Talk:Marxism–Leninism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

What is the main topic and what does literature says; we need not to mix up topics

As was correctly noted by The Four Deuces, "[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."

Unlike fascism, their ideology did not advocate genocide and their actions were in many ways contrary to their ideology. Not all scholars agree the ideology was culprit, so we cannot state it as fact or list their atrocities as they were the result of ideology as fact. Not all scholars agree the atrocities were guided by their ideology or a result of it; indeed, several scholars noted how they were contrary to it. There are some authors who say genocide goes back to Marx but this is not a mainstream view. This view was exemplified by George Watson in The Lost Literature of Socialism that "mass murder is a key feature of socialism found in its earliest documents. Hence all socialists (which the Right defines very broadly to include such people as Joe Biden) have the potential to eliminate their populations and replace them." This is a fringe view and Watson also wrote that Hitler was a Marxist. These are fringe, not mainstream, views. Yet, this article's lead takes the view the atrocities were exclusively guided by ideology when scholars disagree. We should not simply list the atrocities in the lead when scholars disagree on whether they were the result of ideology or something else. They are better discussed in the body, where they can be contextualised.

We also cannot overemphasise their similarities when some scholars do not see a connection between, say, the events in Pol Pot's Cambodia and Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union, which 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."

Czar, what does the literature says? What are the books or works this article should rely on? It currently relies on this:

• Bottomore, Thomas (1991). A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Malden, Massachusetts; Oxford, England; Melbourne, Victoria; Berlin, Germany: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 0631180826.
• Daniels, Robert Vincent (2007). The Rise and Fall of Communism in Russia. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300106497.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
• Lee, Stephen J. (2000). European Dictatorships, 1918–1945 (2nd edition). London, England; New York, New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415230462.
• Pons, Silvo; Service, Robert (eds.). A Dictionary of 20th Century Communism. Princeton, New Jersey; Oxfordshire, England: Princeton University Press ISBN 0691154295.
• Ree, E. Van (March 1997). "Stalin and Marxism: A Research Note". Studies in East European Thought. 49 (1). Springer: 23–33. doi:10.1023/A:1017935822255. JSTOR 20099624. S2CID 189772356.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
• Strong, Anna Louise (1956). The Stalin Era (PDF). New York City: New York Mainstream Publishers. ISBN 0900988541.
• Ulam, Adam (1965) [1998]. The Bolsheviks: The Intellectual and Political History of the Triumph of Communism in Russia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674078306.

Although it is not clear if they are even actually used. They ones used the most are Lee, Pons and Service. In addition, several sources are about Stalin, the Stalin era or Stalinism rather than Marxism–Leninism. It is also not clear what definition we are using to define the topic. Davide King (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Czar, I ping you again in case you did not get the notifcation. You would make a good third opinion and help us solve the dispute and clarify the topic. Davide King (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• I haven't commented yet because I'm still wading through the material. I'm planning to read the article this weekend. (It's quite long: 98k in prose. If it continues to exist in its current form, there should be a discussion about shortening it.) In the talk page archives, I thought this 2019 thread was quite telling. My question will be along the lines of whether we are discussing a discrete concept with historical continuity or whether it's a turn-of-phrase that is retitled and already exists as our articles on Stalinism, Maoism, etc. The whole "atrocities" scope discussion above of ideology vs. governance becomes moot at that point—governmental atrocities would be covered in their respective articles unless sources show a link to a communal ideology. Anyway, just thinking out loud. I'll read through the material in a few days.

In the meantime, I think this thread might be skipping a step. The question is, "What is the scope of this article?" And the participants should be able to list out what major sections belong here vs. what belong in the related subarticles. Keep it simple. czar 06:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

First and foremost, Davide King thank you for highlighting key points for the rewriting of this article. Czar, thank you for spending your time on this.

To restructure the lead, I think it should have a pyramidal structure, the top being the most superficial and the bottom being the most abstract:

Marxism-Leninism in contemporary countries followed by Marxism-Leninism historically

A second paragraph could contain the relation of Marxism to Leninism and vice-versa, the creation of the term, variants of Marxism-Leninism

And to end it, the key points of the ideology

Although this is just a simple sketch, it would be a good spine for the lead, IMO. --BunnyyHop (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

On "Fascist and anti-fascism, with the latter used to mean a general anti-capitalist struggle against the Western world and NATO, became epithets widely used by Marxist–Leninists to smear their opponents, including democratic socialists, libertarian socialists, social democrats and other anti-Stalinist leftists." by "Malycha, Andreas (2000). Die SED: Geschichte ihrer Stalinisierung 1946–1953 [The SED: The History of its Stalinization] (in Germany). Schöningh. ISBN 978-3-506-75331-1.", Malycha seems to describe excusively the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, not Marxism-Leninism, according to the title and this small German review:

Between the caesura of the formation of the SED in 1945/46 and the formal conclusion of Stalinization in 1952/53, Malycha gives a concise and source-saturated account of the inner-party structures and processes, the conflicts between Communists and Social Democrats

As such, even though it might be a good quote to use in the party's wikipage, antifascism, or even somewhere else on this article (referent to the German Democratic Republic), it's not fit to be in the lead. --BunnyyHop (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, Czar, I have made an new edit based on the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. I moved the country-specific details of the lead to the Overview section, but kept some universal ones. It's mainly based on those paragraphs I sent a fews days before. Here it is in my sandbox --BunnyyHop (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Marxist–Leninists generally support proletarian internationalism and socialist democracy, and oppose anarchism, fascism, imperialism, and liberal democracy. Marxism–Leninism holds that a two-stage communist revolution is needed to replace capitalism. A vanguard party, organised hierarchically through democratic centralism, would seize power "on behalf of the proletariat" and establish a communist party-led socialist state, which it claims to represent the dictatorship of the proletariat. The state would control the economy and means of production, suppress opposition and the bourgeoisie, promote collectivism in society, and 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.

I believe this paragraph is not the best compared to what the International Encyclopedia says. Aside from oversimplifying things, it's taken off of the Soviet experience. For instance, Marxism-Leninism doesn't hold that "a two-stage communist revolution is needed to replace capitalism" universaly, only in certain countries with certain conditions, it's right there on the article about two-stagism. I propose the replacement of this paragraph by the one in my sandbox, used by the International Encyclopedia, but preserving the parts about "Marxists-Leninists generally oppose..." and "referred to by Western academics as...". Also, I wonder when will we remove the criticism paragraph from the lead. There is a very well-argued non-unanimous consensus on the removal of the paragraph, but no real progress so far. "consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors" --BunnyyHop (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC) Colleagues, I found this peer-reviewed journal about Soviet Democracy, although it doesn't mention Marxism-Leninism it should be useful due to the scope of this article. --BunnyyHop (talk) 11:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Footnotes

References

Request full edit protection until consensus

So certain editors have been editing around consensus, one editor was blocked for editing without prior consensus however it has surfaced again. I request that the best solution would be to add this article in a section of pp-dispute so that editors would require consensus to edit the article. If consensus is not established we can look into other methods such as possible noticeboard dispute, currently it is the best solution. Vallee01 (talk) 05:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Here. This does seem like a refusal to communicate or cooperate --BunnyyHop (^talk) 05:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vallee01:,

you should redo this request at WP:RFPP.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC))

Under ML ideology, a vanguard party would seize power on behalf of the proletariat. That does not necessarily mean that all or even any Communist parties truly represented the proletariat. However, that was the claim they used to justify their power. In the same sense, we would say that under the divine right of kings, the tsar or other sovereign ruled by God's will. That doesn't mean that we are claiming that God truly placed the czar in power. TFD (talk) 09:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

POV Text

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.

---

An edit was reverted with the following statement: "Use of quotes like "A vanguard party, organised hierarchically through democratic centralism, would seize power "on behalf of the proletariat" and establish a communist party-led socialist state, which it claims to represent the dictatorship of the proletariat. The state would control the economy and means of production, suppress bourgeoisie" is POV text."[1]

That's not POV text, it is a description of Marxist-Leninist ideology. It's very important in an article about Marxist-Leninist ideology that we explain what that ideology is.

TFD (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I agree. Vallee01, have you even read the quotes in given refs? Wording such as "on behalf of the proletariat" is from given quote. What exactly do you see a "POV text"? Davide King (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Davide King I am not the person who put up the POV tag however I do agree the lead could be considered as biased. Image you wanted to state the following: "Marxist-Leninist's support the revolution on behalf of the proletariat" is complete garbage text everyone can see that. However how do you get away with stating such, well you cherry pick a source that states ML states do so on behalf of the proletariat. We always use neutral wording when creating an, there is only one time were we don't or at least we can't that being quotes are used. We can't change quotes. Thats why quotes needed to be used sparingly only used when necessary if not we give a position to any group. We can use any reliable source even extremely biased citations that doesn't mean we use the sources wording, get my point? Vallee01 (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, how is that cherry picking when it is from the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences and it is about the topic? That you do not like the wording it uses is irrelevant. I do not really see the issue. Other revolutionary socialists support the revolution to be led by the proletariat itself without the party while Marxist–Leninists support it to be communist-led on its behalf, which is what source says. Davide King (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Davide King Word for word it is the definition of POV pushing text. I don't know how you ever believe the wording is neutral. It's not an issue of "not liking the source" its a case of complete. How about this Davide King how about I ask for this article to reviewed for neutrality by a 3rd party and then see what comes up? I state this because as I don't know how you could think the section which you re-added despite being reverted for being complete ML propaganda is neutral. If your truly believe that the article is neutral you must surely believe we should review it? The current section is identical to "Marxist-Leninists are vanguards of the proletariat!" It complete nonsense. However lets review it for neutrality, would you support that? I also find it worrying you removed reliable sections stating that ML states are imperialist, don't remove sections that are reliably cited by reliable sources. Vallee01 (talk) 05:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, it does not say they are the vanguard of the proletariat but that they claim to be, which is true. Same thing for the dictatorship of the proletariat ("establish a communist party-led socialist state, which it claims to represent the dictatorship of the proletariat"). Nowhere do we state their positions are 'correct' or 'true'; we just state what their beliefs are, which, as noted by The Four Deuces, is not "POV text, it is a description of Marxist-Leninist ideology. It's very important in an article about Marxist-Leninist ideology that we explain what that ideology is." Davide King (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Davide King It essentially reads as such if we are to word it as "Marxist-Leninists are vanguards," if it was worded as "Marxist-Leninist's claim to support vanguardism and the proletariat" followed by actual facts if or if not MLs claim to do what they state it would be neutral. No one is objecting to stating that Marxist-Leninists claim vanguards of the proletariat, However you went directly against such a proposal as you contradict yourself re-added a POV section states Marxist-Leninists are vanguards of the proletariat and states they against "fascism," (despite many ML states allying with fascist regimes) "internationalists" and support "socialist democracy," (despite most academics seeing the USSR as state capitalist and completely anti-democratic) remove a fact check section that describes actual ML actions that was properly sourced. No one can read this and believe it is neutral. Vallee01 (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, except we do not say "Marxist-Leninists are vanguards", we say "[a] vanguard party, organised hierarchically through democratic centralism, would seize power 'on behalf of the proletariat' and establish a communist party-led socialist state, which it claims to represent the dictatorship of the proletariat" which is essentially saying "Marxist-Leninist's claim to support vanguard ism and the proletariat", so I do not understand the issue. I also think you are overstating that "most academics seeing the USSR as state capitalist", which I happen to support in following Harrington as developing capitalism, for as noted here by Jack Upland, "the main supporters of the state capitalist hypothesis are the followers of Tony Cliff, who are by no means the majority of leftists. Overall, the section refers to the opinions of some leftists, but doesn't establish that these are the main opinions held by leftists." In addition, nowhere do we state they were democratic. Also, who are these "many ML states allying with fascist regimes"? The only example was the temporary alliance with Germany to take time in preparation for the war. For the umpteenth time, this article is supposed to be about the ideology, what are its tenets and beliefs, not its actions, for which we already have too many coatrack articles. Davide King (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The section states Marxist-Leninists would work for the proletariat! It literally states that Marxist-Leninists would seize power and work for the proletariat, do you genuinely believe this could ever be seen as neutral? It doesn't even state Marxist-Leninist claim to, it literally just states it! No it doesn't state Marxist-Leninists claim to seize power for the proletariat it states Marxist-Leninists would and do. Its utterly clear and blatant POV text and I don't see how you could as anything other then such. The article but it states clearly the "USSR supports 'socialist democracy.'" I will state all the dominant view of leftist ideologies that see the USSR as socialist: Marxist-Leninist's see USSR as socialist, and a specific time period (1918-1926) Trotskyists. that's it all other leftist ideologies view the USSR as state capitalist and believe that the USSR never implemented socialist democracy. You removed properly cited information something which you never made clear why. So you think this article is about just the theory of Marxist-Leninism? Well go do the same with the article Fascism remove all the sections that deal with how Fascist states work in practice remove sections detailing atrocities, genocides and such, that statement is so utterly divorced from how articles are written. Vallee01 (talk) 06:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, the section does not state that. This is what the source says: "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. [...] The basics of Marxism–Leninism were in place by the time of Lenin's death in 1924. [...] The revolution was to be accomplished in two stages. First, a 'dictatorship of the proletariat,' managed by the élite 'vanguard' communist party, would suppress counterrevolution, and ensure that natural economic resources and the means of production and distribution were in common ownership. Finally, communism would be achieved in a classless society in which Party and State would have 'withered away.'" You are the one describing things such as they being fascists as facts. One of the sources you used is "Red Fascism: The Merger of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia in the American Image of Totalitarianism, 1930's-1950's." It is about the Red fascism theory, so it can be added there, which it already is, not here. The other is "Explaining the salience of anti-elitism and reducing political corruption for political parties in Europe with the 2014 Chapel Hill Expert Survey data" and I do not see what it has to do with the topic. Articles actually need to mention "Marxism-Leninism", otherwise it is original research. Davide King (talk) 07:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Davide King You seem to think the section is neutral despite the POV text stating blatantly "A vanguard party, organised hierarchically through democratic centralism, would seize power "on behalf of the proletariat" and establish a communist party-led socialist state, which it claims to represent the dictatorship of the proletariat." It states utterly blatantly that Marxist-Leninists state would seize power for the proletariat! You seem to think the sections are neutral something which is nonsense to me, how about we review this article for neutrality by a neutral third party? If you think the current article can be read as neutral you should be perfectly fine with it. Let me state to me I don't see how such sections could ever be seen as neutral. Vallee01 (talk) 07:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, you grossly misunderstand what WP:NPOV is. WP:NPOV doesn't mean no point of view, what you're doing is wanting to censor extremely important information because it pleases you so. Please, go ahead and open a dispute on the NPOV noticeboard. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 14:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop You completely misunderstand what checking for NPOV is a neutrality check is when a trusted uninvolved reviewer reviews an article for bias, neutrality, wording and wording not a noticeboard I can guarantee you anyone will state the article is biased. Very nice, being lectured on NPOV by an editor who wants to add "Marxist-Leninists want to liquidate hostile classes," "Marxist-Leninism is the basis of proletariat thought." "Marxist-Leninists seek the destruction of exploiters," "It is a scientific system of philosophical, economic and socio-political ideas that constitute the conception of the working class" and "Communists have seen their task as educating voters in the voters’ true interests rather than responding to expression of interest by voters," "Marxist-Leninists" adds text straight out of an ML manifesto "The Marxist-Leninist party should be of revolutionary action, to guide and lead the class struggle, to gather the revolutionaries and organize them around immediate tasks, aiming at the weakening of the ruling class to bring the working class to power" removed sections detailing ML atrocities, and have been warned multiple times by multiple other editors on their POV.

NPOV no undue weight, it means being utterly neutral NPOV means. You completely misunderstand the entirety of NPOV editing, it doesn't mean you can write the article from a ML POV, something you are editing the article based off. Vallee01 (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, quoting or paraphrasing what someone says and endorsing what they say are two different things. For example when CNN reported that Trump said global warming was a Chinese hoax, CNN was not saying that it was a hoax. They were merely explaining what Trump said. When CNN factcheckers list and report the "lies" of Donald Trump, they are not saying they are true just because they report them. Notice btw that I put the word "lies" in quotations. I did that because I don't know how accurate the CNN list is. I wanted to make it clear that CNN considers them lies, without either endorsing or contradicting their view.

Notice that even you quote text that you complain is POV.

TFD (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPOV doesn't mean no POV. So we should and we are obligied present the ML POV.

10% of the lead is actually dedicated to the «ideology Marxism-Leninism», which is the main point of the article, while 23.4% is dedicated to «analysis». Also, these are not the phrases in dispute right now, so I assume you're fine with inserting the ones who were actually in the article.

--BunnyyHop (^talk) 15:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces The issue is with the current wording it essentially states ML states defend the proletariat and the working class, not only that the quote is un-nessasary. The issue with quotes is that we can not use neutral wording when using a quote. If somebody stated "The pickles are objectively horrible, they are the worst thing that can be possible" unless we change this quote (we can't) it will always not abide by a non NPOV. BunnyyHop likes overusing quotes as it allows for POV pushing text to be stated, quotes should on be used when necessary as an example Aristotle's "All I know is I know nothing." I do think possibly it could be reworded. Vallee01 (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop That's not true I don't know where you got that information from. We present ML positions we never take an ML or any position ever. Where did you get "WP:NPOV doesn't mean no POV" because that is blatantly not true we take a position based of consensus were there is none we state various positions, it doesn't allow us to spread a pro-ML position. Are you getting the same information on Wikipedia policies as you do on your information on the Soviet Union? What is this on the lead, nobody calculated anything on the difference between the lead and analysis if you see a difference it doesn't have anything to do with the article the notice on the lead is strange and also random. No that's not the Lead is, you strange strange Bunnyy the lead is supposed to be a cut down version of the article giving a more compressed version of the entire body giving a basic summarization of the giving readers a generilization of the article, in that sense we agree we should move sections from the body to the lead as the lead is a summurazation of the body. Where are you getting any of this info on Wikipedia policies? The lead isn't dedicated to the ideology its a summarization of the entire article. Vallee01 (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

This article is about ML ideology not Communist states. Under ML ideology the role of the Communist Party is to represent the proletariat. Whether they do that in practice is wholly irrelevant to the description of their ideology: "In political science, the term is used in a descriptive sense to refer to political belief systems." Whether or not you support their ideology or believe or don't believe that they followed it, Wikipedia policies allows an article to be devoted to it because it is a notable topic. TFD (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, no, it does not take an ML position, quotes are used for a reason.

WP:PRESERVEBIAS. Neutral in NPOV is referent to editing, not content.

The lead isn't dedicated to the ideology its a summarization of the entire article

Great thing you point this out. I do think the scope of this article should be reduced a little, but this is not the main point. There are 1412 words dedicated to analysis, and 2242 dedicated to ideology (Not counting the overview section, but if I did it would increase the amount of words dedicated to ideology by 1049). Therefore, of these two sections, 39% of the total is analysis and 61% is ideology. However, in the lead, 30% is ideology and 70% is analysis. The roles are completely reverted, and you just refuted your own point.

The Four Deuces, Davide King, Vallee01, is there finally consensus for these 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.

Original quote:

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) 17:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces Indeed but that's not the point, the point is not the text is written as though Marxist-Leninist's do support proletariat democracy. I therefor propose adding a simple changed add "Marxist-Leninist's claim" you essentially state that is what this about we state that's what Marxist-Leninist's believe irregardless the sections added can not be expressed to be a neutral. The inherent issue is not claiming Marxist-Leninists claim to support proletariat democracy the issue is the way in which is worded. As stated when quotations should only be used when necessary, as it gives a soapbox to those giving the quote we can't use neutral wording when using a quote. I also want to make clear this article is supposed to have an understandable lead, users like Davide King have stated that the lead should be cut down something which I can agree on, this has appeared to have been completely abounded. The lead has completely ballooned in size nearly tripling from its original size and instead of dealing with actual important information it has continuously added more detail relating to ML theory. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, however users like BunnyyHop seems to think the lead is a place to state ML positions, its not. Vallee01 (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop There clearly isn't consensus on this, there is clearly an active discussion, so clearly no. Vallee01 (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop These entire sections haven't even been discussed this isn't even about those paragraphs. You just brought up something completely new. Onto your new sections I don't even know where to begin "and hostile classes were to be liquidated" Complete white washing into the moon, oh my absolute god this is your ML position is terrifying, can you reval any more clearly your apology? It essentially states Political dissidents will be massacred, what if other articles did this "Hostile classes" is a complete dog whistle for political dissident and "liquidate" is the pure definition of an POV washing, it is a white washing word for "kill". Do you genuinely think this could ever is neutral? Vallee01 (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Your suggestion is a word that introduces bias. MOS:CLAIM. Also, don't say «there isn't consensus» because you're not speaking for others, rather say that «I don't».

These paragraphs are literally the ones reverted. «this is your ML position» You, as an editor, have an anticommunist POV, which you have the right to. However, the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences does not. I'm not inserting my «ML POV» here, since the quote is taken directly from the IESBS. If you have a problem with the source, open an issue on the appropriate board. Otherwise, you're just censoring reliable sources.

--BunnyyHop (^talk) 17:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop This discussion never brought this up, this is literally the first time you brought any of these articles! You stating you want to add a section in which you state "Marxist-Leninist's liquidate the hostile classes." No editor has stated they support this outlandish proposal, no one would ever you literally state "Marxist-Leninist's will massacre hostile enemies" while completely white washed terms, stop your nonsense. In what way does adding "Marxist-Leninists claim," add bias? We made clear if it is correct is irrelevant what matters it that Marxist-Leninist's believe it so therefor us adding it is a correct decision to simply make clear it is what Marxist-Leninists claim. This directly shows what was suspected you want to state Marxist-Leninists support socialist democracy, not that they state correct?

Indeed BunnyyHop me as an radical leftist, anarchist and former anarcho-communist am an anti-communist, keep up your nonsense accusations, oh my god BunnyyHop. Yes it is BunnyyHop it is absolute POV trying to add sections stating the liquidation of the "hostile classes" is textbook definition of complete garbage editing, however keep it up. Vallee01 (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

So you just reverted my edits without even knowing their contents? Great to know.

In what way? See MOS:CLAIM. Also, these are the exact terms used in the source, so stop trying to change or challenge it, especially since you have no equally reliable source.

Also, it's not of my interest to know what you define yourself as. I was just exemplifying.

--BunnyyHop (^talk) 18:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop The discussion is about an extremely specific section not about the other pro-ML POV text you added to the article. Good for you for describing what you think of myself, it has literally nothing to do with anything, but you're wrong' don't bring it up a completely irrelevant point if you don't want it to be responded. Other editors noted on the page Russian Revolution "If you keep your disruptive edits a topic ban is rapidly approaching.". Vallee01 (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion was always about this, I don't see what your point. The rest is off-topic talk.

If you insist the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences consists of pro-ML POV text I suggest you to open a ticket on the respective board.

--BunnyyHop (^talk) 18:30, 24 December 2020 (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.

Lead changes

Proposed change: Diff

Before

Marxism–Leninism holds that a two-stage communist revolution is needed to replace capitalism. A vanguard party, organised hierarchically through democratic centralism, would seize power "on behalf of the proletariat" and establish a communist party-led socialist state, which it claims to represent the dictatorship of the proletariat. The state would control the economy and means of production, suppress opposition and the bourgeoisie, promote collectivism in society, and 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.

¶ As an ideology, it was developed by Joseph Stalin in the 1920s based on his understanding and synthesis of orthodox Marxism and Leninism.

After

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. 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, it was formulated by Joseph Stalin based on his understanding of orthodox Marxism and Leninism.

Sources

Source text: International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences 2001 & 2015.

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. 2001 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. 2015

--BunnyyHop (^talk) 20:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead changes discussion

• Strongly oppose; this is cherry-picking of sources in service of WP:PROPAGANDA. For just one example, changing "suppress opposition" to "hostile classes were to be liquidated" is a gross whitewash. Other encyclopedias handle WP:In-text attribution of POV differently than we do; that doesn't mean we in our style can repeat ML propaganda as fact. We don't recite authoritarian ideology in their own terms. WP:DROPTHESTICK. Also see WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASING. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

There was no changing of such.

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

Shall we not repeat ML propaganda as fact; but neither shall we repeat «free world» propaganda as fact. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 20:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

See whataboutism and WP:FALSEBALANCE. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, so you think that changing suppressing the opposition to liquidating them is whitewashing? Interesting observation, but not one I would make. I would have thought that changing liquidating to suppressing would be whitewashing. TFD (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The new version says that "hostile classes" are liquidated, which is steeped in the ML worldview that opponents only do so for selfish class reasons. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

You're right, it must be within quotes since it's referrent to the Marxist-Leninist point of view. «ML worldview that opponents only do so for selfish class reasons» I don't think this is deducible from «hostile classes». But it does relate to the ML worldview of Class struggle as the main cause of societal changes, which is mentioned in the same paragraph. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 05:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

clarification – resolved

@BunnyyHop, there's a lot going on in this diff. Could you narrow and specify which part is under discussion, ideally by copy/pasting above the before (existing version) and after (proposed version)? czar 21:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC) Sure, thanks for showing interest, czar! I hope this is what you meant by copy/pasting, since I've never discussed a diff this way: Before: Marxism–Leninism holds that a two-stage communist revolution is needed to replace capitalism. A vanguard party, organised hierarchically through democratic centralism, would seize power "on behalf of the proletariat" and establish a communist party-led socialist state, which it claims to represent the dictatorship of the proletariat. The state would control the economy and means of production, suppress opposition and the bourgeoisie, promote collectivism in society, and 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. After: 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. (These next phrases are not included) 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. Before: As an ideology, it was developed by Joseph Stalin in the 1920s based on his understanding and synthesis of orthodox Marxism and Leninism. After the death of Vladimir Lenin in 1924, Marxism–Leninism became(...) After: 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, it was formulated by Joseph Stalin based on his understanding of orthodox Marxism and Leninism. After the dead of (...) --BunnyyHop (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict) Thanks—I've copied and formatted above czar 21:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• The proposed edit appears to come from the Elsevier encyclopedia verbatim (compare the "After" text with the source quote below it) so we would not be able to accept that as written. Verbatim copying from sources violates author copyright. When citing sources, we paraphrase in our own words. If you have prior edits that similarly copy verbatim from a source, those will need to be rephrased or reverted. czar 21:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Czar, good point, I hadn't come across that guideline. I tried to paraphrase as well as I could. What do you think?

Paraphrased

Old: 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. 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. New: Since 1918, during the Russian Revolution, communist ideas have acquired a new meaning and became associated to the ideas of Marxism–Leninism, that is, the interpretation of Marxism by Lenin and his successors. Advocating a final objective, namely, the creation of a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production, providing each of its participants with consumption ‘according to their needs’, they introduce the recognition of the class struggle as a dominating principle of a social development. Furthermore, the proletariat were to carry out the task of society's reconstruction. A socialist revolution led by the vanguard of the proletariat, a party, organised hierarchically through democratic centralism, was seen as a historical necessity. Moreover, the establishment of the proletarian dictatorship and the "liquidation of hostile classes" were advocated. 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. Old: 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, it was formulated by Joseph Stalin based on his understanding of orthodox Marxism and Leninism. After the dead of (...) New: Encouraged both by the success of the Bolsheviks in establishing the independence of Russia from foreign domination and by clandestine monetary subsidies from the Soviet Union, communist Parties emerged around the world, and they became recognisable by their adherence to a common political ideology known as Marxism–Leninism. Even from its birth, Marxism–Leninism existed in many variants. (This next phrase is not included) In the 1920s, it was formulated by Joseph Stalin based on his understanding of orthodox Marxism and Leninism. After the dead of (...)

--BunnyyHop (^talk) 22:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

It's more accurate to say that ML "was developed by Joseph Stalin" than "by Lenin and his successors." The ideology was developed by Lenin's successors, including Stalin. TFD (talk) 02:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• There's no getting around the fact that this proposal rewrites the article's description of ML ideology around a single source, while the current description is based on 6. There is no good reason to focus so heavily on a single source. And adding all this extra text which presumes their claims to speak for the proletariat are true is not an improvement. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, not quite - while it's structured around a single source, that is, the encyclopedia, most of these things are complemented by current sources. None of the current sources are removed.

The Four Deuces, while Stalin was the first to formulate and institutionalise something called «Marxism-Leninism», that doesn't mean his development is universal - some even completely reject that formulation by Stalin, such as Trotskists, who rather adhere to the «ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky». Others, even in the SU after the death of Stalin, «reject» Stalin and adhere to the ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin. There are also other variants mentioned in the article. While the basis still is «Marx and Lenin», they adhere to different «successors». But that's only my interpretation. Just check you didn't mix paragraphs, because «the interpretation of Marxism by Lenin and his successors» is in a different paragraph than «In the 1920s, it was formulated by Joseph Stalin based on his understanding of orthodox Marxism and Leninism»

--BunnyyHop (^talk) 05:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The key point is that the party leadership, including Trotsky and Stalin, agreed that the party should have an agreed ideology, which included its role as the vanguard of the proletariat, nationalization and collectivization, and dialectical materialism. The Bolsheviks had come to power with a commitment to Marxism, but no clear plan for how to apply it. This contrasts with socialist parties, which generally are mass democratic parties, i.e., they attempt to obtain a wide membership. TFD (talk) 16:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. BunnyyHop (^talk) 17:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Crossroads.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC))
• Oppose. Here is the thing. "Marxism–Leninism" is not something that Lenin and Stalin claimed it to be. This is something described in 3rd party RS. My very best wishes (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)