Editing Marxism–Leninism (section)

== Overview ==
=== Communist states ===
In the establishment of the [[Soviet Union]] in the former [[Russian Empire]], [[Bolshevism]] was the ideological basis. As the only legal [[vanguard party]], it decided almost all policies, which the [[communist party]] represented as correct.<ref>{{cite book |title=Gorbachev and His Reforms, 1985–1990 |date=1990 |first=Richard |last=Sakwa |author-link=Richard Sakwa |pages=206 |isbn=978-0-13-362427-4 |publisher=[[Prentice-Hall]]}}</ref> Because [[Leninism]] was the revolutionary means to achieving socialism in the praxis of government, the relationship between ideology and decision-making inclined to pragmatism and most policy decisions were taken in light of the continual and permanent development of Marxism–Leninism, with ideological adaptation to material conditions.<ref>{{cite book |title=Gorbachev and His Reforms, 1985–1990 |date=1990 |first=Richard |last=Sakwa |author-link=Richard Sakwa |pages=212 |isbn=978-0-13-362427-4 |publisher=[[Prentice-Hall]]}}</ref> The [[Bolshevik Party]] lost in the [[1917 Russian Constituent Assembly election]], obtaining 23.3% of the vote, to the [[Socialist Revolutionary Party]], which obtained 37.6%.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Dando |first=William A. |date=June 1966 |title=A Map of the Election to the Russian Constituent Assembly of 1917 |journal=Slavic Review |volume=25 |issue=2 |pages=314–319 |doi=10.2307/2492782 |issn=0037-6779 |jstor=2492782 |s2cid=156132823 |quote=Out of a total vote of approximately 42 million and a total of 703 elected deputies, the primarily agrarian Social Revolutionary Party, plus nationalistic ''[[Narodniks|narodnik]]'', or populist, parties, amassed the largest popular vote (well in excess of 50 percent) and elected the greatest number of deputies (approximately 60 percent) of all the parties involved. The Bolsheviks, who had usurped power in the name of the soviets three weeks prior to the election, amassed only 24 percent of the popular vote and elected only 24 percent of the deputies. The party of Lenin had not received the mandate of the people to govern them.}}</ref> On 6 January 1918, the Draft Decree on the Dissolution of the Constituent Assembly was issued by the Central Executive Committee of the Congress of Soviets, a committee dominated by [[Vladimir Lenin]], who had previously supported multi-party free elections. After the Bolshevik defeat, Lenin started referring to the assembly as a "deceptive form of bourgeois-democratic parliamentarism".<ref>{{cite journal |last=Dando |first=William A. |date=June 1966 |title=A Map of the Election to the Russian Constituent Assembly of 1917 |journal=Slavic Review |volume=25 |issue=2 |pages=314–319 |doi=10.2307/2492782 |issn=0037-6779 |jstor=2492782 |s2cid=156132823 |quote=The political significance of the election to the Russian Constituent Assembly is difficult to as by a large segment of the Russian people ascertain since the Assembly was partly by a large segment of the Russian people as not being really necessary to fulfill their desires in this era of revolutionary development. ... On January 5, 1918, the deputies to the Constituent Assembly met in Petrograd; on January 6 the Central Executive Committee of the Congress of Soviets, dominated by Lenin, issued the Draft Decree on the Dissolution of the Constituent Assembly. The Constituent Assembly, the dream of Russian political reformers for many years, was swept aside as a 'deceptive form of bourgeois-democratic parliamentarism.'}}</ref> This was criticised as being the development of vanguardism as a form of hierarchical party–elite that controlled society.<ref>{{cite book |last=White |first=Elizabeth |year=2010 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tFMuCgAAQBAJ |title=The Socialist Alternative to Bolshevik Russia: The Socialist Revolutionary Party, 1921–39 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-136-90573-5 |access-date=24 April 2022 |archive-date=21 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220321152046/https://books.google.com/books?id=tFMuCgAAQBAJ |url-status=live |via=[[Google Books]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Franks |first=Benjamin |date=May 2012 |title=Between Anarchism and Marxism: The Beginnings and Ends of the Schism |journal=[[Journal of Political Ideologies]] |volume=17 |issue=2 |pages=202–227 |doi=10.1080/13569317.2012.676867 |s2cid=145419232 |issn=1356-9317}}</ref>

Within five years of the [[death of Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]] completed his rise to power and was the [[leader of the Soviet Union]] who theorised and applied the socialist theories of Lenin and [[Karl Marx]] as political expediencies used to realise his plans for the Soviet Union and for [[world socialism]].<ref name="stalin_follow_marx_lenin">{{cite journal |last=Butenko |first=Alexander |date=1996 |script-title=ru:Социализм сегодня: опыт и новая теория |title=Sotsializm segodnya: opyt i novaya teoriya |language=ru |trans-title=Socialism Today: Experience and New Theory |journal=Журнал Альтернативы |volume=1 |pages=2–22}}</ref> ''Concerning Questions of Leninism'' (1926) represented Marxism–Leninism as a separate communist ideology and featured a global hierarchy of communist parties and revolutionary vanguard parties in each country of the world.<ref>{{cite book |last=Lüthi |first=Lorenz M. |date=2008 |title=The Sino–Soviet Split: Cold War in the Communist World |pages=4 |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=978-0-691-13590-8}}</ref>{{r|Lisichkin 1989, p. 59}} With that, Stalin's application of Marxism–Leninism to the situation of the Soviet Union became [[Stalinism]], the official [[Ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union|state ideology]] until his death in 1953.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Butenko |first=Alexander |date=1996 |script-title=ru:Социализм сегодня: опыт и новая теория |title=Sotsializm segodnya: opyt i novaya teoriya |language=ru |trans-title=Socialism Today: Experience and New Theory |journal=Журнал Альтернативы |volume=1 |pages=3–4}}</ref> In Marxist political discourse, Stalinism, denoting and connoting the theory and praxis of Stalin, has two usages, namely praise of Stalin by Marxist–Leninists who believe Stalin successfully developed Lenin's legacy, and criticism of Stalin by Marxist–Leninists and other Marxists who repudiate Stalin's political purges, social-class repressions and bureaucratic terrorism.{{r|Bullock & Trombley 506}}

[[File:Trotsky con la guardia roja.jpg|thumb|[[Leon Trotsky]] exhorting [[Red Army]] soldiers in the [[Polish–Soviet War]]]]
As the [[Left Opposition]] to Stalin within the Soviet party and government, [[Leon Trotsky]] and [[Trotskyists]] argued that Marxist–Leninist ideology contradicted Marxism and Leninism in theory, therefore Stalin's ideology was not useful for the implementation of socialism in Russia. Moreover, Trotskyists within the party identified their anti-Stalinist communist ideology as Bolshevik–Leninism and supported the [[permanent revolution]] to differentiate themselves from Stalin's justification and implementation of [[socialism in one country]].<ref>{{cite book |last=Trotsky |first=Leon |author-link=Leon Trotsky |orig-date=1937 |date=1990 |script-title=ru:Сталинская школа фальсификаций |title=Stalinskaya shkola fal'sifikatsiy |language=ru |trans-title=Stalin's school of falsifications |pages=7–8}}</ref>

[[File:1967-12 1967年 毛泽东与安娜·斯特朗.jpg|thumb|left|[[Mao Zedong]] with [[Anna Louise Strong]], the American journalist who reported and explained the [[Chinese Communist Revolution]] to the West]]
After the [[Sino-Soviet split]] of the 1960s, the [[Chinese Communist Party]] and the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union]] claimed to be the sole heir and successor to Stalin concerning the correct interpretation of Marxism–Leninism and ideological leader of [[world communism]].<ref name="World History 2000. p. 769">{{cite book |editor1-last=Lenman |editor1-first=Bruce P. |editor2-last=Anderson |editor2-first=T. |date=2000 |title=Chambers Dictionary of World History |pages=769 |publisher=Chambers |isbn=978-0-550-10094-8}}</ref> In that vein, [[Mao Zedong Thought]], [[Mao Zedong]]'s updating and adaptation of Marxism–Leninism to Chinese conditions in which revolutionary praxis is primary and ideological orthodoxy is secondary, represents urban Marxism–Leninism adapted to pre-industrial China. The claim that Mao had adapted Marxism–Leninism to Chinese conditions evolved into the idea that he had updated it in a fundamental way applying to the world as a whole. Consequently, Mao Zedong Thought became the official [[Ideology of the Chinese Communist Party|state ideology]] of the [[People's Republic of China]] as well as the ideological basis of communist parties around the world which sympathised with China.<ref name="Modern Thought 1999 p. 501">{{cite book |editor1-last=Bullock |editor1-first=Allan |editor1-link=Alan Bullock |editor2-last=Trombley |editor2-first=Stephen |date=1999 |title=The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought |edition=3rd |pages=501 |publisher=[[HarperCollins]] |isbn=978-0-00-686383-0}}</ref> In the late 1970s, the Peruvian communist party [[Shining Path]] developed and synthesised Mao Zedong Thought into [[Marxism–Leninism–Maoism]], a contemporary variety of Marxism–Leninism that is a supposed higher level of Marxism–Leninism that can be applied universally.{{r|Modern Thought 1999 p. 501}}

[[File:HODŽA druhá míza.jpg|thumb|[[Enver Hoxha]], who led the [[Sino-Albanian split]] in the 1970s and whose [[anti-revisionist]] followers led to the development of [[Hoxhaism]]]]
Following the [[Sino-Albanian split]] of the 1970s, a small portion of Marxist–Leninists began to downplay or repudiate the role of Mao in the Marxist–Leninist international movement in favour of the [[Albanian Labour Party]] and stricter adherence to Stalin. The Sino-Albanian split was caused by [[People's Socialist Republic of Albania|Albania]]'s rejection of China's {{lang|de|[[Realpolitik]]}} of Sino–American rapprochement, specifically the [[1972 Nixon visit to China|1972 Mao–Nixon meeting]] which the [[anti-revisionist]] Albanian Labour Party perceived as an ideological betrayal of Mao's own [[Three Worlds Theory]] that excluded such political rapprochement with the West. To the Albanian Marxist–Leninists, the Chinese dealings with the United States indicated Mao's lessened, practical commitments to ideological orthodoxy and [[proletarian internationalism]]. In response to Mao's apparently unorthodox deviations, [[Enver Hoxha]], head of the Albanian Labour Party, theorised anti-revisionist Marxism–Leninism, referred to as [[Hoxhaism]], which retained orthodox Marxism–Leninism when compared to the ideology of the post-Stalin Soviet Union.{{r|Bland}}

In [[North Korea]], Marxism–Leninism was superseded by ''[[Juche]]'' in the 1970s. This was made official in 1992 and 2009, when constitutional references to Marxism–Leninism were dropped and replaced with ''Juche''.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Dae-Kyu |first=Yoon |year=2003 |url=http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1934&context=ilj |title=The Constitution of North Korea: Its Changes and Implications |journal=Fordham International Law Journal |volume=27 |issue=4 |pages=1289–1305 |access-date=10 August 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210224144030/https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1934&context=ilj |archive-date=24 February 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref> In 2009, the constitution was quietly amended so that not only did it remove all Marxist–Leninist references present in the first draft but also dropped all references to [[communism]].<ref>{{cite news |last=Park |first=Seong-Woo |date=23 September 2009 |url=https://www.rfa.org/korean/in_focus/first_millitary-09232009120017.html |script-title=ko:북 개정 헌법 '선군사상' 첫 명기 |title=Bug gaejeong heonbeob 'seongunsasang' cheos myeong-gi |trans-title=First stipulation of the 'Seongun Thought' of the North Korean Constitution |agency=Radio Free Asia |language=ko |access-date=10 August 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210517045408/https://www.rfa.org/korean/in_focus/first_millitary-09232009120017.html |archive-date=17 May 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref> ''Juche'' has been described by Michael Seth as a version of [[Korean ultranationalism]],<ref>{{cite book |last=Seth |first=Michael J. |year=2019 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GPm9DwAAQBAJ&q=%22juche%22+%22ultranationalism%22&pg=PA159 |title=A Concise History of Modern Korea: From the Late Nineteenth Century to the Present |publisher=[[Rowman & Littlefield]] |page=159 |isbn=978-1-5381-2905-0 |access-date=11 September 2020 |archive-date=6 February 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210206043439/https://books.google.com/books?id=GPm9DwAAQBAJ&q=%22juche%22+%22ultranationalism%22&pg=PA159 |url-status=live |via=[[Google Books]]}}</ref> which eventually developed after losing its original Marxist–Leninist elements.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Fisher |first1=Max |date=6 January 2016 |url=https://www.vox.com/2016/1/6/10724334/north-korea-history |title=The single most important fact for understanding North Korea |website=Vox |access-date=11 September 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210306090942/https://www.vox.com/2016/1/6/10724334/north-korea-history |archive-date=6 March 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref> According to ''North Korea: A Country Study'' by Robert L. Worden, Marxism–Leninism was abandoned immediately after the start of [[de-Stalinisation|de-Stalinization]] in the Soviet Union and has been totally replaced by ''Juche'' since at least 1974.<ref>{{cite book |editor-last=Worden |editor-first=Robert L. |year=2008 |url=http://cdn.loc.gov/master/frd/frdcstdy/no/northkoreacountr00word/northkoreacountr00word.pdf |title=North Korea: A Country Study |edition=5th |location=Washington, D. C. |publisher=[[Library of Congress]] |page=206 |isbn=978-0-8444-1188-0 |access-date=11 September 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210725073828/https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/master/frd/frdcstdy/no/northkoreacountr00word/northkoreacountr00word.pdf |archive-date=25 July 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref> Daniel Schwekendiek wrote that what made North Korean Marxism–Leninism distinct from that of China and the Soviet Union was that it incorporated national feelings and macro-historical elements in the socialist ideology, opting for its "own style of socialism".<ref name="Schwekendiek">{{cite book |last=Schwekendiek |first=Daniel |date=2011 |title=A Socioeconomic History of North Korea |location=Jefferson |publisher=[[McFarland & Company]] |pages=31 |isbn=978-0-7864-6344-2}}</ref> The major Korean elements are the emphasis on traditional [[Confucianism]] and the memory of the traumatic experience of [[Korea under Japanese rule]] as well as a focus on autobiographical features of [[Kim Il Sung]] as a guerrilla hero.{{r|Schwekendiek}}
[[File:Students at military parade in South Yemen.jpg|thumb|Military parade with communist symbolics in [[South Yemen]]]]
The [[South Yemen|People's Democratic Republic of Yemen]], abbreviated as PDRY (aka South Yemen) and existed between [[Withdrawal from Aden|1967]] and [[Yemeni unification|1990]], was the only openly communist (Marxist-Leninist) state in the [[Arab world]]. South Yemen pursued a corresponding policy and became an important ally for the Soviet Union and [[Eastern Bloc|Eastern bloc]], because of its access to the [[Gulf of Aden]].<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Gart |first=Murray |date=9 January 1989 |title=South Yemen New Thinking in a Marxist Land |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,956703,00.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130825010838/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,956703,00.html |archive-date=25 August 2013 |access-date=23 June 2017 |magazine=Time}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |title=32. South Yemen (1967-1990) |url=https://uca.edu/politicalscience/dadm-project/middle-eastnorth-africapersian-gulf-region/south-yemen-1967-1990/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181231150835/http://uca.edu/politicalscience/dadm-project/middle-eastnorth-africapersian-gulf-region/south-yemen-1967-1990/ |archive-date=31 December 2018 |access-date=2022-05-21 |website=uca.edu |language=en-US}}</ref> The USSR provided it with comprehensive assistance – loans, specialists and weapons. Relations between this communist state and many other Arab countries remained poor, since many communist figures from all over the region were hiding in South Yemen, after unsuccessful tryings to organize [[Coup d'état|coup d'etats]] in their home countries.<ref name="Lackner 2017">{{Cite journal |last=Lackner |first=Helen |date=4 July 2017 |title=The People's Democratic Republic of Yemen: Unique Socialist Experiment in the Arab World at a Time of World Revolutionary Fervour |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369801X.2017.1336465 |url-status=live |journal=Interventions |volume=19 |issue=5 |pages=677–691 |doi=10.1080/1369801X.2017.1336465 |s2cid=159661566 |url-access=subscription |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221003131901/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369801X.2017.1336465 |archive-date=3 October 2022 |access-date=3 October 2022}}</ref>
[[File:Photo of Ethiopian dictator Mengistu Haile Mariam.jpg|thumb|A photograph of [[Mengistu Haile Mariam]], who was [[Ethiopia|Ethiopia's]] [[Military dictatorship|military dictator]] from 1977 until his [[Fall of the Derg regime|military overthrow]] in 1991.|left]]
There were also Marxist-Leninist states in [[Africa]], such as [[Ethiopia]]. In 1974, the military [[1974 Ethiopian coup d'état|overthrew]] Emperor [[Haile Selassie]] and installed a [[military junta]] known as the [[Derg]]. The Derg quickly aligned itself with the Soviet Union on the basis of communism, implementing Marxist-Leninist ideals that were radical for their country. The brutal imposition of their radical ideas led to a [[Ethiopian Civil War|debilitating civil war]]. In 1977, after a series of political purges and executions, [[Mengistu Haile Mariam]] became the leader of the Derg. He continued this course and brought Ethiopia [[Ethiopia–Russia relations|closer to the USSR]],<ref name="Remnek_154">{{harvp|Remnek|1992|p=154}}</ref> which became Ethiopia's main trading partner, supplying it with everything from weapons and equipment to military advisers and specialists. Mengistu ultimately built a highly [[Militarism|militarized]] state with the largest [[Ethiopian Army|army]] in [[sub-Saharan Africa]].<ref>{{Cite book |title=Soviet policy in Africa: from the old to the new thinking |date=1992 |publisher=Berkeley-Stanford Program in Soviet Studies, Center for Slavic and East European Studies, University of California at Berkeley, International and Area Studies |isbn=978-0-9622629-3-7 |location=Berkeley}}</ref> The Soviet Union pushed Mengistu to create a "People's Democratic" system, as was the case in the [[Eastern Bloc]] countries,<ref>{{Cite book |title=Troubled friendships: Moscow's Third World ventures |date=1993 |publisher=British Academic Pr. [u.a.] |isbn=978-1-85043-649-2 |editor-last=Light |editor-first=Margot |location=London |editor-last2=Royal Institute of International Affairs}}</ref> but Mengistu did so very reluctantly:<ref name="Patman_116">{{harvp|Patman|1993|p=116}}</ref> Ethiopia became the "[[People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia]]" only in 1987. And although the Derg was formally dissolved, roughly the same people remained in power as before.

In the other four existing Marxist–Leninist [[socialist state]]s, namely China, [[Cuba]], [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]], the ruling parties hold Marxism–Leninism as their official ideology, although they give it different interpretations in terms of practical policy. Marxism–Leninism is also the ideology of anti-revisionist, Hoxhaist, Maoist, and [[neo-Stalinist]] communist parties worldwide. The anti-revisionists criticise some rule of the communist states by claiming that they were [[state capitalist]] countries ruled by ''[[Revisionism (Marxism)|revisionists]]''.<ref>{{cite magazine|last=Bland |first=Bill |date=1995 |orig-date=1980 |url=https://revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/BlandRestoration.pdf |title=The Restoration of Capitalism in the Soviet Union |magazine=Revolutionary Democracy Journal |access-date=16 February 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210810124332/http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/BlandRestoration.pdf |archive-date=10 August 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |first=Mao |last=Zedong |author-link=Mao Zedong |translator-first=Moss |translator-last=Roberts |date=1977 |url=http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/CSE58.html |title=A Critique of Soviet Economics |location=New York City, New York |publisher=Monthly Review Press |access-date=16 February 2020 |archive-date=3 March 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303192812/http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/CSE58.html |url-status=live}}</ref> Although the periods and countries vary among different ideologies and parties, they generally accept that the Soviet Union was socialist during Stalin's time, Maoists believe that China became state capitalist after Mao's death, and Hoxhaists believe that China was always state capitalist, and uphold the Albania as the only socialist state after the Soviet Union under Stalin.<ref name="Bland">{{cite book |last=Bland |first=Bill |date=1997 |url=http://ml-review.ca/aml/China/historymaotable.html |title=Class Struggles in China |edition=revised |location=London |access-date=16 February 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211017084651/http://ml-review.ca/aml/China/historymaotable.html |archive-date=17 October 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Definition, theory, and terminology ===
[[File:Karl Marx 001 (cropped 3-4).jpg|thumb|[[Karl Marx]] in 1875]]
[[Communist ideologies]] and ideas have acquired a new meaning since the [[Russian Revolution]],<ref name="Wright 2015, p. 3355">{{cite encyclopedia |editor-last=Wright |editor-first=James D. |editor-link=James D. Wright |encyclopedia=[[International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences]] |publisher=[[Elsevier]] |year=2015 |isbn=978-0-08-097087-5 |location=Oxford |edition=2nd |page=3355 |doi=}}{{full citation needed|date=July 2024}}</ref> as they became equivalent to the ideas of Marxism–Leninism,{{r|Busky 2000, pp. 6–8}} namely the interpretation of [[Marxism]] by [[Vladimir Lenin]] and his successors.{{sfn|Cooke|1998|pp=221–222}}{{r|Wright 2015, p. 3355}} Endorsing the final objective, namely the creation of a community-owning [[means of production]] and providing each of its participants with consumption "[[From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs|according to their needs]]", Marxism–Leninism puts forward the recognition of the [[class struggle]] as a dominating principle of a [[social change]] and development.{{r|Wright 2015, p. 3355}} In addition, workers (the [[proletariat]]) were to carry out the mission of reconstruction of the society.{{r|Wright 2015, p. 3355}} Conducting a [[socialist revolution]] led by what its proponents termed the "[[vanguard of the proletariat]]", defined as the [[communist party]] organised hierarchically through [[democratic centralism]], was hailed to be a historical necessity by Marxist–Leninists.{{sfn|Albert|Hahnel|1981|pp=24–26}}{{r|Wright 2015, p. 3355}} Moreover, the introduction of the [[proletarian dictatorship]] was advocated and classes deemed hostile were to be repressed.{{r|Wright 2015, p. 3355}} In the 1920s, it was first defined and formulated by [[Joseph Stalin]] based on his understanding of [[orthodox Marxism]] and [[Leninism]].{{r|Lansford 2007, p. 17}}

In 1934, [[Karl Radek]] suggested the formulation ''Marxism–Leninism–Stalinism'' in an article in ''[[Pravda]]'' to stress the importance of Stalin's leadership to the Marxist–Leninist ideology. Radek's suggestion failed to catch on, as Stalin as well as CPSU's ideologists preferred to continue the usage of ''Marxism–Leninism''.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Ilyin |first=Mikhail |title=International Encyclopedia of Political Science |publisher=Sage Publications |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-4129-5963-6 |editor-last=Badie |editor-first=Bertrand |pages=2481–2485 |chapter=Stalinism |display-editors=et al.}}</ref> ''Marxism–Leninism–Maoism'' became the name for the ideology of the [[Chinese Communist Party]] and of other [[Communist parties]], which broke off from national Communist parties, after the [[Sino–Soviet split]], especially when the split was finalised by 1963. The [[Italian Communist Party]] was mainly influenced by [[Antonio Gramsci]], who gave a more democratic implication than Lenin's for why workers remained passive.<ref name="Morgan">{{cite encyclopedia |last=Morgan |first=W. John |year=2001 |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/referencework/9780080430768/international-encyclopedia-of-the-social-and-behavioral-sciences |title=Marxism–Leninism: The Ideology of Twentieth-Century Communism |editor1-last=Baltes |editor1-first=Paul B. |editor1-link=Neil Smelser |editor2-last=Smelser |editor2-first=Neil J. |editor2-link=Paul Baltes |encyclopedia=[[International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences]] |volume=20 |edition=1st |publisher=[[Elsevier]] |page=2332 |isbn=978-0-08-043076-8 |access-date=25 August 2021 |via=Science Direct |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211031003018/https://www.sciencedirect.com/referencework/9780080430768/international-encyclopedia-of-the-social-and-behavioral-sciences |archive-date=31 October 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref> A key difference between [[Maoism]] and other forms of Marxism–Leninism is that [[peasant]]s should be the bulwark of the revolutionary energy, which is led by the working class.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Meisner |first=Maurice |date=January–March 1971 |title=Leninism and Maoism: Some Populist Perspectives on Marxism-Leninism in China |journal=The China Quarterly |volume=45 |issue=45 |pages=2–36 |doi=10.1017/S0305741000010407 |jstor=651881 |s2cid=154407265}}</ref> Three common Maoist values are revolutionary [[populism]], pragmatism, and [[dialectic]]s.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |last=Wormack |first=Brantly |year=2001 |title=Maoism |editor1-last=Baltes |editor1-first=Paul B. |editor1-link=Paul Baltes |editor2-last=Smelser |editor2-first=Neil J. |editor2-link=Neil Smelser |encyclopedia=[[International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences]] |volume=20 |pages=9191–9193 |edition=1st |publisher=[[Elsevier]] |doi=10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/01173-6 |isbn=978-0-08-043076-8}}</ref>

According to Rachel Walker, "Marxism–Leninism" is an empty term that depends on the approach and basis of ruling Communist parties, and is dynamic and open to redefinition, being both fixed and not fixed in meaning.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Walker |first=Rachel |date=April 1989 |title=Marxism–Leninism as Discourse: The Politics of the Empty Signifier and the Double Bind |journal=British Journal of Political Science |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |volume=19 |issue=2 |pages=161–189 |doi=10.1017/S0007123400005421 |jstor=193712 |s2cid=145755330}}</ref> As a term, "Marxism–Leninism" is misleading because Marx and Lenin never sanctioned or supported the creation of an ''-ism'' after them, and is reveling because, being popularized after Lenin's death by Stalin, it contained three clear doctrinal and institutionalized principles that became a model for later Soviet-type regimes; its global influence, having at its height covered at least one-third of the world's population, has made Marxist–Leninist a convenient label for the [[Communist bloc]] as a dynamic ideological order.<ref name="Morgan"/>{{sfn|Morgan|2015|p={{page needed|date=April 2022}}}}

=== Historiography ===
Historiography of [[Marxist–Leninist state]]s is polarised. According to [[John Earl Haynes]] and [[Harvey Klehr]], historiography is characterised by a split between traditionalists and revisionists.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Haynes |first1=John Earl |author1-link=John Earl Haynes |last2=Klehr |first2=Harvey |author2-link=Harvey Klehr |date=2003 |chapter=Revising History |title=In Denial: Historians, Communism and Espionage |location=San Francisco |publisher=Encounter |pages=11–57 |isbn=1-893554-72-4}}</ref> "Traditionalists", who characterise themselves as objective reporters of an alleged [[totalitarian]] nature of [[communism]] and Marxist–Leninist states, are criticised by their opponents as being [[anti-communist]], even ''[[Fascist (epithet)|fascist]]'', in their eagerness on continuing to focus on the issues of the [[Cold War]]. Alternative characterisations for traditionalists include "anti-communist", "conservative", "Draperite" (after [[Theodore Draper]]), "orthodox", and "right-wing"; Norman Markowitz, a prominent "revisionist", referred to them as "reactionaries", "right-wing romantics", "romantics", and "triumphalist" who belong to the "[[HUAC]] school of [[CPUSA]] scholarship".<ref>{{cite book |last1=Haynes |first1=John Earl |author1-link=John Earl Haynes |last2=Klehr |first2=Harvey |author2-link=Harvey Klehr |date=2003 |chapter=Revising History |title=In Denial: Historians, Communism and Espionage |location=San Francisco |publisher=Encounter |pages=43 |isbn=1-893554-72-4}}</ref> According to Haynes and Klehr, "revisionists" are more numerous and dominate academic institutions and learned journals. A suggested alternative formulation is "new historians of American communism", but that has not caught on because these historians describe themselves as unbiased and scholarly and contrast their work to the work of anti-communist traditionalists whom they would term biased and unscholarly.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Haynes |first1=John Earl |author-link1=John Earl Haynes |last2=Klehr |first2=Harvey |author-link2=Harvey Klehr |date=2003 |chapter=Revising History |title=In Denial: Historians, Communism and Espionage |location=San Francisco |publisher=Encounter |pages=43–44 |isbn=1-893554-72-4}}</ref> Academic [[Sovietology]] after [[World War II]] and during the Cold War was dominated by the "totalitarian model" of the Soviet Union,<ref>{{cite book |first1=Sarah |last1=Davies |author1-link=Sarah Davies (historian) |first2=James |last2=Harris |title=Stalin: A New History |chapter=Joseph Stalin: Power and Ideas |date=8 September 2005 |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |isbn=978-1-139-44663-1 |page=3 |quote=Academic Sovietology, a child of the early Cold War, was dominated by the 'totalitarian model' of Soviet politics. Until the 1960s it was almost impossible to advance any other interpretation, in the USA at least.}}</ref> stressing the absolute nature of Stalin's power.<ref>{{cite book |first1=Sarah |last1=Davies |author1-link=Sarah Davies (historian) |first2=James |last2=Harris |title=Stalin: A New History |chapter=Joseph Stalin: Power and Ideas |date=8 September 2005 |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |isbn=978-1-139-44663-1 |pages=3–4 |quote=In 1953, Carl Friedrich characterised totalitarian systems in terms of five points: an official ideology, control of weapons and of media, use of terror, and a single mass party, 'usually under a single leader'. There was of course an assumption that the leader was critical to the workings of totalitarianism: at the apex of a monolithic, centralised, and hierarchical system, it was he who issued the orders which were fulfilled unquestioningly by his subordinates.}}</ref> The "revisionist school" beginning in the 1960s focused on relatively autonomous institutions which might influence policy at the higher level.<ref name="DaviesHarris2005">{{cite book |first1=Sarah |last1=Davies |author1-link=Sarah Davies (historian) |first2=James |last2=Harris |title=Stalin: A New History |chapter=Joseph Stalin: Power and Ideas |date=8 September 2005 |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |isbn=978-1-139-44663-1 |pages=4–5 |quote=Tucker's work stressed the absolute nature of Stalin's power, an assumption which was increasingly challenged by later revisionist historians. In his ''Origins of the Great Purges'', Arch Getty argued that the Soviet political system was chaotic, that institutions often escaped the control of the centre, and that Stalin’s leadership consisted to a considerable extent in responding, on an ad hoc basis, to political crises as they arose. Getty's work was influenced by political science of the 1960s onwards, which, in a critique of the totalitarian model, began to consider the possibility that relatively autonomous bureaucratic institutions might have had some influence on policy-making at the highest level.}}</ref> Matt Lenoe described the "revisionist school" as representing those who "insisted that the old image of the Soviet Union as a totalitarian state bent on world domination was oversimplified or just plain wrong. They tended to be interested in social history and to argue that the Communist Party leadership had had to adjust to social forces."<ref name="Lenoe2002">{{cite journal |last1=Lenoe |first1=Matt |title=Did Stalin Kill Kirov and Does It Matter? |journal=The Journal of Modern History |volume=74 |issue=2 |year=2002 |pages=352–380 |issn=0022-2801 |doi=10.1086/343411 |s2cid=142829949}}</ref> These "revisionist school" historians challenged the "totalitarian model", as outlined by political scientist [[Carl Joachim Friedrich]], which stated that the Soviet Union and other Marxist–Leninist states were totalitarian systems, with the personality cult, and almost unlimited powers of the "great leader", such as Stalin.{{r|DaviesHarris2005}}<ref name="Fitzpatrick">{{cite journal |first1=Sheila |last1=Fitzpatrick |author-link1=Sheila Fitzpatrick |title=Revisionism in Soviet History |journal=History and Theory |volume=46 |issue=4 |year=2007 |pages=77–91 |issn=1468-2303 |doi=10.1111/j.1468-2303.2007.00429.x |quote=... the Western scholars who in the 1990s and 2000s were most active in scouring the new archives for data on Soviet repression were revisionists (always 'archive rats') such as Arch Getty and Lynne Viola.}}</ref> It was considered to be outdated by the 1980s and for the post-Stalinist era.<ref name="Zimmerman 1980">{{cite journal |last=Zimmerman |first=William |date=September 1980 |title=Review: How the Soviet Union is Governed |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |journal=[[Slavic Review]] |volume=39 |issue=3 |pages=482–486 |doi=10.2307/2497167 |jstor=2497167 |quote=In the intervening quarter-century, the Soviet Union has changed substantially. Our knowledge of the Soviet Union has changed as well. We all know that the traditional paradigm no longer satisfies, despite several efforts, primarily in the early 1960s (the directed society, totalitarianism without terror, the mobilization system) to articulate an acceptable variant. We have come to realize that models which were, in effect, offshoots of totalitarian models do not provide good approximations of post-Stalinist reality. |postscript=. Quote at p. 482}}</ref>

[[File:Stéphane Courtois (cropped).jpg|thumb|[[Stéphane Courtois]], one of the authors of ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'']]
Some academics, such as [[Stéphane Courtois]] (''[[The Black Book of Communism]]''), [[Steven Rosefielde]] (''[[Red Holocaust (2009 book)|Red Holocaust]]''), and [[Rudolph Rummel]] (''[[Death by Government]]''), wrote of mass, excess deaths under Marxist–Leninist regimes. These authors defined the political repression by communists as a "[[Communist democide]]", "Communist genocide", "Red Holocaust", or followed the "victims of Communism" narrative. Some of them compared Communism to [[Nazism]] and described deaths under Marxist–Leninist regimes (civil wars, deportations, famines, repressions, and wars) as being a direct consequence of Marxism–Leninism. Some of these works, in particular ''The Black Book of Communism'' and its 93 or 100 millions figure, are cited by [[Political groups of the European Parliament|political groups]] and [[Members of the European Parliament]].{{r|Ghodsee 2014}}<ref>{{cite book |last=Neumayer |first=Laure |author-link=Laure Neumayer |year=2018 |title=The Criminalisation of Communism in the European Political Space after the Cold War |location=London |publisher=[[Routledge]] |isbn=978-1-351-14174-1}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Neumayer |first=Laure |author-link=Laure Neumayer |date=November 2018 |title=Advocating for the Cause of the 'Victims of Communism' in the European Political Space: Memory Entrepreneurs in Interstitial Fields |journal=[[Nationalities Papers]] |volume=45 |number=6 |pages=992–1012 |doi=10.1080/00905992.2017.1364230 |s2cid=158275798 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Without denying the tragedy of the events, other scholars criticise the interpretation that sees communism as the main culprit as presenting a biased or exaggerated anti-communist narrative. Several academics propose a more nuanced analysis of Marxist–Leninist rule, stating that anti-communist narratives have exaggerated the extent of political repression and censorship in Marxist–Leninist states and drawn comparisons with what they see as atrocities that were perpetrated by [[capitalist countries]], particularly during the Cold War. These academics include [[Mark Aarons]],<ref>{{cite book |last=Aarons |first=Mark |author-link=Mark Aarons |date=2007 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dg0hWswKgTIC&pg=PA69 |chapter=Justice Betrayed: Post-1945 Responses to Genocide |editor1-last=Blumenthal |editor1-first=David A. |editor2-last=McCormack |editor2-first=Timothy L. H. |url=http://www.brill.com/legacy-nuremberg-civilising-influence-or-institutionalised-vengeance |title=The Legacy of Nuremberg: Civilising Influence or Institutionalised Vengeance? (International Humanitarian Law) |publisher=[[Martinus Nijhoff Publishers]] |pages=[https://books.google.com/books?id=dg0hWswKgTIC&pg=PA71 71], [https://books.google.com/books?id=dg0hWswKgTIC&pg=PA81 80–81] |isbn=978-90-04-15691-3 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170525090909/https://brill.com/legacy-nuremberg-civilising-influence-or-institutionalised-vengeance |archive-date=25 May 2017 |url-status=dead |via=[[Google Books]]}}</ref> [[Noam Chomsky]],<ref>{{cite web|last=Chomsky |first=Noam |author-link=Noam Chomsky |title=Counting the Bodies |work=Spectrezine |access-date=18 September 2016 |url=http://spectrezine.org/global/chomsky.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160921084037/http://www.spectrezine.org/global/chomsky.htm |archive-date=21 September 2016}}</ref> [[Jodi Dean]],<ref>{{cite book |last=Dean |first=Jodi |author-link=Jodi Dean |date=2012 |title=The Communist Horizon |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kBghOq42S3YC&pg=PA6 |publisher=Verso |pages=6–7 |isbn=978-1-84467-954-6 |access-date=3 December 2020 |archive-date=17 October 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211017084656/https://books.google.com/books?id=kBghOq42S3YC&pg=PA6 |url-status=live |via=[[Google Books]]}}</ref> [[Kristen Ghodsee]],<ref name="Ghodsee 2014">{{cite journal |last=Ghodsee |first=Kristen |author-link=Kristen Ghodsee |date=Fall 2014 |url=https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/kristenghodsee/files/history_of_the_present_galleys.pdf |title=A Tale of 'Two Totalitarianisms': The Crisis of Capitalism and the Historical Memory of Communism |journal=History of the Present: A Journal of Critical History |volume=4 |number=2 |pages=115–142 |doi=10.5406/historypresent.4.2.0115 |jstor=10.5406/historypresent.4.2.0115 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211031180121/https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/kristenghodsee/files/history_of_the_present_galleys.pdf |archive-date=31 October 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Ghodsee & Sehon 2018">{{cite magazine|last1=Ghodsee |first1=Kristen R. |author-link1=Kristen Ghodsee |last2=Sehon |first2=Scott |author-link2=Scott Sehon |editor-last=Dresser |editor-first=Sam |date=22 March 2018 |url=https://aeon.co/essays/the-merits-of-taking-an-anti-anti-communism-stance |title=The merits of taking an anti-anti-communism stance |magazine=[[Aeon (digital magazine)|Aeon]] |access-date=11 February 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211008113511/https://aeon.co/essays/the-merits-of-taking-an-anti-anti-communism-stance |archive-date=8 October 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref> [[Seumas Milne]],{{r|Milne 2002}}{{r|Milne 2006}} and [[Michael Parenti]].{{sfn|Parenti|1997}} Ghodsee, [[Nathan J. Robinson]],<ref>{{cite news |last=Robinson |first=Nathan J. |author-link=Nathan J. Robinson |date=25 October 2017 |url=https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2017/10/how-to-be-a-socialist-without-being-an-apologist-for-the-atrocities-of-communist-regimes |title=How To Be A Socialist Without Being An Apologist For The Atrocities Of Communist Regimes |work=[[Current Affairs (magazine)|Current Affairs]] |access-date=13 August 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211020044217/https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/10/how-to-be-a-socialist-without-being-an-apologist-for-the-atrocities-of-communist-regimes |archive-date=20 October 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref> and [[Scott Sehon]] wrote about the merits of taking an [[anti anti-communist]] position that does not deny the atrocities but make a distinction between [[anti-authoritarian]] communist and other socialist currents, both of which have been victims of repression.{{r|Ghodsee & Sehon 2018}}<ref>{{cite news |last=Klein |first=Ezra |author-link=Ezra Klein |date=7 January 2020 |url=https://www.vox.com/podcasts/2020/1/7/21055676/nathan-robinson-ezra-klein-socialism-bernie-sanders |title=Nathan Robinson's case for socialism |website=[[Vox (website)|Vox]] |access-date=13 August 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210813101444/https://www.vox.com/podcasts/2020/1/7/21055676/nathan-robinson-ezra-klein-socialism-bernie-sanders |archive-date=13 August 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref>