Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:49, 30 November 2020

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.

Useful material from 'Leninism'-- better here!

Near the end of the 1920s in the Soviet Union, Marxism-Leninism was proclaimed the official ideology of the Communist Party. The concept of Marxism-Leninism is somewhat different to, although by no means contrary to, the concept of Leninism. Both terms have since been used by communist parties, although with different functions. Marxism-Leninism is used to describe the basic ideology of the Communist Party, whereas Leninism is often used when discussing the organizational model of the party. Dissident groups within the communist tradition, such as Trotskyists and Luxembourgists, often consider the term Marxism-Leninism to be a euphemism for "Stalinism".

Marxism-Leninism taught in Soviet academic institution was the discipline that consisted of four parts:

1. History of the Communist Party
2. Marxist-Leninist Philosophy (dialectical materialism)
3. Marxist-Leninism polytical economy
4. Scientific communism (discussion of how communism can be built)

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)

"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))

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.
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.

• 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