This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Certain sections within this seem to have a bias such as usage of the term regime, a term of negative connotation and potential bias, as well as usage of the term murder in reference to capitalists and landlords being killed. Proletarian Banner (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
So many instances of the term "totalitarian" or "authoritarian" including one which says "the alleged totalitarian nature of communism"
well communism doesn't involve totalitarianism at all as it involves a stateless, classless, and moneyless society with the means of production held in common, a lack of commodity production, and a lack of wage labour, the "withering away of state", etc. Socialism isn't totalitarian in nature either as it is inherently democratic and there are systems such as Soviet Democracy, Democratic Centralism, People's Democracy, etc as well as the figurative dictatorship of the proletariat. Proletarian Banner (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I don’t trust a user called “proletarian banner” to be neutral on this any more than I trust all the conservatives bombing socialism articles with WP:NOTFORUM rants. Wikipedia isn’t about righting WP:GREATWRONGS no matter what side you’re on. Dronebogus (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Not necessarily true. In most if not all countries that had Communist revolutions, the view was that the proletariat had not fully developed and therefore a vanguard party would represent the theoretical proletariat that would exist in a fully developed capitalist state. And of course not all Communists come from the working class. TFD (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
What do you mean that not all communists come from the working class? What other classes do they come from, the bourgeoisie? By the way, we don't believe in a middle class, we believe classes are not how much money you make, but your relation to the means of production, so it doesn't matter how much they have, they are still proletarians and therefore a part of the working class by our logic. YOU do not understand the point of communists or theory. However, there are some that come from the peasantry as well. Hoxha Cat (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
What was Engel's relation to the means of production? Was he a proletarian? Aren't peasants from a class different from the proletariat? Into which class do you put aristocrats? TFD (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Marx doesn't really give us a detailed analysis of class. He made a start here, but sadly didn't finish the job. Even so, from this and his other writings, it's pretty clear that his view of the class system was more nuanced than the simplistic caricature that is usually attributed to him. Tewdar 08:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate mention of state capitalism in the lead
Hi. At the end of the fourth paragraph, it talks about how the Soviet Union (and China) has been described as an example of state capitalism (among other things). It then repeats this in the fifth paragraph, with more words. We shouldn't have duplicated material in a lead like this, so which bit should stay (or how should they be merged)? Endwise (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2022 (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:
I would say it's not so much something specific in the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, it's that every real world instantiation of it has turned out to be authoritarian, in fact thus pointing to something in the application which leads to that result. One cannot overlook that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
It's a fairly meaningless term really. Authoritarianism implies that policy is decided purely by diktat from the General Secretary of the Communist Party of whichever country it is, but one of the main principles of Marxism-Leninism is that of Democratic centralism, whereby people meet at various levels and thoroughly discuss and debate the issues at hand before taking a vote on the proposed policies, and then they agree to work towards & not against the decision of the body responsible for the decision. In the UK, the House of Commons debates proposed legislation, votes on it & then after passing through the House of Lords and back a few times it it enacted into law, and its implementation is enforceable by the police. If the UK is somehow not authoritarian, its laws coming almost always from a body of people elected once every 5 years by a plurality rather than a majority in a first past the post election, where the majority of voters have chosen a different party to the one who gets in, and a Marxist-Leninist country like Cuba, whose entire electorate recently voted on their new Family Code suite of laws governing things like same-sex marriage, then it's a meaningless & pejorative term. Sciamachy (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
'People meet at various levels' in Cuba. What is your source? Xx236 (talk) 10:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC) "I'm a gnarly old goth with a shaven head & grey beard, with a liking for metal, goth rock & electronica." Does 'metal' make one expert in Cuban matters?Xx236 (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Defintions used in articles should reflect what reliable sources say, and I don't see authoritarianism commonly mentioned. In any case it needs explanation, because it usually means support of existing authority, which most Marxist-Leninists opposed. TFD (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
There's libertarian socialism and there's authoritarian socialism. Marxism-Leninism clearly belongs to the latter. It shouldn't even need explained, but as Dimadick said, a key part of its ideology is that a 'vanguard party' seizes power and establishes a one-party state which suppresses all opposition. Its idea of 'democratic centralism' means that only party officials get to discuss and vote on policy. Authoritarianism is mentioned many times in this article, while Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism/Soviet Union etc are mentioned many times at authoritarian socialism. There's plenty of references there, and plenty more could be found. Also, authoritarianism doesn't mean "support of the existing authority"; the National Socialists were authoritarian but wanted to overthrow the Weimar Republic. This is all basic uncontroversial stuff. ~Asarlaí13:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
"Authoritarian socialism" is a fairly uncommon term and that article is mostly synthesis and original research. But my point is not whether Marxism-Leninism is authoritarian, but whether that is usually included in the definition in reliable sources. IOW, it's an issue of weight, not rs. Most socialists btw would not fall under authoritarian or libertarian categories. TFD (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
For some of the history on the inclusion of the term in this article:
Then it was added and removed every couple days after the 21st of October until now
TLDR; Asarlaí added it without explanation on 19 August, warred with some IPs over it, and then it was added and removed every week or two after that, never with any discussion. Seems pretty clear this never had consensus. Endwise (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
In point of fact, "authoritarian" has been in the article since 4 September 2011 in this edit by user R-4. There's also the verifiable real-world fact that no established Marxist-Leninist polity in history has not been authoritarian. Whether this is due to a flaw in the philosophy or ideology of Marxist-Leninism, or because of the type of person who is attracted to it can be debated, but there's really no doubt about the reality. In order to answer the specific question, I am starting an RfC (below). Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
This is a reasonable use of scare quotes, because it is disputed whether these states were socialist. I think it shows a neutral tone to use scare quotes in the first mention, then stop for subsequent mentions, which is what the article does. TFD (talk) 09:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
The second sentence of the first paragraph and the first sentence of the third paragraph currently clash with each other. One says that MLism was developed by the Bolsheviks, the other says it was by Joseph Stalin. It really seems like it should be one or the other. Personally I think saying that it was developed by "the Bolsheviks" is misleading, since it was specifically the Stalin-led faction of the Bolsheviks who developed it. There were competing visions of Leninism developed by other Bolshevik groups at the same time, most notably Trotskyism (which Trotsky himself referred to as Bolshevik-Leninism). 14.2.53.70 (talk) 07:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
RfC: "Authoritarian" in the lede
There are two questions:
Should the lede sentence of this article include "authoritarian" as a description of Marxism-Leninism?
Should "authoritarian" as a description of "Marxism-Leninism" be included somewhere in the lede?
Yes, of course, considering that every established Marxist-Leninist polity in the history of the world has been authoritarian in nature. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
No The first sentence in the lead should summarize what one would expect to find in reliable sources, for example Webster's,[1] It doesn't matter whether reliable sources say it is authoritarian, but whether they include it in the definition. That is determined by neutral point of view. Wikipedia editors will always differ among themselves about what are the key aspects of a topic. Instead of endless hours of undergraduate style argumentation, we just agree to accept what the experts have determined. I note that the proposer has not provided any evidence that it is a normal part of the definition, just that it is frequently mentioned in articles about the topic. TFD (talk) 04:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
This is about whether the lead sentence of this article include "authoritarian" as a description of Marxism-Leninism, why are you talking as if there is some kind of historical denialism going on here? Actually Existing Napoleon (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
No. This is out of line with how reliable sources introduce/define Marxism-Leninism. TFD mentioned Webster's, though this comports with every other dictionary I could find. I had a look at the first WP:TERTIARY source I had access to that was cited in this article, International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (reference #3), and this is how it defines it: Marxism–Leninism was the official ideology of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and by extension of the international communist movement during the twentieth century. It does not even mention the word "authoritarian" until three pages of discussion of ML later, after which it acknowledges the criticism of Kropotkin: The anarchist Peter Kropotkin (1842–1921), following Mikhail Bakunin (1814–76), the arch opponent of Marx in the First International, considered Marxism, and its Leninist variant in particular, a centralizing authoritarian ideology.. We should follow reliable sources, not our own ideological musings. Endwise (talk) 07:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
...No? It's saying that Kropotkin considered it a centralizing authoritarian ideology. This quote is not evidence that the article or its author considers Marxism-Leninism an authoritarian ideology. Remagoxer(talk)15:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah. THAT part of the quote is not evidence that the article or its author considers Marxism-Leninism an authoritarian ideology. But you left out the next sentence: Indeed, it has been argued by Schapiro that the autocratic rigidity of communism in the Soviet Union (and by extension to the international communist movement) can be traced to the socialist ideology and organizational methods first set out by Lenin. The author very clearly agrees with this characterization and is citing other authors to buttress it. Nice try though. Volunteer Marek 20:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Here are other quotes from the source you are very conveniently leaving out:
. In practice, the contradictions of Lenin’s policy resulted in the long-term maintenance of a one-party dictatorship that came under the control of the ruthless political organizer Joseph V. Stalin
, she predicted that once the Bolsheviks had eliminated multiparty democracy and internal communist opposition, the so-called dictatorship of the proletariat would degenerate into the dictatorship of a faction and, ultimately, of that of an individual
No, based on the sources given above. I've also checked Communism: A Very Short Introduction by political scientist Leslie Holmes, and its section on Marxism-Leninism describes it as another term for Communist ideology and does not mention authoritarianism. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 20:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
No. I completely agree with TFD: we should avoid "endless hours of undergraduate style argumentation" and rely on the best available sources, in this case especially tertiary sources. I doubt you will find a serious academic encyclopaedia that defines Marxism-Leninism as an "authoritarian ideology". On the contrary, many academics would admit that "council government", as expressed in the Leninist slogan "all power to the soviets!", was a paradigmatic case of radical democracy at least until the attack on Kronstadt in 1921. For reliable tertiary sources, one could refer to A dictionary of contemporary world history, Oxford University Press, 2021 (below): no mention of authoritarianism.
A dictionary of contemporary world history, OUP, 2021
Marxism-Leninism
An interpretation of Communism in which Lenin sought to adapt the central tenets of Marxism to the experience of Russia, an economically backward agrarian state. The emergence of imperialism was considered to be a central, unforeseeable factor which had occurred since the development of Marxism. This enabled the propertied classes in industrially advanced countries to expand production and to spread the economic benefits to those workers who were prepared to accept the current economic system. This group of workers formed a so-called ‘labour aristocracy’, a process which prevented class unity. Left to itself, the proletariat would never rise up against the existing order. Hence Lenin emphasized the importance of the need for party elites and of ‘professional revolutionaries’, who would prepare and carry out the revolution and then create a Communist consciousness among the workers — Riches, Christopher; Palmowski, Jan (2021). A dictionary of contemporary world history. Oxford. ISBN978-0-19-189094-9. OCLC1240728840.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
It's their entry on M-L. Instead of labelling and providing a ready-made POV for ignorant soon-to-be-opinionated readers, serious encyclopedias give information and increase understanding. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Hmmm, hmmm, I'm sure there's at least a couple dozen RfC going on on Wikipedia at this moment yet you somehow decided to come to this particular one despite never having ever edited this article, this talk page or this topic for that matter. Have you heard of WP:STALK? Volunteer Marek 21:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Saying that Marxism-Leninsm is "authoritarian" is not "labeling", it's a real-world description of what happens to every Marxist-Leninist polity that lasts more than a couple of weeks. That's just a fact, like stubbing your toe on a rock -- it's not hypothesis, speculation, or theory, it's just what is. Personally, I wish that more academics and analysts would spend more time determining why that is the case instead of indulging in pseudo-Freudian food fights, but that's unfortunately not the case.
Gitz, you have called for hewing to what reliable sources say, and yet you have yet to respond to the plethora of reliable sources that have been cited below. That, unfortunately leads me to believe that your position is not actually based on what RSs say, but on your own personal ideological preferences. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm not a Leninist myself. This RfC, however, is entirely based on ideology, i.e., "endless hours of undergraduate style argumentation", as your argument shows (Jacobinism ended up in the Terror: is it authoritarian as well?). Instead of writing an encyclopaedic well-sourced text on "M-L and civil rights", "M-L and democracy", etc., and then, based on that, modify the lead so as to include what RSs (and the body of the article) say on the matter, someone decided to take the easy way, and just attach their POV to the lead, adding an adjective, "authoritarian", that is supported neither by the body of the article nor by the body of literature. Note that it is relatively easy to find RSs saying that M-L is authoritarian, but is this the mainstream view? I very much doubt it. Most of the RSs here below listed do not say that M-L was authoritarian, so the list is useless, over-inclusive, and was compiled by someone desperately trying to find sources in support of a ready-made ideological thesis of them. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I am not an ideological anti-Marxist-Leninist either. The ideology is very captivating, and I wish it were the case that it was successful in real-world applications, but unfortunately that is not the case, and such clear and obvious empirical evidence simply cannot be ignored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Noting that Marxism-Leninism is a kind of authoritarian communism (as opposed to libertarian socialism/communism) isn't "POV-pushing" or "labelling", it's only giving a basic description of the kind of ideology it is: communism, of the authoritarian branch. It's hardly controversial. I find it bizarre that anyone would be against this description; apart maybe from Marxist-Leninists themselves, who may want to describe their ideology in their own terms, or portray it as the only true communism. I already found a few RSs just from a quick check of the references in the lead - see my comment below. ~Asarlaí10:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes - There's no doubt that Marxism-Leninism is inherently authoritarian, both in theory and in practice. No political scientist or historian would dispute that. There are different strands of communism, and one of the main divisions is between authoritarian communism (such as Marxism-Leninism) and libertarian socialism/communism (such as anarcho-communism). It should be made clear that Marxism-Leninism stands at the authoritarian end of the spectrum. To begin with, a key part of Marxist-Leninist ideology is that a 'vanguard party' seizes power and establishes a one-party state which suppresses all opposition. Authoritarianism is mentioned several times in this article, while the topic of this article is mentioned throughout authoritarian communism. Here are some quotes from a few references that are already in this article:
"Lenin described the proletarian revolution as consisting of two stages ... The second stage was constructive and authoritarian, bringing the creation of a new, proletarian state" — Alred Evans (1993), Soviet Marxism-Leninism: The Decline of an Ideology, p.19
"Lenin and the Bolsheviks, they inherited the authoritarian strands of Marxism's DNA. ... Leninist doctrine had an anti-libertarian core." — Robert Service (2007), Comrades!: A History of World Communism, p.7
"What developed next was the creation of the Marxist-Leninist dictatorship of the proletariat, in reality the creation of a boundless bureaucratic state that eventually paved the way for the authoritarian rule of Josef Stalin" — David Walker, Daniel Gray (2009), The A to Z of Marxism, p.277
"I believe that Soviet authoritarianism is largely derived from Lenin's fundamentally authoritarian theory and practice" — David Lovell (1984), From Marx to Lenin: An Evaluation of Marx's Responsibility for Soviet Authoritarianism, p.9
"From 1945 through 1985, the Soviet Union promoted beuraucratic-authoritarian regimes in its sphere of geopolitical influence". — Charles Andrain (1994), Comparative Political Systems: Policy Performance and Social Change, p.26
"all communist governments are authoritarian systems" — Tom Lansford (2008), Communism, p.81
I'm sure plenty more references could be found if one had the time, including those that are harder to find because they use "Communism" to mean "Marxism-Leninism" or those that don't necessarily use the exact terms "Marxism-Leninism + authoritarian", but similar terms like Stalinism, Maoism, autocratic, totalitarian, etc. ~Asarlaí00:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Most of these sources are not about Marxism-Leninism: they are about communist governments and about policies promoted by the USSR, they deal with Lenin himself and with Stalin, so it's an almost irrelevant set of sources. But even if we were able - and I'm sure that with a bit of time it wouldn't be too difficult - to find a decent set of RSs that qualify M-L as "authoritarian", this would not be conclusive. Surely we could also find several RSs saying that M-L is atheist – and indeed it is. Should we then write that "Marxism–Leninism is an atheist authoritarian communist ideology"? No, because that's not how it is defined by reliable tertiary sources, and it doesn't even correspond to the contents of the article's body. Highlighting one aspect over others without a solid foundation on RSs is the basis of WP:UNDUE. Should we say that M-L promoted social justice, women's rights and the dismantle of official state anti-Semitism? We could easily find plenty of RSs on this, much more than on authoritarianism. What about having "Marxism–Leninism is a communist ideology that promotes social justice, women’s rights and the overcoming of racism"? No, we don’t do this, for the same reason. This RfC is entirely based on a POV. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
"Most of these sources are not about Marxism-Leninism: they are about communist governments and about policies promoted by the USSR, they deal with Lenin himself and with Stalin" - Most of them are specifically about Marxism-Leninism. Also, all communist governments are Marxist-Leninist ("Marxist-Leninist state" is a synonym for "communist state"), and it was Lenin and Stalin who created Marxism-Leninism. Your argument about atheism doesn't work, because communist ideologies aren't divided into 'atheist' and 'non-atheist' branches. The main division is between authoritarian and libertarian/non-authoritarian. ~Asarlaí11:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
communist ideologies aren't divided into 'atheist' and 'non-atheist' branches: why not? See Religious communism. The main division is between authoritarian and libertarian/non-authoritarian: who says that? Here we run the risk of engaging in an informal, untethered conversation about what M-L is to us; it is best to stick to how reliable sources define M-L, as their characterizations show us the scholarly consensus on the most significant aspects of the topic. I am not a Marxist-Leninist, but the proposed definition of M-L as "authoritarian communist ideology" seems to me as bizarre, unusual, biased and contrary to MOS:OPEN as the definition of M-L as a "communist ideology that promotes social justice, women's rights, and anti-discrimination". Therefore I would like to see sources that show that the proposed definition is the generally shared and prevailing view of the subject's distinctive features. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Tom Lansford's book ''Communism'' is listed as "juvenile nonfiction." We are not supposed to determine what we want to appear in the article, then seek sources. We are supposed to identify the best sources and summarize what they say. In any case, the question was not whether ML is authoritarian but whether that should be in the first sentence. not everything about ML will appear in the first sentence, unless you want to join all the sentences in the article into one long one. TFD (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
No The clear problems here have been pointed out by others. There's no difference between this clear POV-motivated addition and something like "Marxism-Leninism is a materialist, atheist, etc. ideology"? Actually Existing Napoleon (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
No. Per the cited sources, there is clearly a dispute on whether ML is or is not authoritarian, and it should not be described as such in the first sentence. Much of the reasoning given above that appeals to the concept that ML is 'obviously' authoritarian on the authority of 'political scientists and historians' is WP:SYNTH. It is totally irrelevant what the people here "feel" ML is. What's important is what the academic literature says, and that clearly points to ambiguity. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 08:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
No, but it should be in the first paragraph. See Adolf Hitler. The article does not mention the HolocaustorWorld War 2 in the first sentence, nor should it. But both the first paragraph, as they should. This situation is similar. Something that is both prominent and unquestionably true still may not belong in the first sentence. It's simply not good writing. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
In the criticism paragraph. In line with tertiary sources (see above), we should describe this as a typical criticism of Marxism-Leninism (or of particular Marxist–Leninist states). Endwise (talk) 07:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Comment The question is too vague. Once you get beyond the first sentence of the lead, you would need more detail. For example, was this an attribute of the ideology or a logical outcome? Also, there should not be an RfC before the question has been discussed. How do you describe Gorbachev's belief system? I would like to see the wording first. TFD (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Taking another look, I see that the word "authoritarian" already appears in the fourth paragraph of the lead, in the phrase "bureaucratic-authoritarian systems". Is that phrase what is meant by this question? The next paragraph mentions totalitarianism, which is an extreme form of authoritarianism. For this RFC question to reach a clear resolution, I think it needs to be more specific. Do the existing descriptions satisfy this proposal, or is the idea to add another mention of authoritarianism somewhere else in the lead? —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 21:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
No, see above. I agree, however, that the question is too vague, especially since I have yet to see the RSs labelling Marxism-Leninism as "authoritarianism". Where are they? Surely this RfC cannot be entirely based on some editor's POV. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand in what respect the question is vague. It simply asks if the description of M-L as "authoritarian" should appear in the lede section. How and where it appears can be determined by the normal give and take between editors once the question of whether or not it should appear at all is settled. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
But the question remains: do we have RSs on Marxism-Leninism and authoritarianism? If we have them, then any editor could write a well-sourced section on this and eventually it will be entirely appropriate for the lead section to include a reference to authoritarianism, no matter what this RfC decides. But that's the way the process should go, not the other way round: the lead should reflect the contents of the body, and the body should reflects the contents of the sources. How can we assess if the description of M-L as "authoritarian" should appear in the lead if we don't have a text on this in the article and we don't even have the sources? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree. The question approaches the issue backwards. Instead of starting with rs and summarizing what they say, we are determining what should be in the article then searching for rs to support them. TFD (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes As it is integral to the ideology and differentiates it from other variants of socialism. The term "authoritarianism" has gained a large amount of negative connotation over the years, however it is a general descriptors of various ideologies through reliance on centralism or authority. The term applies to NPOV as Marxist-Leninist ideology is reliant entirely on authority to function through the party, state, or otherwise maybe "centralised," or some other synonym can be used as the term as it carries less baggage, but the term "authoritarian" is true in it's purest form. It should be somewhere in the lede. Des Vallee (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
This article is about Marxist-Leninist ideology, not how Marxist-Leninists have governed. Two hundred years ago, every liberal regime enforced slavery, at least in its colonies, but we would not say that slavery is a key element of liberalism.
Many leading Communists in Communist states, such as Gorbachev, were anti-authoritarian, while adhering to Marxism-Leninism. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) is certainly not authoritarian in its ideology or practice where it governs, but is comnmitted to Marxism-Leninism.
In fact, since Marxism-Leninism means whatever the Communist Party supports, it is impossible to identify a core set of beliefs.
Support for -- or at the very least allowance for -- slavery was a part of liberal democracy during the time period you are referring to, since the ideology at the time did not look favorably on limiting capitalism in whatever form it took. If we were writing Wikipedia back then, yes, we would be justified in saying that support for slavery was a part of liberal democracy. Now, of course, that's no longer the case, and we would not write that. In the case of Marxism-Leninism, there is no time period in the relatively short life of Marxist-Leninist polities in which authoritarianism was not an intrinsic characteristic. Your argument amounts to saying that the fact that communist states are all authoritarian is simply coincidence -- it isn't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Is authoritarianism an "intrinsic" characteristic of Marxist-Leninist polities? The question is more difficult than it seems. I see at least two problems. First, if authoritarianism was intrinsic to Marxist-Leninist, that is, it was a necessary component of it, then no alternative to how things went has ever been possible: those who championed the rights of the working class and the poor within the M-L tradition were simply deluded. Like any counterfactual conditional, this statement (they were deluded: had communism prevailed in Germany, things would have been the same, had the Trotskyist interpretation of M-L prevailed over Stalinism, the beaurocratic-authoritarian tendencies of communism would still have unfolded, etc.) is neither true nor false, but it strikes me as one-sided and lacking in understanding. Secondly, there's the problem of comparison. Was Russia under Lenin's rule more or less authoritarian than Tsarist Russia? Was Cuba under Castro more or less authoritarian than under Batista? Did M-L in those and other countries bring about authoritarianism, so that people there would have likely been more free without it, or did it bring social groups that would otherwise have been excluded into political participation? Since these questions are hard to answer, I think we'd better stick to the sources, however dull that may be, and acknowledge that tertiary sources do not generally qualify M-L as an "authoritarian" ideology, possibly because that was not one of its defining, intrinsic characteristics. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article Authoritarianism, supported by reliable sources, begins, "Authoritarianism is a political system." It doesn't describe it as a ideology. Also, the article provides differences between totalitarianism and authoritarianism. ML states bear greater similarity to the first than the second. The most repressive ML leaders for example used the politics of charisma. TFD (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Re-phasing possible POV?
I would suggest rewording this sentence to provide a neutral point-of-view:
"Marxism–Leninism is an empty term that depends on the approach and basis of ruling Communist parties, and is dynamic and open to re-definitions, being both fixed and not fixed in meaning."
It reflects the observations of a single writer, (Rachel Walker, in this case), who's observations and opinions are laid out as authoritative in this part of the article even when only one journal article is used for this conclusion. In my opinion, better wording might be『Marxism–Leninism is often described as an』or "Marxism–Leninism can be seen as an". As always, feedback welcome. ~the.one.and.the.only~ (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
