstwhile Soviet Union and has nominated the draft for deletion, I've moved it to my user space. I would point out that contextualising all ML discussions as "Soviet" is not valid in terms of 'historical thinking', specifically Contextualisation Vikram Vincent 08:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Crossroads why was the page nominated for deletion? This is a collaborative effort to clarify misconceptions, misunderstandings and misapprehensions found the discussion page. Vincentvikram, great proposal. I'll gather some sources and add them there. For aforementioned sources, Davide King has a much wider knowledge on them than me. --BunnyyHop (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't see the point of the essay. NONAZIS is not really about Nazism, but about racism. The writers believe that racists are constitutionally unable to contribute based on their lack of rationality and good faith. I would put a lot of Trump and Biden supporters into that group as well. But it doesn't matter what an editor believes so long as they agree to support policies and guidelines. I don't agree with the mainstream view on everything, and most thinking people don't. But I agree to follow policy. It might be better for the essay to say that political ideology is irrelevant to whether or not someone can contribute. What matters is if the push their POV. And I would note too that in the ANI complaint, the complainant accused Bunnyyhop of genocide denial when all he said was that there is no consensus in reliable sources that the Ukrainian famine and human rights abuses in Xinjiang should be called genocide. In fact, calling them genocide is problematic too, since it could be seen as Holocaust trivialization. TFD (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
The Four Deuces after the essay page went up for deletion discussion I realised that an even simpler essay on why 'historical thinking' is required. While corroboration, claims, evidence, etc are present in most Wikipedia articles, contextualisation seems to be the place where most editors get into tiffs. For example, racism is a lack of historical thinking. So rather than trying to label a person as a racist, find the sub skills that a missing that enables racism. Similar with the issue of pro-anti Marxist. I have seen a number of editors use the Soviet union as an example as an antithesis. They find difficulty in differentiating between theory and practice or would prefer to see them as the same which I think is problematic. I have pointed out that Kerala, Tripura and West Bengal in India have had Communist led governments functioning under a democratic Indian Constitution. These are not authoritarian regimes by any stretch of imagination. A counter example to keep theory and practice apart and case for contextualisation. keeping this is mind I thought dealing with these aspects a bit in-depth would address both the pro and anti POVs without actually naming them(I hope). Vikram Vincent 04:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Hola! Based on the feedback received from all of you in different threads, I have tried to make the essay as abstract as possible and to ensure that it can apply to more contexts than just M-L. I am copy-pasting the nutshell of the essay to give a preview. This page in a nutshell: Theories dealing with subjective implementations need to be contextualised in concrete conditions. This contextualisation needs to account for specific historic development in a context without trying to extrapolate to other contexts with different historic background and conditions. There are a set of topics that are contentious due to the nature of their implementation and corresponding effects. The contention could arise from the lack of contextualisation, the fallacy of mixing theory with practice, giving WP:UNDUE weightage to certain examples or because the point of view is not supported by WP:RS. Due to this, editors will almost inevitably confuse opposing views, based on different contexts, as violating neutral point of view. If you think you've spotted one, please spend a moment before trying to report them straight to the incident noticeboard. I'm hoping that those of you who disagree with me will continue to help through your feedback. Thanks. Vikram Vincent 09:33, 31 January 2021 (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.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop's edits

@BunnyyHop: How is Oxford, Cambridge, Jstor and decided papers a NPOV, and why are you saying they are a fringe theory. Did you even take a look at the sources, I am nearly 90% sure you didn't, because it all is extremely reliable. Vallee01 (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@BunnyyHop: Not only did you remove my recent sections, you also removed years old information written in 2013! All information is excellently sourced. Seriously. Vallee01 (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop and Vallee01, no one is denying that a famine happened. However, there is a scholarly debate (see Holodomor genocide question). Even one of your sources say that "[h]istorians agree that a famine did take place and millions of Ukrainian peasants died. The exact number of victims is not known but scholars agree that the number is somewhere between 3 and 10 million. Scholars also disagree over what role the Soviet Union played in the tragedy. Some scholars point to Stalin as the mastermind behind the famine, due to his hatred of Ukrainians (Hosking, 1987). Others assert that Stalin did not actively cause the famine, but knew about it and did nothing to stop it (Moore, 2012). Still other scholars argue that the famine was just an effect of the Soviet Union's push for rapid industrialization and a by-product of that was the destruction of the peasant way of life (Fischer, 1935). The final school of thought argues that the Holodomor was caused by factors beyond the control of the Soviet Union and Stalin took measures to reduce the effects of the famine on the Ukrainian people (Davies & Wheatcroft, 2006)." Since we have a Criticism section, I think a summary can be put in the lead as I have done here. Please, let us discuss this civilly and not edit warring. Davide King (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
It's not good to put criticism in the overview section. It doesn't happen in any other ideological article exactly because confuses the writer and goes against the guidelines. As for the Holodomor question (Which is not the point of my edits), I generally refuse Cold War researchers since they didn't have access to soviet archives and some were even on the payroll of the CIA (See: Who Paid The Piper?). Criticism should not be put on the overview section for many reasons which are delimited in the WP:NPV and the WP:Criticism pages. It should be either incorporated within the article (which is not recommended for ideologies), or in a criticism section (recommended in this case). Wikipedia already has an article about critics analogous to Marxism-leninism. Criticism would be explaining what happened, why those happened and what Marxism-leninism has to do with it, which is something the Wikipedia article tries to do. "Red fascism" is simply a pejorative term used for the Stalinist period of the USSR, not Marxism-leninism. As for state capitalism, one of your sources doesn't refer to anything related to marxism-leninism, but it doesn't have to. State capitalism is not a critic but a misunderstanding of both what scientific socialism is, and what state capitalism is. Socialism is a process and therefore saying that Marxism-leninism is "state capitalism" is erroneous. Debatable examples of "state capitalism" could be China, the USSR under the NEP, and any other countries analogous to those situations. It's not debatable that criticisms should be on the forefront of the article because it goes against the guidelines and our rule of conduct should hold them supreme. The content itself is not really a critic to Marxism-leninism, but rather a non NPV of historical events perpetrated by Marxist-leninist states, and I suggest removing those and linking to the Wikipedia article I mentioned above. Those articles are specially for criticism, and it should be linked whenever it's possible. I'll put the criticism on the criticism section, and then we'll see what we can do about the rest. BunnyyHop (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
@BunnyyHop: @Davide King: Maybe as a compromise we should cut down the fat of this paragraph moving it into Criticism, but keep a 4-5 sentences about criticisms of Marxist Leninism held together with some other information? Also even if the Holodmor was not entirely intentional, KGB records do show that much of the famine was intentional. The KGB hoarded grains from farmers and left the rest to starve to sell it for equipment. I think that it shouldn't have so much fat however, but I do think it should still be present but be less long. Vallee01 (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
It is very simple. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the body and Criticism is part of that, so I think my wording was fine. That you think the state capitalism criticism is wrong is besides the point, it is a notable criticism, hence it is reported. That the same standard is not applied to capitalism or liberalism, I agree, but there is nothing we can do if reliable sources do not point it out. But I agree that we can not, and should not say, they have engaged in genocidcal acts because scholars actually disagree on that, especially on the Holodomor. That you think it was, based on KGB records, it does not change the disagreement among scholars, as is reported even in one of your sources. We go by reliable sources and consensus among scholars, not what individual edits think. I believe my wording was a perfectly fine compromise and also avoid a few unnecessary repetition which made it longer. Davide King (talk) 12:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

First break

"Anti-Stalinist left and many other left-wing critics see it as an example of state capitalism[21][22] and have referred to it as a "red fascism" contrary to left-wing politics.[23][24][25]." I'll remove this. These accusations are specific to the stalinist period of the USSR and will confuse the reader. It's not about Marxism-leninism in general, but rather something specific. Stalinism BunnyyHop (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop, I disagree. That criticism does not refer specifically to that period, although obviously it is the most important and compared one. Davide King (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
BunnyyHop You very clearly have extreme POV, for starters most of all the things listed are not true. It must be 2 or 3 sentences. Please stop, I know you most likely adore Stalin and Mao and the mass murders they committed but this isn't ok on Wikipedia, stop. Stop posting fringe theories. Vallee01 (talk) 08:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01 My opinion doesn't have anything to do with this. All those things are backed by sources just like yours, I'll add some more and then I'll create a new edit. BunnyyHop (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
BunnyyHop Your entire section is completely bogus, I have no idea how to respond to it, Stalin did not implement democratic reforms, nor did Mao you, appear to posting complete fringe theories. Their is no debate as to if Marxist Leninist's states enacted mass murder and genocides, you are not going to do anything to that section nor can you. As to you're section on the benefits of Marxist Leninism I don't know how to respond to this.. Vallee01 (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01 You have no idea of what Marxism-Leninism is if you believe it's "Mao and Stalin". BunnyyHop (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Since the article is about the ideology, the material does not belong there. This section reads more like criticism of Communism than criticism of Marxism-Leninism. For example, genocide in Poland was not part of the official ideology. There were no explaining when it was in society's interest and it was not used to justify government policy in Poland, where it would be most unpopular, even among Polish leaders. TFD (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
The Four Deuces, I agree. The problem with most Communist-related articles is that, besides confusing small-c communism for Marxism–Leninism, they rely too much on "traditionalists", "totalitarian", "orthodox", "Draperite", "conservative", "right-wing", "anti-Communist" et al. accounts as we write at Soviet and Communist studies. Of course, Wikipedia is not a reliable source itself, but what we write there seems to be accurate from what I have read and researched. Yet, we give too much or only weight to the first camp, or even state it as fact. As it is a field rife with conflict and controversy, this is not like climate change or the Holocaust, for which there is overwhelmingly consensus among scholars and thus it would be an example of false balance to give equal weight to both views. Most, if not all, Communist-related articles need to be revised to make sure both views are proportionally represented according to due weight and neutrality. Davide King (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Marxist Leninist states have absolutely engaged in genocidal actions, they are not "accused" of doing so.
@Davide King:I have question: Did genocides or mass killings did not occur under Marxist-Leninist states, or do you believe Marxist-Leninist states have not engaged in enough mass killings to justify the inclusion. I don't understand you're point, Wikipedia already has a stance on the Holodmor and it extremely clearly defines it as a genocide List of genocides by death toll. If you have sources the contrary please cite them. I don't know what to state, Marxist Leninist states have engaged in mass killings and genocides, to deny such a fact is impossible. Do you genuinely think Marxist Leninist states haven't directly ordered mass killings, which have photographic, and direct access to the mass graves and their bodies? I am a leftist so I obviously believe much of it is over exaturagted nonsense. However from point do you stand and why? Thanks. Vallee01 (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01, first of all, thank you for discussing this here rather than edit warring. I suggest you to read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists regarding you raising the point that "Wikipedia already has a stance on the Holodmor and it extremely clearly defines it as a genocide List of genocides by death toll". For example, the reason why we have a Holodomor genocide question article is because not all scholars agree it was a genocide, even though they all agree it was a terrible time and a tragedy. Legitimate scholars such as Amartya Sen give a more nuanced picture of the Great Chinese Famine. Those who disagree the Holodomor was a genocide or simply that Stalin was the sole culprit or that Stalin and the Soviet government did it on purpose, rather than arguing that more could have be done as some scholars do, or give other reasons for the Great Chinese Famine such as the lack of democracy rather than 'Communism' itself, are not apologists or negationists; they do not deny the suffering and tragedy of the events; and revisionism, rather than negationism, is a legitimate and indeed fundamental part of historiography. I am not denying that mass killings et al. happened but as wrote here by Paul Siebert there are scholars who reject that 'Communist' mass killings is a special or separate category of mass killings, without denying that mass killings happened.
Second, one of the sources you yourself added summarises a more nuanced picture among scholars. Whatever I personally think of Communist states and whether they did or did not commit genocide is irrelevant (I tend to hold the views of legitimate scholars, although I may sometimes disagree or agree with some points, etc.), Communist and Soviet studies is a controversial, conflictual and politicised field and there are legitimate scholars who disagree with the "anti-communist" or "orthodox" historiography" without being apologists for the regimes; and indeed agree on many facts with the orthodox but giving a different and more nuanced interpretation of the events. I have no sympathy for Communist regimes and I believe anarchists have their legitimate reasons to be so critical of them, but I reject the view that they were equal to Nazism; and this view is not just my personal view but it is held by legitimate academics, historians and scholars. If I can make a personal comment, you describe yourself as anarchist but you seem to take the "orthodox" views and historians as facts, even though scholars disagree ("Some scholars point to Stalin as the mastermind behind the famine, due to his hatred of Ukrainians (Hosking, 1987). Others assert that Stalin did not actively cause the famine, but he knew about it and did nothing to stop it (Moore, 2012). Still other scholars argue that the famine was just an effect of the Soviet Union's push for rapid industrialization and a by-product of that was the destruction of the peasant way of life (Fischer, 1935). The final school of thought argues that the Holodomor was caused by factors beyond the control of the Soviet Union and Stalin took measures to reduce the effects of the famine on the Ukrainian people (Davies & Wheatcroft, 2006."). If I can make another more personal comment, I find it curious because the same historians you cited and used in your edits such as Service would turn their "anti-communist" historiography into "anti-anarchist" historiography, if their roles were reversed.
I believe The Four Deuces also have a point that "the article is about the ideology, the material does not belong there. This section reads more like criticism of Communism than criticism of Marxism-Leninism. For example, genocide in Poland was not part of the official ideology. There were no explaining when it was in society's interest and it was not used to justify government policy in Poland, where it would be most unpopular, even among Polish leaders." As they also wrote here, "Anti-Communism does not mean opposition to Communism, but opposition to an extreme degree. That doesn't mean that their books are unreliable but that they present one view of events [emphasis mine added]." This is a problem of most Communist-related articles in that they tend to state some controversial notions (death tolls, genocide questions, the attribution of famines and other tragedies to 'Communist' ideology only and not to other external factors, or a mix of both, NPOV failure to provide mainstream, "anti-anticommunist" or simply "revisionist" accounts, etc.) as facts and other legitimate historians, who reject the more "anti-Communist" scholars without being pro-Communists themselves or apologists (which is the criticism some "anti-Communist scholars" give them while some of them being themselves accused of representing "anti-communist propagandists" by some of those legitimate "revisionist" and even some "orthodox" historians) are not given enough weight or relied on to provide other mainstream interpretations. As the field has been so controversial and politicised, we should rely on both schools and views rather than rely only on one view (usually the "orthodox" view) as we do for most Communist-related articles. Davide King (talk) 06:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
@Vallee01:,
(shortly) yes, Marxist-Leninist states have absolutely engaged in genocidal actions.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC))
Governments across the political spectrum have engaged in mass killings, but this is the only one that that gives it that level of detail or even mentions it. The topic of the article isn't why Communism is bad but what is their ideology. TFD (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The Four Deuces, I agree, that makes sense. We should make more of an analysis than criticism; for that, we already have Criticism of communist party rule. How do you suggest to word it? Davide King (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Upon viewing the discussion on Communist Mass Killings, and how some people want to underplay the horrible, rape, murder and genocides enacted under such regimes I can't in good faith state this. Previous information stated should be disregarded. Vallee01 (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Just to be sure. Do you think it's okay to put such a big paragraph containing accusations about Stalinism while the guidelines strictly advocate for things like this to be put within the article (providing historical context)? The criticism section is pretty small compared to the article, and yet it occupies massive space within the head because it's a condemnation of Stalinism which doesn't really fit here. Try to generalize it and not put accusations specific to the Stalinist period on the USSR, but to the 30 countries that were or are marxist-leninist states. It should be generalized because it's a necessity to attempt to fit all of them, not just one nor one specific time period. BunnyyHop (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
BunnyyHop, I agree there is a problem that most Communist-related article follow only one-side and violates NPOV. However, not all of your edits were helpful and going in the opposiute direction also violates NPOV. That it is "the official doctrine of the majority of the communist movement around the world" does not seem to be supported by given ref but that it has been a driving force in international relations during most of the 20th century due the the Cold War. It is true that scholars disagree that the Khmer Rogue were communists, but you can not use Furr as source for that. Davide King (talk) 07:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
As an example, this ("As a theoretical instrument of analysis of reality, it is a guide for action, which is constantly renewed to respond to new phenomena, situations, processes and developing trends. Marxism-Leninism is a conception of the world that includes the dialectical method as a method of analysis. It is a scientific system of philosophical, economic and socio-political ideas that constitute the conception of the working class, science about the knowledge of the world, about the laws of development of nature, society and human thought, but it is mainly the science of the struggle and revolutionary transformation of the working class and all workers for the revolutionary overcoming of capitalism and the building of the new society, a socialist society, and communism") is their POV but it is not written in an encyclopedic way and is cited to "Marxism". Soviet Encyclopedic Dictionary. p. 00. Karl Marx e o nosso tempo, Álvaro Cunhal em pcb.org.br Marxismo-leninismo - Uma teoria para o nosso tempo, João Frazão. Em omilitante.pcp.pt O Materialismo Dialético e Histórico, Fundamento Teórico do Comunismo, V. P. Tchertkov em marxists.org Partido com Paredes de Vidro, Álvaro Cunhal in Marxists.org. Archived in WayBack Machine pg. 23 Dialectical and Historical Materialism by J. V. Stalin in marxists.org. Archived in Wayback Machine. We need independent, secondary sources; and yes, I would much rather use sources like Fitzpatrick, Getty or Ellman rather than Service or Pipes, who is an academic but whose work about communism represents more of popular literature than scholarly analysis. Davide King (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Davide King, seems fair. I'll try to find more academic sources to back some of those things up. I agree the first phrase is not worded in the best way, I'll see what I can do. It's hard to find more academic sources because the article are not free. BunnyyHop (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Bunnyhoop, no consensus for őart of your changes, as others also expressed.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC))

Second break

What do you mean? I have found sources for what Davide King has pointed out and changed phrases which could be seen as POV.KIENGIR, where is your objection exactly? As it's stated in the guidelines, when you revert widespread edits you must supply an explanation, otherwise it's considered misuse of the tool. BunnyyHop (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

You have made a quite massive amount of editing and rewritings, which had as well technical problems, despite both of us just reverted a few of them (not "widespread edits" as you claim). As well your edits tried to deminuate criticism for just a few specific instances, etc. No surpise, meanhile revising your edits, both me and Davide concerned on the same problematic changes, incidentally. So let him as well revire your arguments and gain consensus here for any related part from now on.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC))
Since you have not pointed anything out, there's nothing more I can do. We'll wait and see what Davide King's judgment is, and I'll keep editting from there. BunnyyHop (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I suggest you to use a sandbox, where you can experiment and gain consensus for your proposed wording. So far, I do not think your edits are encyclopedic and need stronger secondary and tertiary sources rather than primary ones. Either way, the sandbox will help you improve your edits and avoid edit warring, which may result in sanctions. Davide King (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01, no one is trying to downplay Stalinist crimes. The problem with the Mass Killings Under Communist Regimes is that it falsely implies that mass killings are an essential objective of socialism, broadly defined. Hence universal health care, free tuition and a liveable minimum wage are the first steps to mass killings in the United States. TFD (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Davide King I'd appreciate if you could point out specific parts of the text where it's not encyclopedic. But I will try to find more sources for some sentences. As the article stands it's against the guidelines - how can an article so big have half of the lead talking about criticism and criticism only? BunnyyHop (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop, it is still sourced to mostly primary sources. In addition, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, not an introduction, and it became too long. Davide King (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
BunnyyHop I went to sleep and have currently found that the page is currently undergoing an extreme case of an edit war. Please for gods sake stop, attempt to discuss before edit warring, you are not doing anything and will most likely get blocked if you keep up you're actions. Vallee01 (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Edit war? What? No. Davide King, KIENGIR and me are discussing which parts of my edits are not encyclopaedic and should be altered / sourced better so it can all go forward. There's absolutely no edit warring. I would appreciate it if you also joined in. BunnyyHop (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Seeing the history of this article there has currently been 4 reverts in the past 24 hours, also before this you reverted the page 12 times, as discussed on you're talk page. Vallee01 (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
BunnyyHop Please make you're issues clear, with the article. I think your issue with the article is it is currently focuses to much on the criticisms of Marxist Leninism which I can partially understand, in my opinion there should definitely be a section about the criticisms but maybe not as long. However by your recent edits you seem to think that both Stalin's Russia and Mao's China are both democratic paradises, or that these states did not commit mass murders which is simply not true. I do think maybe the section of criticism could be cut down on possibly, but with that in mind we need to make some things clear, the atrocities committed under Marxist-Leninist states aren't "propaganda", they are simply facts and they will stay on Wikipedia because Wikipedia reports on the truth, and the truth is these things happened. I do see an argument for it not being as present however, genocides like the Native American genocides, also were just as brutal as genocides committed in the USSR. Both happened, both art horrible and we can not deny that. Also I would recommend stating you're political opinions, you don't have to obviously and your under no obligation or pressure to do so. However I think it's good if we reveal all our biases. I describe myself as a libertarian socialist or an anarchist, I have a generally mixed opinions on the Soviet Union. It went through massive stages of industrialization while lifting millions out of poverty while at the same time being a corrupt brutal oligarchy that is responsible for the deaths of millions. You seem to be a Marxist-Leninist, which is fine, what's not fine is denying facts. Vallee01 (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01, Davide King and KIENGIR I have made an exact copy in my Sandbox[1]. I want you to edit this and point out where there might be a problem. In the meanwhile I'll try to find more secondary sources. I have adjusted the lead of article according to MOS:LEADLENGTH, and moved less important sections to the overview. If there's no objection I'll be reinserting it in the main page. BunnyyHop (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01 Write your concerns here instead of reverting edits. WP:Cooperation WP:EPTALK WP:BRD. BunnyyHop (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The entire section is not neutral it doesn't even mention atrocities by Marxist Leninist states, it takes Marxist-Leninist perspective as a given. It has constant formatting issues, but that doesn't even matter. It is essentially a manifesto of horrible Marxist Leninism written from a Marxist Leninist perspective and takes these as facts. This is by far the worse section:
As a theoretical instrument of analysis of reality, it is a guide to action, which is constantly renewed to respond to new phenomena, situations, processes and developing trends. Marxism-Leninism is a conception of the world that includes the dialectical method as a method of analysis. It is a scientific system of philosophical, economic and socio-political ideas that constitute the conception of the working class, science about the knowledge of the world, about the laws of development of nature, society and human thought, but it is mainly the science of the struggle and revolutionary transformation of the working class and all workers for the revolutionary overcoming of capitalism and the building of the new society, a socialist society, and communism.
This belongs in some poorly written biased ML blog, and it seems from your editing maybe you should start a blog, instead of trying to spread your ideology here. Disregarding the broken hyperlinks it written in an entirely Marxist-Leninist perspective and seems like it belongs in a manifesto. Oh my god "it is mainly the science of the struggle and revolutionary transformation of the working class and all workers for the revolutionary overcoming of capitalism and the building of the new society, a socialist society, and communism."
Stop edit warring this your 16th revert, the limit is three. People have been kind not to report you, but it seems like you are unwilling to listen. Here are just some of you're reverts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=990152506&oldid=990149462
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=990483190&oldid=990421914
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=990200262&oldid=990174977
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=990149462&oldid=990147636
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=983218679&oldid=983191853
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=983324060&oldid=983218679
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=990010040&oldid=989980094
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=990010040&oldid=989980094
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=982404796&oldid=982334039
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=982244048&oldid=982240953
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=982152792&oldid=982063998
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=982205557&oldid=982152792
You already constitute being blocked three times over. So please stop, people are trying to be helpful to you but you keep not listening. Vallee01 (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Third break

The limit is three in one day, I have only made two reverts. I would be willing to talk to someone willing to give a third opinion if you could spare some time to call someone. I have sourced all of the claims in the paragraph you claim to be WP:NPOV with the respective academic works, very reliable sources on the matter and tried to make it as WP:NPOV as possible. Please, if you find anything that isn't verifiable use reliable and independent sources to back that up. Just because you really want to say X did a really bad thing it doesn't mean it should be in the lead. I have moved the criticisms to the overview of the article, where it's put together with other criticisms and non-criticisms. The lead isn't supposed to be a journalistic lead but an introduction which summarizes the basics - in this case, the basics of marxism-leninism. Since the size of the article is no more than 19.000 characters, it should have two or three paragraphs. My lead provides an accessible overview of what Marxism-leninism is according to its basic definition and principles, something that is developed in the ideology section of the article. You prefering to put that someone did a very bad thing instead of the principles of the ideology in the lead isn't a POV? "The entire section is not neutral it doesn't even mention atrocities by Marxist Leninist states" An article about the ideology marxism-leninism is not neutral because it doesn't mention the "atrocities by Marxist Leninist states" in the lead, which should be a give the basics in a nutshell...? I'm not very experienced, but this sounds to me like an extreme POV. "written in an entirely Marxist-Leninist perspective" No. It's written in a way its principles are summarized, all throughoutly academically referenced. If you see any formatting problems, I'd appreciative if you either pointed them out for me to edit or editted them yourself. I'm reverting it tomorrow if there's no objection made by other editors Davide King, KIENGIR BunnyyHop (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

No BunnyHopp, that's not how that works: [warring] "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of 'edit warring', and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." In my opinion editors have given you enough good faith. You can be blocked for edit warring for reverts for a period of days or even weeks. Also that's not how talk works. Vallee01 (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01 has right. Just because users do not respond in 24 hours, it does not mean agreement, neither legitimizing you to perform your changes. You have to gain everyone's clear agreement already after such happenings.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC))
KIENGIR Well, do you agree? BunnyyHop (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
BunnyHop, I also find your re-wording of the lead to be very one-sided. As other editors said, it reads like a Marxist-Leninist manifesto. The paragraph outlining Marxism-Leninism's goals was removed from the lead and re-written from a Marxist-Leninist outlook. Two examples (out of many) are "one-party state" becoming "people's democracy" and "suppression of political dissent" becoming "suppression of the resistance of exploiters" (!) – which aren't even in the original sources. The objective wording of historians and scholars was replaced with Communist euphemisms. Criticism was also removed and buried at the end of a very long Overview section. It was replaced by a paragraph of waffle about dialectical materialism, presenting Marxism-Leninism as a kind of 'science' or the 'one true faith'. Dialectical materialism is barely mentioned in this article, so there shouldn't be much about it in the lead anyway. Your edits are also heavily based on primary sources. If any of these things were done on the Fascism and Nazism articles they'd rightly be reverted.
I think the current lead is structured well. The 1st paragraph outlines what Marxism-Leninism is and its goals; the 2nd briefly outlines its origins (tho there could be more on its history); while the 3rd outlines what Marxist-Leninist states actually did as well as negative and positive criticism of them. Maybe some of this could be trimmed and worded more like an analysis. But it would be absurd to remove the "bad things" as you call them. It's also absurd to say they shouldn't be there because the article's "only about the ideology". Marxism-Leninism is all about creating a state, and the repressions etc were motivated by the ideology.
At least four other editors have opposed your changes BunnyHop. As was said, if you keep edit-warring and threatening to revert within a day, you could end up being blocked.
~Asarlaí 02:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, well said...BunnyyHop, I agreed Vallee01's summarization here, but I mainly agree with Davide and Asarlaí's point as well.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC))
First of all, thank you very much for commenting here Asarlaí!
I see your point, that's indeed a POV I had not considered before. I'll make sure to edit those out and replace them for a more encyclopedic language.
"Criticism was also removed and buried at the end of a very long Overview section".
I have three main objections to this.
1- According to the Neutrality and verifiability section in Wikipedia:Criticism, it presents 5 bullet points. Putting criticism in the lead violates bullet point 2, 3 and 5. In the same article, in "Philosophy, religion, or politics" it says "political outlooks (...) Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets.". This refers to the main article itself, and by putting it into the lead I assume it makes it even worse.
2- The lead of the articles Fascism, Liberalism, Trotskyism, Marxism, Corporatism, Nationalism, Conservatism, Communism, Soviet Union, China (and so on) are not structured that way because it's goes against WP:NPOV and what I have mentioned earlier. I could ask for a Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard if you so desire.
3- I have not removed criticism, it's incredibly important to make the article neutral - so after thinking about what I wrote about a question arose - where to put this brief section of criticism? I have instead put it at the end of the overview, since the criticism section is also at the end (as it should) of the article. It's not buried - if the reader wants to know briefly what happened in the history of this ideology, he would read the overview until he reached the end of it where the "bad things", as I described it, are. It consists mostly of the measures taken by some Marxist-Leninist states. There have been 30, this mentions two of them during very specific historical periods.
The lead I propose is very concise for these two things:
1- "As a theoretical instrument of analysis of reality,[9] it is a guide to action[10][11], which is constantly renewed to respond to new phenomena, situations, processes and developing trends[12]. Marxism-Leninism is a conception of the world that includes the dialectical method as a method of analysis.[9][13][14]
It consists of the backbone of the ideology. To exemplify - the reason you can have China, a market economy and Cuba, a planned economy as Marxist-Leninist republics is because Marxist-Leninism isn't a dogma but a way of interpreting the world, something which is well identified in this paragraph. Thus Marxism-Leninism is built off Dialetical Materialism, something core to understanding the ideology. This is directly correlated to everything, so I simply state its core basics.
2- "It is a scientific system of philosophical, economic and socio-political ideas that constitute the conception of the working class,[15][16] science about the knowledge of the world, about the laws of development of nature, society and human thought,[17][18][19] but it is mainly the science of the struggle and revolutionary transformation of the working class[20][21][22] for the revolutionary overcoming of capitalism[23][24] and the building of the new society – a socialist society, and communism.[25][26][27][28]"
This is also directly related to Marxism-Leninism. It identifies the areas of thought where Marxism-Leninism applies - philosophical, economic and socio-political. Its conception of the working class and the what they want to do with it. This is directly related to Marxism. It also refers what the principle objective of the ideology is - revolutionary overcoming of capitalism (as opposed to reformism) the building of the new society – a socialist society, and communism. This is the essential and is directly related to the rest of the article, especially in the "ideology" and the overview parts of the article. I see that it does repeat the word science a bit too often, although I disagree I see your point that it might be considered as a POV for "one true faith". Science here is used as a philosophical term and not science as in science of nature – although it has been attempted to approximate Marxism to such.
Some of my edits were made based on primary sources. But those whose need for secondary, academic sources is core have been properly added. Primary sources of Marxism-Leninism that quote Lenin himself are not voiced as Wikipedia but as a third person and properly identified as being a specific person.
I will make some changes based on your feedback and then we'll see if there's anything else to be edited. BunnyyHop (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
BunnyHop You seem completely biased in your editing you keep using POV words like "anti-fascist", and use horrible wording. One of the most horrible being "suppression of the resistance of exploiters." The current wording is absolutely unacceptable you completely remove sections on massacres and genocides of Marxist-Leninist states. It clearly reads like a manifesto or propaganda for Marxist-Leninism. Vallee01 (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01, Asarlaí was right and I have changed wording. The phrase about antifascism is backed by 3 academic sources.
"completely remove sections on massacres and genocides of Marxist-Leninist states". [| This is not true]
Is there now consensus for this? BunnyyHop (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
On my behalf, I wish to see exactly what you would change to what, comparing to this page, point by point, rather to compare two articles that may differ much. Since other user recommended for you to use the sandbox, maybe for them it is better to review that, but I will simply judge anything based on the change(s) compared to this article, until I don't see it exactly, I cannot give agreement.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC))
Your changes are all extremely biased and is far to broad. There also a massive amount of completely unnaceptable sections which are the very. The writing is also extremely unencylopodic, and does not belong on Wikipedia.
Your entire proposal is just Marxist-Leninist nonsense, are all utterly problematic but I will just show some in the lead, the entire article. Just look at this:
"Marxism–Leninism aims to create an international communist society.[163] It opposes colonialism and imperialism and advocates decolonization and anti-colonial forces.[164] It supports anti-fascist international alliances and has advocated the creation of popular fronts between communist and non-communist anti-fascists against strong fascist movements.[165] This Marxist–Leninist approach to international relations derives from the analyses (political, economic, sociological and geopolitical) that Lenin presented in the essay Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1917). Extrapolating from five philosophical bases of Marxism, namely that human history is the history of class struggle between a ruling class and an exploited class; that capitalism creates antagonistic social classes, i.e. the bourgeois exploiters and the exploited proletariat; that capitalism employs nationalist war to further private economic expansion; that socialism is an economic system that voids social classes through public ownership of the means of production and so will eliminate the economic causes of war; and that once the state (socialist or communist) withers away, so shall international relations wither away because they are projections of national economic forces" No mention of the absolute failure of Marxist-Leninist ideology, no mention of how Marxist-Leninist states actively collaborated with Nazi Germany, no mention on how Marxist-Leninists themselves have committed imperialism. No mention that Marxist-Leninists in practice have never actually been anti imperialist. It is the very definition of misinformation.
It is filled with constant POV pushing text, refuses to even state the the genocides and massacres committed under such states. I don't even need to say anything the sections speak for themselves:
"The fact that Marxist–Leninist regimes confiscated private businesses and landholdings radically increased income and property equality in practice. Income inequality dropped in Russia under the rule of the Soviet Union, then rebounded after its demise in 1991. It also dropped rapidly in the Eastern Bloc after the Soviet takeover of Eastern Europe at the end of World War II. Similarly, inequality went back up after the collapse of the Soviet system.[151] According to Paul Hollander, this was one of the features of communist states that was so attractive to egalitarian Western intellectuals that they quietly justified the murder of millions of capitalists, landowners and supposedly wealthy kulaks in order to achieve this equality.[152] According to Walter Scheidel, they were correct to the extent that historically only violent shocks have resulted in major reductions in economic inequality.[153]
Marxist–Leninists respond to this type of criticism by highlighting the ideological differences in the concept of freedom and liberty. It was noted that "Marxist–Leninist norms disparaged laissez-faire individualism (as when housing is determined by one's ability to pay)" and condemned "wide variations in personal wealth as the West has not" whilst emphasizing equality, by which they mean "free education and medical care, little disparity in housing or salaries, and so forth".[154] When asked to comment on the claim that former citizens of socialist states now enjoy increased freedoms, Heinz Kessler, former East German Minister of National Defence, replied: "Millions of people in Eastern Europe are now free from employment, free from safe streets, free from health care, free from social security".[155]"
No mention of well documented Marxist-Leninist genocides, mass murders, executions, failure of collectivization, the systematic killings and starvation of the Kulak class. All which are extremely well documented. Its one sentence on how Marxist-Leninist's aren't unrestricted capitalists, and then immediately turns away from discussing a single wrong thing with Marxist-Leninism and then replaces it with "free education and medical care, little disparity in housing or salaries, and so forth." This Marxist-Leninist misinformation is utterly blatant.
"The most prominent in the communist movement around the world.[1]" This is completely false, and also subjective. Marxist-Leninist parties are nearly non-existent in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Czech Republic, most of eastern Europe, most of the Balkans, most of Africa, Turkey and other parts of the world. There is a non-existent Marxist-Leninists in the USA. there has been a total of 2 Marxist-Leninist protests since 2010, one in Portland and one in Washington, both had about 50-100 people show up. Democratic Socialism, Libertarian Socialism and Marxism are all far larger, the main sections where ML parties are the main form of leftism are mostly in Marxist-Leninist run states. This doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all.
"According to its supporters, the gradual transition from capitalism to socialism was signified by the introduction of the first five-year plan and the 1936 Soviet Constitution."
POV pushing text, it does not mention the failures of the 5 year plan, all of which completely failed at achieving its goals. The mention that Marxist-Leninist states were all corrupt bureaucratic states, it just states Marxist-Leninist ambitions stated by Marxist-Leninist leaders, but goes into no detail of the practice of Marxist-Leninists.
"Marxism-Leninism is the synthesis of Vladimir Lenin's contributions to Marxism[2]" Completely subjective and also disputed by Orthodox Leninists, this is written from a Marxist-Leninist perspective, this is what Marxist Leninists think not an actual fact. Also no mention of how Lenin distanced himself from Stalin and openly rejected him multiple times, and that Lenin's ideology differed from what Stalin made a acceptable section would be "Marxist Leninist's claim that Marxism-Leninism is a form of Leninism and Marxism, despite this Lenin openly distanced himself from Stalin and orthodox Leninists reject Marxist-Leninists"
"As a theoretical instrument of analysis of reality,[9] it is a guide to action[10][11], which is constantly renewed to respond to new phenomena, situations, processes and developing trends[12]. Marxism-Leninism is a conception of the world that includes the dialectical method as a method of analysis.[13][14][15]" Gibrish that is completely divorced from reality, this belongs is some of the most blatant Marxist-Leninist propaganda. Marxist-Leninism is an ideology formulated by the brutal dictator Stalin, it is generally considered a totalitarian leftist ideology that is based off the forced collectivization of property. Marxist-Leninism isn't the scientific method, this is nonsense. I would not be surprised if you edited things relating to the DPRK stating that North Korea was a democratic wonderland. In fact you have made multiple POV pushing sections on Juche, all of which have been reverted. Vallee01 (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
KIENGIR Check this out - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ABunnyyHop%2Fsandbox&type=revision&diff=990788052&oldid=990780189 - it's from when I first started editing the article until its final version. The reason of some deletions is explained on the history section of the main article (not every change is mine - some editors have also made changes between my edits) I might make some changes based on your request (I've done some editing after that, so I have updated the link to compare the first with the final version).
Vallee01, your objection is based on an extreme personal POV. A NPOV (neutral, unbiased) article is an article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by presenting fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources (N.B.: not all views held by editors or by the general public). This is especially important for the encyclopedia's treatment of controversial issues, where there is often an abundance of viewpoints and criticisms of the subject. In a neutral representation, the differing points of view are presented as differing points of view, not as widely accepted facts. Despite knowing this, if you want to go ahead, I suggest you to open a ticket on the according board.
"this is written from a Marxist-Leninist perspective, this is what Marxist Leninists think not an actual fact" The source for that claim is from this Academic Dean "https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/author/tom-lansford"
"The most prominent in the communist movement around the world.[1]". As the source says, by 1985, one-third of the world's population lived under a Marxist–Leninist system of government in one form or another. Today, the country with the largest population is a Marxist-leninist republic. To say this is not prominent (According to wiktionary, "standing out, or projecting; jutting; protuberant" "likely to attract attention from its size or position") is to not have a NPOV. For the rest, you simply do not provide sources and discredit the academic ones. Also, the first, second, and forth citations were made by Davide King (IIRC, might be from another editor) and not me.
"made multiple POV pushing sections on Juche, all of which have been reverted." This is completely unrelated and I was not gonna reply, but I felt the need to point out that this is a lie.
Do we have consensus for this now? BunnyyHop (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
We all need to calm down. BunnyyHop, no, there is no consensus for that, which is the Marxist–Leninist POV, which would be fine to add if it was widely reported in non-primary sources, but I appreciate your attempts. On the other hand, I think Vallee01 is pushing a POV in the opposite direction; if BunnyyHop may well be a Marxist–Leninist, Vallee01 is an anarchist. For one, I do not see what was wrong with the paragraph "Marxist–Leninists respond to this type of criticism by highlighting the ideological differences in the concept of freedom and liberty." This is not cited to Lenin or other primary sources; it is actually sourced to the peer-reviewed Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. BunnyyHope, this is the kind of sources I am talking about; there are more nuanced, academic sources about Marxism–Leninism, so we do not need to cite communist party or other primary sources like Lenin or Mao. Wikipedia is not a memorial and we are not here to emphasise how bad Communism was; we are here to report what academics and scholars say, which in my view will speak for itself. While I disagree with BunnyyHope's edits and I suggest them to not edit warring again, I think the article gives too much weight to anti-communist scholars like Service et al. when Ellman, Getty, Fitzpatrick et al. would greatly improve NPOV.
Let me be clear that both of those scholars actually agree on many facts and things, but they disagree on certain interpretation and it is mainly Service et al. that blame most of it to communist ideology or argue that it was totalitarian (no one dispute that it was authoritarian or non-democratic, but authoritarianism is not the same thing as totalitarianism); and totalitarianism is more of a Cold War concept that "gained prominence in Western anti-communist political discourse during the Cold War era as a tool to convert pre-World War II anti-fascism into post-war anti-communism", with one scholar noting that "totalitarianism is a useful word, but that the old 1950s theory about it is defunct among scholars." Getty et al. are by no means pro-Communism. On the other hand, Service et al., including Holland whom I cited and added myself, are anti-communists, meaning they are not only opposed to Communism (the Communist states) but also to small-c communism, theorising that communism, like socialism, is always going to result in mass killings. This does not mean they should not be used at all, but we should not base a controversial article like this one only on them, especially as the Soviet and Communist studies field is controversial and politicised.
This article would greately improve its NPOV if we incorporate those other legitimate scholars. Finally, Vallee01 insist that the Holodomor was genocide but while some governments may have recognised it as such, there is no agreement among scholars and, as noted here by Buidhe, "[p]olitical recognition or non-recognition is not relevant to whether an even meets the legal definition of genocide since governments can call any event genocide." I also believe The Four Deuces said it best "[t]his section reads more like criticism of Communism than criticism of Marxism-Leninism." Finally, to be perfectly clear once again, I am critical of it and of Communist states, whose actions have done more to damage the socialist movement more than anything. However, the is no need to report only the anti-communist view or the view of some scholars (Service et al.) while ignoring that of others (Getty et al.). Davide King (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I think @BunnyyHop: that maybe you need to find some more sources that say almost what your trying to put and show them to us and that are less Marxist–Leninist POV.Isabella Emma (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Fourth break

@Davide King: and @Isabella Emma:, thanks for answering! Here's my sandbox. I have made an overhawl of the last section of the lead to include more academic sources and no primary sources. When I was looking for such, I stumbled across a great article about marxist-leninist states on Wikipedia, which I didn't know existed! Anyway, I have ported some things I found fundamental to the article, mostly related to the political system. Thus, I have added content to the overview and political system sections. I have only kept one primary source directly quoting Lenin - which I'll try to fix when I have time. In the meanwhile, we could remove it. What do you think? Is it good to go now? BunnyyHop (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@BunnyyHop: It's looking good so far I like how you're getting sources that are academic like Britannica and your version does show the atrocities committed by (Marxism–Leninism).Isabella Emma (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
BunnyyHop The entirety of the article barely even mentions atrocities, it has POV pushing sections, it constantly down plays Marxist-Leninist failures, massacres. In sum your sandbox reads like Marxist-Leninist manifesto, it deals in the theoretical of what a Marxist-Leninist dictator would state in a manifesto, it constantly talks on how Marxists-Leninists beleive, but rarely talk about how Marxist-Leninists states worked in practice, the few times it does it is nearly glowing, the issue isn't that there the occasional sentence talking on how Marxist-Leninists successes, it nearly is all glowing propaganda. It also lacks pretty much any scholarly citations, and doesn't have enough to be verifiable. I do agree with Davide King that the criticisms should read as a criticisms of Marxist-Leninism not communism however, and possibly specific sections can be shortened. This should be about issues with Marxist-Leninism and its atrocities not communist ones. BunnyHop almost none of the things in your sandbox is neutral and thereby is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Sidenote, Wikipedia articles are written in an encyclopedic wording something that your writing is struggling with and also has a specific system for citations always put them after a periode.[2] Wrong: Marxist-Leninist often times lacked soup and were authoritarian[3] . Correct: Marxist-Leninist often times lacked soup and were authoritarian .[4] In your sandbox there is constant inconsistent citations in which the reference was put before the period, that's not how you format things. Make a specific change to the article and propose that, instead of an entire article. Vallee01 (talk) 02:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I overviewed the diff provided, the are serious trimming in the Analysis sections which I disagree, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC))
@KIENGIR: I have copied the current analysis section and pasted there, changing only two or three minor things.
@Vallee01: The two citations that were breaking that rule were fixed. Also, those things are concretely mentioned within the article, and are also groupped together in the analysis section. Not to mention the succinct version of it in the overview. If you believe some sections are not written in a NPOV way propose changes or add the "[neutrality is disputed]" template. There is only one direct citation to Lenin, one that builds off of a previous, academic, one. The rest is properly referenced.
@Isabella Emma: Thank you! I did even more changes. Do you think it's in a good state to be published in the main page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BunnyyHop (talk • contribs) 12:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
BunnyyHop, I do not think so because there is no consensus, so I suggest you to not always ask that when it is obvious there is no consensus, but assuming good faith I hope you do not get discouraged and that you continue editing, perhaps starting with much less controversial articles and doing some copy-editing rather than boldly changing the lead; I suggest you to read policies and guidelines, and continue to work on the sandbox. After all, no article start with a good article status and it is a process of collaboration that builds it, so perhaps some of your suggestions may be copy-edited, further improved and incorporated in the future if they are due and are supported by reliable sources, but so far there does not seem to be consensus for them. Davide King (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Davide King, thanks for the answer. My main problem with the article isn't the article itself but the lead, in which 7 out of 21 lines is criticism. It's not neutral and goes against the guidelines I mentioned earlier. I instead made a succinct paragraph about main features of ML based on sources you published and some others. I'll wait for the other editors to express what their concerns are to incorporate into my sandbox. BunnyyHop (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
That seems to be a fairer criticism. I believe The Four Deuces had a point here, here and here, so I hope they can comment further. They are especially good at looking the scholar literature and whether something is due or supported by scholarship, certainly better than me, therefore I think their comment about what scholarship about the subject actually says would be very helpful. We should not present only one side of historiography, especially when the field is so politicised and controversial, or present interpretations as facts. My understanding is scholars generally agree on the events, hence "no one is trying to downplay Stalinist crimes", but they disagree on the interpretation and this is especially important and relevant since it is mainly one side that blames it all on the ideology, or that it falsely implies mass killings are an essential objective of socialism, broadly defined. Davide King (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01, regarding "it constantly down plays Marxist-Leninist failures, massacres" and "the criticisms should read as a criticisms of Marxist-Leninism not communism however, and possibly specific sections can be shortened", I agree. The problem is that it is mainly one side of historiography that especially emphasises them, so you cannot have it both ways, when it is people like Service that emphasise deaths under Communist regimes and blame Communism, even small-c communism, for it. Do not get me wrong, scholars actually agree they all took place and were tragedies but they disagree on some interpretation of them, including whether Communism was to blame for them all and whether it was the main culprit, giving other explanations other than "blame it all on communism and the government." As an example, Sheila Fitzpatrick's groundbreaking work on Stalinism such as Everyday Stalinism and Stalin's Peasants is not relied on at all. Davide King (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I would point out the article is about Marxist-Leninist ideology rather than about Communist government. What weight we should give to that should be based on reliable secondary and tertiary sources such as Soviet Marxism-Leninism By comparison the article Catholic theology doesn't mention the Crusades, slavery, collaboration with the Nazis or the abuse of children by priests. TFD (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
This article details both the implementation, policies, government and theory of Marxist-Leninism, and the theory of Marxist-Leninism and the implementation of Marxist-Leninism are inseparable. Soviet ideology is inherently linked to the failure of Soviet policies. You can't attempt to write about Stalin's ideas without talking about Stalin's implementation of those ideas. Marxist-Leninist states can constitute a form of capitalism from an academic sense, that Marxist-Leninist engaged in imperialistic and expansionist policies all of which are utterly important to understanding Marxist-Leninism. The way Marxist-Leninism is practiced as an ideology is extremely, we need to write about that, the way Marxist-Leninism was implemented which is directly related to it's theory. If we talk about Marxist-Leninist ideology we also thereby need to discuss the results, governments etc... The theory of Soviet is inherently connected to the results of Soviet style economy. If you are going to mention Marxist-Leninist policies which it obviously should. it is impossible to separate Marxist-Leninist atrocities from Marxist-Leninist policies or theory because Marxist-Leninist atrocities are simply Marxist-Leninist policies. The atrocities of Marxist-Leninism was guided and executed because of Marxist-Leninist ideology. The two are impossible to separate. Joseph Stalin and his mass killings can not be separated. The fact that the Soviet Union was able to industrialize so quickly is largely because forced, unjust, and inhumane slave labour, so if you mention the rapid industrialization of the USSR, you need to mention the Gulag system, see how they are connected? If you discuss politics in the USSR you need to discuss Stalin's purges which usually was the guiding principle of Soviet politics that being a fear of Stalin.
Fascism as an example is inherently linked to its genocidal and brutal policies, as such Marxist-Leninism is inherently linked to theory, policies which guided authoritarian measures. The Soviet Union, Mao's China and the Eastern block are all inherently connected to their actions, their policies, governments and implementation. So on and so forth. Which is usually built upon brutal policies on both their economy and government. So you need to write about those mass killings, government, deportation etc... because they were some of the most important Marxist-Leninist policies. Marxist-Leninist policies and theory and Marxist-Leninist atrocities are both inherently connected, you cannot separate them. Vallee01 (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I hope The Four Deuces can respond you, too, because they are more concise and clear, but I would note that Fascism makes no mention of criticism in the lead and there is not an actual criticism of fascism the same way we have criticism of communist party rule, criticism of Marxism and criticism of socialism.
In addition, I am not sure scholars actually say what you wrote; there are some scholars that undoubtedly link all those policies not only to Marxism–Leninism but to communism itself, so this seems to be a bit of wanting the cake and eat it too, where you want this article to emphasise all this when not even Fascism does that (there are only few mentions of the Holocaust) but then you wrote "the criticisms should read as a criticisms of Marxist-Leninism not communism however, and possibly specific sections can be shortened. This should be about issues with Marxist-Leninism and its atrocities not communist ones."
But anti-communist scholars do exactly that and emphasise the atrocities precisely to blame them all on communism and in general it is mainly those same scholars who support what you wrote above, although they may actually take a more nuanced position than what you exposed; even Conquest did not lump all mass killings under Communist regimes together or as part of a Communist death toll. I agree it was a backward regime that became a capitalist one, rather than socialist as summarised here and here by The Four Deuces, but the same anti-communist scholars who emphasise this say it was socialist; indeed, it is mainly anti-communist scholars and Marxist–Leninist themselves who agree it was socialist, albeit for completely opposed reasons.
Either way, we should actually look at what literature and scholarly consensus say. The work given by The Four Deuces would be a start to establish weight; if something is not mentioned in the literature, we should probably not mention it either. So far, I found no mention of the Holodomor and only one reference to famines at p. 22 describing how "[t]he Soviet state struggled for survival in nightmarish conditions", including "world war, civil war, foreign intervention, economic ruin, famine, and finally, massive unrest among the Russian workers and peasants themselves." Davide King (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Fifth break

I agree with Davide King and The Four Deuces. As the article stands, 1/3 of the lead not only has criticism - it consists of cherry picked historical events to establish a very well-defined POV on the viewer before reading the article. I propose the following change before we discuss the rest of my edits in the article - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ABunnyyHop%2Fsandbox&type=revision&diff=991034614&oldid=991033379 - do we have a consensus for this? BunnyyHop (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

For starters you need to make clear what is to change. You are using your version, not the base of the article, so it's hard to see what you are saying. Your current edit just completely removes the massacres, and other things committed by such states.
BunnyyHop where does the section "consists of cherry picked historical events to establish a very well-defined POV on the viewer before reading the article." Where is the NPOV breaker? You can't just state it isn't a NPOV without actual evidence. You seem to take issue not with anything in the article, but instead the simple fact that the paragraph states Marxist-Leninist atrocities. I do agree Davide King in rewording it, perhaps cutting it down. BunnyyHop is there is unilatiral consensious amougst scholars of Marxist-Leninist attrocities, there is no way you can try to twist this. I agree in rewording it, but your issue with the article isn't the wording, your issue with the article is that it even mentions Marxist-Leninist genocides and massacres, that it even states political repressions or otherwise committed under such states. You seem to only find issue that the article even states Marxist-Leninist's atrocities.
"Marxism–Leninist philosophy has been criticised by a broad political spectrum both on the left and right. Marxist–Leninist rule has been especially criticised, including by other socialists such as anarchists, communists, democratic socialists, libertarian socialists and Marxists. Marxist–Leninist states have been described as authoritarian, or accused of being totalitarian, for enacting repressions and killings of political dissidents and social classes (so-called "enemies of the people"), religious persecution, ethnic cleansing, forced collectivisation and use of forced labor in concentration camps.[5][6][7] Such states have been accused of genocidal acts in China, Poland and Ukraine.[8][9][10][11] Anti-Stalinist left and other left-wing critics see it as an example of state capitalism[12][13] and have referred to it as a "red fascism" contrary to left-wing politics.[14][15][16] Other leftists, including Marxist–Leninists, have criticised it for its repressive state actions while recognising certain advancements such as egalitarian achievements and modernisation under such states.[17][18] The socio-economic nature of Marxist–Leninist states has also been much debated, varyingly being labelled a form of bureaucratic collectivism, state capitalism, state socialism, or a totally unique mode of production.[19]"
"And the most prominent in the communist movement around the world." Again this subjective and also not correct, it is a large ideology but it mostly is because of Marxist-Leninist states, if we look at electoral results, Marxist-Leninist parties do extremely poorly compared to other communist parties. As well as this if we take the protest movement, of what people beleive anarchism almost always is able to mobilize a biiger base. As previously that depends upon the place. Marxist-Leninism is non-existent in the United States while ideologies such as anarchism are far larger. It is major ideology but it most certainly isn't the largest, even if it was it wouldn't justify this. Vallee01 (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01
"For starters you need to make clear what is to change." The lead has been changed to be descriptive of the principles of the ideology and neutral and the "criticism paragraph" is moved down to the overview due to its nature.
"You are using your version, not the base of the article, so it's hard to see what you are saying." I did not use my version of the article, I made a copy of the base article, published it, and then reverted it with the proposed changes.
"Your current edit just completely removes the massacres, and other things committed by such states." I have kept that section intact and moved it to the overview. I have not altered anything in that paragraph, although the article I'm working on has that section adjusted to its sources and more neutral - to include the whole analysis and not just its criticism.
"Again this subjective and also not correct, it is a large ideology but it mostly is because of Marxist-Leninist states, if we look at electoral results, Marxist-Leninist parties do extremely poorly compared to other communist parties" This article is about Marxism-Leninism, not communist movements in the US. And even then, you would have to back that up with academic sources, since the Party for Socialism and Liberation seems to be growing. Marxism-Leninism is the most prominent communist ideology in the commmunist movement, historically or in the present- "by 1985, one-third of the world's population lived under a Marxist–Leninist system of government in one form or another". Today, China - the biggest ML state in the world - occupies around 18.47% of the world population. Vietnam - 1.25%. Laos 0.09%, Cuba 0.15% and Nepal 0.37% (which is not a Marxist-Leninist republic but is ruled by a communist party). This makes it the most prominent according to [[2]], but I want to hear what other editors what to say about this.
This seems to be a point where almost all editors agree AFAIK. It's a measure to increase the NPOV of the article while we discuss other stuff. BunnyyHop (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
BunnyyHop The changes you want is to change the lead, to remove sections on mass killings. You removed the entire section and changed "one of the major" to "one of the major and main communist movement." an extreme case of POV. You also rephrasing attempting to get Marxist-Leninism better, you tried removing these sections 8 times. You have no consensus on this, nobody has ever stated they support your position on removing the section, and no not responding doesn't constitute support. I agree on rephrasing it, and even that seems contraversal. Nobody wants but you wants to nuke the entire section. BunnyyHop none of your edits have followed a NPOV, that's why all of them have been reverted. Vallee01 (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01, I have moved the section, not removed it. Check more carefully this time. Saying it's the most prominent is not a POV, no other communist ideology has been able to achieve the amount of influence Marxist-Leninism has and had - not even close. The number of people who had lived, and live in ML societies speaks for itself. Other non-marxist communist ideologies such as anarcho-communism have not been able to establish one mass society, and other non-communist ideologies such as anarchism and related, historically, they have only had two short-lived experiences and one ongoing project in some parts of the Mexican state of Chiapas whose population is of 5 million people. This is of course not to mention the amount of ML parties who are politically relevant in all continents. BunnyyHop (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Marxist-Leninism has almost no support in the US, it is major but not the most prominent and most certainly in most of the world. BunnyyHop there has been a total of 2 "mass protests" by Marxist-Leninists in the US, one in Portland and one in Los angles. The others have been protests in which 5-10 people showed up. There has been hundreds of anarchists protests every year, in every city. There is a non-existent Marxist-Leninist movement in the US just like much of the world, the PSL got a couple thousand votes about 0.001% of the vote despite being open to 30% of the population in which people wrote a name. Anarchists during the George Floyd Protests were able to mobilize tens of thousands to risk their lives to protest and created an entire government in Seattle, dominated discourse in the US for 2 months. Dominate the discussions after the 2016 election, dominate discussions during Unite the Right, and create vibrant communities in the US. There is almost no support for Marxist-Leninists in the US, they completely fail at picking up any traction, they have consistently failed at organizing effectively at all. This can be seen simply with US pop culture, you will find almost nothing of mass importance built on Marxist-Leninism. You would be hard pressed not to find some anarchist references or undertones in much of US culture, weather it be the Punk movement something that defined the 80s, the 1999 WTO protest, opposition to George Bush, Green day, Against me, Donald Trump constant talk of "anarchist thugs," The Disrupt J20 movement, George Floyd protests, the radical feminist movement. Marxist-Leninism has done none of that, because nobody would ever want to support China, the USSR, or any other failed authoritarian states. The same applies to France were Marxist-Leninists are present but completely overshadowed by anarchists during protests. The UK has as well as near non-existent Marxist-Leninist party but yet anarchists are constantly able to mobilize a mass movement. In Spain, anarchists alsodominate much of the protests. Despite this, it should not be replaced with "The main form" that is subjective to the region and country. TLDR, BunnyyHop your edits aren't constructive, and all your edits do not fit Wikipedia guidelines for a NPOV. Vallee01 (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Sixth break

Actually now that I think about it, while there is no consensus on the proposed version by BunnyyHop and I think you are going to violate NOFORUM by discussing about the wording of the first sentence where we should just say it is a communist ideology and not going into original research about which left-wing movement is more popular, there is no consensus about having criticism in the lead, which is what was this discussion about it. The lead is supposed to be a summary and the article, so that is supposed to be a summary of the criticism, although it does not adequately include the scholars who do not blame communism for any excess deaths and highlight the backwardness of those countries and that in practice they were forced to industrialise to build capital and in this sense being a step towards capitalism (which is indeed what eventually resulted with the full developement of a capitalist market economy) rather than socialism and there seems to be agreement to reword it.

However, Conservatism, Fascism and Liberalism, among other political-related articles, make no mention of criticism in the lead, so I do not see why we ought to have it here, too. We may move it at Overview while add a third paragraph summarising the views of scholars; those anti-communists who blame communism for all the bad events and those who highlight the bakward nature of the countries Communism took place in the first place and how they followed a path for the development of capitalism rather than socialism (of course, Communists thought that with the development of capitalism, then socialism would follow suits but that did not happen). Indeed, the onus is on those who support to add it to the lead in the first place; again, I supported that because the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body and I thought that should have been summarised too, but perhaps the point is that criticism should be avoided to be in the lead if we already have a whole section about it. So far, several users have challenged the criticism to be in the lead, not the criticism itself, therefore a solution may be to move that paragraph at Overview or as a subsection of Analysis called Reception, while a third paragraph for the lead may be rewritten to summarise the two main scholarly interpretations. Davide King (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Davide King I agree. If the entire section needs to be rephrased and would be fine with moving the section into its own paragraph. Currently the article if formatted in a strange way. It goes: Theory -> Practice -> Criticisms. Instead in my opinion each paragraph should detail about everything. Detailing Marxist-Leninist theory, then detailing Marxist-Leninist actions. The article Fascism doesn't have a specific section on criticisms in the lead but it does mention atrocities while discussing the policies. I think the best solution would move the entire criticisms section, or leave it as 2-3 sentences. The current wording has ballooned in size, it use to be a 2-3 line sentence about Marxist-Leninist atrocities but has now ballooned in size. Instead Marxist-Leninist actions should be merged into the article. Example: "Marxist-Leninist states industrialized rapidly largely based off a system of collectivization and forced labour" under this system both the Gulag system is stated, and Marxist-Leninist industrialization. You are clearly a tireless editor, and I am fully fine with you changing the lead. I think your changes will be beneficial to the article. Vallee01 (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Marxism–Leninism is one of the main ideologies of the communist movement around the world.[1] Marxism-Leninism is the synthesis of Vladimir Lenin's contributions to Marxism.[2] Today, Marxism–Leninism is the official ideology of the ruling parties of China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam[3] as unitary one-party socialist republics, and of Nepal in a people's multiparty democracy system.[4] Historically, it was the official state ideology of the Soviet Union and other ruling parties of the Eastern Bloc as well as the Communist International after Bolshevisation.[5]
After the death of Vladimir Lenin in 1924, Marxism–Leninism became a distinct philosophical movement in the Soviet Union when Stalin and his supporters gained control of the party. It rejected the common notions among Western Marxists of world revolution, as a prerequisite for building socialism, in favour of the concept of socialism in one country. According to its supporters, the gradual transition from capitalism to socialism was signified by the introduction of the first five-year plan and the 1936 Soviet Constitution. The internationalism of Marxism–Leninism was expressed in supporting revolutions in other countries (e.g. initially through the Communist International or through the concept of socialist-leaning countries after de-Stalinisation). By the late 1920s, Stalin established ideological orthodoxy among the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), the Soviet Union and the Communist International to establish universal Marxist–Leninist praxis.[6][7] In the late 1930s, Stalin's official textbook History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) (1938) popularised the term Marxism–Leninism among communists and non-communists.[8]
Marxism-Leninism is based on the philosophical theory of dialectical and historical materialism.[9] The goal of Marxism-Leninism the revolutionary overcoming of capitalism[10] and the building of the a socialist society, to ultimately reach communism.[11] This revolution is led by a vanguard party,[12][13] and in order to achieve the two-phase transformation of the state, the vanguard party establishes the dictatorship of the proletariat (opposed to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie) as an one-party system[14] whose policies and hierarchy are organized through democratic centralism, where leaders must be elected by the people and it's entailed a democratic and open discussion on policy, on the condition of unity in upholding the agreed-upon policies.[15][16][9][14] Marxist–Leninists generally support internationalism and oppose capitalism, fascism, imperialism and liberal democracy.
Third paragraph moved to the end of the analysis section as a placeholder until a better version of it with due weight to both POVs is done
Colleagues, Davide King, Vallee01, The Four Deuces, KIENGIR, Isabella Emma, Asarlaí, do we have a consensus for this? --BunnyyHop (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
BunnyyHop For the final time, no. When there is consensus there is consensus you just want to remove the parts detailing genocides. Your edits aren't positive for the article. Vallee01 (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01, once again, there is no removal of such parts. --BunnyyHop (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
BunnyyHop is right, they did not remove that; they moved it at Overview, which seems to be a better way to put it, where we can go in more detail and give a bit of more context and background than the currently-worded third paragraph in the lead, which is unprecedented for other similar politics-related article. As noted by The Four Deuces, this article is supposed to be about the ideology, so we should just make a summary of criticism and not put it in the lead; for the criticism, we already have Criticism of communist party rule and a whole bunch of Communist-related articles that in many ways are coatracked articles. We already discuss the events in the body such as the Great Purge ("Political developments in the Soviet Union included Stalin dismantling the remaining elements of democracy from the party by extending his control over its institutions and eliminating any possible rivals") and repressions ("Organised religion was repressed, especially minority religious groups"). I am still unsure about the rest of BunnyHop's edits and whether I can find better sources such as the one given by The Four Deuces but it seems we agree the criticism should be moved or reworded, so I will try to do that and see what you think. Davide King (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Davide King the current article is formatted in a way in which it deals extremely heavily with theory leaving any mention of Marxist-Leninist actions, and then goes into criticisms, instead the section should be melded together. The historic importance of Marxist-Leninist atrocities isn't stated in the lead, it states it at the very end these things. Instead it should be melded together as stated above. I do also think it should be reworded. State what you would like to do. Vallee01 (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, there is a consensus that the what you propose is not WP:NPOV. If you insist, please use the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. "Marxist-Leninist actions" When you mention Marxist-Leninist actions you are not refering to the advancements, emancipatory acts such as their support of labor rights,[179][180] women's rights[181] and anti-imperialism,[182] democratic efforts,[183] egalitarian achievements, modernisation,[184][185] the creation of mass social programs for education, health, housing and jobs, the increase of living standards such states[26] and for fostering "national self-determination, economic betterment, the preservation of health and human life, and the end of many of the worst forms of ethnic, patriarchal, and class oppression."[186] but the consequences of Stalinism in the wake of the second world war. That's the part you insist to include in the lead, despite we having a fairly extensive section about criticism where the multiple interpretation and contexts of history are located and balanced (but maybe not as much as it should), so what you propose is not neutral editing. Due to the nature of criticism, it should not be on the lead.

Davide King There seems to be an almost unanimous consensus that criticism shouldn't be on the lead, but no editors have expressed themselves on my proposal so far. Although may I ask - which sources on that replacement of the third paragraph are not the best? For now, I am just proposing this addition to the lead - the rest of the article stays as it is, even the criticism paragraph we will move to the overview. --BunnyyHop (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Seventh break

We are supposed to have one main topic for article, this one is about the ideology; for the criticism and the events, we already have Criticism of communist party rule and Mass killings under communist regimes. I disagree that "the current article is formatted in a way in which it deals extremely heavily with theory leaving any mention of Marxist-Leninist actions, and then goes into criticisms, instead the section should be melded together." History, which is about the practice and include many of the actions and events you are referring to, is already much longer than Ideology. It is also not clear what you mean by having "the section [...] melded together." I think it would be helpful if you start a sandbox about it, so we can compare and understand more clearly what are the differences and what we are actually proposing as change.

"The historic importance of Marxist-Leninist atrocities isn't stated in the lead, it states it at the very end these things." Are you suggesting not only that should stay in the lead but it should be stated even earlier? We make no mention of colonialism, imperialism or slavery at Liberalism's lead and no mention of the Holocuast at Fascism's lead. We should simply state that there is a polarised view of the ideology. While most people aknowledge its atrocities, including other socialists and some Marxist–Leninists themselves, some scholars propose that the ideology itself, including communism, is to blame for all the events and deaths, with some anti-communists on the more extreme end arguing that communism implies mass killings, whereas other scholars disagree, find other explanations other than blaming it all on the ideology, or do not see the ideology as applied by leaders like Stalin as the natural, inevitable conclusion and result of communism, or even Leninism. Davide King (talk) 02:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Davide King My issue with the article is mentions the industrialization of the Soviet Union but it does not mention how that was achieved. Marxist-Leninist attrocities . Are you stating you should remove even mentioning Marxist-Leninist attrocities. To state to not include the atrocities of Marxist-Leninist states, most of which are well documented by scholars, something that is built upon most Marxist-Leninist states is impossible. If you mention the Soviet Union, or Joseph Stalin, or Vladimir Lenin it is impossible to seperate. I think you can tie them both in. So you can state Marxist-Leninist rapid industrialization but you also need to mention that it was built on forced hoarding, bueracracy, and Gulags, all of which play an extremely important role in that industrialization.
Indeed Fascism makes no mention of the Holocaust, however Fascism is a much more broad ideology then simply Nazism. Nazism however does mention the Holocaust extremely clearly because Nazism is defined by those events. Fascism doesn't inheirently need to rascist, you could theoretically be fascist and not beleive in Eugenics its not a defining charcteristic of Fascism. Nazism however is defined by the Holocoast, it is defined by likewise Marxist- I said it once and I will state it again. This isn't about Communism it is about Marxist-Leninism. Fascism is a broad, far-right, reactionary ideology, it is possible to be Fascist and despise Nazism. Using the academic definition we can define many Fascists as Jewish, Black, Slavic, Asian, Arab, that all despise Nazi Germany.
Likewise many, if not most communist ideologies despise Marxist-Leninism, Democratic socialism, Libertarian Socialism, Anarchism, Orthodox Leninism, Council communism, Marxism, Trotskyism all of these ideologies that are considered a form of communist. In fact all of these supporters of these ideologies were hunted in the Soviet Union and massacred by the Soviet Union. Communism isn't defined by Marxist-Leninism, many communists were brutalized by the USSR as an example the socialist union Solidarity in Poland, that was put down by the Soviets, anarcho-communist dissidents in the USSR, the socialist revolution in Hungary. Marxist-Leninism however is defined by Stalin, it is defined by authoritarianism, it is defined by Lenin and the Soviet Union. If you are a Marxist-Leninist you also by that very nature need to support Stalin, you must at least tastily support or at least tolerate Marxist-Leninist atrocities. I hope I made myself clear. Attempting to create a neutral article on Marxist-Leninism while not mentioning Marxist-Leninist atrocities, or authoritarianism is simply not possible. The entirety of the Soviet Union, and Mao's China was built upon these policies. Here is something I think should be done for the better of the article.
Example:
"After the death of Vladimir Lenin in 1924, Marxism–Leninism became a distinct movement in the Soviet Union when Stalin and his supporters gained control of the party. It rejected the common notions among Western Marxists of world revolution, as a prerequisite for building socialism, in favour of the concept of socialism in one country. According to its supporters, the gradual transition from capitalism to socialism was signified by the introduction of the first five-year plan and the 1936 Soviet Constitution. The five year plans were built upon the idea of rapid industrialization, and high production quotes. The optimism of the plan, along with Soviet mismanagement and incompetence resulted in the failure to acheive their objectives. Workers were often payed little and Soviet need for cheap labour would be subsidised with use of forced labour, through the Gulags in which perceived Soviet enemies were held, often in brutal conditions. The Soviet need for industrial equipment led to crops being sold abroad. Along with a bad weather, famine and starvation became common in the Soviet Union throughout the 1930s. The worst hit area of the famine was in Ukraine, in which millions of Ukrainians would starve called the Holodomor. It is debated by scholars if the Holodomor constitutes a genocide, however Soviet mismanagement and hoarding of food is at least partially resposible for creating a man made famine. Despite the failures of the Soviet failures the economy still went through a rapid stage of industrialization[20] The socio-economic nature of Marxist–Leninist states, especially that of the Soviet Union under the Stalin era, has been much debated, varyingly being labelled a form of bureaucratic collectivism, state capitalism, state socialism, or a totally unique mode of production.[21]"
Obviously the section should not be changed word for word, but that gives a general idea for what I think would best for the article it mentions Soviet Industrialization while mentioning the Gulag system, and other things. As well including. It of course has no sources, however this is just a basic idea for what I think is the best for the article. Thanks.
Vallee01 (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Since I was pinged, I express again I don't see any "almost unanimous consensus". As well, by a short time, such an amount of charachters flood this page that is hardely follow in a timely manner, I see only possible some short steps.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC))
Vallee01 You seem to have a circular logic that Because Stalinism is Marxism-Leninism, Marxism-Leninism is Stalinism. It's not. All those things you mention, it being factual or not, we can simply put all those down by looking at the other 29 Marxist-Leninist states that existed and exist (not counting the republics of the USSR) and are not even close to Stalininism, or even at the USSR during other period than that of Stalinism, marked mainly by the second world war.
"My issue with the article is mentions the industrialization of the Soviet Union but it does not mention how that was achieved." It does mention how many scholars view the industrialization of the USSR.
"if not most communist ideologies despise Marxist-Leninism" Editor's POV.
"socialist union Solidarity in Poland" legalised in 80.
"Communism isn't defined by Marxist-Leninism" The same way Marxism-Leninism isn't defined by Stalinism.
"If you are a Marxist-Leninist you also by that very nature need to support Stalin, you must at least tastily support or at least tolerate Marxist-Leninist atrocities" Editor's POV, no weight.
"Attempting to create a neutral article on Marxist-Leninism while not mentioning Marxist-Leninist atrocities, or authoritarianism is simply not possible" Once again, no one is trying to remove such things.
"This isn't about Communism it is about Marxist-Leninism. Fascism is a broad, far-right, reactionary ideology, it is possible to be Fascist and despise Nazism". Editor's POV, no weight.
Breaking it down, we can see your objection is only based on your personal opinion that Marxism-Leninism is the ideology of "devil incarnate" himself, Joseph Stalin, so therefore Marxism-Leninism is mainly defined by what happened in the 30s and 40s in the union of soviet socialist states. This might be the view of anticommunist blog writers, but it's not the view of academics and therefore should not be included in Wikipedia WP:V.
Having criticism in the lead is simply not a good idea. The very nature of criticism makes it very hard to summarize - and that's something we can see here, the editor proposes the worse crimes committed by Stalin to be included in the lead and has suppressed multiple times any attempt to give due weight to other views by claiming it's supposed to be a "short". Even in articles that are not very controversial, they do not do this for the very reason stated in the lead page I sent earlier. Davide King, shall I open a dispute in the NPOV Board to sort this out? Other editors have expressed their concern about this, and it also goes against the guidelines if we follow them as written. --BunnyyHop (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Davide King, I have a question about the political dissent question. In the peer-reviewed book, in the Stalinist category it mentions "The tolerance of debate and dissent within the Communist Party eroded rapidly, especially in the circumstances of the Civil War in Russia". Later, it says that in Stalin's synthesis the communist party "would suppress counterrevolution". After this, it mentions the criticism of Georgy Lukács, who did very influential works on Leninism, and was one of the leading members of the Hungarian Communist Party - which is Marxist-Leninist. Therefore, the Stalinist approach is contested by Marxist-Leninists, and the book even mentions "Marxist–Leninist ideology as interpreted by Stalin". It also mentions Lenin's last testament, where he had concerns about Stalin taking leadership of the party "Lenin’s so-called 'Last Testament', dictated in December 1922, which had expressed doubts of Stalin’s fitness to lead the Party". A while later, it makes a distinction between the so called "Eastern Bloc" and the third world movement. "Indeed, Marxism–Leninism had a very influential role throughout the old Third World during the twentieth century". In the conclusion, it mentions Krushchev: "Khrushchev explained these as a consequence of Stalin’s personality cult and as a betrayal of Marxism–Leninism, rather than as something inherent in the system". What is being said in the article is not the conclusion drawn by the author. The other source, on page 140, mentions "The collapse of communist party-states in eastern europe", mentioning specifically the USSR before the mid-1980s, where it claims there were employed physical sanctions "against political dissents who denounced Marxism-Leninism".
One for instance, mentions only the USSR and the Stalinist interpretation of Marxism-Leninism, which prominent Leninist philosopher Lukács arguees against. The second one mentions sanctions against "political dissents who denounced Marxism-Leninism" in the USSR.
Thus, I draw a conclusion - these sources do not attribute these qualities to Marxism-Leninism, or as inherent necessary, but rather something that was praticed in the USSR due to the Stalinist interpretation of Marxism-Leninism, which Lukács, as a Marxist-Leninist, does not agree with. Therefore, unless we have the circular logic of "Marxism-Leninism is Stalinism because Stalinism is Marxism-Leninism", it should not be included in the lead. Hence, I proposed the changing of suppress to control, although it might be better if it's in the part of the article referent to Stalinism, because it's not something universal to Marxist-Leninist theory and not something agreed by Marxist-Leninists be it either in theory or in practice (as shown by the earlier sources). "You cannot separate Stalinism from Marxism-Leninism!", well, we can't separate Liberalism from slavery, colonialism, support for Nazifascism, military dictatorships, and so on, but it's not in the lead of the article for a very good reason. In fact, it's not even in the article. --BunnyyHop (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
BunnyyHop, I have to agree on this. This article is supposed to be about the ideology, an ideology that "was subject to significant adaptation under various leaders, contrary to the widespread impression that official Soviet ideology remained static after Stalin." In other words, it is not the same thing as Stalinism and we can not limit it to Stalinism and what happened in the Stalin era. By the way, Vallee01, we already say "[t]he socio-economic nature of Marxist–Leninist states, especially that of the Soviet Union under the Stalin era, has been much debated, varyingly being labelled a form of bureaucratic collectivism, state capitalism, state socialism, or a totally unique mode of production", with "bureaucratic collectivism" already saying in just two words what you want to state in a whole paragraph that focus too much on the Soviet 1930s, when this article is about the ideology of one third of the world. We already say this at Stalinism:

Stalin's regime forcibly purged society of what it saw as threats to itself and its brand of communism (so-called "enemies of the people"), which included political dissidents, non-Soviet nationalists, the bourgeoisie, better-off peasants ("kulaks"),[4] and those of the working class who demonstrated "counter-revolutionary" sympathies.[5] This resulted in mass repression of such people as well as their families, including mass arrests, show trials, executions, and imprisonment in forced labor and concentration camps known as gulags.[6] The most notable examples of this were the Great Purge and the Dekulakization campaign. Stalinism was also marked by mass religious persecution,[7][8] and ethnic cleansing through forced deportations.[9] Some historians such as Robert Service have blamed Stalinist policies for causing famines such as the Holodomor.[7] Other historians and scholars disagree on the role of Stalinism.[10]

This may be added in the body when talking about the Soviet 1930s, but we should not be repeating the same thing here, certainly not in the lead, when Khrushchev and Gorbachev, both Marxist–Leninists, repudiated Stalin. We should also follow what reliable sources actually say, rather than our own POVs, and the quotes in the given source provide a more nuanced picture. Ironically, Valee01, you are pushing the Stalinist POV that Khrushchev and Gorbachev were not real Marxist–Leninists but revisionists, giving too much weight to what Stalin did when this article is not about Stalin or Stalinism, for which we already have the eponymous articles. Yet, given source clearly distinguishes between "Marxist–Leninist ideology as interpreted by Stalin" and Marxism–Leninism as interpreted by other Marxist–Leninists. Davide King (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Eighth break

Davide King, I completely agree. I think we should trim down the lead to things factual and universal, and leave information that is subject to interpretation in the overview section, where we can develop it further. For example "The socio-economic nature of Marxist–Leninist states, especially that of the Soviet Union under the Stalin era, has been much debated, varyingly being labelled a form of bureaucratic collectivism, state capitalism, state socialism, or a totally unique mode of production.[16]" The book does not debate the socio-economic nature of Marxist-Leninist states, not even bureaucratic collectivism, state capitalism, state socialism, - nothing - this is just original research. In fact, these two pages are mainly about the mid-1970s. I tried to do something in my sandbox. It's small, concise, and mentions the most distinct characteristics of Marxist-Leninism with a neutral and universal POV, AFAIK. BunnyyHop (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Davide King The entirety basis of Marxist-Leninism was formulated by Stalin himself, Stalinism is not Marxist-Leninism however Stalinism. Marxist-Leninism is much more then Stalin but the Soviet system. If we mention the Soviet system, if we need to mention Soviet policies. Marxist-Leninist position is irrelevant. The Soviet Union was built on forced labor. Stalin most certainly should be mentinoid and attrocities in passing. These attrocities are and should be mentinoid, as most of these states were built on them. If you try to mention the Soviet Union while not mentinoing Soviet attrocities is impossible. Vallee01 (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01, I believe The Four Deuces had a point here when they wrote "[g]overnments across the political spectrum have engaged in mass killings, but this is the only one that that gives it that level of detail or even mentions it. The topic of the article isn't why Communism is bad but what is their ideology." For the former, we already have Crimes against humanity under communist regimes and Mass killings under communist regimes (both of which are synthesis and do not reflect scholarly literature consensus) as well as Criticism of communist party rule and Stalinism. This focus on Communist killings, with whole articles about it and this level of detail, is unprecedented, when "[g]overnments across the political spectrum have engaged in mass killings." Conservatives have the aristocractic crimes, White terrors, military dictatorshisps and complicity with fascism (no mention of it at Conservatism); liberals have colonialism, genocides, imperialism and slavery (no mention of it at Liberalism); and socialists have the Communist regimes (there is mention of it at Socialism), yet only for socialists, communists and the left in general, which is condemned by those on the right as "prone to mass killings", despite mass killings done in the name of ideologies across the political spectrum, do we have whole articles about criticism and mass killings. For Communist-related articles, we are engaging in Holocaust trivialisation and double genocide theory. This article is about the ideology and we do not mention at Catholic theology "the Crusades, slavery, collaboration with the Nazis or the abuse of children by priests", even though some may argue they were the results of theology. At Capitalism, there is no mention of colonialism, imperialism, racism and slavery, even though they were the results of it rather than relics of feudalism, not even in the body. Davide King (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
BunnyyHop, I have to disagree with the removal. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the body and "The socio-economic nature of Marxist–Leninist states [...] has been much debated, varyingly being labelled a form of bureaucratic collectivism, state capitalism, state socialism, or a totally unique mode of production" is already supported in the body and the ref is used for the claim "especially that of the Soviet Union under the Stalin era." That is actually what the ref says, see here at p. 202 (the pages are d Since we say "[a]ccording to its supporters, the gradual transition from capitalism to socialism was signified by the introduction of the first five-year plan and the 1936 Soviet Constitution", we provide other views. Davide King (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful if we can get John Morgan, W. (201). "Marxism–Leninism: The Ideology of Twentieth-Century Communism". In Wright, James D., ed. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier. pp. 657–662. and Andrai, Charles F. (1994). Comparative Political Systems: Policy Performance and Social Change. Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe. p. 140. To see what they actually say. Davide King (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Davide King, I see your point. According to Morgan, he only mentions China as "...indeed nationalistic state capitalism."
Charles refers to the Eastern Bloc as "bureaucratic-authoritarian regimes" in those two pages.
From what I can see, the author brings to the table the different views of the "contendious" relation of Stalinism with Marxism, Leninism, Bolshevism, (...) and if it's a variant of state capitalism, bureaucratic collectivism (...). So, IMO, while this might be a good phrase to put in a place about Stalinism, I don't think it's good to place it in the lead. BunnyyHop (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
BunnyyHop, thanks for providing the quotes. Yet we use those two refs to support the claim of "suppressing[7][8] and killing political dissidents and social classes." What do those refs say about political dissent? What wording do they use? Do they refer to "suppressing"? Do they use "killing"? As for "socio-economic nature", I think it is fine because we present both the 1930s Marxist–Leninist POV that it was socialism and those disagreeing. While I agree we should not conflate the two and we should not mention the atrocities that were the result of Stalinism which we already mention there, I think it is fine to mention the debates about the "socio-economic nature" since the Soviet model was replicated and/or taken as example and/but revised in most Communist states. Davide King (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Davide King, I completely agree. The sources have different POVs - one for instance says that Stalinism "would suppress counterrevolution", the other, refering to the Soviet Union later in the 70s, says "suppress political dissent". I think this might be a problem - while the Soviet Union was the first and one of the most important nations of the 20th century - it's not the sole interpretation and practice of Marxist-Leninist theory. China, for instance, being a Marxist-Leninist country, is different from many aspects of the Soviet Union - and so is Cuba, Vietnam, the previous Marxist-Leninist states in Africa, and so on.
I think the question mainly lies on what we should include on the lead. On "the state would control the economy" it mainly refers to the socialist period of historical development. China claims to achieve full socialism by 2050 and it's a Marxist-Leninist nation, and so is Vietnam. That's why the lead must be short and include the most basic aspects of Marxism-Leninism. Even vanguardism might be questioned - Nepal, for instance, had a communist revolution led by a vanguard party and it's not a one-party state. So I think that when we describe the objectives and characteristics of Marxism-Leninism, we should stick to the basics. We can develop each countries' peculiarities in the Overview. BunnyyHop (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
BunnyyHop, I think the whole criticism paragraph should actually be moved as part of the lead of Criticism of communist party rule, where it would be much more relevant. Since that article is specifically about criticism, it is actually due to have it in the lead while adding that scholars disagree on the causes, some blaming the ideology alone, other blaming the ideology and other factors, and so on. Davide King (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Davide King I agree, and that article is already very detailed and complete as far as I can see. I think this one issue is sorted out then, I think we can move the paragraph to the overview now. BunnyyHop (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, I think the sentence about China might not be the best way to do it. According to these articles: Ideology of the Chinese Communist Party, Socialism with Chinese characteristics, Chinese Communist Party, we can see that what China is, is mostly a matter of POV. Wouldn't it be better if we just hyperlinked to the Socialism with Chinese characteristics article? For example, "Contemporarily, Socialism with Chinese characteristics is seen by its proponents as representing Marxism–Leninism adapted to Chinese circumstances and specific time periods" BunnyyHop (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop, I believe that is already covered in the sentence about the socio-economic structure varyingly labelled "a form of bureaucratic collectivism, state capitalism, state socialism, or a totally unique mode of production", so it already includes the various POV. Davide King (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Ninth break

Regarding this, the onus is on those who want to add the content and I no longer see consensus as BunnyyHop, The Four Deuces and I object (I have already moved the paragraph at Criticism of communist party rule where it is relevant. The reason why it stayed was because I supported it but The Four Deuces changed my mind, so we are 3–3. The criticism paragraph in the lead is indeed unprecedented. We do not do it even for Fascism, where we simply state at the end "[s]ince the end of World War II in 1945, few parties have openly described themselves as fascist, and the term is instead now usually used pejoratively by political opponents. The descriptions neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied more formally to describe parties of the far right with ideologies similar to, or rooted in, 20th-century fascist movements." Davide King (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, I agree, it's already covered there. But since it's already covered there, shouldn't we use that space to redirect to Socialism with Chinese characteristics instead of "referred to as "nationalistic state capitalism""?BunnyyHop (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
As noted here by The Four Deuces, "[w]e should never insert a link when a term is ambiguous, we should explain it in the article, per technical language." Maybe we may add socialism with Chinese characteristics alongside Hoxhaism, Maoism and Titoism as adaptations and revisions. Davide King (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, let's not redifine again the rules of consensus, which have been discussed especially with you many times. I disagree complete removal, but may agree to move into the body section.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC))
I agree in possibly re formatting the article. I am fine with possibly moving the criticisms. Also atrocities should be stated naturally, scholars agree these atrocities directly helped. There was no consensus of which BunnyyHop was editing he has since been blocked for good reason. He also is a member of the PCP, and isn't here to build an encylopedia. We should restrcuture the third paragraph I agree, and I support possibly moving it. However I think we need more slow changes instead of completely changing the third paragraph. Vallee01 (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
There is no clear consensus on it being in the lead and the onus is on those who added, in this case, if I am not mistaken, Vallee01. One of the sources used in the paragraph is The Spectator, which is not a "generally reliable source", as it "primarily consists of opinion pieces and these should be judged by WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG", and is certainly not lead-worthy. This quotes Andrea Graziosi as stating "[i]n the case of the Holodomor, this was the first genocide that was methodically planned out and perpetrated by depriving the very people who were producers of food of their nourishment (for survival)", but this is just her view and does not represent consensus, on which there is disagreement and even Conquest conceded that "he does not believe that Stalin deliberately inflicted the 1933 famine", Stalin did not "purposely inflicted the 1933 famine" but that he puts Soviet interest first and could, and should have, done more, which is different from saying it was a genocide, "methodically planned"; this is exactly the one-hand extreme at Holodomor genocide question as "man-made, intentional, and genocidal", so we should not use it and just state they have been accused of genocide as we already do. Either way, we should actually verify that Albert & Hahnel 1981, pp. 24–26; Service 2007, pp. 3–6; and Gray & Walker 2009, pp. 303–305 actually support, or use, the wording we use.
Finally, we are supposed to have one main topic fo article; we already have articles about the criticism, where I moved it, so it should not be in the lead since we already say in the same thing, in more detail, in Analysis. Again, not even Fascism has such a criticism in the lead, for God's sake. BunnyyHop did not even remove the paragraph in their sandbox, they simply moved it to overview, which now also have the thumbs up from KIENGIR, who "may agree to move into the body section", which is exactly what BunnyHope did here. We may disagree about other changes they made to the lead, but KIENGIR and I apparently agree to move the paragraph in the body. I think the longer paragraph in Analysis is enough and I have already moved that paragraph at Criticism of communist party rule, but I would agree too to keep it but move it in the body. So can we move that paragraph at Overview? Davide King (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Davide King I siad I agree in moving the third paragraph. You keep being defensive as though . Davide King we can't however never mention Soviet attrocities in the lead. Do you think we shouldn't even mention attrocities at all, do you think the article is best if there is not even a mention of any wrong doings of Marxist-Leninist states? You don't understand though, your proposal in theory is a positive change.
Moving the third paragraph is fine if else where in the article we mention Marxist-Leninist attrocities, we should also mention Marxist-Leninist acheivments as well. We shouldn't give undo weight to Marxist-Leninist attrocities however which is why I suggest merging them into the article. I don't know what your opinions are on Marxist-Leninist states are but that is irrelevant, but surely you agree that Marxist-Leninist attrocities play an important role in Marxist-Leninism. There is no denying Marxist-Leninist states were brutually authoritarian. The Holodomor has debate as to if it was a systemic genocides. Soviet policies excelerated the proccess of suffering, with Soviet exporting food away from the local population to buy industrial equipment. The Irish Potato Famine, has the same story in which British specifically exported food away from the local Irish because of bogus theories on based off social darwinism. The fact that the British did this as well isn't a justification of the Holodomor. Even the Soviet Union in the 1990s stated that Soviet policies made the famine worse and that the Soviets systemically hoarded food, there is no denying this. Vallee01 (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
No one is denying anything and what I think of Communist states is irrelevant, we go by what literature says and the literature is not just about Service and other anti-communist, orthodox, totalitarian model and other names scholars, who are reliable and can be used but not as the only interpretation. We already mention the atrocities in the body and Analysis, so that paragraph should be moved at Overview and it seems we agree on this, so you are making this a bigger issue than it really is. This page is to discuss this article, not other articles. Again, no one is denying anything, but there is Holodomor genocide question for that; while scholars agree Stalin and others were culprit and the government could and should have done more, they disagree on whether it was a genocide and this also depends on the definition of genocide one uses. Genocide usually includes intentionality.
As noted by Alexander Nove, "the majority of those who died in the famine were Ukrainian peasants is not in dispute. But did they die because they were peasants, or because they were Ukrainians? As Conquest himself points out, the largest number of victims proportionately were in fact Kazakhs, and no one has attributed this to Stalin's anti-Kazakh views." Either way, we already discuss the Holodomor at Stalinism and other Communist-related articles and we also already discuss it in Analysis, so what are you complaining about? We already include all this.
We also say "[r]ival ideologies were persecuted and most elections had only one candidate. [...] These were partly a result of Marxist–Leninist ideology and justified as a means of maintaining 'proletarian power'. [...] This was partly an effort to extend state control by homogenising their populations and removing ethnic groups that maintained their 'cultural, political and economic distinctiveness.' [...] Although some non-communist states used forced labor, '[w]hat was different about communist rulership was the dispatch of people to the camps for no reason other than the misfortune of belonging to a suspect social class.' It was justified by Marxist–Leninist ideology and seen as a means of 'redemption.'" What more do you want? Davide King (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I think most of the last paragraph should be interwoven with the rest of the lead. Instead of having a list of criticisms, we should briefly outline how certain bits of the ideology led to certain outcomes. If it was moved somewhere else altogether, almost all of the lead would be about theory and almost none of it would be about how it was implemented. We can't have one without the other. ~Asarlaí 22:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Davide King I agree that the term "genocide" for the Holodomor is possibily is unwaranted. Like the Irish Potato Famine a more universally agreed upon definition is "Man made famine." You come off as defensive, I support most of your proposals, moreo. I completely agree with Asarlaí instead of having an entire section about critisms we can merge discussing both the acheivemnets and attrocities of Marxist-Leninist states, having an entire section about Marxist-Leninist critisms in giving undue weight. Instead we can merge the two. If we can all agree to mention both attrocities and acheivments of Marxist-Leninist states we can immedetly move the third paragraph. I am not as much against you as you think. I am fine with your proposal. Nowhere in the lead does the article go into depth about how or even mention much of the Soviet Union. I actually created the Legacy section of the Soviet Union, and I think that section can be a basis of Marxist-Leninism. It remains neutral telling of rapid industrialization as well as authoritarianism. I see you also added a section discussing the socio-econmics of the Soviet Union, a constructive edit, so thank you.
Here is the section I wrote on the USSR that is able to maintain neutrality by mentioning both authoritanism and industrialization, it has hense been modified by I think Davide King you also added constructive edits, but the base still reamins the same.
The USSR implemented a broad range of policies over a long period of time, with a large amount of conflicting policies being implemented by different leaders. Some have a positive view of it whilst others are critical towards the country, calling it a repressive oligarchy.[22] The opinions on the USSR are complex and have changed over time, with different generations having different views on the matter as well as on Soviet policies corresponding to separate time periods during its history.[23] Leftists have largely varying views on the USSR. Whilst some leftists such as anarchists and other libertarian socialists, agree it did not give the workers control over the means of production and was a centralized oligarchy, others have more positive opinions as to the Bolshevik policies and Vladimir Lenin. Many anti-Stalinist leftists such as anarchists are extremely critical of Soviet authoritarianism and repression. Much of the criticism it receives is centered around massacres in the Soviet Union, the centralized hierarchy present in the USSR and mass political repression as well as violence towards government critics and political dissidents such as other leftists. Critics also point towards its failure to implement any substantial worker cooperatives or implementing worker liberation as well as corruption and the Soviet authoritarian nature.[24] Vallee01 (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
We are talking about the ideology of where one-third of the world's population lived, we can not limit it to the Soviet Union; besides, we already have Stalinism and many other articles, and it is already discussed in the body and even in the lead. I suggest you to read coatrack. Your proposed section has been criticised for original research and synthesis. Remember that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, so while no one denies that the event described did not happen, we need to make sure the given sources use that precise wording; and we need to accord it to weight, meaning that "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Davide King (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Asarlaí, I disagree. This is done for pretty much most political ideologies, except Communist-related ones. Even for Fascism, we write "[s]uch a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky (national economic self-sufficiency) through protectionist and interventionist economic policies." There is no mention of actual criticism the same way we do here. Again, the article is supposed to have a clear main topic, in this case the ideology. We already have Criticism of communist party rule for the criticism and Mass killings under communist regimes for the events. For how the events were the results of ideology, we have Analysis for that and the role ideology played in the events. Davide King (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
You think that no mention of Marxist-Leninist atrocities? If we mention the Soviet Union we can't not mention Soviet atrocities. As stated much of the Soviet economy was based off forced labour, the gulag system was the basis of this. The bread baskets of the USSR Ukraine. When discussing Marxist-Leninism atrocities will come up naturally. If we mention Soviet industrialization, naturally soviet forced labour will be mentioned. If we are discussing Mao's China, we must be neutral and state policies such as the Great leap forward.
I agree Stalinism should be referenced a few times, but when we reference Stalin, or Mao we need to mention their policies. When we reference Stalinism it's impossible not to mention the elephant in the room, Stalinist atrocities. Stalinist atrocities shouldn't be extremely prominent in the article but it shouldn't be ignored. We already mention Stalin, so why do you oppose adding sections of attrocities of Stalin? Vallee01 (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
"You think that no mention of Marxist-Leninist atrocities? If we mention the Soviet Union we can't not mention Soviet atrocities." This is a straw man and is not even clear what you wrote. What is clear is that we already mention the Soviet Union and Soviet atrocities. We already mention the Stalinist Great Purge. At Industrialisation, we do not mention any of this or any other countries, for we already have Industrialization in the Soviet Union and other country-focused articles. Capital accumulation and industrialisation has been based off forced labour and proto-Gulag such as the British concentration camps, but there is no mention of it at Capitalism or Liberalism. You essentially want this article to be a fork of Maoism and Stalinism, where we already detail all this. Yet, we also already mention the atrocities at Analysis, including the view of those who see communist ideology as culprit; and all of this is moot as we still have the unprecedented criticism paragraph in the lead, so what are you complaining about other than my proposal to move the paragraph in the body?
I suggest you to read Wikipedia:Criticism. The current paragraph gives too much emphasis to the criticism ("Do not present the material in a way that over-emphasizes it" and "Always present positive viewpoints along with any negative information to give balance"), which reads more as Criticism of communist party rule and Stalinism rather than Marxism–Leninism. Remember that Khrushchev, Gorbachev and others were Marxist–Leninists too and did not commit anything closer to the Holodomor or the Great Purge, or the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward; indeed, only the Stalin and Mao periods are considered as "totalitarian" in their respective countries; and the xenophobic ideology of the Khmer Rouge regime bears a stronger resemblance to "an almost forgotten phenomenon of national socialism", or fascism, rather than communism. In North Korea, Marxism–Leninism was abandoned after the start of de-Stalinisation in the Soviet Union and has been totally replaced by Juche since at least 1974.
"When presenting negative material, it is often best to name the source of the criticism within the paragraph or sentence, so that the criticism is not presented in the encyclopedia's voice." We state it as fact rather than attribute it to Service et al. I am, of course, not referring to the atrocities, which indeed took place, but to the view communist ideology is culprit according to Service's view but which is stated as fact; and were they authoritarian because they committed atrocities or because the political system was authoritarian and thus made the atrocities easier to happen? We currently seem to imply the first point ("Marxist–Leninist states have been described as authoritarian [...] for suppressing and killing political dissidents and social classes (so-called 'enemies of the people'), religious persecution, ethnic cleansing, forced collectivisation and use of forced labor in concentration camps"), when my reading of sources is that the reverse is true; they committed atrocities because they had an authoritarian political system which made it more likely to happen.
"Political dissidents were deemed to be 'distorting the true path to communism' and repression of social groups was deemed a necessary part of class struggle against the 'exploiting classes.'" This should also be attributed per Wikipedia:Attribution: "Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed. Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Davide King (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Davide King We don't mention much of any Marxist-Leninist atrocities except for the third paragraph which is why the third paragraph should be merged. Your right we don't mention the Holocoust on articles like Fascism. We do so on Nazism. Stop saying I "wanting this article to be a Fork for Maoism or Stalinism," if we mention Stalinism we have to mention Stalin, which natural to mention it's attrocities. Articles like Capitalism has a lead is 1/3rd dedicated of the entire article is based on criticisms, so do you think that should be removed? The article Capitalism according to your logic is "biased" because it even states even more that Capitalism has been criticized.
This article which is much more controversial makes far less mention of criticisms. If we both agree that atrocities should be stated then what's your issue. How am I "contradictory" or making "strawman" for saying that if you mention the Soviet Union you have to mention Soviet atrocities? I understand Marxist-Leninism is much more then Stalinism but when we mention Stalinism, so we need to mention Stalin. We obviously should also mention Krushev, Ho Chi Min, Breshnev, etc... However there is no denying Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist and that he plays a major role in Marxist-Leninism.
I can agree that the criticisms is mostly based around Stalinism and Maoism, so perhaps that can be expanded to include criticisms of Nikita Krushev or Ho Chi Min. I think the main reason the article is formatted the way it is, is due to the fact most criticisms of Marxist-Leninism is mostly directed at Stalin, or Mao. Criticisms of Kruschev, or other Marxist-Leninist leaders exist but are more scarce. So yes you are right about it dealing with only specific Marxist-Leninists but it is still justified we can try to fix it however.
Khrushchev as an example isn't written about his authoritarianism. He implemented multiple anti-stalinist policies. Stalin on the other hand is one of the most infamous dictators in history, and therefor he is criticized much more. So when discussing critisms of Marxist-Leninism we will find much more sources on Stalin. I propose therefor adding: "Most of theses criticisms is dedicated to the regimes of Stalin, and Mao. Other Marxist-Leninist regimes such as Khrushchev and Ho Chi Min receive less criticism."
I want to stress again that articles like Capitalism, Anarchism both mention critims. But your logic is also circular "This article doesn't do this therefor this shouldn't" has no end, it means no article can break from the one base. More importantly plenty of articles deals with criticisms in the lead. But I am in favor of just mentioning critisms naturally. Vallee01 (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The difference is that Anarchism and Capitalism offer a much better, i.e. more concise and neutral, summary of criticism in the lead. Capitalism's lead provides no mention of colonialism, imperialism and slavery, i.e. direct actions during capitalist development, as criticism, or that racism is mainly a development of capitalism used as justification for colonial-imperialism, which is what we should say if we were consistent with this article. Anarchism's lead about criticism is literally one short sentence stating "Criticism of anarchism mainly focuses on claims of it being internally inconsistent, violent and utopian." Perhaps we should do the same for this article and says "Criticism of Marxism–Leninism largely overlaps with criticism of communist party rule, especially the actions of Marxist–Leninist leaders such as Stalin and Mao" while moving the current paragraph at Overview. Can we agree on this? So that we can move on and concentrate on other issues to improve the article. Davide King (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Let's find then a solution where as well Vallee's and Asarlaí's suggestion is satisfied. Put half of the criticism in the body, while the rest leave and/or interlace with the rest of the lead. This section again starts to be very long.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC))
Davide King Marxism-Leninism is all about creating a state, so it would be senseless not to briefly mention in the lead what those few Marxist-Leninist states had in common. Instead of just outlining the ideology, we need to say what it meant in reality. If the content was removed, the lead would mention "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "vanguard party" but not what this meant: a one-party state which suppressed dissent and repressed certain social classes. It's like mentioning "living space" but not that it meant conquering all of eastern Europe.
We should note the traits Marxist-Leninist states shared and which came from (or were justified by) the ideology: the high degree of state control, political repression, collectivization and work camps, as well as free healthcare, low unemployment etc. I don't think we need to mention famines like the Holodomor in the lead, as there's debate over what caused it, and it's specific to Stalinism.
We should do this by interweaving the content into the rest of the lead, as is done on articles such as Nazism. The lead of Fascism does note what the ideology meant in practice, but it clearly needs expanded so I wouldn't use it as a benchmark. ~Asarlaí 01:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Asarlaí, this article is about the ideology, not Mass killings under communist regimes. In addition, we already link to Democratic centralism, Dictatorship of the proletariat and Vanguardism, so it is up to those articles explaining what they are, that is what wikilink are for; we do mention "one-party socialist republics." The lead should be a summary, not be overtly detailed. We do not mention at Capitalism and Liberalism how in practice both supported colonialism, imperialism and slavery, so there is a double standard. However, I am fine with your proposal to describe "the high degree of state control, political repression, collectivization and work camps, as well as free healthcare, low unemployment etc. I don't think we need to mention famines like the Holodomor in the lead, as there's debate over what caused it, and it's specific to Stalinism." I tried following some of your proposals here while moving and keeping the third paragraph full intact at Overview. Davide King (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Davide King I completely disagree with your edits, the edits don't portray most of the critisms of Marxist-Leninist states. Its completely unconstructive, we need to mention attrocities more clearly. It also doesn't mention most of the critisms. I think the edit has some good ideas possibily. There is no consensous for the edit so I have reverted it. Vallee01 (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01, this just seems to be your views; you also cannot readd mpart sof the edits you like when this was my version of the criticism for the lead. KIENGIR stated they may agree to move that section to the body, which I did by moving at Overview, and Asarlaí disagreed with the mention of "famines like the Holodomor in the lead, as there's debate over what caused it, and it's specific to Stalinism", which you re-added. It is your edits that clearly violate coatracking and NPOV. Davide King (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Davide King I re-added your sections with the old one. I agree with all your edits other than the lead. I don't think there should even be a criticisms section. However if we are going to include one the best solution is to merge the two sections:
Marxist–Leninist philosophy has been criticised by a broad political spectrum both on the left and right. Marxist–Leninist rule has been especially criticised, including by other socialists such as anarchists, communists, democratic socialists, libertarian socialists and Marxists. Marxist–Leninist states have been described as authoritarian, or accused of being totalitarian, for suppressing and killing political dissidents and social classes (so-called "enemies of the people"), religious persecution, ethnic cleansing, forced collectivisation and use of forced labor in concentration camps.[5][6][7] Such states have been accused of genocidal acts in China, Poland and Ukraine.[25][26][27][28] Anti-Stalinist left and other left-wing critics see it as an example of state capitalism[29][30] and have referred to it as a "red fascism" contrary to left-wing politics.[31][32][33] Other leftists, including Marxist–Leninists, criticise it for its repressive state actions while recognising certain advancements such as egalitarian achievements and modernisation under such states.[17][18] Criticism of Marxism–Leninism largely overlaps with criticism of communist party rule and mainly focuses on the actions and policies implemented by Marxist–Leninist leaders, most notably Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot. Historians such as Silvio Pons and Robert Servies argue the ideology was culprit for Marxist–Leninist leaders' repressive actions. In practice, Marxist–Leninist states share a high degree of political party and state control, political repression, collectivization and work camps as well as free universal education and healthcare, low unemployment and lower prices for some goods.[34][35][36][37] Historians such as Michael Geyer and Sheila Fitzpatrick propose other explanations for the events and criticize the focus upon the upper levels of society and the use of Cold War concepts such as totalitarianism which have obscured the reality of the system.[38]
Vallee01 (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01, now you are really making no sense. You write "I don't think there should even be a criticisms section", but the the lead now devotes half of it to criticism, which violates WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Asarlaí's proposal to mention "the traits Marxist-Leninist states shared and which came from (or were justified by) the ideology: the high degree of state control, political repression, collectivization and work camps, as well as free healthcare, low unemployment, etc." was perfectly fine and what my new summary already did. And no, you can not just take the edits of mine you like and remove the ones you do not like. That summary "Criticism of Marxism–Leninism largely overlaps with criticism of communist party rule and mainly focuses on the actions and policies implemented by Marxist–Leninist leaders, most notably Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot" was based on the understanding the other longer paragraph would be moved at Overview as I did.
Let me remind you that the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body and that paragraph is better for Overview while mine and Asarlaí's summary of it is more adeguate. Let me also remind you that we are not here to show how bad Communism was but to report its ideology. Yes, we should discuss the atrocities but we already do and we should not overemphasise them by giving all the weight to the historians who say the ideology alone was culprit. That paragraph violates NPOV by ignoring the fact scholars disagree on interpretations and not all scholars see the ideology as the main culprit. Davide King (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Davide King I am a leftist. I am not here to "report on how bad communism is," I am a communist. However this has literally nothing to do with the discussion,
Davide King it doesn't mention how Marxist-Leninist states failed to give workers the means of production. It doesn't directly mention atrocities. I myself said I am fine with moving the third paragraph, most stated they support moving the section if atrocities are stated naturally through the lead. Your call to remove the third paragraph was vague, but the specific edit was not constructive. It doesn't mention of even hyperlink mass killings, it doesn't state leftist criticisms. Failures to implement policies. No mention of how these countries were extremely corrupt. The issue with the new re-written section is it doesn't even state political dissidents were killed. It doesn't state the most common criticisms of Marxist-Leninist's states atrocities and it doesn't even mention as single state example it simply states leaders. Vallee01 (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Davide King I usually don't edit before consensus, however you also have been so I have done this bold change, like you. I moved the section of criticisms detailing mass killings and moved it to how Marxist-Leninist states maintain power. The entire criticisms section should merged. As an example, leftist criticisms can be moved towards Marxist-Leninist suppression of leftists. Vallee01 (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01, not even Fascism makes such mentions of atrocities or of the Holocaust in the lead because the article is about the ideology and the lead is supposed to be a summary and not be a coatrack for criticism. For the atrocities, we already have Criticism of communist party rule and Mass killings under communist regimes. The paragraph has been simply moved from the lead to Overview, which even KIENGIR stated they "may agree to it." They only opposed removal from the article, but I simply moved it in the first section after the lead and it is now duplicated in both the lead and Overview. Davide King (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Davide King I reverted the article to your last version. If this was the article Communism you are absolutely right atrocities shouldn't be stated. However this is about a specific ideology and much of the discussion of the ideology is directed towards it atrocities. Marxist-Leninist atrocities in scholarly article are dealt with extremely extensively because they are important. Fascism mentions how it is an imperialist anti-democratic ideology. The same is true here. Vallee01 (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Have you even read my actual additions? They show you it is not so easy as you make it about. You also ignore that these scholars you use against Marxism–Leninism do not make any distinction between communism as you intent and communism as it was implemented in practice. Fascism only says "imperialist anti-democratic", here we list all atrocities when we could just "note the traits Marxist-Leninist states shared and which came from (or were justified by) the ideology: the high degree of state control, political repression, collectivization and work camps, as well as free healthcare, low unemployment etc. I don't think we need to mention famines like the Holodomor in the lead, as there's debate over what caused it, and it's specific to Stalinism." Asarlaí proposed this and I implemented it; it is good enough.
So please, stop making the lead a coatrack for criticism, not even Fascism makes this; that paragraph is already at Overview. We have "Criticism of Marxism–Leninism largely overlaps with criticism of communist party rule and mainly focuses on the actions and policies implemented by Marxist–Leninist leaders, most notably Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot. In practice, Marxist–Leninist states share a high degree of political party and state control, political repression, collectivisation and work camps." I have now added also about "Sovietisation and these states tended to follow the Soviet Marxist–Leninist model of five-year plans and rapid industrialisation, including political centralisation and repression.") But seriously, stop moving that paragraph. Davide King (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
We also already say they oppose "liberal democracy" and that they are "one-party" states. Davide King (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Davide King there is clear consensus to merge Marxist-Leninist atrocities into the article. You kept the sections discussing industrialization but removed the section detailing how Marxist-Leninist states remain power. Vallee01 (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01, where it is this "clear consensus"? Asarlaí clearly stated "I don't think we need to mention famines like the Holodomor in the lead, as there's debate over what caused it, and it's specific to Stalinism." And no, merging their atrocities in this article is a coatrack because we already have an article for that (Mass killings under communist regimes). Davide King (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Mao's China and the Soviet Union both has sub par health care systems, most Marxist-Leninist states do. This entire section has extreme POV. Again this isn't an argument you can't point to one article and then say that this is how this article should be written. Your sections don't add much, they don't mention the main criticisms of Marxist-Leninism, which is our job. We aren't here to discuss what should be the criticisms of Marxist-Leninism, we state what is Marxist-Leninist criticisms and thus far the entire section doesn't mention even a fraction of Marxist-Leninist criticisms. You are writing what you think should be the criticisms, we write what is the criticisms which you didn't detail at all. If we mention criticisms we mention criticisms, most of which detail extremely repressive policies. Vallee01 (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Put half of the criticism in the body, while the rest leave and/or interlace with the rest of the lead. This section again starts to be very long. KIENGIR
We should do this by interweaving the content into the rest of the lead, as is done on articles such as Nazism. The lead of Fascism does note what the ideology meant in practice, but it clearly needs expanded so I wouldn't use it as a benchmark. Asarlaí.
Attrocities should be stated naturally, Davide king also please calm down. Vallee01 (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No, "mention[ing] the main criticisms of Marxist-Leninism" is not "our job." Our job is to provide a neutral and verified article about the ideology according to reliable and scholarly sources, not presenting any interpretation as fact but to rather attribute it to each author or scholar, as I did at Interpretation. You are conflating this article about the ideology, which already includes plenty of criticism, with Criticism of communist party rule (criticism) and Mass killings under communist regimes (atrocities). Again, we are supposed to have one clear main topic for article and this article should be about the ideology, whose actions make criticism clear and are already criticised in the lead, Overview and Analysis. You are using the lead as coatrack for criticism when it is supposed to be a summary and we do not need to go overtly in details about the events; we can do that at Overview, which we already do. Davide King (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Tenth break

Your argument is circular, you mentioned Marxist-Leninist criticisms in the lead which isn't even the main criticisms of Marxist-Leninist regimes! Your being hypocritical, you want to mention Marxist-Leninist critisms but not the majority of critisms of states. Your arguments previously made sense, this doesn't. You want to mention criticisms, however only in a way which doesn't mention the majority of ML criticisms, IE: Mass killings, genocides and otherwise. Mass killings or genocides aren't even stated! You added a criticisms section so it should detail actual critisms as in Marxist-Leninist genocides. I think the best solution is to take this to a dispute resolution board for a third opinion and discuss it there I have tried compermising with you and it hasn't bee working. Also a large section of Criticism of communist party rule is also written by you. Vallee01 (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not being hypocritical, I am being pretty consistent in not mixing topics and coatrack articles. This article is about the ideology, so the main criticism should be about the scholars who say the ideology was the culprit of their repressive actions. We already have Criticism of communist party rule and Mass killings under communist regimes and the events themselves to describe in detail what they did; the lead should simply summarise that some historians see the ideology as the main reason behind the tragic events while other historians provide other explanations for it. Yes, that lead is written by me and guess what? It does mention all that because it is relevant to that article. There is no need to repeat things here, the same way we do not mention the Holocaust at Fascism.
Anyway, I hope we do not have to take this for a dispute resolution, I think the current lead is fine and already a compromise thanks to Asarlaí's edits. So I hope we can focus on something and move on from the lead now. If you at least agree on me the same standard should be applied to Capitalism, Conservatism, Liberalism and Fascism, then try make additions about their atrocities in the lead. You are likely going to be reverted, but you may try if you want to be consistent. All I am asking is consistency, and no double standards, applied to other ideologies, not just to socialist and left-wing ones. Do you even disagree with this?
You claim to be a communist but you do not seem to be aware that "orthodox" and "totalitarian model" scholars, they are not just criticising Marxism–Leninism, they are saying that this was the natural and inevitable result of communist ideology. Hence why, Mass killings under communist regimes says communism and communism, rather than Marxism–Leninism and Marxist–Leninist, and the sidebar used is not Marxism–Leninism, even though the regimes were Marxist–Leninists, but communism. Since you seem to agree with me that there is a clear distinction between (anti-authoritarian and libertarian) communism and Marxism–Leninism, would you agree with me the sidebar should be Marxism–Leninism? I bet you are going to be reverted. I was reverted by KIENGIR at Anti-communism for simply making clear the Communist states and ruling parties were Marxist–Leninists rather than small-c communism or a communist society. You seem to agree with me we should make this distinction more clear, or did I misunderstand you? Davide King (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Vallee has good points and you should not argue in edit logs that No one disputed them on the talk page, since possibly very few read the talk page so far, which is generating an enormous amount of material which won't be read immediately. If these goes on like so, it is likely to consider to introduce an 1RR restriction to the page, so everyone will have enough time.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC))
Davide King why did you remove "ethnic cleansing" from atrocities from criticisms from Marxist-Leninists? I am anti-authoritarian, I also agree Mass killings under communist regimes should be renamed "Mass killings under Marxist-Leninist regimes," it only mentions Marxist-Leninist states. Under the current article it should mention libertarian communist massacres however those are scarce. Under the current article it only mentions Marxist-Leninist atrocities that would fine if Marxist-Leninism was the only socialism tried, but it hasn't. However this should have nothing do with the current discussion. Needing to recognize atrocities is vital to Marxist-Leninism, it shouldn't have anything to do with our biases. Vallee01 (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01, what are you referring to? I did not remove anything and "ethnic cleansing" is still in the lead. Then try remove the communism sidebar and change the article name, you will see you are going to be reverted. "Needing to recognize atrocities is vital to Marxist-Leninism" is not what Wikipedia is about; Wikipedia is not a memorial and we already have an article for the ideology; a Wikipedia article is supposed to have only one clear main topic, we are not supposed to mix topics (this one is about the ideology, so we should not repeat things we already say at the article about criticism and mass killings). Wikipedia is about "helping to create a world in which everyone can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." Davide King (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Asarlaí did that with these edits and did not include ethnic cleansing. Davide King (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
KIENGIR, then why are you two not arguing for inclusion of the same edits at Fascism? Fascist regimes were also described as authoritarian and totalitarian, suppressed and killed political dissidents, engaged in ethnic cleansing, used forced labour in internment camps, used death camps, started World War II and committed several genocides. Do you disagree fascists did indeed all of this? There is no mention of any of this, or criticism, in that lead; this is whitewashing of fascism. The Holocaust is described in a single mention in the body as "[d]uring World War II, the Axis Powers in Europe led by Nazi Germany participated in the extermination of millions of Poles, Jews, Gypsies and others in the genocide known as the Holocaust." Try adding these same kind of edits to the lead and you are likely going to be revert for criticism coatrack. My point is to show that this article's lead should be like Fascism's and not be a coatrack for criticism and the actions of government which we already discuss elsewhere. Davide King (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I am going to include atrocities in fascism it should be included. I think the lead is perfectly fine now. It needs no more changes. Vallee01 (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Davide King I added a hyperlink to ethnic cleansing however I thought it was removed. I don't know if I had an unstable connection but looking at the history it never went through. You didn't do anything excuse me. I added a section on genocide on Fascism. Vallee01 (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01, still no mention of the Holocaust or of criticism in the lead, or how "Fascist regimes suppressed and killed political dissidents, engaged in ethnic cleansing, used forced labour in concentration camps, used death camps, started World War II and committed several genocides" that we use here. Davide King (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Fascism is to broad of a political spectrum to single out a single genocide. Fascism is to broad to describe a single ideology. I think "killed political dissidents" and "engaged in ethnic cleansing" are both possibly constructive. Also it states clearly Fascists engaged in genocides. Vallee01 (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Davide King the section makes notice of genocides. But it needs to broad. "The extreme authoritarianism of fascism usually manifests in some created idea of "purity," or a "master race." This notion of a purity usually is synthesized with some variant of racism or bigotry. The need for "purity" among most fascists usually results in fascists regimes committing massacres, forced sterilization, genocides, or forced deportation against a perceived other.[13][14][15]." Vallee01 (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01, excuses. Marxism–Leninism is similarly broad. As noted by historians Jens Mecklenburg and Wolfgang Wippermann, a connection between the events in Pol Pot's Cambodia and Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union are far from evident and that Pol Pot's study of Marxism in Paris is insufficient for connecting radical Soviet industrialism and the Khmer Rouge's murderous anti-urbanism under the same category. As also noted by several other scholars, "[w]hether all these cases, from Hungary to Afghanistan, have a single essence and thus deserve to be lumped together—just because they are labeled Marxist or communist—is a question the authors scarcely discuss." Yet, we treat this "lumping" as a fact. Davide King (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Davide King If you are a Fascist you can despise both Hitler and the Nazis, it's not a core element of Fascism. The same applies to communism, most leftists were brutalized under the USSR. If you are a Marxist-Leninist you need to support Lenin. As well as support Stalin's interpretation of Lenin. Support Stalin's core policies like the 5 year plan, and support state socialism. It's not a broad political spectrum. It is very specific. I am also setting up my own peoples front of Judea, that being here. Vallee01 (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01, none of this answer the fact I just showed you scholars disagreeing with your view. You are essentially presenting your own POV and interpretation of this ideology as fact. The scholars I quoted above directly contradict your idea that the ideology is not broad. "If you are a Fascist you can despise both Hitler and the Nazis." And if you are a Marxism–Leninism, you can despise Stalin. That is exactly what Khrushchev and Goirbachev did. Soviet Marxism-Leninism: The Decline of an Ideology directly contradicts your claim that "official Soviet ideology remained static after Stalin", arguing that "Soviet Marxism-Leninism was subject to significant adaptation under various leaders", hence it is broad. Um, what should we trust? The POV of an editor or the views of an academic in a book about the topic? Davide King (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Stalin interpretation is the basis of Marxist-Leninism. His policies would shape all other Marxist-Leninist states. Deny that Stalin isn't the basis for Marxist-Leninism or that he did, despite his policies being the basis of the Soviet Union even after Khrushchev you can somehow separate the two.
The 5 year plan created by Stalin would later be used by all other Marxist-Leninist statse. A Marxist-Leninist can "hate" Stalin, however the core of Marxist-Leninism was devolved by Stalin. Stalin's contributions. You pull from a primary source that being the official ideology of the Soviet Union, something which isn't reliable. The US currently tries to distance itself from racist presidents, however they are still much of the core of the United States. There is absolutely no denying Stalin had a massive effect on all Marxist-Leninist thought.
What you are stating is completely ridiculous, even the article itself states "Marxist-Leninism was devolved by Joseph Stalin based off of his understanding of Lenin." And there is universal consensus that Stalin played a major role in the development of Marxist-Leninism.[39][40] Vallee01 (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01, no, Stalin's interpretation of Marxism–Leninism is called Stalinism, which you conflate with Marxism–Leninism. Stalin was the first to develop his interpretation of both Marx and Lenin, but Marxism–Leninism is not Stalinism; Stalin merely popularised the term Marxism–Leninism but not all Marxist–Leninists were actually Stalinists or even subscribed to Stalin's interpretation. Both Khruschev and Gorbachev gave their own interpretation of Marx and Lenin, rejecting Stalin's interpretation. Five-year plans have also been adopted by non-Communist states; were they all Stalinists too just for that? Davide King (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Davide King You are conflating Marxist-Leninism with orthodox Leninism. Both Trotskyism and Marxist-Leninism are both Leninist ideologies, in fact Trotskyists see Marxist-Leninists and Stalinist's as identical. You don't seem to understand that Marxist-Leninism isn't orthodox Leninism neither is Trotskyism. Sections trying to underplay atrocities and Stalin's effect on Marxist-Leninism is not helping at all.
Stalin devolved the 5 year plans, nowhere did I state the Khrushchev or Gorbachev was Stalin, but the basis of the USSR in fact much of the constitution and institutions of the USSR was devolved by Stalin. If other countries used the five year plan that doesn't make them "Stalinist" but it does mean they borrowed sections of Stalin's ideology. FDR's "New deal" was influenced by socialism, that does not make FDR a socialist.[41] Mutualism a socialist ideology takes elements from pro-markets that does not make it a capitalist ideology.
Stalin is much of the basis of the USSR. Much of policies devolved under Stalin would influence Gorbachev and all other ML states. This isn't going anywhere I think this should go for a dispute resolution, this discussion hasn't been able to meet any concrete action. The most recent edits specifically has gone nowhere. Most editors have stated that it is a good idea to merge atrocities of Marxist-Leninist states into the article but you keep opposing it. I therefor think that is the best solution to seek a third opinion or try to resolve this. For god's sake this has been going on for over a month. Vallee01 (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01, I am not conflating anything, you are the one who is conflating everything with Stalin and Stalinism. Trotskyists see themselves as true Marxist–Leninists, or Bolshevik–Leninists, and call anti-revisionist Marxist–Leninists Stalinists. Nepal has been governed by Marxist–Leninists and has liberal-democracy. The Marxist–Leninist Communist Party, USA advocates Bill of Rights socialism, which is democratic. It is absurd for you to limit all this to Stalin and the Soviet Union.
You write "FDR's 'New [D]eal' was influenced by socialism, that does not make FDR a socialist" and at the same time "[i]f other countries used the five year plan that doesn't make them 'Stalinist' but it does mean they borrowed sections of Stalin's ideology." Then how does your logic follow that Marxist–Leninists are all 'Stalinists'? How did Stalin influenced Gorbachev when he rejected Stalin from a Marxist–Leninist viewpoint and advocated glasnot and perestroika? Why is Roosevelt not a socialist, even though by your logic the New Deal was "influenced by socialism", but apparently all Marxist–Leninists are Stalinists for supporting five-year plans, also adopted by non-Communist countries? You apparently seem to believe that Stalin 'invented' five-year plans. Gorbachev and other Communist leaders did not engage in mass killings.
As Benjamin Valentino states, "most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing." According to Valentino, mass killings have occurred not because of ideology but when power is in the hands of one person or a small number of people. Even Steven Rosefielde, who wrote of a "Red Holocaust", states "the conditions for the Red Holocaust were rooted in Stalin's, Kim's, Mao's, Ho's and Pol Pot's siege-mobilized terror-command economic systems, not in Marx's utopian vision or other pragmatic communist transition mechanisms." Rosefielde limits this to Stalin, Kim, Ho and Pol Pot, and specifically distinguish this with "other pragmatic communist transition mechanisms", which includes Marxist–Leninists opposed to these leaders. In other words, it is not so black and white, or simple, as you make it.
Marxism–Leninism is much more than Stalin and these other leaders. There has been no democratic fascist or Nazi; on the other hand, there have been democratic Marxist–Leninists, including these in Nepal who have democratically and peaceful shared power with the fellow socialist Nepali Congress. So why do we list the atrocities in the lead when scholars disagree and even these who argue for the concept of Communist mass killing do not reduce it to ideology and state most Communist regimes did not engage in mass killings?
I have actually based my argument on reliable sources and even quoted experts, you are simply reiterating your POV. You should actually provide sources, or at least base your arguments on reliable sources, if you are going to take this at DR. I believe to have demonstrated that Marxism–Leninism cannot be reduced to Stalin or the Soviet Union; that the atrocities should be discussed and contextualised in the body, not in the lead; and that the lead should not be a coatrack for Criticism of communist party rule and Mass killings under communist regimes, for which we already have the article to discuss it in detail. Davide King (talk) 05:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Not all Marxist-Leninist's are Stalinist's. All Marxist-Leninist's take heavily from elements from Stalin's ideology. Your argument is similar to those who state systemic racism in the US doesn't exist. "How can the US be based of racism if Donald Trump said he openly distanced himself from the KKK?" or "How can racism have an effect in the US it ended over 200 years ago, despite the soviet constitution being written largely by Stalin?" It can directly be applied here: "How can the Soviet Union be built on Stalin if Khrushchev said Stalin was poo-poo" or "How could the Gulag system effect the rest of the Soviet Union if it ended 50 years ago? Despite Stalin writing much of the Soviet Constitution." If you ever thought I think all Marxist-Leninists are Stalinist, that is completely false. I never said that or thought that all Marxist-Leninists were Stalinist. All Marxist-Leninists if they like to or not are borrowing extremely heavily from Stalin's ideology.
Again Davide King why Marxist-Leninist states commit mass killings has nothing to do with this, were not here to place blame on why or how this happened, we just need to state it did happen. Yes Marxist-Leninism is much more then Stalin you won't here any objections here.
You are making no sense, you think Stalin and Mao, and Ho Chi Min should all be stated but yet you stop at mentioning their atrocities or the Gulag system. You are fine with mentioning the five year plans, but stop at mentioning . You also are inconsistent you supported me adding sections to the article Fascism detailing genocides, however despite Fascism being a more broad ideology then Marxist-Leninism you oppose it here, why? Your entire argument previously was built on this, but you are fine with mention atrocities on Fascism just not here.
Again no one is here to describe why Marxist-Leninist states have committed atrocities just that the fact that they do. If I am not mistaken you think that there should be no mention of atrocities in the lead. Which really, really isn't something right. Vallee01 (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01, if "[n]ot all Marxist-Leninist's are Stalinist's", then how can they "take heavily from elements from Stalin's ideology"? If they "take heavily from elements from Stalin's ideology", they are Stalinists, but they are not. Do you not see any contradiction or flow in your logic? While I actually agree there is systematic racism, your examples make no sense and is not clear what are you referring to. It seems to be you think a democratic Marxism–Leninism is an oxymoron and that these democratic Marxist–Leninists examples I showed were not real Marxist–Leninists because apparently they do not fit your own Stalinised definition of Marxism–Leninism, which reflects your POV rather than RS.
You write "were [sic] not here to place blame on why or how this happened, we just need to state it did happen" but why? As noted by The Four Deuces, that is not relevant to the lead of this article because this article is about the ideology and if the ideology was not what caused the atrocities, then it should not be stated here. It would be more relevant for Communist state. And no, we can not just state that without any context; we can do that only if the overwhelming scholars think ideology was culprit for the atrocities. Ironically, why they happened, i.e. due to ideology, may be the only valid reason to support mention of it in the lead. If ideology was not the reason, then they should not be mentioned because this article is about the ideology, which was subject to "significant adaptation under various leaders, contrary to the widespread impression that official Soviet ideology remained static after Stalin", not about Communist states or what they did, which is another topic and article.
How is fascism broad but Marxism–Leninism is not? Perhaps you include any military dictatorship (Pinochet), right-wing populism and Trump as fascist; while I sympathise with this interpretation, it is clearly not supported by scholarly sources. Fascism is really only Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and at times Francoist Spain. I do not know what definition of fascism you use that makes it so broad, but the actual definition of fascism is not broad at all. On the other hand, Marxism–Leninism is very broad and includes Communist regimes, Communist parties, anti-revisionists, anti-Stalinists and democratic or reform-minded Marxist–Leninists. Your edits at Fascism makes more sense because classical or historical fascism was really only Italy, Germany and Spain. Marxism–Leninism is much broader whereas you want to reduce it to Stalin and provide no evidence that they "take heavily [emphasis mine] from elements from Stalin's ideology." Davide King (talk) 06:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
What? "'[n]ot all Marxist-Leninist's are Stalinist's', then how can they 'take heavily from elements from Stalin's ideology.'" You can take heavily from elements from ideologies and not adhere to the ideology. Maoists are not Stalinist's, neither are Guevarists both are heavily based on Stalin's work. Nowhere did I state Khrushchev wasn't a Marxist-Leninist, seriously you keep making up my what I am stating.
Mutualism is not communist but is largely based on communism. I really have no clue what you are talking about at this point. I don't think Trump or Pinochet are fascists. Nowhere did I state trump was a fascist or that all Marxist-Leninists are Stalinists. I stated the US is built on racist policies, likewise the Soviet Union is built on forced labor and genocide. So was Maoist china, so was the vast majority of Marxist-Leninist states. All Marxist-Leninist states are built on forced collectivization that's the point it's core to it's ideology. There are also Jewish fascists, black fascists, Asian fascists, etc... Any ideology that extremely reactionary, totalitarian and has some mythic utopia built on hierarchical structure in which society is controlled by an elite can be seen as fascist. Also you changed your argument previously it was "Fascism doesn't mention atrocities therefor here it shouldn't" now it's "Fascism is actually not broad enough while Marxist-Leninism is broad." What citations do you have that describe fascism as: "Really only Italy, Germany and Spain?" Vallee01 (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01, then why do you keep generalise it as being heavily based on Stalin's work?[citation needed] Essentially, Marxism–Leninism is pragmatic and its principles have been used to both justify Stalinist or Maoist policies and to repudiate Stalinist or Maoist policies. Stalin and Mao engaged in mass killings, Khrushchev and Gorbachev did not. So how do you generalise the ideology only in Stalin's terms? If Khrushchev did not engage in mass killings and the same atrocities then Stalin did, why do we mention Stalin's policies as being part of the ideology when Khrushchev and other Communist leaders either did not do the same or explicitly repudiated them? We cannot mention the atrocities in the lead, implying they were the results of ideology, if scholars disagree on whether ideology was culprit; and we cannot generalise Stalin's actions as being the only representative of Marxism–Leninism when other Marxist–Leninists repudiated them. This topic is about the ideology, not about what Stalin or Communist leaders did.
I changed my argument because you justified that as fascism being too broad whereas Marxism–Leninism is not, even though I showed plenty of academic sources to the contrary. If you do not think fascism is not military dictatorship or Trump, then how is fascism broad? "Any ideology that extremely reactionary, totalitarian and has some mythic utopia built on hierarchical structure in which society is controlled by an elite can be seen as fascist." That is the anarchist POV, certainly not the mainstream view among scholars of fascism. Because Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and Francoist Spain are the ones we mention at Fascism and are the ones most scholars discuss in regard to fascism, although there is consensus only for Italy and Germany. So fascism is not really broad but Marxism–Leninism is broad; hence, following your logic and previous argument, we cannot reduce this ideology to Stalin and mention atrocities in the lead if scholars do not conclude they were the results of ideology.
In addition, I suggest you to check content forking, original research and synthesis because that is what you are doing. Sources only verify that atrocities indeed happen; they do not verify the ideology was the main culprit or that are relevant to this article as your wording implies. As an example, "The Hidden Ethnic Cleansing of Muslims in the Soviet Union: The Exile and Repatriation of the Crimean Tatars" is about ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the Soviet Union (no mention of Marxism–Leninism, at least from what I could read) and "Anarchism, Marxism and the Collapse of the Soviet Union" is about the collapse of the Soviet Union (again, no mention of Marxism–Leninism, at least from what I could read). In other words, these sources can be used for ethnic cleansing in the Soviet Union and the collapse of the latter, respectively; they can not be used at this article to imply the ideology was culprit and the result of ideology alone. Both of these are also only about the Soviet Union. What you did here is synthesis and original research. Davide King (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Answering to your question, I treat articles arbitrarily, influenced as well by time, etc. Don't worry I will argue if it needs to be. As well, (as expressed by the latest edit) no consensus for that change.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC))
KIENGIR, your wording is incomprehensible and is not clear what you are even saying. As you can see here, Service uses concentration camps to refer to Nazi camps. "The German Communist Party was suppressed and its leaders thrown into concentration camps." At p. 301, he refers to Communist camps as labour camps. "The labor camps developed in the USSR were introduced across the communist world." We should respect and reflect the source's wording. Davide King (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
You asked why I don't do something according to you by another articles, I and responded to that, I will of course if/when I can. Ok, understood.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC))

Eleventh break

I agree with KIENGIR, we need to mention atrocities. Also Davide King you are being inconsistency, you are juggling the fact your only previous argument was that articles like fascism didn't mention atrocities, once they did you changed your story. It makes no sense. No "academic sources" state that fascism is Nazi Germany, or Italy, that is ridiculous, nobody defines fascism as just Nazi Germany or Italy this an unironic "it's only fascism if it's Germany in 1939," it makes no sense. You provided absolutely no sources, we need to make atrocities clear and because it provides valuable information we will. You are being inconsistent with your arguments, for certain articles you change your opinion Fascism is the best example. Davide King, you are not making any convincing arguments. CZAR, a third opinion would be nice. TL;DR should we include atrocities of Marxist-Leninist states in the lead? Stating atrocities of Marxist-Leninist states isn't "original research," the fact Marxist-Leninist states committed mass genocides and atrocities, Davide King trying to remove these atrocities isn't helpful. Vallee01 (talk)

Policy says that the weight of information in articles should reflect the weight of such information in the body of literature on the subject. It further says that tertiary sources such as encyclopedias can give an indication of what aspects should be in the article. Unfortunately, it looks like this article takes a dictionary definition of Marxism-Leninism, then coatracks in anything that could be described as Marxist-Leninism. I suggest we attempt to locate sources about the topic. I have had difficulty doing so. All I can find are books that are specific to individual countries such as the USSR. Maybe this should be a stub or redirect. TFD (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Great response, I make Davide King's words my own. Vallee01, no one is trying to remove "the attrocities commited by Marxist-Leninist states", people are instead trying to make a neutral lead in an articule where it's hard to find academic consensus in any topic. To insert the "worse attrocities" is to adhere to the thesis that Marxist-Leninism is the sole cause of these attrocities, and it will always cause Holodomors, Great purgess, and so on. Although this thesis is not WP:V - it's simply your POV - if it was, it would simply be one POV, against a multitude of POVs which disagree. It is also refutable by simply looking at history, but this is not the point.
Anyways, I like where the article is going, even though it still needs to be fixed in certain parts. BunnyyHop (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01, why we need to mention atrocities if scholars do not agree on whether they were universally the result of ideology or not? The Four Deuces, could you please summarise the scholarly consensus on fascism? Because they have claimed fascism is too broad whereas they limit this ideology to Stalin and the Soviet Union in teh 1930s which was emulated by Communist states, even though this is not exactly correct; the reverse is true. Fascism is really only Italy, Germany and sometimes Spain. This ideology is much broad, although I agree with you it "takes a dictionary definition of Marxism-Leninism, then coatracks in anything that could be described as Marxist-Leninism", certainly more broad than fascism (Itay, Germany and Spain), which is now neo-fascism, whereas there are still Marxist–Leninist parties and they are not the same. Valee01, I believe Czar is going to say exactly what The Four Deuces says, namely that "[p]olicy says that the weight of information in articles should reflect the weight of such information in the body of literature on the subject. It further says that tertiary sources such as encyclopedias can give an indication of what aspects should be in the article." Davide King (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with The Four Deuces, this article goes into extensive detail as to what Marxist-Leninist's state to believe but not Marxist-Leninism in practice. BunnyyHop you were blocked for removing sections detailing Marxist-Leninist atrocities that is ridiculous, and also were blocked three times for biased editing on Portuguese Wikipedia on article relating to Marxist-Leninism. You also are a Marxist-Leninist you yourself and yourself state to be a member of the Marxist-Leninist Portuguese Communist Party.[42] How can you be considered to be a neutral source on Marxist-Leninism? Vallee01 (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, you claim to be an [anarchist], "how can you be considered to be a neutral source on Marxism-Leninism?".
Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith. BunnyyHop (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The COMINTERN was bolshevized, not "Eastern Europe". "theoretical" is redundant, eventual is according to sources. "claim to" is not a good word to use unless backed by sources. "Generally" is better since those things are taken from the article. BunnyyHop (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
BunnyyHop this has to do with your bias, and your contributions. I don't know how you can be considered a neutral source for this article, you consistently remove sections relating to mass murder, atrocities and genocides and have been blocked both on Portuguese Wikipedia and English Wikipedia. None of your edits thus far can be seen as even remotely against Marxist-Leninism. That's not how Wikipedia works, if a person is editing an article off something they clearly have a close connection to an article and it's usually important to make clear. You have a connection to Marxist-Leninism. Vallee01 (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how this has to do with anything, really, and I'm not even reply to those allegations. I'm not a source, I'm an editor who tries to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:V. BunnyyHop (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Editors are not sources, and sources don't need to be neutral, just accurate. Now, can anyone provide a book or academic article about Marxism-Leninism so we can determine what the main facts are? I can only find sources about ML in specific countries or in relative to specific topics, such as foreign policy or culture. Otherwise it's pointless arguing about what should be emphasized in the article. TFD (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The Four Deuces, this [article] by Lorenzo Chiesa might be of use (for other editors, also), but I have the same problem you do. BunnyyHop (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The Four Deuces, perhaps we may see what sources about specific countries say and what are the similarities, the differences, what they have in common, etc. Davide King (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01, how can you agree with The Four Deuces when they precisely did not say "this article goes into extensive detail as to what Marxist-Leninist's state to believe but not Marxist-Leninism in practice"? As they wrote above, "[s]ince the article is about the ideology, the material does not belong there. This section reads more like criticism of Communism than criticism of Marxism-Leninism. For example, genocide in Poland was not part of the official ideology. There were no explaining when it was in society's interest and it was not used to justify government policy in Poland, where it would be most unpopular, even among Polish leaders. [...] Governments across the political spectrum have engaged in mass killings, but this is the only one that that gives it that level of detail or even mentions it. The topic of the article isn't why Communism is bad but what is their ideology." So I do not see how you can agree with them when they explained what is wrong with mixing up topics.
I also suggest you to back down "You also are a Marxist-Leninist you yourself and yourself state to be a member of the Marxist-Leninist Portuguese Communist Party." I believe they have been more neutral than you and they have not denied any atrocities and they clearly explained "no one is trying to remove 'the attrocities commited by Marxist-Leninist states', people are instead trying to make a neutral lead in an articule where it's hard to find academic consensus in any topic. To insert the 'worse attrocities' is to adhere to the thesis that Marxist-Leninism is the sole cause of these attrocities, and it will always cause Holodomors, Great purgess, and so on." Incidentally, this is the same thing at Mass killings under communist regimes, a coatrack POV page used the make the point communism, not just this ideology, always results in mass killings. The atrocities are not used to indict this ideology but communism and the anti-capitalist left as a whole because any radial change, they say, is going to result in these atrocities, even though scholars still debate on whether idelogy was the main culprit.
May I also remind you that you are an anarchist too and it shows, so you are not a neutral source either? We are all biased, but I do not think Bunnyyhope is the most biased one. Incidentally, you added "Marxist-Leninist states in practice have consistenty failed in estabilishing socialism or worker control of the means of production." I agree but the anti-communist scholars you want us to use for highlighting their atrocities, since it is mainly these scholars who highlight them to blame everything on ideology and would do the same for anarchism, they do not give a damn that these states failed to give workers' democratic control, so you are engaging in original research and synthesis because these scholars who mention the atrocities, they do not really care on whether workers' add actual control, so we cannot add that when it is not routinely mention in books about the idoelogy. Davide King (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi, I'd like to help but not sure where to start. Can someone neutrally summarize the current dispute as succinctly as possible and the arguments for and against? No more than five sentences? If there are multiple disputes, let's handle one at a time. Also, as a courtesy reminder, let's keep the discussion about edits and not editors, e.g., avoid "you". czar 09:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
    Czar, I am going to start a new thread more specifically about the issues, but the dispute seems to be that some users want to put the atrocities committed under Communist regimes, even though this article is about the ideology and for the atrocities we already have Criticism of communist party rule and Mass killings under communist regimes, hence it is a coatrack. The atrocities should be discussed and contextualised in the body, rather than coatracked in the lead. Finally, since scholars still debate whether ideology was the main culprit and there does not seem to be a consensus, we can and should not put that in the lead, if the atrocities were not the results of ideology alone. At best, we should simply state that historians disagree, or debate, on whether ideology was the main culprit. Another issue is that the topic is not clear, or clearly defined ""this article takes a dictionary definition of Marxism-Leninism, then coatracks in anything that could be described as Marxist-Leninism. I suggest we attempt to locate sources about the topic. I have had difficulty doing so. All I can find are books that are specific to individual countries such as the USSR. Maybe this should be a stub or redirect"), and we need to follow policy, namely that "[p]olicy says that the weight of information in articles should reflect the weight of such information in the body of literature on the subject. It further says that tertiary sources such as encyclopedias can give an indication of what aspects should be in the article." What weight do books about the topic to the atrocities? Davide King (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences has a free paragraph about Marxism-Leninism out of its 4 pages dedicated to it.

‘Marxism–Leninism’ was the formal name of the official state ideology adopted by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), its satellite states in Eastern Europe, the Asian communist regimes, and various ‘scientific socialist’ regimes in the Third World during the Cold War. As such, the term is simultaneously misleading and revealing. It is misleading, since neither Marx nor Lenin ever sanctioned the creation of an eponymous ‘ism’; indeed, the term Marxism–Leninism was formulated only in the period of Stalin's rise to power after Lenin's death. It is revealing, because the Stalinist institutionalization of Marxism–Leninism in the 1930s did contain three identifiable, dogmatic principles that became the explicit model for all later Soviet-type regimes: dialectical materialism as the only true proletarian basis for philosophy, the leading role of the communist party as the central principle of Marxist politics, and state-led planned industrialization and agricultural collectivization as the foundation of socialist economics. The global influence of these three doctrinal and institutional innovations makes the term Marxist–Leninist a convenient label for a distinct sort of ideological order—one which, at the height of its power and influence, dominated one-third of the world's population.

--BunnyyHop (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
In addition, this also seems to be a good excerpt:

Communist ideas have acquired a new meaning since 1918. They became equivalent to the ideas of Marxism–Leninism, that is, the interpretation of Marxism by Lenin and his successors. Endorsing the final objective, namely, the creation of a community owning means of production and providing each of its participants with consumption ‘according to their needs’, they put forward the recognition of the class struggle as a dominating principle of a social development. In addition, workers (i.e., the proletariat) were to carry out the mission of reconstruction of the society. Conducting a socialist revolution headed by the avant-garde of the proletariat, that is, the party, was hailed to be a historical necessity. Moreover, the introduction of the proletariat dictatorship was advocated and hostile classes were to be liquidated.

p. 3355
--BunnyyHop (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Other citations, from the 2001 version

As communist Parties emerged around the world, encouraged both by the success of the Soviet Party in establishing Russia’s independence from foreign domination and by clandestine monetary subsidies from the Soviet comrades, they became identifiable by their adherence to a common political ideology known as Marxism–Leninism. Of course from the very beginning Marxism–Leninism existed in many variants. The conditions were themselves an effort to enforce a minimal degree of uniformity on diverse conceptions of communist identity. Adherence to the ideas of ‘Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky’ characterized the Trotskyists who soon broke off in a ‘Fourth International’

p. 2332

‘Marxism–Leninism–Maoism’ became the ideology of the Chinese Communist Party and of the splinter parties that broke off from national communist parties after the Chinese definitively split with the Soviets in 1963. Italian communists continued to be influenced by the ideas of Antonio Gramsci, whose independent conception of the reasons why the working class in industrial countries remained politically quiescent bore far more democratic implications than Lenin’s own explanation of worker passivity. Until Stalin’s death, the Soviet Party referred to its own ideology as ‘Marxism–Leninism–Stalinism.’

p. 2332

Despite this diversity, communist political thought has generally shared certain core elements. Communists have classed their own political thinking as ‘theoretical’ in contrast to the ‘ideological’ programs of other political parties. They have affirmed a theoretical postulate identifying political parties with the economic interest of classes. This postulate defines ‘class’ as joining all persons who make their living in the same way and ‘class interest’ as the perpetuation of that way of making a living (as opposed, for example, to increasing the incomes of the individuals who compose a class). The same postulate identifies each communist party with a ‘proletariat,’ as the class of persons who earn their living by selling (‘alienating’) their labor to someone else. Communists have generally insisted that in the long run the proletariat can only avoid the fate of mass unemployment if it succeeds in overthrowing capitalism, i.e., the system of buying and selling labor as a commodity. In the short run, state ownership of industrial enterprises has tended to be regarded as a means of maintaining the proletariat against capitalist pressure. Communists are further distinguished from other Marxists by a view that agricultural smallholders are likely to be promising allies in shortening the road to the abolition of capitalism. Finally, both the long-run goal of abolishing capitalism and various short-run interests of the proletariat have been considered achievable only by a ‘vanguard party,’ one which relies on theoretical analysis to identify the interests of the proletariat rather than consulting the proletarians themselves. Where they engage in electoral competition, communists have seen their task as educating voters in the voters’ true interests rather than responding to expression of interest by voters. Where they have acquired control of the state, communists have portrayed their task as preventing other parties from deceiving the proletariat by running their own independent candidates. Because of the commitments to democratic centralism and to the theoretical self-understanding as avanguard party, communists could only be ‘cadres’. (...) To a communist, ‘cadre’ took its meaning from Lenin’s conception of the party member as a full-time professional revolutionary.

p. 2332
--BunnyyHop (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
That is what I was looking for: an article about the subject that we can use both as a source and to determine the scope of the topic. The main points were that it was the official ideology of all Communist parties (including Trotskyist) and was developed after the death of Lenin; its three principles were dialectical materialism, the leading role of the Communist party and a planned economy with industrialization and agricultural collectivization.
Note that this source does not explain how ML worked in practice. One party state could mean suppression of opposition. Industrialization could mean coerced labor. Collectivization sometimes led to famine. OTOH, very few ML parties achieved power, hence had no opportunity to put ML into practice. Furthermore, these results were not necessary consequences. There were a range of possible outcomes from Pol Pot to Gorbachev.
I think it is important to have an article about ML ideology as opposed to Communist Party rule. In an article about liberalism for example, we want to know about the theories of Locke and Smith. We don't want to be lectured about how these ideas led to slavery and oppressive colonization of most of the world. We would rightly see such an article as having an anti-liberal bias.
TFD (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The Four Deuces, I agree and that is a good summary. That is why I opposed the coatrack in the lead. But beware of being called out as an "apologist" or for wanting to whitewash the atrocities, even though we are merely following the actual, scholarly literature on the topic that does not reach the conclusion we have in the lead, hence it is original research or synthesis. Davide King (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Davide King you are making no sense. Your only issue with the statement is that the source is anti communist, is that it? It that a real issue with the source? A source that is anti-communist is not inherently an unreliable citation. I also want to remind you this isn't a place to defend communism, if scholarly citations state that a main criticisms of Marxist-Leninism is atrocities we should state the atrocities, its an open and shut case. We are here to report what reliable citations state not here to defend communism. Vallee01 (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't see a reference to a source in Davide King's posting. Could you please provide more information. TFD (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01, none of this addresses my points. You write "this isn't a place to defend communism" but it is not a place to tell "why Communism is bad [either] but what is their ideology." You write "I also want to remind you this isn't a place to defend communism, if scholarly citations state that a main criticisms of Marxist-Leninism is atrocities we should state the atrocities" but you provide no sources whereas I and others did, showing that the ideology cannot be limited to Stalin or to the atrocities. You seem to think it is not even possible that scholarly sources do not mention the atrocities as a criticism, because they are a different topic; you simply assume they do. To borrow from your own words, "[i]f scholarly citations [do not] state that a main criticisms of Marxist-Leninism is atrocities we should [not] state the atrocities [either]." Not all scholars agree they were the result of ideology, which would be the only reason why they may be mentioned in the lead. Davide King (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
A main criticism of Marxist-Leninism is that it failed, multiple articles have suffered because of it. Almost no scholarly citations go . This article deals almost entirely with the theoretical of Marxist-Leninism. You are stuck in a strange position you think that Marxist-Leninist achievements should be stated but you stop at stating the gulag system. The article mentions Stalinism but not how Stalinism works in practice. We can't state both
We can not mention the theory of Marxist-Leninism without stating how Marxist-Leninism works in practice. The citation was a different discussion it was this and removal: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1959154 Vallee01 (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01, you write "[t]his article deals almost entirely with the theoretical of Marxist-Leninism" but that is exactly what the main topic is supposed to be. For the criticism, we already have Criticism of communist party rule; we are supposed to have only one clear main topic per article. Weight must also be kept in mind; how is considered this view among scholarly sources? I actually agree that it was a failure because, among other things, it failed in establishing socialism, but this does not seem to be a mainstream view. Indeed, the scholars you support for emphasising the atrocities actually say they happened because of socialism and the Soviet Union et al. were indeed socialists. I disagree with this view, as I agree with Harrington's views that "[this ideology] was a method to bring about rapid industrialization in backward countries that lacked capital. In that sense it wasn't a step toward socialism but a step toward capitalism. Hence all successful Communist revolutions occurred in feudal or third world countries which by the way had no traditions of democracy, civil rights or private enterprise but that is what they say." However, these same scholars you support for emphasising the atrocities also say that the Soviet Union et al. were socialists, something that both you and I disagree with. You want to have it both ways but we cannot do that, or state it as fact. Davide King (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
It's hard to say that ML failed, because China is on course to have the largest GDP in the world possibly by 2024. It's more than four times higher than India, a capitalist constitutional democracy that has a comparable population. You can't say well they're not really ML, because ML by definition is whatever the Communist Party says it is. TFD (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
The Four Deuces, as I stated, I consider them a failure because they did not establish socialism but I agree with what you wrote; ironically, that is never considered. So Maoist China was Communist because it was bad and not because it was actually socialist while post-Maoist China is capitalist because, as you noted, "China is on course to have the largest GDP in the world possibly by 2024" and that cannot possibly be attributed to Communism, the CCP or Communist leadership. Davide King (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Davide King, you assume that their objective was to establish socialism, but Lenin, Mao, Ho and Castro never set out to establish socialism but adopted it as the only possible strategy for their nations. They believed that capitalism provided a necessary stage that expanded the economy, creating a working class that would then take control from the bourgeoisie. The end of sanctions has allowed the first three countries to liberalize their economies. Sanctions against Venezuela may force them to take the Soviet path. TFD (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
The Four Deuces, that is very interesting. That is my actual view too, I just thought historians took it for granted that was their objective. If this is not true and what you write is actually true and supported by scholars, then this needs to be reflected at Communist-related articles. There is so much misunderstanding in Communist-related articles, so perhaps this needs to be fixed? "They believed that capitalism provided a necessary stage that expanded the economy, creating a working class that would then take control from the bourgeoisie." This was also not much different from what orthodox Marxist or Mensheviks actually argued. My understanding is the Mensheviks supported the liberal-democratic development whereas Bolsheviks supported party development, with the understanding that this will avoid the second necessary revolution needed to turn liberal democracy (political democracy) in the dictatorship of the proletariat (economic, political and social democracy). Is this a correct understanding of the issues between them?
I thought of Venezuela as following the Chinese path, rather than the Soviet path, if you mean the centralised-managed command economy, i.e. liberalise the economy to restore confidence while keeping political control; but now that I think about it, you were probably actually referring to their pragmatism rather than the economy. My understanding is that you see the Chinese path as requiring sanctions to be removed, which is what happened in the 1970s and 1980s with détente, which resulted in economic liberalisation, which would likely not have resulted without it, i.e. a different path would have been followed. Is this correct too?
Either way, you make sense. I do not know what your political views are, which is just a compliment of how neutral you are, but you have a better understanding of this of many leftists and socialists, who assume that was their objective and fail to understand the policies were based "as the only possible strategy for their nations. They believed that capitalism provided a necessary stage that expanded the economy, creating a working class that would then take control from the bourgeoisie." Seriously, kudos. Davide King (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Vallee.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC))
KIENGIR, none of this really adds anything or addresses our points, namely that we should not mix up topics. We have provided some sources about the topic and they do not mention or "explain how ML worked in practice. One party state could mean suppression of opposition. Industrialization could mean coerced labor. Collectivization sometimes led to famine. OTOH, very few ML parties achieved power, hence had no opportunity to put ML into practice. Furthermore, these results were not necessary consequences. There were a range of possible outcomes from Pol Pot to Gorbachev." Do you also agree with Valee01 that the Soviet Union et al. were not really socialists but essentially totalitarian (state) capitalists? Because they want the article to point out how "Marxist-Leninist states in practice have consitently [sic] failed in estabilishing [sic] socialism or worker control of the means of production." Davide King (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Please forgive me in an eleventh break I am really scarce. What I agree they were communist countries, in fact officially socialist countries, yes totalitarian states, but capitalist without proper attribution and explanation would be arguable, especially as it's common meaning would designate an opposite system. Anyway, as a viewpoint in a relevant place and due lenght may be mentioned, anyway these online-chat blog type discussion in the various articles covered go into such depth like we would engineer a a spaceship for intergalactical travel, however, I never oppossed sharp precisity, but really we are reaching subatomic levels..:~ (KIENGIR (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC))
So you do not really agree with Valee01; for them, it is a fact they were not socialist and that they failed in establishing socialism. You only agree with them in mentioning the atrocities, even though they are not mentioned in several sources we listed because the main topic is the ideology, not what they did, which we discuss in another article (they mention they were one-party states, which we already said, but they do not say they were authoritarian or engaged in atrocities because they are discussing the ideology and we should reflect this). Anyway, I agree this discussion is not going nowhere, so we may take a break to look at what sources say and then start a new discussion to compare them. However, if you simply dismiss these sources and just keep agreeing with each other, that is disrupting and unhelpful. Again, this article is not about what Communists did (we already have articles for that) but what was their ideology. Davide King (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
"The term is simultaneously misleading and revealing.[43] It is misleading, since neither Marx nor Lenin ever sanctioned the creation of an eponymous ‘ism’; indeed, the term Marxism–Leninism was formulated only in the period of Stalin's rise to power after Lenin's death. It is revealing, because the Stalinist institutionalization of Marxism–Leninism in the 1930s did contain three identifiable, dogmatic principles that became the explicit model for all later Soviet-type regimes: dialectical materialism as the only true proletarian basis for philosophy, the leading role of the communist party as the central principle of Marxist politics, and state-led planned industrialization and agricultural collectivization as the foundation of socialist economics.[43] The global influence of these three doctrinal and institutional innovations makes the term Marxist–Leninist a convenient label for a distinct sort of ideological order—one which, at the height of its power and influence, dominated one-third of the world's population.[43][44]"
This entire section specifically this "that became the explicit model for all later Soviet-type regimes: dialectical materialism as the only true proletarian basis for philosophy" is the definition of a ML POV. It litterally states Marxist-Leninism is the only true proletariat philosophy in text! And uses ML text as a definition. Vallee01 (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01, that is not what the text implies. It is saying that Marxist–Leninists in the 1930s thought dialectical materialism was the only true proletarian basis for philosophy, i.e. they are dogmatic about it, how is that a ML POV? Perhaps it could be in quoted marks, if that is what the source says. BunnyyHop, could you show us the quote? My understanding is that the wording is referring to Marxist–Leninists considering dialectical materialism as "the only true proletarian basis for philosophy", not that it indeed is, if that is what concerned you. It is referring to the Stalinist institutionalisation of Marxism–Leninism in the 1930s, which did contain three identifiable dogmatic principles that became the explicit model for all later Soviet-type regimes, that is all. It does not say their views are correct, it just states what their views were.
Same thing for the leading role of the communist party as the central principle of Marxist politics and state-led planned industrialisation and agricultural collectivization as the foundation of socialist economics; it is referring to the tenents of the ideological model adopted by several states; these states followed dialectical materialism as "the only true proletarian basis for philosophy", that is why they repressed other socialists, whom they smeared as "bourgeois", "petty bourgeois", "counter-revolutionary", etc. This does not seem to be really controversial.
Do you not think we should even say what they thought? They indeed thought that dialectical materialism was "the only true proletarian basis for philosophy"; that does not make it true but that was indeed what they thought. I mean, their dogmatism and party lines are objects of jokes, so I do not really understand the issue. The text is saying what they thought and they thought dialectical materialism was "the only true proletarian basis for philosophy." That does not make it true but we are here for verifiability, not truth; and Marxist–Leninists in the 1930s indeed thought that dialectical materialism was "the only true proletarian basis." Nothing more, nothing less. If you are concerned it implies that statement is true, it is not; it is merely reporting what they thought (verifiability), not that what they thought was correct (truth). We already have other sections for criticism of this. Davide King (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, the source for that is directly the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences.[45] Thanks for clearing that up to our colleague. Vallee01, this text has been previously agreed on by plenty editors. If you had problems with such a minor thing, use the talk page. You reverted 5 of my edits for one phrase in one of the paragraphs.

Davide King, I don't believe the text should be written in the overview. It's a clear introduction to the ideology, not just its terminology, and is according to what we have discussed down below. Furthermore, it states the dogmas of the ideology per Stalinist institutionalization in the 30s. To claim this International Encyclopedia reads like a "Marxist-Leninist manifesto" is a view that holds no water whatsoever. NPOV means that we, as editors, don't insert our own unsourced opinions, or use censorship to hide views we don't like. NPOV does not mean "neutral" or neutered content, nor does it mean that there should be a false balance between opposing POV. All opinions are not equal. --BunnyyHop (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Davide King I think the issue here is that the section reads like an ML manifesto, the article alreadys deal extensively with what ML states to believe we don't need more sections detailing it. The lead is already getting larger and larger, despite us initially wanting to make the lead smaller it has only resulted in it ballooning in size. The section can be reworded and moved somewhere into the body but it doesn't belong it the lead it's both unimportant to the leded, poorly worded, and doesn't add to an understanding of the article.
BunnyyHop your sections read like a ML manifesto not the entire article, the issue with the text is that it both expands the lede with very useless info, and isn't worded well. Vallee01 (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01 this isn't written by me, what this is, is an almost identical copy of lead on Marxism-Leninism of the highly praised and PROSE Awards winner International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences.[46]
To call this Marxism-Leninist propaganda, or that "it's both unimportant to the leded, poorly worded, and doesn't add to an understanding of the article" is absurd, to say the least.
Our lead (and some parts of the article) should be structured mainly by these encyclopedia(s) - to the scope of this article is also added the elementary of the History of Marxist-Leninist states (those parts which are relevant to the ideology, at least that's what it should be), but it's first and foremost about «Marxism-Leninism the ideology».
Also, "the article alreadys deal extensively with what ML states to believe we don't need more sections detailing it". Briefly, this is the lead, not "more sections". The lead should mainly reflect what's written in the article, as Davide King says, so you're actually arguing in favour of placing it in the lead - where it should be. Other editors have expressed their approval of these paragraphs to structure the lead, so it's most likely what we are going to do. --BunnyyHop (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
BunnyyHop You are editing against Wiki rules no where is there consensus for this, nowhere did you propose this. Nowhere was there even discussion on your edits. The last edit on this talk was from the 18th! Did you get consensus with the air? You certainly didn't get it with other editors, again if you keep editing without prior discussion, consensus or even stating your proposal is against Wiki rules and if you keep your disruptive behavior you will be blocked, you recently edited the page Russian Revolution as an example and put pro-ML completely POV pushing sections against consensus with no editors supporting your proposal. Vallee01 (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I also notice the edit is highly unusual using sources that do not support your conclusion creating a Synthesis as an example you use the source: "Lenin argued that power could be secured on behalf of the proletariat through the so-called vanguard leadership of a disciplined and revolutionary communist party, organized according to what was effectively the military principle of democratic centralism." This is an argument of Lenin not a fact, however you use this info to state that actually Lenin indeed implemented these reforms, or that it was indeed revolutionary, however the source only states he claims to be "In the Soviet Union, the revolution was accomplished in two-stages," something which could be acceptable however not in the lead is "Marxist-Leninists believe that the Soviet Union, implemented a revolution that accomplished in two-stages (better yet add a fact check here)." What you are doing is called a synthesis of material. Vallee01 (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01, The Four Deuces said "That is what I was looking for". Davide King also agreed, and both had a discussion which I found to be great. Furthermore, they throughtly addressed your points, one by one. These citations were published on the 8th of december, 13 days have passed, and you didn't raise a single point about it. Your current argument is the equivalent to "I just don't like it" argument, which carry no weight whatsoever. See Wikipedia:STONEWALL. You have reverted my edits without raising a single point about it - but what you just did was push a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, off-topic rambling, mischaracterizing my actions to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction. A reversion is a complete rejection of my work.
As it stands, you are going against consensus, as exemplified here, where the fruits of the discussion above, which you reverted, were reverted back by Davide King. You are clearly not in a position to revert and claim there is «no consensus», and as such, your revertion is not valid.
There's a great example on the WP:FILIBUSTER article:

Editors reach a consensus, except one (or a tagteam) insisting that the change sought violates some policy or other principle, in a way they cannot clearly demonstrate.

Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process, and is considered unacceptable on Wikipedia as a form of gaming the system, as well as tendentious editing
I'll give some time for Davide King and The Four Deuces to evaluate my edits. Take a look at Wikipedia:BRD_misuse#Filibusterers.
--BunnyyHop (talk) 05:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01, you raised two miniscule points, and reverted four edits. One of them was not my edit but Davide King's. The other, if the author does mean, stagism, then it's refering to «two-stages», the «bourgeois revolution» and later the «proletarian revolution» that happened in the Russian Empire. I'll take care of them and thus, the Wikipedia:BRDD cycle is renewed. --BunnyyHop (talk) 05:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
BunnyyHop most users have stated they oppose your changes to the article, and others have either not voiced an opinion. You clearly didn't read anything I stated if you think my argument is "I don't like it." It drips Marxist-Leninist POV from just reading it, it reads like a manifesto of Marxist-Leninism, it even has sections that read directly out of a ML handbook. You literally refers to other Marxist-Leninists as comrades the absolute definition of POV text! Are you going to be calling the United States terrorists next, or state the glorify of Marxist-Leninist states throwing off the yolk of imperialism? (Well you already state that)
Anyone who can read and knows even the basics of non POV editing would oppose this, it screams of POV text, you literally refer to Marxist-Leninists as "great friends" (comrade is a synonym of friend) in the text and refer to the western powers as "foreign domination." I don't doubt you think of Marxist-Leninists as friends but this isn't the place to be pushing it. You got to be kidding in claiming this is neutral:
'"As communist Parties emerged around the world, encouraged both by the success of the Bolshevik Party in establishing Russia’s independence from foreign domination and by clandestine monetary subsidies from the Soviet comrades, they became identifiable by their adherence to a common political ideology known as Marxism–Leninism."
Vallee01 (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Twelfth break

Don't say «most users». You are the only one actively against «my changes». Also, just because you think it's POV, it doesn't mean it is. Everything is highly faithful to the original source, which is incredibly reliable.[47] All those things are in the source, «comrade», «foreign domination», and so on. Thinking about your edits, you consider «POV» anything that is not anticommunist. You explicitly said «this isn't a place to defend communism», and even though this is arguably the best neutrally written source we have - International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences - you still think it's a «Marxist-Leninist manifesto». I think this is what we would call WP:GASLIGHTING. --BunnyyHop (talk) 05:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I have stated this before BunnyyHop and I will state it again, not answering on a proposal does not equate to support, you have been told this over and over. You are not allowed to run free and change articles without oversight. If you are going to use this strange source you need to use neutral wording, it doesn't matter if the source uses the term "imperialists," "leaches," "terrorists," "hero's" or "comrades" we can never describe any group as such. Your issue with your edits on this page has thus far been extremely disruptive. If it be when you initially removed information from the lead documenting ML atrocities, or edit warring, or removing text stating that ML states as undemocratic as a "fringe theory," or pushing POV pushing text. If you have sections in which the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences has the sections you state please do share so far you haven't linked any in which it refers to the western powers as "foreign domination." Nowehere did I state International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences is a ML manifesto. Your strange synthesis of material is which has been made clear is an issue, however feel free to keep putting words in my mouth.
This complete waffle of Wikipedia policies is almost amusing, where did I state or do anything that opposes "anything that is not anticommunist." You seem to have forgotten I played a major role in developing this article adding sections detailing Marxist-Leninist industrialization, and stating Marxist-Leninist positions is that "opposing anything anti-communist?"
I also extensively edited the page Soveit Union and my edits were considered neutral in fact my edits were accused of being completely pro-communist! There truly is no winning one day I am communist, the next a capitalist I think next time I hoping someone will make me Zebra.
We need to be neutral whenever wording something. We can use sources that use such terms, (again nowhere did you provide anything stating that the source provides the sections you state it does.) However we still need to be neutral we can never use terms like "comrades" see this for more information nor can we call the western powers "imperialist," nor can we post POV pushing text, nor can refer to groups as "terrorists" completely irregardless of the text. We can use theoretically any source assuming it is reliable, however different citations are important for different sections. We most certainly don't paraphrase any source word for word, a source that uses contentious labels for individuals or groups should not be labelled so as it creates a form where we are no longer neutral, instead we build truthful information based off scholarly and accepted interpenetration of the work, a mission you aren't respecting by removing text that states ML states are undemocratic despite universal consensus that ML states are completely un-democratic. We are an encyclopedia, not copy paste for different citations. Vallee01 (talk) 06:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01 What I meant in «Davide King agreed», was that he expressed it to be a reliable and verifiable source, as showed here.
None of that matters. If it's verifiable, it should be stated as such. Also, all of this «imperialists, leaches, terrorists (...)» is gaslighting. The stated expression was «foreign domination», exactly the wording used in the source. This isn't a synthesis of material, these are largely taken from the International Encyclopedia, whose original words are written a few paragraphs above, all with their pages respectively sourced. You're just removing sourced material claiming it's unsourced, without even checking it, and this does go against the guidelines. You did state multiple times:

I think the issue here is that the section reads like an ML manifesto

BunnyyHop your sections read like a ML manifesto not the entire

BunnyyHop most users have stated they oppose your changes to the article, and others have either not voiced an opinion. You clearly didn't read anything I stated if you think my argument is "I don't like it." It drips Marxist-Leninist POV from just reading it, it reads like a manifesto of Marxist-Leninism, it even has sections that read directly out of a ML handbook. You literally refers to other Marxist-Leninists as comrades the absolute definition of POV text! Are you going to be calling the United States terrorists next, or state the glorify of Marxist-Leninist states throwing off the yolk of imperialism? (Well you already state that)

«where did I state or do anything that opposes» I didn't claim you did, it was just a general impression I got from your edits, since you were fine in mentioning that «In reality Marxist-Leninist states were undemocratic» based on a constitution and on a book about religion in China and Russia, and accepting one of the outcomes of the Russian Revolution as the «establishment of an one-party dictatorship». All this whilst disregarding the International Encyclopedia as «dripping Marxist-Leninist POV».
The exact words written on the source are on the eleventh break. Everything is written neutrally. comrade is not a contentious label, and furthermore, it is used by a reliable source.
--BunnyyHop (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Diff being discussed --BunnyyHop (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes it does BunnyyHop no unbiased editor ever use the term "comrade" to describe anybody, moreover the term in Russian Revolution, you were warned there by uninvolved users "If you keep your biased editing a topic ban is rapidly approaching," as you edit warred with numerous other editors moreover the edit was "Establishment of Russian SSFR not "Establishment of one party dictatorship." You can ask literally anybody on it. You can't describe anybody as "dominators," the term comrade translating to "friend in arms" is the definition. Calling any group, person or otherwise comrades is obviously not allowed, however you can keep on trying to justify it. However you will never be able to justify adding the term comrade into any article.
Again we are an encyclopedia not a copy and paraphrase of different citations, it is against Wiki guidelines. If a citation refers to a group as "hero's," "comrades," "leaches" or the like we can use the citation but we never use those terms." Citations are often biased we can use biased citations we are still always bound to neutral wording, we aren't a copy paste to shove different sources. If a citation refers to groups as terrorists as an example we never would use that term, irregardless of the citation is reliability. BunnyyHop your synthesis is dripping with Marxist-Leninist propaganda, which everybody can see. However if you would like you can ask any administrators, arbiters, editors, or otherwise if it is acceptable to use the term "comrade," dominators, or "imperialist" to describe any group please do.
BunnyyHop what sections are you referring to? You keep stating the source calls Marxist-Leninist comrades yet nowhere do you provide an inline citation for this assessment. If you don't have the sections you are not only being biased you are being biased without using a source which is bannable. Provide the sections in which you state the source calls other Marxist-Leninists as "comrades" and the western powers as "dominators." You also keep on edit war despite the ongoing discussion on talk and consensus being against you. Vallee01 (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, you may legitimately revert the edits, it is concerning how BunnyyHop interprets/redefines what is/means consensus and accusing you inciting some varius rules and guidelines, in fact those are not in connection with the happenings.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BunnyyHop (talk • contribs)
Vallee01 Comrade is a neutral term. According to dictionary.com[48], comrade means:

a person who shares in one's activities, occupation, etc.; companion, associate, or friend.

a fellow member of a fraternal group, political party, etc.

a member of the Communist Party or someone with strongly leftist views.

Citation, once again:

«As communist Parties emerged around the world, encouraged both by the success of the Soviet Party in establishing Russia’s independence from foreign domination and by clandestine monetary subsidies from the Soviet comrades, they became identifiable by their adherence to a common political ideology known as Marxism–Leninism. Of course from the very beginning Marxism–Leninism existed in many variants. The conditions were themselves an effort to enforce a minimal degree of uniformity on diverse conceptions of communist identity. Adherence to the ideas of ‘Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky’ characterized the Trotskyists who soon broke off in a ‘Fourth International’» 2001, p. 2332

--BunnyyHop (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
BunnyyHop It's not, it would be nice if you dropped it, you can ask any arbiter, editor administrator, about using the term comrade in the context you use it in to refer to fellow MLs as "comrades" is against wiki rules. for starters Dictonary.com doesn't have anything to do with Wikipedia's policies. Comrade really should never be used outside extremely rare examples or if we ever use quotes.
With your definition however you prove the point Comrade is a POV pushing word it literally refers as "friend" or "brother in arm." It is an extremely contentious label and we don't use it. Describing groups as comrades is clear and center complete POV editing. Indeed you provide an inline citation however we still always are neutral when writing an article. We can't use non-neutral wording simply because a source uses non-neutral wording. Vallee01 (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01 I suggest we open a dispute resolution about this, since I think the main points of each side have been presented. I'll reinstate the phrase without the word «comrade». --BunnyyHop (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

You removed everything again for no valid reason, without discussing in the talk page. --BunnyyHop (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop You can open a dispute resolution it will be shot down immediately no editor could ever think your text is neutral, also English uses quotations not this «». If you reinstate the text you are edit warring you already edit warred recently, you also edited without consensus. Nobody supports this proposal and its an extreme case of POV pushing text, you didn't even bring it up. Vallee01 (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Then why are you reverting the edits instead of replacing the god damn «» with ""? WP:DONTREVERT It's not edit warring, I'm addressing your points according to WP:BRD. You're Wikipedia:BRD_misuse#Filibusterers misusing BRD --BunnyyHop (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
BunnyyHop It's not just an issue with quotations, this was simply one thing which isn't correct about your editing. The POV text referring to ML states as ultra-democratic, the use of ML primary sources, the consistent removal of sections detailing ML atrocities. The calling of the western powers "imperialist" or "dominators," text that reads like an ML manifesto. Overuse of quotes of ML leaders that gives a Soapbox, adding "accused" to sections which detail proven Stalinist atrocities. If you think my issue with your edit is you don't use quotations you are completely mistaken. Vallee01 (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Nobody is calling those countries imperialist, it's saying that after the revolution Russia got its «independence from foreign domination». Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not neutral. This is mainly due to the huge weight debt had in the internal and external affairs of the Russian Empire.[49]

It has been argued by both Western and Soviet historians that Russian foreign relations were in good part influenced by, or even determined by, Russia’s debtor status to France and—to a lesser degree—to Great Britain. Thus a Western historian argued recently that in the last years of tsarist rule “foreign credit became a tool of power politics and a limitation on Russian sovereignty in general. … Between 1887 and 1917 Russian policy was tied to French policy, inasmuch as French investments were controlled, to a large extent, by the French Government.”

This isn't about neutral wording but rather about factuality. Stop talking about things not in discussion here, you're always trying to move the conversation away from the main point of your reverts.
Now sum up the problem with the next paragraphs:

Communist ideas have acquired a new meaning since 1918, during the Russian Revolution. They became equivalent to the ideas of Marxism–Leninism, that is, the interpretation of Marxism by Lenin and his successors. Endorsing the final objective, namely, the creation of a community owning means of production and providing each of its participants with consumption ‘according to their needs’, they put forward the recognition of the class struggle as a dominating principle of a social development. In addition, workers (i.e., the proletariat) were to carry out the mission of reconstruction of the society. Conducting a socialist revolution led by the vanguard of the proletariat, that is, the party, organised hierarchically through democratic centralism, was hailed to be a historical necessity. Moreover, the introduction of the proletariat dictatorship was advocated and hostile classes were to be liquidated. Marxism–Leninism held that the communist revolution was to be accomplished through two-stages. This would pave the way for an eventual communist society, which would be both classless and stateless. Marxist–Leninist states have been commonly referred to by Western academics as communist states. The party would seize power "on behalf of the proletariat" and establish a communist party-led socialist state. In the 20th century, in general, the state controlled the economy and means of production, suppressed opposition and the bourgeoisie and promoted collectivism in society.

As communist Parties emerged around the world, encouraged both by the success of the Bolshevik Party in establishing Russia’s independence from foreign domination and by clandestine monetary subsidies from the Soviet comrades, they became identifiable by their adherence to a common political ideology known as Marxism–Leninism. From the very beginning Marxism–Leninism existed in many variants. In the 1920s, the term was formulated by Joseph Stalin based on his understanding of orthodox Marxism and Leninism. After the death of Vladimir Lenin in 1924, Marxism–Leninism became a distinct movement in the Soviet Union when Stalin and his supporters gained control of the party. It rejected the common notions among Western Marxists of world revolution, as a prerequisite for building socialism, in favour of the concept of socialism in one country. According to its supporters, the gradual transition from capitalism to socialism was signified by the introduction of the first five-year plan and the 1936 Soviet Constitution. By the late 1920s, Stalin established ideological orthodoxy among the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), the Soviet Union and the Communist International to establish universal Marxist–Leninist praxis. The formulation of the Soviet version of dialectical and historical materialism in the 1930s by Stalin and his associates (such as in Stalin's book Dialectical and Historical Materialism) became the official Soviet interpretation of Marxism and taken as example by Marxist–Leninists in other countries. In the late 1930s, Stalin's official textbook History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) (1938) popularised Marxism–Leninism as a term.

It seems to me that there is a suppression of very relevant information to the understanding of the ideology, presenting information unfairly and unproportionately. There about 93 words referent to showing the ideology itself, and 184 related to criticism. --BunnyyHop (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
BunnyyHop, You can not try to justify the usage of the term "comrade," "imperialist," or "foreign dominators." BunnyyHop you have called imperialist multiple times while editing the article. As stated by numerous editors calling any group "comrades" or "dominators" is a complete violation of NPOV. You seem to have admitted the term is not neutral as it is not, neutrality means using neutral wording you can use any citation assuming it is reliable however using biased citations with problematic wording isn't allowed, just because a source uses biased wording does not allow us to use biased wording, we always are neutral it doesn't matter if the citation isn't.
As stated your doing a synthesis of material to come to pro-ML position, as an example you take "Vladimir Lenin supports internationalism" but then use that to come to a new conclusion ML states are internationalist something which is a leap of logic, and something which isn't allowed. Vallee01 (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01, so, to be clear, the only problem you have, out of these two paragraphs, is with these words on this phrase:

As communist Parties emerged around the world, encouraged both by the success of the Bolshevik Party in establishing Russia’s independence from foreign domination and by clandestine monetary subsidies from the Soviet comrades, they became identifiable by their adherence to a common political ideology known as Marxism–Leninism.

Glad we got that out of the way.
Last time I checked, there's nothing on the wiki (WP:NPOV WP:V WP:NOR) pillars forbidding the usage of the terms "comrades" and "foreign domination". You seem to misunderstand what "neutral" in "WP:NPOV" means, WP:PRESERVEBIAS. Comrade is not a word devoid of meaning, no word really is, its usage according to its meaning is perfectly fine. Comrade is usually used in a relationship between communists, hence why the its used by the encyclo.. However, using "comrade" to describe conservative politician X with Y is not neutral. In this context, it's perfectly fine.
The rest of your paragraph is gibberish to me, I'm sorry.
--BunnyyHop (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
BunnyyHop You overuse pro-ML quotes, deal in a complete theoretically. What you are doing is posting walls of texts from various other citations and then demanding to go through the entire section, the POV pushing isn't subtle BunnyyHop it can be seen clearly. No one can ever argue your contributions could ever be seen as neutral.
Text like: A vanguard party, organised hierarchically through democratic centralism, would seize power "on behalf of the proletariat." Is complete POV text, it reads like an ML manifesto, you can't state that ML states would seize power on behalf of the proletariat so you use a quote. What if we did the same with the article Fascism. What if we stated "The government would maintain purity and get rid of all undesirables." That is essentially what you are you doing now, you often edit the article to get rid of atrocities and have text that reads like an ML manifesto instead of an encyclopedic page. Vallee01 (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

You're not dealing with the main post of this conversation, but moving the goalposts. That text was inserted by Davide King IIRC, and furthermore, it's on the article right now, so not the object of discussion. That phrase would be perfectly fine to include in Fascism if used with quotes, and in this case, attribution. Since you changed subject, I assume you agree with these paragraphs and that they're ready to be inserted in the article. --BunnyyHop (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&type=revision&diff=996233392&oldid=996220855, can't see it in the source, can you provide a citation for each of those claims:

Previously, Lenin had called for a multi-party system of democracy before the Bolshevik Party lost in the 1917 Russian Constituent Assembly election to the Socialist Revolutionary Party

Following the Bolsheviks defeat in the election, Lenin began describing the the assembly as "bourgeois-democratic" parliamentarian. After the defeat in the election, the assembly was abolished and all other parties, with the exception of the Bolsheviks, were made illegal.

This would lead to the development of vanguardism in which an hierarchical party-elite party controlled society.

--BunnyyHop (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01 please, cite here. I have looked at page 4 of the «White, Elizabeth» citation and there's no relationship to any of those claims. --BunnyyHop (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Vallee01 why are you adding unsourced content? Tell me where in the citation you provided, «"Out of a total of 42 million and a total of 703 elected deputies, the primarily agrarian Social Revoultionary Party the primarily agrarian socialist Social Revolutionary party plus narodnik or populist parties amassed the largest popular vote (well in excess of 50 percent) and elected the greatest number of deputies (approximately 60 percent.). [...] The Bolsheviks who had usurped power in the name of the soviets three weeks prior to prior to the election, amassed only 24 percent of the popular vote."», there is «Previously, Lenin had called for a multi-party system of democracy». How can you not understand this? --BunnyyHop (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
You inserted in the citation:
«Following the elections) dominated by Lenin (who had previously called for free party elections) issued the Draft Decree on the dissolution of the constitutional assembly, the dream of Russian political reforms for many years were swept aside as a "Deceptive form of bourgeois-democratic parliamentarianism»
But the actual quote is «The political significance of the election to the Russian Constituent Assembly is difficult to as by a large segment of the Russian people ascertain since the Assembly was partly by a large segment of the Russian people as not being really necessary to fulfill their desires in this era of revolutionary development (...) On January 5, 1918, the deputies to the Constituent Assembly met in Petrograd; on January 6 the Central Executive Committee of the Congress of Soviets, dominated by Lenin, issued the Draft Decree on the Dissolution of the Constituent Assembly. The Constituent Assembly, the dream of Russian political reformers for many years, was swept aside as a "deceptive form of bourgeois-democratic parliamentarism"»
The bit I wanted is not there. Why are you manipulating text? --BunnyyHop (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
BunnyyHop It really doesn't matter what matters unless content is encyclopedic why should we include it. For starters please ping me if you want to get get my attention, how am I supposed to know you posted a something and want a response if you don't ping me? For starters the turnout for the Russian Elections were very high for the population of Russian control. The overall percentage was still far lower then previous years, this was due to areas like Finland most of the Baltics, most of Ukraine, parts of the Caucasus, large parts of Siberia (controlled by the white army), most of central Asia, and large parts of previous Russian land being in the hands of the Germans, the Provisional government or having declared their independence as in the case of Finland around 40% of the Russian population couldn't vote in the election. In the areas controlled by the Bolsheviks the election had a large turnout of around 50,000,000 people, so clearly there was support for the election, you also use the citation but don't add context to areas further down, you also copy it word for word. Page 319 the text is provided, it's not very hard to see, you copy and pasted a section from page 320. Des Vallee (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Des Vallee You're doing WP:OR by synthesizing, taking conclusions not made by the author out of, and adding, material. The quotation above is what was exactly written, and was paraphrased in the article. --BunnyyHop (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
BunnyyHop You keep putting up tags, despite the entirety of it being verified. You already know this, as well as this you are currently doing. Stating the Lenin lost the election and that the bolsheviks didn't have popular support among the Russian population something which is directly quoted in the article isn't synthesis, your only issue seems to be you don't like that the Bolsheviks lost. Des Vallee (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

What? I stated multiple times that «Previously, Lenin had called for a multi-party system of democracy» was incredibly questionable, and I asked for a citation multiple times, which you failed to provide and when you did you inserted within parenthesis things that weren't there. Also, I need a citation for this «This would lead to the development of vanguardism in which an hierarchical party-elite party controlled society.» which seems like OR, but if it isn't anyway, it's an opinion stated as fact. BunnyyHop (talk) 07:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BunnyyHop/sandbox
  2. ^ Wikipedia wants sales up 100% because Elmo needs food (Wikipedia is a community run cooperative nonprofit that makes no money, get it?)
  3. ^ The legit soup institute(edu)
  4. ^ The legit soup institute(edu)
  5. ^ a b Service, Robert (2007). Comrades!: A History of World Communism. Harvard University Press. pp. 3–6.
  6. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference albert24 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference walker-gray was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ "Holodomor". Holocaust and Genocide Studies. College of Liberal Arts, University of Minnesota. Retrieved 6 October 2020.
  9. ^ Becker, Jasper (24 September 2010). "Systematic genocide" (PDF). The Spectator. Retrieved 6 October 2020.
  10. ^ Karski, Karol (2012). "The Crime of Genocide Committed against the Poles by the USSR before and during World War II: An International Legal Study". Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law. 45 (3): 703–760. Retrieved 6 October 2020.
  11. ^ Sawicky, Nicholas D. (20 December 2013). The Holodomor: Genocide and National Identity (Education and Human Development Master's Theses). The College at Brockport: State University of New York. Retrieved 6 October 2020 – via Digital Commons. Scholars also disagree over what role the Soviet Union played in the tragedy. Some scholars point to Stalin as the mastermind behind the famine, due to his hatred of Ukrainians (Hosking, 1987). Others assert that Stalin did not actively cause the famine, but he knew about it and did nothing to stop it (Moore, 2012). Still other scholars argue that the famine was just an effect of the Soviet Union's push for rapid industrialization and a by-product of that was the destruction of the peasant way of life (Fischer, 1935). The final school of thought argues that the Holodomor was caused by factors beyond the control of the Soviet Union and Stalin took measures to reduce the effects of the famine on the Ukrainian people (Davies & Wheatcroft, 2006).
  12. ^ Cliff, Tony (1996). State Capitalism in Russia (PDF). Retrieved 6 October 2020 – via Marxists Internet Archive.
  13. ^ Alami, Ilias; Dixon, Adam D. (January 2020). "State Capitalism(s) Redux? Theories, Tensions, Controversies". Competition & Change. 24 (1): 70–94. doi:10.1177/1024529419881949. ISSN 1024-5294. S2CID 211422892.
  14. ^ Voline (1995). "Red Fascism". Itinéraire (13). Translated by Sharkey, Paul. Paris. Retrieved 6 October 2020 – via The Anarchist Library. First published in the July 1934 edition of Ce qu'il faut dire (Brussels).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)
  15. ^ Meyer, Gerald (Summer 2003). "Anarchism, Marxism and the Collapse of the Soviet Union". Science & Society. 67 (2): 218–221. doi:10.1521/siso.67.2.218.21187. ISSN 0036-8237. JSTOR 40404072.
  16. ^ Tamblyn, Nathan (April 2019). "The Common Ground of Law and Anarchism". Liverpool Law Review. 40 (1): 65–78. doi:10.1007/s10991-019-09223-1. ISSN 1572-8625. S2CID 155131683.
  17. ^ a b Parenti, Michael (1997). Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism. San Francisco: City Lights Books. ISBN 9780872863293. Cite error: The named reference "Parenti 1997" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  18. ^ a b Milne, Seumas (16 February 2006). "Communism may be dead, but clearly not dead enough". The Guardian. Retrieved 18 April 2020. "The dominant account gives no sense of how communist regimes renewed themselves after 1956 or why western leaders feared they might overtake the capitalist world well into the 1960s. For all its brutalities and failures, communism in the Soviet Union, eastern Europe and elsewhere delivered rapid industrialisation, mass education, job security and huge advances in social and gender equality."
  19. ^ Sandle, Mark (1999). A Short History of Soviet Socialism. London: UCL Press. pp. 265–266. doi:10.4324/9780203500279. ISBN 9781857283556.
  20. ^ Smith, S. A. (2014). The Oxford Handbook of the History of Communism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 126. ISBN 9780191667527. "The 1936 Constitution described the Soviet Union for the first time as a 'socialist society', rhetorically fulfilling the aim of building socialism in one country, as Stalin had promised."
  21. ^ Sandle, Mark (1999). A Short History of Soviet Socialism. London: UCL Press. pp. 265–266. doi:10.4324/9780203500279. ISBN 9781857283556.
  22. ^ Wesson, Robert G. (26 June 1972). "The USSR: Oligarchy or Dictatorship?". Slavic Review. 31 (2): 314–322. doi:10.2307/2494336. JSTOR 2494336 – via Cambridge University Press.
  23. ^ Tetlock, Philip E. (December 1985). "Integrative Complexity of American and Soviet Foreign Policy Rhetoric: A Time Series Analysis" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 49 (6): 1565–85. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.6.1565.
  24. ^ "Download Limit Exceeded". citeseerx.ist.psu.edu.
  25. ^ "Holodomor". Holocaust and Genocide Studies. College of Liberal Arts, University of Minnesota. Retrieved 6 October 2020.
  26. ^ Becker, Jasper (24 September 2010). "Systematic genocide" (PDF). The Spectator. Retrieved 6 October 2020.
  27. ^ Karski, Karol (2012). "The Crime of Genocide Committed against the Poles by the USSR before and during World War II: An International Legal Study". Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law. 45 (3): 703–760. Retrieved 6 October 2020.
  28. ^ Sawicky, Nicholas D. (20 December 2013). The Holodomor: Genocide and National Identity (Education and Human Development Master's Theses). The College at Brockport: State University of New York. Retrieved 6 October 2020 – via Digital Commons. Scholars also disagree over what role the Soviet Union played in the tragedy. Some scholars point to Stalin as the mastermind behind the famine, due to his hatred of Ukrainians (Hosking, 1987). Others assert that Stalin did not actively cause the famine, but he knew about it and did nothing to stop it (Moore, 2012). Still other scholars argue that the famine was just an effect of the Soviet Union's push for rapid industrialization and a by-product of that was the destruction of the peasant way of life (Fischer, 1935). The final school of thought argues that the Holodomor was caused by factors beyond the control of the Soviet Union and Stalin took measures to reduce the effects of the famine on the Ukrainian people (Davies & Wheatcroft, 2006).
  29. ^ Cliff, Tony (1996). State Capitalism in Russia (PDF). Retrieved 6 October 2020 – via Marxists Internet Archive.
  30. ^ Alami, Ilias; Dixon, Adam D. (January 2020). "State Capitalism(s) Redux? Theories, Tensions, Controversies". Competition & Change. 24 (1): 70–94. doi:10.1177/1024529419881949. ISSN 1024-5294. S2CID 211422892.
  31. ^ Voline (1995). "Red Fascism". Itinéraire (13). Translated by Sharkey, Paul. Paris. Retrieved 6 October 2020 – via The Anarchist Library. First published in the July 1934 edition of Ce qu'il faut dire (Brussels).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)
  32. ^ Meyer, Gerald (Summer 2003). "Anarchism, Marxism and the Collapse of the Soviet Union". Science & Society. 67 (2): 218–221. doi:10.1521/siso.67.2.218.21187. ISSN 0036-8237. JSTOR 40404072.
  33. ^ Tamblyn, Nathan (April 2019). "The Common Ground of Law and Anarchism". Liverpool Law Review. 40 (1): 65–78. doi:10.1007/s10991-019-09223-1. ISSN 1572-8625. S2CID 155131683.
  34. ^ Cite error: The named reference service totalitarian was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  35. ^ Cite error: The named reference service labor camps was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  36. ^ Cite error: The named reference pons307 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  37. ^ Cite error: The named reference pons ethnic cleansing was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  38. ^ Cite error: The named reference Geyer&Fitzpatrick was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  39. ^ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/W_Morgan/publication/290429116_Marxism-Leninism_The_ideology_of_20th_Century_communism/links/5e89ae84299bf130797ce154/Marxism-Leninism-The-ideology-of-20th-Century-communism.pdf
  40. ^ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/03017600308413466?journalCode=rcso20
  41. ^ https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1858346.pdf
  42. ^ https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio(a):BunnyyHop
  43. ^ a b c Hanson, S.E. (2001). "Marxism/Leninism". International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. pp. 9298–9302. doi:10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/01174-8. ISBN 9780080430768.
  44. ^ Cite error: The named reference :0 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  45. ^ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767011748
  46. ^ https://www.elsevier.com/books/international-encyclopedia-of-the-social-andampamp-behavioral-sciences/wright/978-0-08-097086-8
  47. ^ https://www.elsevier.com/books/international-encyclopedia-of-the-social-and-behavioral-sciences/wright/978-0-08-097086-8
  48. ^ https://www.dictionary.com/browse/comrade
  49. ^ https://doi.org/10.2307/2494436
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marxism–Leninism/Archive_4&oldid=1136995093"