Talk:Marxism-Leninism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Russia Portal Marxism-Leninism is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Social and political philosophy Related task forces (major traditions): Marxism

"Well-known communists in the United States include Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama." No comment needed on this addition...where is the proof? 96.227.23.108 (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 Redirect? 2 Useful material from 'Leninism'-- better here! 3 "As carried forward by Joseph Stalin. " 4 A contribution from a foreigner 5 Major cleanup and rework needed 6 Different from Trotskyism 7 Trimming 8 POV Dispute 9 Falsification college

[edit] Redirect?

Is there any reason this shouldn't be redirected to Leninism?

Nope. Tannin

Yup, there is a reason. Marxism-Leninism is Stalins name of his policies, and hence Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism is the same thing. This in turn may or may not be distinct from Leninism, the opinions vary on that, but still, it SHOULD be redirected to Stalinism to allow for that distinction. So I'll do that. See also Stalinism :) Regebro 08:48, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What? Yes...that is what he called them...but that doesn't make Marxism-Leninism Stalinism...it makes Stalinism a form of Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism is synonymous with the term Leninism, not Stalinism.

Yossarian 03:42, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Well, still all sources I have fund claim that "Marxist-Leninism" is what Stalin called his theories, and that the correct term for Leninism is Leninism, and nothing else. The term arose with Stalin, and Stalin is seen as the creator of the ideology. From Marxists.org: "The creation and development of Marxism-Leninism can be divided into two general categories: the creation and development by Stalin (1924-1953), and the revision by Khrushchev and continual revisions by the Soviet government to follow (1956-1991)." Maybe we should not redirect at all, but instead have a text about the history of the term and explain that it can be used to denote both Leninism and Stalinism, and that really, the differece aint that big anyway. ;) Regebro 21:36, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That whole argument is merely an appeal to authority. Politicians may be able to call one thing another, but it wont fly in terms of fact. Dan Quayle once said the United States was a part of Europe -- I should hope that a link to Europe dont redirect me accordingly. -- Oceanhahn 08:14, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Even Gorbachev regarded himself as a Marxist-Leninist, but certainly not a Stalinist. If the term "Marxism-Leninism" did originate with Stalin, which it would practically have to as it is hard to imagine Lenin using the term, it has a meaning distinct from the particular practices of Stalin, which is what Stalinism generally refers to (especially when used negatively). Stalin's expressed theories offer little deviation from Lenin's and are notable for their mild and reasonable character which contrasts sharply with his practices. I think we might add to the article the usage of contemporary activists and individuals who harken back to Stalin, rejecting what they view as revisionism, and call themselves "Marxist-Leninist" to emphasize their adherance to Communist fundamentals. That would make it a disambiguation page, not a redirect. I guess I would like the redirect removed completely and Leninism renamed Marxism-Leninism. That, I think, is the term in general use. Actually if you google the terms both seem to be used. But titling the article Marxism-Leninism offers the advantage that a least a note can be added regarding contemporary use of the term by Communist fundamentalists. Fred Bauder 11:21, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Marxism-Leninism was the official ideology of the Soviet Union since Stalin's rule, it just underwent a massive overhaul in the post-Stalin era. J. Parker Stone 9 July 2005 08:41 (UTC)

Before discussing Marx-Leninism perhaps it would be a good idea to ask a Marxist before going into completely inaccurate rubbish. Marx-Leninism is the name given to the philosophy of revolutionary socialists who supported the Russian revolution lead by Lenin and Trotsky as an attempt to change WORLD capitalism to WORLD socialism. Marx-Leninists do NOT and did NOT support the Stalinist bureaucracy that gained power in the Soviet Union by the physical elimination of the Bolshevik revolutionaries. At no point did Lenin or Trotsky believe in anything other that a true democratic world revolution, unlike Stalinism, that in order to cover its counter-revolution privilege espoused 'Socialism in one country'

READ Marx and Lenin and Trotsky to understand these questions. Do not swallow the rubbish put out by the bourgeoisie and in particular American 'pundits' David Nissen UK

Or you could read Stalin himself. Or read [1]. Marxism-Leninism was a term, which on one hand is differnet from Leninism and on the other hand was never used during Lenin's life-time. The by the time M-L was launched the Trotsky-Stalin split had already emerged. Notably Trotskyists preferred not to use the term M-L, instead using the description Bolshevik-Leninist. See [2]. --Soman 10:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Marxism-Leninism refers to the interpretation of Lenin by Stalinists, and later by Maoists and Reform Communists, where as Leninism refers to the interpretation of Lenin by Trotskyists and neoBolsheviks. There are exceptions to this rule, such as the Marxist-Leninist Party of the Second Spanish Republic, which was a small party founded as a true Trotskyist alternative to POUM. However, both historicly and in modern uses by Stalinists, Trotskyists, etc. this deffinition is upheld.

[edit] 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)

[edit] "As carried forward by Joseph Stalin. "

There's a contradiction in this entry. Either ML is Marxism as carried forward by Joseph Stalin. and thence by others in differing ways, or both Stalinists or Trotskyists both claim to be Marxist Leninists, in which case Stalin's amplifications are in one branch but not all. The former makes sence to me: I do not think that Trotskyist claim to be ML: they see that ML is Stalinism's own word for itself, surely?--Duncan 12:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's correct. Scholars and partisans are in unity that Marxism-Leninism was the name given to the ideology of the Soviet Union (based on the writings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin) by Stalin. It includes also Stalin's own contributions and is the term used in all three major histories of the CPSU published in the Soviet Union (corresponding to the governments of Stalin, Khrushchev, and Breshznev). It is also the term used by Mao Zedong and anti-revisionist Marxists. I've never heard a member of a Trotskyist organization (either in person or in a text) self-describe as "Marxist-Leninist". The article should certainly identify Stalin's role in developing Marxism-Leninism. Comzero 20:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I think this sentence, '"Stalinists" and "Trotskyists" also claim to be the rightful heirs of Marxism-Leninism' in the first paragraph needs to be cut. Now, it could be argued that both claim to be the rightful heirs of Leninism, but not ML. Comzero 20:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea! I think this would be an excellent clarification. --Duncan 08:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A contribution from a foreigner

Hi, I'm Italian. (My native language is Italian,) and my English is mediocre. I apologize for any mistakes I might make. It is for this reason that I won't contribute directly to this article. I agree with the opininion that Marxism-Leninism is Stalinist in nature. Also Leninism was first regarded as a theory, rather than an attitude, by Stalin. Marxism-Leninism is considered to be nearly synonymous with Stalinism (from a philosopical and theoretical point of view) by many communists. Two examples being Aldo Natoli and Pietro Ingrao (two Italian communists who played an international role at the beginning of WW2). I believe that this article should mention the work by Stalin that is generally considered to be the key essay in which Marxism-Leninism is defined. It is "THE FOUNDATIONS OF LENINISM", that can be found here [3]. It is part of a larger work, "Problems of Leninism". One of the key questions here is whether or not revolution must necessarily be a violent, military business, or can revolution be acheived through non-violent means? Marx and Engels considered a violent struggle not as necessary, but as an unfortunate - though probable - outcome in continental Europe. Stalin states that one of the main contributions to Marxism is the idea that that revolution must necessarily be a violent uprising worldwide, due to the changes in Capitalist structure. Another important question is about whether or not the proletariat should take the power in countries with a backward level of productive forces (i.e., backward bourgeois society). There was on this subject an endless and notorius dispute between Lenin and the 2nd Socialist International, and also with mensheviks and revolutionary socialists. The prevaling opinion in the worldwide labour movement was that proletariat revolution would need a preceding bourgeois stage, a developed society with bourgeois institutions, which was not the case in 1917 Russia. Here Stalin shows one of his typical attitudes in legitimizing past events with questionable theoretical (or pseudo-theoretical) argumentations.

BTW I prefer the English edition of wikipedia to the Italian one because Italian entries (at least on similar subjects, but this can be said in general) are not so good, sometime agiographic and POV, and with lack of narration and references. I'm considering the idea of simply translating some English entries in Italian to overcome this problem. I will be glad to hear opinions on doing so. I was communist and marxist years ago, and I knew a lot of (Italian) communists - some of them with a long-lasting personal history - which were clever and open-minded, and capable of quietly an reasonably debating with people of opposite opinions. Now I'm anti-communist (in the sense that I consider communism nonsense, rather than a bad thing). My knowledge of real-world communists leads me to believe that a communist could be able to write an encyclopedia article that can be considered interesting and useful by non-communist or anti-communist people. It seems to me that the new-generation of (the very few) communists lost this attitude. At least in Italy.

Bye.

PS. Please correct my english!

I tried to correct it a bit, if I didn't stick to your original meaning I am sorry, but I made every effort. -- Humbabba 01:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Humbabba, you made a great job. The meaning of my considerations was both respected and claryfied. --85.20.0.137 15:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major cleanup and rework needed

To the italian, your understanding of Marxism-Leninism seems to only be from the Stalin era. Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism, 1962, printed in the Soviet Union. States that a voilent revol ution is not neccessary but is forced on the proleteriat. This article needs major work and cleanup, it also sites no sources and has no references. Its especially important because it's one of the most influentcial schools of Marxism. Opetyan 23:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Different from Trotskyism

Should we not explain that the term was coined to clarify the differences between it and Trotsky's so-called 'Bolshevik-Leninism'? --Duncan 06:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trimming

I made this edit with the purpose of ridding the article of commentaries, speculations and explicit pov-pushing. Some examples:

• Self-contradiction: First stating "Marxism-Leninism, strictly speaking, refers to the version of Marxism developed by Vladimir Lenin; see Leninism.", an OR intrepretation without base in the arguments made in the rest of the article
• "However, in various contexts, different (and sometimes opposing) political groups have used the term "Marxism-Leninism" to describe the ideologies that they claimed to be upholding." First of all, here and elsewhere in the text, there is a clearly insinuatory tone. This is not how liberalism, socialism, christianity etc., are described. Moreover, Marxism-Leninism is not 'ideologies'. It is one ideology, out of which there are different intrepretations.
• "The label Marxism-Leninism is most often used by those who believe that Lenin's legacy was successfully carried forward by Joseph Stalin (Stalinists). However, it is also used by some who repudiate Stalin, such as the supporters of Nikita Khrushchev. Another branch of Communists who declare themselves Marxist-Leninist are the Maoists, who tend to downplay the importance of all other thinkers in favour of Mao Zedong." Is historically incorrect. The mainstream of the communist movement are of M-L orientation (regardless of whether they hav '(m-l)' in their name or not). Also these dictotomies are not that clear. Is, say, the Portuguese Communist Party 'supporters of Khrushchev'?
• "Following the Sino-Albanian split, a small but substantial portion of Marxist-Leninists, such as Alliance Marxist-Leninist and to a lesser extent Ray O. Light Group, in the US" AML + ROL has a combined membership of say, 20 people? Undue weight in the article.
• "The other three communist states existing today - Cuba, Vietnam and Laos - hold Marxism-Leninism as their official ideology, although they give it different interpretations in terms of practical policy." The communist parties hold Marxism-Leninism as their ideology, not the states.
• "Marxism-Leninism changed slightly with each successive era of Party leaders. For example Marxism-Leninism of the Khrushchev era was strongly against the establishment of personality cults like that of the Stalin era, which it described as alien to Leninism. It is largely accepted that Marxism-Leninism was ended in the Soviet Union, by the openness of criticism and rejection of basic tenets of the ideology by Gorbachev's Perestroika and Glasnost" ML as such did not change, but of course ML like any other ideology passes through different influences as times change. Simply attributing these changes to individual party leaders in the Soviet Union is ahistorical.
• "It is largely accepted that Marxism-Leninism was ended in the Soviet Union", ideologies are not 'ended' as such.
• Main problem remains though: That the article says virtually nothing about what ML is.

--Soman 19:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

True, the article needs several improvement. But not censorship due to your Stalinist views. --Inbloom2 22:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

agree with Inbloom2--Francomemoria 10:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a revision war building up here. Can you use Talk, rather than revert? --Duncan 19:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think, for the discussion to progress, the reservations of Franco and Inbloom has to be developed beyond just labelling me as a stalinist. --Soman 20:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't do any censorship on this page in the first place. Plus, it's a censorship based on your stalinist POV. --Inbloom2 22:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

example of stalinist pov:

"Marxism-Leninism is communist ideological stream, that emerged after the October Revolution" this not true this emerged after Stalin take power in CCCP.

"After Lenin's death, his ideology and contributions to Marxist theory were termed as "Marxism-Leninism" ," (strange before emerged from revolution and now after Lenin's death) after Lenin's death Stalin ideology and contributions were termed ML (Stalin take follow Lenin in some aspects, but principally formal aspect, see CCCP history) --Francomemoria 11:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I weeded out some pov wordings and inconstitencies, see my comments above (and please, feel free to comment), but I do not claim that my version is a particularily good. As I myself as pointed out, the history of the development of ML needs to be developed. To answer your comment briefly: 'After' denotes, well, 'after' (as opposed to, say, 'before'). The notion that ML would be completly detached from Lenin's political labour or the experiences of the October Revolution, would be a quite strong pov statement. --Soman 11:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly it's better to say that 'Marxism Leninism' arose after Lenin's death: the phrase was not used before then, and it's clearly the basis of innovations like the theory of socialism in one country. --Duncan 12:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC).

Can we pinpoint the exact moment when the term was first used? --Soman 13:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I seem to think it's Dimitriov at the Fifth World Congress. I don't think it's in The Foundations of Leninism, but certainly Stalin used the term in 1928. --Duncan 18:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

So, could we state that 1) Foundations of Leninism marks the formulation of the ML interpretation of Marxism ([4] uses the wording 'This was explicitly defined in Stalin's Foundations of Leninism as Marxist theory in an imperialist age. Aside from focusing on key points of orthodox Marxism (dialectical materialism, the proletariat as revolutionary class, etc.), Marxism-Leninism (or sometimes called just Leninism or even Bolshevism) also noted the importance of the Communist Party as revolutionary vanguard and focused on the specific nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Some key works in Marxist-Leninist theory include Stalin's Foundations of Leninism and Lenin's State and Revolution and Imperialism.', a wording we could use in an adopted form), 2) that the term ML was first used at the 5th Congress of Comintern (and at the same point adopted by Comintern?)? --Soman 19:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The first option seems weak to me. Clearly, Marxism-Leninism represented a major development within Leninism and Bolshevism. State and revolution preceded it, so it's mistaken to include it. The second option seems better: How are bout this -- The development of Leninism made by Josef Stalin and the Communist International in the years after 1924. DuncanBCS 18:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the first paragraph should stay as it is. It gives good "nutshell" information and is hardly commentary. If needed, the paragraph can be revised to rid this tone of voice; however, this is needed to give readers and understanding. MasterXC 13:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have put my objections above. To repeat, stating that "The purpose of this article is to give an account of the historical and present uses of the label "Marxism-Leninism"." is highly insinuatory, stating that Marxism-Leninism essentially would be an imaginary phenomena. --Soman 13:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

i'm not sure on "development" use in english but i'm not agree with "marxism-Leninism represented a major development within Leninism and Bolshevism" do you known that stalin is not a marxist for MIA (marxist internet archive)--Francomemoria 11:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant, because the majority of those who are involved with the "Marxist Internet Archive" are Trotskyists. The way they classify documents there is very biased, and does not reflect the world's position on this subject. There are 80-90 million members of Marxist-Leninist parties in the world today, but there are only 30-50 thousand members of Trotskyist parties. Cmrdm 22:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

surely chinese party is a marxist party --Francomemoria 12:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, this is a bit of a side-track, as I'm not sure what point Franco is trying to do. The comment on development was made by Duncan, and Franco has been reverting to the version last edited by Duncan. Resonably, Franco and Inbloom should develop their criticism of the versions edited by others. --Soman 22:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

On both sides, the way out of this is references. Inclusion or exclusion by the MIA is not useful.--Duncan 15:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Dispute

I have added the POV tag to the article. The current opening sentence, for example, calls it the revolutionary marxism adopted by the Comintern in the 1920s. This is misleading, and reflect PV. Marxism-Leninism describes the arc of Marxism founded by Joseph Stalin: it represented a major break during the 1920s marked by innovations such as socialism in one country, the third period and the popular front. These tactics represented major developments from Bolshevism. Often, these policies are seen as counter-revolutionary. Editors who dispute one or another version of this article are simply reverting (including Soman, who has been here long enough to know better). We need to find references to support these claims, and eliminate the unreferenced. Certainly, the notion that Marxism-Leninism did not mark a rupture within Communism is a highly POV standpoint. --Duncan 09:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Duncan, that is the Trotskyist POV of Marxism-Leninism. I think a better article on this topic would discuss the core components of the ideology: dialectical and historical materialism, democratic centralism for party organization, dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. And that Marxist-Leninist parties/individuals have mixed views on the role of Stalin, with some being more critical or supportive than others. It would also note that Marxism-Leninism remains the official ideology of communist parties who's combined membership is 80-90 million at present. I think that trying to bring the old "Trotsky vs Stalin" debate into this article is not appropriate. Surely there is already a separate article for that topic, such as the article on Trotskyism? Cmrdm 21:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Clearly we have a choice here: either Marxism-Leninism does not differ from Leninism, in which case we should merge the articles, or it has a distinct meaning. Clearly, the term Marxism-Leninism originated after Lenin's death. What distinguishes ML from other Leninism are socialism in one country, the third period and the popular front. So, what's the judgement -- it is distinct from Leninism, or should we merge the articles? --Duncan 21:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, if the article was named "Marxism-Leninism" rather than simply "Leninism", I would not be opposed to a merger. No politically significant parties call themselves only "Leninist" (rather than Marxist-Leninist or Trotskyist), so I think that having a separate "Leninist" article is redundant and misleading. I think only two articles are necessary to explain the views of the notable currents in Marxism: Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism. Cmrdm 22:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Leninism is the tought and development of marxism of lenin, and it isn't relevant if some parties call themselves leninst.--82.57.145.75 23:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC) sorry i'm not logged. Francomemoria

My english is bad but i'm try. ML is a Stalin idea, is disputed that is a marxist theory, it became official ideology of cccp and comintern, after stalin's dead ML stay as ideology of soviet union and most communist parties but is not same ideology almost is not 100% same. after broke within China and cccp, maoist use the name ML for their ideology (and attack "soviet" parties with revisionist accuse). after brokewithin Albania and china they used ml for their ideology and use revisionist for "soviet" and "chinese" parties.

for Soman points: all points but last are now changed, i'm agree with ideology can't end but it's a referenced sentencies, i think we can't deleted, but is ridicolous for author of sentence, the idea can't dead/end--Francomemoria 00:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to respond to some quiries. I believe I started what led to the current revert war, but I would like to say that 1) from the onset explained my original edit in 7 points and 2) have briefly taked part in discussion on improving the article as to clarifying the origin of the term (which, if referenced, would be perhaps the key component of the article). I do agree that lack of references is the main problem, i tried to google at jstor.org for decent reference on the history of the term, but came up with nada so far.

Wikipedia is guided by a very idealistic notion of neutrality. Neutrality is of course in this type of subjects something impossible to acheive, i don't think we'll ever get a perfect consensus that is likely equally by everone. Mind also that so far the discussion the last month between 5 registered users have pretty much been an intra-left affair. Thus with some realism we have to settle for whats least bad for everyone, and have an article that 1) is similar in style to how other major streams of thoughts are displayed and 2) is open to presented various major interpretations on the subject at hand. I do recognize that in the non-Soman/Cmdrm-version (or whatever to call it) some improvements have been made, but I retain some points of dissent:

• Did ML surge after Lenin's death? Yes, at least in the sense that it was formulate in text and given a name. However, i think that making the point 'after Lenin's death' in the opening sentence is a statement in itself, namely that the formulation of ML was a rupture with previous line. We should also bear in mind that Marxism was a term not endorsed by Marx himself, and it is not strange that Lenin retained the decency not to put a label to his own thoughts.
• Should then Leninism and ML be merged? No. Leninism is claimed not only by MLs, but also by other communist tendencies, most notably trotskyists, and it would be POV to say Leninism = ML. Leninism, in strict sense would equal the theoretical teachings in Lenin's writings (as opposed to ML, Leninism would be static from 1924 onwards. ML on the other hand is developed through theoretical contributions of ML writers and activists) and certain model of political organization (which has also been adapted by many non-left currents as well). However, if Leninism would be merged with any article, it should be merger with the Lenin article.
• We must a middle way here, stating that MLs uphold that ML is a direct development on Marxism based on the contributions of Lenin, but that there are also critics who dispute the idea of continuation. This is however a matter to be discussed in the main body of the article, not making any attempt to resolve the issue in the intro heading.
• Regarding the second sentence of the article, a compromise "It emerged as the mainstream tendency amongst the Communist parties in the mid-1920s (or late?) as it was adopted as the ideological foundation of the Communist International." would be factually correct. Putting 'after Stalin' is imho to attribute, as is extremly common, to much importance to the individual leadership of Stalin on the ideological development of the communist movement. I think we should avoid, at least in the intro, to speculate on causes. One could also see other causes for the emergence of ML, namely the adaptation of bolsheviks as a party in power, the need to an ideology which could be utlized as official state doctrine.
• "However, in various contexts, different (and sometimes opposing) political groups have used the term "Marxism-Leninism" to describe the ideology that they claimed to be upholding." should go. It doesn't really contribute anything, its not uncommon for followers of one ideology to be in opposition to each other (4th international splits, anyone?). " that they claimed to be upholding." is highly insinuatory.
• "The term Marxism-Leninism is most often used by those who believe that Lenin's legacy was successfully carried forward by Joseph Stalin (Stalinists)." (my boldening) is a classic wiki-mistake. Claims like 'most often' can never, never be used without a proper and clear reference. As a quick look reveals, the wording is incorrect. Most current (note that I'm stating this on talk page, not article namespace) ML parties have either a negative or ambivalent view on Stalin.
• Furtermore, I think the entire passage should go. I think that one should not overvalue labelling of different tendencies, not all (if not most) major ML parties do not fit into any of the mentioned categories. Not all ML parties have their 'favorite' post-Lenin CPSU leader.
• "The core ideological features of Marxism-Leninism are supposed to be those of Marxism and Leninism,", insinuatory wording.
• Regarding "After Lenin's death, his ideology and contributions to Marxist theory were termed by the leaders of the CPSU "Marxism-Leninism" , or sometimes only "Leninism."" This is a part that needs to be developed further. ML wasn't just adopted at a VKP(b) CC meeting on sitting table, it had its own development. I'm really embarrassed that I cannot come up with the name of the guy who is said to have been the main writer behind 'Foundations of Marxism-Leninism', and who is essentially the main architect of modern ML ideology.
• Regarding "and of communist parties that supported USSR around the world.", who supported who? If we talk about 1970s, we can talk about parties supporting Soviet Union or parties supporting China (in the sense of supporting the general political line of CPSU/CPC), but in the 1920s this differentation was not there. The correct thing to state is that ML was adopted by Comintern, and thus all its affiliated sections (including VKP(b)).
• I think that 'dissident trends' in an accurate wording to describe the various tendencies that bolted out of the Comintern during the 1920s.
• "(and later anti-Maoist)" is superflous (since Trots see Maoists as Stalinists), and trotskyism has not been specifically anti-maoist in the same way as it has been anti-stalinist.
• Regarding the sentence "After the Sino-Soviet split..." it is more correct to talk about positions of parties rather than states. Both parties preceded the states they governed.
• "Many parties today believe that the current leadership of China has abandoned Maoism." is a bit of an odd comment, which doesn't really fit into the main text. The role of wikis is not to pass judgements on who is the kosher ML and who isn't.
• One can always discuss that weight to give certain term, but I think 'substantial' fits into the sentence "Following the Sino-Albanian split, a small but substantial...". The pro-Albanians were, if we look at the communist movement as a whole a small grouping. However, they have played notable roles in several Latin American countries (like Brazil, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, etc.), they were one of the two main groups in the politico-military opposition in Ethiopia, and had smaller groups in many other countries. If these guys are just labelled 'small', then how should we describe trotskyists or left communists?
• Regarding 'Marxism-Leninism in the Soviet Union', in generally sceptical to having 'country subsections'. It is also necessary to clarify that the comment has an author, and is not a universal truth.
• The second half of that chapter, which I've cut away in my version, is a bit odd. It describes ML not as an ideology, but as if was a mysterical living person, which could take different standpoints at different times. To say that Soviet policy in a certain period was so and so is one thing, but ML is not necessarily = to Soviet policy.
• "was ended in the..." should go. Ideologies do not 'end' as such.
• "Most comtemporary communist parties continue to regard Marxism-Leninism as their basic ideology", being well aware that I contradict a point made above, I would appeal to the other editors to make a quick count themselves. How many CPs are ML, how many aren't? The latter category has some members, the Spanish PCE for example (who use the term 'Revolutionary Marxist' instead). Would guess that French PCF would go there too. However, how many more really?
• "Popular confusion abounds concerning the complex terminology describing the various schools of Marxist-derived thought. The appellation 'Marxist-Leninist' is often used by those not familiar with communist ideology in any detail (e.g. many newspapers and other media) as a synonym for any kind of Marxism." all terms confuse people not familiar with them, superflous commentary.

--Soman 22:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

i've made some modifications, for small of hoxhaist i don't know in my country maybe counted in some teen of members, troskyst is some thousands, think that small is ok, for soviet section deleted, is late i must go--Francomemoria 11:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC) i'm sorry i made a error in editing version --Francomemoria 11:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a short note, I do approve removing "After Lenin's death, his ideology and contributions to Marxist theory were termed as "Marxism-Leninism" , or sometimes only "Leninism."", this is far to complicated to be dealt with in a single sentence, and also contradicts the discussion above. Rather it could be correct to say that initially (say around 1924) the term 'Leninism' was used with similiar mening to the later usage of the term 'Marxism-Leninism'. --Soman 13:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That is POV. Mainstream academic thinking is that 'Marxism-Leninism' represented a major break during the 1920s marked by innovations such as socialism in one country, the third period and the popular front.--Duncan 13:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my point here. What I mean to say is that Comintern used the term 'Leninism' around 1924 in analogus manner to later usage of the term 'Marxism-Leninism' (for example 'Problems of Leninism', 'Under the banner of Leninism', etc.); I'm not putting leninism = ML. --Soman 16:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were making a point about the CI. Problems of Leninism was a work by Joseph Stalin; I don't think the CI or ECCI uses the term prior to the Fifth world congress. --Duncan 18:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Falsification college

I'm a little bit spectical about referencing "Trotskyists in particular believe that Stalinism contradicted authentic Marxism and Leninism" with "Лев Троцкий, Сталинская школа фальсификаций, М. 1990, с. 7-8(in Russian)". Trotsky in what work does not refer to the opinions of the trotskyist movement, rather he deals extensively on how "Trotkyism" (in brackets, note) was projected by his opponents. Just as Marx didn't refer to his thoughts as Marxism, Lenin with Leninism, Stalin with Stalinism, Trotsky found the wording 'Trotskyism' as problematic. If we are to assume that Trotsky = Trotskyism, we are back to square one in definitions. --Soman (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)