Talk:Marxism–Leninism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The intro of the article is highly defensive in nature towards Marxists and other socialists

I regard the current intro as of writing this to be utterly unacceptable. It immediately begins with a defensive nature that when read between the lines can be summed up as the following:

• "Marxism-Leninism is a propaganda tool and fraud created by Joseph Stalin"
• "It is not a genuine representation of socialism or communism and other Marxists and other socialists reject it"

This is not a neutral analysis of the topic. Instead it appears to have been written with strong pressure on others writing this article by those with Marxist and socialist POVs who want to make absolutely clear that Marxism-Leninism in no way represents a variant of socialism or communism. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources and acknowledgement of multiple POVs on topics with the intention of having a neutral point of view (NPOV) on the topic. To be clear, I agree that criticisms of the ideology can and should be included in the article in an appropriate section clearly titled as "Criticisms", but that such criticisms not be included in the very first sentence let alone first paragraph of the article without doing proper justice to the topic by first describing what the ideology claimed to purport, and then followed by a sentence or two at the end of the intro mentioning common criticisms of the ideology by various critics be they socialists, capitalists, etc.

WP:NOTTRUTH clearly describes that verifiability by reliable sources is what matters. I do not believe that the intro currently upholds that Wikipedia pillar because of its defensive nature.--184.145.74.119 (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Stalin invented the term "Marxism-Leninism" to describe his own ideology, and "Trotskyism" to describe his opponent's ideology. Today, what do we have? "Marxism-Leninism" is used as a term for Stalin's, and "Trotskyism" is used as a term for Trotsky's. Hereafter, I will call Marxism-Leninism "Stalinism". That we use these terms today is down to the political victory of Stalinism in the Soviet Union. Even naming this article "Marxism-Leninism", or talking about "Marxism-Leninism" in the first place, is taking a Stalinist POV. But we make this concession. Not immediately giving facts to the reader, which allows him to notice that this may, in fact not be "the most accurate" representation of Marxism and Leninism (which the term "Marxism-Leninism" would suggest) would mean taking a Stalinist POV. In fact, we're not saying "Marxism-Leninism" is not a genuine representation of Marxism (which is what the sources say), we're making concessions here and merely presenting facts to the reader, making no judgement.

Here are the facts which have to be clearly presented:

• "Marxism-Leninism" is not an actual term which came into existence in a manner similar to other ideologies. It is simply a term Stalin created for his own purposes. Sources back up this fact.
• The term is clearly of a propagandistic nature, being named exactly so that it would seem like a natural successor of Marxism and Leninism. Wikipedia is calling this "Marxism-Leninism", which is taking a Stalinist POV (concession) in this particular matter. The reader has to be informed that it is, in fact, only one view. (when, in fact, reliable sources are saying that so-called "Marxism-Leninism" has nothing to do with Marxism)

I see nothing wrong with this. We have sources. For instance...

• History for the IB Diploma: Communism in Crisis 1976–89. Allan Todd. Page 16. "The term Marxism–Leninism, invented by Stalin, was not used until after Lenin's death in 1924. It soon came to be used in Stalin's Soviet Union to refer to what he described as 'orthodox Marxism'. This increasingly came to mean what Stalin himself had to say about political and economic issues." [...] "However, many Marxists (even members of the Communist Party itself) believed that Stalin's ideas and practices (such as socialism in one country and the purges) were almost total distortions of what Marx and Lenin had said."

• Hell on Earth: Brutality and Violence Under the Stalinist Regime. Ludwik Kowalski. Page 42. "Marxism-Leninism consisted of Stalin's own doctrine plus quotations selected by him from the works of Marx, Lenin and Engels. It should not be supposed that anyone was free, in Stalin's day, to quote at will from Marx, Lenin, or even Stalin himself: Marxism-Leninism comprised only the quotations currently authorized by the dictator, in conformity with the doctrine he was currently promulgating."

• The Origins of Stalinism: From Leninist Revolution to Stalinist Society. Pavel Câmpeanu. Page 19. "Stalinism gave the name Marxism-Leninism to its aggressive empiricism; it is probably neither the one nor the other, but to both it owes the theoretical lacuna out of which it arose."

• Terror, Force, and States: The Path from Modernity. Rosemary H. T. O'Kane. Page 101. "As illustration of how Marxism-Leninism was bent to Stalin's purpose, Daniels explains how Stalin's 'theory of socialism in one country', developed in the late 1920s, set the pattern. Derived from a single, old quotation from Lenin, taken out of context, and, crucially, supplemented by Stalin's own words, 'the method and machinery of doctrinal reinterpretation' was established (Daniels, 1993, p. 86) This was the method which was used to conjure Stalin's infallibility. First, any ad hoc decision taken by Stalin was legitimized by the use of some Marxist doctrine conveniently lifted from anywhere and given only one interpretation. Anyone later questioning the interpretation, attempting to restore the earlier context, would be accused of 'petty-bourgeois deviation' and eventually 'counter-revolutionary wrecking'."

Zozs (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The analysis of exclusively associating Marxism-Leninism with Stalinism does not acknowledge at least several key factors:

• De-Stalinization that was initiated in the Soviet Union under Nikita Khrushchev involving the repudiation of Stalin's policies and especially the cult of personality built around Stalin.
• The deviation from Stalin's policies and repudiation of Stalin by Yugoslavia under Josip Broz Tito
• The development of Maoism in the name of Marxism-Leninism whereby Mao's views and policies took precedence in China and supporters of Mao's perspectives.
• Attempted reforms in Czechoslovakia by Alexander Dubček during Prague Spring involving major liberalization.
• The policies of Perestroika and Glasnost during the Mikhail Gorbachev era in the Soviet Union.

Of course Stalin played a leading role in the development of the original form of Marxism-Leninism, but it is inaccurate to assume that it exclusively can be associated with Stalin alone.--184.145.74.119 (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

What you do not understand is that Stalinism (or "Marxism-Leninism", as its proponents call it) is an ideology which does not necessarily have to involve Stalin himself. De-Stalinization was about removing the figure of Stalin, not Stalinism. I do not understand how any of this is relevant. Sounds like someone wants to remove facts to make Stalinism looks better. Zozs (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@184.145.74.119 and Zozs: Stalinism and Marxism-Leninism are not the same, for instance, at the beginning (1985-87, when he initiated conservative reforms) Gorbachev was a anti-Stalinist Marxist-Leninist.. Marxism-Leninism was coined by the Soviet propaganda apparatus, Stalinism was coined by Lazar Kaganovich for an entirely different purpose.. They are not identical, and should not be treated as such... The term was not a propaganda term, it was an ideological construct. I don't care what the source say that is just plain wrong (its WP:FRINGE).. Why is this the third sentence; "There is no definite agreement between historians of about whether Stalin actually followed the principles of Marx and Lenin"? The consensus is that he was a devoted communist, Marxist and Leninist; Stephen Kotkin's new book, Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928, bases the premise on the Stalinist terror because he was a devoted communist. Deviations? Darn, even Leninism had deviations from Marxism, but thats not mentioned in the lead of the Leninism article.... At last, the lead is breaching WP:SYNTHESIS in every conceivable manner. I'm reverting to the pre-Zozs lead per WP:CONSENSUS. --TIAYN (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TIAYN's decision.--184.145.74.119 (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Zozs has reverted TIAYN's edit, he says that consensus has not been achieved on the matter. Thinking about this matter I have concluded that frankly, until there is greater input by other users to see where others stand, there appears to be no consensus for either Zozs' edit or TIAYN's edit. Zozs clearly appears to be saying that Marxism-Leninism is a propaganda term for Stalinism, therefore the debate must be direct on the topic - per Zozs' claim I request that a vote be held on whether to merge this article into the Stalinism article. However before that is done, I believe two things need to be done.

1) Experts be brought in on the topic of political ideology related to Marxism and the variants of Marxism developed within the Soviet Union and their offshoots in other countries

2) After the first step has been utilized, utilization of Wikipedia's Request for comment (RfC) procedure would be done to bring in a wider array of analysis and to review the arguments and then present their analysis and side of support in a straw poll determine whether to maintain this as an independent article or merge it into the Stalinism article.

--184.145.74.119 (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. TIAYN summed up his stance well: "I don't care what the source say that is just plain wrong". Then he proceeds to do his typical edit warring to get his version through. Even though I already provided several sources, you both want to personally veto information in the article because it doesn't fit your own views. Well, this is not valid behaviour in Wikipedia. Either you provide sources or the article stays as I left it. Zozs (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I personally do not hold Marxist-Leninist views, or Stalinist views, or any Marxist views for that matter. To insinuate that of me to make some sort of justification to distrust my contributions with no evidence is ad hominem and inappropriate. I am attempting to examine this objectively and carefully. Both of you, TIAYN and Zozs need to uphold Wikipedia's principles. Both of you have demonstrated behaviour that is not constructive and is preventing a resolution from moving forward. Lastly, yes, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it is based on reliable sources and establishment of consensus, neither of you have demonstrated that you have consensus for your edits. I suggest an interim restoration of the article to a point prior to the current dispute that is acceptable to both parties of the current dispute.--184.145.74.119 (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Zozs: You are edits are bad, first because it breaches WP:SYNTHESIS, and second, since you know to little about Marxist theory to actually do a proper synthesis. Lets look at reference 9 from you're version, in which you include a quote to prove you're point; "If one thing is certain it is that our party and the working class can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat"... Per definition the Soviet Union was democratic because the people were not exploited by private property, hence logically it was more democratic then its Western counterparts. Classical marxism, that is the Marxism of Karl Marx, Engels and co, all agreed upon the assumption that real democracy could only take hold when private propety was abolished, and that the abolishment of private property would lead democracy... While you're right that the dictatorship of the proletariat represents the majority, it does mean elections. The democratic element of the dictatorship of the proletariat is that the proletariat rule and private property is abolished, but society is still class dictatorship, which means the state has the right to oppress opposition as it pleas. To quote Engels himself (in Anti-Dühring);

"we accordingly reject every presumptuous attempt to impose upon us any dogmatic morality whatever, as eternal, final immutable ethical laws, under the pretext of that moral world has its permanent principles which stand above history and national differences. We maintain, on the contrary, that all past theories of morality are the product in the last instance of the contemporary condition of society. And just as society has hitherto moved in class antagonisms, so has morality always been a class morality; either it justified the rule and the interests of the ruling class, or as soon as the oppressed class became powerful enough, it championed the revolt against this rule and the future interests of the oppressed."

What makes Marxism so darn controversial is that it doesn't oppose the use of violent means in tandem with the fact that its a movement based on a premise of anti-moralism (literally the notion of a universal which goes through all classes) and is on the side of the proletariat... But alas, if you don't understand fine. Workers of these countries by definition controlled state property because it was public property. Alas, you're lead is also biased. You've forgotten Yugoslavia's workers' self-management and Gorbachev's reform in the 1980s which literally gave the employees the right to pay themselves, to elect their boss and so on. At last, you also don't seem to understand the point of the premise of the vanguard party. The Vanguard Party is the party of the proletariat, it is the party that represents the majority and so and so as the theory goes. And while I don't support this theory, every leader with the exception of Lenin and Gorbachev had been workers by profession. The majority of Politburo members had been workers by profession. Scholars often try to explain the Brezhnev Generation's ideological zeal by this and this alone; they were nearly all workers, and not surprisingly, in their minds the dictatorship of the proletariat had proved an outstanding success.

Of course, there are other things to (all of which the IP user explained), but he forgot some. For instance why is this in the lead (or even in the article); "Trotskyism describes itself as a Marxist and Leninist tendency.". Its a difference from a follower Marxism and Leninism and being a follower of Marxism-Leninism.. There is a difference between Maoism and Mao Zedong Thought (not in the West, but in China, and in Asia in general).. And agani, I'm mentioning Kotkin (one of the leading scholars in his field, his book is based on the premise that he was an ideological zealot who followed the basic premises of Marxism) and his book Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928 again.. Other problem, while Stalinism is not an official ideology in which any ruling communist party has adhered too, its an ideology in the sense that smaller communist parties continually call themselves stalininst rather than communist'

MOst importantly, and a reason for itself for a full revert its your blatant synthesising. Yes, you did with Engels quote, but that could be understood as basic misunderstanding of Marxism which isn't a bad thing really since nobody reads those texts anymore. Reference 4, 5 and 6 all source this sentence "It also contains deviations from both Marxism and Leninism, such as "socialism in one country".". First, this extremely controversial sentence is sourced by History for the IB Diploma: Communism in Crisis 1976-89, which is surpising to say the least. Get a proper scholar, not a cheap school book. And at, as seen in reference 4 it only states "socialism in one country, a pragmatic deviation from classical Marxism".. Lenin was pragmatist, Trotsky was pragmatist, literally every leading figure in the Bolshevik party were pragmatists. I can't think of one leading figure who ever complained that Lenin was too pragmatic. The only reason socialism in one country is highlighted .. And as always, you seem to think there is one interpretation of Marxism which is ironic to say the least since the reason why people say Stalinism is un-Marxist is because Stalin got in his head that he was the only person who could interpret Marxism correctly. There is not, and never will be, one interpretation of anything Zozs. If you want to live in a society which pretends to live in such a world move to North Korea. --TIAYN (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

TIAYN, please cease the ad hominem behaviour. It is not acceptable and it will only agitate the user Zozs. Zozs is correct on one point, you need to present reliable sources to verify the points that you are making, including here. I see one, but there needs to be others.--184.145.74.119 (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@184.145.74.119: My point was this; his so-called sources are not sources at all; sources like these History for the IB Diploma: Communism in Crisis 1976–89 is nor written by a scholar, the book, Socialism Today and Tomorrow, is written by a couple ideologues (you wouldn't use a source by Fukuyama as a reference in the communism article would you? Why? He is a philosopher not a reliable scholar per say, Fukuyama thinks and intepretats he does not write facts). Fukuyama is a philosopher... He uses Marxist texts but the quotes only show that he doesn't understand what the meaning of them, which means its WP:SYNTHESIS. And literally, the Marxist movement is based upon these texts, how in gods name can these same texts be used as references in an article about the Marxist movement itself? ... Some of the references, as mentioned, don't even verify what the lead says. For instance, reference 4 in his version says "socialism in one country, a pragmatic deviation from classical Marxism" (which is a quote from the author). Okay Stalin was pragmatic, but that sentence does not imply " also contains deviations from both Marxism and Leninism, such as "socialism in one country".".. Pragmatism and deviations are not the same. I don't need source since what I'm showing you is that he is synthesising, and synthesising is not allowed on Wikipedia.--TIAYN (talk) 01:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

That you believe that you have nullified his use of sources does not make up for a current lack of sufficient reliable sources in the article describing what Marxism-Leninism is, and in particular, the claim that it has distanced itself from Stalinism. I think we are all very close to breaching WP:NOTTRUTH. There are various perspectives on it, not just one, an unusual agreement between Trotskyists and neoliberals would probably agree that all of Marxism-Leninism is Stalinism, whereas close devotees of Stalin would say that Khruschchev violated Stalin's legacy.--184.145.74.119 (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I may sound like an asshole, but my point still stands. We even seem to agree, there are truths in this world so this lead should not act like it.. The current lead, which I reverted to, was just the first lead before Zozs changed it. I have not written it. Per WP:CONSENSUS you can revert to the version before the controversial changes took place. Thats what I did. At last, a lead does not need to be sourced since, per definition, whats mentioned in the lead has to be mentioned in the body of the text. --TIAYN (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I honestly couldn't care less if you think my knowledge about Marxism is "not good"; almost the whole of what you posted above is little less than a personal rant, not relevant to Wikipedia. I don't care what your opinions about Marxism, based on your original research over primary sources, are. And, the lead as I left it was as much as an interpretation and is the current lead. I'll skip to the only relevant part: the sources. The question is, is there any neutral source which says that socialism in one country is not a deviation? And, the only thing you seemed to dispute was the 'socialism in one country' thing: which does not provide reasoning for reverting the whole thing. You still have provided no reliable sources, I have provided several above. Zozs (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

What one calls a "deviation" from Marxism another could call a "modernization" of Marxism or a "pragmatic tactic" to achieve it. WP:NOTTRUTH applies, various perspectives exist on this, all major perspectives should be acknowledged.--184.145.74.119 (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

IP, the intro does not say what you says it does and accusing other editors of bias is not likely to gain their support. You have not presented any suggestions. TFD (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

What I have been meaning to say is that there are multiple major perspectives on the relationship of Marxism-Leninism to Stalinism, as described above. Recognized major perspectives on this topic need to be included in the article. Such would include the claim that Marxism-Leninism is the same as Stalinism; and the claim that following World War II, the Tito-Stalin Split and the policy of de-Stalinization of Nikita Khrushchev were examples of Marxist-Leninist governments distancing themselves from Stalin's policies and legacy.--184.145.74.119 (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

My lead said that "Marxism-Leninism" was a term created by Joseph Stalin, which describes the characteristics of the system implemented by Stalin in the Soviet Union - characteristics which were common with Kruschev and Tito's governments. It is irrelevant whether they distanced themselves from Stalin as a person or from his violent methods. Zozs (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

We have had a lot of arguments about what this term means and also other terms in articles about left-wing politics. Each article should be about a separate topic, otherwise they are confusing. From my reading the term refers to the ideology of the founders of the Soviet Union, their allies and successors, and it distinguishes them from other, mostly revisionist, Marxists who rejected revolution or at least the one in Russia. But today, non-Marxist-Leninist Marxists are rare. TFD (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

In response to Zozs, if you remove Stalin's "violent methods" as you say - the purges, persecution of political opponents and Kulaks, and the gulags, etc., then you are left with rapid industrialization, a commitment to focus on developing socialism in one's own country, a personality cult, and a few other elements. Now aside from the issue of the personality cult and environmentalist criticism of rapid industrialization, why would any of Stalin's successors disagree with rapidly developing an agricultural economy to an industrial economy? Many Cold War era African countries would be effectively be subscribing to Stalinism by that description if the violent methods are not included. I completely disagree, I think opposition to the violent methods is fundamental because aside from outside criticism of the economics of the Soviet Union, the extreme levels of violence under Stalin's regime towards people in the Soviet Union and aggression towards other communist figures in other countries are the very basis for opposition to it.--184.145.74.119 (talk) 08:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The personality cult is part of Stalinism too. TFD (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Stalinism and Marxism–Leninism are not the same. It was the same during Stalin's rule, but changed after his death (for instance, the leadership opposed the cult of personality, talked of collective leadership and some cases even made a break with Stalininsm; Khrushchev's peaceful coexistence was the exact opposite of Stalin's two-camp theory). They were the same under Stalin, but after Stalin Stalinism ment the same thing while Marxism-Leninism changed. --TIAYN (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

TIAYN, I never said Stalinism and Marxism-Leninism are the same thing. Why are you saying that I did? TFD (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess I didn't read it properly. Sorry.--TIAYN (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem. TFD (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Provide reliable sources that recognize what you have just said above and your points here will be more grounded. This site is based on reliable sources, not conjecture that we are all guilty to some degree of doing here to attempt to have other users understand the perspectives at hand.--184.145.74.119 (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll be honest, if you want to improve the article 184.145.74.119, instead of asking me to verify my own statements, why don't do a quick book search and see if I'm right or wrong. Per WP:CONSENSUS I just reverted back to the old lead. I'm not defending this lead, I'm not defending anything. I'm just saying Zozs lead was unneutral and unfactual ,and you seemed to agree with me on point 1. This is how WP work, read WP:CONSENSUS yourself. .. I'll be honest, this article is terrible, and discussing the problem won't work. However, I'm not interested in fixing this article, I'm currently working on the 27th Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and Communist Party of China-related articles in general. --TIAYN (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I too do not have all the time in the world to devote to this article. Another user with expertise on this topic who has some time to spare would be valuable to request assistance from.--184.145.74.119 (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

"Assistance" is already here - everything was already talked about. None of you have any sourced argument, all you do is apply a personal veto of information through edit wars. Exactly the wrong behavior. Zozs (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I must add people, Zozs is the guy who recommended at the Talk:Soviet Union, that the Soviet Union shouldn't be categorized as a socialist state. He is clearly trying to push his fringe view on Wikipedia. No Zozs, this is not a personal attack, just an observation. I can't think another Wikipedian who has lobbied so hard to not categorize the socialist states as socialist, and calling all the ideologies of communism a fraud. I've never read a serious philosopher, political party or any one really, who claims what you claim. Even Trotskyism just claims the Soviet Union was a degenerate workers state (of course, the most radical once claims they established deformed workers' state).. THe crux of the matter is this thou, the majority of reliable sources (those written by scholars in Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge, Berlin, Oslo and so on) categorizes Marxism-Leninism as an ideology and the communist countries as socialist states... Serious scholars, such as A. James Gregor notes however that communism, Leninism Marxism-Leninism are simplifications of Marxism, but thats not very surprising since ideology is a simpler form of philosophy. But Gregor still claims, even his book Marxism and the Making of China: A Doctrinal History, that present-day China's rulers are communist in the sense that they think communist, and as he notes, thinking is as important as doing. Of course, I'm going of topic. Me and the other dudes have made our observations clear; instead of reverting the edits, what about actually listening to the criticism and solve the riddle so I and the other wants can focus our attention on something else. Yes, you can have a paragraph of criticism of Marxism-Leninism, but as with all criticism, the criticism should not introduce the reader to the topic, rather the criticism should come after the mainstream observation, which is that Marxism-Leninism is a political ideology conceived by the Stalinist leadership to establish Marxism to present-day conditions. The problem with you're lead Zozs, is that you start the article not be actually telling the reader what Marxism-Leninism is, but rather, what critics claim Marxism-Leninism is not, and that doesn't help anybody, does it? --TIAYN (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

In response to Zozs, I am not opposing nor personally vetoing the adding of any relevant and reliably sourced information to the intro provided that it recognizes the fact that there are multiple perspectives on this topic and that is in line with WP:CONSENSUS. As I have said before, WP:NOTTRUTH applies and all major recognized perspectives need to be shown. I have suggested that outside help through a request for comment (RfC) or a request for experts on the topic be brought in to provide a wider perspective on the topics at hand. I agree with both TIAYN and you in general principle that the article needs a major overhaul with more reliable sources. However I do not have a lot of time to work on this, though.--50.101.209.197 (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

In response to TIAYN, please cease the ad hominem remarks about Zozs, if you have criticisms of the content of Zozs' edits focus on the content not on the character of the editor. If you cannot at the present time out of frustration, then please consider taking take a break and then come back when you feel ready.--50.101.209.197 (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: I am currently looking up reliable sources for both the argument of a post-Stalinist period in the Soviet Union, and the argument of Marxism-Leninism being the same as Stalinism, particularly after the changes in the Soviet Union brought about by Khrushchev. I do not know if the list of the arguments will be exhaustive, as I regularly do not have a lot of time to do so.--50.101.209.197 (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources describing the relation of Stalinism to the post-Stalin era Soviet Union, especially in the Khrushchev era

(Please respond in the comment section after this list)

This list of reliable sources and the notes on them is not yet exhaustive, I will add more material to this list when I have time to find more, and will post notes in the comment section about new additions to the list.--50.101.209.197 (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Sources speaking of Khrushchev both condemning components of Stalinism and creating a "post-Stalinist" period while also speaking of Khrushchev retaining other components of Stalinism

Khrushchev: The Man and His Era (2003)

• Title: Khrushchev: The Man and His Era. Author: William Taubman, Publisher: W.W. Norton & Company. Year: 2003.
  • Notes: William Taubman is an American political scientist and this biography of Khrushchev won the Pulitzer Prize in 2004. The author speaks of a “post-Stalinist” period following the rise of Khrushchev to power, though also says that components of Stalinism remained.

• • • In the preface on page XIII, Taubman describes the time period in which Khrushchev lived, saying: “Revolution, civil war, collectivization and industrialization, terror, world war, cold war, late Stalinism, post-Stalinism—Khrushchev took part in them all.”

• • • On page 271 it describes in detail Khrushchev’s direct attacks on Stalin in the famous 1956 speech, showing Khrushchev stating Stalin was responsible for “grave abuse of power”, stating that during his reign “mass arrests and deportation of thousands and thousands of people, and executions without trial or normal investigation, created insecurity, fear and even desperation.”

• • • From pages 271 to 272 it shows Khrushchev saying that Stalinist charges of counter-revolutionary crimes had been “absurd, wild, and contrary to common sense” and that innocent people confessed to crimes “because of physical methods of pressure, torture, reducing them to unconsciousness, depriving them of judgement, taking away their human dignity”.

• • • On page 272 it shows Khrushchev saying that Stalin “personally called in the interrogator, gave him instructions, and told him which methods to use, methods that were simple—to beat, beat, and once again, beat.” It says that Khrushchev denounced Stalin for incompetent wartime leadership and for the “monstrous” deportation of the whole Caucasian peoples.

• • • On page 272 it says that Khrushchev declared that Stalin had betrayed Lenin and that Khrushchev pledged to return the Soviet Union to Leninism.

• • • On page 272 the book, speaking of Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin the following: “Despite all this and more, Khrushchev’s indictment was neither complete nor unalloyed. The Stalin he depicted had been a paragon until the mid-thirties. Although the Trotskyite and Bukharinist oppositions hadn’t deserved “physical annihilation,” they had been “ideological and political enemies.””
    • On page 273 it says that other members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union were in a state of shock by Khrushchev’s speech, as they had not anticipated it. On the same page it also describes one witness describing Khrushchev’s “emotion and agitation”. It says that Khrushchev displayed hatred towards Stalin when he was speaking of Stalin’s accountability for the defeats in Kiev and Kharkov from 1941 to 1942. The same witness stated that Khrushchev cried out in fury about Stalin saying, “He was a coward. He panicked. Not once during the whole war did he dare go to the front.” In short the author’s analysis appears to me to be saying that Khrushchev’s action was unknown in advance by many and that Khrushchev may have been emotionally committed to the denunciation of Stalin and that it may not have been a political ploy.

• • • On page 274, the author puts forth his analysis of Khrushchev’s actions as being major ones, saying that “Khrushchev’s speech denouncing Stalin was the bravest and most reckless thing he ever did.” Going on to say how this action immediately threatened his leadership of the Communist Party months later with a majority of the members of the party’s Presidium voting in favour of removing Khrushchev as party leader, though he managed to politically outmanoeuvre his opponents and stay in power.

One could say that Stalinist is normally used to describe Stalin's specific ideology and rule and regimes closely modeled on his, such as Albania. The term is also used, often pejoratively, to describe later Communists, particularly the more hard-line ones. While we may mention that in the article, articles are supposed to be about topics, per disambiguation. I suggest that policy requires that this article be about Stalinism in the first sense, while Stalinism in the second belongs in the Marxism-Leninism article. TFD (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

”Lenin’s Legacy: The Story of the CPSU”, Hoover Institution Publication 192 (1978)

• Title: “Lenin’s Legacy: The Story of the CPSU”, Hoover Institution Publication 192. Author: Robert G. Wesson. Publisher: Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. Year: 1978.
  • The author Robert G. Wesson was a scholar of international affairs and senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution.
    • From page 195-196. “…having risen as a product of the Stalinist machine and played on the Stalinist priorities of heavy industry, vigilance, and party control, Khrushchev reversed these priorities and promoted degree of relaxation at home and abroad. Worse he turned savagely against the former demigod, shattered his idol, and thereby endangered not only the sacred value of the Soviet system, party supremacy, but his own position as well. To be sure, he was not consistent in this course; several times he turned around to praise Stalin, tighten controls on the arts, and so on. Yet on the whole Khrushchev did much more than any other person to lead the Soviet Union away from Stalinism.”

Sources speaking of Khrushchev as still being a Stalinist after the official denunciation

Union Sovietique, Volume 14, University of Pittsburgh, University Center for International Studies (1987)

• • The author T.H. Rigby was a historian of the Soviet Union.
    • On page 125 the source notes describing Khrushchev as being a “Stalinist with a difference” “who won the post-Stalin succession struggle by combining Stalinist political skills and personal dynamism-a combination he failed to adapt well to the task of keeping power ...”

Comment section

One could say that Stalinist is normally used to describe Stalin's specific ideology and rule and regimes closely modeled on his, such as Albania. The term is also used, often pejoratively, to describe later Communists, particularly the more hard-line ones. While we may mention that in the article, articles are supposed to be about topics, per disambiguation. I suggest that policy requires that this article be about Stalinism in the first sense, while Stalinism in the second belongs in the Marxism-Leninism article. TFD (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I have moved your comment here as I requested that users do at the beginning of the post on the list. If you want to move it back that's okay, but I am going to be adding more sources there and it will be very confusing if comments are all over the place. I think we have to recognize that Stalinism is a very politically charged word with pejorative associations with political violence and political repression due to Stalin's track record. When using it we have to be very specific of what we are referring to. Marxism-Leninism in the Soviet Union from Khrushchev on continued Stalin's opposition to Trotskyism, the command economy that Stalin created remained in place, Khrushchev continued and escalated the Cold War that began with Stalin to the severe point of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and lastly heavy-handed measures to crackdown on anti-Soviet elements in the Warsaw Pact continued under Khrushchev. However it becomes even more complicated once Josip Broz Tito, Mikhail Gorbachev and Deng Xiaoping are brought into the perspective; as each of them publicly sought to replace the command economy with market socialism. Also in the case of Gorbachev there was major liberalization of politics in the Soviet Union prior to its collapse, far exceeding that of Khrushchev's political liberalization in the 1960s.--50.101.209.197 (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

We have do decide what Stalinism is, an ideology or practice

I for one prefer ideology conceived and implemented under Stalinism.

• In Soviet Marxism-Leninism: The Decline of an Ideology it reads "The mixture of old and new thinking was also evident in Khrushchev's main theoretical contribution to Soviet ideology concerning international affairs, his introduction of the notion that peaceful coexistence was the central principle that should govern the relationship between socialist and capitalist systems."... This was in contrast to "Lenin [who] had depicted international relations as dominated by the principle of class struggle, and Stalin had erected the thesis of the polerization of international relations between the camps of socialism and capitalism into ideological orthodoxy by the late 1940s."
• "Gorbachev's statement in 1990 that Stalinism had made a sharp departure not only from the ideals of socialism but also from 'the European humanistic tradition' implied that the Soviet leadership, was in a substantial extent, responsible for the Soviet Union's estrangement from the West."
• "At a joint Marxism-Leninism and history and theory departmental meeting in the fall of 1956, Pekelis urged teachers to speak honestly in class about their own culpability for the scholarly sins of Stalinism. "

" In Ideology and the Collapse of the Soviet System: A Critical History of Soviet Ideological Discourse, "The 'cult of personality' , Khrushchev claimed, was 'alien to Marxism-Leninism and not consonant with the principles of the party leadership and the norms of party life".

• In Historical Dictionary of Marxism, "The term 'Stalinism' refers both to the nature of the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin's rule and to the interpretation of Marxism sanctioned by Stalin and promulgated by the Soviet Union while he was in power. Never official terms, "Stalinism" and "Stalinist" gained currency only after Stalin's death and, particularly, after his denunciation by Nikita Khrushchev [...]"
• Imre Nagy, in Stalinism Revisited: The Establishment of Communist Regimes in East-Central Europe, "the Stalinist monopoly of Marxism-Leninism led to domination of the explanation's of Marx's and Lenin's teachings and of the workers' parties politics by the views that acknowledged the ways, forms and methods used to build socialism in the Soviet Union as the sole correct way to apply the principles of scientific socialism."
• In A History of Modern Russia from Nicholas II to Vladimir Putin "Articles appeared in Pravda proclaiming that that the masses rather then a single leaders made history. Marxism-Leninism was stated to be hostile to any 'cult of the individual' and to favour '[[collective leadership'"., 332
• The same book, Gorbachev "believed that Marxism-Leninism had been distorted since Lenin's time". 449
• As mentioned in Developed Socialism in Soviet Ideology, the USSR went from a proletarian dictatorship to an All-People's State
• I could have listed far more, but this is the conclusion I've reached (which is the same one as before); in practice, Stalinism continued to exist (no reintroduction of party democracy, Stalinist economic policy and no reversals of the institutions building, or destroying to say another word, of the Stalinist project, or as Gorbachev himself said (The Chinese Reassessment of Socialism, 1976-1992 page 245) the entire period after Stalin's death was "Post-Stalinism"..... However, Marxism-Leninism developed into a distinct ideology with the introduction of peaceful coexistence, the Khrushchev Thaw, later detente and the repudiation of the camp theory, the aggravation of class struggle under socialism (which rationalized killing the class enemy) and a new interpretation of People's democracy (Marxism–Leninism)... It was an ideological break with Stalinism, but not the system of Stalinism. This article is about ideology, therefore it should say a break took place. --TIAYN (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not see how any of these sources is relevant. 37.15.206.156 (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)