Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic Marxism


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. the relisting got us no further; it is obvious the pair of words exists; it is not obvious that it is used specifically of a particular political position  DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Democratic Marxism

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Recommend delete per WP:MADEUP. I can't find ghits on this, and from the discussion page, it's pretty clear that the author of the page has created this political system. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that the New Democratic Party of Sri Lanka embraces this philosophy. Please check http://ndpsl.org/. I understand that you are against communism. I am too, I am a Libertarian but that doesn't mean we have to censor everything related to communism.
 * First, please sign your posts. I'm not against this article because it's in favor of Communism (the article is actually pretty neutral) but this doesn't seem to be any notability behind this political movement. Also, your article is about a form of Communism where there are elections, but the NDPSL upholds Lenin and Mao who were not, so I don't think there is any connection between that political party and what your article is about. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

"During at least two of the three years of democratic Marxist government, however, Chile faced severe economic and political crises." (http://www.jstor.org/pss/447149) It clearly states that it was a democratic Marxist government. "In November 1970, Marxist socialist Salvador Allende took office as President of Chile, vowing to bring about revolutionary change by working within, and not against, the country's constitutional democratic tradition." (http://www.jstor.org/pss/447149) The fact that the Marxist president wants to work within the democratic system implies that it is democratic marxism. Now that we recognize this idea exists and has been talked about in academic writing I think the page should remain and if scholars want to come and improve it and add more to it then they can do that. I very much apologize for not signing my posts. I will do that from now on. I did not realize that I wasn't doing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politcally Correction (talk • contribs) 04:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I would have thought that Social democracy and Democratic socialism were similar to this article.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Difference between Democratic Socialism and Democratic Marxism - Socialism by definition implies that the government own the means of production. Marxism includes that but also includes redistribution of wealth and the abolition of private property which is distinctly different from both social democracy and democratic socialism although those are usually the first steps toward a democratic marxist system. In chapter two of The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
 * "When therefore capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society" To me this seems to imply some type of redistribution.
 * "Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable:
 * 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
 * 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
 * 3. Abolition of all right of inheritance." Politcally Correction -(talk) 22:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - This strikes me as an original essay. There probably could be a legitimate piece written on Social Democratic Marxism, given a great deal of time to dig up sources. That's probably already up under some other name, come to think of it. I'm neither chomping at the bit to save this one nor in a hurry to push it off a pier. Carrite (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess that's already up as Orthodox Marxism. That's a decent redirect target for this title in the event that this closes in deletion. Carrite (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Differences between Orthodox Marxism and Democratic Marxism - Orthodox Marxism is too broad to be called the same as democratic marxism because it is void of any political structure. It states that the orthodox marxist economic philosophy determines the political structure. Democratic marxism seems to be an orthodox marxist economic/philosophic theory that exists only inside a democratic structure. So you could call democratic marxism a more specific stem of orthodox marxism but the latter does not represent the former in its entirety. -Politcally Correction (talk) 03:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a topic dealt with in reliable sources; here even a whole chapter in a book (ISBN 0-02-920790-8, ). See also the oft-cited book: (also cited in Wikipedia at Karl Marx). The present article reads indeed as a badly researched essay (a serious encyclopedic article on the topic should not fail to mention Bukharin, Lukács, and particularly Gramsci), but the topic is notable.  --Lambiam 09:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, Marxism is inherently democratic. This article is WP:SYNTH. Some material might be included in other articles, though. --Soman (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that everyone agrees that Marxism is inherently democratic, and I suspect that you will agree that, historically, groups and societies that proclaimed themselves to be grounded in Marxism actually had an interpretation of it that was inherently undemocratic. But that is all a bit beyond the point. Maybe you believe also that Marxism is inherently cultural, and I would agree that that is true for at least one of the meanings of cultural. Yet "Cultural Marxism" is nevertheless a valid topic; it has a specific meaning that cannot be directly deduced from the combination of the terms cultural and Marxism. Likewise for "Democratic Marxism", which refers to the criticism of loosely associated individuals and groups on the theory and praxis of "Orthodox Marxism" with respect to issues of democracy, and attempts to reform these while remaining true to the inspiration and conceptual framework underlying Marxism. --Lambiam 12:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has been expanded and put into real-life context (Chile, Sri Lanka) since AFD began. I'm leaning towards Keep per Lambiam's rationale. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 09:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - It seems that a reliable sources have been found to establish notability and also differentiate the subject from other forms of Marxism; Lambiam has pretty much covered everything I would say. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matthew Thompson  talk to me bro! 07:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.