Talk:Marxism–Leninism/Archive 3

Why remove this section?
I appreciate that you have some agreement with my new lead but cannot understand you removing this section. Also, note that the sources being used say that it was Joseph Stalin himself, the individual, who developed "Marxism-Leninism" as an ideology. The historian who wrote the sources traces the origin of "Marxism-Leninism" and its ideas to one book written by Joseph Stalin himself.

Also, it's often debated whether Marxism-Leninism is really about Stalin or not (this talk page is full of it), so I think it's really useful to have these two sources in the first paragraph which clearly associate it with Stalin.

The removed section says the following:


 * Other communist and Marxist tendencies have, however, a different view. They argue that Marxist–Leninist states did not establish socialism, but rather state capitalism.

Correct. Many tendencies of Marxism, represented by many well-known individuals and groups which are not Marxist-Leninist ("other tendencies"), clearly state that the Soviet Union was "state capitalist". Although the source says that the Soviet Union was not state capitalist, it clearly recognizes that it is true that non-Marxist-Leninist Marxist groups have upheld the theory of USSR as state capitalist. We're not saying the USSR was state capitalist here - we're saying that these Marxist groups have such a view.

Yes, it is true that many Trotskyists do not regard the USSR as state capitalist, but Trotskyists are once again only one tendency of the Marxist movement. Their view could be mentioned as well, but there's no reason for removing this information. Trotskyists are not the ultimate counter-position to Marxism-Leninism.


 * Marxism's dictatorship of the proletariat represents a democratic form of rule of the majority; single-party rule (which the Marxist-Leninist states made use of) cannot be a dictatorship of the proletariat under the Marxist definition.

As well, there is no reason for removing this. The given source quite clearly states that the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' represents a democratic concept, and also explicitly states that it cannot have the form of single-party rule.


 * Additionally, according to co-founder of Marxism Friedrich Engels, state property by itself is private property of capitalist nature

Yes, the quote from Engels says exactly this. It is well known that Marxists, from the beginning, have been concerned with the issue of socialization vs. nationalization - social property vs. state property. Original Marxism has supported the former and been critical of the latter, while "Marxism-Leninism" has supported the latter.

There is no reason for removing this, given that it is explaining the formerly listed groups' reasons for regarding the USSR as state capitalist.


 * To other communist tendencies, Marxism–Leninism is neither Marxism nor Leninism nor the union of both, but rather an artificial term created to justify Stalin's ideological distortion.

Correct - this is exactly what non-Marxist-Leninists Marxists say about Marxism-Leninism, and the source - as well as other sources used in the article - says exactly this.

Zozs (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The new edits replacing "Other communist and Marxist tendencies have, however, a different view" for "Some" is incorrect. For starters, "Some" is an extreme expression of weasel wording, and attempts to hide the fact that this is an actual view held by Marxists. "My" interpretation of Engels isn't being used - I limit myself to saying exactly what Engels said there. "cannot be a dictatorship of the proletariat under the Marxist definition they argue." is wrong - the source is not saying that some Marxist groups have said that the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot take the form of single-party rule. The source says that the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot take the form of single-party rule. The source is not written by a Marxist, and is not talking about Marxist groups either - it's simply explaining Marxism's original position in regard to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Zozs (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I know Marxists who supported the Soviet Union.. Eric Hobsbawn, E. P. Thompson (and I could go on forever).... The lead literally says now "There is no definite agreement between historians if Marxism–Leninism is a form of Marxism.[3] Some argue that Marxist–Leninist states did not establish socialism, but rather state capitalism.[4] Marxism's dictatorship of the proletariat represents a democratic form of rule of the majority; single-party rule (which the Marxist-Leninist states made use of) cannot be a dictatorship of the proletariat under the Marxist definition they argue.[5] To other communist tendencies, Marxism–Leninism is neither Marxism nor Leninism nor the union of both, but rather an artificial term created to justify Stalin's ideological distortion.[6]" Its says exactly what you want it to say; that many people argue M-L isn't communist nor Marxist. --TIAYN (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We're talking about Marxists who do not support the Soviet Union here. I've refuted each of your edits in detail, you haven't refuted my refutation. So I we should go back to my version? Zozs (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, saved too quickly.
 * To reply to the other points: "My" interpretation of Engels isn't being used - I limit myself to saying exactly what Engels said there". Wrong, since according to M-Ls and the Leninists, the party was based on the working class and therefore represented the interests of the working class, therefore, per definition according to rationalization public property in those states were socialist. You are saying their ideological rationalization is false while those that are critizign them are right... "The source says that the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot take the form of single-party rule" - if thats what the author believe, add the authors name in the introduction. ... This line, "The source is not written by a Marxist, and is not talking about Marxist groups either - it's simply explaining Marxism's original position in regard to the dictatorship of the proletariat", is complete BS (sorry, I'm breaching every conceivable WP guideline on not being an asshole). You're lead says outright that M-Ls ideological rationalization are completely false, while everybody elses ideological rationalization is completely spot on. How is that not bias? There are thousands of historians who believe Stalin had to come after Lenin. There are thousands of historians, political scientists who believe that communism had to lead to terror. I don't subsribe to those views, but why in gods name aren't you mentioning them? Why? Because for the sake of neutrality, they should be mentioned. And come on Zozs, the right-wing interpretation of communism has more mainstream hegemony then the left-wing has. --TIAYN (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Wrong, since according to M-Ls and the Leninists, the party was based on the working class and therefore represented the interests of the working class, therefore, per definition according to rationalization public property in those states were socialist." 1) We're explaining the views of non-Marxist-Leninist Marxists here. 2) Another of the sources says that the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Marxist concept, cannot take the form of single-party rule. 3) Then we could add this sentence back: "Additionally, according to Engels, state property by itself is private property of capitalist nature[10] unless the proletariat has control of political power, in which case it forms public property.[11] Whether the proletariat was actually in control of the Marxist–Leninist states is a matter of debate between Marxism–Leninism and other communist tendencies". "if thats what the author believe, add the authors name in the introduction." Why? It's not an opinion article. It is proper academic research. "Complete BS" - Your opinion. "You're lead says outright that M-Ls ideological rationalization are completely false, while everybody elses ideological rationalization is completely spot on". No. My lead explains both views, and you want to compromise the explanation of the other view. "There are thousands of historians who believe Stalin had to come after Lenin. There are thousands of historians, political scientists who believe that communism had to lead to terror." If you claim this, then you need a source which says exactly that the dictatorship of the proletariat, in a Marxist sense, can take the form of single-party rule. If you don't have that, then don't beat around the bush with "similar" claims. "And come on Zozs, the right-wing interpretation of communism has more mainstream hegemony then the left-wing has." Well, this article is not about that. There are several articles about that. I take it you agree with me on all other points you didn't reply to? Zozs (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The current lead explains both views. Zozs, I don't know you, but if you've attended university or college (don't mean to sound like an arrogant asshole) you've probably learnt that a lead is supposed to introduce the reader to the topic. Having one minor paragraph on the subject of it being marxist or communist is fine, devoted more attention to it then to actually introduce the reader to the topic however is not fine... And of course, even worse. None of what you've mentioning is mentioned in the body of the article, therefore I have another reason to reduce because i defend basic, international text structures; leading, body, conclusion (wp does not have conclusions thought, so just lead, body...)
 * I don't need a source, I just need to point you Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the Czech communists, the german communists, the French communists, Eurocommunists - in genreal every movement accepts that you can have marxims-leninism and a single-party state. These things don't need to be sources, you don't need to source uncontroversial facts. The majority people on the street, who have never read Marxist or M-L texts, would call Soviet variant communist and many would call it Marxist. THis is uncontroversial, and you know this. Don't tell me that the majority of people you speak to don't think the Soviet Union was communist or M-L, because thats a lie and you know it.... Are you claiming that you know more about Marxism then Stalin or Eric Hobsbawn? IT does seem a bit strange that you know more about Marxism then Hobsbawn, but oh well. --TIAYN (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "The current lead explains both views" Yet you're undermining the explanation of one of the views. "None of what you've mentioning is mentioned in the body of the article, therefore I have another reason to reduce because i defend basic" Then we will have to additionally fix that - but one wrong thing does not justify another wrong thing. "I don't need a source" Correct - this is your mantra. "I just need to point you Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the Czech communists, the german communists, the French communists, Eurocommunists - in genreal every movement accepts that you can have marxims-leninism and a single-party state" - Correct; Marxist-Leninism is compatible with a single-party state. Here we're explaining the non-ML view that a DOTP cannot take the form of a single-party state. "These things don't need to be sources, you don't need to source uncontroversial facts" So you can't find a source? "The majority people on the street, who have never read Marxist or M-L texts, would call Soviet variant communist and many would call it Marxist" Is Wikipedia written to give the opinion of the majority of people, who are additionally uninformed in the given topic? "Are you claiming that you know more about Marxism then Stalin or Eric Hobsbawn? ". I don't know. Are you claiming that you know more about Marxism than Wilhelm Liebknecht or Rosa Luxemburg? Really, almost every party you mentioned was just either ML or had roots in ML with social democratic deviation, and has little, if anything, to do with original Marxism. You've failed to produce a real argument or have a source which refutes my edits, I take it you agree with me on everything else you didn't reply to. Zozs (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Rosa Luxemburg never said Lenin and co were not communist, she argued the way they sought revolutionary transformation was wrong, and would not give the intended results... Again, you're not telling the whole story.... Yes, Zozs, WP is literally about copying the dominant view of the narrative. Have you read No original research, Verifiability, Fringe theories.. WPs guidelines says you have to follow the dominant narrative. You don't discuss it, you state it: "Marxism's dictatorship of the proletariat represents a democratic form of rule of the majority; single-party rule (which the Marxist-Leninist states made use of) cannot be a dictatorship of the proletariat under the Marxist definition".. You are not saying someone argues for this position, you're actually stating this as facts.. Since you don't seem to know the actual guidelines, read Citing sources; "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space.". You are the first user challenging this. Source? Here; Soviet Marxism-Leninism: The Decline of an Ideology. Good book, you should read it. --TIAYN (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "You are not saying someone argues for this position, you're actually stating this as facts.." Because the source I've used, which is completely valid, says this exactly, as a fact. Exactly what page of your source, and how does your source contradict any of what I said? Throwing random books' names around is not helpful. And please stop argumenting each time a more reduced subset of what the other editor is saying, which starts to go into personal polemics rather than stay objective. Zozs (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Zozs, just because one author says something doesn't make it true. By you're logic and I can use Nazi literature to write and source the Nazism article.. First hit I got; "Marxism calls for the dictatorship of the proletariat to govern the state until the state itself withers away. V . I. Lenin articulated a model for the excercise of this dictatorship [...]", Encyclopedia of the Developing World. But who cares, as WP makes clear, if the majority of people think something, thats what WP focuses on. --TIAYN (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * How is my source about the dictatorship of the proletariat Marxist literature in any way, shape or form?????? And the model in Lenin's theory was rule by workers' councils, not single-party rule. Zozs (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was Marxist. This was my rationalization; you said he's truth deserved to be added just because he has an education and wrote a book, by that rationalization Nazi literature could be used on WP. But we don't, since they don't dominate the narrative. .... At the beginning, but things changed, and he began to support naked dictatorship; --TIAYN (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)




 * Okay, so? You're still failing to provide a source which explicitly says that Marxism's dictatorship of the proletariat can take the form of a single-party state. You're beating around the bush and trying to get "something which says something similar to this" coupled with your own original research. "This was my rationalization; you said he's truth deserved to be added just because he has an education and wrote a book". No; it's added because it's what the sources say, and there's no contradicting sources. Zozs (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The section you read (and removed) literally said Lenin reinterpreted dictatorship of the proletariat to mean a practical dictatorship, as he said; "Dictatorship means nothing more nor less than authority untrammelled by any laws, absolutely unrestricted by any rules whatever, and based directly on force. The term 'dictatorship' ''has no other meaning but this". How in gods name you got not saying he supported one-party dictatorship out of that text is, well, incredible. --TIAYN (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "reinterpreted" "reinterpreted" "reinterpreted" THE CORE KEY WORD HERE BEING "REINTERPRETED". EVEN YOU YOURSELF ADMIT THIS WAS A DEVIATION FROM ORIGINAL MARXISM. What you're doing is WP:SYNTH, taking one source which talks about Lenin's dictatorship of the proletariat in theory and another which talks about Lenin's dictatorship in practice and mixing them. Find me one source which says that Marxism's dictatorship of the proletariat can take the form of single-party rule. I'm tired of your intellectual dishonesty, constant edit warring, personal insults, arguing about 1% of what other editors is saying to keep 99% of your edits. Zozs (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is unbelievable. The section I showed you, it was referenced line by fucking line.. By who? No other than by Neil Harding, the author of Leninism. Its impossible to discuss anything with you Zozs. THis is not my reinterpretation of Lenin. This is written by Harding. I wrote that section, based on Harding's book. YOu are simply amazing, I'll tell you that. Its absurd. Its like everything I tell you (or any else for that matter) meets a brick wall. --TIAYN (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm giving up, I'm reverting back to consensus version, that is the lead before you're version and before my version. --TIAYN (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And exactly what justification is there for that? This proves just exactly what I had said about your behavior here in Wikipedia, which is of the most illegitimate kind. You pretend to "sympathize" with people, then slowly compromise everything in their version, one hour later you've reverted back to the version YOU agree with, which you portray as not being "your version" but merely one which someone else written (which is irrelevant, YOU're reverting with it under YOUR decision because YOU agree with it). I don't care about you "giving up" and edit warring to get your version through: I'm actually trying to have a GENUINE DISCUSSION here, so I WILL CONTINUE ARGUMENTING. IF YOU GENUINELY GIVE UP, THEN PUT MY VERSION AND DON'T EDIT WARR, INSTEAD OF REFUSING TO DISCUSS WHILE CHOOSING THE VERSION YOU WANT, WHETHER YOU WROTE IR YOURSELF OR NOT.
 * Lenin's views are irrelevant. Here we're arguing about whether non-ML Marxism views it is possible to have a dictatorship of the proletariat consisting of single-party rule. In fact your source agrees with me: "similar to Lenin, did not care if a bourgeoise state was ruled accordance with a republican, parliamentary or a constitutional monarchial system since in essence this did not change the overall situation.[4] These systems, even if they were ruled by a small clique or ruled through mass participation, were in the last analysis all, by definition, dictatorships of the bourgeoise who by their very nature implemented policies in defense of capitalism.[5] However, there was a difference; Lenin, after the failures of the world revolutions, argued that this did not necessarily have to change under the dictatorship of the proletariat" Meaning there is a difference between original Marxism and Lenin, in that original Marxism regarded dictatorship of the proletariat as needing mass participation, whereas Lenin did not. Your source talks about how the original views in Lenin's party were closer to Marxism and then started deviating from it. "However, with the ensuing Russian Civil War and the social and material devastation that followed, its meaning was transformed; from commune-type democracy to rule by iron-discipline." Meaning that in the original Marxist view, dictatorship of the proletariat meant "commune-type democracy", and then the Soviet/Lenin's version deviated into "iron-discipline". "These oppressive measures led to another reinterpretation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and socialism in general" Meaning a reinterpretation, in other words, an understanding of the dictatorship of the proletariat different from the original Marxist understanding. "Slogans and theoretical works about democratic mass participation and collective decision-making were now replaced with texts which supported authoritarian management." Harding talks about how at first Lenin's party stuck to the original Marxist view, and then stopped caring about "democratic mass participation", as the original Marxist view began being replaced by their own as it had to fit hte given situation. Zozs (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Zozs, you are taking Engels out of context. In your source he says, "But, the transformation—either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership—does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces...."  But he then explains that the State (by which he meant existing states) were merely the agents of the bourgeoisie.  That is a reference to Bismarck's nationalization of the railways, which according to Engels did not change the capitalist nature of Germany.
 * You should not be using 19th century writing to comment on 20th century ideology - it is original research and contrary to policy.
 * TFD (talk) 07:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, that is exactly why I wrote the text: "Additionally, according to Engels, state property by itself is private property of capitalist nature[10] unless the proletariat has control of political power, in which case it forms public property.[11]Whether the proletariat was actually in control of the Marxist–Leninist states is a matter of debate between Marxism–Leninism and other communist tendencies" The quote wasn't about Bismarck; Bismarck was only one example, an example to show how even the most non-socialist would be seen as a socialist judging by the wrong standards. What Engels was saying was basically: (in my words) "state ownership by itself does not equate socialism -- if it did, then we'd have to name Bismarck as one of the founders of socialism!" And exactly how is this quote not relevant? It is not original research at all. I'm not making any conclusions by myself, I'm copying exactly what he said. The point is that the non-ML view is being explained. Non-ML Marxists, excluding Trotskyists, say that the USSR was state capitalist. This is part of the paragraph explaining the argument. Zozs (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * JUst because there is a difference, doesn't mean its not classical Marxism. For instance ,just because there is a difference between Marxism-Leninism in the 1930 and the 1980s, doesn't make the M-L in the 1980s less M-L. Even TFD agrees with me, and as always, another user is formulating my point in a much better way.--TIAYN (talk) 09:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * TFD is talking about something else. My text says in Marxism's definition, not in Lenin's definition. Lenin may very well be a Marxist, but that doesn't mean his redefinitions (like your quote explains) of Marxism's definitions are Marxism's definitions. Seeing as you have no arguments, you concede that I am right on the point about the dictatorship of the proletariat? Zozs (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In Engels' quote, he did not say, "the proletariat has control of political power", because he was writing about the bourgeois state. There were no socialist states.  The fact that he includes corporations and trusts first makes it obvious what he is talking about.  And he does not say it is not socialism because the proletariat do not control them, but because the bourgeoisie continue to control them.  Obviously the Russian bourgeoisie did not set up and control state-owned corporations in Soviet Russia. That Engels would have seen it as a form of capitalism, and not socialism or something else is a judgment we should avoid making.  TFD (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * He says exactly that later on. Engels: "Solution of the contradictions. The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property." Zozs (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In the Russian revolution, the means of production "slipped from the hands of the bourgeoisie" and did not transfer to control of the bourgeois government, which had been abolished. Whether or not the Bolsheviks had set themselves up as a new bourgeois is something Engels did not discuss.  I suggest you read No original research.  We are not supposed to analyze primary sources and present our own conclusions, but report what reliable secondary sources say.  TFD (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I said this is simply part of the paragraph explaining the arguments of the Marxist critics of ML. It explains first the ML view about how it accurately followed Marxism and then it explains the non-ML Marxist view about how it did not accurately follow Marxism. It does not say which is right. Zozs (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You cannot just say that some people say the Soviet Union was state capitalist, then present your own evidence that backs up that opinion. You need a source that says those people use the quote in Engel's book to back up their opinions. TFD (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Very well, here is the source. Note that although the source concludes that the Soviet Union was not state capitalist, it very well describes that non-ML&non-Trotskyist Marxists have an argument of the Soviet Union as state capitalist. Among others, it mentions a similar quote from Engels' book, see p. 111. (Socialism: Utopian and Scientific is a short extract from Anti-Duhring). We might very well use that quote instead of mine. Zozs (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes it mentions a similar quote but not as part of an argument that the Soviet Union was state capitalist, but that Prussia was. Instead of deciding what should be in the article and finding sources, a better approach is to identify good, relevant sources and reflect what they say.  TFD (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion about Prussia only comes later and has no link to Engels' quote. In fact, the paper mentions the quote when talking about the concept of state capitalism, tracing the development of the concept as reflected in Engels' quotes even though the exact term was not used. "none of these [other] writers speculated on the potential emergence of a new, statist form of capitalism. The concept of ‘state capitalism’ was not, however, entirely absent from the socialist literature before 1917, though it was generally used to describe ‘the takeover of industries by a state controlled by or for private capitalists’ (Buick and Crump 1986, p. 118). Marx himself had predicted an ever-increasing role for the state as capitalism continued to evolve (Marx 1867 [1961], chapter XV, section 9), and in Anti-Dühring Engels had written that" and then proceeds to list Engels' quote. Zozs (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In Oskar Lange's Papers in Economics and Sociology (p. 21-22), he also traces the development of the "state capitalism" concept to Engels' Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. "The Life and Death of Stalinism" (Chapter 2. The Revolutionary Epoch) also traces the development of the state capitalist theory to Engels' book Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Zozs (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's clear that Engels was talking about Prussia/Germany - in what other state had this development occurred? But he was not talking about a country that had expropriated the bourgeoisie, then turned ownership of the means of production over to party cadres.  And the source you provide does not provide the link between the concept when applied to Engels comments and to Russia - it just says the same term has been applied to both.  Could you please read WP:NOR which explains that we cannot put our own conclusions into articles.  TFD (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's pretty obvious (there are tons of sources which talk about it) that Engels' quotes from his Socialism: Utopian and Scientific book have been instrumental in the current Marxist argument that the USSR was state capitalist. Engels, in my proposed lead, is merely referenced in the non-ML Marxist view about ML, listing the arguments the non-MLs use. Engels was quite clearly talking about state ownership in general, which he explains constitutes capitalism unless the proletariat has control of "public power" - something which I quite clearly summed up in my lead, which says that both MLs and non-MLs agree on this, but that the difference between MLs and non-MLs is that the MLs believe that the proletariat had control of public power. "And the source you provide does not provide the link between the concept when applied to Engels comments and to Russia - it just says the same term has been applied to both" Wrong - the sources (such as the paper and the Trotskyist book) trace the development of the "USSR as state capitalist" argument to Engels' quotes. That is all. Nothing more is implied. There is no 'original research'. Zozs (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "It's clearly obvious" is insufficient to include. You need a source that says so.  Please provide a passage in a source that says something like "critics of Soviet Russia called it 'state capitalist' because it met the criteria developed by Engels."  TFD (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "American Capitalism: Social Thought and Political Economy in the Twentieth Century", Nelson Lichtenstein. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011. p. 160-161. Zozs (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I have revised my lead to make it even more neutral. There should be no problem now. Zozs (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

More evidence needed to demonstrate that the term "Marxism-Leninism" was invented by Stalin himself
So far there is only one source being used to make the claim that the term "Marxism-Leninism" was invented by Stalin. And that source is from the Soviet Union - during the pro-Stalin days and after by Stalinist nostalgic writers, Soviet literature heaped immense praise on Stalin, claimed he invented things that he did not. It is well known that the term arose during the Stalinist era in reference to the form of Bolshevik communism that developed from the 1920s onward, however I do not regard that Soviet source used as being reliable for the reasons mentioned previously. What needs to be posted here (as done above in a previous discussion) are quotes of material from reliable scholarly sources able to be read in English that discuss the origins of the term "Marxism-Leninism".

Also, why is it in the first sentence of the intro? I think the first sentence should be explaining what Marxism-Leninism is. Then the origins of the ideology, including the term itself, should be described.--70.55.10.162 (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Because what Marxism-Leninism is is a PROPAGANDA TERM designed to promote Stalin's own ideology. It has a very special history and definitely did not originate in the same way other ideologies may have. Especially considering that the term "Marxism-Leninism" is very prone to lead to confusion, the origins must be carefully explained. All reliable sources agree that "Marxism-Leninism" is the term that became used to refer to Stalin's ideology and movement. The origins are pretty clear. Zozs (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

To say that the term "Marxism-Leninism" was invented during the Stalin era is one thing, to say that it was invented by Stalin himself, that is another thing and that needs reliable sources to make that assertion. I'd like to see several reliable sources preferably authored by a scholar who has directly studied the subject, and published by a reputable institution such as a major publishing company or a university. One other point: please do not yell at people with caps, it is not constructive.--70.55.10.162 (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Karmanatory's edit
My justification for reverting is that basically it was a full rewriting of content which looks more like a personal speech than an article. It does not add any new sources, re-writes the article so that it is only slightly based in the sources, and adds new ideas which are not found in the sources. It replaces the high-quality explanations that existed for new, confused and low-quality explanations. It removes and unjustifiably re-locates information. More specifically: ''Marxism–Leninism is an ideology of socioeconomic and sociopolitical relations. Its proponents consider it to be based on Marxism and Leninism. Moreover, many of them have considered it to be the only legitimate version of either of those, although many other people with Marxian, Marxist, or Leninist ideas disagree. The Russian Civil War made Leninism the dominant form of Marxism in Russia, and after Lenin's death, Joseph Stalin and his supporters asserted the indivisible unity of Marxism and Leninism by renaming them both with a single name.''

Marxism-Leninism is not an indivisible unity of Marxism and Leninism promoted by Stalin and his followers. It is the own ideological creation of Stalin and his followers, as the reliable sources clearly state.

is usually etically viewed as a totalitarian form of socialism (in contrast with democratic socialism) despite its own view (the emic view) that it is democratic because soviets are a form (the ultimate form) of democracy.

Whether it is genuinely a "form of socialism" really is a big matter of debate between the different socialist tendencies. Democratic socialism does not refer to a democratic kind of socialism, but is rather a specific tendency of social democracy. Many anti-authoritarian and democratic socialist ideologies are not known as "democratic socialist", and it would be completely incorrect to refer to them as so. Whether the USSR was actually "Soviet democracy" is only said by Stalinists and this makes it look like "Soviet democracy" is not regarded a form of democracy. The debate is whether the USSR was a Soviet democracy or not, not whether Soviet democracy is democratic.

''The Sino-Soviet split was driven mainly by Mao Zedong's disapproval of de-Stalinization in the Soviet Union. He considered this Soviet reformism as revisionism in all the worst senses of that word, including negation of correct ideas. The reaction against such Marxist revisionism (called Anti-Revisionism) became a part of Maoism. Just as Lenin had aimed to take the Marxist label away from any Marxist who was not Bolshevik (most famously the Mensheviks), and just as Stalin had aimed to take the Marxist and Leninist labels away from any Bolshevik who was not Stalinist (most famously the Trotskyists), so too did the Maoists aim to take the Marxist–Leninist label away from any communist who was not Stalinist or Maoist. They did so by declaring that Marxism–Leninism–Maoism was now the only correct and legitimate form of Marxism–Leninism.''

This information definitely belongs somewhere else.

There is no reason for moving out the summary of the views of the rest of the Marxist movement out of the lead. It is clearly marked as criticism, and is obviously relevant seeing as the article deals with an ideology which claims itself to be the legitimate heir of Marxism. Zozs (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Good-faith efforts all around, but I'm not convinced that my version is incorrect, nor that the restored version is better. I still think the reverse. From a writing and critical thinking perspective (regardless of a content-expertise perspective), it is a weak assertion that my opening paragraph (specifically, for example, and most importantly out of my paragraphs) has anything about it that is incorrect, based on the very information in the restored version that User:Zozs thinks is better. However, regarding a content-expertise perspective, I am not an expert in this field—rather, I am a university-educated person (who did not major in political science) who is trying to learn more and, along the way as I read various books, to improve Wikipedia articles that are incomplete or muddy. So, given non-expert status, I cannot really fight for reversion, and will accept the status quo for now. I can only hope that anyone with more expertise who reads my version above, and is able and willing to support the parts of it that they think are strong/valid/cogent, will reintroduce those portions at some point in the future.


 * Regarding "There is no reason for moving out the summary of the views of the rest of the Marxist movement out of the lead. It is clearly marked as criticism, and is obviously relevant seeing as the article deals with an ideology which claims itself to be the legitimate heir of Marxism"—my lede revisions did not move any summary of divergent views out of the lede at all. Other than changing the opening sentence away from the form "X is a term that refers to" (which is generally considered weak and not good enough in Wikipedia, and usually isn't in most instances, compared to "X is"), my version kept all of the same content of ideas, and cites all of the same references for those same ideas, as the restored version does. There seems to be some muddy thinking going on here, and I don't mean that as a personal afront, just as a logical analysis. I'd need more precise explication of this part of the argument to be convinced of it.


 * Regarding abstruseness, frankly, proponents of revolutionary ideologies do themselves no favors by being unable to explain clearly to others what their ideas even are—not least in ways that pin them down to responsibility and consistency. The easy excuse is that "it's all too advanced—the likes of mere average readers, like all you non-experts, just wouldn't understand." But the bullshit-detector likelihood is that "it's obfuscated bollocks". Compare xkcd.com/451. If it's all so obscure that one can't write a clear Wikipedia article about it, one certainly is presumptuous to assert a right to violently overthrow anything in furtherance of it. I stand by the idea that my version is an etically correct one and furthermore has nothing to do with "a personal speech" whatsoever. It's a strong attempt at an etic analysis from a third-party observer. I'll have more respect for an expert who revamps my version to correct its weak points than from an expert who dismisses it entirely. (This isn't aimed personally at User:Zozs—it's just a logical rejoinder to anyone who asserts that my version is useless. Let's get analytical on a clause-by-clause basis, and see how the logic stacks up.) I'm plenty willing to be proved wrong if anyone has the pedagogical skills to show specifically, blow by blow, where and how each line is wrong. In the meantime, I won't try to edit-war, but I also won't believe in the analytical superiority of anyone else's arguments, either. To me it chalks up to "I can't help these people [experts in this particular field] to express themselves, because they refuse" rather than "these people know better, or think more clearly, than I do". Again, this isn't aimed at any specific user; this is just a logical corollary.


 * Fortunately, I actually think the restored version is factually accurate, which is vital, despite doing a poor job of explaining to, or teaching, layperson readers who are trying to learn from it. So I can live with it, as accurate, even if it's pedagogically weak (because it's in some way abstruse—one can read it and still feel by the end, "wait—so what is it, exactly, and what is it not?"). As for Marxism–Leninism being something wholly different from Marxism and Leninism (quote "Marxism-Leninism is not an indivisible unity of Marxism and Leninism promoted by Stalin and his followers. It is the own ideological creation of Stalin and his followers"), this is very weak. Very. In fact as I ponder it more, I think it shows either a serious lack of understanding or a non-NPOV view that, in wanting to show how Stalinism was bad (which it surely was), is trying to imagine it as some alien thing that didn't arise from Leninism. In short, wishful thinking that earnest Soviets from Khrushchev to Gorbachev needed to believe in. They were patriotic Soviets who needed to have a kind of de-Stalinization that could censure Stalin yet somehow didn't implicate dear Uncle Lenin; but such a notion was never realistic from a neutral viewpoint. One can empathize with them for needing it, though. But it doesn't make for NPOV. Stalinism as allegedly wholly divorced from Marxism and from the Bolshevism of 1917? It is certainly not, no matter how many legitimate gripes left communists have with it. It is one of various extrapolations that followed Lenin. In 1918, Lenin, Sverdlov, Stalin, and Trotsky were all killers and colleagues with a common Marxism-derived, Lenin-turbocharged ideology. It later forked into clashing branches, yes, but that's got nothing at all to do with two wholly separate trees. The idea that it does is an emic and inaccurate POV looking out from within each branch (within Stalinism, within Trotskyism, within even Khrushchev reformism). Best regards, Karmanatory (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll stick to replying to the latest paragraph, as all the others seem to be an extremely long, obfuscated way of saying "I don't see how my version is worse". Very well, but the lead does not claim that Stalinism is completely divorced from Marxism and Leninism. It merely explains the history of this ideology, and the views of the rest of the Marxist movement about it. Zozs (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that the lede claims that. I was talking about your own comment here at talk (which is clear because I quoted it). As for "ideology", you reverted my opening sentence (simple, clear) which said "Marxism–Leninism is an ideology of ...", and yet now you're calling it an ideology, too. It is now clear to me that there's a substantial reading comprehension problem in this room. Karmanatory (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Karmanatory's version is the better of the two. --TIAYN (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead I restored calls it an ideology. Zozs (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Follow-up. I had assumed I was dealing with someone with expertise on this topic and thus that maybe I was missing something subtle that the better-initiated understood. After the reply above and the depth of historical ignorance in this edit's edit summary, I've discovered differently, so I won't be deferring in future. To not understand the conflict that arose in the 1920s and 30s between international communists (such as Trotsky) and advocates of Socialism in One Country (such as Stalin and Bukharin) is a whole other level. I may be an armchair student of these topics, but even I have gotten farther than the first-day orientation. It is honestly not my intention to feud with anyone, but come on, this is less than 101 stuff. Karmanatory (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're going on about here. Your speculations about what I understand or not relating to an edit on another article are, to be quite honest, absolutely irrelevant. TIAYN also seems to have provided no arguments. Zozs (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All of his arguements are nail perfect, you're are inherently stupid. The lead will be changed. --TIAYN (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Great argument! Zozs (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for intro to fully address the influence of Stalin in Marxism-Leninism and criticism of Stalin by Marxist-Leninists
As mentioned above the Stalin era was crucial in building Marxism-Leninism as an ideology and after Stalin's death there was substantial criticism of Stalin's actions during the Great Purge and World War II by Khrushchev. Even Mao Zedong who was not as publicly condemning of Stalin's actions as Khrushchev, he famously stated that Stalin was 70% correct, 30% wrong.

Here is the proposal for a revised portion of the intro:

"Marxism-Leninism was developed as an ideology during the Stalin era of the Soviet Union that claimed to represent the communist ideology as developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and as modernized and further developed by Vladimir Lenin. Initially the ideology was indistinguishable from Stalinism itself, however several challenges to Stalin's policies as well as other distinct variations of the ideology arose. The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia broke with Stalin's policies in the Tito-Stalin Split and Yugoslavia moved out of the Eastern Bloc and was a leading country in founding the Non-Aligned Movement. Nikita Khrushchev in his famous 1956 speech on Stalin, denounced Stalin's actions in the Great Purge and Stalin's wartime leadership and distanced the Soviet Union from the legacy of political censorship repression of suspected opponents by enacting political liberalization. Mao Zedong's political theories led to new unique perspectives on Marxism-Leninism referred to as Maoism, including challenging the notion that industrial workers were fundamental to promoting communist revolution but that agricultural workers were crucial to it. Movement away from the command economy as developed in the Stalin era Soviet Union towards a form of market socialism occurred in several Marxist-Leninist-led countries, particularly in Yugoslavia and China."--174.88.218.57 (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I like it... I will put in into the page against the POV anti M-L part of the intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinkinPark (talk • contribs) 12:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

zozs additions
The text is a non-neutral spinning with biased wording, meant to imply that Stalin "corrupted" leninism. (as a consequence,implying that marxism-leninism was good but for bad stalin) You cannot corrupt already wrecked theory. -M.Altenmann >t 14:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) "Marxism-Leninism" was founded as Stalin and his ideologists' own doctrine,
 * why "own"? Why not "expansion" of Leninism?-M.Altenmann >t 14:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) with Marx and Lenin's words being merely used as justification, selected opportunistically and taken out of context.
 * empty declaration. Needs proofs an examples.-M.Altenmann >t 14:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Additionally, the content of "Marxism-Leninism" was constantly being revised in order to fit in to the ruling party's views as they changed.
 * Of course. Every theory is it constant improvement. "marxism is not dogma" they say, right :-) -M.Altenmann >t 14:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) "Marxism-Leninism" also contains outright deviations from Marxism and Leninism's core principles, such as "socialism in one country".
 * Who says that "SIOC" is a violation of a sacred untouchable "core principle"?. Not to say that the sentence is phrased ambiguously, and non-expert may conclude from it that SIOCS was a core principle of ML. -M.Altenmann >t 14:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Item 3 deserves expansion as a valid criticism, but it must be factual, with examples and analysis.

All these points are opinions and they cannot be phrased as absolute truths about the subject, unless they are the majority opinion.

At last, but not at least, introduction is the summary of the article. You cannot throw a bunch of statements into the intro out of the blue. They must be significant point of the topic, detailed in the article body. -M.Altenmann >t 14:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Because the source says "Marxism-Leninism consisted of Stalin's own doctrine plus quotations selected by him from the works of Marx, Lenin and Engels. [...] Marxism-Leninism comprised only the quotations currently authorized by the dictator".
 * The source can write bullshit just like wikipedia. Other sources say different story. Consensus needed. -M.Altenmann >t 03:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So bring these sources into the table and prove that they have more weight than the high-quality sources I added. This is empty talk by you to justify removing reilably sourced info through edit warring. Zozs (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) It does not need examples (that would be engaging in original research), it needs a reliable source to agree with the statement. Which it does: "comprised only the quotations currently authorized by the dictator, in conformity with the doctrine he was currently promulgating" (opportunistic because it is constantly changing and only the currently authorized is valid, out of context because only the quotations "in conformity with the doctrine he was currently promulgating" are valid, and not in their own right).
 * Yes need examples. Also, you are arbitrarily expanding even what your source say. -M.Altenmann >t 03:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't need to come up with examples of what someone may or may not have done, we only need to detail what the reliable sources state. Wikipedia is not there for original research. I am not expanding what any source says - it is only being worded in an efficient fashion and in order so that it collectively explains conclusions inferred from all sources. Zozs (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Sure, but how does that make the statement invalid? It's not saying it's a bad thing.
 * Actually, I said it is statement I basically agree with.  -M.Altenmann >t 03:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) The sources say it "many Marxists (even members of the Communist Party itself) believed that Stalin's ideas and practices (such as socialism in one country and the purges) were almost total distortions of what Marx and Lenin had said.". Another source: "Socialism in one country, a slogan that aroused protests as not only it implied a major deviation from Marxist internationalism, but was also strictly speaking incompatible with the basic tenets of Marxism".
 * It was not a distortion according to the Stalinists, the Maoists, Khrushchevites etc... --TIAYN (talk) 07:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How is this not relevant to the summary of the article? Zozs (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain which part of the article your text summarizes. -M.Altenmann >t 03:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Please don't play revert wars until the discussion ends, if you don't wany yourself blocked. -M.Altenmann >t 03:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It summarizes the section "Ideological characteristics"->"Socialism", which details Stalin's ideological process in the elaboration of 'socialism in one country' and the criticism of his concept of 'socialism' from other Marxist tendencies, as well as summarizes the criticism of Marxism-Leninism both from the anticommunist viewpoint and from other Marxist tendencies. Stop edit warring to get your removal of reliably sourced information through until you gather strong enough arguments so that such removal may take place. Furthermore stop making threats when others do not submit to your illegitimate manoeuvres followed up by victim playing behaviour. Zozs (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Plus this information was previously removed by the WikiHound "Spumuq" who has been blocked two times now (for a total time of about a month) due to the fact that he went after every of my edits and reverted them, and then was removed once again by the other hound "Bobrayner" who does the same thing but to a lesser extent. It is not that I'm adding information now - it's only that I'm restoring information that was previously standing and that was only removed by the action of hounds. So the other users backing up your removal of info here are not exactly the most legitimate editors. Zozs (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you look at the talk page history of this article, you can already see that Zozs agreed to change the lead. That he has now unilaterally reverted to the old lead again just proves he's an unconstructive vandal.--TIAYN (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * {It's the "old lead" that gained consensus in the long debates documented in the earlier sections of this talk page. The only reason you remove it is because you don't like what reliable sources say. Zozs (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Most of those reliable sources are views of specific authors or fringe sources not worthy to reference the claim.. Secondly, the wording of you're lead is extremely biased. .. As already mentioned, several sources says otherwise; "Thinking about globalisation, thinking about Japan - dichotomies in China's construction of the modern world", "Remaking the CCP’s Ideology- Determinants, Progress, and Limits under Hu Jintao", " "The Communist Party of China and Ideology", Neil Harding's Leninism, Daniel Evans' Soviet Marxism–Leninism: The Decline of an Ideology, "The Ideological Impasse of Gorbachev's Perestrojka", "Stalin and Marxism: A Research Note", "Lenin, Hegel and Western Marxism: From the 1920s to 1953", "From a Dictatorship of the Proletariat to a State of the Whole People" etc (I could go on forever)... You're lead is based on FRINGE theory, and does not base itself on the dominating narrative in historical work. --TIAYN (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain how these sources disprove what I wrote. You already brought up Neil Harding's Leninism, which according to you is one of the best sources, and the discussion finished when I proved in this talk page on 13 December 2014 how that source (obviously) actually was confirming my point rather than refuting it... Zozs (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You never proved shit. What you proved was that you will interpret everything to fit you're point of view... The book makes blatently clear that Leninism was a Marxist current; he never states otherwise. --TIAYN (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And what you proved is how your rabid hate of me leads you to misinterpret a source so badly that you thought it completely proved me wrong when it actually completely proved me right... and any editor who reviews what was written on 13 December 2014 about this source will (obviously), whether they agree with you or not, concede that YOUR source was proving "my" version right and proving "your" version wrong. Now, please, if you can explain how these newly-brought-in sources warrant a change to what is currently written in the article, and perhaps provide some citations, that would actually be useful. Zozs (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Section "History"
This section, while mostly correct, is a coatrackish piece of Soviet history and basically useless for understanding of the evolution of the concept of "Marxism-Leninism". -M.Altenmann >t 17:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So is most of the section "Components". Perhaps it should just be blown up. Zozs (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we should reduce the size of the history section; either create a History of Marxism–Leninism article or, as I prefer, reduce the history subsections to two or three, and have a main header linking to the History of communism article.. OK? --TIAYN (talk) 06:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * When I was speaking about coatracking, I had in mind that we already have separate articles for Marxism and Leninism. We dont have to start this history from Ancient Greeks. Brief background, then developments of M-L per se. -M.Altenmann >t 07:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

New layout
Could we agree on working on a new layout for the article? I'm thinking something like this


 * Lead
 * Etymology section
 * History
 * Introduction (small section ideological development in the 1920s)
 * Theoretical development (from 1929–1991)
 * Contemporary state (1991–present)
 * Tenets
 * Capitalism
 * Development
 * Socialism as an alternative to capitalism
 * Socialism as a development of capitalism
 * Socialism developing independent of capitalism (would discuss socialism in one country and all the theories it has spawned, such as the primary stage of socialism el cetra)
 * Internationalism
 * Nationalist discourse
 * State role in the economy
 * Planned economy
 * Market economy
 * Criticism of Marxism–Leninism
 * By Marxist currents
 * Non–Marxist currents


 * These headers are of course very general, very open. But I doubt this article has the ability, or the users who are currently working on (including me) have the collaboratively mindset to focus on the specifics. In general I'd like this article to be an introduction to the topic of Marxism–Leninism; WP currently have tons of articles on Marxism–Leninism, this article should try to direct the readers to those articles.. I'm not saying this should be the model, I just want us to think collectively for a moment about the future of this article. --TIAYN (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

New intro

 * What you think of the new lead? --TIAYN (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It is a huge subject, and I don't want to waste time on this shit. The new intro is a step in right direction, but it (and the whole article) contains a number of factual confusion. To understand the topic, the first thing is to abandon the superstitious attitude to words, that somehow a word defines its meaning, like in magic, that every "correct" incantation provides exactly same thing and a smallest change will ruin everything. Keeping this in mind, one has to truly realize that panta rhei is not just a smart say of a Greek smartass, that things change while being called the same name. Therefore to truly understand a concept, one has to understand its history. (That's what Lenin teaches us, right ? :-) The article lacks this and is just as dogmatic (in some parts) as Marxism-Leninism has become. An example is a ridiculous belief that "Socialism in One Country" is a detraction from Marxist idea of global communism. This belief is based on substitution of concepts and blind belief in political incantation taken for a logical proof. The best example is a quote from the wikipedia article Socialism_in_One_Country:
 * On the question of socialist construction in a single country, Engels wrote:
 * "Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?
 * No.

And nobody sees that this "proof" is a BULLSHIT in best Soviet demagogical traditions. In fact SiOC is a new tactic towards "world revolution" in new conditions.That said, wikipedia is hopeless in creating decent articles on the subject, because it is close to impossible to find truly neutral sources, and I don't buy the bullshit that Western politologists are somehow immune to the magic of the word, especially of their own word. -M.Altenmann >t 16:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. This article is indeed terrible. And the lead has just been the most pressing problem of the all too many pressing problems facing this article. Let's hope that from now on things will improve, and that we all (including Zozs) can work collaboratively. --TIAYN (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Many sources argue that it violates basic principles of Marxism to argue that a socialist society could be built in the framework of global capitalism. It's not down to one quote from Engels. Socialism was defined by Lenin to mean "the lower stage of communism" as defined by Marx, and building this "lower stage of communism" in one country is impossible according to Marxist principles. That is because such a "lower-stage communist society" would be subject to the world market and its mechanisms, among other things. That doesn't mean that the impossibility of "socialism in one country" is formed by drawing away quotes from Marx and Engels as a logical proof, but rather "socialism in one country" is proved as an impossibility in the context of the social scientific model Marxism uses to analyse the world, and as a political concept it violates the basic political principles of Marxist communism. Zozs (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Another point, to Marx "lower-stage communist society", i.e. "socialism" according to Lenin, involved a sharp break in the mode of production from capitalism, which necessarily involves a social revolution, and for which the current bourgeois state machinery is useless. Yet someone, such as a political bureaucracy, can simply take over the existing capitalist state apparatus (for example the USSR puts a few politicians in power of Germany after 1945), make a bunch of policy changes, and come to the economic model USSR had, without involving the proletariat at all. Arguing that this kind of model, which is not build by a social revolution, could signify a break with the capitalist mode of production and the introduction of a new one, challenges basic Marxist analysis. Yet the framework which allows "socialism in one country" as a possibility argues that socialism would have been achieved with such policy changes. That simply violates the basic principles of Marxist thought and Marxist politics. Several reliable sources document this. Zozs (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This violates principles of dogmatic Marxist thought which treat writings of Marx as The Book. Marxism is not a mathematical exercise, built from inviolable axioms. The world changes. If an ideology fails to address these changes, it is dead.  -M.Altenmann >t 03:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether you like it or not, Marxist thought exists, and when independent, neutral sources claim that something violates basic Marxist thought, then it should be explained. Your opinion that in your mind socialism in one country may be considered a valid concept in Marxism should not change this. Zozs (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think main point of contention here is very simple. Were "Marxism-Leninism" ideas and practice based on the writings by Marx? Yes, they were, and this is something most Soviet and "Western" sources actually agree about. Therefore, I support these changes. My very best wishes (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Where was it ever claimed that "Marxism-Leninism" was NOT based on the writings by Marx? Zozs (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Btw Altenmann: you can't just remove stuff because you don't like it. Which reliable sources contradict the text you removed? diff Zozs (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I will not bother, because Ludwik Kowalski, a nuclear physicist emeritus, is not a reliable source in politics for wikipedia purposes. You are welcome to cite him in articles on nuclear physics, and there we shall talk. -M.Altenmann >t 03:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't remove Kolawski. You removed other stuff. It should be put back. Zozs (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Evans says that indeed Stalin used certain Lenin quotes to defend and give the Socialism in One Country concept currency, but he never calls it arbitrary, unMarxist or anything like that. Thats your interpretation of the text.... As for you, why did you remove "All land and natural resources are publicly owned and managed through the Marxist–Leninist state, with varying forms of public ownership of social institutions. In recent decades, Marxist–Leninist states have incorporated market methods of exchange and expanded the role played by the non-state sector in developing the national economy, such as China and Vietnam"... There can be non-socialist Marxist–Leninist states so this belongs here, maybe in different forms. And secondly, in every M–L state, the state has owned all land (in continues to do so in China, Cuba, Laos and Vietnam)—it is notable enough for inclusion in the lead. You can of course decide what form it should be included in, but... --TIAYN (talk) 06:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed because it is not part of ideology. First, ideology says that major, basic means of production are to be owned by the working people. Second, the overall statement is false (of course, land was nationalized and it was "all-people's (всенародн..) property", and as such owned by the "people's state" in the USSR; In other places not so simple). And this article is not the place to discuss the detail. Let's not mix the topics; it is confused in itself already. By the way Socialist ownership/Socialist property are redlinks, despite being fundamental for Socialist economy -M.Altenmann >t 06:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But it is part of ideology if they implement it, and give ideological explanation for it in the first place... You really have to give a better explanation for why it is false; I must admit I don't know enough of this, but I want a better explanation :) (it will probably be good enough). --TIAYN (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No it is not part of ideology, it is part of economy. In Soviet state everything was implemented on the basis ideology, not on common sense (there was a student joke "Communist Party teaches us that when heated gases expand"), but it does not mean that everything what happened in Soviet union must be put in this article. (But we can add something to this end in this article.) As for why it is false, I don't have to prove this. You have to prove that it was true. And if you are citing some "reliable source", this means then you can defenestrate it. Here is the simple text from FAO, found by me in 30 seconds of google (since I guess Great Soviet Encyclopedia is not good enough): "The Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, and Slovenia did not expropriate all agricultural land during the communist era. Poland and Slovenia continued to operate small private farms throughout the communist rule." -M.Altenmann >t 14:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

TIAYN: Evans DOES say that Stalin's "socialism in one country" represented a break with original Marxist thought, Leninist politics and Marxist politics, and that Stalin MANIPULATED Lenin's quotes and used them in an arbitrary and out-of-context way. Read what Evans wrote to find out. Zozs (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC) Furthermore other ref. Terror, Force, and States: The Path from Modernity. Rosemary H. T. O'Kane. Page 101. "As illustration of how Marxism-Leninism was bent to Stalin's purpose, Daniels explains how Stalin's 'theory of socialism in one country', developed in the late 1920s, set the pattern. Derived from a single, old quotation from Lenin, taken out of context, and, crucially, supplemented by Stalin's own words, 'the method and machinery of doctrinal reinterpretation' was established (Daniels, 1993, p. 86) This was the method which was used to conjure Stalin's infallibility. First, any ad hoc decision taken by Stalin was legitimized by the use of some Marxist doctrine conveniently lifted from anywhere and given only one interpretation. Anyone later questioning the interpretation, attempting to restore the earlier context, would be accused of 'petty-bourgeois deviation' and eventually 'counter-revolutionary wrecking'." Zozs (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is true about stalin's manipulations, but this is false about the origin of SIOC. "from a single, old quotation from Lenin" - false. "Taken out of context" is a very powerful agrument of "No True Scotsman" ilk. But in this case the context was exactly appropriate, and Lenin was answering exactly this question, and he was giving arguments why it is so. And daniels, reading stalin's mind, does a poor job, obviously having no idea why stalin used lenin's quotes. -M.Altenmann >t 15:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that's your opinion. What reliable sources say is what should be used, not what you say. Zozs (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * yes, we use what reliable sources say. but if a source say provably false thing, then it is not reliable. -M.Altenmann >t 14:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I trust the source more than your personal "proof". In your mind it may be 100% true - hell, it may even really be true - but it is irrelevant. Wikipedia explains what reliable sources say. Zozs (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Marxism–Leninism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150511143448/http://slovari.yandex.ru/dict/bse/article/00045/73200.htm?text=%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC-%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC to http://slovari.yandex.ru/dict/bse/article/00045/73200.htm?text=%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC-%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)