Jump to content

Talk:Marxism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Draft:Ideological aracialism

[edit]

Aracialism isn't necessarily South-African or Marxist but the main article isn't analytical enough.

create the pages: ideological aracialism, ideological statelessness (chosen, [usually] not because of the circumstances), ethnocultural nonconformity

Welfare vs Welfare spending

[edit]

@Frost seems to feel that linking to Welfare spending is more appropriate than linking to Welfare. On the surface I don't see it but I'd be open to hearing their reasoning. Simonm223 (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know Welfare is pointing to a disambiguation link but I don't think Welfare spending is the right target. Suggest Social services instead? Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link was originally pointing to the same article, which was moved in September. The disambiguation page then took over the article's previous title per this RM. My update was to reflect this change. Frost 17:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dialectical Materialism

[edit]

Marx was not merely a materialist, he was a dialectical materialist. He developed his dialectical materialist thinking from Hegel's dialectics. His historical materialism developed out of his dialectical materialism and that should be mentioned in the first sentence in this article, which it currently does not. Hewer7 (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't his biography. There are many Marxists out there who find DM either insufficient as a foundation for their ideology or totally unhelpful in its orthodox formulation as a tool for studying societal structures and dynamics. Remsense 🌈 论 13:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether this is his biography or not is irrelevant, as is whatever some people who happen to consider themselves as Marxists is. My point stands. Hewer7 (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the people who consider themselves to be Marxists are precisely who we are meant to consider in aggregate while writing this article. There is no such boundary maintenance on this or other social labels that site policy allows us to do ourselves. Remsense 🌈 论 13:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions are not necessary here as the facts are established: Marx's thought was dialectical. See https://www.marxists.org/subject/dialectics/marx-engels/capital-afterward.htm
Just because some people who call themselves Marxists don't like dialectical materialism is irrelevant. In any case the majority of Marxists see that his thought was based on dialectical materialism, whether they personally agree with it themselves or not. Hewer7 (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And Marxism isn't univocal or coterminous with the ideas Marx himself had. This is such a trivial distinction for one to make, that we would really need to live in a rigid universe to think an ideology of "only the things Marx himself thought" would be coherent or worth taking seriously nearly 200 years later. Remsense 🌈 论 13:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To make it more explicitly clear as regards editing: we do not operate on a paradigm of pure authorities, but a network of sources with common traits of production and distribution we consider to be more or less reliable for a given claim. This approach you want to take above won't work, and I strongly suggest you disabuse yourself of it. Remsense 🌈 论 13:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well if Marx isn't enough of an authority on Marxism for you here are a couple more:
Engels - "Dialectics as the science of universal inter-connection." IE dialectics is fundamental to understanding the world.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/don/appendix2.htm#plans
Lenin - describing Marx's philosophy as both materialist and dialectical and that being one of the "... three sources of Marxism, which are also its component parts..." - "Marx did not stop at eighteenth-century materialism: he developed philosophy to a higher level, he enriched it with the achievements of German classical philosophy, especially of Hegel’s system, which in its turn had led to the materialism of Feuerbach. The main achievement was dialectics, i.e., the doctrine of development in its fullest, deepest and most comprehensive form" https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm Hewer7 (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those are other prominent figures, and you're voting primary sources for the claims of what those figures think. On an encyclopedia, which is a tertiary source, we almost always look to secondary sources, which are typically reasonably independent from the subject in question. If you've perused our policies and guidelines, namely WP:RS, this would be known to you. Remsense 🌈 论 16:04, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have not cited any sources. Hewer7 (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying how we cite sources and why, which I have cited to site policy. Considering the article already cites quite a few sources and I reached in to prevent uncited fiddling with it, it'd be appreciated if you'd start citing reliable (e.g. secondary, scholarly, fairly modern) sources to support your preferred definition of terms. Remsense 🌈 论 16:42, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marxism is the science of perspectives - looking forward to anticipate how society will develop - using its method of dialectical materialism to unravel the complex processes of historical development. https://rjhssonline.com/HTMLPaper.aspx?Journal=Research+Journal+of+Humanities+and+Social+Sciences%3BPID%3D2012-3-2-2
Dialectical Materialism is a foundational principle of Marxism. This concept, along with Historical Materialism and Marxist Economics, are known as the three “component parts of Marxism.”https://www.hamptonthink.org/read/a-brief-and-imperfect-explanation-of-dialectical-materialism
Dialectical materialism is a philosophical system based on the theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. It is based on the concept of the dialectic, as proposed by philosopher G.W.F. Hegel, which holds that motion, conflict, destruction, and change are necessary and ceaseless factors in natural and social development. Marx, Engels, and their followers applied this concept...
https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/dialectical-materialism Hewer7 (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate it! Let's see here. Unfortunately, Hampton Institute appears to be a "virtual think tank". In this case, that says it's effectively WP:SELF-PUBLISHED, somewhat like a blog. That's not the end of the world, since we can cite self-publications by experts recognized in their field, but I don't know whether this is the case so I will mark as "not looking good" and move on.
The other two are fine though! I'd be okay with you changing the first sentence and citing these two for that. Remsense 🌈 论 17:38, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On "Marxism-Leninism"

[edit]

I was looking over recent edits while reviewing and took note of this one by Joeylamond which was then reverted by Acroterion. This is a claim I have heard before, and I was curious enough to check the original source (available for checkout on the Internet Archive), which reads as follows:

Marxism-Leninism. Term that originated in the debates and struggle for power in the former USSR following Lenin's death and culminating in the ascendancy of Stalin. It thus came to mean the theory and practice of Marx and Lenin as narrowly defined by Stalin, and was used as a yardstick of orthodoxy to refute all opposition and became part of the official self-description of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism was taken up by the Chinese Communists under Mao as a description and justification of their policies. Currently the term Marxism-Leninism tends to be used by any Marxist party which has retained some sympathy for the policies of Stalin or Mao. See MARXISM; LENINISM; STALINISM; MAOISM. For further reading: L. Schapiro, The Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1970)

It might be a slight oversimplification to say the theory was "developed by" Stalin but I think Joeylamond is right to argue it cannot have been developed by Lenin if it appeared only after his death. Maybe other sources, like those on Marxism-Leninism would be of use? —Rutebega (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a significant oversimplification, and it's not entirely wrong. But it's also part of a pattern of edits by at least three new accounts here and at Marxism-Leninism that are asserting the same thing, so I'm not prepared to take things at face value. I would suggest that, depending on sources, it would be better described as formalized, or synthesized from aspects of Marxism and Leninism, or that the term for the combined ideologies was coined by Stalin, or some combination of those, in pursuit of a plausible basis for Stalin's manner of rule. As the article on Marxism-Lenininism states, Marxism-Leninism was "...political expediencies used to realise [Stalin's] plans for the Soviet Union..." and ultimately became Stalinism, so there was a co-opting of ideological labels in pursuit of Stalin's goals. So it's not quite as simple as asserted by these edits, and I think there are opportunities for well-sourced examination of that evolution of ideas, labels and exploitation across all of those articles, rather than the simplistic assertion made in those edits. Acroterion (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm watching this. I'm not impressed by a series of new accounts trying to force this issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely incorrect to state that Lenin developed Marxism-Leninism (ML) and that should be removed from the article. As the quote above makes clear the the ML term was made up during the "struggle for power...after Lenin's death". IE the struggle between Stalin and his supporters on the one hand, and Trotsky and the Left Opposition on the other. Stalin used the term ML to make out, falsely, that he, and not Trotsky, was following Lenin. The ML term was used by Stalin for his ideas which were distinctly different from Lenin's. Note that Lenin had said that Stalin should be removed as general secretary - as the Lenin article states: "During December 1922 and January 1923, Lenin dictated "Lenin's Testament", in which he discussed the personal qualities of his comrades, particularly Trotsky and Stalin. He recommended that Stalin be removed from the position of General Secretary of the Communist Party, deeming him ill-suited for the position. Instead he recommended Trotsky for the job, describing him as "the most capable man in the present Central Committee..." Hewer7 (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one has cited any evidence that so called "Marxism-Leninism" was developed by Lenin. The line should be changed to say that it was developed by "Stalin and his supporters". Hewer7 (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure.
  • Clarke, Simon (1998). "Was Lenin a Marxist? The Populist Roots of Marxism-Leninism". Historical Materialism. 3 (1): 3–28 [24]. doi:10.1163/156920698100414257. ISSN 1465-4466. But Lenin's transformation of Plekhanov's political theory was not in the direction of Marxism, but rather assimilated Plekhanov's Marxism back into the populist traditions from which Lenin had emerged. While Plekhanov used the populist philosophy to bridge the gap from populist to Marxist politics, Lenin used it to reverse the movement, and to put the revolution back on the Russian agenda.
    The populist roots of Lenin's political thought are obvious and well-known, Revolutionary populism had four distinctive features which Lenin brought into the centre of his Marxism and which formed the core of 'Marxism-Leninism'.
    First, it stressed the active role of revolutionary ideas in determining the course of history, and so gave the intellectuals a prominent political role. This was the element which was developed by Plekhanov and adopted from him by Lenin. ...
  • Hogan, Homer (1967). "The basic perspective of Marxism-Leninism". Studies in Soviet Thought. 7 (4): 297–317 [297]. doi:10.1007/BF01043635. ISSN 0039-3797. For a systematic discussion of Marxism-Leninism between advocates and questioners, its theory of reflection should therefore provide a useful starting-point.
    The classic formulation of that theory is in Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (hereafter abbreviated as MEC), published in 1908 as a refutation of certain Russian Marxists who thought that Marxism could be combined with the epistemology of Ernst Mach. Essentially, the theory is Lenin's restatement of two simple assertions he holds to be basic in the thought of Marx and Engels: (1) a world exists 'independent' of and 'external' to consciousness, and (2) knowledge consists of approximately faithful 'reflections' of that world in consciousness.
Is this an acceptable start? Remsense 🌈 论 18:05, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the idea that Lenin "stressed the active role of revolutionary ideas in determining the course of history" being something different from what Marx and Engels put forward. Marx famously stated that "Ignorance never yet helped anybody". Engels made clear the need for theory.
Similarly, in his Materialism and Empirio-Criticism Lenin was defending Marxist materialism against the followers of Mach and others. As the quote says, Lenin considered his points a "restatement of two simple assertions he holds to be basic in the thought of Marx and Engels". Hewer7 (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the idea that ...

Happy to elaborate further:

The orthodox Marxism of the Second International certainly did not underestimate the role of ideas in historical development, but revolutionary ideas emerged out of the revolutionary movement, however much intellectuals might play a role in their formulation. Although Kautsky's theory gave the intellectuals a special position in the struggle for socialism, it did not give them any special authority. For Lenin, the spontaneous struggle of the working class is inevitably a sectional struggle for economic aims. It is only the scientific theory of Marxism which can reveal the wider class perspective which is necessary to advance beyond trades union demands to a political struggle. This perspective is provided by the intellectuals, and institutionalised in the party, which expresses the political interests of the class as a whole against the sectional interests of its component parts. For Kautsky, by contrast, there is no such divorce of economic from political struggles and the revolution depends not on the leading role of the vanguard party, representing the class as a whole, but on the fusion of socialist ideas with working class struggle.

That's the passage immediately following the first excerpt. If you don't have access to these or other WP:TWL sources, I'd be happy to send them to you in full via email.

As the quote says ...

AFAIK it's quite well known that Lenin always endeavoured rhetorically to present the positions he advocated for as representing the orthodox Marxist position. Remsense 🌈 论 18:49, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that in "What is to be done" Lenin, in arguing against those who emphasized the economic struggle of the working class, did allowed himself to exaggerate by saying that political or socialist consciousness “[W]ould have to be brought to them [the workers] from without." However he later stated that he had 'bent the stick too far' in doing so. In so exaggerating he had in fact been following Kautsky, who at the time was considered as the leading Marxist internationally. To say that "For Kautsky, by contrast, there is no such divorce of economic from political struggles" as if Lenin was divorcing them is patently wrong. Lenin was arguing to unify both economic and political struggles. The concept of the vanguard party is also based on Kautsky's writings. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguardism Hewer7 (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't reject any of those connections out of hand. I'm just providing reliable sources and repeating the analysis they give, as requested. Remsense 🌈 论 20:52, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion is that Lenin doesn't really significantly diverge from Engels. Based on the sources under discussion I have to say that I tand to think Hewer7 is a bit closer to correct in interpretation although I suspect you are both splitting hairs a bit here. Simonm223 (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with any presentation that doesn't exclusively credit Stalin et al. with formulating Leninism as such. Remsense 🌈 论 20:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. Simonm223 (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm fine with any presentation that doesn't exclusively credit Stalin et al. with formulating Leninism as such."
The thing is that we are not discussing Leninism, we are discussing so called "Marxism-Leninism" ie Stalinism. To not exclusively credit Stalin and his supporters with the creation of so called "Marxism-Leninism" it would need to be shown that it was Lenin who developed it's particular main characteristics. However "Marxism-Leninism" is distinctly different from Lenin's ideas. To give just one example: it is based on the idea of "socialism in one country" (see references in the link). All of the Bolsheviks, up till Lenin's death advocated the need for a revolution in more industrially advanced counties. Lenin formed the Communist International to spread the revolution and ensured that it meet every year, even in the difficult circumstances of the civil war. Under Stalin and his followers it would meet much less frequently, before finally being abolished by Stalin. There are numerous other distinctions between Lenin's thought and so called "Marxism-Leninism" - the Stalinism page has a number of faults but gives a rough indication of them. One of those faults being that it doesn't prominently state Lenin's proposed alternative to Stalin's forced collectivization - that Lenin had advocated the the development of rural cooperatives, through which the peasants could sell their produce at fixed rates of exchange for consumer goods, receive credit to purchase tools, and obtain agronomic aid. See http://www.orlandofiges.info/section9_TheNewEconomicPolicy/WhatdidtheNEPdoforthepeasants.php#:~:text=Lenin%20believed%20that%20the%20key,tools%2C%20and%20obtain%20agronomic%20aid. Hewer7 (talk) 12:01, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to make essentializing statements like this, if we look at Heinrich and other scholars really engaging with the new insights provided by MEGA II, Engels isn't entirely in agreement with the late Marx. Of particular note is Kautsky (whom you correctly mentioned here) in Engels' later development, the primary correspondences are very insightful and should be read if addressing this at all, but here is some secondary sources on the matter.
https://www.historicalmaterialism.org/article/engels-after-marx-a-critical-defence/
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-history-of-socialism/second-international-18891914/2BAE714E6221CB527156C784AC4BC3E3
Marx over the course of his life took from different influences at times Fichte and Bruno Bauer shine through and make him look like a late-romantic thinker, it is a context like this in which Wilhelm Liebknecht reports of Marx having skulls measured to admit or deny membership in the communist league make sense, but especially in the late work Marx takes a critical distance from these late romantic tendencies. All "Marxist" material Lenin had access to in his lifetime came filtered through Kautsky and Engels. Kautsky however is a genuinely late-romatic thinker whose writings are in stark contrast to the late Marx' output as unearthed by MEGA II. Of course Lenin and Kautsky later had their differences but ultimately the problem here is that orthodox Marxism at the turn of the century was mostly what Kautsky believed and convinced Engels of and not very connected to the last writings of Marx (though very compatible with his earlier work). Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marxism&oldid=1303850561"