Jump to content

Talk:Marxism–Leninism/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Review of sources

Czar, could you please review these sources?

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 labour in labour camps.[1][2][3] Such states have been accused of genocidal acts in China, Poland and Ukraine.[4][5][6][7]

References

  1. ^ Albert, Michael; Hahnel, Robin (1981). Socialism Today and Tomorrow. Boston, Massachusetts: South End Press. pp. 24–26.
  2. ^ Service, Robert (2007). Comrades!: A History of World Communism. Harvard University Press. pp. 3–6.
  3. ^ Gray, Daniel; Walker, David (2009). The A to Z of Marxism. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 303–305.
  4. ^ "Holodomor". Holocaust and Genocide Studies. College of Liberal Arts, University of Minnesota. Retrieved 6 October 2020.
  5. ^ Becker, Jasper (24 September 2010). "Systematic genocide" (PDF). The Spectator. Retrieved 6 October 2020.
  6. ^ 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.
  7. ^ 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).

Davide King (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

For context, this appears to be the current intro to § Analysis (I suggest revising the heading to be more specific)
Review for what, exactly? There's a lot going on here. It should be discussed one sentence or citation at a time and by the article's editors. As an outside party to this (I have other projects), I should not be weighing in on sentence-level changes unless there's an impasse. These opening sentences are exception claims that require exceptional sources and the sourcing obviously exists—it's just a matter of finding the best source. Given the weight of the claims, I think it's reasonable to request sources that express these summaries directly, rather than citing page ranges. The three unlinked refs can be referenced in Google Books[1][2][3]. Moreover, as I wrote above, I personally don't think it's worthwhile to dig into these citations until the larger questions above are resolved, as the question of whether this is about "the ideology" or "the political program" becomes moot if they're merged into Communism and just covered there. (not watching, please {{ping}} as needed) czar 21:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Czar, it is actually also at § Interpretation, which should mainly be about academic, not political (i.e. we should not say whatever ideology thinks or criticises of it), intepretation. What I wanted to ask you is to verify whether these sources actually support the wording and whether they are about the ideology or Communist states/whatever Communist leaders did. As an example, ethnic cleansing is not actually mentioned in any of the sources; it is mentioned only once in passing by Service in reference to ethnic cleansing in 1998 in Kosovo. Same thing for Marxism-Leninism (Albert and Hahnel, Service and Gray and Walker), which seems to be only mentioned in passing a few times by Service and by Gray and Walker; and only Albert and Hahnel have a chapter or mini-chapter about it, entitled "Marxist Leninist Forms of Socialism" but that does not seem to support our used wording. "In our view [...] democratic centralism breeds authoritarianism", which is not exactly what we say.
"Moreover, as I wrote above, I personally don't think it's worthwhile to dig into these citations until the larger questions above are resolved [...]." I agree but no one has responded to your proposal. My suggestion is to:
  1. Remove original research and synthesis phrasing such as this one.
  2. Move § History at either Communist state or starting a new article titled History of Communist states or History of Marxism–Leninism, although I believe it should not be used for other articles unless the sourcing issues you mentioned are solved and fixed in the first place.
  3. Doing the same for § Overview, except for § Definition and terminology, which would then become 1.
  4. Trimming § Analysis by moving all paragraphs about Marxist–Leninist states to Communist state and leave only the ones specifically about Marxism–Leninism.
  5. With this done, I think the main issue will actually be solved and we can improve it by following your suggestions such as "[t]reating this article as a summary style split from Communism § Theory and pare to scope, i.e., the primary topic is the theoretical underpinnings of Communism (known as ML) and the article is tightly defined to Marxism variants from Lenin through the subsequent lineage (Gorbachev domestically, and by other names abroad)." Davide King (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
If you want to improve the other articles without affecting this one (i.e., improve History of Communism and Communism), you don't need permission—you can just do it. If you want to improve this article, based on prior contentions, I suggest discussing/proposing one change at a time on this talk page, each in its own section, to avoid edit warring. E.g., this proposal shouldn't be in this thread and it should only focus on one improvement at a time. If you want to make this article a good summary style split from Communism § Theory, you'll want to start with improving the existing section in the existing article. Best wishes in the New Year, czar 02:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Davide King I completely agree. The History of communism article consists of Marxist-Leninist history, minus the «Modern development» section. It also has the sourcing issues found here, so one could improve that page by moving the sourced content from here over there. BunnyyHop (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Czar, the problem is I am not sure from where to start or how to improve it. Should History of communism be about the whole history of the communist movement, including anarcho-communism, council communists, left communists and other libertarian and dissident, anti-Leninists and/or anti-Stalinist communists? Or should it be only about Communism, i.e. Communist states? I think it should be the former and that the latter can be discussed at History of Communist states. The problem is the currently-structured article is mainly about Communist states and Marxism–Leninism. Are really most books about the history of communism not giving any space to the aferomentioned libertarian communists and other dissident communisms? Because that article currently only discusses Trotskyism as dissident communism. Honestly, I wish you could make a draft of that article, rewriting it in the style of Anarchism, i.e. only using secondary and tertiary sources, and mainly general ones to establish weight and due.
What I can do is help with copy-editing and going from there but I usually need a draft or some sources to follow. I wish you would write more articles, rather than just giving already outstanding mediations, proposals and suggestions, because you can actually write good articles that respect our policy and guidelines, especially original research, synthesis and respecting weight, which in my view is something that is clearly outstanding since often times these guidelines are violated. In short, articles need to follow the literature. In practice, most articles are simply sourced to a series of unconnected books that are likely undue, if they are not cited, mentioned or discusses in general sources that establish the literature.
Or am I having a too stringent view of our policies and guidelines? Most good and featured articles I have seen have general sources or a clear literature that is used and followed, rather than using any article or book mentioning the topic, whether it is due or not. Davide King (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Moving this to your talk page since it'd be off-topic to continue here czar 04:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
First phrase in the cited paragraph is a separate claim and unsourced. It just must be sourced, which should be very easy. The rest is well sourced and includes trivial claims that are well known to anyone familiar with this subject. There is absolutely nothing "exceptional" here. Seems to be just fine. My very best wishes (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
A generalized statement about an entire ideology is by definition an "exceptional" claim. It requires a good source and there are many available. czar 02:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Only first unsourced phrase was about ideology ("philosophy"). The rest was about the Communist rule, i.e. the practice in specific states that obviously included Red Terror, Great Purge, Gulag and other things like that. There is nothing "exceptional" with criticizing them. First phrase tells "Marxist–Leninist philosophy has been criticised by a broad political spectrum both on the left and right." Sure, it must be sourced, but yes, it has been criticized very widely, even as a variety of pseudoscience (for example, [4]) or an ideology of political oppression and hatred. The disputes are only about wording: "genocide", "politicide", "mass killings", whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
    I find absurd as an anti-Stalinist leftist to say this but our policies and guidelines come first. I get it, you find it self-evident all these were the result of ideology, and I personally agree, but not all scholars agree. As repeatedly noted by The Four Deuces, "sources about Marxism-Leninism, just like books about liberalism, fascism and other ideologies, concentrate on the ideology." Soviet Marxism-Leninism: The Decline of an Ideology, a book about the ideology, does not discuss the Red Terror, Great Purge, Great Terror, Holodomor, Ukranian famine, the Gulag, labor camp, or labour camp. Because this book, and this article, is about the ideology, not Communist rule or whatever Communist states and leaders did. For that, we already have articles about Communist states, criticism of communism party rule and their atrocities. I agree with Czar that these are still "[a] generalized statement about an entire ideology" which is by definition "an 'exceptional' claim." This requires "a good source and there are many available", so it should be easy. Yet, even the book you cited does not mention Great Purge, Great Terror, Holodomor, Ukrainian famine, Gulag, labor camp, or labour camp. Even the Red Terror is not discussed as part of ideology but as part of Lenin and Trotsky's actions and in passing. Davide King (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
The problem is the subject is not clear and none of the books are specifically about Marxism–Leninism. You seem to believe the subject is anything and whatever Communist leaders and states did rather than the actual ideology and how in several ways the leaders themselves governed in contradiction to it but finding ways to justify it. The problem is if the scope is Communism and Communist states, this is a content fork. Many users seem to make a confusion between Marxism–Leninism and Communist state(s). As noted by Czar, "[a] generalized statement about an entire ideology is by definition an 'exceptional' claim." The problem is that there is no clear consensus that ideology alone was the main culprit; and if it is, it should be easily to provide sources that summarise this, i.e. they say something like "scholars agree Marxist–Leninist ideology alone caused the atrocities", but I could not find any source summarising scholarly consensus. Most ideology-focused articles are, or should be, about the ideology, what are its tenets and characteristics, not whatever their leaders actually did, for which "History of" and other related articles may better serve this. Davide King (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No, the text under discussion tells "Marxist–Leninist rule", not ideology. That is why the references in the text under discussion do mention Red Terror, Great Purge, Gulag, etc. I do not have to repeat them and other thousands sources which criticize the same. I only brought a reference to an academic book which claim Leninism to be a pseudoscience. So what? And BTW, Lenin himself always emphasized that his works were not really a theory, but the practice. And he did create this political Marxist-Leninist system in practice, together with comrades. No one disputes that. My very best wishes (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
    "No, the text under discussion tells 'Marxist–Leninist rule', not ideology." Bingo, you got the point. The main topic of this article should be the ideology, not the rule, which we already discuss, or should if we do not already, elsewhere. We should restructure the article about the ideology. Did you even read Czar's comments in the above thread? "ML is a floating signifier. To this bleary-eyed, third-opinion reader, there is no single reducible definition that applies to all of the ways it's invoked. [...] Our article appears to jumble these different meanings into an invented, contiguous whole." Davide King (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
No. My very best wishes (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Why? TFD (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I think we should follow what reliable sources say rather than our personal views about what weight to provide different views of the topic. I mean if an exam question came up when you were a student asking what is cyanide you wouldn't spend your entire time explaining how it has been used deliberately or accidently to kill people, although you would probably mention it to get full marks. TFD (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
"I do not think that splitting the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist 'theory' (pseudoscience) and their practical deeds to separate pages is a good idea." This just seem to be your POV. What does the literature about the ideology says? Several sources mentioned by Czar and The Four Deuces limit themselves to ideology and do not mention the atrocities or the events in the detail we currently give. I also do not understand your point about the "intensification of the class struggle under socialism." Gorbachev justified liberalisation on Marxist–Leninist grounds. Similarly, Khrushchev rejected Stalin's theory and advocated peaceful coexistance and "all people's government." The ideology has been used to justify all sorts of policies, so it can not be pinned down. If you believe it is nonsense and propaganda used as justification for the Great Purge, which I do not disagree with, then why do you believe any policy was the result of ideology just because the leaders justified it as such? I think The Four Deuces gave a good explanations when they stated "[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." Davide King (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Further comments

While all the events indeed took place, it is not clear whether the given references are about the ideology or Communist states. Albert, Gray and Service need to be verified for the pages because they may not be the correct pages. The one about the Holodomor is cherrypicked to one source supporting that it was a genocide, when Sawicky makes a decent summary of the positions on the Holodomor, which simply cannot be simplified the way that source does. Karski does not mention Marxism–Leninism at all and indeed most of these sources do not. Becker and The Spectator are not reliable sources and Becker does not mention Marxism–Leninism either.

In addition, the text does not explain the difference between the anti-Communist (i.e. anti-Stalinists) and the anti-communist scholars. While both may agree they were totalitarian and in general may hold the same facts of the events, this does not clearly explain the different interpretations. Albert and Hanhel are libertarian socialists and make a distinction between their socialism and these of the Soviet Union et al., and they do not say the Communists states were socialists (indeed, they were more similar to fascists); on the other hand, Pipes and Service make no distinction between the two and they actually agree with the Marxist–Leninists the states were indeed socialists. Similarly, several left-wing critics see the Bolshevik Revolution as a coup and Courtois and Malia also described it as a coup in The Black Book of Communism; however, left-wing critics do not see that as actual socialism while anti-communists see it as socialism, like the Marxist–Leninists, and indeed they think that is the inevitable result of communism, socialism and any radical proposal from the left. In short, while both may agree on the facts or on describing it as "totalitarian", they clearly disagree on the interpretations and they came from opposing perspectives.

Same thing for "anti-democratic, bureaucratic oligarchies." Both anti-Stalinists and anti-communists scholars may agree on this but they hold very different perspectives. The former do not blame it on socialism or on communism but on (state) capitalism; the latter blame it on communism, socialism, et al., arguing that "anti-democratic, bureaucratic oligarchies" is the inevitable results of any type of socialism. Same thing for colonialism, imperialism and slavery; some anti-communists scholars do not apply the same standard to the Western liberal world while anti-Stalinist scholars generally do (the Gulags are seen as a continuation of extracting surplus value from the working-class and peasantry, and being part of the Soviet (state) capitalist mode of production; same thing for the Nazi camps, see Private sector participation in Nazi crimes). This and most Communist-related articles do not make this more clear. If scholars agree on something but they give vastly different perspective and came to it through different rationales, it needs to be clarified and explained. That many scholars describe the states as "totalitarian", etc. is meaningless, if one side says they are the natural and inevitable results of communism, Marxism, socialism et al. while the other side says they were the results of being in contradiction to their own ideology and being closer to fascists and (state) capitalists. Davide King (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Davide King Albert only states: «In our view ... democratic centralism breeds authoritarianism». As for David, page 303-304 are titled «Stalin, Josef». 305 is «Stalinism». The only time Marxist-Leninist is stated is in page 305, «In this a simplified, reductionist and schematic account of Marxist philosophy was expounded, presenting dialectical materialism as a set of propositions and laws representing the Marxist–Leninist world outlook».
Also, I completely agree with what you wrote here. There must be proper attribution on each point of view, contrary to what is being made here - cramming everything as one, common viewpoint. (ignoring the conflation of Marxism-Leninism with Stalinism, the cherry-picking and the undue weight). --BunnyyHop (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I am looking at the lo-o-o-ong discussions above on this page and can give you guys an advice. If you want something to be done, make an RfC. However, I am not even sure what about this RfC might be. My very best wishes (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
    Regarding this, concept is not referring to deaths and events, which indeed took place and were a tragedy, but to the practice of lumping all Communist regimes together or arguing they all had the same essence, positing a link between communism (not just Stalinism) and mass killing. Also why did you remove "anti-communist activists [...] as well as 'anticommunist memory entrepreneurs' to make the claim communism as practiced by Marxist–Leninist regimes was equal or worse than Nazism, making it the worst 20th-century killer? Ghodsee and Neumayer are experts on post-Communism and memory, and they mention and discuss how "anti-communism" has affected memory and the "victims of Communism" narrative. Davide King (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, I simply fixed a misrepresentation. For example, Stéphane Courtois was incorrectly labeled as an "anticommunist". How come? This is quite the opposite. According to our page, he was initially a Maoist, then an editor of Communisme, a Director of a collection specialized in the history of communist movements and regimes, etc. He is just an expert on the communism-related subjects. Criticizing communist regimes of the past does not make anyone "anti-communist", just as criticizing President of the US does not make anyone "anti-American". My very best wishes (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Courtois, like many if not most anti-Communists, began his career as a Communist. There's a huge similarity between the two views. TFD (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It is not misrepresentation if that is what sources say. Either way, the text does not actually call Courtois an "anti-communist activist" but it is indeed true that "anti-communist activists [...] as well as 'anticommunist memory entrepreneurs' [make] the claim communism as practiced by Marxist–Leninist regimes was equal or worse than Nazism", so that still does not explain why you removed that. Again, we are not saying he is an anti-communist activist, even though he is an anti-communist (being a former communist does not mean one cannot become an anti-communist). Describing him as "just an expert on the communism-related subjects" is also not a good summary of his several controversies. Whether you like it or not, he is controversial, which is normal in a policticised and conflictual field such as this one. Anti-communism is not just opposition to communism, it is extreme opposition to it, just like anti-fascism does not mean just any non-fascist but someone who is actively against it. The "Introduction" to The Black Book of Communism (the main source of controversy) and equivalency between communism and Nazism clearly entail extreme opposition to it. As noted by Laure Neumayer, "by making criminality the very essence of communism, by explicitly equating the 'race genocide' of Nazism with the 'class genocide' of Communism in connection with the Ukrainian Great Famine of 1932–1933, the Black Book of Communism contributed to legitimising the equivalence of Nazi and Communist crimes. The book figures prominently in the 'spaces of the anti-communist cause' comparably structured in the former satellite countries, which are a major source of the discourse criminalising the Socialist period." Davide King (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I disagree about Courtois (this sounds as a well poisoning to me), but do agree about the importance of the Black Book of Communism for the subject of this page. It must be prominently used here as a source. My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
There are very few references to ML in the Black Book and are mostly trivial, for example, Carlos the Jackal "studied physics, chemistry and Marxism-Leninism." Incidentally, did you ever study ML? If so, what was the curriculum? TFD (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, this is not specifically a book on communist ideology. However, the Introduction, last chapter of the book, and actually the entire book describe and discuss the effects of communist ideology, and more specifically its Marxist-Leninist version. It does not have to say "Marxism–Leninism" on every page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
What exactly is "well poisoning" to you and what do you disagree about? That he is an anti-communist? That, as noted by Laure Neumayer, "[t]he book figures prominently in the 'spaces of the anti-communist cause' comparably structured in the former satellite countries, which are a major source of the discourse criminalising the Socialist period"? Contrary to what you may think, you do not sound to really know the subject. You used this source to support it is pseudoscience as fact, even though it is cited only 15th times but apparently the works of Davies, Ellman, Fitzpatrick, Getty and others, who are cited 100th and 1,000th of times are just "revisionists." Davide King (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Ellman and Davis are not revisionist historians. As about others, well, someone like David Irving is cited even more frequently [5]. It does not mean anything. But there is a better example. D. Trump was highly cited, but would you trust his claims? Same with famous conspiracy theorists, pseudoscience propagandists, Holocaust deniers, and yes, with many historical revisionists, especially when they whitewash Stalinism, as they do. My very best wishes (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Outside opinion

Per above, I was asked to provide a third opinion on the discussion about the article's scope. Honestly, not how I expected to spend my week off from work. :) See the bullets below to cut to the chase, but wanted to share some research/archaeology first for context.

This article ("ML" for short) has had a tumultuous two years—lots of stuff edited, added, removed. As a promonition, note that the article's top two editors by count are blocked. The last stable version was in early 2018 (which is, in effect, very similar to 2015's).

Note its sections: Terminology, Ideological characteristics, Components, History
Compare with the current (2020) version: Overview (contains Terminology), History (has greatly ballooned since 2018), Ideology (coverted from "Components"; Ideological characteristics appears to be either subsumed or deleted), and Analysis (new)

At a glance, compared to two years ago, the 2020 footnoting is noticeably decent and improved throughout, with the exception of the History, whose sourcing gets progressively worse throughout the section. Overall, however, the article has bloated. It strikingly runs at 99kB of readable prose, which runs well above reasonable article length. Over half (54kB) of that length comes from the History section alone, either indicating either that History is the core point of this article or that there is an outsized issue of due weight. I think it's quite clear that it's the latter, given the difference in length and focus of the article just two years ago. Additionally, most of the history section reads as if ML and "Communism" are used interchangeably—there is nothing specific to the development of ML as an ideology independent from Communism. How, then, is the "History" of ML different from that of Communism?

ML dictionary definitions

Here are database definitions of "Marxism–Leninism" from wherever I could find such an entry, in no particular order (the first one is spicy!)

  • Term coined in the USSR after Lenin’s death, in order to denote the philosophy which Stalin held up as the true philosophy of the Russian Revolution. It purported to combine Marx’s analysis of capitalism with Lenin’s theories of revolutionary action – notably democratic centralism and the theory of the Communist Party as vanguard. The question whether the two strands of thought are consistent with each other is not usually raised, although it is arguable that they are contradictory. Until 1989, communist parties would usually describe themselves as ‘Marxist-Leninist’. Those few that survive today hide coyly behind a democratic facade and, while respectful towards Marx, make no mention of Lenin, still less of any ‘Marxist-Leninist’ doctrine. (Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Political Thought)
  • The doctrines of Marxism as applied by Lenin, a founder of the Soviet Union, to the building of Marxist nations. With Karl Marx, Lenin called for a classless society in which all means of production would be commonly owned (communism). Unlike some Marxists, however, Lenin stressed bold, revolutionary action and insisted that a strong Communist party would be needed in a Marxist nation to direct the efforts of the workers. Lenin also argued that capitalist nations resort to aggressive imperialist moves as they decline and that Marxist nations must therefore be prepared for war. Eventually, according to Marxism-Leninism, the rigid governmental structures that have characterized the former Soviet Union and other Marxist nations will not be necessary; the “withering away of the state” will occur. A major problem for Marxism-Leninism has been the difficulty of abandoning these governmental structures. (The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Houghton Mifflin)
  • the doctrines of Marx as interpreted and put into effect by Lenin in the Soviet Union and (at first) by Mao Zedong in China (ODE 3rd ed.; NOAD 3rd ed.)
  • The ideology underpinning communism. It was central to the foundation of the Chinese Communist Party and remains at the core of China’s Constitution. Most prominently adhered to by Mao Zedong, it aims at the revolutionary attainment of a socialist state through the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ and democratic centralism. Since the ‘open-door’ policy was initiated under Deng Xiaoping and maintained by his successors, Marxist–Leninist ‘class struggle’ has been downplayed in favour of economic development and modernization. (A Dictionary of Politics and International Relations in China, Oxford Reference)
  • An interpretation of Communism in which Lenin sought to adapt the central tenets of Marxism to the experience of Russia, an economically backward agrarian state. The emergence of imperialism was considered to be a central, unforeseeable factor which had occurred since the development of Marxism. This enabled the propertied classes in industrially advanced countries to expand production and to spread the economic benefits to those workers who were prepared to accept the current economic system. This group of workers formed a so-called ‘labour aristocracy’, a process which prevented class unity. Left to itself, the proletariat would never rise up against the existing order. Hence Lenin emphasized the importance of the need for party elites and of ‘professional revolutionaries’, who would prepare and carry out the revolution and then create a Communist consciousness among the workers. (A Dictionary of Contemporary World History, 5 ed., Oxford Reference)
These sources were particularly summative, helpful, or interesting
  • Brown, Archie (2004). "Introduction". The Demise of Marxism-Leninism in Russia. Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 1–. ISBN 978-0-230-55440-5.
  • Morgan, W. John (2015). "Marxism–Leninism: The Ideology of Twentieth-Century Communism". International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier. pp. 656–662. ISBN 978-0-08-097087-5.
    I recommend modeling after parts of this source. In particular, the author frequently says "This is not the place to describe or analyze the enormities that accompanied this process", scoping the discussion closely to the development of the ideology (honestly, he could have pared more, even, but that wasn't his scope). Also directly connects ML with Communist Party orthodoxy (p. 659) and how the Comintern/Third International sections were required to follow ML, the CPSU's ideology (p. 660), hence ML's synonymity with Communism.
  • Keith, Dan; Charalambous, Giorgos (June 2016). "On the (non) distinctiveness of Marxism-Leninism: The Portuguese and Greek communist parties compared". Communist and Post-Communist Studies. 49 (2): 147–161. doi:10.1016/j.postcomstud.2016.04.001. ISSN 0967-067X.
  • Walker, Rachel (1989). "Marxism-Leninism as Discourse: The Politics of the Empty Signifier and the Double Bind". British Journal of Political Science. 19 (2): 161–189. ISSN 0007-1234. JSTOR 193712.
  • ML is a floating signifier. To this bleary-eyed, third-opinion reader, there is no single reducible definition that applies to all of the ways it's invoked.
Examples (courtesy collapsed for space)

There's:

    • Marxism–Leninism (ideology), the general theory behind the political program that combines Marxism (conditions for collapse of capitalism) with Leninism (vanguard party, etc., as the method for accomplishing that), a.k.a. Communism § Theory
    • Marxism–Leninism (policy), the political program that the ideology has borne out in practice, differing by region and time
      • Stalinism, Stalin's political program
      • Maoism/Mao Zedong Thought, Mao's political program
      • (Other political programs are generally covered in a section of their leaders' articles.)
(For my sake, put aside any quibbles about whatever I misdefined above—I think we can agree on the gist, that this and some other articles bifurcate the ideology from the rest of the political program and confusingly use similar names.)
  • Our article appears to jumble these different meanings into an invented, contiguous whole. It does not seem possible or reasonable (or useful, for a general reader) to divorce and cover ML (as ideology) separate from its context, i.e., the political program. I think the the History section has ballooned over time to compensate for the lack of connective tissue between iterations of each ideology called ML. If the ideology needs history for context, the same holds true in reverse: the political program needs to explain its underlying Ideology or Theory. This is already covered in each ideology's parent article (ML>>Communism; ML–Maoism>>Maoism). Having Marxism–Leninism and Communism as virtual duplicates is confusing and redundant for readers.
  • If the scope of ML will always be a complete duplicate of existing articles, I see two options:
    • (1) Distribute and disambiguate, i.e. there are various concepts each called ML but no singular primary topic, thus each each instance is better handled in its existing, parent article's section alongside other relevant sections, such as history. This page then would become a dab page that links to each of the different items known as ML (e.g., Marxism–Leninism (Stalinism), Marxism–Leninism–Maoism, Ho Chi Minh Thought), whether those pages are standalone or redirects to existing sections. The content from this page would be distributed into the most appropriate sections, namely Communism § Theory, which should also compare the variants of Communist/ML ideology. To my eyes, this is the natural conclusion from ML being a floating signifier: if sources do not describe a contiguous ML, do not invent one but instead, for general readers searching for the term, disambiguate and explain the different uses of the term by pointing to existing sections where the concept is covered in context.
    • (2) Treat this article as a summary style split from Communism § Theory and pare to scope, i.e., the primary topic is the theoretical underpinnings of Communism (known as ML) and the article is tightly defined to Marxism variants from Lenin through the subsequent lineage (Gorbachev domestically, and by other names abroad). A dedicated History section would no longer be needed both because, as a summary style split from Communism, the History is already covered in the parent article, and because the article's scope is to cover the philosophy and differences in ideology, not explain their course of development, so any history coverage would only need to be minimal here.
  • Note that these options are not mutually exclusive. It would be reasonable, for instance, to make this page into a dab and then later decide, based on sourcing and improvements in the parent Communism article, that it's worth summary style splitting Communism § Theory to a dedicated page along the lines described above. The question is whether (and who is) to do it now or at all.
  • My advice is to clarify with each other whether these two options are workable/agreeable solutions (to the question of article scope) and then to come to consensus, either informally or most likely through RFC. (I'd pose the RFC question as, "What is the primary topic for ML: a dab page or a dedicated article?") I recommend that until these issues are worked out that y'all mutually agree to a self-imposed one-revert rule/1RR on the article itself (meaning most edits come to the talk page for discussion BEFORE being committed to text) and retire that interminable "twelfth break" section above. One section heading for each discussion/proposal. If any further elaboration or mediation would be useful, I'm no longer watching the page but am only a {{ping}} away.

Best, czar 05:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Czar, this was very helpful, thank you. In my view, your comment is closer to what BunnyyHop, The Four Deuces and I argue (ideology and terminology) rather than KIENGIR and Vallee (Stalinism and whatever Communist leaders and states did). For the "History question", I suggest moving it at either History of Communist states or History of Marxism–Leninism, greatly improving it with better sources and more perspectives than the current section. For the "Overview question", it could be easily moved at Communist state or similarly related articles; same thing for "Analysis." By doing this, it will greatly reduce size and make it possible to avoid turning this article into a disambiguation page and instead it would be ready for a rewriting following your suggestions and sources, which incidentally are also the ones found by BunnyyHop, The Four Deuces and I. Davide King (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it's useful to discuss this in terms of sides. I hope what I wrote addresses everyone's common needs. I see a place to cover everything that this talk page has discussed—the question is just whether it makes sense to jam all of it into ML or if there are better targets. I think the latter but that's up for group discussion. czar 07:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@Czar:, this is fantastic, thank you very much!
I think the best way to approach this topic would be in the way of a summary style instead of a DAB article. For instance, we could use mainly the current Marxism–Leninism#Definition_and_terminology section to structure the lead, since it's the best summarization of Marxism-Leninism as a floating signifier we hitherto have.
The ideology section could be about what different countries/continents thorough the world meant (Or rather, what they attached to it) by Marxism-Leninism as an epistemological challenge, doctrinal body, or collection of knowledge as a heritage of theoretical, ideological and political culture. Marxism-Leninism in Latin America, for instance, argues that «on political and economic grounds, that national liberation cannot be achieved without liberation from imperialism». In Albania, their interpretation of Marxism-Leninism led to the Sino-Albanian Split, China's to the Sino-Soviet Split, Cuba «exported revolution», the Maoist interpretation of Marxism-Leninism led to a creation of various concepts, and so on, and so forth. Marxism and Leninism should also have its own section, too.
I think the process of moving these sections not on scope to their respective articles can be started now, such as the history, overview and the analysis sections, as they're very well written imo.BunnyyHop (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
BunnyyHop, I suggest you to write a sandbox draft of the articles involved (i.e. a draft for this article and any draft for an article where you want to move things there and vice versa, bolding the changed parts) to get things more clear first and to wait for more comments, so as to avoid an inevitable edit war when users disagree. Davide King (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Czar, I agree and of course I did not mean sides in an antagonist way but more of 'side' as two positions on the issue of the scope. Because, like most Communist-related articles, this one is just as polarising and apparently we cannot even agree on an obvious Easter egg link I pinged for your opinion above. In this sense, your third opinions are very helpful and can really help us going forward rather than being struck debating. So thank you very much again. :) Davide King (talk) 11:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Davide King, okay, thanks for your suggestion! I'm working on it. Meanwhile, I found this source - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118474396.wbept0652 - which I'm storing here. Check out the «Variants» section, do you think this might be what we are looking for? --BunnyyHop (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft RfC language

What is the primary topic of "Marxism–Leninism"? Some options:

Providing some RfC language for workshopping among talk page watchers, per request. Please help revise the supporting text if it does not best express the variety of approaches to deciding the article's primary topic. Alternatively, you can drop the suggested bold options, but I think that will take away basic structure the RfC needs in order to be helpful. (not watching, please {{ping}} only if needed) czar 04:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

(ping: @Czar:) In «The Environment And Marxism-Leninism: The Soviet And East German Experience», by «Joan Debardeleben», Marxism-Leninism is explained as «[i]ts actual character and function in these political systems is, however, far from obvious. In terms of content, Marxism-Leninism is not, as one might expect, the sum of Marx's and Lenin's ideas, nor even Lenin's version of Marxism. Rather, the term "Marxism-Leninism" (as used here and by the Soviets themselves) actually refers to the Soviet interpretation of Marx and Lenin at any given point in time. This interpretation has not remained static, but continues to evolve».
Out of this definition, I think we can take 3 conclusions:
  1. Marxism and Leninism are the key points of Marxism-Leninism, so those should have an important role in the article
  2. Marxism-Leninism is an interpretation of Marx and Lenin, which differs in: period and location.
  3. Even though there are common convergences, there may be key divergences in each time and location. We should provide the common ground of Marxism-Leninism and then outline the divergences, or rather, the historical context and the different interpretation (which must be correlated).
As such, in my opinion the last option can be crossed out. The first should be expanded to include more interpretations throughout the world. The scope of the second one must be reduced to the historical context necessary to explain the «different interpretation».
Proposed structure - out of scope for this section
Thus, my proposal to structure the article is the following one:
  • Ideology
  1. Marxism-Leninism
  2. Marxism
  3. Leninism
  • Interpretation
  1. Soviet Union
  • Creation of the Soviet Union (1917–1927) (This name is just a placeholder)
  • Stalinism (1927-1953)
  • Khrushchevism (1953–1964)
  • Brezhnev (1964-1982)
  • Gorbachev (1985-1991)
  1. Cuba
  • Cuban Revolution (1953-1959)
  • Republic of Cuba (1959-present)
(and so on - China, Vietnam, etc.). These topics should be a summary of currently existing articles (or not), within the scope and synergies of «historical context-ideology».
--BunnyyHop (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I wrote out the above as a draft for a WP:RfC that this talk page could choose to run to resolve the open question of the page's scope by coming to consensus. Potential sections is a matter for another thread. The only follow-up for this thread would be if there is a more neutral way to phrase anything that I wrote above and whether the talk page thinks it would be valuable to run the RfC as proposed to come to some definitive conclusions. czar 19:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, it's completely out of scope. I used the «collapse» template to not make it take up much space while still preserving the contents, in case editors choose to follow this path. I just realized this is a draft. Czar I think the first should be expanded to include more interpretations throughout the world. Marxism-Leninism is not exclusive to Soviet Marxism-Leninism. --BunnyyHop (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No, this is not just an ideology. The topic is whatever RS say on this subject. This includes not only the ideology itself, but consequences of implementing this ideology on practice, i.e. something like "Marxist–Leninist states are marked by a high degree of centralized control by the state and communist party, political repression, state atheism, collectivisation..." (current version) does belong to the page. For example, consider a page about another ideology, Nazism. I am not saying it is the same as Leninism (it is not), this is just an example of a good page about a political ideology implemented in practice, just like Marxism-Leninism. As page correctly tells, this is the ideology and practices. Consider two last paragraphs in the lead of page Nazism (the real life consequences of using this specific ideology). Such info absolutely must be in such pages, both in the body of the page and in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Right, so you would advocate for the second of the three options above. This is a draft RfC—it isn't open for responses yet—the talk page has to decide whether to even run the RfC. Now is the time to modify the proposed text for neutrality. Then others from outside this talk page would be invited to weigh in. czar 19:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I think these subjects are well parsed as they currently are. The views by Soviet and Chinese communist parties varied differently over the time (hence the "split"), so one needs a number of separate pages. But again, you can post an RfC with your justification of anything. My very best wishes (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with Davide King's proposal, which intersects with mine, of a summary styled article describing the ideology in different «times and places». --BunnyyHop (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Czar:, hi! Just to check how this is going to work out, some time has passed since then. Are we ready to launch the RfC? --BunnyyHop (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
    More a question for the page watchers than me! Anyone should feel free to start this RfC should they want. I can do it if easier. I just made a few tweaks myself to the language for specificity so one last call: Does anyone have any proposed changes to this RfC text to make it more neutral/acceptable? czar 19:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Czar, personally, I just have one problem with the RfC before it goes up - Marxism-Leninism isn't just soviet ideology. Many others who called themselves Marxist-Leninists had different interpretations of Marxism and Leninism than the soviets, even in the 30s, and they still do - there's some Marxist-Leninist parties worldwide who govern in liberal democracies, in governing coalitions, or as opposition parties. Others lead communist states, as is the case with Cuba, Vietnam, China and Laos. If we add this option below I concur.
Communist ideology, i.e., the ideology of Leninist communist parties thorough the world; describe its common tenets and create a summary style split article from Ideology of the Chinese Communist Party, Ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Ho Chi Minh Thought, Communism in Nepal, Communism in Kerala, Communism in Cuba and other Marxism-Leninism ideology-related articles; Historical context used when necessary to explain the different interpretations.
--BunnyyHop (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh yes, this is totally valid point by BunnyHop. I wonder how could anyone familiar with the subject suggest #1 for the RfC? " "Marxism-Leninism" and Ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union are identical". Which RS make such claim? My very best wishes (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I've replaced the first suggestion. To your question, there is "ML", the state ideology of the CPSU and there are ML variants practiced by other Communist states, e.g., Maoism and Marxism–Leninism–Maoism. As previously phrased, it was referring to the former being the primary topic over the latter. (For sources, see the "ML dictionary definitions" section above.) Seems like that's not a plausible choice though, so fine to replace with the latter over the former, per the suggestion. Open to edits! czar 22:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Czar, all good by me. Thanks for taking your time to do this! BunnyyHop (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Great, this is really an improvement, but there is one important issue. One must include Stalinism and Maoism as versions of communist ideologies to version #1. Obviously, they were ideologies. Yes, they were not just ideologies, but a lot more, but the same can be said about the North Korean version [7] and all others. My very best wishes (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
My very best wishes, those are included in Ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Ideology of the Chinese Communist Party --BunnyyHop (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
It does not matter. I am talking about text of the RfC. The current text of the RfC incorrectly implies that Stalinism and Maioism were not ideologies by excluding them from #1 and including them to #2. My very best wishes (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union implies Stalinism and Ideology of the Communist Party of China implies Maoism. I don't think specifying every ideology within those two is gonna improve the RfC in any way, since anyone mildly familiar with the subject knows it's implied. Ironically, Maoism and Stalinism focus on ideology first and foremost. --BunnyyHop (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
If so, it should not be a problem for proposer to include Stalinism and Maoism to #1. Otherwise, it is hard to say what they actually mean. As about #3, this is so contrary to all sources (one can open any printed encyclopedia) that I think the proposer should remove it. My very best wishes (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I think #2 should be replaced with: «it should include Stalinism and Maoism the ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the ideology of the Communist Party of China, covering the regime's actions in relation to its stated ideology». There's no reason to single Maoism and Stalinism out of those two. @Czar: --BunnyyHop (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Are we ready to launch it? Seems like this basic dispute is over - include in #2 what's in 1# and include in 1# what's in 2#. --BunnyyHop (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Czar: Replace #2 with «it should include the ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the ideology of the Communist Party of China, covering the regime's actions in relation to its stated ideology», and I think we're ready to launch it as it's been over a week with no objections from other editors. --BunnyyHop (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to reply late. While I think it would be good to get more editors involved, I don't think this will be productive. Obviously some history must be mentioned, such as the fact ML was developed by Russian/Soviet leaders, the question is how much. TFD (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I advocate for the first option. However, when I proposed that option, I didn't meant to make it come across as no history at all, but history as a contextualisation to the ideology. When mentioning Maoism, for example, the Chinese revolution must be mentioned, or Leninism and the Russian Revolution, etc. The maxim would be: history must be mentioned when it's directly relevant to contextualise the ideology. --BunnyyHop (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate that and agree with you. The problem is that someone responding to the RfC is not going to spend much time on it beyond reading the question. So the probable result will be a vote for Both. The other problem is that per disambiguation, we need to have an article about the Communist movement, while at present we have an article about small-c communism. Unfortunately, there aren't many editors who have the knowledge or inclination to work on them. Instead, all these articles have become a proxy war between pro and anti Russian editors.
One approach might be to create a new article "Marxism-Leninism (ideology)." This article could then be renamed "Communism (movement)."
TFD (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
The Four Deuces, I fully agree. Whilst a RfC might be a strong dispute solver, I believe that in this remarkable and distinct situation it won't help. It should be noted that this page is almost reaching half a million bytes. Nonetheless, I think that while your proposal to create a new article and leave this one as it is (and please correct me if I misinterpreted it) is interesting, it might not be the best approach, as most of this article's size (i.e. the "History" section) is covered in History of communism, which encompasses in its majority the history of Marxism-Leninism. However, I see the advantages of creating a new article just about the ideology and renaming this one to something else, so I entirely support this decision. Whenever you choose to conceive the Marxism-Leninism (ideology) article, ping me. I'm genuinely looking forward to this. --BunnyyHop (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2021 (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) 04:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure the map is wrong

In the map about former and current socialist states, the DPRK is specified as a "former Socialist" state. I haven't checked the news in a while but im pretty sure that's false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AideIO (talk • contribs) 01:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

North Korea no longer avows Marxism-Leninism. It s official ideology is now Juche, a home-grown philosophy which grew out of Marxism-Leinism and is sufficiently different that many scholars do not consider NK to be Communist or socialist. It's most certainly still a totalitarian dictatorship, however, whatever political philosophy it follows. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
A country doesn't have to be Marxist-Leninist to be socialist, but of course to be actually communist they have to have a stateless, classless, and moneyless society with the means of production held in common by all of society, a lack of commodity production and a lack of wage labour, as well as an industrialized society and proletariat. The phrasing "totalitarian dictatorship" is inaccurate and biased and it comes from defectors who most of which statistically possess a survivorship bias, most of whom are criminals, even severe criminals such as the fisherman who murdered his crew and escaped to avoid punishment for his actions, most of these individuals return BACK TO the DPRK and struggle to live in other countries such as South Korea and they face discrimination and poverty within the south, this is part of why they return back besides missing their families and other such factors. The DPRK manages to provide housing to these people, as well as free education, including secondary, and free healthcare. Proletarian Banner (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marxism–Leninism/Archive_7&oldid=1094140525"