4 ms·

You might want to edit Wikipedia's list of Marxist-Leninist states, in that case? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states#Marxist%E2%80%93Lenini

by cbeach 2y ago

You might want to edit Wikipedia's list of Marxist-Leninist states, in that case? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states#Marxist%E2%80%93Leninist_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states#Marxi... Also the page on China, which states the government is a "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist state" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd be interested to see how that edit would be received by other editors of the page.

alephnerd 2y ago
> Wikipedia's list It's basing "Marxist-Leninist" on national constitutions, which themselves are de facto useless when the Politburos in China, Vietnam, and Laos make drastic policy changes every decade (eg. 10 years ago it was expected for Chinese Premiers to step down after a 10 year term). Also, that list doesn't seem to actually link sources to assertions. The CCP's charter calls itself "Marxist-Leninist" but every single "thought"/ideology pushed by the CCP's leadership when a new Premier arises is de facto diametric to Marxism-Leninism, and it has always been this case since Mao. I recommend reading "The Chinese Reassessment of Socialism, 1976–1992" by Yan Sun , "A Nation-state by Construction: Dynamics of Modern Chinese Nationalism" by Suisheng Zhao, and "China: Development and Governance" by Yongian Zheng and Gunwu Wang if you want to actually understand the ideological underpinnings of Chinese governance. I have Chinese language sources as well I'd recommend but that's a whole other issue. > I'd be interested to see how that edit would be received by other editors of the page Just like they taught all of us from elementary school to college - Wikipedia IS NOT a reliable source. Wikipedia should always be used to spark conversations, but it is up to you to actually use Primary and Secondary sources to validate whether content on Wikipedia is valid or not. Wikipedia as an editorial organization has a lot of issues, internal rivalries, and astroturfing (especially w/ regards to highly controversial topics such as Asian politics). As such, it's best to use Primary and credible Secondary sources.

by cbeach 2y ago

alephnerd 2y ago

> Wikipedia's list It's basing "Marxist-Leninist" on national constitutions, which themselves are de facto useless when the Politburos in China, Vietnam, and Laos make drastic policy changes every decade (eg. 10 years ago it was expected for Chinese Premiers to step down after a 10 year term). Also, that list doesn't seem to actually link sources to assertions. The CCP's charter calls itself "Marxist-Leninist" but every single "thought"/ideology pushed by the CCP's leadership when a new Premier arises is de facto diametric to Marxism-Leninism, and it has always been this case since Mao. I recommend reading "The Chinese Reassessment of Socialism, 1976–1992" by Yan Sun , "A Nation-state by Construction: Dynamics of Modern Chinese Nationalism" by Suisheng Zhao, and "China: Development and Governance" by Yongian Zheng and Gunwu Wang if you want to actually understand the ideological underpinnings of Chinese governance. I have Chinese language sources as well I'd recommend but that's a whole other issue. > I'd be interested to see how that edit would be received by other editors of the page Just like they taught all of us from elementary school to college - Wikipedia IS NOT a reliable source. Wikipedia should always be used to spark conversations, but it is up to you to actually use Primary and Secondary sources to validate whether content on Wikipedia is valid or not. Wikipedia as an editorial organization has a lot of issues, internal rivalries, and astroturfing (especially w/ regards to highly controversial topics such as Asian politics). As such, it's best to use Primary and credible Secondary sources.