Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BunnyyHop (talk | contribs) at 00:26, 2 February 2021 (→Draft RfC language: ping). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Marxism–Leninism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Socialism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia: Science & education / History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the science and education in Russia task force. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Social and political / Contemporary Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Contemporary philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Soviet Union High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China: History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese history (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Economics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. European history Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / Chinese / European / Russian & Soviet / World War I / World War II / Cold War / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Chinese military history task force European military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force World War I task force World War II task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) Post-Cold War task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cold War Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Marxism–Leninism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Marxism–Leninism at the Reference desk.

BunnyyHop's edits

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

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

BunnyyHop and Vallee01, no one is denying that a famine happened. However, there is a scholarly debate (see Holodomor genocide question). Even one of your sources say that "istorians agree that a famine did take place and millions of Ukrainian peasants died. The exact number of victims is not known but scholars agree that the number is somewhere between 3 and 10 million. Scholars also disagree over what role the Soviet Union played in the tragedy. Some scholars point to Stalin as the mastermind behind the famine, due to his hatred of Ukrainians (Hosking, 1987). Others assert that Stalin did not actively cause the famine, but knew about it and did nothing to stop it (Moore, 2012). Still other scholars argue that the famine was just an effect of the Soviet Union's push for rapid industrialization and a by-product of that was the destruction of the peasant way of life (Fischer, 1935). The final school of thought argues that the Holodomor was caused by factors beyond the control of the Soviet Union and Stalin took measures to reduce the effects of the famine on the Ukrainian people (Davies & Wheatcroft, 2006)." Since we have a Criticism section, I think a summary can be put in the lead as I have done here. Please, let us discuss this civilly and not edit warring. Davide King (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not good to put criticism in the overview section. It doesn't happen in any other ideological article exactly because confuses the writer and goes against the guidelines. As for the Holodomor question (Which is not the point of my edits), I generally refuse Cold War researchers since they didn't have access to soviet archives and some were even on the payroll of the CIA (See: Who Paid The Piper?). Criticism should not be put on the overview section for many reasons which are delimited in the WP:NPV and the WP:Criticism pages. It should be either incorporated within the article (which is not recommended for ideologies), or in a criticism section (recommended in this case). Misplaced Pages already has an article about critics analogous to Marxism-leninism. Criticism would be explaining what happened, why those happened and what Marxism-leninism has to do with it, which is something the Misplaced Pages article tries to do. "Red fascism" is simply a pejorative term used for the Stalinist period of the USSR, not Marxism-leninism. As for state capitalism, one of your sources doesn't refer to anything related to marxism-leninism, but it doesn't have to. State capitalism is not a critic but a misunderstanding of both what scientific socialism is, and what state capitalism is. Socialism is a process and therefore saying that Marxism-leninism is "state capitalism" is erroneous. Debatable examples of "state capitalism" could be China, the USSR under the NEP, and any other countries analogous to those situations. It's not debatable that criticisms should be on the forefront of the article because it goes against the guidelines and our rule of conduct should hold them supreme. The content itself is not really a critic to Marxism-leninism, but rather a non NPV of historical events perpetrated by Marxist-leninist states, and I suggest removing those and linking to the Misplaced Pages article I mentioned above. Those articles are specially for criticism, and it should be linked whenever it's possible. I'll put the criticism on the criticism section, and then we'll see what we can do about the rest. BunnyyHop (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@BunnyyHop: @Davide King: Maybe as a compromise we should cut down the fat of this paragraph moving it into Criticism, but keep a 4-5 sentences about criticisms of Marxist Leninism held together with some other information? Also even if the Holodmor was not entirely intentional, KGB records do show that much of the famine was intentional. The KGB hoarded grains from farmers and left the rest to starve to sell it for equipment. I think that it shouldn't have so much fat however, but I do think it should still be present but be less long. Vallee01 (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It is very simple. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the body and Criticism is part of that, so I think my wording was fine. That you think the state capitalism criticism is wrong is besides the point, it is a notable criticism, hence it is reported. That the same standard is not applied to capitalism or liberalism, I agree, but there is nothing we can do if reliable sources do not point it out. But I agree that we can not, and should not say, they have engaged in genocidcal acts because scholars actually disagree on that, especially on the Holodomor. That you think it was, based on KGB records, it does not change the disagreement among scholars, as is reported even in one of your sources. We go by reliable sources and consensus among scholars, not what individual edits think. I believe my wording was a perfectly fine compromise and also avoid a few unnecessary repetition which made it longer. Davide King (talk) 12:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

First break

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

BunnyyHop, I disagree. That criticism does not refer specifically to that period, although obviously it is the most important and compared one. Davide King (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop You very clearly have extreme POV, for starters most of all the things listed are not true. It must be 2 or 3 sentences. Please stop, I know you most likely adore Stalin and Mao and the mass murders they committed but this isn't ok on Misplaced Pages, stop. Stop posting fringe theories. Vallee01 (talk) 08:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01 My opinion doesn't have anything to do with this. All those things are backed by sources just like yours, I'll add some more and then I'll create a new edit. BunnyyHop (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop Your entire section is completely bogus, I have no idea how to respond to it, Stalin did not implement democratic reforms, nor did Mao you, appear to posting complete fringe theories. Their is no debate as to if Marxist Leninist's states enacted mass murder and genocides, you are not going to do anything to that section nor can you. As to you're section on the benefits of Marxist Leninism I don't know how to respond to this.. Vallee01 (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01 You have no idea of what Marxism-Leninism is if you believe it's "Mao and Stalin". BunnyyHop (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Since the article is about the ideology, the material does not belong there. This section reads more like criticism of Communism than criticism of Marxism-Leninism. For example, genocide in Poland was not part of the official ideology. There were no explaining when it was in society's interest and it was not used to justify government policy in Poland, where it would be most unpopular, even among Polish leaders. TFD (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I agree. The problem with most Communist-related articles is that, besides confusing small-c communism for Marxism–Leninism, they rely too much on "traditionalists", "totalitarian", "orthodox", "Draperite", "conservative", "right-wing", "anti-Communist" et al. accounts as we write at Soviet and Communist studies. Of course, Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source itself, but what we write there seems to be accurate from what I have read and researched. Yet, we give too much or only weight to the first camp, or even state it as fact. As it is a field rife with conflict and controversy, this is not like climate change or the Holocaust, for which there is overwhelmingly consensus among scholars and thus it would be an example of false balance to give equal weight to both views. Most, if not all, Communist-related articles need to be revised to make sure both views are proportionally represented according to due weight and neutrality. Davide King (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Marxist Leninist states have absolutely engaged in genocidal actions, they are not "accused" of doing so.

@Davide King:I have question: Did genocides or mass killings did not occur under Marxist-Leninist states, or do you believe Marxist-Leninist states have not engaged in enough mass killings to justify the inclusion. I don't understand you're point, Misplaced Pages already has a stance on the Holodmor and it extremely clearly defines it as a genocide List of genocides by death toll. If you have sources the contrary please cite them. I don't know what to state, Marxist Leninist states have engaged in mass killings and genocides, to deny such a fact is impossible. Do you genuinely think Marxist Leninist states haven't directly ordered mass killings, which have photographic, and direct access to the mass graves and their bodies? I am a leftist so I obviously believe much of it is over exaturagted nonsense. However from point do you stand and why? Thanks. Vallee01 (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, first of all, thank you for discussing this here rather than edit warring. I suggest you to read Misplaced Pages:Other stuff exists regarding you raising the point that "Misplaced Pages already has a stance on the Holodmor and it extremely clearly defines it as a genocide List of genocides by death toll". For example, the reason why we have a Holodomor genocide question article is because not all scholars agree it was a genocide, even though they all agree it was a terrible time and a tragedy. Legitimate scholars such as Amartya Sen give a more nuanced picture of the Great Chinese Famine. Those who disagree the Holodomor was a genocide or simply that Stalin was the sole culprit or that Stalin and the Soviet government did it on purpose, rather than arguing that more could have be done as some scholars do, or give other reasons for the Great Chinese Famine such as the lack of democracy rather than 'Communism' itself, are not apologists or negationists; they do not deny the suffering and tragedy of the events; and revisionism, rather than negationism, is a legitimate and indeed fundamental part of historiography. I am not denying that mass killings et al. happened but as wrote here by Paul Siebert there are scholars who reject that 'Communist' mass killings is a special or separate category of mass killings, without denying that mass killings happened.

Second, one of the sources you yourself added summarises a more nuanced picture among scholars. Whatever I personally think of Communist states and whether they did or did not commit genocide is irrelevant (I tend to hold the views of legitimate scholars, although I may sometimes disagree or agree with some points, etc.), Communist and Soviet studies is a controversial, conflictual and politicised field and there are legitimate scholars who disagree with the "anti-communist" or "orthodox" historiography" without being apologists for the regimes; and indeed agree on many facts with the orthodox but giving a different and more nuanced interpretation of the events. I have no sympathy for Communist regimes and I believe anarchists have their legitimate reasons to be so critical of them, but I reject the view that they were equal to Nazism; and this view is not just my personal view but it is held by legitimate academics, historians and scholars. If I can make a personal comment, you describe yourself as anarchist but you seem to take the "orthodox" views and historians as facts, even though scholars disagree ("Some scholars point to Stalin as the mastermind behind the famine, due to his hatred of Ukrainians (Hosking, 1987). Others assert that Stalin did not actively cause the famine, but he knew about it and did nothing to stop it (Moore, 2012). Still other scholars argue that the famine was just an effect of the Soviet Union's push for rapid industrialization and a by-product of that was the destruction of the peasant way of life (Fischer, 1935). The final school of thought argues that the Holodomor was caused by factors beyond the control of the Soviet Union and Stalin took measures to reduce the effects of the famine on the Ukrainian people (Davies & Wheatcroft, 2006."). If I can make another more personal comment, I find it curious because the same historians you cited and used in your edits such as Service would turn their "anti-communist" historiography into "anti-anarchist" historiography, if their roles were reversed.

I believe The Four Deuces also have a point that "the article is about the ideology, the material does not belong there. This section reads more like criticism of Communism than criticism of Marxism-Leninism. For example, genocide in Poland was not part of the official ideology. There were no explaining when it was in society's interest and it was not used to justify government policy in Poland, where it would be most unpopular, even among Polish leaders." As they also wrote here, "Anti-Communism does not mean opposition to Communism, but opposition to an extreme degree. That doesn't mean that their books are unreliable but that they present one view of events ." This is a problem of most Communist-related articles in that they tend to state some controversial notions (death tolls, genocide questions, the attribution of famines and other tragedies to 'Communist' ideology only and not to other external factors, or a mix of both, NPOV failure to provide mainstream, "anti-anticommunist" or simply "revisionist" accounts, etc.) as facts and other legitimate historians, who reject the more "anti-Communist" scholars without being pro-Communists themselves or apologists (which is the criticism some "anti-Communist scholars" give them while some of them being themselves accused of representing "anti-communist propagandists" by some of those legitimate "revisionist" and even some "orthodox" historians) are not given enough weight or relied on to provide other mainstream interpretations. As the field has been so controversial and politicised, we should rely on both schools and views rather than rely only on one view (usually the "orthodox" view) as we do for most Communist-related articles. Davide King (talk) 06:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vallee01:,

(shortly) yes, Marxist-Leninist states have absolutely engaged in genocidal actions.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC))

Governments across the political spectrum have engaged in mass killings, but this is the only one that that gives it that level of detail or even mentions it. The topic of the article isn't why Communism is bad but what is their ideology. TFD (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I agree, that makes sense. We should make more of an analysis than criticism; for that, we already have Criticism of communist party rule. How do you suggest to word it? Davide King (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Upon viewing the discussion on Communist Mass Killings, and how some people want to underplay the horrible, rape, murder and genocides enacted under such regimes I can't in good faith state this. Previous information stated should be disregarded. Vallee01 (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Just to be sure. Do you think it's okay to put such a big paragraph containing accusations about Stalinism while the guidelines strictly advocate for things like this to be put within the article (providing historical context)? The criticism section is pretty small compared to the article, and yet it occupies massive space within the head because it's a condemnation of Stalinism which doesn't really fit here. Try to generalize it and not put accusations specific to the Stalinist period on the USSR, but to the 30 countries that were or are marxist-leninist states. It should be generalized because it's a necessity to attempt to fit all of them, not just one nor one specific time period. BunnyyHop (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop, I agree there is a problem that most Communist-related article follow only one-side and violates NPOV. However, not all of your edits were helpful and going in the opposiute direction also violates NPOV. That it is "the official doctrine of the majority of the communist movement around the world" does not seem to be supported by given ref but that it has been a driving force in international relations during most of the 20th century due the the Cold War. It is true that scholars disagree that the Khmer Rogue were communists, but you can not use Furr as source for that. Davide King (talk) 07:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

As an example, this ("As a theoretical instrument of analysis of reality, it is a guide for action, which is constantly renewed to respond to new phenomena, situations, processes and developing trends. Marxism-Leninism is a conception of the world that includes the dialectical method as a method of analysis. It is a scientific system of philosophical, economic and socio-political ideas that constitute the conception of the working class, science about the knowledge of the world, about the laws of development of nature, society and human thought, but it is mainly the science of the struggle and revolutionary transformation of the working class and all workers for the revolutionary overcoming of capitalism and the building of the new society, a socialist society, and communism") is their POV but it is not written in an encyclopedic way and is cited to "Marxism". Soviet Encyclopedic Dictionary. p. 00. Karl Marx e o nosso tempo, Álvaro Cunhal em pcb.org.br Marxismo-leninismo - Uma teoria para o nosso tempo, João Frazão. Em omilitante.pcp.pt O Materialismo Dialético e Histórico, Fundamento Teórico do Comunismo, V. P. Tchertkov em marxists.org Partido com Paredes de Vidro, Álvaro Cunhal in Marxists.org. Archived in WayBack Machine pg. 23 Dialectical and Historical Materialism by J. V. Stalin in marxists.org. Archived in Wayback Machine. We need independent, secondary sources; and yes, I would much rather use sources like Fitzpatrick, Getty or Ellman rather than Service or Pipes, who is an academic but whose work about communism represents more of popular literature than scholarly analysis. Davide King (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, seems fair. I'll try to find more academic sources to back some of those things up. I agree the first phrase is not worded in the best way, I'll see what I can do. It's hard to find more academic sources because the article are not free. BunnyyHop (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Bunnyhoop, no consensus for őart of your changes, as others also expressed.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC))

Second break

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

You have made a quite massive amount of editing and rewritings, which had as well technical problems, despite both of us just reverted a few of them (not "widespread edits" as you claim). As well your edits tried to deminuate criticism for just a few specific instances, etc. No surpise, meanhile revising your edits, both me and Davide concerned on the same problematic changes, incidentally. So let him as well revire your arguments and gain consensus here for any related part from now on.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC))

Since you have not pointed anything out, there's nothing more I can do. We'll wait and see what Davide King's judgment is, and I'll keep editting from there. BunnyyHop (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you to use a sandbox, where you can experiment and gain consensus for your proposed wording. So far, I do not think your edits are encyclopedic and need stronger secondary and tertiary sources rather than primary ones. Either way, the sandbox will help you improve your edits and avoid edit warring, which may result in sanctions. Davide King (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, no one is trying to downplay Stalinist crimes. The problem with the Mass Killings Under Communist Regimes is that it falsely implies that mass killings are an essential objective of socialism, broadly defined. Hence universal health care, free tuition and a liveable minimum wage are the first steps to mass killings in the United States. TFD (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

BunnyyHop, it is still sourced to mostly primary sources. In addition, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, not an introduction, and it became too long. Davide King (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop I went to sleep and have currently found that the page is currently undergoing an extreme case of an edit war. Please for gods sake stop, attempt to discuss before edit warring, you are not doing anything and will most likely get blocked if you keep up you're actions. Vallee01 (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit war? What? No. Davide King, KIENGIR and me are discussing which parts of my edits are not encyclopaedic and should be altered / sourced better so it can all go forward. There's absolutely no edit warring. I would appreciate it if you also joined in. BunnyyHop (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Seeing the history of this article there has currently been 4 reverts in the past 24 hours, also before this you reverted the page 12 times, as discussed on you're talk page. Vallee01 (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop Please make you're issues clear, with the article. I think your issue with the article is it is currently focuses to much on the criticisms of Marxist Leninism which I can partially understand, in my opinion there should definitely be a section about the criticisms but maybe not as long. However by your recent edits you seem to think that both Stalin's Russia and Mao's China are both democratic paradises, or that these states did not commit mass murders which is simply not true. I do think maybe the section of criticism could be cut down on possibly, but with that in mind we need to make some things clear, the atrocities committed under Marxist-Leninist states aren't "propaganda", they are simply facts and they will stay on Misplaced Pages because Misplaced Pages reports on the truth, and the truth is these things happened. I do see an argument for it not being as present however, genocides like the Native American genocides, also were just as brutal as genocides committed in the USSR. Both happened, both art horrible and we can not deny that. Also I would recommend stating you're political opinions, you don't have to obviously and your under no obligation or pressure to do so. However I think it's good if we reveal all our biases. I describe myself as a libertarian socialist or an anarchist, I have a generally mixed opinions on the Soviet Union. It went through massive stages of industrialization while lifting millions out of poverty while at the same time being a corrupt brutal oligarchy that is responsible for the deaths of millions. You seem to be a Marxist-Leninist, which is fine, what's not fine is denying facts. Vallee01 (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, Davide King and KIENGIR I have made an exact copy in my Sandbox. I want you to edit this and point out where there might be a problem. In the meanwhile I'll try to find more secondary sources. I have adjusted the lead of article according to MOS:LEADLENGTH, and moved less important sections to the overview. If there's no objection I'll be reinserting it in the main page. BunnyyHop (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01 Write your concerns here instead of reverting edits. WP:Cooperation WP:EPTALK WP:BRD. BunnyyHop (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The entire section is not neutral it doesn't even mention atrocities by Marxist Leninist states, it takes Marxist-Leninist perspective as a given. It has constant formatting issues, but that doesn't even matter. It is essentially a manifesto of horrible Marxist Leninism written from a Marxist Leninist perspective and takes these as facts. This is by far the worse section:

As a theoretical instrument of analysis of reality, it is a guide to action, which is constantly renewed to respond to new phenomena, situations, processes and developing trends. Marxism-Leninism is a conception of the world that includes the dialectical method as a method of analysis. It is a scientific system of philosophical, economic and socio-political ideas that constitute the conception of the working class, science about the knowledge of the world, about the laws of development of nature, society and human thought, but it is mainly the science of the struggle and revolutionary transformation of the working class and all workers for the revolutionary overcoming of capitalism and the building of the new society, a socialist society, and communism.

This belongs in some poorly written biased ML blog, and it seems from your editing maybe you should start a blog, instead of trying to spread your ideology here. Disregarding the broken hyperlinks it written in an entirely Marxist-Leninist perspective and seems like it belongs in a manifesto. Oh my god "it is mainly the science of the struggle and revolutionary transformation of the working class and all workers for the revolutionary overcoming of capitalism and the building of the new society, a socialist society, and communism."

Stop edit warring this your 16th revert, the limit is three. People have been kind not to report you, but it seems like you are unwilling to listen. Here are just some of you're reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=990152506&oldid=990149462

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=990483190&oldid=990421914

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=990200262&oldid=990174977

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=990149462&oldid=990147636

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=983218679&oldid=983191853

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=983324060&oldid=983218679

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=990010040&oldid=989980094

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=990010040&oldid=989980094

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=982404796&oldid=982334039

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=982244048&oldid=982240953

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=982152792&oldid=982063998

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism&diff=982205557&oldid=982152792

You already constitute being blocked three times over. So please stop, people are trying to be helpful to you but you keep not listening. Vallee01 (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Third break

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

No BunnyHopp, that's not how that works: "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of 'edit warring', and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." In my opinion editors have given you enough good faith. You can be blocked for edit warring for reverts for a period of days or even weeks. Also that's not how talk works. Vallee01 (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01 has right. Just because users do not respond in 24 hours, it does not mean agreement, neither legitimizing you to perform your changes. You have to gain everyone's clear agreement already after such happenings.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR Well, do you agree? BunnyyHop (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

BunnyHop, I also find your re-wording of the lead to be very one-sided. As other editors said, it reads like a Marxist-Leninist manifesto. The paragraph outlining Marxism-Leninism's goals was removed from the lead and re-written from a Marxist-Leninist outlook. Two examples (out of many) are "one-party state" becoming "people's democracy" and "suppression of political dissent" becoming "suppression of the resistance of exploiters" (!) – which aren't even in the original sources. The objective wording of historians and scholars was replaced with Communist euphemisms. Criticism was also removed and buried at the end of a very long Overview section. It was replaced by a paragraph of waffle about dialectical materialism, presenting Marxism-Leninism as a kind of 'science' or the 'one true faith'. Dialectical materialism is barely mentioned in this article, so there shouldn't be much about it in the lead anyway. Your edits are also heavily based on primary sources. If any of these things were done on the Fascism and Nazism articles they'd rightly be reverted.

I think the current lead is structured well. The 1st paragraph outlines what Marxism-Leninism is and its goals; the 2nd briefly outlines its origins (tho there could be more on its history); while the 3rd outlines what Marxist-Leninist states actually did as well as negative and positive criticism of them. Maybe some of this could be trimmed and worded more like an analysis. But it would be absurd to remove the "bad things" as you call them. It's also absurd to say they shouldn't be there because the article's "only about the ideology". Marxism-Leninism is all about creating a state, and the repressions etc were motivated by the ideology.

At least four other editors have opposed your changes BunnyHop. As was said, if you keep edit-warring and threatening to revert within a day, you could end up being blocked.

~Asarlaí 02:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, well said...BunnyyHop, I agreed Vallee01's summarization here, but I mainly agree with Davide and Asarlaí's point as well.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC))

First of all, thank you very much for commenting here Asarlaí!

I see your point, that's indeed a POV I had not considered before. I'll make sure to edit those out and replace them for a more encyclopedic language.

"Criticism was also removed and buried at the end of a very long Overview section".

I have three main objections to this.

1- According to the Neutrality and verifiability section in Misplaced Pages:Criticism, it presents 5 bullet points. Putting criticism in the lead violates bullet point 2, 3 and 5. In the same article, in "Philosophy, religion, or politics" it says "political outlooks (...) Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets.". This refers to the main article itself, and by putting it into the lead I assume it makes it even worse.

2- The lead of the articles Fascism, Liberalism, Trotskyism, Marxism, Corporatism, Nationalism, Conservatism, Communism, Soviet Union, China (and so on) are not structured that way because it's goes against WP:NPOV and what I have mentioned earlier. I could ask for a Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard if you so desire.

3- I have not removed criticism, it's incredibly important to make the article neutral - so after thinking about what I wrote about a question arose - where to put this brief section of criticism? I have instead put it at the end of the overview, since the criticism section is also at the end (as it should) of the article. It's not buried - if the reader wants to know briefly what happened in the history of this ideology, he would read the overview until he reached the end of it where the "bad things", as I described it, are. It consists mostly of the measures taken by some Marxist-Leninist states. There have been 30, this mentions two of them during very specific historical periods.

The lead I propose is very concise for these two things:

1- "As a theoretical instrument of analysis of reality, it is a guide to action, which is constantly renewed to respond to new phenomena, situations, processes and developing trends. Marxism-Leninism is a conception of the world that includes the dialectical method as a method of analysis.

It consists of the backbone of the ideology. To exemplify - the reason you can have China, a market economy and Cuba, a planned economy as Marxist-Leninist republics is because Marxist-Leninism isn't a dogma but a way of interpreting the world, something which is well identified in this paragraph. Thus Marxism-Leninism is built off Dialetical Materialism, something core to understanding the ideology. This is directly correlated to everything, so I simply state its core basics.

2- "It is a scientific system of philosophical, economic and socio-political ideas that constitute the conception of the working class, science about the knowledge of the world, about the laws of development of nature, society and human thought, but it is mainly the science of the struggle and revolutionary transformation of the working class for the revolutionary overcoming of capitalism and the building of the new society – a socialist society, and communism."

This is also directly related to Marxism-Leninism. It identifies the areas of thought where Marxism-Leninism applies - philosophical, economic and socio-political. Its conception of the working class and the what they want to do with it. This is directly related to Marxism. It also refers what the principle objective of the ideology is - revolutionary overcoming of capitalism (as opposed to reformism) the building of the new society – a socialist society, and communism. This is the essential and is directly related to the rest of the article, especially in the "ideology" and the overview parts of the article. I see that it does repeat the word science a bit too often, although I disagree I see your point that it might be considered as a POV for "one true faith". Science here is used as a philosophical term and not science as in science of nature – although it has been attempted to approximate Marxism to such.

Some of my edits were made based on primary sources. But those whose need for secondary, academic sources is core have been properly added. Primary sources of Marxism-Leninism that quote Lenin himself are not voiced as Misplaced Pages but as a third person and properly identified as being a specific person.

I will make some changes based on your feedback and then we'll see if there's anything else to be edited. BunnyyHop (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

BunnyHop You seem completely biased in your editing you keep using POV words like "anti-fascist", and use horrible wording. One of the most horrible being "suppression of the resistance of exploiters." The current wording is absolutely unacceptable you completely remove sections on massacres and genocides of Marxist-Leninist states. It clearly reads like a manifesto or propaganda for Marxist-Leninism. Vallee01 (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, Asarlaí was right and I have changed wording. The phrase about antifascism is backed by 3 academic sources.

"completely remove sections on massacres and genocides of Marxist-Leninist states".

Is there now consensus for this? BunnyyHop (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

On my behalf, I wish to see exactly what you would change to what, comparing to this page, point by point, rather to compare two articles that may differ much. Since other user recommended for you to use the sandbox, maybe for them it is better to review that, but I will simply judge anything based on the change(s) compared to this article, until I don't see it exactly, I cannot give agreement.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC))

Your changes are all extremely biased and is far to broad. There also a massive amount of completely unnaceptable sections which are the very. The writing is also extremely unencylopodic, and does not belong on Misplaced Pages.

Your entire proposal is just Marxist-Leninist nonsense, are all utterly problematic but I will just show some in the lead, the entire article. Just look at this:

"Marxism–Leninism aims to create an international communist society. It opposes colonialism and imperialism and advocates decolonization and anti-colonial forces. It supports anti-fascist international alliances and has advocated the creation of popular fronts between communist and non-communist anti-fascists against strong fascist movements. This Marxist–Leninist approach to international relations derives from the analyses (political, economic, sociological and geopolitical) that Lenin presented in the essay Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1917). Extrapolating from five philosophical bases of Marxism, namely that human history is the history of class struggle between a ruling class and an exploited class; that capitalism creates antagonistic social classes, i.e. the bourgeois exploiters and the exploited proletariat; that capitalism employs nationalist war to further private economic expansion; that socialism is an economic system that voids social classes through public ownership of the means of production and so will eliminate the economic causes of war; and that once the state (socialist or communist) withers away, so shall international relations wither away because they are projections of national economic forces" No mention of the absolute failure of Marxist-Leninist ideology, no mention of how Marxist-Leninist states actively collaborated with Nazi Germany, no mention on how Marxist-Leninists themselves have committed imperialism. No mention that Marxist-Leninists in practice have never actually been anti imperialist. It is the very definition of misinformation.

It is filled with constant POV pushing text, refuses to even state the the genocides and massacres committed under such states. I don't even need to say anything the sections speak for themselves:

"The fact that Marxist–Leninist regimes confiscated private businesses and landholdings radically increased income and property equality in practice. Income inequality dropped in Russia under the rule of the Soviet Union, then rebounded after its demise in 1991. It also dropped rapidly in the Eastern Bloc after the Soviet takeover of Eastern Europe at the end of World War II. Similarly, inequality went back up after the collapse of the Soviet system. According to Paul Hollander, this was one of the features of communist states that was so attractive to egalitarian Western intellectuals that they quietly justified the murder of millions of capitalists, landowners and supposedly wealthy kulaks in order to achieve this equality. According to Walter Scheidel, they were correct to the extent that historically only violent shocks have resulted in major reductions in economic inequality.

Marxist–Leninists respond to this type of criticism by highlighting the ideological differences in the concept of freedom and liberty. It was noted that "Marxist–Leninist norms disparaged laissez-faire individualism (as when housing is determined by one's ability to pay)" and condemned "wide variations in personal wealth as the West has not" whilst emphasizing equality, by which they mean "free education and medical care, little disparity in housing or salaries, and so forth". When asked to comment on the claim that former citizens of socialist states now enjoy increased freedoms, Heinz Kessler, former East German Minister of National Defence, replied: "Millions of people in Eastern Europe are now free from employment, free from safe streets, free from health care, free from social security"."

No mention of well documented Marxist-Leninist genocides, mass murders, executions, failure of collectivization, the systematic killings and starvation of the Kulak class. All which are extremely well documented. Its one sentence on how Marxist-Leninist's aren't unrestricted capitalists, and then immediately turns away from discussing a single wrong thing with Marxist-Leninism and then replaces it with "free education and medical care, little disparity in housing or salaries, and so forth." This Marxist-Leninist misinformation is utterly blatant.

"The most prominent in the communist movement around the world." This is completely false, and also subjective. Marxist-Leninist parties are nearly non-existent in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Czech Republic, most of eastern Europe, most of the Balkans, most of Africa, Turkey and other parts of the world. There is a non-existent Marxist-Leninists in the USA. there has been a total of 2 Marxist-Leninist protests since 2010, one in Portland and one in Washington, both had about 50-100 people show up. Democratic Socialism, Libertarian Socialism and Marxism are all far larger, the main sections where ML parties are the main form of leftism are mostly in Marxist-Leninist run states. This doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages at all.

"According to its supporters, the gradual transition from capitalism to socialism was signified by the introduction of the first five-year plan and the 1936 Soviet Constitution."

POV pushing text, it does not mention the failures of the 5 year plan, all of which completely failed at achieving its goals. The mention that Marxist-Leninist states were all corrupt bureaucratic states, it just states Marxist-Leninist ambitions stated by Marxist-Leninist leaders, but goes into no detail of the practice of Marxist-Leninists.

"Marxism-Leninism is the synthesis of Vladimir Lenin's contributions to Marxism" Completely subjective and also disputed by Orthodox Leninists, this is written from a Marxist-Leninist perspective, this is what Marxist Leninists think not an actual fact. Also no mention of how Lenin distanced himself from Stalin and openly rejected him multiple times, and that Lenin's ideology differed from what Stalin made a acceptable section would be "Marxist Leninist's claim that Marxism-Leninism is a form of Leninism and Marxism, despite this Lenin openly distanced himself from Stalin and orthodox Leninists reject Marxist-Leninists"

"As a theoretical instrument of analysis of reality, it is a guide to action, which is constantly renewed to respond to new phenomena, situations, processes and developing trends. Marxism-Leninism is a conception of the world that includes the dialectical method as a method of analysis." Gibrish that is completely divorced from reality, this belongs is some of the most blatant Marxist-Leninist propaganda. Marxist-Leninism is an ideology formulated by the brutal dictator Stalin, it is generally considered a totalitarian leftist ideology that is based off the forced collectivization of property. Marxist-Leninism isn't the scientific method, this is nonsense. I would not be surprised if you edited things relating to the DPRK stating that North Korea was a democratic wonderland. In fact you have made multiple POV pushing sections on Juche, all of which have been reverted. Vallee01 (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

KIENGIR Check this out - https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User%3ABunnyyHop%2Fsandbox&type=revision&diff=990788052&oldid=990780189 - it's from when I first started editing the article until its final version. The reason of some deletions is explained on the history section of the main article (not every change is mine - some editors have also made changes between my edits) I might make some changes based on your request (I've done some editing after that, so I have updated the link to compare the first with the final version).

Vallee01, your objection is based on an extreme personal POV. A NPOV (neutral, unbiased) article is an article that complies with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy by presenting fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources (N.B.: not all views held by editors or by the general public). This is especially important for the encyclopedia's treatment of controversial issues, where there is often an abundance of viewpoints and criticisms of the subject. In a neutral representation, the differing points of view are presented as differing points of view, not as widely accepted facts. Despite knowing this, if you want to go ahead, I suggest you to open a ticket on the according board.

"this is written from a Marxist-Leninist perspective, this is what Marxist Leninists think not an actual fact" The source for that claim is from this Academic Dean "https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/author/tom-lansford"

"The most prominent in the communist movement around the world.". As the source says, by 1985, one-third of the world's population lived under a Marxist–Leninist system of government in one form or another. Today, the country with the largest population is a Marxist-leninist republic. To say this is not prominent (According to wiktionary, "standing out, or projecting; jutting; protuberant" "likely to attract attention from its size or position") is to not have a NPOV. For the rest, you simply do not provide sources and discredit the academic ones. Also, the first, second, and forth citations were made by Davide King (IIRC, might be from another editor) and not me.

"made multiple POV pushing sections on Juche, all of which have been reverted." This is completely unrelated and I was not gonna reply, but I felt the need to point out that this is a lie.

Do we have consensus for this now? BunnyyHop (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

We all need to calm down. BunnyyHop, no, there is no consensus for that, which is the Marxist–Leninist POV, which would be fine to add if it was widely reported in non-primary sources, but I appreciate your attempts. On the other hand, I think Vallee01 is pushing a POV in the opposite direction; if BunnyyHop may well be a Marxist–Leninist, Vallee01 is an anarchist. For one, I do not see what was wrong with the paragraph "Marxist–Leninists respond to this type of criticism by highlighting the ideological differences in the concept of freedom and liberty." This is not cited to Lenin or other primary sources; it is actually sourced to the peer-reviewed Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. BunnyyHope, this is the kind of sources I am talking about; there are more nuanced, academic sources about Marxism–Leninism, so we do not need to cite communist party or other primary sources like Lenin or Mao. Misplaced Pages is not a memorial and we are not here to emphasise how bad Communism was; we are here to report what academics and scholars say, which in my view will speak for itself. While I disagree with BunnyyHope's edits and I suggest them to not edit warring again, I think the article gives too much weight to anti-communist scholars like Service et al. when Ellman, Getty, Fitzpatrick et al. would greatly improve NPOV.

Let me be clear that both of those scholars actually agree on many facts and things, but they disagree on certain interpretation and it is mainly Service et al. that blame most of it to communist ideology or argue that it was totalitarian (no one dispute that it was authoritarian or non-democratic, but authoritarianism is not the same thing as totalitarianism); and totalitarianism is more of a Cold War concept that "gained prominence in Western anti-communist political discourse during the Cold War era as a tool to convert pre-World War II anti-fascism into post-war anti-communism", with one scholar noting that "totalitarianism is a useful word, but that the old 1950s theory about it is defunct among scholars." Getty et al. are by no means pro-Communism. On the other hand, Service et al., including Holland whom I cited and added myself, are anti-communists, meaning they are not only opposed to Communism (the Communist states) but also to small-c communism, theorising that communism, like socialism, is always going to result in mass killings. This does not mean they should not be used at all, but we should not base a controversial article like this one only on them, especially as the Soviet and Communist studies field is controversial and politicised.

This article would greately improve its NPOV if we incorporate those other legitimate scholars. Finally, Vallee01 insist that the Holodomor was genocide but while some governments may have recognised it as such, there is no agreement among scholars and, as noted here by Buidhe, "olitical recognition or non-recognition is not relevant to whether an even meets the legal definition of genocide since governments can call any event genocide." I also believe The Four Deuces said it best "his section reads more like criticism of Communism than criticism of Marxism-Leninism." Finally, to be perfectly clear once again, I am critical of it and of Communist states, whose actions have done more to damage the socialist movement more than anything. However, the is no need to report only the anti-communist view or the view of some scholars (Service et al.) while ignoring that of others (Getty et al.). Davide King (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I think @BunnyyHop: that maybe you need to find some more sources that say almost what your trying to put and show them to us and that are less Marxist–Leninist POV.Isabella Emma (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Fourth break

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

@BunnyyHop: It's looking good so far I like how you're getting sources that are academic like Britannica and your version does show the atrocities committed by (Marxism–Leninism).Isabella Emma (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop The entirety of the article barely even mentions atrocities, it has POV pushing sections, it constantly down plays Marxist-Leninist failures, massacres. In sum your sandbox reads like Marxist-Leninist manifesto, it deals in the theoretical of what a Marxist-Leninist dictator would state in a manifesto, it constantly talks on how Marxists-Leninists beleive, but rarely talk about how Marxist-Leninists states worked in practice, the few times it does it is nearly glowing, the issue isn't that there the occasional sentence talking on how Marxist-Leninists successes, it nearly is all glowing propaganda. It also lacks pretty much any scholarly citations, and doesn't have enough to be verifiable. I do agree with Davide King that the criticisms should read as a criticisms of Marxist-Leninism not communism however, and possibly specific sections can be shortened. This should be about issues with Marxist-Leninism and its atrocities not communist ones. BunnyHop almost none of the things in your sandbox is neutral and thereby is unacceptable on Misplaced Pages. Sidenote, Misplaced Pages articles are written in an encyclopedic wording something that your writing is struggling with and also has a specific system for citations always put them after a periode. Wrong: Marxist-Leninist often times lacked soup and were authoritarian . Correct: Marxist-Leninist often times lacked soup and were authoritarian . In your sandbox there is constant inconsistent citations in which the reference was put before the period, that's not how you format things. Make a specific change to the article and propose that, instead of an entire article. Vallee01 (talk) 02:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I overviewed the diff provided, the are serious trimming in the Analysis sections which I disagree, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: I have copied the current analysis section and pasted there, changing only two or three minor things.

@Vallee01: The two citations that were breaking that rule were fixed. Also, those things are concretely mentioned within the article, and are also groupped together in the analysis section. Not to mention the succinct version of it in the overview. If you believe some sections are not written in a NPOV way propose changes or add the "" template. There is only one direct citation to Lenin, one that builds off of a previous, academic, one. The rest is properly referenced.

@Isabella Emma: Thank you! I did even more changes. Do you think it's in a good state to be published in the main page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BunnyyHop (talk • contribs) 12:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop, I do not think so because there is no consensus, so I suggest you to not always ask that when it is obvious there is no consensus, but assuming good faith I hope you do not get discouraged and that you continue editing, perhaps starting with much less controversial articles and doing some copy-editing rather than boldly changing the lead; I suggest you to read policies and guidelines, and continue to work on the sandbox. After all, no article start with a good article status and it is a process of collaboration that builds it, so perhaps some of your suggestions may be copy-edited, further improved and incorporated in the future if they are due and are supported by reliable sources, but so far there does not seem to be consensus for them. Davide King (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, thanks for the answer. My main problem with the article isn't the article itself but the lead, in which 7 out of 21 lines is criticism. It's not neutral and goes against the guidelines I mentioned earlier. I instead made a succinct paragraph about main features of ML based on sources you published and some others. I'll wait for the other editors to express what their concerns are to incorporate into my sandbox. BunnyyHop (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

That seems to be a fairer criticism. I believe The Four Deuces had a point here, here and here, so I hope they can comment further. They are especially good at looking the scholar literature and whether something is due or supported by scholarship, certainly better than me, therefore I think their comment about what scholarship about the subject actually says would be very helpful. We should not present only one side of historiography, especially when the field is so politicised and controversial, or present interpretations as facts. My understanding is scholars generally agree on the events, hence "no one is trying to downplay Stalinist crimes", but they disagree on the interpretation and this is especially important and relevant since it is mainly one side that blames it all on the ideology, or that it falsely implies mass killings are an essential objective of socialism, broadly defined. Davide King (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, regarding "it constantly down plays Marxist-Leninist failures, massacres" and "the criticisms should read as a criticisms of Marxist-Leninism not communism however, and possibly specific sections can be shortened", I agree. The problem is that it is mainly one side of historiography that especially emphasises them, so you cannot have it both ways, when it is people like Service that emphasise deaths under Communist regimes and blame Communism, even small-c communism, for it. Do not get me wrong, scholars actually agree they all took place and were tragedies but they disagree on some interpretation of them, including whether Communism was to blame for them all and whether it was the main culprit, giving other explanations other than "blame it all on communism and the government." As an example, Sheila Fitzpatrick's groundbreaking work on Stalinism such as Everyday Stalinism and Stalin's Peasants is not relied on at all. Davide King (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I would point out the article is about Marxist-Leninist ideology rather than about Communist government. What weight we should give to that should be based on reliable secondary and tertiary sources such as Soviet Marxism-Leninism By comparison the article Catholic theology doesn't mention the Crusades, slavery, collaboration with the Nazis or the abuse of children by priests. TFD (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

This article details both the implementation, policies, government and theory of Marxist-Leninism, and the theory of Marxist-Leninism and the implementation of Marxist-Leninism are inseparable. Soviet ideology is inherently linked to the failure of Soviet policies. You can't attempt to write about Stalin's ideas without talking about Stalin's implementation of those ideas. Marxist-Leninist states can constitute a form of capitalism from an academic sense, that Marxist-Leninist engaged in imperialistic and expansionist policies all of which are utterly important to understanding Marxist-Leninism. The way Marxist-Leninism is practiced as an ideology is extremely, we need to write about that, the way Marxist-Leninism was implemented which is directly related to it's theory. If we talk about Marxist-Leninist ideology we also thereby need to discuss the results, governments etc... The theory of Soviet is inherently connected to the results of Soviet style economy. If you are going to mention Marxist-Leninist policies which it obviously should. it is impossible to separate Marxist-Leninist atrocities from Marxist-Leninist policies or theory because Marxist-Leninist atrocities are simply Marxist-Leninist policies. The atrocities of Marxist-Leninism was guided and executed because of Marxist-Leninist ideology. The two are impossible to separate. Joseph Stalin and his mass killings can not be separated. The fact that the Soviet Union was able to industrialize so quickly is largely because forced, unjust, and inhumane slave labour, so if you mention the rapid industrialization of the USSR, you need to mention the Gulag system, see how they are connected? If you discuss politics in the USSR you need to discuss Stalin's purges which usually was the guiding principle of Soviet politics that being a fear of Stalin.

Fascism as an example is inherently linked to its genocidal and brutal policies, as such Marxist-Leninism is inherently linked to theory, policies which guided authoritarian measures. The Soviet Union, Mao's China and the Eastern block are all inherently connected to their actions, their policies, governments and implementation. So on and so forth. Which is usually built upon brutal policies on both their economy and government. So you need to write about those mass killings, government, deportation etc... because they were some of the most important Marxist-Leninist policies. Marxist-Leninist policies and theory and Marxist-Leninist atrocities are both inherently connected, you cannot separate them. Vallee01 (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I hope The Four Deuces can respond you, too, because they are more concise and clear, but I would note that Fascism makes no mention of criticism in the lead and there is not an actual criticism of fascism the same way we have criticism of communist party rule, criticism of Marxism and criticism of socialism.

In addition, I am not sure scholars actually say what you wrote; there are some scholars that undoubtedly link all those policies not only to Marxism–Leninism but to communism itself, so this seems to be a bit of wanting the cake and eat it too, where you want this article to emphasise all this when not even Fascism does that (there are only few mentions of the Holocaust) but then you wrote "the criticisms should read as a criticisms of Marxist-Leninism not communism however, and possibly specific sections can be shortened. This should be about issues with Marxist-Leninism and its atrocities not communist ones."

But anti-communist scholars do exactly that and emphasise the atrocities precisely to blame them all on communism and in general it is mainly those same scholars who support what you wrote above, although they may actually take a more nuanced position than what you exposed; even Conquest did not lump all mass killings under Communist regimes together or as part of a Communist death toll. I agree it was a backward regime that became a capitalist one, rather than socialist as summarised here and here by The Four Deuces, but the same anti-communist scholars who emphasise this say it was socialist; indeed, it is mainly anti-communist scholars and Marxist–Leninist themselves who agree it was socialist, albeit for completely opposed reasons.

Either way, we should actually look at what literature and scholarly consensus say. The work given by The Four Deuces would be a start to establish weight; if something is not mentioned in the literature, we should probably not mention it either. So far, I found no mention of the Holodomor and only one reference to famines at p. 22 describing how "he Soviet state struggled for survival in nightmarish conditions", including "world war, civil war, foreign intervention, economic ruin, famine, and finally, massive unrest among the Russian workers and peasants themselves." Davide King (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Fifth break

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

For starters you need to make clear what is to change. You are using your version, not the base of the article, so it's hard to see what you are saying. Your current edit just completely removes the massacres, and other things committed by such states.

BunnyyHop where does the section "consists of cherry picked historical events to establish a very well-defined POV on the viewer before reading the article." Where is the NPOV breaker? You can't just state it isn't a NPOV without actual evidence. You seem to take issue not with anything in the article, but instead the simple fact that the paragraph states Marxist-Leninist atrocities. I do agree Davide King in rewording it, perhaps cutting it down. BunnyyHop is there is unilatiral consensious amougst scholars of Marxist-Leninist attrocities, there is no way you can try to twist this. I agree in rewording it, but your issue with the article isn't the wording, your issue with the article is that it even mentions Marxist-Leninist genocides and massacres, that it even states political repressions or otherwise committed under such states. You seem to only find issue that the article even states Marxist-Leninist's atrocities.

"Marxism–Leninist philosophy has been criticised by a broad political spectrum both on the left and right. Marxist–Leninist rule has been especially criticised, including by other socialists such as anarchists, communists, democratic socialists, libertarian socialists and Marxists. Marxist–Leninist states have been described as authoritarian, or accused of being totalitarian, for enacting repressions and killings of political dissidents and social classes (so-called "enemies of the people"), religious persecution, ethnic cleansing, forced collectivisation and use of forced labor in concentration camps. Such states have been accused of genocidal acts in China, Poland and Ukraine. Anti-Stalinist left and other left-wing critics see it as an example of state capitalism and have referred to it as a "red fascism" contrary to left-wing politics. Other leftists, including Marxist–Leninists, have criticised it for its repressive state actions while recognising certain advancements such as egalitarian achievements and modernisation under such states. The socio-economic nature of Marxist–Leninist states has also been much debated, varyingly being labelled a form of bureaucratic collectivism, state capitalism, state socialism, or a totally unique mode of production."

"And the most prominent in the communist movement around the world." Again this subjective and also not correct, it is a large ideology but it mostly is because of Marxist-Leninist states, if we look at electoral results, Marxist-Leninist parties do extremely poorly compared to other communist parties. As well as this if we take the protest movement, of what people beleive anarchism almost always is able to mobilize a biiger base. As previously that depends upon the place. Marxist-Leninism is non-existent in the United States while ideologies such as anarchism are far larger. It is major ideology but it most certainly isn't the largest, even if it was it wouldn't justify this. Vallee01 (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01

"For starters you need to make clear what is to change." The lead has been changed to be descriptive of the principles of the ideology and neutral and the "criticism paragraph" is moved down to the overview due to its nature.

"You are using your version, not the base of the article, so it's hard to see what you are saying." I did not use my version of the article, I made a copy of the base article, published it, and then reverted it with the proposed changes.

"Your current edit just completely removes the massacres, and other things committed by such states." I have kept that section intact and moved it to the overview. I have not altered anything in that paragraph, although the article I'm working on has that section adjusted to its sources and more neutral - to include the whole analysis and not just its criticism.

"Again this subjective and also not correct, it is a large ideology but it mostly is because of Marxist-Leninist states, if we look at electoral results, Marxist-Leninist parties do extremely poorly compared to other communist parties" This article is about Marxism-Leninism, not communist movements in the US. And even then, you would have to back that up with academic sources, since the Party for Socialism and Liberation seems to be growing. Marxism-Leninism is the most prominent communist ideology in the commmunist movement, historically or in the present- "by 1985, one-third of the world's population lived under a Marxist–Leninist system of government in one form or another". Today, China - the biggest ML state in the world - occupies around 18.47% of the world population. Vietnam - 1.25%. Laos 0.09%, Cuba 0.15% and Nepal 0.37% (which is not a Marxist-Leninist republic but is ruled by a communist party). This makes it the most prominent according to ], but I want to hear what other editors what to say about this.

This seems to be a point where almost all editors agree AFAIK. It's a measure to increase the NPOV of the article while we discuss other stuff. BunnyyHop (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop The changes you want is to change the lead, to remove sections on mass killings. You removed the entire section and changed "one of the major" to "one of the major and main communist movement." an extreme case of POV. You also rephrasing attempting to get Marxist-Leninism better, you tried removing these sections 8 times. You have no consensus on this, nobody has ever stated they support your position on removing the section, and no not responding doesn't constitute support. I agree on rephrasing it, and even that seems contraversal. Nobody wants but you wants to nuke the entire section. BunnyyHop none of your edits have followed a NPOV, that's why all of them have been reverted. Vallee01 (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, I have moved the section, not removed it. Check more carefully this time. Saying it's the most prominent is not a POV, no other communist ideology has been able to achieve the amount of influence Marxist-Leninism has and had - not even close. The number of people who had lived, and live in ML societies speaks for itself. Other non-marxist communist ideologies such as anarcho-communism have not been able to establish one mass society, and other non-communist ideologies such as anarchism and related, historically, they have only had two short-lived experiences and one ongoing project in some parts of the Mexican state of Chiapas whose population is of 5 million people. This is of course not to mention the amount of ML parties who are politically relevant in all continents. BunnyyHop (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Marxist-Leninism has almost no support in the US, it is major but not the most prominent and most certainly in most of the world. BunnyyHop there has been a total of 2 "mass protests" by Marxist-Leninists in the US, one in Portland and one in Los angles. The others have been protests in which 5-10 people showed up. There has been hundreds of anarchists protests every year, in every city. There is a non-existent Marxist-Leninist movement in the US just like much of the world, the PSL got a couple thousand votes about 0.001% of the vote despite being open to 30% of the population in which people wrote a name. Anarchists during the George Floyd Protests were able to mobilize tens of thousands to risk their lives to protest and created an entire government in Seattle, dominated discourse in the US for 2 months. Dominate the discussions after the 2016 election, dominate discussions during Unite the Right, and create vibrant communities in the US. There is almost no support for Marxist-Leninists in the US, they completely fail at picking up any traction, they have consistently failed at organizing effectively at all. This can be seen simply with US pop culture, you will find almost nothing of mass importance built on Marxist-Leninism. You would be hard pressed not to find some anarchist references or undertones in much of US culture, weather it be the Punk movement something that defined the 80s, the 1999 WTO protest, opposition to George Bush, Green day, Against me, Donald Trump constant talk of "anarchist thugs," The Disrupt J20 movement, George Floyd protests, the radical feminist movement. Marxist-Leninism has done none of that, because nobody would ever want to support China, the USSR, or any other failed authoritarian states. The same applies to France were Marxist-Leninists are present but completely overshadowed by anarchists during protests. The UK has as well as near non-existent Marxist-Leninist party but yet anarchists are constantly able to mobilize a mass movement. In Spain, anarchists alsodominate much of the protests. Despite this, it should not be replaced with "The main form" that is subjective to the region and country. TLDR, BunnyyHop your edits aren't constructive, and all your edits do not fit Misplaced Pages guidelines for a NPOV. Vallee01 (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Sixth break

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

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

Davide King I agree. If the entire section needs to be rephrased and would be fine with moving the section into its own paragraph. Currently the article if formatted in a strange way. It goes: Theory -> Practice -> Criticisms. Instead in my opinion each paragraph should detail about everything. Detailing Marxist-Leninist theory, then detailing Marxist-Leninist actions. The article Fascism doesn't have a specific section on criticisms in the lead but it does mention atrocities while discussing the policies. I think the best solution would move the entire criticisms section, or leave it as 2-3 sentences. The current wording has ballooned in size, it use to be a 2-3 line sentence about Marxist-Leninist atrocities but has now ballooned in size. Instead Marxist-Leninist actions should be merged into the article. Example: "Marxist-Leninist states industrialized rapidly largely based off a system of collectivization and forced labour" under this system both the Gulag system is stated, and Marxist-Leninist industrialization. You are clearly a tireless editor, and I am fully fine with you changing the lead. I think your changes will be beneficial to the article. Vallee01 (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Marxism–Leninism is one of the main ideologies of the communist movement around the world. Marxism-Leninism is the synthesis of Vladimir Lenin's contributions to Marxism. Today, Marxism–Leninism is the official ideology of the ruling parties of China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam as unitary one-party socialist republics, and of Nepal in a people's multiparty democracy system. Historically, it was the official state ideology of the Soviet Union and other ruling parties of the Eastern Bloc as well as the Communist International after Bolshevisation.

After the death of Vladimir Lenin in 1924, Marxism–Leninism became a distinct philosophical movement in the Soviet Union when Stalin and his supporters gained control of the party. It rejected the common notions among Western Marxists of world revolution, as a prerequisite for building socialism, in favour of the concept of socialism in one country. According to its supporters, the gradual transition from capitalism to socialism was signified by the introduction of the first five-year plan and the 1936 Soviet Constitution. The internationalism of Marxism–Leninism was expressed in supporting revolutions in other countries (e.g. initially through the Communist International or through the concept of socialist-leaning countries after de-Stalinisation). By the late 1920s, Stalin established ideological orthodoxy among the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), the Soviet Union and the Communist International to establish universal Marxist–Leninist praxis. In the late 1930s, Stalin's official textbook History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) (1938) popularised the term Marxism–Leninism among communists and non-communists.

Marxism-Leninism is based on the philosophical theory of dialectical and historical materialism. The goal of Marxism-Leninism the revolutionary overcoming of capitalism and the building of the a socialist society, to ultimately reach communism. This revolution is led by a vanguard party, and in order to achieve the two-phase transformation of the state, the vanguard party establishes the dictatorship of the proletariat (opposed to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie) as an one-party system whose policies and hierarchy are organized through democratic centralism, where leaders must be elected by the people and it's entailed a democratic and open discussion on policy, on the condition of unity in upholding the agreed-upon policies. Marxist–Leninists generally support internationalism and oppose capitalism, fascism, imperialism and liberal democracy.

Third paragraph moved to the end of the analysis section as a placeholder until a better version of it with due weight to both POVs is done

Colleagues, Davide King, Vallee01, The Four Deuces, KIENGIR, Isabella Emma, Asarlaí, do we have a consensus for this? --BunnyyHop (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop For the final time, no. When there is consensus there is consensus you just want to remove the parts detailing genocides. Your edits aren't positive for the article. Vallee01 (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, once again, there is no removal of such parts. --BunnyyHop (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop is right, they did not remove that; they moved it at Overview, which seems to be a better way to put it, where we can go in more detail and give a bit of more context and background than the currently-worded third paragraph in the lead, which is unprecedented for other similar politics-related article. As noted by The Four Deuces, this article is supposed to be about the ideology, so we should just make a summary of criticism and not put it in the lead; for the criticism, we already have Criticism of communist party rule and a whole bunch of Communist-related articles that in many ways are coatracked articles. We already discuss the events in the body such as the Great Purge ("Political developments in the Soviet Union included Stalin dismantling the remaining elements of democracy from the party by extending his control over its institutions and eliminating any possible rivals") and repressions ("Organised religion was repressed, especially minority religious groups"). I am still unsure about the rest of BunnyHop's edits and whether I can find better sources such as the one given by The Four Deuces but it seems we agree the criticism should be moved or reworded, so I will try to do that and see what you think. Davide King (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Davide King the current article is formatted in a way in which it deals extremely heavily with theory leaving any mention of Marxist-Leninist actions, and then goes into criticisms, instead the section should be melded together. The historic importance of Marxist-Leninist atrocities isn't stated in the lead, it states it at the very end these things. Instead it should be melded together as stated above. I do also think it should be reworded. State what you would like to do. Vallee01 (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Seventh break

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

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

Davide King My issue with the article is mentions the industrialization of the Soviet Union but it does not mention how that was achieved. Marxist-Leninist attrocities . Are you stating you should remove even mentioning Marxist-Leninist attrocities. To state to not include the atrocities of Marxist-Leninist states, most of which are well documented by scholars, something that is built upon most Marxist-Leninist states is impossible. If you mention the Soviet Union, or Joseph Stalin, or Vladimir Lenin it is impossible to seperate. I think you can tie them both in. So you can state Marxist-Leninist rapid industrialization but you also need to mention that it was built on forced hoarding, bueracracy, and Gulags, all of which play an extremely important role in that industrialization.

Indeed Fascism makes no mention of the Holocaust, however Fascism is a much more broad ideology then simply Nazism. Nazism however does mention the Holocaust extremely clearly because Nazism is defined by those events. Fascism doesn't inheirently need to rascist, you could theoretically be fascist and not beleive in Eugenics its not a defining charcteristic of Fascism. Nazism however is defined by the Holocoast, it is defined by likewise Marxist- I said it once and I will state it again. This isn't about Communism it is about Marxist-Leninism. Fascism is a broad, far-right, reactionary ideology, it is possible to be Fascist and despise Nazism. Using the academic definition we can define many Fascists as Jewish, Black, Slavic, Asian, Arab, that all despise Nazi Germany.

Likewise many, if not most communist ideologies despise Marxist-Leninism, Democratic socialism, Libertarian Socialism, Anarchism, Orthodox Leninism, Council communism, Marxism, Trotskyism all of these ideologies that are considered a form of communist. In fact all of these supporters of these ideologies were hunted in the Soviet Union and massacred by the Soviet Union. Communism isn't defined by Marxist-Leninism, many communists were brutalized by the USSR as an example the socialist union Solidarity in Poland, that was put down by the Soviets, anarcho-communist dissidents in the USSR, the socialist revolution in Hungary. Marxist-Leninism however is defined by Stalin, it is defined by authoritarianism, it is defined by Lenin and the Soviet Union. If you are a Marxist-Leninist you also by that very nature need to support Stalin, you must at least tastily support or at least tolerate Marxist-Leninist atrocities. I hope I made myself clear. Attempting to create a neutral article on Marxist-Leninism while not mentioning Marxist-Leninist atrocities, or authoritarianism is simply not possible. The entirety of the Soviet Union, and Mao's China was built upon these policies. Here is something I think should be done for the better of the article.

Example:

"After the death of Vladimir Lenin in 1924, Marxism–Leninism became a distinct movement in the Soviet Union when Stalin and his supporters gained control of the party. It rejected the common notions among Western Marxists of world revolution, as a prerequisite for building socialism, in favour of the concept of socialism in one country. According to its supporters, the gradual transition from capitalism to socialism was signified by the introduction of the first five-year plan and the 1936 Soviet Constitution. The five year plans were built upon the idea of rapid industrialization, and high production quotes. The optimism of the plan, along with Soviet mismanagement and incompetence resulted in the failure to acheive their objectives. Workers were often payed little and Soviet need for cheap labour would be subsidised with use of forced labour, through the Gulags in which perceived Soviet enemies were held, often in brutal conditions. The Soviet need for industrial equipment led to crops being sold abroad. Along with a bad weather, famine and starvation became common in the Soviet Union throughout the 1930s. The worst hit area of the famine was in Ukraine, in which millions of Ukrainians would starve called the Holodomor. It is debated by scholars if the Holodomor constitutes a genocide, however Soviet mismanagement and hoarding of food is at least partially resposible for creating a man made famine. Despite the failures of the Soviet failures the economy still went through a rapid stage of industrialization The socio-economic nature of Marxist–Leninist states, especially that of the Soviet Union under the Stalin era, has been much debated, varyingly being labelled a form of bureaucratic collectivism, state capitalism, state socialism, or a totally unique mode of production."

Obviously the section should not be changed word for word, but that gives a general idea for what I think would best for the article it mentions Soviet Industrialization while mentioning the Gulag system, and other things. As well including. It of course has no sources, however this is just a basic idea for what I think is the best for the article. Thanks.

Vallee01 (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I express again I don't see any "almost unanimous consensus". As well, by a short time, such an amount of charachters flood this page that is hardely follow in a timely manner, I see only possible some short steps.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC))

Vallee01 You seem to have a circular logic that Because Stalinism is Marxism-Leninism, Marxism-Leninism is Stalinism. It's not. All those things you mention, it being factual or not, we can simply put all those down by looking at the other 29 Marxist-Leninist states that existed and exist (not counting the republics of the USSR) and are not even close to Stalininism, or even at the USSR during other period than that of Stalinism, marked mainly by the second world war.

"My issue with the article is mentions the industrialization of the Soviet Union but it does not mention how that was achieved." It does mention how many scholars view the industrialization of the USSR.

"if not most communist ideologies despise Marxist-Leninism" Editor's POV.

"socialist union Solidarity in Poland" legalised in 80.

"Communism isn't defined by Marxist-Leninism" The same way Marxism-Leninism isn't defined by Stalinism.

"If you are a Marxist-Leninist you also by that very nature need to support Stalin, you must at least tastily support or at least tolerate Marxist-Leninist atrocities" Editor's POV, no weight.

"Attempting to create a neutral article on Marxist-Leninism while not mentioning Marxist-Leninist atrocities, or authoritarianism is simply not possible" Once again, no one is trying to remove such things.

"This isn't about Communism it is about Marxist-Leninism. Fascism is a broad, far-right, reactionary ideology, it is possible to be Fascist and despise Nazism". Editor's POV, no weight.

Breaking it down, we can see your objection is only based on your personal opinion that Marxism-Leninism is the ideology of "devil incarnate" himself, Joseph Stalin, so therefore Marxism-Leninism is mainly defined by what happened in the 30s and 40s in the union of soviet socialist states. This might be the view of anticommunist blog writers, but it's not the view of academics and therefore should not be included in Misplaced Pages WP:V.

Having criticism in the lead is simply not a good idea. The very nature of criticism makes it very hard to summarize - and that's something we can see here, the editor proposes the worse crimes committed by Stalin to be included in the lead and has suppressed multiple times any attempt to give due weight to other views by claiming it's supposed to be a "short". Even in articles that are not very controversial, they do not do this for the very reason stated in the lead page I sent earlier. Davide King, shall I open a dispute in the NPOV Board to sort this out? Other editors have expressed their concern about this, and it also goes against the guidelines if we follow them as written. --BunnyyHop (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, I have a question about the political dissent question. In the peer-reviewed book, in the Stalinist category it mentions "The tolerance of debate and dissent within the Communist Party eroded rapidly, especially in the circumstances of the Civil War in Russia". Later, it says that in Stalin's synthesis the communist party "would suppress counterrevolution". After this, it mentions the criticism of Georgy Lukács, who did very influential works on Leninism, and was one of the leading members of the Hungarian Communist Party - which is Marxist-Leninist. Therefore, the Stalinist approach is contested by Marxist-Leninists, and the book even mentions "Marxist–Leninist ideology as interpreted by Stalin". It also mentions Lenin's last testament, where he had concerns about Stalin taking leadership of the party "Lenin’s so-called 'Last Testament', dictated in December 1922, which had expressed doubts of Stalin’s fitness to lead the Party". A while later, it makes a distinction between the so called "Eastern Bloc" and the third world movement. "Indeed, Marxism–Leninism had a very influential role throughout the old Third World during the twentieth century". In the conclusion, it mentions Krushchev: "Khrushchev explained these as a consequence of Stalin’s personality cult and as a betrayal of Marxism–Leninism, rather than as something inherent in the system". What is being said in the article is not the conclusion drawn by the author. The other source, on page 140, mentions "The collapse of communist party-states in eastern europe", mentioning specifically the USSR before the mid-1980s, where it claims there were employed physical sanctions "against political dissents who denounced Marxism-Leninism".

One for instance, mentions only the USSR and the Stalinist interpretation of Marxism-Leninism, which prominent Leninist philosopher Lukács arguees against. The second one mentions sanctions against "political dissents who denounced Marxism-Leninism" in the USSR.

Thus, I draw a conclusion - these sources do not attribute these qualities to Marxism-Leninism, or as inherent necessary, but rather something that was praticed in the USSR due to the Stalinist interpretation of Marxism-Leninism, which Lukács, as a Marxist-Leninist, does not agree with. Therefore, unless we have the circular logic of "Marxism-Leninism is Stalinism because Stalinism is Marxism-Leninism", it should not be included in the lead. Hence, I proposed the changing of suppress to control, although it might be better if it's in the part of the article referent to Stalinism, because it's not something universal to Marxist-Leninist theory and not something agreed by Marxist-Leninists be it either in theory or in practice (as shown by the earlier sources). "You cannot separate Stalinism from Marxism-Leninism!", well, we can't separate Liberalism from slavery, colonialism, support for Nazifascism, military dictatorships, and so on, but it's not in the lead of the article for a very good reason. In fact, it's not even in the article. --BunnyyHop (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop, I have to agree on this. This article is supposed to be about the ideology, an ideology that "was subject to significant adaptation under various leaders, contrary to the widespread impression that official Soviet ideology remained static after Stalin." In other words, it is not the same thing as Stalinism and we can not limit it to Stalinism and what happened in the Stalin era. By the way, Vallee01, we already say "he socio-economic nature of Marxist–Leninist states, especially that of the Soviet Union under the Stalin era, has been much debated, varyingly being labelled a form of bureaucratic collectivism, state capitalism, state socialism, or a totally unique mode of production", with "bureaucratic collectivism" already saying in just two words what you want to state in a whole paragraph that focus too much on the Soviet 1930s, when this article is about the ideology of one third of the world. We already say this at Stalinism:

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

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

Eighth break

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

Davide King The entirety basis of Marxist-Leninism was formulated by Stalin himself, Stalinism is not Marxist-Leninism however Stalinism. Marxist-Leninism is much more then Stalin but the Soviet system. If we mention the Soviet system, if we need to mention Soviet policies. Marxist-Leninist position is irrelevant. The Soviet Union was built on forced labor. Stalin most certainly should be mentinoid and attrocities in passing. These attrocities are and should be mentinoid, as most of these states were built on them. If you try to mention the Soviet Union while not mentinoing Soviet attrocities is impossible. Vallee01 (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, I believe The Four Deuces had a point here when they wrote "overnments across the political spectrum have engaged in mass killings, but this is the only one that that gives it that level of detail or even mentions it. The topic of the article isn't why Communism is bad but what is their ideology." For the former, we already have Crimes against humanity under communist regimes and Mass killings under communist regimes (both of which are synthesis and do not reflect scholarly literature consensus) as well as Criticism of communist party rule and Stalinism. This focus on Communist killings, with whole articles about it and this level of detail, is unprecedented, when "overnments across the political spectrum have engaged in mass killings." Conservatives have the aristocractic crimes, White terrors, military dictatorshisps and complicity with fascism (no mention of it at Conservatism); liberals have colonialism, genocides, imperialism and slavery (no mention of it at Liberalism); and socialists have the Communist regimes (there is mention of it at Socialism), yet only for socialists, communists and the left in general, which is condemned by those on the right as "prone to mass killings", despite mass killings done in the name of ideologies across the political spectrum, do we have whole articles about criticism and mass killings. For Communist-related articles, we are engaging in Holocaust trivialisation and double genocide theory. This article is about the ideology and we do not mention at Catholic theology "the Crusades, slavery, collaboration with the Nazis or the abuse of children by priests", even though some may argue they were the results of theology. At Capitalism, there is no mention of colonialism, imperialism, racism and slavery, even though they were the results of it rather than relics of feudalism, not even in the body. Davide King (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop, I have to disagree with the removal. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the body and "The socio-economic nature of Marxist–Leninist states has been much debated, varyingly being labelled a form of bureaucratic collectivism, state capitalism, state socialism, or a totally unique mode of production" is already supported in the body and the ref is used for the claim "especially that of the Soviet Union under the Stalin era." That is actually what the ref says, see here at p. 202 (the pages are d Since we say "ccording to its supporters, the gradual transition from capitalism to socialism was signified by the introduction of the first five-year plan and the 1936 Soviet Constitution", we provide other views. Davide King (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if we can get John Morgan, W. (201). "Marxism–Leninism: The Ideology of Twentieth-Century Communism". In Wright, James D., ed. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier. pp. 657–662. and Andrai, Charles F. (1994). Comparative Political Systems: Policy Performance and Social Change. Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe. p. 140. To see what they actually say. Davide King (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, I see your point. According to Morgan, he only mentions China as "...indeed nationalistic state capitalism."

Charles refers to the Eastern Bloc as "bureaucratic-authoritarian regimes" in those two pages.

From what I can see, the author brings to the table the different views of the "contendious" relation of Stalinism with Marxism, Leninism, Bolshevism, (...) and if it's a variant of state capitalism, bureaucratic collectivism (...). So, IMO, while this might be a good phrase to put in a place about Stalinism, I don't think it's good to place it in the lead. BunnyyHop (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop, thanks for providing the quotes. Yet we use those two refs to support the claim of "suppressing and killing political dissidents and social classes." What do those refs say about political dissent? What wording do they use? Do they refer to "suppressing"? Do they use "killing"? As for "socio-economic nature", I think it is fine because we present both the 1930s Marxist–Leninist POV that it was socialism and those disagreeing. While I agree we should not conflate the two and we should not mention the atrocities that were the result of Stalinism which we already mention there, I think it is fine to mention the debates about the "socio-economic nature" since the Soviet model was replicated and/or taken as example and/but revised in most Communist states. Davide King (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, I completely agree. The sources have different POVs - one for instance says that Stalinism "would suppress counterrevolution", the other, refering to the Soviet Union later in the 70s, says "suppress political dissent". I think this might be a problem - while the Soviet Union was the first and one of the most important nations of the 20th century - it's not the sole interpretation and practice of Marxist-Leninist theory. China, for instance, being a Marxist-Leninist country, is different from many aspects of the Soviet Union - and so is Cuba, Vietnam, the previous Marxist-Leninist states in Africa, and so on.

I think the question mainly lies on what we should include on the lead. On "the state would control the economy" it mainly refers to the socialist period of historical development. China claims to achieve full socialism by 2050 and it's a Marxist-Leninist nation, and so is Vietnam. That's why the lead must be short and include the most basic aspects of Marxism-Leninism. Even vanguardism might be questioned - Nepal, for instance, had a communist revolution led by a vanguard party and it's not a one-party state. So I think that when we describe the objectives and characteristics of Marxism-Leninism, we should stick to the basics. We can develop each countries' peculiarities in the Overview. BunnyyHop (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop, I think the whole criticism paragraph should actually be moved as part of the lead of Criticism of communist party rule, where it would be much more relevant. Since that article is specifically about criticism, it is actually due to have it in the lead while adding that scholars disagree on the causes, some blaming the ideology alone, other blaming the ideology and other factors, and so on. Davide King (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Ninth break

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

Davide King, I agree, it's already covered there. But since it's already covered there, shouldn't we use that space to redirect to Socialism with Chinese characteristics instead of "referred to as "nationalistic state capitalism""?BunnyyHop (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

As noted here by The Four Deuces, "e should never insert a link when a term is ambiguous, we should explain it in the article, per technical language." Maybe we may add socialism with Chinese characteristics alongside Hoxhaism, Maoism and Titoism as adaptations and revisions. Davide King (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, let's not redifine again the rules of consensus, which have been discussed especially with you many times. I disagree complete removal, but may agree to move into the body section.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC))

I agree in possibly re formatting the article. I am fine with possibly moving the criticisms. Also atrocities should be stated naturally, scholars agree these atrocities directly helped. There was no consensus of which BunnyyHop was editing he has since been blocked for good reason. He also is a member of the PCP, and isn't here to build an encylopedia. We should restrcuture the third paragraph I agree, and I support possibly moving it. However I think we need more slow changes instead of completely changing the third paragraph. Vallee01 (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no clear consensus on it being in the lead and the onus is on those who added, in this case, if I am not mistaken, Vallee01. One of the sources used in the paragraph is The Spectator, which is not a "generally reliable source", as it "primarily consists of opinion pieces and these should be judged by WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG", and is certainly not lead-worthy. This quotes Andrea Graziosi as stating "n the case of the Holodomor, this was the first genocide that was methodically planned out and perpetrated by depriving the very people who were producers of food of their nourishment (for survival)", but this is just her view and does not represent consensus, on which there is disagreement and even Conquest conceded that "he does not believe that Stalin deliberately inflicted the 1933 famine", Stalin did not "purposely inflicted the 1933 famine" but that he puts Soviet interest first and could, and should have, done more, which is different from saying it was a genocide, "methodically planned"; this is exactly the one-hand extreme at Holodomor genocide question as "man-made, intentional, and genocidal", so we should not use it and just state they have been accused of genocide as we already do. Either way, we should actually verify that Albert & Hahnel 1981, pp. 24–26; Service 2007, pp. 3–6; and Gray & Walker 2009, pp. 303–305 actually support, or use, the wording we use.

Finally, we are supposed to have one main topic fo article; we already have articles about the criticism, where I moved it, so it should not be in the lead since we already say in the same thing, in more detail, in Analysis. Again, not even Fascism has such a criticism in the lead, for God's sake. BunnyyHop did not even remove the paragraph in their sandbox, they simply moved it to overview, which now also have the thumbs up from KIENGIR, who "may agree to move into the body section", which is exactly what BunnyHope did here. We may disagree about other changes they made to the lead, but KIENGIR and I apparently agree to move the paragraph in the body. I think the longer paragraph in Analysis is enough and I have already moved that paragraph at Criticism of communist party rule, but I would agree too to keep it but move it in the body. So can we move that paragraph at Overview? Davide King (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Davide King I siad I agree in moving the third paragraph. You keep being defensive as though . Davide King we can't however never mention Soviet attrocities in the lead. Do you think we shouldn't even mention attrocities at all, do you think the article is best if there is not even a mention of any wrong doings of Marxist-Leninist states? You don't understand though, your proposal in theory is a positive change.

Moving the third paragraph is fine if else where in the article we mention Marxist-Leninist attrocities, we should also mention Marxist-Leninist acheivments as well. We shouldn't give undo weight to Marxist-Leninist attrocities however which is why I suggest merging them into the article. I don't know what your opinions are on Marxist-Leninist states are but that is irrelevant, but surely you agree that Marxist-Leninist attrocities play an important role in Marxist-Leninism. There is no denying Marxist-Leninist states were brutually authoritarian. The Holodomor has debate as to if it was a systemic genocides. Soviet policies excelerated the proccess of suffering, with Soviet exporting food away from the local population to buy industrial equipment. The Irish Potato Famine, has the same story in which British specifically exported food away from the local Irish because of bogus theories on based off social darwinism. The fact that the British did this as well isn't a justification of the Holodomor. Even the Soviet Union in the 1990s stated that Soviet policies made the famine worse and that the Soviets systemically hoarded food, there is no denying this. Vallee01 (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

No one is denying anything and what I think of Communist states is irrelevant, we go by what literature says and the literature is not just about Service and other anti-communist, orthodox, totalitarian model and other names scholars, who are reliable and can be used but not as the only interpretation. We already mention the atrocities in the body and Analysis, so that paragraph should be moved at Overview and it seems we agree on this, so you are making this a bigger issue than it really is. This page is to discuss this article, not other articles. Again, no one is denying anything, but there is Holodomor genocide question for that; while scholars agree Stalin and others were culprit and the government could and should have done more, they disagree on whether it was a genocide and this also depends on the definition of genocide one uses. Genocide usually includes intentionality.

As noted by Alexander Nove, "the majority of those who died in the famine were Ukrainian peasants is not in dispute. But did they die because they were peasants, or because they were Ukrainians? As Conquest himself points out, the largest number of victims proportionately were in fact Kazakhs, and no one has attributed this to Stalin's anti-Kazakh views." Either way, we already discuss the Holodomor at Stalinism and other Communist-related articles and we also already discuss it in Analysis, so what are you complaining about? We already include all this.

We also say "ival ideologies were persecuted and most elections had only one candidate. These were partly a result of Marxist–Leninist ideology and justified as a means of maintaining 'proletarian power'. This was partly an effort to extend state control by homogenising their populations and removing ethnic groups that maintained their 'cultural, political and economic distinctiveness.' Although some non-communist states used forced labor, 'hat was different about communist rulership was the dispatch of people to the camps for no reason other than the misfortune of belonging to a suspect social class.' It was justified by Marxist–Leninist ideology and seen as a means of 'redemption.'" What more do you want? Davide King (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think most of the last paragraph should be interwoven with the rest of the lead. Instead of having a list of criticisms, we should briefly outline how certain bits of the ideology led to certain outcomes. If it was moved somewhere else altogether, almost all of the lead would be about theory and almost none of it would be about how it was implemented. We can't have one without the other. ~Asarlaí 22:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Davide King I agree that the term "genocide" for the Holodomor is possibily is unwaranted. Like the Irish Potato Famine a more universally agreed upon definition is "Man made famine." You come off as defensive, I support most of your proposals, moreo. I completely agree with Asarlaí instead of having an entire section about critisms we can merge discussing both the acheivemnets and attrocities of Marxist-Leninist states, having an entire section about Marxist-Leninist critisms in giving undue weight. Instead we can merge the two. If we can all agree to mention both attrocities and acheivments of Marxist-Leninist states we can immedetly move the third paragraph. I am not as much against you as you think. I am fine with your proposal. Nowhere in the lead does the article go into depth about how or even mention much of the Soviet Union. I actually created the Legacy section of the Soviet Union, and I think that section can be a basis of Marxist-Leninism. It remains neutral telling of rapid industrialization as well as authoritarianism. I see you also added a section discussing the socio-econmics of the Soviet Union, a constructive edit, so thank you.

Here is the section I wrote on the USSR that is able to maintain neutrality by mentioning both authoritanism and industrialization, it has hense been modified by I think Davide King you also added constructive edits, but the base still reamins the same.

The USSR implemented a broad range of policies over a long period of time, with a large amount of conflicting policies being implemented by different leaders. Some have a positive view of it whilst others are critical towards the country, calling it a repressive oligarchy. The opinions on the USSR are complex and have changed over time, with different generations having different views on the matter as well as on Soviet policies corresponding to separate time periods during its history. Leftists have largely varying views on the USSR. Whilst some leftists such as anarchists and other libertarian socialists, agree it did not give the workers control over the means of production and was a centralized oligarchy, others have more positive opinions as to the Bolshevik policies and Vladimir Lenin. Many anti-Stalinist leftists such as anarchists are extremely critical of Soviet authoritarianism and repression. Much of the criticism it receives is centered around massacres in the Soviet Union, the centralized hierarchy present in the USSR and mass political repression as well as violence towards government critics and political dissidents such as other leftists. Critics also point towards its failure to implement any substantial worker cooperatives or implementing worker liberation as well as corruption and the Soviet authoritarian nature. Vallee01 (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

We are talking about the ideology of where one-third of the world's population lived, we can not limit it to the Soviet Union; besides, we already have Stalinism and many other articles, and it is already discussed in the body and even in the lead. I suggest you to read coatrack. Your proposed section has been criticised for original research and synthesis. Remember that Misplaced Pages is about verifiability, not truth, so while no one denies that the event described did not happen, we need to make sure the given sources use that precise wording; and we need to accord it to weight, meaning that "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public." Davide King (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Asarlaí, I disagree. This is done for pretty much most political ideologies, except Communist-related ones. Even for Fascism, we write "uch a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky (national economic self-sufficiency) through protectionist and interventionist economic policies." There is no mention of actual criticism the same way we do here. Again, the article is supposed to have a clear main topic, in this case the ideology. We already have Criticism of communist party rule for the criticism and Mass killings under communist regimes for the events. For how the events were the results of ideology, we have Analysis for that and the role ideology played in the events. Davide King (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

You think that no mention of Marxist-Leninist atrocities? If we mention the Soviet Union we can't not mention Soviet atrocities. As stated much of the Soviet economy was based off forced labour, the gulag system was the basis of this. The bread baskets of the USSR Ukraine. When discussing Marxist-Leninism atrocities will come up naturally. If we mention Soviet industrialization, naturally soviet forced labour will be mentioned. If we are discussing Mao's China, we must be neutral and state policies such as the Great leap forward.

I agree Stalinism should be referenced a few times, but when we reference Stalin, or Mao we need to mention their policies. When we reference Stalinism it's impossible not to mention the elephant in the room, Stalinist atrocities. Stalinist atrocities shouldn't be extremely prominent in the article but it shouldn't be ignored. We already mention Stalin, so why do you oppose adding sections of attrocities of Stalin? Vallee01 (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

"You think that no mention of Marxist-Leninist atrocities? If we mention the Soviet Union we can't not mention Soviet atrocities." This is a straw man and is not even clear what you wrote. What is clear is that we already mention the Soviet Union and Soviet atrocities. We already mention the Stalinist Great Purge. At Industrialisation, we do not mention any of this or any other countries, for we already have Industrialization in the Soviet Union and other country-focused articles. Capital accumulation and industrialisation has been based off forced labour and proto-Gulag such as the British concentration camps, but there is no mention of it at Capitalism or Liberalism. You essentially want this article to be a fork of Maoism and Stalinism, where we already detail all this. Yet, we also already mention the atrocities at Analysis, including the view of those who see communist ideology as culprit; and all of this is moot as we still have the unprecedented criticism paragraph in the lead, so what are you complaining about other than my proposal to move the paragraph in the body?

I suggest you to read Misplaced Pages:Criticism. The current paragraph gives too much emphasis to the criticism ("Do not present the material in a way that over-emphasizes it" and "Always present positive viewpoints along with any negative information to give balance"), which reads more as Criticism of communist party rule and Stalinism rather than Marxism–Leninism. Remember that Khrushchev, Gorbachev and others were Marxist–Leninists too and did not commit anything closer to the Holodomor or the Great Purge, or the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward; indeed, only the Stalin and Mao periods are considered as "totalitarian" in their respective countries; and the xenophobic ideology of the Khmer Rouge regime bears a stronger resemblance to "an almost forgotten phenomenon of national socialism", or fascism, rather than communism. In North Korea, Marxism–Leninism was abandoned after the start of de-Stalinisation in the Soviet Union and has been totally replaced by Juche since at least 1974.

"When presenting negative material, it is often best to name the source of the criticism within the paragraph or sentence, so that the criticism is not presented in the encyclopedia's voice." We state it as fact rather than attribute it to Service et al. I am, of course, not referring to the atrocities, which indeed took place, but to the view communist ideology is culprit according to Service's view but which is stated as fact; and were they authoritarian because they committed atrocities or because the political system was authoritarian and thus made the atrocities easier to happen? We currently seem to imply the first point ("Marxist–Leninist states have been described as authoritarian for suppressing and killing political dissidents and social classes (so-called 'enemies of the people'), religious persecution, ethnic cleansing, forced collectivisation and use of forced labor in concentration camps"), when my reading of sources is that the reverse is true; they committed atrocities because they had an authoritarian political system which made it more likely to happen.

"Political dissidents were deemed to be 'distorting the true path to communism' and repression of social groups was deemed a necessary part of class struggle against the 'exploiting classes.'" This should also be attributed per Misplaced Pages:Attribution: "Although everything in Misplaced Pages must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed. Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Davide King (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Davide King We don't mention much of any Marxist-Leninist atrocities except for the third paragraph which is why the third paragraph should be merged. Your right we don't mention the Holocoust on articles like Fascism. We do so on Nazism. Stop saying I "wanting this article to be a Fork for Maoism or Stalinism," if we mention Stalinism we have to mention Stalin, which natural to mention it's attrocities. Articles like Capitalism has a lead is 1/3rd dedicated of the entire article is based on criticisms, so do you think that should be removed? The article Capitalism according to your logic is "biased" because it even states even more that Capitalism has been criticized.

This article which is much more controversial makes far less mention of criticisms. If we both agree that atrocities should be stated then what's your issue. How am I "contradictory" or making "strawman" for saying that if you mention the Soviet Union you have to mention Soviet atrocities? I understand Marxist-Leninism is much more then Stalinism but when we mention Stalinism, so we need to mention Stalin. We obviously should also mention Krushev, Ho Chi Min, Breshnev, etc... However there is no denying Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist and that he plays a major role in Marxist-Leninism.

I can agree that the criticisms is mostly based around Stalinism and Maoism, so perhaps that can be expanded to include criticisms of Nikita Krushev or Ho Chi Min. I think the main reason the article is formatted the way it is, is due to the fact most criticisms of Marxist-Leninism is mostly directed at Stalin, or Mao. Criticisms of Kruschev, or other Marxist-Leninist leaders exist but are more scarce. So yes you are right about it dealing with only specific Marxist-Leninists but it is still justified we can try to fix it however.

Khrushchev as an example isn't written about his authoritarianism. He implemented multiple anti-stalinist policies. Stalin on the other hand is one of the most infamous dictators in history, and therefor he is criticized much more. So when discussing critisms of Marxist-Leninism we will find much more sources on Stalin. I propose therefor adding: "Most of theses criticisms is dedicated to the regimes of Stalin, and Mao. Other Marxist-Leninist regimes such as Khrushchev and Ho Chi Min receive less criticism."

I want to stress again that articles like Capitalism, Anarchism both mention critims. But your logic is also circular "This article doesn't do this therefor this shouldn't" has no end, it means no article can break from the one base. More importantly plenty of articles deals with criticisms in the lead. But I am in favor of just mentioning critisms naturally. Vallee01 (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The difference is that Anarchism and Capitalism offer a much better, i.e. more concise and neutral, summary of criticism in the lead. Capitalism's lead provides no mention of colonialism, imperialism and slavery, i.e. direct actions during capitalist development, as criticism, or that racism is mainly a development of capitalism used as justification for colonial-imperialism, which is what we should say if we were consistent with this article. Anarchism's lead about criticism is literally one short sentence stating "Criticism of anarchism mainly focuses on claims of it being internally inconsistent, violent and utopian." Perhaps we should do the same for this article and says "Criticism of Marxism–Leninism largely overlaps with criticism of communist party rule, especially the actions of Marxist–Leninist leaders such as Stalin and Mao" while moving the current paragraph at Overview. Can we agree on this? So that we can move on and concentrate on other issues to improve the article. Davide King (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's find then a solution where as well Vallee's and Asarlaí's suggestion is satisfied. Put half of the criticism in the body, while the rest leave and/or interlace with the rest of the lead. This section again starts to be very long.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC))

Davide King Marxism-Leninism is all about creating a state, so it would be senseless not to briefly mention in the lead what those few Marxist-Leninist states had in common. Instead of just outlining the ideology, we need to say what it meant in reality. If the content was removed, the lead would mention "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "vanguard party" but not what this meant: a one-party state which suppressed dissent and repressed certain social classes. It's like mentioning "living space" but not that it meant conquering all of eastern Europe.

We should note the traits Marxist-Leninist states shared and which came from (or were justified by) the ideology: the high degree of state control, political repression, collectivization and work camps, as well as free healthcare, low unemployment etc. I don't think we need to mention famines like the Holodomor in the lead, as there's debate over what caused it, and it's specific to Stalinism.

We should do this by interweaving the content into the rest of the lead, as is done on articles such as Nazism. The lead of Fascism does note what the ideology meant in practice, but it clearly needs expanded so I wouldn't use it as a benchmark. ~Asarlaí 01:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Asarlaí, this article is about the ideology, not Mass killings under communist regimes. In addition, we already link to Democratic centralism, Dictatorship of the proletariat and Vanguardism, so it is up to those articles explaining what they are, that is what wikilink are for; we do mention "one-party socialist republics." The lead should be a summary, not be overtly detailed. We do not mention at Capitalism and Liberalism how in practice both supported colonialism, imperialism and slavery, so there is a double standard. However, I am fine with your proposal to describe "the high degree of state control, political repression, collectivization and work camps, as well as free healthcare, low unemployment etc. I don't think we need to mention famines like the Holodomor in the lead, as there's debate over what caused it, and it's specific to Stalinism." I tried following some of your proposals here while moving and keeping the third paragraph full intact at Overview. Davide King (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Davide King I completely disagree with your edits, the edits don't portray most of the critisms of Marxist-Leninist states. Its completely unconstructive, we need to mention attrocities more clearly. It also doesn't mention most of the critisms. I think the edit has some good ideas possibily. There is no consensous for the edit so I have reverted it. Vallee01 (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, this just seems to be your views; you also cannot readd mpart sof the edits you like when this was my version of the criticism for the lead. KIENGIR stated they may agree to move that section to the body, which I did by moving at Overview, and Asarlaí disagreed with the mention of "famines like the Holodomor in the lead, as there's debate over what caused it, and it's specific to Stalinism", which you re-added. It is your edits that clearly violate coatracking and NPOV. Davide King (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Davide King I re-added your sections with the old one. I agree with all your edits other than the lead. I don't think there should even be a criticisms section. However if we are going to include one the best solution is to merge the two sections:

Marxist–Leninist philosophy has been criticised by a broad political spectrum both on the left and right. Marxist–Leninist rule has been especially criticised, including by other socialists such as anarchists, communists, democratic socialists, libertarian socialists and Marxists. Marxist–Leninist states have been described as authoritarian, or accused of being totalitarian, for suppressing and killing political dissidents and social classes (so-called "enemies of the people"), religious persecution, ethnic cleansing, forced collectivisation and use of forced labor in concentration camps. Such states have been accused of genocidal acts in China, Poland and Ukraine. Anti-Stalinist left and other left-wing critics see it as an example of state capitalism and have referred to it as a "red fascism" contrary to left-wing politics. Other leftists, including Marxist–Leninists, criticise it for its repressive state actions while recognising certain advancements such as egalitarian achievements and modernisation under such states. Criticism of Marxism–Leninism largely overlaps with criticism of communist party rule and mainly focuses on the actions and policies implemented by Marxist–Leninist leaders, most notably Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot. Historians such as Silvio Pons and Robert Servies argue the ideology was culprit for Marxist–Leninist leaders' repressive actions. In practice, Marxist–Leninist states share a high degree of political party and state control, political repression, collectivization and work camps as well as free universal education and healthcare, low unemployment and lower prices for some goods. Historians such as Michael Geyer and Sheila Fitzpatrick propose other explanations for the events and criticize the focus upon the upper levels of society and the use of Cold War concepts such as totalitarianism which have obscured the reality of the system.

Vallee01 (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, now you are really making no sense. You write "I don't think there should even be a criticisms section", but the the lead now devotes half of it to criticism, which violates WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Asarlaí's proposal to mention "the traits Marxist-Leninist states shared and which came from (or were justified by) the ideology: the high degree of state control, political repression, collectivization and work camps, as well as free healthcare, low unemployment, etc." was perfectly fine and what my new summary already did. And no, you can not just take the edits of mine you like and remove the ones you do not like. That summary "Criticism of Marxism–Leninism largely overlaps with criticism of communist party rule and mainly focuses on the actions and policies implemented by Marxist–Leninist leaders, most notably Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot" was based on the understanding the other longer paragraph would be moved at Overview as I did.

Let me remind you that the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body and that paragraph is better for Overview while mine and Asarlaí's summary of it is more adeguate. Let me also remind you that we are not here to show how bad Communism was but to report its ideology. Yes, we should discuss the atrocities but we already do and we should not overemphasise them by giving all the weight to the historians who say the ideology alone was culprit. That paragraph violates NPOV by ignoring the fact scholars disagree on interpretations and not all scholars see the ideology as the main culprit. Davide King (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Davide King I am a leftist. I am not here to "report on how bad communism is," I am a communist. However this has literally nothing to do with the discussion,

Davide King it doesn't mention how Marxist-Leninist states failed to give workers the means of production. It doesn't directly mention atrocities. I myself said I am fine with moving the third paragraph, most stated they support moving the section if atrocities are stated naturally through the lead. Your call to remove the third paragraph was vague, but the specific edit was not constructive. It doesn't mention of even hyperlink mass killings, it doesn't state leftist criticisms. Failures to implement policies. No mention of how these countries were extremely corrupt. The issue with the new re-written section is it doesn't even state political dissidents were killed. It doesn't state the most common criticisms of Marxist-Leninist's states atrocities and it doesn't even mention as single state example it simply states leaders. Vallee01 (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Davide King I usually don't edit before consensus, however you also have been so I have done this bold change, like you. I moved the section of criticisms detailing mass killings and moved it to how Marxist-Leninist states maintain power. The entire criticisms section should merged. As an example, leftist criticisms can be moved towards Marxist-Leninist suppression of leftists. Vallee01 (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, not even Fascism makes such mentions of atrocities or of the Holocaust in the lead because the article is about the ideology and the lead is supposed to be a summary and not be a coatrack for criticism. For the atrocities, we already have Criticism of communist party rule and Mass killings under communist regimes. The paragraph has been simply moved from the lead to Overview, which even KIENGIR stated they "may agree to it." They only opposed removal from the article, but I simply moved it in the first section after the lead and it is now duplicated in both the lead and Overview. Davide King (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Davide King I reverted the article to your last version. If this was the article Communism you are absolutely right atrocities shouldn't be stated. However this is about a specific ideology and much of the discussion of the ideology is directed towards it atrocities. Marxist-Leninist atrocities in scholarly article are dealt with extremely extensively because they are important. Fascism mentions how it is an imperialist anti-democratic ideology. The same is true here. Vallee01 (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Have you even read my actual additions? They show you it is not so easy as you make it about. You also ignore that these scholars you use against Marxism–Leninism do not make any distinction between communism as you intent and communism as it was implemented in practice. Fascism only says "imperialist anti-democratic", here we list all atrocities when we could just "note the traits Marxist-Leninist states shared and which came from (or were justified by) the ideology: the high degree of state control, political repression, collectivization and work camps, as well as free healthcare, low unemployment etc. I don't think we need to mention famines like the Holodomor in the lead, as there's debate over what caused it, and it's specific to Stalinism." Asarlaí proposed this and I implemented it; it is good enough.

So please, stop making the lead a coatrack for criticism, not even Fascism makes this; that paragraph is already at Overview. We have "Criticism of Marxism–Leninism largely overlaps with criticism of communist party rule and mainly focuses on the actions and policies implemented by Marxist–Leninist leaders, most notably Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot. In practice, Marxist–Leninist states share a high degree of political party and state control, political repression, collectivisation and work camps." I have now added also about "Sovietisation and these states tended to follow the Soviet Marxist–Leninist model of five-year plans and rapid industrialisation, including political centralisation and repression.") But seriously, stop moving that paragraph. Davide King (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

We also already say they oppose "liberal democracy" and that they are "one-party" states. Davide King (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Davide King there is clear consensus to merge Marxist-Leninist atrocities into the article. You kept the sections discussing industrialization but removed the section detailing how Marxist-Leninist states remain power. Vallee01 (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, where it is this "clear consensus"? Asarlaí clearly stated "I don't think we need to mention famines like the Holodomor in the lead, as there's debate over what caused it, and it's specific to Stalinism." And no, merging their atrocities in this article is a coatrack because we already have an article for that (Mass killings under communist regimes). Davide King (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Mao's China and the Soviet Union both has sub par health care systems, most Marxist-Leninist states do. This entire section has extreme POV. Again this isn't an argument you can't point to one article and then say that this is how this article should be written. Your sections don't add much, they don't mention the main criticisms of Marxist-Leninism, which is our job. We aren't here to discuss what should be the criticisms of Marxist-Leninism, we state what is Marxist-Leninist criticisms and thus far the entire section doesn't mention even a fraction of Marxist-Leninist criticisms. You are writing what you think should be the criticisms, we write what is the criticisms which you didn't detail at all. If we mention criticisms we mention criticisms, most of which detail extremely repressive policies. Vallee01 (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Put half of the criticism in the body, while the rest leave and/or interlace with the rest of the lead. This section again starts to be very long. KIENGIR

We should do this by interweaving the content into the rest of the lead, as is done on articles such as Nazism. The lead of Fascism does note what the ideology meant in practice, but it clearly needs expanded so I wouldn't use it as a benchmark. Asarlaí.

Attrocities should be stated naturally, Davide king also please calm down. Vallee01 (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

No, "mention the main criticisms of Marxist-Leninism" is not "our job." Our job is to provide a neutral and verified article about the ideology according to reliable and scholarly sources, not presenting any interpretation as fact but to rather attribute it to each author or scholar, as I did at Interpretation. You are conflating this article about the ideology, which already includes plenty of criticism, with Criticism of communist party rule (criticism) and Mass killings under communist regimes (atrocities). Again, we are supposed to have one clear main topic for article and this article should be about the ideology, whose actions make criticism clear and are already criticised in the lead, Overview and Analysis. You are using the lead as coatrack for criticism when it is supposed to be a summary and we do not need to go overtly in details about the events; we can do that at Overview, which we already do. Davide King (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Tenth break

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

I am not being hypocritical, I am being pretty consistent in not mixing topics and coatrack articles. This article is about the ideology, so the main criticism should be about the scholars who say the ideology was the culprit of their repressive actions. We already have Criticism of communist party rule and Mass killings under communist regimes and the events themselves to describe in detail what they did; the lead should simply summarise that some historians see the ideology as the main reason behind the tragic events while other historians provide other explanations for it. Yes, that lead is written by me and guess what? It does mention all that because it is relevant to that article. There is no need to repeat things here, the same way we do not mention the Holocaust at Fascism.

Anyway, I hope we do not have to take this for a dispute resolution, I think the current lead is fine and already a compromise thanks to Asarlaí's edits. So I hope we can focus on something and move on from the lead now. If you at least agree on me the same standard should be applied to Capitalism, Conservatism, Liberalism and Fascism, then try make additions about their atrocities in the lead. You are likely going to be reverted, but you may try if you want to be consistent. All I am asking is consistency, and no double standards, applied to other ideologies, not just to socialist and left-wing ones. Do you even disagree with this?

You claim to be a communist but you do not seem to be aware that "orthodox" and "totalitarian model" scholars, they are not just criticising Marxism–Leninism, they are saying that this was the natural and inevitable result of communist ideology. Hence why, Mass killings under communist regimes says communism and communism, rather than Marxism–Leninism and Marxist–Leninist, and the sidebar used is not Marxism–Leninism, even though the regimes were Marxist–Leninists, but communism. Since you seem to agree with me that there is a clear distinction between (anti-authoritarian and libertarian) communism and Marxism–Leninism, would you agree with me the sidebar should be Marxism–Leninism? I bet you are going to be reverted. I was reverted by KIENGIR at Anti-communism for simply making clear the Communist states and ruling parties were Marxist–Leninists rather than small-c communism or a communist society. You seem to agree with me we should make this distinction more clear, or did I misunderstand you? Davide King (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee has good points and you should not argue in edit logs that No one disputed them on the talk page, since possibly very few read the talk page so far, which is generating an enormous amount of material which won't be read immediately. If these goes on like so, it is likely to consider to introduce an 1RR restriction to the page, so everyone will have enough time.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC))

Davide King why did you remove "ethnic cleansing" from atrocities from criticisms from Marxist-Leninists? I am anti-authoritarian, I also agree Mass killings under communist regimes should be renamed "Mass killings under Marxist-Leninist regimes," it only mentions Marxist-Leninist states. Under the current article it should mention libertarian communist massacres however those are scarce. Under the current article it only mentions Marxist-Leninist atrocities that would fine if Marxist-Leninism was the only socialism tried, but it hasn't. However this should have nothing do with the current discussion. Needing to recognize atrocities is vital to Marxist-Leninism, it shouldn't have anything to do with our biases. Vallee01 (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, what are you referring to? I did not remove anything and "ethnic cleansing" is still in the lead. Then try remove the communism sidebar and change the article name, you will see you are going to be reverted. "Needing to recognize atrocities is vital to Marxist-Leninism" is not what Misplaced Pages is about; Misplaced Pages is not a memorial and we already have an article for the ideology; a Misplaced Pages article is supposed to have only one clear main topic, we are not supposed to mix topics (this one is about the ideology, so we should not repeat things we already say at the article about criticism and mass killings). Misplaced Pages is about "helping to create a world in which everyone can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." Davide King (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Asarlaí did that with these edits and did not include ethnic cleansing. Davide King (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

KIENGIR, then why are you two not arguing for inclusion of the same edits at Fascism? Fascist regimes were also described as authoritarian and totalitarian, suppressed and killed political dissidents, engaged in ethnic cleansing, used forced labour in internment camps, used death camps, started World War II and committed several genocides. Do you disagree fascists did indeed all of this? There is no mention of any of this, or criticism, in that lead; this is whitewashing of fascism. The Holocaust is described in a single mention in the body as "uring World War II, the Axis Powers in Europe led by Nazi Germany participated in the extermination of millions of Poles, Jews, Gypsies and others in the genocide known as the Holocaust." Try adding these same kind of edits to the lead and you are likely going to be revert for criticism coatrack. My point is to show that this article's lead should be like Fascism's and not be a coatrack for criticism and the actions of government which we already discuss elsewhere. Davide King (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I am going to include atrocities in fascism it should be included. I think the lead is perfectly fine now. It needs no more changes. Vallee01 (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Davide King I added a hyperlink to ethnic cleansing however I thought it was removed. I don't know if I had an unstable connection but looking at the history it never went through. You didn't do anything excuse me. I added a section on genocide on Fascism. Vallee01 (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, still no mention of the Holocaust or of criticism in the lead, or how "Fascist regimes suppressed and killed political dissidents, engaged in ethnic cleansing, used forced labour in concentration camps, used death camps, started World War II and committed several genocides" that we use here. Davide King (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Fascism is to broad of a political spectrum to single out a single genocide. Fascism is to broad to describe a single ideology. I think "killed political dissidents" and "engaged in ethnic cleansing" are both possibly constructive. Also it states clearly Fascists engaged in genocides. Vallee01 (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Davide King the section makes notice of genocides. But it needs to broad. "The extreme authoritarianism of fascism usually manifests in some created idea of "purity," or a "master race." This notion of a purity usually is synthesized with some variant of racism or bigotry. The need for "purity" among most fascists usually results in fascists regimes committing massacres, forced sterilization, genocides, or forced deportation against a perceived other.." Vallee01 (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, excuses. Marxism–Leninism is similarly broad. As noted by historians Jens Mecklenburg and Wolfgang Wippermann, a connection between the events in Pol Pot's Cambodia and Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union are far from evident and that Pol Pot's study of Marxism in Paris is insufficient for connecting radical Soviet industrialism and the Khmer Rouge's murderous anti-urbanism under the same category. As also noted by several other scholars, "hether all these cases, from Hungary to Afghanistan, have a single essence and thus deserve to be lumped together—just because they are labeled Marxist or communist—is a question the authors scarcely discuss." Yet, we treat this "lumping" as a fact. Davide King (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Davide King If you are a Fascist you can despise both Hitler and the Nazis, it's not a core element of Fascism. The same applies to communism, most leftists were brutalized under the USSR. If you are a Marxist-Leninist you need to support Lenin. As well as support Stalin's interpretation of Lenin. Support Stalin's core policies like the 5 year plan, and support state socialism. It's not a broad political spectrum. It is very specific. I am also setting up my own peoples front of Judea, that being here. Vallee01 (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, none of this answer the fact I just showed you scholars disagreeing with your view. You are essentially presenting your own POV and interpretation of this ideology as fact. The scholars I quoted above directly contradict your idea that the ideology is not broad. "If you are a Fascist you can despise both Hitler and the Nazis." And if you are a Marxism–Leninism, you can despise Stalin. That is exactly what Khrushchev and Goirbachev did. Soviet Marxism-Leninism: The Decline of an Ideology directly contradicts your claim that "official Soviet ideology remained static after Stalin", arguing that "Soviet Marxism-Leninism was subject to significant adaptation under various leaders", hence it is broad. Um, what should we trust? The POV of an editor or the views of an academic in a book about the topic? Davide King (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Stalin interpretation is the basis of Marxist-Leninism. His policies would shape all other Marxist-Leninist states. Deny that Stalin isn't the basis for Marxist-Leninism or that he did, despite his policies being the basis of the Soviet Union even after Khrushchev you can somehow separate the two.

The 5 year plan created by Stalin would later be used by all other Marxist-Leninist statse. A Marxist-Leninist can "hate" Stalin, however the core of Marxist-Leninism was devolved by Stalin. Stalin's contributions. You pull from a primary source that being the official ideology of the Soviet Union, something which isn't reliable. The US currently tries to distance itself from racist presidents, however they are still much of the core of the United States. There is absolutely no denying Stalin had a massive effect on all Marxist-Leninist thought.

What you are stating is completely ridiculous, even the article itself states "Marxist-Leninism was devolved by Joseph Stalin based off of his understanding of Lenin." And there is universal consensus that Stalin played a major role in the development of Marxist-Leninism. Vallee01 (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, no, Stalin's interpretation of Marxism–Leninism is called Stalinism, which you conflate with Marxism–Leninism. Stalin was the first to develop his interpretation of both Marx and Lenin, but Marxism–Leninism is not Stalinism; Stalin merely popularised the term Marxism–Leninism but not all Marxist–Leninists were actually Stalinists or even subscribed to Stalin's interpretation. Both Khruschev and Gorbachev gave their own interpretation of Marx and Lenin, rejecting Stalin's interpretation. Five-year plans have also been adopted by non-Communist states; were they all Stalinists too just for that? Davide King (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Davide King You are conflating Marxist-Leninism with orthodox Leninism. Both Trotskyism and Marxist-Leninism are both Leninist ideologies, in fact Trotskyists see Marxist-Leninists and Stalinist's as identical. You don't seem to understand that Marxist-Leninism isn't orthodox Leninism neither is Trotskyism. Sections trying to underplay atrocities and Stalin's effect on Marxist-Leninism is not helping at all.

Stalin devolved the 5 year plans, nowhere did I state the Khrushchev or Gorbachev was Stalin, but the basis of the USSR in fact much of the constitution and institutions of the USSR was devolved by Stalin. If other countries used the five year plan that doesn't make them "Stalinist" but it does mean they borrowed sections of Stalin's ideology. FDR's "New deal" was influenced by socialism, that does not make FDR a socialist. Mutualism a socialist ideology takes elements from pro-markets that does not make it a capitalist ideology.

Stalin is much of the basis of the USSR. Much of policies devolved under Stalin would influence Gorbachev and all other ML states. This isn't going anywhere I think this should go for a dispute resolution, this discussion hasn't been able to meet any concrete action. The most recent edits specifically has gone nowhere. Most editors have stated that it is a good idea to merge atrocities of Marxist-Leninist states into the article but you keep opposing it. I therefor think that is the best solution to seek a third opinion or try to resolve this. For god's sake this has been going on for over a month. Vallee01 (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, I am not conflating anything, you are the one who is conflating everything with Stalin and Stalinism. Trotskyists see themselves as true Marxist–Leninists, or Bolshevik–Leninists, and call anti-revisionist Marxist–Leninists Stalinists. Nepal has been governed by Marxist–Leninists and has liberal-democracy. The Marxist–Leninist Communist Party, USA advocates Bill of Rights socialism, which is democratic. It is absurd for you to limit all this to Stalin and the Soviet Union.

You write "FDR's 'New eal' was influenced by socialism, that does not make FDR a socialist" and at the same time "f other countries used the five year plan that doesn't make them 'Stalinist' but it does mean they borrowed sections of Stalin's ideology." Then how does your logic follow that Marxist–Leninists are all 'Stalinists'? How did Stalin influenced Gorbachev when he rejected Stalin from a Marxist–Leninist viewpoint and advocated glasnot and perestroika? Why is Roosevelt not a socialist, even though by your logic the New Deal was "influenced by socialism", but apparently all Marxist–Leninists are Stalinists for supporting five-year plans, also adopted by non-Communist countries? You apparently seem to believe that Stalin 'invented' five-year plans. Gorbachev and other Communist leaders did not engage in mass killings.

As Benjamin Valentino states, "most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing." According to Valentino, mass killings have occurred not because of ideology but when power is in the hands of one person or a small number of people. Even Steven Rosefielde, who wrote of a "Red Holocaust", states "the conditions for the Red Holocaust were rooted in Stalin's, Kim's, Mao's, Ho's and Pol Pot's siege-mobilized terror-command economic systems, not in Marx's utopian vision or other pragmatic communist transition mechanisms." Rosefielde limits this to Stalin, Kim, Ho and Pol Pot, and specifically distinguish this with "other pragmatic communist transition mechanisms", which includes Marxist–Leninists opposed to these leaders. In other words, it is not so black and white, or simple, as you make it.

Marxism–Leninism is much more than Stalin and these other leaders. There has been no democratic fascist or Nazi; on the other hand, there have been democratic Marxist–Leninists, including these in Nepal who have democratically and peaceful shared power with the fellow socialist Nepali Congress. So why do we list the atrocities in the lead when scholars disagree and even these who argue for the concept of Communist mass killing do not reduce it to ideology and state most Communist regimes did not engage in mass killings?

I have actually based my argument on reliable sources and even quoted experts, you are simply reiterating your POV. You should actually provide sources, or at least base your arguments on reliable sources, if you are going to take this at DR. I believe to have demonstrated that Marxism–Leninism cannot be reduced to Stalin or the Soviet Union; that the atrocities should be discussed and contextualised in the body, not in the lead; and that the lead should not be a coatrack for Criticism of communist party rule and Mass killings under communist regimes, for which we already have the article to discuss it in detail. Davide King (talk) 05:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Not all Marxist-Leninist's are Stalinist's. All Marxist-Leninist's take heavily from elements from Stalin's ideology. Your argument is similar to those who state systemic racism in the US doesn't exist. "How can the US be based of racism if Donald Trump said he openly distanced himself from the KKK?" or "How can racism have an effect in the US it ended over 200 years ago, despite the soviet constitution being written largely by Stalin?" It can directly be applied here: "How can the Soviet Union be built on Stalin if Khrushchev said Stalin was poo-poo" or "How could the Gulag system effect the rest of the Soviet Union if it ended 50 years ago? Despite Stalin writing much of the Soviet Constitution." If you ever thought I think all Marxist-Leninists are Stalinist, that is completely false. I never said that or thought that all Marxist-Leninists were Stalinist. All Marxist-Leninists if they like to or not are borrowing extremely heavily from Stalin's ideology.

Again Davide King why Marxist-Leninist states commit mass killings has nothing to do with this, were not here to place blame on why or how this happened, we just need to state it did happen. Yes Marxist-Leninism is much more then Stalin you won't here any objections here.

You are making no sense, you think Stalin and Mao, and Ho Chi Min should all be stated but yet you stop at mentioning their atrocities or the Gulag system. You are fine with mentioning the five year plans, but stop at mentioning . You also are inconsistent you supported me adding sections to the article Fascism detailing genocides, however despite Fascism being a more broad ideology then Marxist-Leninism you oppose it here, why? Your entire argument previously was built on this, but you are fine with mention atrocities on Fascism just not here.

Again no one is here to describe why Marxist-Leninist states have committed atrocities just that the fact that they do. If I am not mistaken you think that there should be no mention of atrocities in the lead. Which really, really isn't something right. Vallee01 (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, if "ot all Marxist-Leninist's are Stalinist's", then how can they "take heavily from elements from Stalin's ideology"? If they "take heavily from elements from Stalin's ideology", they are Stalinists, but they are not. Do you not see any contradiction or flow in your logic? While I actually agree there is systematic racism, your examples make no sense and is not clear what are you referring to. It seems to be you think a democratic Marxism–Leninism is an oxymoron and that these democratic Marxist–Leninists examples I showed were not real Marxist–Leninists because apparently they do not fit your own Stalinised definition of Marxism–Leninism, which reflects your POV rather than RS.

You write "were not here to place blame on why or how this happened, we just need to state it did happen" but why? As noted by The Four Deuces, that is not relevant to the lead of this article because this article is about the ideology and if the ideology was not what caused the atrocities, then it should not be stated here. It would be more relevant for Communist state. And no, we can not just state that without any context; we can do that only if the overwhelming scholars think ideology was culprit for the atrocities. Ironically, why they happened, i.e. due to ideology, may be the only valid reason to support mention of it in the lead. If ideology was not the reason, then they should not be mentioned because this article is about the ideology, which was subject to "significant adaptation under various leaders, contrary to the widespread impression that official Soviet ideology remained static after Stalin", not about Communist states or what they did, which is another topic and article.

How is fascism broad but Marxism–Leninism is not? Perhaps you include any military dictatorship (Pinochet), right-wing populism and Trump as fascist; while I sympathise with this interpretation, it is clearly not supported by scholarly sources. Fascism is really only Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and at times Francoist Spain. I do not know what definition of fascism you use that makes it so broad, but the actual definition of fascism is not broad at all. On the other hand, Marxism–Leninism is very broad and includes Communist regimes, Communist parties, anti-revisionists, anti-Stalinists and democratic or reform-minded Marxist–Leninists. Your edits at Fascism makes more sense because classical or historical fascism was really only Italy, Germany and Spain. Marxism–Leninism is much broader whereas you want to reduce it to Stalin and provide no evidence that they "take heavily from elements from Stalin's ideology." Davide King (talk) 06:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

What? "'ot all Marxist-Leninist's are Stalinist's', then how can they 'take heavily from elements from Stalin's ideology.'" You can take heavily from elements from ideologies and not adhere to the ideology. Maoists are not Stalinist's, neither are Guevarists both are heavily based on Stalin's work. Nowhere did I state Khrushchev wasn't a Marxist-Leninist, seriously you keep making up my what I am stating.

Mutualism is not communist but is largely based on communism. I really have no clue what you are talking about at this point. I don't think Trump or Pinochet are fascists. Nowhere did I state trump was a fascist or that all Marxist-Leninists are Stalinists. I stated the US is built on racist policies, likewise the Soviet Union is built on forced labor and genocide. So was Maoist china, so was the vast majority of Marxist-Leninist states. All Marxist-Leninist states are built on forced collectivization that's the point it's core to it's ideology. There are also Jewish fascists, black fascists, Asian fascists, etc... Any ideology that extremely reactionary, totalitarian and has some mythic utopia built on hierarchical structure in which society is controlled by an elite can be seen as fascist. Also you changed your argument previously it was "Fascism doesn't mention atrocities therefor here it shouldn't" now it's "Fascism is actually not broad enough while Marxist-Leninism is broad." What citations do you have that describe fascism as: "Really only Italy, Germany and Spain?" Vallee01 (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, then why do you keep generalise it as being heavily based on Stalin's work? Essentially, Marxism–Leninism is pragmatic and its principles have been used to both justify Stalinist or Maoist policies and to repudiate Stalinist or Maoist policies. Stalin and Mao engaged in mass killings, Khrushchev and Gorbachev did not. So how do you generalise the ideology only in Stalin's terms? If Khrushchev did not engage in mass killings and the same atrocities then Stalin did, why do we mention Stalin's policies as being part of the ideology when Khrushchev and other Communist leaders either did not do the same or explicitly repudiated them? We cannot mention the atrocities in the lead, implying they were the results of ideology, if scholars disagree on whether ideology was culprit; and we cannot generalise Stalin's actions as being the only representative of Marxism–Leninism when other Marxist–Leninists repudiated them. This topic is about the ideology, not about what Stalin or Communist leaders did.

I changed my argument because you justified that as fascism being too broad whereas Marxism–Leninism is not, even though I showed plenty of academic sources to the contrary. If you do not think fascism is not military dictatorship or Trump, then how is fascism broad? "Any ideology that extremely reactionary, totalitarian and has some mythic utopia built on hierarchical structure in which society is controlled by an elite can be seen as fascist." That is the anarchist POV, certainly not the mainstream view among scholars of fascism. Because Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and Francoist Spain are the ones we mention at Fascism and are the ones most scholars discuss in regard to fascism, although there is consensus only for Italy and Germany. So fascism is not really broad but Marxism–Leninism is broad; hence, following your logic and previous argument, we cannot reduce this ideology to Stalin and mention atrocities in the lead if scholars do not conclude they were the results of ideology.

In addition, I suggest you to check content forking, original research and synthesis because that is what you are doing. Sources only verify that atrocities indeed happen; they do not verify the ideology was the main culprit or that are relevant to this article as your wording implies. As an example, "The Hidden Ethnic Cleansing of Muslims in the Soviet Union: The Exile and Repatriation of the Crimean Tatars" is about ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the Soviet Union (no mention of Marxism–Leninism, at least from what I could read) and "Anarchism, Marxism and the Collapse of the Soviet Union" is about the collapse of the Soviet Union (again, no mention of Marxism–Leninism, at least from what I could read). In other words, these sources can be used for ethnic cleansing in the Soviet Union and the collapse of the latter, respectively; they can not be used at this article to imply the ideology was culprit and the result of ideology alone. Both of these are also only about the Soviet Union. What you did here is synthesis and original research. Davide King (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Answering to your question, I treat articles arbitrarily, influenced as well by time, etc. Don't worry I will argue if it needs to be. As well, (as expressed by the latest edit) no consensus for that change.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, your wording is incomprehensible and is not clear what you are even saying. As you can see here, Service uses concentration camps to refer to Nazi camps. "The German Communist Party was suppressed and its leaders thrown into concentration camps." At p. 301, he refers to Communist camps as labour camps. "The labor camps developed in the USSR were introduced across the communist world." We should respect and reflect the source's wording. Davide King (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

You asked why I don't do something according to you by another articles, I and responded to that, I will of course if/when I can. Ok, understood.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC))

Eleventh break

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

Policy says that the weight of information in articles should reflect the weight of such information in the body of literature on the subject. It further says that tertiary sources such as encyclopedias can give an indication of what aspects should be in the article. Unfortunately, it looks like this article takes a dictionary definition of Marxism-Leninism, then coatracks in anything that could be described as Marxist-Leninism. I suggest we attempt to locate sources about the topic. I have had difficulty doing so. All I can find are books that are specific to individual countries such as the USSR. Maybe this should be a stub or redirect. TFD (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Great response, I make Davide King's words my own. Vallee01, no one is trying to remove "the attrocities commited by Marxist-Leninist states", people are instead trying to make a neutral lead in an articule where it's hard to find academic consensus in any topic. To insert the "worse attrocities" is to adhere to the thesis that Marxist-Leninism is the sole cause of these attrocities, and it will always cause Holodomors, Great purgess, and so on. Although this thesis is not WP:V - it's simply your POV - if it was, it would simply be one POV, against a multitude of POVs which disagree. It is also refutable by simply looking at history, but this is not the point.

Anyways, I like where the article is going, even though it still needs to be fixed in certain parts. BunnyyHop (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, why we need to mention atrocities if scholars do not agree on whether they were universally the result of ideology or not? The Four Deuces, could you please summarise the scholarly consensus on fascism? Because they have claimed fascism is too broad whereas they limit this ideology to Stalin and the Soviet Union in teh 1930s which was emulated by Communist states, even though this is not exactly correct; the reverse is true. Fascism is really only Italy, Germany and sometimes Spain. This ideology is much broad, although I agree with you it "takes a dictionary definition of Marxism-Leninism, then coatracks in anything that could be described as Marxist-Leninism", certainly more broad than fascism (Itay, Germany and Spain), which is now neo-fascism, whereas there are still Marxist–Leninist parties and they are not the same. Valee01, I believe Czar is going to say exactly what The Four Deuces says, namely that "olicy says that the weight of information in articles should reflect the weight of such information in the body of literature on the subject. It further says that tertiary sources such as encyclopedias can give an indication of what aspects should be in the article." Davide King (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with The Four Deuces, this article goes into extensive detail as to what Marxist-Leninist's state to believe but not Marxist-Leninism in practice. BunnyyHop you were blocked for removing sections detailing Marxist-Leninist atrocities that is ridiculous, and also were blocked three times for biased editing on Portuguese Misplaced Pages on article relating to Marxist-Leninism. You also are a Marxist-Leninist you yourself and yourself state to be a member of the Marxist-Leninist Portuguese Communist Party. How can you be considered to be a neutral source on Marxist-Leninism? Vallee01 (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, you claim to be an , "how can you be considered to be a neutral source on Marxism-Leninism?".

Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith. BunnyyHop (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The COMINTERN was bolshevized, not "Eastern Europe". "theoretical" is redundant, eventual is according to sources. "claim to" is not a good word to use unless backed by sources. "Generally" is better since those things are taken from the article. BunnyyHop (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop this has to do with your bias, and your contributions. I don't know how you can be considered a neutral source for this article, you consistently remove sections relating to mass murder, atrocities and genocides and have been blocked both on Portuguese Misplaced Pages and English Misplaced Pages. None of your edits thus far can be seen as even remotely against Marxist-Leninism. That's not how Misplaced Pages works, if a person is editing an article off something they clearly have a close connection to an article and it's usually important to make clear. You have a connection to Marxist-Leninism. Vallee01 (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how this has to do with anything, really, and I'm not even reply to those allegations. I'm not a source, I'm an editor who tries to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:V. BunnyyHop (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Editors are not sources, and sources don't need to be neutral, just accurate. Now, can anyone provide a book or academic article about Marxism-Leninism so we can determine what the main facts are? I can only find sources about ML in specific countries or in relative to specific topics, such as foreign policy or culture. Otherwise it's pointless arguing about what should be emphasized in the article. TFD (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, this by Lorenzo Chiesa might be of use (for other editors, also), but I have the same problem you do. BunnyyHop (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, perhaps we may see what sources about specific countries say and what are the similarities, the differences, what they have in common, etc. Davide King (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, how can you agree with The Four Deuces when they precisely did not say "this article goes into extensive detail as to what Marxist-Leninist's state to believe but not Marxist-Leninism in practice"? As they wrote above, "ince the article is about the ideology, the material does not belong there. This section reads more like criticism of Communism than criticism of Marxism-Leninism. For example, genocide in Poland was not part of the official ideology. There were no explaining when it was in society's interest and it was not used to justify government policy in Poland, where it would be most unpopular, even among Polish leaders. Governments across the political spectrum have engaged in mass killings, but this is the only one that that gives it that level of detail or even mentions it. The topic of the article isn't why Communism is bad but what is their ideology." So I do not see how you can agree with them when they explained what is wrong with mixing up topics.

I also suggest you to back down "You also are a Marxist-Leninist you yourself and yourself state to be a member of the Marxist-Leninist Portuguese Communist Party." I believe they have been more neutral than you and they have not denied any atrocities and they clearly explained "no one is trying to remove 'the attrocities commited by Marxist-Leninist states', people are instead trying to make a neutral lead in an articule where it's hard to find academic consensus in any topic. To insert the 'worse attrocities' is to adhere to the thesis that Marxist-Leninism is the sole cause of these attrocities, and it will always cause Holodomors, Great purgess, and so on." Incidentally, this is the same thing at Mass killings under communist regimes, a coatrack POV page used the make the point communism, not just this ideology, always results in mass killings. The atrocities are not used to indict this ideology but communism and the anti-capitalist left as a whole because any radial change, they say, is going to result in these atrocities, even though scholars still debate on whether idelogy was the main culprit.

May I also remind you that you are an anarchist too and it shows, so you are not a neutral source either? We are all biased, but I do not think Bunnyyhope is the most biased one. Incidentally, you added "Marxist-Leninist states in practice have consistenty failed in estabilishing socialism or worker control of the means of production." I agree but the anti-communist scholars you want us to use for highlighting their atrocities, since it is mainly these scholars who highlight them to blame everything on ideology and would do the same for anarchism, they do not give a damn that these states failed to give workers' democratic control, so you are engaging in original research and synthesis because these scholars who mention the atrocities, they do not really care on whether workers' add actual control, so we cannot add that when it is not routinely mention in books about the idoelogy. Davide King (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I'd like to help but not sure where to start. Can someone neutrally summarize the current dispute as succinctly as possible and the arguments for and against? No more than five sentences? If there are multiple disputes, let's handle one at a time. Also, as a courtesy reminder, let's keep the discussion about edits and not editors, e.g., avoid "you". czar 09:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

  Czar, I am going to start a new thread more specifically about the issues, but the dispute seems to be that some users want to put the atrocities committed under Communist regimes, even though this article is about the ideology and for the atrocities we already have Criticism of communist party rule and Mass killings under communist regimes, hence it is a coatrack. The atrocities should be discussed and contextualised in the body, rather than coatracked in the lead. Finally, since scholars still debate whether ideology was the main culprit and there does not seem to be a consensus, we can and should not put that in the lead, if the atrocities were not the results of ideology alone. At best, we should simply state that historians disagree, or debate, on whether ideology was the main culprit. Another issue is that the topic is not clear, or clearly defined ""this article takes a dictionary definition of Marxism-Leninism, then coatracks in anything that could be described as Marxist-Leninism. I suggest we attempt to locate sources about the topic. I have had difficulty doing so. All I can find are books that are specific to individual countries such as the USSR. Maybe this should be a stub or redirect"), and we need to follow policy, namely that "olicy says that the weight of information in articles should reflect the weight of such information in the body of literature on the subject. It further says that tertiary sources such as encyclopedias can give an indication of what aspects should be in the article." What weight do books about the topic to the atrocities? Davide King (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences has a free paragraph about Marxism-Leninism out of its 4 pages dedicated to it.

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

--BunnyyHop (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

In addition, this also seems to be a good excerpt:

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

p. 3355

--BunnyyHop (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Other citations, from the 2001 version

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

p. 2332

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

p. 2332

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

p. 2332

--BunnyyHop (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

That is what I was looking for: an article about the subject that we can use both as a source and to determine the scope of the topic. The main points were that it was the official ideology of all Communist parties (including Trotskyist) and was developed after the death of Lenin; its three principles were dialectical materialism, the leading role of the Communist party and a planned economy with industrialization and agricultural collectivization.

Note that this source does not explain how ML worked in practice. One party state could mean suppression of opposition. Industrialization could mean coerced labor. Collectivization sometimes led to famine. OTOH, very few ML parties achieved power, hence had no opportunity to put ML into practice. Furthermore, these results were not necessary consequences. There were a range of possible outcomes from Pol Pot to Gorbachev.

I think it is important to have an article about ML ideology as opposed to Communist Party rule. In an article about liberalism for example, we want to know about the theories of Locke and Smith. We don't want to be lectured about how these ideas led to slavery and oppressive colonization of most of the world. We would rightly see such an article as having an anti-liberal bias.

TFD (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I agree and that is a good summary. That is why I opposed the coatrack in the lead. But beware of being called out as an "apologist" or for wanting to whitewash the atrocities, even though we are merely following the actual, scholarly literature on the topic that does not reach the conclusion we have in the lead, hence it is original research or synthesis. Davide King (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Davide King you are making no sense. Your only issue with the statement is that the source is anti communist, is that it? It that a real issue with the source? A source that is anti-communist is not inherently an unreliable citation. I also want to remind you this isn't a place to defend communism, if scholarly citations state that a main criticisms of Marxist-Leninism is atrocities we should state the atrocities, its an open and shut case. We are here to report what reliable citations state not here to defend communism. Vallee01 (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see a reference to a source in Davide King's posting. Could you please provide more information. TFD (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, none of this addresses my points. You write "this isn't a place to defend communism" but it is not a place to tell "why Communism is bad but what is their ideology." You write "I also want to remind you this isn't a place to defend communism, if scholarly citations state that a main criticisms of Marxist-Leninism is atrocities we should state the atrocities" but you provide no sources whereas I and others did, showing that the ideology cannot be limited to Stalin or to the atrocities. You seem to think it is not even possible that scholarly sources do not mention the atrocities as a criticism, because they are a different topic; you simply assume they do. To borrow from your own words, "f scholarly citations state that a main criticisms of Marxist-Leninism is atrocities we should state the atrocities ." Not all scholars agree they were the result of ideology, which would be the only reason why they may be mentioned in the lead. Davide King (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

A main criticism of Marxist-Leninism is that it failed, multiple articles have suffered because of it. Almost no scholarly citations go . This article deals almost entirely with the theoretical of Marxist-Leninism. You are stuck in a strange position you think that Marxist-Leninist achievements should be stated but you stop at stating the gulag system. The article mentions Stalinism but not how Stalinism works in practice. We can't state both

We can not mention the theory of Marxist-Leninism without stating how Marxist-Leninism works in practice. The citation was a different discussion it was this and removal: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1959154 Vallee01 (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, you write "his article deals almost entirely with the theoretical of Marxist-Leninism" but that is exactly what the main topic is supposed to be. For the criticism, we already have Criticism of communist party rule; we are supposed to have only one clear main topic per article. Weight must also be kept in mind; how is considered this view among scholarly sources? I actually agree that it was a failure because, among other things, it failed in establishing socialism, but this does not seem to be a mainstream view. Indeed, the scholars you support for emphasising the atrocities actually say they happened because of socialism and the Soviet Union et al. were indeed socialists. I disagree with this view, as I agree with Harrington's views that " was a method to bring about rapid industrialization in backward countries that lacked capital. In that sense it wasn't a step toward socialism but a step toward capitalism. Hence all successful Communist revolutions occurred in feudal or third world countries which by the way had no traditions of democracy, civil rights or private enterprise but that is what they say." However, these same scholars you support for emphasising the atrocities also say that the Soviet Union et al. were socialists, something that both you and I disagree with. You want to have it both ways but we cannot do that, or state it as fact. Davide King (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to say that ML failed, because China is on course to have the largest GDP in the world possibly by 2024. It's more than four times higher than India, a capitalist constitutional democracy that has a comparable population. You can't say well they're not really ML, because ML by definition is whatever the Communist Party says it is. TFD (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, as I stated, I consider them a failure because they did not establish socialism but I agree with what you wrote; ironically, that is never considered. So Maoist China was Communist because it was bad and not because it was actually socialist while post-Maoist China is capitalist because, as you noted, "China is on course to have the largest GDP in the world possibly by 2024" and that cannot possibly be attributed to Communism, the CCP or Communist leadership. Davide King (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, you assume that their objective was to establish socialism, but Lenin, Mao, Ho and Castro never set out to establish socialism but adopted it as the only possible strategy for their nations. They believed that capitalism provided a necessary stage that expanded the economy, creating a working class that would then take control from the bourgeoisie. The end of sanctions has allowed the first three countries to liberalize their economies. Sanctions against Venezuela may force them to take the Soviet path. TFD (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, that is very interesting. That is my actual view too, I just thought historians took it for granted that was their objective. If this is not true and what you write is actually true and supported by scholars, then this needs to be reflected at Communist-related articles. There is so much misunderstanding in Communist-related articles, so perhaps this needs to be fixed? "They believed that capitalism provided a necessary stage that expanded the economy, creating a working class that would then take control from the bourgeoisie." This was also not much different from what orthodox Marxist or Mensheviks actually argued. My understanding is the Mensheviks supported the liberal-democratic development whereas Bolsheviks supported party development, with the understanding that this will avoid the second necessary revolution needed to turn liberal democracy (political democracy) in the dictatorship of the proletariat (economic, political and social democracy). Is this a correct understanding of the issues between them?

I thought of Venezuela as following the Chinese path, rather than the Soviet path, if you mean the centralised-managed command economy, i.e. liberalise the economy to restore confidence while keeping political control; but now that I think about it, you were probably actually referring to their pragmatism rather than the economy. My understanding is that you see the Chinese path as requiring sanctions to be removed, which is what happened in the 1970s and 1980s with détente, which resulted in economic liberalisation, which would likely not have resulted without it, i.e. a different path would have been followed. Is this correct too?

Either way, you make sense. I do not know what your political views are, which is just a compliment of how neutral you are, but you have a better understanding of this of many leftists and socialists, who assume that was their objective and fail to understand the policies were based "as the only possible strategy for their nations. They believed that capitalism provided a necessary stage that expanded the economy, creating a working class that would then take control from the bourgeoisie." Seriously, kudos. Davide King (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Vallee.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, none of this really adds anything or addresses our points, namely that we should not mix up topics. We have provided some sources about the topic and they do not mention or "explain how ML worked in practice. One party state could mean suppression of opposition. Industrialization could mean coerced labor. Collectivization sometimes led to famine. OTOH, very few ML parties achieved power, hence had no opportunity to put ML into practice. Furthermore, these results were not necessary consequences. There were a range of possible outcomes from Pol Pot to Gorbachev." Do you also agree with Valee01 that the Soviet Union et al. were not really socialists but essentially totalitarian (state) capitalists? Because they want the article to point out how "Marxist-Leninist states in practice have consitently failed in estabilishing socialism or worker control of the means of production." Davide King (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Please forgive me in an eleventh break I am really scarce. What I agree they were communist countries, in fact officially socialist countries, yes totalitarian states, but capitalist without proper attribution and explanation would be arguable, especially as it's common meaning would designate an opposite system. Anyway, as a viewpoint in a relevant place and due lenght may be mentioned, anyway these online-chat blog type discussion in the various articles covered go into such depth like we would engineer a a spaceship for intergalactical travel, however, I never oppossed sharp precisity, but really we are reaching subatomic levels..:~ (KIENGIR (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC))

So you do not really agree with Valee01; for them, it is a fact they were not socialist and that they failed in establishing socialism. You only agree with them in mentioning the atrocities, even though they are not mentioned in several sources we listed because the main topic is the ideology, not what they did, which we discuss in another article (they mention they were one-party states, which we already said, but they do not say they were authoritarian or engaged in atrocities because they are discussing the ideology and we should reflect this). Anyway, I agree this discussion is not going nowhere, so we may take a break to look at what sources say and then start a new discussion to compare them. However, if you simply dismiss these sources and just keep agreeing with each other, that is disrupting and unhelpful. Again, this article is not about what Communists did (we already have articles for that) but what was their ideology. Davide King (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

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

This entire section specifically this "that became the explicit model for all later Soviet-type regimes: dialectical materialism as the only true proletarian basis for philosophy" is the definition of a ML POV. It litterally states Marxist-Leninism is the only true proletariat philosophy in text! And uses ML text as a definition. Vallee01 (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, that is not what the text implies. It is saying that Marxist–Leninists in the 1930s thought dialectical materialism was the only true proletarian basis for philosophy, i.e. they are dogmatic about it, how is that a ML POV? Perhaps it could be in quoted marks, if that is what the source says. BunnyyHop, could you show us the quote? My understanding is that the wording is referring to Marxist–Leninists considering dialectical materialism as "the only true proletarian basis for philosophy", not that it indeed is, if that is what concerned you. It is referring to the Stalinist institutionalisation of Marxism–Leninism in the 1930s, which did contain three identifiable dogmatic principles that became the explicit model for all later Soviet-type regimes, that is all. It does not say their views are correct, it just states what their views were.

Same thing for the leading role of the communist party as the central principle of Marxist politics and state-led planned industrialisation and agricultural collectivization as the foundation of socialist economics; it is referring to the tenents of the ideological model adopted by several states; these states followed dialectical materialism as "the only true proletarian basis for philosophy", that is why they repressed other socialists, whom they smeared as "bourgeois", "petty bourgeois", "counter-revolutionary", etc. This does not seem to be really controversial.

Do you not think we should even say what they thought? They indeed thought that dialectical materialism was "the only true proletarian basis for philosophy"; that does not make it true but that was indeed what they thought. I mean, their dogmatism and party lines are objects of jokes, so I do not really understand the issue. The text is saying what they thought and they thought dialectical materialism was "the only true proletarian basis for philosophy." That does not make it true but we are here for verifiability, not truth; and Marxist–Leninists in the 1930s indeed thought that dialectical materialism was "the only true proletarian basis." Nothing more, nothing less. If you are concerned it implies that statement is true, it is not; it is merely reporting what they thought (verifiability), not that what they thought was correct (truth). We already have other sections for criticism of this. Davide King (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Davide King I think the issue here is that the section reads like an ML manifesto, the article alreadys deal extensively with what ML states to believe we don't need more sections detailing it. The lead is already getting larger and larger, despite us initially wanting to make the lead smaller it has only resulted in it ballooning in size. The section can be reworded and moved somewhere into the body but it doesn't belong it the lead it's both unimportant to the leded, poorly worded, and doesn't add to an understanding of the article.

BunnyyHop your sections read like a ML manifesto not the entire article, the issue with the text is that it both expands the lede with very useless info, and isn't worded well. Vallee01 (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01 this isn't written by me, what this is, is an almost identical copy of lead on Marxism-Leninism of the highly praised and PROSE Awards winner International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences.

To call this Marxism-Leninist propaganda, or that "it's both unimportant to the leded, poorly worded, and doesn't add to an understanding of the article" is absurd, to say the least.

Our lead (and some parts of the article) should be structured mainly by these encyclopedia(s) - to the scope of this article is also added the elementary of the History of Marxist-Leninist states (those parts which are relevant to the ideology, at least that's what it should be), but it's first and foremost about «Marxism-Leninism the ideology».

Also, "the article alreadys deal extensively with what ML states to believe we don't need more sections detailing it". Briefly, this is the lead, not "more sections". The lead should mainly reflect what's written in the article, as Davide King says, so you're actually arguing in favour of placing it in the lead - where it should be. Other editors have expressed their approval of these paragraphs to structure the lead, so it's most likely what we are going to do. --BunnyyHop (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop You are editing against Wiki rules no where is there consensus for this, nowhere did you propose this. Nowhere was there even discussion on your edits. The last edit on this talk was from the 18th! Did you get consensus with the air? You certainly didn't get it with other editors, again if you keep editing without prior discussion, consensus or even stating your proposal is against Wiki rules and if you keep your disruptive behavior you will be blocked, you recently edited the page Russian Revolution as an example and put pro-ML completely POV pushing sections against consensus with no editors supporting your proposal. Vallee01 (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I also notice the edit is highly unusual using sources that do not support your conclusion creating a Synthesis as an example you use the source: "Lenin argued that power could be secured on behalf of the proletariat through the so-called vanguard leadership of a disciplined and revolutionary communist party, organized according to what was effectively the military principle of democratic centralism." This is an argument of Lenin not a fact, however you use this info to state that actually Lenin indeed implemented these reforms, or that it was indeed revolutionary, however the source only states he claims to be "In the Soviet Union, the revolution was accomplished in two-stages," something which could be acceptable however not in the lead is "Marxist-Leninists believe that the Soviet Union, implemented a revolution that accomplished in two-stages (better yet add a fact check here)." What you are doing is called a synthesis of material. Vallee01 (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, The Four Deuces said "That is what I was looking for". Davide King also agreed, and both had a discussion which I found to be great. Furthermore, they throughtly addressed your points, one by one. These citations were published on the 8th of december, 13 days have passed, and you didn't raise a single point about it. Your current argument is the equivalent to "I just don't like it" argument, which carry no weight whatsoever. See Misplaced Pages:STONEWALL. You have reverted my edits without raising a single point about it - but what you just did was push a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, off-topic rambling, mischaracterizing my actions to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction. A reversion is a complete rejection of my work.

As it stands, you are going against consensus, as exemplified here, where the fruits of the discussion above, which you reverted, were reverted back by Davide King. You are clearly not in a position to revert and claim there is «no consensus», and as such, your revertion is not valid.

There's a great example on the WP:FILIBUSTER article:

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

Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process, and is considered unacceptable on Misplaced Pages as a form of gaming the system, as well as tendentious editing

I'll give some time for Davide King and The Four Deuces to evaluate my edits. Take a look at Misplaced Pages:BRD_misuse#Filibusterers.

--BunnyyHop () 05:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, you raised two miniscule points, and reverted four edits. One of them was not my edit but Davide King's. The other, if the author does mean, stagism, then it's refering to «two-stages», the «bourgeois revolution» and later the «proletarian revolution» that happened in the Russian Empire. I'll take care of them and thus, the Misplaced Pages:BRDD cycle is renewed. --BunnyyHop () 05:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Anyone who can read and knows even the basics of non POV editing would oppose this, it screams of POV text, you literally refer to Marxist-Leninists as "great friends" (comrade is a synonym of friend) in the text and refer to the western powers as "foreign domination." I don't doubt you think of Marxist-Leninists as friends but this isn't the place to be pushing it. You got to be kidding in claiming this is neutral:

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

Vallee01 (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Twelfth break

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

I have stated this before BunnyyHop and I will state it again, not answering on a proposal does not equate to support, you have been told this over and over. You are not allowed to run free and change articles without oversight. If you are going to use this strange source you need to use neutral wording, it doesn't matter if the source uses the term "imperialists," "leaches," "terrorists," "hero's" or "comrades" we can never describe any group as such. Your issue with your edits on this page has thus far been extremely disruptive. If it be when you initially removed information from the lead documenting ML atrocities, or edit warring, or removing text stating that ML states as undemocratic as a "fringe theory," or pushing POV pushing text. If you have sections in which the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences has the sections you state please do share so far you haven't linked any in which it refers to the western powers as "foreign domination." Nowehere did I state International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences is a ML manifesto. Your strange synthesis of material is which has been made clear is an issue, however feel free to keep putting words in my mouth.

This complete waffle of Misplaced Pages policies is almost amusing, where did I state or do anything that opposes "anything that is not anticommunist." You seem to have forgotten I played a major role in developing this article adding sections detailing Marxist-Leninist industrialization, and stating Marxist-Leninist positions is that "opposing anything anti-communist?"

I also extensively edited the page Soveit Union and my edits were considered neutral in fact my edits were accused of being completely pro-communist! There truly is no winning one day I am communist, the next a capitalist I think next time I hoping someone will make me Zebra.

We need to be neutral whenever wording something. We can use sources that use such terms, (again nowhere did you provide anything stating that the source provides the sections you state it does.) However we still need to be neutral we can never use terms like "comrades" see this for more information nor can we call the western powers "imperialist," nor can we post POV pushing text, nor can refer to groups as "terrorists" completely irregardless of the text. We can use theoretically any source assuming it is reliable, however different citations are important for different sections. We most certainly don't paraphrase any source word for word, a source that uses contentious labels for individuals or groups should not be labelled so as it creates a form where we are no longer neutral, instead we build truthful information based off scholarly and accepted interpenetration of the work, a mission you aren't respecting by removing text that states ML states are undemocratic despite universal consensus that ML states are completely un-democratic. We are an encyclopedia, not copy paste for different citations. Vallee01 (talk) 06:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01 What I meant in «Davide King agreed», was that he expressed it to be a reliable and verifiable source, as showed here.

None of that matters. If it's verifiable, it should be stated as such. Also, all of this «imperialists, leaches, terrorists (...)» is gaslighting. The stated expression was «foreign domination», exactly the wording used in the source. This isn't a synthesis of material, these are largely taken from the International Encyclopedia, whose original words are written a few paragraphs above, all with their pages respectively sourced. You're just removing sourced material claiming it's unsourced, without even checking it, and this does go against the guidelines. You did state multiple times:

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

BunnyyHop your sections read like a ML manifesto not the entire

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

«where did I state or do anything that opposes» I didn't claim you did, it was just a general impression I got from your edits, since you were fine in mentioning that «In reality Marxist-Leninist states were undemocratic» based on a constitution and on a book about religion in China and Russia, and accepting one of the outcomes of the Russian Revolution as the «establishment of an one-party dictatorship». All this whilst disregarding the International Encyclopedia as «dripping Marxist-Leninist POV».

The exact words written on the source are on the eleventh break. Everything is written neutrally. comrade is not a contentious label, and furthermore, it is used by a reliable source.

--BunnyyHop () 00:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Diff being discussed --BunnyyHop () 00:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes it does BunnyyHop no unbiased editor ever use the term "comrade" to describe anybody, moreover the term in Russian Revolution, you were warned there by uninvolved users "If you keep your biased editing a topic ban is rapidly approaching," as you edit warred with numerous other editors moreover the edit was "Establishment of Russian SSFR not "Establishment of one party dictatorship." You can ask literally anybody on it. You can't describe anybody as "dominators," the term comrade translating to "friend in arms" is the definition. Calling any group, person or otherwise comrades is obviously not allowed, however you can keep on trying to justify it. However you will never be able to justify adding the term comrade into any article.

Again we are an encyclopedia not a copy and paraphrase of different citations, it is against Wiki guidelines. If a citation refers to a group as "hero's," "comrades," "leaches" or the like we can use the citation but we never use those terms." Citations are often biased we can use biased citations we are still always bound to neutral wording, we aren't a copy paste to shove different sources. If a citation refers to groups as terrorists as an example we never would use that term, irregardless of the citation is reliability. BunnyyHop your synthesis is dripping with Marxist-Leninist propaganda, which everybody can see. However if you would like you can ask any administrators, arbiters, editors, or otherwise if it is acceptable to use the term "comrade," dominators, or "imperialist" to describe any group please do.

BunnyyHop what sections are you referring to? You keep stating the source calls Marxist-Leninist comrades yet nowhere do you provide an inline citation for this assessment. If you don't have the sections you are not only being biased you are being biased without using a source which is bannable. Provide the sections in which you state the source calls other Marxist-Leninists as "comrades" and the western powers as "dominators." You also keep on edit war despite the ongoing discussion on talk and consensus being against you. Vallee01 (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, you may legitimately revert the edits, it is concerning how BunnyyHop interprets/redefines what is/means consensus and accusing you inciting some varius rules and guidelines, in fact those are not in connection with the happenings.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BunnyyHop (talk • contribs)

Vallee01 Comrade is a neutral term. According to dictionary.com, comrade means:

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

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

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

Citation, once again:

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

--BunnyyHop () 02:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop It's not, it would be nice if you dropped it, you can ask any arbiter, editor administrator, about using the term comrade in the context you use it in to refer to fellow MLs as "comrades" is against wiki rules. for starters Dictonary.com doesn't have anything to do with Misplaced Pages's policies. Comrade really should never be used outside extremely rare examples or if we ever use quotes.

With your definition however you prove the point Comrade is a POV pushing word it literally refers as "friend" or "brother in arm." It is an extremely contentious label and we don't use it. Describing groups as comrades is clear and center complete POV editing. Indeed you provide an inline citation however we still always are neutral when writing an article. We can't use non-neutral wording simply because a source uses non-neutral wording. Vallee01 (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

BunnyyHop You can open a dispute resolution it will be shot down immediately no editor could ever think your text is neutral, also English uses quotations not this «». If you reinstate the text you are edit warring you already edit warred recently, you also edited without consensus. Nobody supports this proposal and its an extreme case of POV pushing text, you didn't even bring it up. Vallee01 (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Then why are you reverting the edits instead of replacing the god damn «» with ""? WP:DONTREVERT It's not edit warring, I'm addressing your points according to WP:BRD. You're Misplaced Pages:BRD_misuse#Filibusterers misusing BRD --BunnyyHop () 02:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop It's not just an issue with quotations, this was simply one thing which isn't correct about your editing. The POV text referring to ML states as ultra-democratic, the use of ML primary sources, the consistent removal of sections detailing ML atrocities. The calling of the western powers "imperialist" or "dominators," text that reads like an ML manifesto. Overuse of quotes of ML leaders that gives a Soapbox, adding "accused" to sections which detail proven Stalinist atrocities. If you think my issue with your edit is you don't use quotations you are completely mistaken. Vallee01 (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is calling those countries imperialist, it's saying that after the revolution Russia got its «independence from foreign domination». Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not neutral. This is mainly due to the huge weight debt had in the internal and external affairs of the Russian Empire.

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

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

Now sum up the problem with the next paragraphs:

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

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

It seems to me that there is a suppression of very relevant information to the understanding of the ideology, presenting information unfairly and unproportionately. There about 93 words referent to showing the ideology itself, and 184 related to criticism. --BunnyyHop () 21:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop, You can not try to justify the usage of the term "comrade," "imperialist," or "foreign dominators." BunnyyHop you have called imperialist multiple times while editing the article. As stated by numerous editors calling any group "comrades" or "dominators" is a complete violation of NPOV. You seem to have admitted the term is not neutral as it is not, neutrality means using neutral wording you can use any citation assuming it is reliable however using biased citations with problematic wording isn't allowed, just because a source uses biased wording does not allow us to use biased wording, we always are neutral it doesn't matter if the citation isn't.

As stated your doing a synthesis of material to come to pro-ML position, as an example you take "Vladimir Lenin supports internationalism" but then use that to come to a new conclusion ML states are internationalist something which is a leap of logic, and something which isn't allowed. Vallee01 (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01, so, to be clear, the only problem you have, out of these two paragraphs, is with these words on this phrase:

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

Glad we got that out of the way.

Last time I checked, there's nothing on the wiki (WP:NPOV WP:V WP:NOR) pillars forbidding the usage of the terms "comrades" and "foreign domination". You seem to misunderstand what "neutral" in "WP:NPOV" means, WP:PRESERVEBIAS. Comrade is not a word devoid of meaning, no word really is, its usage according to its meaning is perfectly fine. Comrade is usually used in a relationship between communists, hence why the its used by the encyclo.. However, using "comrade" to describe conservative politician X with Y is not neutral. In this context, it's perfectly fine.

The rest of your paragraph is gibberish to me, I'm sorry.

--BunnyyHop () 04:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop You overuse pro-ML quotes, deal in a complete theoretically. What you are doing is posting walls of texts from various other citations and then demanding to go through the entire section, the POV pushing isn't subtle BunnyyHop it can be seen clearly. No one can ever argue your contributions could ever be seen as neutral.

Text like: A vanguard party, organised hierarchically through democratic centralism, would seize power "on behalf of the proletariat." Is complete POV text, it reads like an ML manifesto, you can't state that ML states would seize power on behalf of the proletariat so you use a quote. What if we did the same with the article Fascism. What if we stated "The government would maintain purity and get rid of all undesirables." That is essentially what you are you doing now, you often edit the article to get rid of atrocities and have text that reads like an ML manifesto instead of an encyclopedic page. Vallee01 (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

--BunnyyHop () 18:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01 please, cite here. I have looked at page 4 of the «White, Elizabeth» citation and there's no relationship to any of those claims. --BunnyyHop () 19:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Vallee01 why are you adding unsourced content? Tell me where in the citation you provided, «"Out of a total of 42 million and a total of 703 elected deputies, the primarily agrarian Social Revoultionary Party the primarily agrarian socialist Social Revolutionary party plus narodnik or populist parties amassed the largest popular vote (well in excess of 50 percent) and elected the greatest number of deputies (approximately 60 percent.). The Bolsheviks who had usurped power in the name of the soviets three weeks prior to prior to the election, amassed only 24 percent of the popular vote."», there is «Previously, Lenin had called for a multi-party system of democracy». How can you not understand this? --BunnyyHop () 02:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

You inserted in the citation:

«Following the elections) dominated by Lenin (who had previously called for free party elections) issued the Draft Decree on the dissolution of the constitutional assembly, the dream of Russian political reforms for many years were swept aside as a "Deceptive form of bourgeois-democratic parliamentarianism»

But the actual quote is «The political significance of the election to the Russian Constituent Assembly is difficult to as by a large segment of the Russian people ascertain since the Assembly was partly by a large segment of the Russian people as not being really necessary to fulfill their desires in this era of revolutionary development (...) On January 5, 1918, the deputies to the Constituent Assembly met in Petrograd; on January 6 the Central Executive Committee of the Congress of Soviets, dominated by Lenin, issued the Draft Decree on the Dissolution of the Constituent Assembly. The Constituent Assembly, the dream of Russian political reformers for many years, was swept aside as a "deceptive form of bourgeois-democratic parliamentarism"»

The bit I wanted is not there. Why are you manipulating text? --BunnyyHop () 02:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop It really doesn't matter what matters unless content is encyclopedic why should we include it. For starters please ping me if you want to get get my attention, how am I supposed to know you posted a something and want a response if you don't ping me? For starters the turnout for the Russian Elections were very high for the population of Russian control. The overall percentage was still far lower then previous years, this was due to areas like Finland most of the Baltics, most of Ukraine, parts of the Caucasus, large parts of Siberia (controlled by the white army), most of central Asia, and large parts of previous Russian land being in the hands of the Germans, the Provisional government or having declared their independence as in the case of Finland around 40% of the Russian population couldn't vote in the election. In the areas controlled by the Bolsheviks the election had a large turnout of around 50,000,000 people, so clearly there was support for the election, you also use the citation but don't add context to areas further down, you also copy it word for word. Page 319 the text is provided, it's not very hard to see, you copy and pasted a section from page 320. Des Vallee (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Des Vallee You're doing WP:OR by synthesizing, taking conclusions not made by the author out of, and adding, material. The quotation above is what was exactly written, and was paraphrased in the article. --BunnyyHop () 17:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop You keep putting up tags, despite the entirety of it being verified. You already know this, as well as this you are currently doing. Stating the Lenin lost the election and that the bolsheviks didn't have popular support among the Russian population something which is directly quoted in the article isn't synthesis, your only issue seems to be you don't like that the Bolsheviks lost. Des Vallee (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Footnotes

References

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

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:

• Stalin-Lenin-Kalinin-1919.jpg

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

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, "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, "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) . 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 (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)

Request full edit protection until consensus

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 () 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."

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 " 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)

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 () 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 () 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 () 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 () 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 () 18:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

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.

--BunnyyHop () 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 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 () 20:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

See whataboutism and WP:FALSEBALANCE. Crossroads 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 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 () 05:48, 26 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?

--BunnyyHop () 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 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 () 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 () 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)

Marxism-Leninism vs. Marxist-Leninists

There seems to be confusion between Marxism-Leninism (the ideology) and Marxist-Leninists, the people who created Marxism-Leninism and claimed to practice it. Hence we have statements such as "Marxist-Leninists themselves have committed imperialism" and "it just states Marxist-Leninist ambitions stated by Marxist-Leninist leaders, but goes into no detail of the practice of Marxist-Leninists."

One editor has complained that "this is what Marxist Leninists think not an actual fact." But that is the topic of the article. What Marxist-Leninists taught, not what they did in fact.

Thousands or maybe hundreds of thousands of books were written by Communists explaining Marxism-Leninism. They were taught in schools throughout the Communist world and in party classes throughout the rest of the world. What was in those books? What did they say? How did they explain history, class, revolution, government, sexual equality, racial relations, the nature of the universe? That's the topic of this article.

One editor expressed the opinion that be explaining Marxism-Leninism, we are promoting Communism. In fact, it is possible to write about a range of belief systems without specifically endorsing them. I have edited articles about both liberalism and conservatism. It doesn't mean that I have multiple personality disorder and my liberal personality edits liberalism articles, while my conservative personality edits conservatism articles.

TFD (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

In an article about fascism, the deeds committed by fascists are relevant and deserve high prominence, not just what they say in their books about "national purity" or whatever nonsense they talk about. Many, many sources tie fascist ideology to fascist deeds and ML ideology to ML deeds. Why would any political ideology be treated differently? Crossroads 20:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

First, the deeds committed by Fascists receive very little attention in the Fascism article. Mostly the article is about the ideology of Fascism. There's only passing reference to the Holocaust for example and no attempt to enumerate the number of Victims of Fascism. Secondly, the article Fascism is about both the ideology and the movement, while this article is only about the ideology. The article Communism is about both the ideology and movement. TFD (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, exactly. And we already have a bunch of articles, such as Crimes against humanity under communist regimes, Criticism of communist party rule and Mass killings under communist regimes, which are already about and devoted to atrocities et al. This article should mainly be about ideology and the atrocities should not receive all the attention and the lead should not become a coatrack for atrocities and criticism (not even Fascism does that in the lead), as we already have plenty of articles dedicated to them, and they should only be addressed in the Analysis section, where some authors say they were the results of ideology while others disagree. Davide King (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

There are a lot of nasty things that are attributable to liberals and conservatives, considering that they were the only two ideologies that governed Europe and North America until the end of the First World War and put fascism into power. Slavery, colonialism, wars, famines were all justified on liberal principles. TFD (talk) 08:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, exactly. Only for communism do we do this. Even for fascism, we do not say how they were still capitalist regimes ("no true capitalism" or "fascists were really socialist and leftists"), how conservatives, liberals and centrists were pivotal in putting them in power in the first place, etc. This is systematic political bias supporting the equivalency between communism and Nazism as well as the double genocide theory, both of which are revisionist views, whereain not mentioning the atrocities is compared to Holocaust denial, even though we already have articles about them and this is about the ideology. Only communism has articles such as Crimes against humanity under communist regimes, Criticism of communist party rule and Mass killings under communist regimes, even though the main topic is not clear and are full of original research and synthesis in positing a link between communism and the events, and now this article has become yet another coatrack about the atrocities and events, which no one denies, when this article should be about the ideology and the atrocities should only be mentioned in passing the same way we do for Fascism. One does not have to be a communist to see this double standard, which is in violation of our policies and guidelines. All these Communist-related articles act like the anti-communist scholars are the be-all end-all of scholarship, or as Newimpartial once wrote, "any summary of the revisionist debates as 'Robert Conquest wins and his opponents are all FRINGE' is not a very accurate statement concerning reality as we know it." Davide King (talk) 09:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I find it interesting how anti-Communist propaganda mirrors Stalinist propaganda. That's probably because most leading anti-Communists such as Stéphane Courtois began their careers as Stalinists. TFD (talk) 11:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, indeed. The problem is that Stalinist propaganda is rightly condemned but the same is not done for anti-communism, which is celebrated. This is justified on the theory that anti-communism is good in itself, which is in itself justified by the false equivalency between anti-communism and anti-fascism, which is similarly justified by the theory that Communism and Nazism were equal, which is where we always return to. Could you please, do an analysis of sources? Especially these general sources here. Are these sources about the topic of this article (the ideology), or really broadly about Communist states? Are these really the best sources we have on the topic? Which scholarly sources are we missing? Davide King (talk) 13:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

First of all - I'm not very keen on English scholarship of communist studies. If I were to do a more complete list of sources, it would be mostly based on «foreign scholars».

--BunnyyHop () 16:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop, while I appreciate this effort, I do not think these are good or the best sources either, as they are too primary-oriented and it would be better to use secondary sources citing Kussinen; in addition, the first one more about Marxism and the last one about Leninism. We need better independent, secondary sources. A research on Google Scholar (marxism leninism ideology, marxism-leninism ideology and "marxism-leninism" ideology and "marxism-leninism") should provide us with them. Similarly, marxism-leninism shows us results about the ideology, discussing it in different states (The Demise of Marxism-Leninism in Russia, Soviet Marxism-Leninism: The Decline of an Ideology, Marxism-Leninism in the German Democratic Republic), but the primary topic is the ideology, our main topic too, not any action Communist states and leaders did, i.e. exactly the "Marxism-Leninism vs. Marxist-Leninists" The Four Deuces highlighted. These are sources to use. Davide King (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for appreciating the effort anyway. I still think the first source is salvageable - from page 48 to 61 the title of the chapter is «Marxism-Leninism» (until the 50s). The next one is post-50s, and is also, but not limited to, Marxism-Leninism. --BunnyyHop () 19:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I may have found a good source 1. What do you think, Davide King? We shall now find similar texts for other (Marxist-Leninist) countries. I think the best we have about Marxism-Leninism universally is the encyclopedia. The rest of the article could consist of Marxism-Leninism in different countries, since most books are «Marxism Leninism in X» and «Y Marxism-Leninism»BunnyyHop () 22:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll make a new list of sources.

BunnyyHop () 00:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, do not ping selected people who have not previously been at the article, per WP:CANVASS. I also find it odd that you complain about atrocities getting mentioned both here and at articles like mass killings under Communist regimes, even while you and others try to get the latter article deleted or rewritten to be about a "narrative". So where can we cover it? More generally, as for how to compare the far-left and far-right (however defined), all that matters is what the due weight of reliable sources say. If those are seemingly biased toward liberalism or something else, then there's nothing we can do. We don't right great wrongs (or what some editors may see as wrongs, anyway). Worth noting, too, that humans are just as capable of evil "for the greater good" as they are for obviously selfish reasons. Crossroads 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Apparently pinging a single user, the same way one would wikilink the author of a quote, when I think it is just good manner to ping when someone is speaking about another user, is canvassing. "So where can we cover it?" That is the whole issue, that we must cover it, even though most Communist historians and other experts do not actually group them together. By the way, we already cover them in each individual article; per policies, we cannot create articles that group unconnected events; we do not do it just on the base a regime is capitalist, Christian, Communist, Muslim, or whatever; we need to establish why these events are connected using reliable sources. Scholars simply do not do that, so we need not to engage in original research or synthesis and complaining where we can cover it, when we already have the individual articles about the events. Soviet Marxism-Leninism: The Decline of an Ideology does not discuss the Great Purge or the Holodomor because it is mainly about the ideology, what should be the main topic of this article and what other language Wikipedias do. Davide King (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The obvious place to cover mass killings under Communist regimes is in the same way we do for other mass killings: under articles about the countries where they were committed or under stand alone articles. The least obvious place to cover them is in an article about ideology. The fact that some people see a pattern in Communist mass killings may be notable and deserve its own article. But per neutrality, that article should not state the perceived connection as a fact, since we are writing encyclopedic articles not anti-Communist propaganda. And you would do well to study propaganda as a topic, because the more assumptions it makes the less persuasive it is and you are just preaching to the choir.

They say the best encyclopedia articles are those where one cannot tell the viewpoint of the editors. So if an article comes across as written by someone who probably thinks Obama was born in Kenya, it's not a good article.

TFD (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what is meant by the Obama comment. You are aware that someone can be even stridently anti-communist while also being a center-left strong Obama supporter, right? When it comes to not being able to tell the political leanings of the writers, I agree to an extent, but if that means WP:UNDUE-ly minimizing reliable sources that are critical of an ideology just to create a certain look, then that is bad and a WP:FALSEBALANCE. I see trouble in that you are framing criticism of Communism as being "anti-Communist propaganda". Is criticism of Trump or the U.S. Republican Party "anti-Trump propaganda"? In any case, my position is indeed that "The fact that some people see a pattern in Communist mass killings notable and deserve its own article", and as I said, that that stuff gets mentioned here to the extent that reliable sources connect them to Marxism-Leninism. Crossroads 04:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, "nd you would do well to study propaganda as a topic, because the more assumptions it makes the less persuasive it is and you are just preaching to the choir." This is interesting, that is why I hope to discuss this with you because you express yourself much more clearly and concisely. Anyway, the point is "saying that anti-communism is not right-wing relies on an etymological fallacy. It doesn't just mean opposed to communism but extreme opposition, similarly as how anti-fascist doesn't mean just non-fascist." Anti-fascism and anti-communism are largely left-wing and right-wing movements, respectively. The fact there have been centre-left anti-Communists (who were really anti-Stalinists, which is conflated as anti-communism; opposition to the Soviet Union et al. on the left is not anti-communism but anti-Stalinism) or right-leaning anti-fascists does not suddenly make the movement big tent. As I just wrote, these centre-left or left-wing anti-communists were not anti-communists but anti-Communists, i.e. anti-Stalinists, and in some cases (Callaghan) they were from the right-wing of the party. I also find curious that you mention Obama, since Obama actually applied détente, not anti-communism, to Cuba.

Again, you conflate anti-Stalinism on the left and centre-left for anti-communism; ironically, it is the Stalinists who considered anti-Stalinism to be anti-communism, which takes us back to the point (right-wing) anti-communist propaganda (again, here I am using anti-communism as extreme opposition to communism, not just any leftist who opposed the Soviet Union et al.) has many things in common with Stalinist propaganda. The problem is that article discuss the events, which we already cover elsewhere, lump them together, rather than "a pattern in Communist mass killings notable and deserve its own article", which is what The Four Deuces and I actually advocate for in the form of concept/theory/narrative. "hat stuff gets mentioned here to the extent that reliable sources connect them to Marxism-Leninism." The problem is only one side of historiography does that, so we cannot state it as fact, as is usually done in most Communist-related articles. Davide King (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

There's a distinction between opposition to Communism, which by definition is shared by most non-Communists, and anti-Communism, which is extreme opposition to Communism, just as there is a difference between opposition to Islamist government and anti-Islamism (or Islamophobia), or opposition to Fascism and anti-Fascism. From the perspective of an anti-Communist, anti-Islamist, or anti-Fascism, the object of their opposition represents an existential threat and anyone who does not see that is a pawn (knowingly or otherwise) of the other side. Hence your comment, "I see trouble in that you are framing criticism of Communism as being "anti-Communist propaganda"." You are conflating not being an anti-Communist with being a Communist apologist.

Similarly, some of Trump's opponents portrayed him as a fascist who would cancel the 2020 elections and turn America into a Russian client state. To them, anyone who didn't agree with them was a Trump supporter. So to answer your question, there is a distinction between opposition to Trump and Trump Derangement Syndrome, just as there is a distinction between opposition to Communism and anti-Communism. One is rational, the other isn't.

And yes there are anti-Communists who supported Obama, but that's because he was able to build a coalition broad enough to include some of them, such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was one of the few Democrats involved in the VOC Memorial Foundation. But Zbig is generally seen as a right-winger.

In answer to your comment that some people connect ML and mass killings, that's true of any ideology. John Locke for example provides a clear justification for slavery, based on the jurisprudence of the liberal jurist Sir Edward Coke and incorporated into the Massachusetts constitution. Non-Christians taken in a just war can be enslaved and depriving people of their slaves is a violation of property rights. But the article on liberalism is not about slavery. Similarly, there is a clear link between Nazism and the Holocaust. Yet the Nazism article merely mentions the Holocaust in passing. That's as it should be because the article is about Nazi ideology, not Nazi actions. Of course if the article had been written by anti-Fascists, one would expect greater emphasis on the Holocaust. That's because to the anti-Communist, anti-islamist or anti-Fascist, it is more important to discredit evil than to explain their ideology.

The reference to Obama's birth certificate is that informed readers of MKuCR would see it as written from an extremist point of view and immediately discount it, just as someone who read an article criticizing Obama that claimed he was not an American citizen would question everything else the article said about him. So for someone who actually wanted to discredit Obama, this would be a failure.

TFD (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I presented sources earlier that show that the main objectives of anti-Communists are support of military aggression abroad and suppression of dissent at home. Hence land reform, nationalization and government spending on health, welfare and education in foreign countries are seen as Communist-backed conspiracies, as are support for civil rights and opposition to war at home. That's one reason the project is seen as right-wing, the other being that it is lead by the Right. TFD (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Just a few thoughts on the rewriting that seems to be imminent from the course of this discussion.

The idea that Marxism-Leninism (ML) is just "Stalinism" or refers only or fundamentally to Soviet Marxism has two foundations: historical ignorance or dishonesty. Outside the USSR, still in the 1930s, several communists, like the Chinese, spoke of Marxism-Leninism with a different sense than the Soviets. With that same name, what the Chinese, Vietnamese, Soviets, Koreans, (and so on) called Marxism-Leninism was never the exact same thing. It is still necessary to point out that authors so different from each other, in different moments of life, such as Florestan Fernandes, Nicos Poulantzas, Louis Althusser, Agustin Cueva, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Thomas Sankara, Amilcar Cabral, Agostinho Neto, Samora Machel, Huey Newton, Fred Hampton, and so many others, have asserted themselves as Marxist-Leninists. If we admit Marxism-Leninism is only "Stalinism", then we will have the difficult task of affirming that all these revolutionaries - and thousands of others - were all "Stalinists". And, of course, this procedure is not serious.

I think a very beautiful article can be made on such an important topic that is Marxism-Leninism - undeniably the most prominent communist ideology on the communist movement of the 20th century. It could be divided into Marxist-Leninist thought in different continents, countries, etc. But first, the scope of the article must be the ideology and not Mass killings under communist regimes, nor History of communism (although imo the editors who wrote the «History» section did a pretty good job). This does not mean history must not be included - it should - but only when relevant to the ideology.

--BunnyyHop () 02:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

On the addition of extreme POV section on Soviet analysis

"In Soviet discourse Marxism-Leninism appeared as an ideology, a science, a morality, a theory, a philosophy, a political practice, a sociology, an economics, a party line, and so on. This caused Western analysts, but especially foreign policy analysts, to conflate the words Marxism-Leninism, ideology and theory, labeling Soviet theories of war, deterrence, correlation of forces analysis" is completely POV pushing, this isn't an article on Soviet historiography, it reads like some other edits in which you claims Marxist-Leninism was a form science. this section is completely an ML POV. BunnyyHop I would advice you to stop reverting and go to talk. Des Vallee (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

No problems there. It's properly attributed to Soviet discourse. Also, this is about Marxism-Leninism as a term, not Soviet Historiography. I wonder what «POV pushing» means to you, it just doesn't make sense. --BunnyyHop () 07:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

POV pushing means a section which gives undue weight or gives a positive view of the group in question, giving undue weight. Something which this most certainly is. If you genuinely think this edit is neutral, I really don't know what you consider being biased. It means pushing somebody's POV, either by giving undue weight, improper attribution biased wording etc... It very clearly is biased, I mean for gods sake it describes Marxist-Leninism as a type of correct "science," Marxist-Leninism isn't a science. Des Vallee (talk) 07:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

It is sourced to the British Journal of Political Science. Is that Marxist–Leninist propaganda too? I find it absurd that, as an anti-Stalinist, explaining what the ideology is, attributing it to what they believe and what books about the ideology say, is considered Marxist–Leninist propaganda. You would not want Marxist–Leninists to push their POVs at Anarchism, or American rightists to push their POVs at Socialism, or communists at Conservatism and Liberalism. Similarly, we would not want to use only "anti-communist" or "orthodox" scholarly sources here. The field of Communist history is one of the most politicised, conflictual and controversial fields in academia, so we must be even more careful in respecting NPOV. Davide King (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Saying "in Soviet discourse Marxism-Leninism appeared as...a science" is not the same thing as saying ML is a science. If I say for example "Flat earthers say the earth is flat," I am not saying the earth is flat.

I find it hard to believe that the editor does not understand this distinction, which is a matter of basic reading comprehension, and ask that they stop making obviously disingenuous objections.

TFD (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces The issue is that the text is treated as fact something it isn't, we need to correctly only attribute Marxist-Leninists you stated you support this so we seem to be in agreement on this. We need to make sure we are only stating what official Marxist-Leninists believe, not that it is correct, and also need to use reliable sources to state if Marxists-Leninists did what they preached. I think therefor we can agree that we should attribute it more clearly and provide counter opinions. As it's not Marxist-Leninism isn't a science, despite what the official party lines of authoritarian governments like the Soviet Union.

Davide King I really don't get what you are stating. If a source stated "The revolution must require the liquidation of the hostile classes," should you go and put it in? What if a reliable citation stated "Fascism requires the removal of all undesirables and sub-humans" should that be added to? No, that argument makes no sense it genuinely is ridiculous. I can understand the logic of having pro-Marxist-Leninist sources, but this really has nothing to do with anything it is a straw man. When using text that is based off a biased source you can't use biased wording ever. Stating that Marxist-Leninists see themselves as "true scientists" although ridiculous is correct assuming we attribute it correctly, it doesn't mean we use biased terms however or give undue weight. Des Vallee (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it is clear to readers with reasonable reading that we are explaining the ideology rather than endorsing it. Have no fear that just by reading the article that millions of Americans are going to register as Communist Party voters.

One of the major criticisms of liberalism is that it has not brought about the freedom that it promised. That is pointed out in some articles mostly when it explains the consequences: Tories were able to re-brand themselves as friends of the working man, socialists left liberal parties to start their own parties and "new liberals" revised classical liberalism to introduce welfare policies. But we don't dwell on slavery, genocide of indigenous people, the Irish and Bengal famines and liberal support of Adolf Hitler, all of which were justified on liberal principles.

TFD (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Des Vallee that we need to make sure we use WP:In-text attribution when required by policies and guidelines. This applies to all ideologies of course. Otherwise readers could be confused between what is just part of the ideology and what is the consensus of dispassionate scholars. Crossroads 21:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem is we already do, starting literally as in "Soviet discourse." I do not know see what could be more direct than this. "This applies to all ideologies of course." Except it does not, because only for communism and communist-related ideologies do we do this (see TFD's comment above). What many users seem to miss is that scholars and genocide experts do not limit themselves on blaming it on communist ideology; they give other explanations and give more attention to the fact all these were backward regimes with no long-term tradition of democracy, free enterprise and individual rights. Most Communists came to power in backward countries, with little to none tradition of democracy, free enterprise and human rights; democracy, free enterprise and human rights in the West also did not exactly come peaceful in most cases; they took time, struggle and revolution in several notable cases. These are not the views of some "dispassionate scholars" but legitimate scholars and any scholar who is not hellbent on anti-communism. Davide King (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I cannot find where Des Vallee said that. Do you meant that instead of saying "Marxism–Leninism holds that a two-stage communist revolution is needed to replace capitalism" we say "According to W. John Morgan, writing in the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Marxism–Leninism holds that a two-stage communist revolution is needed to replace capitalism?" How does that improve the article? TFD (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Apparently, Des Vallee just do not like what these sources say that do not reflect their own anarchism and self-admitted anti-communist POV. They even disagree Marxist–Leninists support the vanguard "on behalf on the proletariat" (quoted from given ref itself), even though we are simply stating this is what they claim, not that they really represent the proletariat. We already have plenty of criticism of this and other criticism in the body and whole sections dedicated to it.

Just compare it with Fascism, which says "Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. A fascist state is led by a strong leader such as a dictator and a martial law government composed of the members of the governing fascist party to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views imperialism, political violence and war as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky (national economic self-sufficiency) through protectionist and economic interventionist policies."

Are we being fascist propagandists from stating what they think? I do not think so. The proposed wording is simply stating what was the Soviet discourse of Marxism–Leninism, not that this is a fact, and is properly sourced to an independent non-primary source, the peer-reviewed British Journal of Political Science, not the Soviet Encyclopedia. Davide King (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I think their position is that every article related to communism should say "The Communists killed 100 million people." That's all the readers need to know or should know. ML was all lies anyway and no one believed or followed it, so why write about it? It detracts from the only thing worth knowing about Communism, that the Communists killed 100 million people. TFD (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I think my comment is being overthought or applied to something specific that was not intended. What I know is that there is a lot of active editing on the article and that some edits have confusingly stated ideology as fact. Text like "Marxism-Leninism holds that..." is of course fine. The text from Fascism that Davide King quotes is also well written. I stand by what I said about being clear when we are describing their ideology vs. when what is said is the consensus of impartial ("dispassionate") scholars. As for deeds or atrocities, let's just put as much weight on it as the sources do. I don't think mocking another editor like this is appropriate. Crossroads 03:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I see where the confusion came in. With the opening post of this section, there's the specific example of "In Soviet discourse Marxism-Leninism appeared as an..." I would probably have said "was treated as" or the like, but this example wasn't that bad. There were worse sentences being proposed before which is more what I had in mind. Crossroads 03:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Easter egg wikilink to Mass killings under communist regimes

Davide King,

as before, no consensus for moving see also.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC))

We do not need consensus for such obvious things as Easter egg (see WP:EASTEREGG). Ironically, I am giving more weight to that article as it is clearly visible in See also rather than buried in the body, wikilinked as "killing", which is a clear Easter egg. Davide King (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I disagree it would be an easteregg, and yes, you need consensus.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC))

«killing political dissents» is not the same thing as «mass killings under communist regimes», despite both having the word «killing». --BunnyyHop () 00:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop, exactly. KIENGIR, why do you support violating our policies and guidelines and acting like you are the one holding consensus? That is a clear Easter egg, as it is not clear at all what it is wikilinking to. Killing, Mass killing, Politicide, etc. Again, I am actually giving the article more weight than burying it in an unclear linking in the body. Davide King (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop, your aggregation is not necessarily akin to mine. Davide King, I disagree the way how you present the situation, I don't "support violation...", the scope (any) is related with each other.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC))

That is a clear Easter egg violation and it is more relevant as See also, which also give it more visibility than being buried in the body in an unclear wikilink. Davide King (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

That is your opinion, I don't think it would be a violation, as I said.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC))

That it is an Easter egg, it is not clear where it links and it would be much better served to be clearly linked as See also seems obvious. Czar, what do you think about this? Davide King (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• When starting a talk page discussion, please link the edit and use a more descriptive title than "Recent edit" for posterity. Assuming the edit in question is this, what makes it an "Easter egg" is that it only links the word "killing". Expand it to ] and it's fine. Agreed that it's better to link within the article if possible than relegate to the See also section. The link is in context—it's clear that the killing is related to Communist states. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 19:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Done. Davide King, please in the future let me to refactor my own contribution, per our rules. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:42, 2 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 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. 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 () 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 () 20:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft RfC language

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

• Communist ideology only, i.e., a summary style split from Communism § Theory/Ideology, comparing the common and disparate ideological components of both states and non-states with ML-based ideology (Ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Ideology of the Chinese Communist Party, Ho Chi Minh Thought, Communism in Nepal, Communism in Kerala, Communism in Cuba) with historical background only as context for describing the ideologies but not full regime histories
• Both ideology and political program, i.e., "Marxism–Leninism" refers to both a Communist ideology and the political practice/regimes associated with Marxist–Leninist states, so the article should overview both for all major ML states; e.g., it should include Stalinism and Maoism, covering the regime's actions in relation to its stated ideology
• No primary topic, i.e., "Marxism–Leninism" is a floating signifier and has no singular, reducible definition based on how it's invoked in sources, so convert this term to a disambiguation page listing links to the various existing articles/sections that represent the different definitions/meanings of M–L

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 «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».

--BunnyyHop () 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 () 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)

• My very best wishes, this has already been addressed, and this is not the topic to argue that. See Talk:Marxism–Leninism#Marxism-Leninism_vs._Marxist-Leninists, I recommend you to move your comment over there. BunnyyHop () 16:10, 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)

• As a note of order, we have already page Ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union that covers option #1 as stated above (i.e. "Soviet ideology"). Just another reason why this is nonstarter. My very best wishes (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  Incidentally, that is a much better article and perhaps that should be moved here while taking bits from Ideology of the Chinese Communist Party and Chinese Marxist philosophy for a section about China and find if there are other sources that cover Marxist-Leninist ideology. Philosophy and Ideology: The Development of Philosophy and Marxism-Leninism in Poland Since the Second World War can be used for a section about Poland, Marxism-Leninism in the German Democratic Republic for a section about East Germany and so on. Either this, or otherwise there is no clear main topic and I would support Czar's proposal of a disambiguation page. Davide King (talk) 06:08, 12 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 () 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 () 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 () 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 () 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 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 () 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 () 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 () 22:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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. Such states have been accused of genocidal acts in China, Poland and Ukraine.

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. 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 "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 () 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, ) 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 " 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, " 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)

• I do not think that splitting the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist "theory" (pseudoscience) and their practical deeds to separate pages is a good idea. Because they are too closely related, even inseparable, exactly as their authors claimed. Let me give an example. Something like Intensification of the class struggle under socialism is not at all a theory. This is not science. This is nonsense, a propaganda stunt. But it was needed for Stalin and historically important only as a justification of Great Purge. My very best wishes (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• MVBW, wouldn't that make this a FORK of Communism?TFD (talk) 20:39, 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 "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 () 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' 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, "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 . 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)

Juche

Des Vallee, the columnist «Max Fisher» is not a reliable source, let alone more authoritative than «Michael J. Seth», which is specialized in «Korea» and has a research interest in «Modern Korea». I suggest you to look at the sources before reverting an edit, and WP:RELIABILITY. BunnyyHop () 09:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Des Vallee, can you explain why you think that newspaper columns are better sources than peer-reviewed academic literature? Are you planning to edit climate change and evolution articles? TFD (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

BunnyyHop Michael J. Seth is the very person we use for describing it as Ultranationalism. The source clearly describes Juche as ultra-nationalism "North Korea continued to call itself socialist and maintained many features reminiscent of Stalinist Russia. However its elaborate hierarchical structure based on family background, its Kim-family cult, is it's extreme ultranationalism and its Juche ideology." as well as on Page 138 also describes it as Ultranationalism. No source uses the term ethnic nationalism for anything relating to Juche.

Not once does the source (or any source) describes Juche as "ethnic nationalism" it only states "ethnic nationalism" once and it has nothing to do with Juche, all other citations also state this.

You added in the term "ethnic nationalism" not the source, you added in original research. Des Vallee (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

There are two types of nationalism: ethnic nationalism and civic nationalism. Which type do you think the source is describing or is it unclear? Extreme ultranationalism btw is not a different type of nationalism, but an very extreme form of usually ethnic nationalism. (Ultra means extreme.) TFD (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Des Vallee, I'm confused. I replaced «ethnic nationalism» with «ultranationalism» diff, and you added «ethnic nationalism» on your revert, diff. Furthermore, in the edit summary you justify this exactly by quoting VOX «Synthesis VOX source and other sources clearly states "race-based ultranationalism of a kind so extreme that only early-20th-century fascist states ever mastered thousands of North Koreans poured"». If you realized your revert is wrong, revert it back. BunnyyHop () 15:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

BunnyyHop You added a term which was never in the original source. Nowhere does any of the sources state ethnic nationalism as a form of Juche, in fact only one source even mentions "ethnic nationalism" and it has nothing to do with Juche. The source never once states anything on ethnic nationalism, (which you claim the source states). You added in your own position on North Korea (which appears to positive), based on original research and your position not on any sources. Des Vallee (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

What type of nationalism is the source referring to - civic or ethnic? If you can't answer that question, then you shouldn't be adding the information. TFD (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Des Vallee, I didn't add anything. I removed «Korean ethnic nationalism» and added «Korean ultranationalism», which anyone can see in this diff. You reverted this edit, adding the «ethnic nationalism» which now you're correctly arguing against, as evidenced by this diff. «which you claim the source states», no, you used VOX as a reliable source to revert my edit, justifying the addition of «ethnic nationalism» as I showed above (simply see the diff: «Synthesis VOX source and other sources clearly states»). Since it's clear «ethnic nationalism» is not what's stated in the sources, revert your revert. BunnyyHop () 13:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Vox does not mention "Marxism-Leninism." As noted by Seth, "Marxism-Leninism" was abandoned by North Korea between the 1950s and 1970s, so what are we even talking about? We really need to stop cherrypicking sources, or even using news sources, and follow the actual literature. Davide King (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and this conversation between Seth and a group of interviewers from a 2013 Juche conference may be a good source for this; it's not ideal because it's WP:PRIMARY, and publisher authenticity might be an issue, although if you follow the (hidden, white-on-white, Ctrl+A or mouse over to view them) links at the top of the page, there are more details about it, and appears legit as part of a large symposium or conference about Juche. Mathglot (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Well, according to scholarly sources ,

From adherence to Soviet ideological leadership in the 1940s and 50s, to declarations of ideological independence in the 1960s, to the emergence of Chuche philosophy in the 1970s and 80s, North Korea never severed its ties with the Marxist-Leninist tradition. On the contrary, this tradition constituted the basic and most fundamental raw material from which North Korean ideology was shaped and developed... even Chuche philosophy, the apex of North Korean ideological particularity during the Cold War, was hardly an idealism and instead quite reminiscent of a good old-fashioned Marxist-Leninist materialism.

So, yes, it does belong to this page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

References

1. Seth, Michael; Gray, Isaac (9 December 2013). Professor Michael Seth - Inside the Hermit Kingdom: Juche and the Social Ideals of a Nation. Retrieved 2021-01-12. There has been a movement in the direction of North Korean ideology from Marxist-Leninism to a more vague Kim Il Sung nationalistic socialism to an extreme racial-nationalism.
2. From Soviet Origins to Chuch’e: Marxism-Leninism in the History of North Korean Ideology, 1945-1989

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class socialism articles
• High-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles
• C-Class Russia articles
• High-importance Russia articles
• High-importance C-Class Russia articles
• C-Class Russia (science and education) articles
• Science and education in Russia task force articles
• C-Class Russia (history) articles
• History of Russia task force articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• C-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• C-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• C-Class Contemporary philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Contemporary philosophy articles
• Contemporary philosophy task force articles
• C-Class Soviet Union articles
• High-importance Soviet Union articles
• WikiProject Soviet Union articles
• C-Class China-related articles
• Mid-importance China-related articles
• C-Class China-related articles of Mid-importance
• C-Class Chinese history articles
• Mid-importance Chinese history articles
• WikiProject Chinese history articles
• WikiProject China articles
• C-Class Economics articles
• Low-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class history articles
• Low-importance history articles
• WikiProject History articles
• C-Class European history articles
• Low-importance European history articles
• All WikiProject European history pages
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• C-Class Chinese military history articles
• Chinese military history task force articles
• C-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• C-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• C-Class World War I articles
• World War I task force articles
• C-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles
• C-Class Cold War articles
• Cold War task force articles
• C-Class Post-Cold War articles
• Post-Cold War task force articles
• Low-importance Cold War articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• Low-importance sociology articles
• C-Class International relations articles
• Low-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English