Talk:Communism/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 19

communist failures

why doesnt the article include the failures of communism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richiebf (talk • contribs) 22:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

--Because any edits to mention them are removed as supposedly Not Nuetral, revealing the blatant bias wikipedia is becoming know for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.247.91 (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Because the article is about the theory, not the practice. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

So is there an article about the practice of communism? Bugguyak (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Look at the article again

Somebody who knows the workings of wikipedia, please look at the article. It has been utterly vandalised. I can't do it, I'm too busy, but I hate it when people decide to delete articles or deface them for fun. That is the only problem of wikipedia, and it's not their fault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.17.243 (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Article has been edited into not making any sense

The article did a much better job with a much more neutral point of view earlier this year than it does now and thats not to say it wasperfect. The article is clearly biased in an anti-communist anti-leninist point of view with dashes of trotskyist, anarchist, left communists views. Whoever has done the recent edits you have completely butchered the article for some sort of weird agenda. I reverted to prior the horrible rewrite that was done after the last good edit. which I found to be 14:21, 2009 April 30 I hope this is agreeable since the rewrite made this article turn into gibberish and non sense despite the attempts to improve on it, I think we should add the improvements onto this version CmrdMariategui 00:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Communism & Single Party Dictatorships

One thing not really explained properly is the difference between single party dictatorships such as China and the USSR and the theory of Marx. They aren't really the same thing at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.221.253.66 (talk) 09:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well it's simply the difference between what you have been promised and what you receive - i mean it's not all that unusual for a party or a totalitarian leader to promise you something that is not possible or that he doesn't intend to fulfill... actually this practice is quite common in politics, and particularly among leaders of organizations that tolerate no objections. --Hoerth (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The information in the Wiki is wrong. If I knew how to change it myself, I would. I recently read many letters between Marx and Engel circa 1840-1880 (available on line at Marxist.org). The description of Communism in the letters is nothing like the "Communism" of the Soviet Era. Moreover Sovietism is very much like the early "Communist" populist movements that existed during Marx's life. Movements which Marx directly opposed.

According to the letters, Communism lacks a Central government. It is a confederacy where common resources is not held by the government or by the private. Secondly, it lacked political parties instead relying on local communes to communicate the people's will. Evidence of this can be found in Marx's ranting against Unions, and how they were no better then the Burgers they replaced. A modern day literal example of communism can be found in the American Militia movement (not kidding).

Secondly, Socialism would have a two party system. This is because we would oppose ourselves from one of the two collective ideologies. The Hume Dialect if you will

Lastly, I strongly suggest spliting this section into two. Marxist Communism and Soviet Communism. --SimpleNick (talk) 12:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Communism as a term is an oxymoron - Soviet is the opposite of communism while communism is the opposite of soviet. The Soviet Union lacks almost all aspect of a communist society - The Soviet Union was more of a Military Dictator Tolitarian State - complete opposite of the vision of a utopian society brought forward by Marx. At first when lenin took power - the idea of a true-socialist society seems plausible - but then Stalin came along and pretty much screw the whole thing up

archiving

• I have altered the way this page is archived. Future archives should be saved with the format :[[Talk:Communism/Archive 13]]. This will cause them to be automatically added to the archive box. I also noticed there is some very recent talk, only a few days old, in the archives already. Time should be allowed for all interested parties to comment before threads are archived, you can always archive older sections of the page and leave newer content. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is obviously very controversial, but I think allowing for a few days before archiving should be doable. —– Nuck Chorris (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Maps

The maps in Cold War and Crisis are better than they were before, (a few months ago), but I feel they could further improved. I suggest these amendments: section: Cold War = map: File:Sino-Soviet split 1980.svg; section: Crisis = map: File:Sino-Soviet split 2008.svg. It lets people see that countries like Vietnam and Laos moved from Russian control to Chinese and that Cuba did not follow that path and instead became independent and that North Korea, which had been independent before, is now allined with China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.115.81 (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Although not officially communist, South Africa has been run by devoted communists since 1994 - that's for 15 years and with no end in sight... Could we have a different map showing countries currently run by communists although the are officially 'Republics' or add those nations to the map of Communist countries but with a different color and an explanation? Mozambique might also make it on that list... And Angola, and Namibia. Invmog (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well, there can't be any "might " or "maybe" about it. First we would have to compile a list of countries that have been identified as communist by reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a highly subjective thing, and I find it is always best to stick with objectivity. The same reason I don't deal with labeling Genre of music I have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuck Chorris 0 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

We should also remove Moldova from the list of communist nations, since the communist party lost the elections. Qubix89.44.243.118 (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Template

Bobisbob2 tries to replace the picture in the lead with the navigation template Template:Communism sidebar. But it is not usual to start an article with such a thing (MOS:IMAGES: "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or InfoBox," not with a navigation template even if it looks like a box). Moreover below in the article, he removes the Template:Communism with exactly the same items as Communism sidebar. In my opinion, the template Communism is more conform with other Wikipedia navigation templates and less disturbing, therefore I prefer it over the Template:Communism sidebar. The article should conform with WP:MOS but I do not wish to start an edit war over such a silly thing like a template and therefore I ask other colleagues for their insights and help.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

While the MOS does say to start with an image or infobox, it does not specifically say not to use a navbox. I think in this case it does make sense, as the navbox is to help users understand what Communism is, and a picture of Marx does not accomplish that. This is the top article of the entire Communism category and should aim at helping readers understand what Communism is. I notice the same thing is done at Fascism. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand your logic: If MOS says "Start it with A", it _does_ (at least in my eyes) exclude the possibility to start it with B. And the fascism article is still B-class, therefore I do not see it as something to follow.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Your initial remark seemed to imply that the MOS specifically said not to do this, which it does not. In the spirit of WP:IAR I think the article looks and works better with the navbox there, regardless of what the MOS says. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

All of you are right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.224.111.164 (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

By why do you think that for example a picture followed by the template (as in the Czech Wikipedia, [1]) would be any worse - and this solution is conform with MOS, which is a huge advantage? The declared goal in the Todo list is the Featured status, which is hard to achieve without being very careful about MOS.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really concerned with the articles "score" in the rating system, but rather with it's utility. That being said, if I was more knowledgeable with such things I would just construct an appropriate infobox. I have seen infoboxes related to ethnic groups and so forth that have little "photo montages" at the top with numerous relevant persons in them. One of those with Marx, Lenin, etc would be good along with whatever other appropriate information, but as I said I'm not very skilled at such things. I also note that Democracy and Socialism use navboxes in exactly the same way, so we would actually be bucking the trend by changing that here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You are true that in political / philosophical articles, these navboxes in the heading are very common, but I think that it is caused by the lack of good infoboxes in this area. I hope that it will be solved in the future. The navboxes are useful, but as a part of the text, they present a problem not only because of MOS, but also because it is virtually impossible to keep them in good WP:NPOV shape; for example the current Communism navbox is clearly Marxist-biased and it is not clear how to select personalities or communist ideologies without some degree of POV.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Book "Rogue State"

If it's okay I want to add a link to William Blum's book called Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower because it shows how America went about forcing every attempt at social justice & equality (Socialism & Communism) to fail by starting over 50 wars, teaching torture, & lots more. Stars4change (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is a theme too marginal for this article. Almost every historical event in the 20th century has a connection to communism, but we should have only the core themes here. Perhaps this book should be better discussed in Cold war.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that "Socialism & Communism" is not interchangeable with "social justice justice & equality", as this post implies. Macai (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Read the first 1-2 paragraphs of Capitalism & Communism so you can see which one is right (classless) & which one is wrong (a few rich people own everything), which one will/is causing world poverty, crimes, wars, suicides, & allllll deaths. Also read Blum's "Rogue State" to see how USA never let any attempt at Communism & Socialism succeed (sanctions, embargoes) etc, It's all very obvious. Capitalism is when the few enslave the masses to make a few masters rich, & then those few rich owners can't ever spend enough money daily to "spread the wealth" so that everyone has a daily income to buy food, shelter, clothing, medicine. Read about Vietnam & Chile/Salvador Allende (a kind hearted man who wanted to end poverty), where Americans/Capitalists have NEVER wanted to even TRY to end world poverty. Look at the homes most Americans are living in Extreme Makeover: Home Edition to see what horrible shanties & habitations that are uninhabitable for humans but they have to live there. Look at the horrible "jobs" that exist that no one wants &/or are doing evil (hotels, restaurants, weapons, military, all law enforcement, automobiles, lumber/paper, roads, prisons, toxic chemicals, advertisements, TV, movies, education, insurance, retail malls/strip malls, & everything). Read Democracy for the Few, Dirty Truths, 100 Ways America is Screwing Up the World, "When Corporations Rule the World, God Wants You (every person) To Be Rich, & others. Look at the homeless & starving children in America. Not many knew that wage slavery is slavery; debt is slavery; rent is slavery; insurance is slavery; forced to need a car & commute to work is slavery; parents never get to see their own children, etc. We should have built up, not out. Stars4change (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What about the population in 1900?

Something that bothers me is that I seldom see anything about the way China was using land & the number of people in China in 1900 or 1920 or at some point (China almost a billion, US in 1900 had only 76,000,000 & in 2009 only 300,000,000) wasn't that a big factor in WHY China wanted Communism? Weren't there so many people (close to a billion) that were subsisting on small plots of land that it was more obvious there than it was in America, which had a small population & lots of empty land, that the ideal for China would be to have Communism, where large communities would all live & work on the communally-owned land by large groups of people working together, possibly working fewer hours for each person? And also, weren't they fighting against the few "richest" elite owners of the largest amounts of land, factories, etc, in China whom they had to "overthrow", which led to the violence? And couldn't some, or all, of that violence have happened because they had poor communication at that time (no TV, radios, & other faster means of communication) to teach all people at once how communism would work? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States Stars4change (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

External Link

Tonerwiki (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Global Museum on Communism

Difference between communism and socialism

The section 'Difference between communism and socialism' is not well-written. It doe not site any references and it's mostly written in first person. Moreover I feel it reflects more of personal views than siting facts. 71.175.124.93 (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communism&diff=297934280&oldid=297310233

I agree, removed.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

the

I wanted to fix a very minor but annoying typo. The word 'the' doesn't appear in the second paragraph of the section 'Cold War' I have inserted the word in caps to highlight the needed correction.

"Communist states such as THE Soviet Union and China succeeded in becoming industrial and technological powers, challenging the capitalists' powers in the arms race and space race and military conflicts." By Naphthos ---> Naphthos (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Beeblebrox (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is clearly written from an anti-communist point of view. Describing all communist countries as "regimes" - "regime" is an emotionally loaded word suggesting the government in power is illegitimate or criminal in nature.

Communist countries are characterized as if their inevitable future is to surrender to capitalism, thus revealing the writer's pro-capitalist bias.

The article needs to be rewritten in a more neutral tone.

193.2.57.25 (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Edited to add:

@Once in power, Stalin... established the character of Communism as the totalitarian ideology it is most commonly known as and referred to today.@

The above is utterly biased as well as factually inaccurate. Stalin was never the sole arbiter of what or what is not communism. Josip Broz Tito, among many others, would vigorously dispute that assertion were he alive to do so. The only reason communism is referred to as a "totalitarian ideology" is because the media characterizes it as such. They do so because the corporations they serve see any non-profit-based belief system as a threat which must be discredited and, if possible, destroyed. As pervasive as this belief may be in Western culture, it is a belief, not a fact. Communism exists in many forms, most of which are far more libertarian than Stalin's version. It would be more useful to document some of these alternative forms than to reinforce an exaggerated stereotype.

The unique strength of the Wiki is that it is not filtered through a corporate screen. That should make for a wider range of truly useful and interesting content. Unfortunately the quality of this content depends on its contributors, some of which bear marks of a culture that tries to squeeze the political spectrum into an unnaturally narrow range of acceptability. All belief systems should be discussed fairly and in a neutral manner, and it should not be detectable from the text whether the writer believes in that system or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.2.57.25 (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Of course articles should be neutral, but they should also reflect the established facts. It's not just that "the media" sees communist governments this way, it's the unfortunate fact that most, if not all, communist governments eventually turn into totalitarian dictatorships/cults of personality. The sentence at the top of this section does not say that Stalin was a perfect communist and achieved a classless society, it does say that he "established the character" of successive communist governments. No, Stalin is not the "sole arbiter" of what communism is or is not, but he was the "face" of communism during his time, and did establish the tone for others. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Accusing the article of being "anti-Communist" is not an argument stemming from an objective position. As the very term "anti-Communist" was coined by Communists in an effort to de-value people disagreeing with Communism. This label can and has been used to attack and de-value anyone and anything disagreeing with Communism. Therefore the only way for the article to not be labeled that would be for it to entirely consist of Communist propaganda. --Hoerth (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is Carl Marx's definition of capitalism under the "Marxist" section not used? Marx defined Capitalism specifically as the debt market. Communism was very much a "market" theory to Marx. To Marx (and many other of his peers) the dividing line was the debt market, and the ability for people to own one another.

To use a revised definition of capitalism in the text is bias.

--SimpleNick (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

---If the article was really written from anti-communist point of view there would be some mention of the millions of people that have perished globally due to communism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.247.91 (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Article Didn't Help

This article really didn't awnser my question, what is Communism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.212.27 (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The article does attempt to answer that question: "Communism (from Latin: communis = "common") is a family of economic and political ideas and social movements related to the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, or stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general, as well as the name given to such a society." If you could explain which bits of this you are finding hard to understand, that would be helpful in letting us know how to make the article more clear.VoluntarySlave (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The article didn't answer the question because already the opening is a misinterpretation of the facts that contradict even the given sources, Encarta and The Columbia Encyclopedia, not to mention the source by William Morris 'News from Nowhere' that doesn't even speak about communism. Later the article mixes up what is socialism vs communism. The article in general is in very poor condition but since all attempts to correct some very basic facts have been failed since such edits disappear overnight, I personally have given up on this article. Currently the article only describes communism the way someone wants it to be in his/her dreamworld, and therefore it doesn't give any answers on what is it all about in reality.--Termer (talk) 04:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think adding the sentence I did just a moment ago clarifies directly the distinction between the theory and the practice. Macai (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone removed STALIN and MAO TSE TUNG!????

Why is Stalin not in the "people" section. This is like not including Hitler in the Nazism article. Stalin may have deviated from the original communism but he is probably the most prominent historical figure representing that ideology. He was the successor to Lenin and helped shape the world's first and then-only constitutionally socialist state, which should put him at the top of the list. Also Stalinism is indeed a form of Communism but this article tries to distance itself from Stalinism. This means its writer is flaunting his/her belonging to a liberal and anti-Bolshevik form of Communism, giving a narrow Trotskyist or anti-Stalinist view of communism. Get a grip and stop living in a dreamworld - Stalin was the leader of world Communism for a number of years, helped to shape that ideology and let it come to fruition, and defended its very existence against the Nazis, whom he alone destroyed! Stalin was the epitomy and guardian of Communism and the only reason it rose to power and might. How dare you say he was not a COMMUNIST figure! Stalin and the Soviet Union are the main historical objects of Communism, not some pathetic confused student activist living in a political dream. Wikipedia is supposed to assert facts, not clouded judgements and badly informed opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.173.94 (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be an entire section devoted to Stalin, and Mao is referenced multiple times.

It may also be worth mentioning that Stalin's USSR played a much smaller role in the defeat of Nazi Germany than you claim, nor was Stalin ever the leader of world communism, considering the prevalence of the Left Communist movement after Trotsky's exile. I would also argue that Marx is much more prevalent to the communist movement than Stalin, and that the largest contribution from Stalin was a nationalist rhetoric which draws itself directly contradictory to the internationalism of Marxism. It is also arguable as to whether or not the USSR was socialist under Stalin, or if it was Socialist at any point what so ever. 8bit (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the IP was referring to the sidebar's "People" section. Indeed, I'm also inclined to view Stalin as a very influential figure in communism, if only for the fact that he hardened the USSR's military and reclaimed western Russia from the Nazis. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed a couple people whose articles identified them as anarchists, not communists. I seem to have messed up something in the sidebar doing that. Sorry, I hope someone knows how to fix that. However I also think that many important communists are still missing. How about Castro for one? Steve Dufour (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

China's Capitalist Policies

From the lead paragraph: "even if that party or government is committed to pro-capitalist policies like the modern Chinese Communist Party."

Does anyone have a source for this? 8bit (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

yea really, china like the new ussr. i see little to no "capitalism"., i mean seriosly. they hack google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Project Communism?

I was looking for a project for articles on anticommunist groups, for instance the John Birch Society. There is not only no "Project Anticommunism" there is also no "Project Communism." Why not? There are WP projects for topics a thousand times less important. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Official definition is required for the topic....

as it is closely related to stealing behaviours, Ref 2 needs additional reviews, if the definition from it is used as the reference--222.64.26.227 (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

so is the communist--222.64.26.227 (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
and Communist party,

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=Communist+Party+of&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&redirs=0

--222.64.26.227 (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

so are the Socialism, Socialist and other terminology of Social science--222.64.26.227 (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Chinese translation of the topic is based on .....

the following

• http://rfb.nanning.gov.cn/1876/2008_7_22/1876_286751_1216697483081.html

• http://form.nlc.gov.cn/sino/show.php?id=12

--222.64.220.194 (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.xxlyw.gov.cn/sina/show.asp?url=NewsNews/w/2004-05-08/09272478041s.shtml

• http://library.wuyishan.gov.cn:8080/digitalLibrarySt/ZtCategoryHome.external.html?sp=l255

• http://jggw.haian.gov.cn/zghaweb/infodetail/?InfoID=006c3fbf-75d3-4041-a9b3-b70ce96b6d7c&CategoryNum=098

• http://www.gsfao.gov.cn/html/know/2007_0761401321061532.html

• http://www.hnxx.gov.cn/hnxx/gzfw/gwy/llxx/2007/08/1184166607486140.htm

--222.64.220.194 (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

and relevant reference books

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=%E5%9C%A8%E6%A0%87%E9%A2%98:+%22%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E5%A4%A7%E7%99%BE%E7%A7%91%E5%85%A8%E4%B9%A6%22&hl=zh-CN

• http://www.ecph.com.cn/ics/gb/content/2009-09/11/content_1109.htm--222.64.220.194 (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.bookschina.com/Books/allbook/publish.asp?sbook1=7500066627&sbook2=%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E5%A4%A7%E7%99%BE%E7%A7%91%E5%85%A8%E4%B9%A6%E5%87%BA%E7%89%88

--222.64.220.194 (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Look at that --- few hyperlinks--222.64.220.194 (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Communism sidebar

The Communism sidebar clearly violates WP:NPOV - for example it features Murray Bookchin, almost unknown outside of USA and moreover not a Communist - but it omits people like Gracchus Babeuf or Mikhail Gorbachev who deeply influenced the fate of Communism. Moreover - as I mentioned earlier - we have a similar but better template at the bottom of the article. Therefore I'll remove the above sidebar and replace it with a Marx picture in order to avoid two similar Marx portraits very near each other in the body of the article. I hope that (almost) everybody agrees that Marx was the most influential theoretician of Communism, so he deserves the place, I think.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

So, are we just going to act like we didn't already have this exact same discussion back in May, even though it is still visible up the page in the section titled "Template." Not going to comment further here as I still feel the same way as my arguments already present in that section. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think that a link to Murray Bookchin "helps users understand what Communism is", Beeblebrox? In which way? I would rather say that it helps to confuse readers.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Bookchin was a communist and you are free to add Babeuf and Gorachev to the template. The template serves a better lead than a pic of Marx. Bobisbob2 (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Bookchin was "was an American libertarian socialist, political and social philosopher, environmentalist/conservationist, atheist, speaker, and writer" (from his article). And there are millions of people who were/are communists - is this a reason to have millions of entries in the template? If the template should be of any use, it should highlight the most important articles connected with Communism and help navigate through them. Which is clearly not the case and the template serves as a POV-pushing tool.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoa! There is absolutely no reason what so ever to have Bookchin in the side bar. Are there any reliable sources for this? I'm pretty sure he would object very strongly himself were he able to do so. Don't agree with the guy 100% but no need to insult his memory like that.radek (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Communism (from Latin: communis = "common")?

Can someone please reference "Communism (from Latin: communis = "common")", I've never heard it before. Sure it sounds plausible, but so do lots of other things.

--86.147.1.97 (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that this was unreferenced. In the course of looking for references, I've discovered that it doesn't seem to be true - "communism" comes from French, not Latin (the French term "commun" may itself come from Latin, of course, but that's only indirectly relevant to the etymology of Communism). I've added a reference to Merriam-Webster in the article, as it's freely available online. If you have access to the OED, you can see that their etymology agrees that "communism" derives from the French.VoluntarySlave (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Is all Italian food Pizza?

This entry on communism starts with the erroneous premise that communism refers to a particular branch of communist thought, that associated with Karl Marx, which he called "Scientific Communism", then traces back the antecedent lines of thought (e.g. Rousseau, etc), and the subsequent political movements and nations (e.g. state socialism, etc) that identified with the label communist, but which in practice were not remotely communist in the original sense of the word.

In so doing, this article has really misidentified what communism is, accepting as THE definition one that evolved, corrupted from the tension between bourgeois western critics and state socialist societies, out of a larger, earlier meaning that has been almost completely omitted here. That of people living communally, rather than living individually. Sharing the means of production (i.e. absence of private ownership), sharing lifestyle, living for collective group interests rather than individual interests. In a word, communing. It is as if someone wrote an entry on Italian cuisine and the entire article was devoted only to Pizza!

As a result of the narrow and somewhat errant focus, certain very important aspects of communism have been omitted. These include the anthropological reality that prior to a few thousand years ago, virtually all humans lived in small communistic groups. Also omitted is Christian communism, which has a far more extensive history than Marxist communism. Indeed the Christian commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself is the fundamental definition of communism. Communism exists to the extent that people love their neighbors as they love themselves.

I think this article needs a complete overhaul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.134.130 (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

To add more about non-Marxist types of communism is possible. On the other side, the vast majority of citations with the word "Communism" deals with the Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Mao-Gorby-Castro line of thought. See WP:UNDUE. Best regards,--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There probably should be more on anarchist forms of communism, at least, as they have been fairly historically significant. Zazaban (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Free market capitalist perspective on communism

There's a Marxist perspective on capitalism. In fact, the capitalism article uses a term ("means of production") which is almost exclusively used by Marxist and socialist economists in its first sentence. I think this article needs a section for a free market capitalist perspective on communism, as it is a very common perspective, and one very critical of communism, much like a communist perspective is very critical of capitalism. Macai (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It is covered under Criticisms of Marxism#Economic. The term "communism" is too broad to have a detailed criticisms section since there are different varieties of communism and different schools that criticise them. Communist Hong Kong for example has the freest markets in the world, right up there at number 1. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If that were the case, then capitalism would be too broad to have a detailed criticisms section since there are different varieties of capitalism and different schools that criticize them. Since this is not the case on the capitalism article, why is it the case here? Macai (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There are essential aspects to capitalism that can be broadly criticized. There is also an essential Marxism that can be broadly criticised. But as a political label, Communist is just too broad. Compare it with big-L Liberalism. We do not have one article that criticises various Liberal parties in Japan, Australia, Canada, etc. In fact we do not even have an article about big-L Liberal parties. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There are essential aspects of communism that can be broadly criticized. Like, for example the "common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general" (see the first sentence of this article), which I'm sure free market capitalists would criticize. Is that aspect of communism not essential, or is the Wikipedia page we're discussing just plain wrong? Macai (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

We need to make it more democratic

I beleive that by putting arguments for and against that we might be influenced by our diffrent peerspectives. I think that we should make a seperate page for the arguments and all the things that are against Communism. By doing this we can makee sure that the facts are the only things that are listed and make sure that people who are against Communism won't have the chanse to corrupt the page and take away facts by attacking Communism. This is not saying I beleive that Communism is right but it might be to tempting for some members (specificly children) to state their opinion. Golden Bookworm (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Won't the normal Wikipedia policies like consensus, WP:NPOV, WP:MoS etc. be sufficient? I don't think communism is that controversial anymore when no state of importance is governed by a communist regime any more, and most former communists have had to rethink once again. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 21:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this typo correction ok?

In "After the collapse of the Soviet Union" the second paragraph lists 4 countries then it said "informerly North Korea" I changed it to "informally", is that what it should be? Stars4change (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverts to the previous version

Months after a rewrite, the article was reverted ([2] and again [3]) to the previous version. It was done without discussion on this pages. Moreover the problems are:

• After the revert, the article is in fact a list of fractions, not an encyclopedic presentation of the thema from a historic and philosophic point of view;
• After the revert, the article in most parts duplicates List of communist ideologies;
• After the revert, the article is clearly not neutral, because it selects only some schools of communism (missing are for example different Reform Communisms of people like Imre Nagy or Ota Šik, which deeply influenced modern history of Central Europe) and the size of chapters is by far not proportional to the real influence of various schools.

Therefore I revert back and expect discussion, not edit wars.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Some points:

• There is no wiki policy against listing the different forms of the ideology.
• The current version focuses more on Marxist-Leninists, state communists and the Soviet Union while others such as Luxenburgism and anarchist communism are mostly ignored.
• It duplicates the History of communism article.

Bobisbob2 (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

My answers:

• "There is no wiki policy against listing" - of course not, but the list already exists and this is the "root" article fot the thema, so readers probably expect an introduction and not a list
• "The current version focuses more on Marxist-Leninists..." - yes, is is because of WP:NPOV policy, specifically WP:DUE: "article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". The Marxist-Leninists/Soviet/Maoist version of communism is historically of key importance, while the others are rather small minorities. The article in "my" version mentions them but does not give them undue weigth.
• "It duplicates the History of communism article." True to some extent, but the same is true about "your" version - none of them contains philosophical or sociological analyzis of communism. The difference is that my version is in my opinion better organized than yours (and of course better than the very poor quality History of communism article).

--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 08:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• This version doesn't gave undue weight to non-Marxist communists.
• It does deal wih the philosophy of communism, if you read the sections.

Bobisbob2 (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. But for example the version gives more space to Council communism than Stalinism. It gives more space to Hoxhaism than Marxism-Leninism. I do not understand WP:NPOV this way. - And it deals with the philosophy of communism in the comparable extent with the rewritten version.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Remove this part.

"Communist regimes have historically been authoritarian, repressive, and coercive governments concerned primarily with preserving their own power."

Communist regimes that are authoritarian and repressive are automatically not to be referred to as communist regimes. This makes this article hypocritical as it explains how Communism tries to replace the current repressive society with a free society, but a few lines beneath describes authoritarian governments as Communist. This is self-contradictory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aribehnisawesome (talk • contribs) 15:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Or at least move it down to the criticism section - since it is, after all, a criticism. The opening paragraph should contain a description of communism, not arguments about whether it's good or bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.133.246 (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It says that communism promotes an egalitarian society, not that it actually accomplishes them. Communism is probably best described as state ownership of all or most property, especially the means of production, since this is what most people are talking about when they use the word. If anything, what communists think communism is about should be lower down in the article, like in the capitalism article. In this article, you find that Karl Marx's idea of communism is mentioned in the first paragraph.

Karl Marx' idea of Communism IS Communism. What people think Communism is has nothing at all to do with what it actually is.

I hope you realize that the meaning of words change as time passes. So, yes, what people think something means is probably the most material way of deciding what it means. Macai (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Making a distinction between what the ideology espouses to be about and what actually happens when you implement it in part or whole is not internally contradictory. To put it simply, saying "communism is an ideology that promotes X" is not the same as saying "communism is a socioeconomic system that accomplishes X".

Communism is the accomplishment, what you are thinking of is Socialism.

The line was clearly inserted to bias the article against Communism and should be removed. Besides, it is meaningless. What does it mean to say that "Communist regimes have been primarily concerned with preserving their own power"? What regime, Communist or capitalist, has not been primarily concerned with preserving its own power? It is a silly, meaningless and extraneous comment and the purpose behind it is perfectly obvious to everyone.Frellthat (talk) 09

18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's also not forget the fact that you completely omitted the possibility that the first sentence is wrong. Maybe communism doesn't promote egalitarianism or a classless state, and therefore the first sentence is wrong. Why the bias in favor of communism, Aribehisawesome? Macai (talk) 06:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Because Marx practically coined the word Communism, and said so himself that a Communist society was a classless society. You can't change the meaning of the word to suit your views of Bolshevism as Communism.

This is a blatant appeal to authority and is fallacious. Just because Karl Marx says something is true doesn't make it so. Karl Marx didn't create the word communism, and even if he did, it wouldn't make him a supreme arbiter as to its meaning forever and ever. Macai (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is on Karl Marx's theory of communism, therefore what he wrote about is clearly going to be of central importance in its definition. If there is some deeper "truth" to communism other than what Marx said, then the onus is on you to explain what that is. There is incidentally a criticism section if you want to list criticisms about communism. Wcp07 (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Karl Marx's idea of communism has its own article. It's called Marxism. Check it out. Macai (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

In any case, that small paragraph looks like stain on an otherwise great article, it simply looks amateurish, incredibly biased and "wedged in". I also doubt it was added with intentions of improving the article.

I see that someone has tried to improve the article by adding "In modern usage, communism is often used to refer to Bolshevism or Marxism-Leninism and the policies of the various communist states who had government ownership of all the means of production and centrally planned economies. Communist regimes have historically been authoritarian, repressive, and coercive governments concerned primarily with preserving their own power."

Replace "Communist regimes" with "Regimes of this kind" and the paragraph will be more correct. Even though I disagree with using "Communist" to describe Bolshevism or Marxist-Leninism, I agree that people today look at the word Communism as this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.166.179 (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's taken from Encarta. A source not you or anybody else seemed to have an issue with until it's used to say something that disagrees with your lord and saviour, Marx.

I fixed the article to contain the important and valid distinction between communism in theory and communism in practice. This is an encyclopedia article, not a Marxist monologue. Macai (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have "unfixed" this change. I fail to see how there is any bias in pointing out that, when people say "X", they generally mean "X1" and "X2" (as opposed to, say, "X3" and "X4"). The way that people define their world is essential to their ability to live in such a world. And it needn't take a rocket scientist (let alone a Marxist) to point out that people's definitions (if potentially stereotyped) of X are reflective of the ways in which X actually has manifested. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And as for Encarta, I'm not saying it is or is not reliable, but it should be as reliable for one statement as it is for another. The passage about communism having manifested in an authoritarian manner is referenced to the same source to which the modern-parlance statement is attributed. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Wcp07 just reminded me of something. The "regimes" that have appeared, while communist in name, might more accurately be described as state-capitalist--which, as you can see, has its own article--in the first place. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The communist bias in the article is in the fact that it's written from a communist perspective. Evidence for this bias is found in the fact that the detractors of my edit don't ask me to cite a verifiable source, and in fact reject a source that's been used for months, perhaps years, to support a claim that appears more favorable to communism. More evidence is found in the fact that the main reason my edits are being rebuked is because it contradicts Marx. Saying that Marx is an end all be all authority on communism (which people have done) since he invented the term and the concept (which he didn't even do), is like saying George Washington is an end all be all authority on the United States since he was the first President. "Oh, George Washington said it? Well, all empirical evidence and sourcing be damned, that statement just became true!!" Macai (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As for saying that the Soviet Union is like state capitalism, you're not supposed to cite Wikipedia as a source. Second of all, the article you cited applies only to Marxists and heterodox economists:

State capitalism, for Marxists and heterodox economists is a way to describe a society wherein the productive forces are owned and run by the state in a capitalist way, even if such a state calls itself socialist.

Since Wikipedia is not a Marxist or a heterodox economist source (or is it?), this attribution of state capitalism is irrelevant. Macai (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And just so you know, the source for the first sentence in that article is "marxists.de". Hardly a neutral source. Just saying. Macai (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Macai, why do you keep removing the sourced statement, "In modern usage, communism is often used to refer to Bolshevism or Marxism-Leninism and the policies of the various communist states who had government ownership of all the means of production and centrally planned economies"? This gives helpful additional information about the varied ways in which the word "communism" is used, and provides context to the discussion of the fact that actually-existing communist regimes were authoritarian, etc.VoluntarySlave (talk) 01:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted Macai's edits as I don't believe there is justification for de-emphasising Marx's role in the understanding of communism. The article has sections on other, non-Marxist forms of communism, which still nevertheless have connections with Marxism. Incidentally, the Encarta reference is a dead link. Can any new source - electronic or physical - be found to replace it? Wcp07 (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The line in question is stupid, what conclusive evidence is there that communist regimes are any more concerned with preserving their own power than capitalist one?. Minority political parties are permitted but they are very unpopular, not unlike the CPUSA. So the line is factually wrong and an obvious example of bias.

VoluntarySlave removing sourced information

Here is a good place to discuss how we will handle the removal of sourced information on the part of VoluntarySlave. What should we do? Macai (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What sourced information did I remove? I maintained the discussion of Communist regimes as repressive, authoritarian, etc. However, I restored sourced information concerning the modern use of the term "communism" to refer to Marxist-Leninist states. Aside from being sourced, this is useful information to include, as it clarifies what is meant by "communist regimes" in the immediately following sentence. You haven't, as far as I can see, provided any justification on the talk page for removing this information.VoluntarySlave (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

My error. You didn't remove it, you just marginalized it. Please accept my apology.

I think the direct reference to Marx should be in a second paragraph because it refers to a specific meaning of communism. Imagine mentioning Ayn Rand in the first paragraph of the capitalism article. Macai (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Related AfD at List of socialist countries

List of socialist countries has been put up for deletion here. You may not be aware that this list exists. Various proposals are being debated including; keep, delete (and merge any useful information into the relevane articles), and rename. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up the lead, and removed Encarta

Encarta's been kaput for a while now, and can't really be cited anymore, since the link is broken. And "marxists.org" isn't really a reliable source for anything, nevermind Communism. We should really be citing more neutral sources (ones that are communist themselves, or something similar to communism, but don't subscribe to ideologies that are anti-communist, either) for articles, especially ones of a political nature such as this one. I did find a link for the Columbia Encyclopedia, though, and I changed the code to reflect that.

However, since sources changed, so did content. The Columbia Encyclopedia doesn't seem to support the claim that communism is an ideology that seeks to create a society which is egalitarian or stateless, just classless.

Maybe getting "egalitarian" and "stateless" back in there isn't such a bad idea, but it's only fair that we find a better source than "marxists.org", guys. Macai (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Christian communism?

While I don't actually contest the Christian communists (mostly Anabaptists) being "communists" in a sense, I think they're the oddball here, since their traditions of thinking, their history etcetera, is entirely separate from all other socialists, communists, anarchists and whatever. Maybe perhaps possibly once upon a time they influenced the rest of the socialists by remote sagas and traditions told by the people, but the influence from the socialists towards the Anabaptists seems to be ignorably small. Unless we claim that Communism is a Christian movement (which is a little too far fetched for my taste), they are more like an analogy to the political Communism. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 21:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Karl Kautsky actually argued the reverse, that Christianity was a communist movement... if you look, though, at the Catholic Encyclopaedia, it does contain a lot of stuff about Christian communism in its communism article, and Engels was influenced by American communistic sects, like the Shakers...--Red Deathy (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, Kautsky said so, and was in a way right, but only in a way. The oddity here is the vast difference in basal belief system, it seems to me (IMHO and such statements of intellectual humility) that the Abrahamite system of life-after-death, God's-judgement, start-of-history + linear-history + end-of-history provide a different action motor for adherents than the Comtian science-instead-of-religion, no-judgement, there's-only-one-life action motor. Now why this reemergence of property communality? And Kautsky and Engels aside: there's no chance in h*ck that the socialists influenced the anabaptist uprising in the 16th century, because the socialists didn't exist, even if that is no trouble since Engels et al. describes "communism" as a natural state of cooperation for humans.

Practically for the article: how should it be authored so that the oddball "Anabaptists/Christian communists" are integrated in a natural way among the "Socialist/Positivist communists"? ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 09:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(Besides: having read Encyclopaedia Catholica on Communism, I feel obligued to express my pleasure over the existence of Wikipedia, in opposition to such an extraordinarily POVvy "encyclopedia". Encyclopedia's s*ckxs, Wikipedia rulezz!) ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 19:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Far Left Wing

I notice there is very little mention of communism's place on the political spectrum as far-left wing, which is the opposite of the article on fascism. Any particular reason for this? 'Left' is mentioned but never explained. Mdw0 (talk) 07:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Communism today lies on quite a different social framework than fascism. While there are a few parties that can adequately be called "fascist," they pale in comparison to the sheer number of legal or illegal communist parties in the world today. Fascist parties are still seen as far-right in present-day media, but some communist parties have changed their programs to the extent where calling them "far-left" would simply be nonsensical (even though communism, as an ideology, rightfully lies on the far-left). I suspect today's reformed communist parties, like the Communist Party of France and the Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova, are less likely to be called far-left due to their shift towards the center, thus breaking ties with original Marxism-Leninism. On the other hand, parties that still largely uphold Marxist doctrine and sponsor paramilitaries, on top of that, are usually called far-left, if I'm not mistaking. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 08:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

partisan language

Will some user with access to this page please take a look at the final sentence in the second paragraph:

"Communist regimes, all inspired only by the Leninist current, have historically been authoritarian, repressive, and coercive governments concerned primarily with preserving their own power."

I have no particular expertise on the subjects of history or of socialism (which is why I first came here; for a quick primer on the differences between marxists, trotskyists, etc.) but I do know enough to recognize unfounded partisan propaganda when I see it. The last editor would have us believe that "all" socialists have been inspired "only" by the leninist current and that, among a number of other horrible traits, that they are "concerned primarily with preserving their own power". Really, sir? All of them?

Will some user please clean this sentence up for objectivity? Or better yet, strike the thing all together? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.175.242 (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that sentence is referring to Communist regimes, that is, states ruled by Communist parties. I think it's probably true that all these Communist parties were Leninists, rather than adherents of other branches of communism. That sentence isn't supposed to suggest that all communists (still less all socialists) are Leninsts, or that they are all authoritarian, repressive, etc. That being said, that paragraph isn't very good - it's not terribly accurate (using the phrase "pure communism," which I don't think has any particular currency), nor is it terribly clear, and it's unreferenced, though I'm fairly sure we did have references for at least part of it at one point. I do think we need some kind of similar paragraph, distinguishing the use of "communism" to name the goal of communists, from the use of "communism" to mean the actual states set up by communists, but I'm having trouble getting the phrasing right.VoluntarySlave (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. It does seem important to distinguish between "communism" and its goals, as a system of thought, and "communism" as political organization or state (especially since some of the more theoretical types would argue that the world has never seen a true communist state)

And you're also right to point out that the sentence I questioned refers to communist regimes and not individual communists. That, however, doesn't make the subjective language any more defensible. For instance, who is judging (and citing sources for) the relative coerciveness of these regimes ("ALL" of them, that is)?

And how, short of reading minds, do we divine that their "primary" concern is with preserving their own power? Even the most pedantic among wouldn't argue that they don't have other well known goals. How do we judge which are "primary"? (for ALL of them)

As for "all" deriving from this Leninist thread, I admit I don't really understand what this means..but isn't Maoism somehow different and isn't that what the East Asian states claim as their ideology?

I just can't really see how the sentence furthers an understanding of the subject. I think it should be re-written with objectivity as a goal.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.73.22 (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Partisan Language

That's a good point. It does seem important to distinguish between "communism" and its goals, as a system of thought, and "communism" as political organization or state (especially since some of the more theoretical types would argue that the world has never seen a true communist state)

And you're also right to point out that the sentence I questioned refers to communist regimes and not individual communists. That, however, doesn't make the subjective language any more defensible. For instance, who is judging (and citing sources for) the relative coerciveness of these regimes ("ALL" of them, that is)?

And how, short of reading minds, do we divine that their "primary" concern is with preserving their own power? Even the most pedantic among wouldn't argue that they don't have other well known goals. How do we judge which are "primary"? (for ALL of them)

As for "all" deriving from this Leninist thread, I admit I don't really understand what this means..but isn't Maoism somehow different and isn't that what the East Asian states claim as their ideology?

I just can't really see how the sentence furthers an understanding of the subject. I think it should be re-written with objectivity as a goal.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.175.242 (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any conclusive evidence that communist regimes are only concerned with promoting their own power any more than capitalist ones, and there are equally many non-communist regimes that are more repressive, but unsurprisingly the capitalism article's opening paragraph says nothing about repression —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.91.117 (talk) 07:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Incremental vs. Actually Existing Communism

Moved and retitled thread (which I originally created). 72.228.150.44 (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Per User:Radeksz: 'this article is still POV as long as it doesn't discuss "actually existing communism" in lede'. If this refers to states, is counterfactual since the last ¶ of lede does address both former Communist and current "communist states". If it refers to communism as an ideal is also counterfactual since the first sentence of the lede explicitly addresses the distinction. Also the tag was placed without creating a/this thread for the discussion it implies. Non-state communism is addressed in various articles related to socialism which is prominently linked early in the lede. For these reasons have removed the tag. Please state your specific POV complaints here. Lycurgus (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wish I didn't have to but pointing out here that if communism implies statelessness then obviously no state could actually be communist. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - but this isn't an argument for not including certain atrocities committed under the banner of Communism. Naturally it is not possible for the entire world to turn communist over night and it can only happen step by step, country by country. And besides global domination is exactly what those regimes tried to obtain. --Hoerth (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No that's false. The refutation of Socialism in one country is also the refutation of the step by step approach you mention. As I've commented elsewhere, this is also related to the matter of different levels of development in different countries at the time of the introduction of socialism, the matter of whether or not all of the historical stages of modes of production need to be taken in order, withering away of the state, etc. It would be more correct to criticize Communism in one country. Various socialisms may be introduced in a piecemeal fashion and that may be a necessary step to communism which apparently doesn't work between planetary and small group scale. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

On the other point, if it wasn't clear, it's presumed the said atrocities, which certainly should be included, are due to the noted failures of understanding. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Changed to title to reflect original better. Wrt the subject, Incremental Socialism otoh, the universal current state form (whatever ideology is being claimed) is the answer to why socialism hasn't overturned capitalism. The actual objective process is the socialization of production and this has continued, until now at least, to find its path of greatest advancement in the actually capitalist states. Anything more on this will be in my draft space in Knowledge and Class: A Marxian Critique of Political Economy. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hammer and Sickle

Why is the Hammer and Sickle the symbol for the Communism sidebar? USSR adopted it as a flag in 1923. It was a recent symbol first used around the 1917 revolution from what I can find. The are 70 years between The Communist Manifesto and the 1917 Russian Revolution. Furthermore, USSR had fewer people than China which called itself "communist" and didn't use that symbol (China used a Red Star). Hammer and Sickle is specific to the Russian Revolution and USSR, it was also used in the 3rd world by countries trying to emulate USSR. But USSR is now long dead and communists are still here like they were before USSR. Communism is should be described as a set of ideas appearing in many different forms, with USSR being its most visible namesake.

Communist currents like left communists, council communists, autonomists, anarchist-communists and others who are anti-Leninist and very anti-USSR (which they said was state-capitalist) did not and do not use the Hammer and Sickle for themselves. I believe that these communists had way more connections to the original communist movement than the leaders of USSR. For example, Hungarian workers on strike in 1956 started forming "soviets" (or councils) in the so called "Soviet Union". These were very communist organizations in the broad sense: by forming "soviets" workers were taking control over the factories, deciding what to do in common and refusing managers' authority. These "soviets" (councils or assemblies) were seen as a great threat by the leaders of USSR. Many workers were killed by USSR to suppress "soviets" and other rebellion. You could say it was "communists" fighting "communists", but saying that would obscure everything important about what happened. So I think it makes no sense to identify "Communism" as a movement of many diverse currents (many of which were anti-USSR and anti-state in general) with USSR and the Hammer and Sickle. I propose using a Red Star instead. This was a symbol used by all kinds of people calling themselves "Communist" and being more general it better represents the general dispersal of communist ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.71.141.235 (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

See also: Hammer and sickle --OpenFuture (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The hammer and sickle (and variants such as the cog and machete in the current flag of Angola) symbolize the union of the peasantry and the proletarians and the overthrow of the ruling classes. Seen in this way, i.e. as the symbol of the union of the so-called working classes but with imagery which can vary with locale and time, it is of enduring value. This is appropriate as long as the traditional systems of class are in place since it is the valuation of different kinds of work, say an OR nurse. school teacher, etc. vs. say a lawyer, middle manager, or stock trader and of course the completely parasitic classes that live off capital and the resultant valuation of the associated human beings concretized in these value relations that is at issue. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure why is that a reason to use the Hammer and Sickle for communism though. Is it because Communism is most precisely defined as unity of proletariat and the peasants? This is untrue - neither Marx, nor many other communist thinkers considered peasants to be revolutionary agents of communism - in fact they claimed communism could not develop first where proletariat was not a major class (Tsarist Russia for example). Communism more precisely should be defined as ideas in favor of ending private property, value/exchange, wage labor, competitive separation between enterprises, money and ending existence all classes (including peasants, workers and ruling classes) - abolition (and self-abolition) of all classes, not overthrow of ruling classes. According to communist thinking workers have the special role in this because they are most profoundly a part of capital themselves - much more than peasants. Workers were the base and origin of communist ideas when they first were formed. Bolsheviks added peasants to their idea of communism (contradicting communist/marxist theory) because Russia was mostly a peasant country. Finally, I don't mean to be blunt, but anyone who supports communist ideas can not support USSR (their leaders being a different kind of ruling class, where wage labor was not different from the capitalist countries) and would not identify themselves with the most famous symbol of USSR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.71.141.235 (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

How communist thw USSR was is a matter for debate, but there is no doubt that during the majority of the existence of USSR the vast majority of communists in the world supported and was supported by the USSR. That the hammer and sickle thus would become a widespread communist symbol isn't very surprising. --OpenFuture (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the debate I'm taking part in. I'm saying that USSR was not communist in any sense. In USSR, workers worked for a wage so labor was bought and sold as a commodity. The very idea of communism is that works stops being a commodity. The slogan that says "from each according to ability, to each according to need" says that there is no more measuring of value and work - no more exchanging them on the market. I am not arguing if communism is possible, I just pointing out that what is called "communism" did not exist in any form in USSR. The closest USSR can claim to being communist is ending private property. But private property in USSR just became state property which was controlled by a different ruling class. One class controlled the property (bureaucrats), while another class worked for them (workers). That is not communism. So communist should not be identified with USSR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.71.141.235 (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"Any" sense is an overreach. In the sense that they claimed to be plus the additional senses you list, they were. The matter of fact of "communist state" being an oxymoron at some point becomes pedantic. It would be less so if the largest and most successful "communist state" ever were not so far down the capitalist road at this critical juncture. Perhaps this latter condition will lead to a greater appreciation of the matter of principle (currently considered pedantic). 72.228.150.44 (talk) 07:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, 99.71.141.235, as I told you on your talk page, that's up for debate, but the place to debate it is not here. Wikipedia is not a political debating forum. If you want to discuss it, you can mail me or suggest a political debating forum or similar, but I don't agree with you and would be happy to explain to you why. But that's not the topic here, so I won't do it here. The topic here was why the hammer and sickle was used in this article, and the answer is, "Because it was a popular symbol for communism". --OpenFuture (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

As a member of the ISO (International Socialist Organization) I agree with the removal of the hammer & sickle, as it does represent only one political state it seems to attribute communism only to Russia, never mind the rest of the communist world, it is roughly tantamount to using the stars and stripes in the sidebar of capitalism, or the union jack in the sidebar for empire. However, in the spirit of resistance that prevails in communism, and the fact that the majority of communist movements through out the globe have at point in time or another used it as a symbol for their movement, I recommend changing the sidebar to the clenched fist. (71.201.113.143 (talk) 06:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

In fact,the wikipedia article about the raised fist links the image to leftist movements. I'd change it myself, but I have no idea how. (71.201.113.143 (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

It is not just a symbol of one country. See Hammer and sickle. Also relevant is [4] --OpenFuture (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And if there were anything on the google search, would that be a valid reference? I don't think so at all. The hammer and sickle (embodied on a red star? That is almost never used except for pins!) is much posterior to Karl Marx original formulations (which are the basis for communism as described in this article). And many communists and communist movements do not feel identified with it at all. Some of them even downright reject it. That should change. I propose a left clenched fist outlined in red in front of a red star. Something similar to this: [5] , is far more universal for communists worldwide. --190.174.64.243 (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious from the references I gave above that your statement that the hammer and sickle is almost never used is completely false. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You are distorting my words. The hammer and sickle is very popular, I don't doubt it (specially from capitalist and conservative sources nowadays, and as an insult, used in most absurd forms as to accuse Obama...) but the variant of the hammer and sickle over a red star was almost exclusively used in medals and pins, not as a primary ensign. And never in those proportions, except for the URSS military insignias (which represent military achievements, not even communist activism... awarded for things like the number of nazi kills in the WWII), and they are neither universally recognized nor representative of communist ideology (even for those who created them). Incidentally, the war for whch they were awarded was called in Russia the "Great Patriotic War", linking it with "defending the motherland". The Hammer and Sickle in those insignias is no more communist than eagles are "capitalist eagles" in USA medals and such. Their are referencing their country. --190.174.64.243 (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

So you want a hammer and sickle on a red square instead, or what? Won't that remind people even more of a USSR flag? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. At least it would me more accurate than to reference a seemingly unrelated war insignia that was not used outside the URSS, while the flag with the hammer and sickle was used worldwide. Still not the bets insignia but definitely would be more representative than the current one... --190.174.64.243 (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it highly unlikely that anyone will make that association. The five-point star is generally associated wit socialism, and the hammer and sickle with communism. That the combination somehow makes you think about certain obscure war insignia is hardly a cause for any major concern. But if you want to change it, bring it up at Template_talk:Communism_sidebar. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hardly is that an "obscure" insignia. Look at here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders,_decorations,_and_medals_of_the_Soviet_Union . And that particular design is the only one corrently publicly displayed regularly in Russia, even by the current capitalist government, because in symbolized specifically the victory against nazi germany in WWII. I doubt that "combination" has been chosen incidentally, as it is the one that mostly remembers specifically the Soviet Union, for it's use in current Russia. Plain red background, yellow hammer and sickle would better symbolize Communism, if still soviet-slanted.--190.174.64.243 (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"Capitalism and Democracy" clearly bias

In the "fear of communism" section its is sains that:

(characterized in the West as "The Free World" vs. "Behind the Iron Curtain"); supported the spread of their economic and political systems (capitalism and democracy vs. communism

Firstly it does not represent a worldwide view of the subject, and secondly it is clearly biased and false. USA and other occidental capiotalist powers did not care about "democracy" while fighting communism, and endeavored multiple anti-communist paramilitary outlaaw organizations worldwide, besides of patronizing neoliberal dictatorships aligned with capitalism such as in Latin America with the Condor plan, Viet-nam, the Sha in Iran, Operation Gladio in western europe, and a never-ending list of Etc. Capitalism does not mean and is neither entangled with democracy, as one is a purely economical system and the other (understanded in the representative "western" sense) a political form of goverment, and both are unrelated to each other.

Furthermore, it is never stated by the article by whom the communism was feared, as societies are not homogenous as the wording seems to support in:

With the exception of the Soviet Union's, China's and the Italian resistance movement's great contribution in World War II, communism was seen as a rival, and a threat to western democracies and capitalism for most of the twentieth century.

The fear of communism in the U.S. spurred aggressive investigations

A "country" cannot fear anything because a country is only a socially constructed identity, which doesn't materially exist; instead, there in a heterogeneous and highly disparaged and/or internally polarized array of individuals (and organizations); take for example there were actually communists in the united states, and USSR sympathizers were fairly numerous, outspoken and militant in the first year after the Red October, before communism was massively bashed, ostracized and vilified by the mainstream media and dominant culture. Either way and leaving out any shred of controversy it may be held by anti-communists, one thing is for certain: the statement about democracy and capitalism must be removed because it not only shows undoubtable bias, but also is empirically and historically incorrect. , And the entire article should be revised for other content like that (for example the other issues I just signaled). Farewell and let's improve wikipedia for it to be objective, and neutral, and fidelign to reality. --NimoStar (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, a country can not fear anything, just like a country can't care about anything, yet you claim that USA did not care about democracy. ;)

What they cared bout only the persons in question knows for sure. The fact is that one system was socialist and totalitarian, and the other capitalist and democratic. I don't know if that's a "worldwide" view, but it's the facts, so it should be.

Communism was feared by all democrats, but it's true that this is hard to get into the article. Do you have a better reformulation? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

All that you say is not true. With USA i men the government, for sure. And the USA is not even truly democratic: It is a bipartidist regime with only a indirect voting system (and a very unnecesaryly complicated at that), and both parties which ever held power have and always have capitalist and nationalist nature (just see their colours... all is the "american flag"). USSR system was in many ways, and specially at it's beginning, more democratic: Having soviets of base local power which would dominate politics from down-upwards. Many socialistic countries had similar structures. That communism is feared by all democrats is also a lie: There are base-democracy anarchist-communist movements, Democratic Communists (The bolsheviks themselves evolved from the "Democratic Socialism" party, and many other examples). Ideal communism has full democracy and all civic freedoms, unhindered by the money, market bias, police, army, and state and government themselves (as in some small communities) but in world scale. That democracy is capitalism is not a fact, it is the opposite of fact: a biased opinion that should have no place in wikipedia. Many capitalist countries have been ruled by totalitarian dictators, many of them US-backed (I should know, I live at one with such history) that killed tens of thousands for holding opposite views. Latin America (Nicaragua, Chile, Cuba, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, etc., etc. etc.), South Vietnam, and an unending number of others are clear proofs that "capitalism and democracy" is HEAVY POV and must be removed. It is not a matter of opinion. It is a metter of historical reality. Neutral formulation would be "One supporting market capitalism and the other communist (marxist-leninist) ideas", or equivalent phrasing. --190.174.64.243 (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You can always find flaws in everything, but that's no reason to claim that USA is not democratic. Claiming that USSR was more democratic is unreal. Communism is in this context the same thing as Marxism, which is by it's nature anti-democratic, as it wasn't a dictatorship of the proletariat. If you want these things explained to you, I can do that, but Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, so we have to do that somewhere else. We can do it on a discussion forum or via email of you want. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Marxism is not anti-democratic by definition or anything like such. And I just gave you reasons for the USA is not really democratic (not even mentioning Patriot Acts and such bills, CIA; or anything like that for that matter, even as they are extremely relevant), so saying that "there are no reaons" is somewhat of pretending one hasen't heard. I can show you what the most prominent communists thought of democracy:

"Communism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen." -Leon Trotsky

"The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic." -Vladimir Lenin

"Democracy is the road to socialism." -Karl Marx

Now well... they diferentiete from burgueois demorcracy, which is for them a corrupt system when people only get an espurious vote every a fixated number of years and they can basically only use it to vote for rich persons that already embody the system and perpetuate it. For them that is not real democracy. They say democracy lies on base organizations like city councils of dinamic nature when workers appoint their own comrades, (their equals, not teir bosses as a politician) to discuss and solve problems. Now, it is true that it is a theory and in practice this system evolved many times to corrumption, but, is it not the same in the capitalists democracies where intelligence agencies with nothing of democratic can act independently at the backs of the parlamient and even presidents, like the CIA has even recognized to have done?

Now, the pint is being missed. What is still clear is that democracy is not a sysnonim nor it is tied to capitalism. Communists have been elected in parlamentary democracy systems, such as Salvador Allende (which was later destitued by a military us-backed neoliberal capitalist coup d' etat). There have been as many capitalist dictatorships as "communist" ones in developing countries. That alone is more than proff enough to dismiss the phrase as it is. Isn't that pure fact indeed? --190.174.64.243 (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. If you want to discuss the issues, we need to do that somewhere else. You can suggest a forum or leave your email on my talk page or something. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I wish not to discuss the issuess. I wish to lay the ground work to the neutrality point of view that democracy is not capitalism; and that the "western world" did promote capitalism, but not necessarily democracy during the cold war, something I have foundamented with the only pourpose to improve the article, which has a statement that as aforementioned does not correspond with huge parts of reality. To achieve a more neutral statement, and as such a better wikipedia according to it's guidelines, the "capitalism and democracy" as opposed to Communism is empirically and neutrally a false statement, and therefore it has no place on a non-pov online encyclopedia. --190.174.64.243 (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody claimed capitalism is democracy. Nobody claimed the western world promoted democracy. The article states that it was capitalism and democracy vs communism. This is correct. As a result you try to make various arguments about the US and Marxism, etc, etc, but those are not relevant to the article. If you want to discuss them, we have to do that somewhere else.

Another way of formulating the statement would be "capitalism and democracy vs socialism and dictatorship". Do you prefer that? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You are one big POV warrior eh? Why not putting "Captalism vs. Communism and Democracy"? That would be about that correct, and about that false. Communist countries saw themselves as democratic, and this was even in their names. A "popular democracy" they called it, as opposed to a "bourgeois democracy". And the statement in the article it says:

polarized most of the world into two camps of nations (characterized in the West as "The Free World" vs. "Behind the Iron Curtain"); supported the spread of their economic and political systems (capitalism and democracy vs. communism)

It is thus said, contrary to what you just tried to obscure, that "The West" wanted to spread "Capitalism and Democracy", which simply is not true, and reality proves that itself with the many capitalist dictatorships they got to power and supported. Simply supress the words "and democracy" and you get an adamantly neutral, real, verifiable, almost unquestionable statement in that respect. Which is very different than what we have now. (and I'm not even arguing about the "free world" part, so consider that a concession).--190.174.64.243 (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it would not be correct to put "Captalism vs. Communism and Democracy". That we be an obvious and blatant lie. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Not more of a blatant lie than the current one. I said it was just as correct and just as false as the one we have now. However, that is not the point. The point is that the actual is blatantly biased, and should be corrected. The most simple way of doing it is removing the two words "and democracy" (that do no stick to history and observable facts, just see Operation Condor, Operation Gladio and many others) and leaving a neutral statement with no pov. --190.174.64.243 (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the article is not blatantly biased, you are. The article is sticking to historical and observable facts. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not biased. I am not even marxist. Saying that western powers promoted democracy in opposition to communism is completely historycally incorrect! In my country, tens of thousand were kidnapped, tortured, and killed by a US-backed dictatorship. My mother's cousin was even one of them and she was just a teeneger working in charity! And I know many others who have relatives... if that is not reality, then, what is? Operation Condor and Gladio are real, promoted and carried by capitalists from the government of the United States and others in Western Europe. How can you even claim they promoted "democracy"? Military dictatorships that dissolved the congress, banned political parties, disregarded the constitution, and broke every thinkable human right are "democracies"? The statement must be removed. It is unquestionably false, and many not only outside sources but also wikipedia articles such as the ones I cited show it clearly. --190.174.64.243 (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Saying that western powers promoted democracy in opposition to communism is completely historycally incorrect! - For the second time: That is not what the article says.

How can you even claim they promoted "democracy"? - I have not claimed that.

Stop fighting windmills. This is not a forum. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You have! The article does and you are defending it. Stop "defending windmills" ;) . Do I have to cite it again???

polarized most of the world into two camps of nations (characterized in the West as "The Free World" vs. "Behind the Iron Curtain"); supported the spread of their economic and political systems (capitalism and democracy vs. communism)

There, you see? More clear (and more unthuthful) almost impossible. And it needs to be changed, because it is not true. Period.--190.174.64.243 (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Now we are getting into discussions about semantics, which seems highly pointless, considering that the problem here right now mostly are your refusal to accept that this is not a discussion forum. I have multiple times offered to take this discussion otherwise, but you refuse. Your argument for the article being POV is based on ignorance of the facts and history of communism, and that you have been a victim of the evil foreign policy of the USA: But this is *not* the place to discuss that. Please try to understand that Wikipedia is not a forum. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure! ... NOT! The article is fake. I have studied more history of communism and capitalism than you probably. Why is it that I have arguments, and linked pages which prove my point, and all you can do is accusing me of "using this as a Forum" whwn i am discussing WHAT THE ARTICLE SAYS and how this is untruthfull and heavily biased. The statement is not about communism: The statement is about capitalism and how the countries run by it promoted "democracy" in the cold war, which is no more than a simple, blatant lie disproved by facts and not lousy accusations about forums and lack of assumption of good will. The part about the promotion of democracy has to be deleted because it is fake, and that is proven by the real history of tens of countries and millions of persons around the globe. If you refuse to see that, or want to obscure it and misdirect the point, it is not my issue, but yours. Wikipedia is not supposed to be run by "american interests" but by it's guidelines about neutrality and sticking to the facts. And what is written there is not a fact: it's propaganda. --190.174.64.243 (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's fact. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, then I guess all the dictatorships of the Condor Plan, the one in South Vietnam, the Sha, the military junta in my country, Pinochet, and all those hundreds of thousands killed by capitalist US-backed dictatorship must have been some sort of worldwide collective illusion. Thank you, Uncle Sam for enlightening us... now, back to the real life, where all of that is false and the coups d' etat and western-financed paramilitaries and dictators are reality. --190.174.64.243 (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No, they are also facts. But they do not contradict the first fact. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

OpenFutureæ¨ you are incorrect, the IP adresse is right. --TIAYN (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. And how it is that promoting dictatorships many times in otherwise democratic countries does not oppose the "spread of democracy"? It is a total paradox. --190.174.64.243 (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've offered to explain the issues to you, but you have declined. There is therefore nothing I can do. You will have to continue to wonder. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Typos / Copyedits

Incorrect pluralization, 4th paragraph.

Currently reads: "as well as others forms of communism". Should read: "as well as other forms of communism".

Also, 2nd paragraph would be improved for grammar/sentence structure/clarity from current: "In modern usage, communism is often used to refer to the policies of the various communist states which were authoritarian governments that had ownership of all the means of production and centrally planned economies."

to: "In modern usage, communism is often used to refer to the policies of the various communist states which were authoritarian governments that had centrally planned economies and ownership of all the means of production."

Otherwise 'ownership' is erroneously associated with both 'centrally planned governments' and 'the means of production' instead of more precisely just 'the means of production.

Parame (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good and uncontroversial to me, I think you should go ahead and just make these changes. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I did it now. :) --OpenFuture (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Entry on Eurocommunism

The subject of Western European communist parties is hastily summed up in one paragraph. In my reading I have found that the Italian Communist Party (PCI) was a staunch supporter of Stalinist policies until Stalin's death, at which point party leader Togliatti denounced soviet policy and began laying out another vision for communist solidarity based on European fraternity. And so the sentence "These parties did not support the Soviet Union and denounced its policies" is not appropriate in discussing the PCI.

Sure, but that sentence clearly notices that Eurocommunism in from 1970 and onwards, hence long after Stalins death.

So perhaps necessary to include some background on European communist parties with a longer history than 1970? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkatz (talk • contribs) 16:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I added a note, but the section is a bit terse and not very good. I think a rewrite would be good. The main article also needs references badly. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Socialist stage

I reverted a changing claiming there is no Socialist stage in Marxism, but there clearly is. It can be debated if Marx himself thought so or if it's Engels idea, but Marxism encompasses both persons ideas, as they are often inseparable. See Socialism_(Marxism). "This article is about socialism as a historical evolutionary stage of development in Marxist theory." Also the change claimed theres no political sphere in Marxism, but that's irrelevant, as there is a political sphere in the real world. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by "socialist stage." I assume you mean a "workers state" which was never referred to as socialism by Marx or Engels because both understood socialism to mean the same thing as communism. In fact, this is pointed out in this very same article, because this discussion has been had before and it was agreed that the distinction originates in Lenin and can not be equated with Marx. I suggest you look at previous discussions. Zd12 (talk) 09:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The nomenclature of "socialist stage" is common and generally accepted in Marxist ideology. It's usually seen as being the same as the dictatorship of the proletariat, a clearly Marxist concept originating with Marx and Engels, and not Lenin. That it in practice is the same as the Leninist workers state doesn't change it's purely Marxist origins. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and because of this you get errors like in the socialism article where socialism itself is identified with a state, and all of a sudden Marx's socialism has become statism. You are replacing my citations of Marx with secondary sources on an article about Marx's theories and saying I am the one vandalizing?!Zd12 (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Is other peoples mistakes a reason to introduce an error here? And there are no change in the sources. You are vandalizing as you refuse to follow Wikipedia policies. We resolve the dispute and build consensus. You however, are edit warring. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

My reverts are edit warring and yours are what, exactly? I removed secondary sources and replaced them with a primary source, Marx's Critique of the Gotha Program. You undid my edit and replaced the sources with secondary sources. I didn't "introduce an error." Zd12 (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I revert your breaking of the rules. For the second time: There is no changes in the sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The wikipedia policy in this case is called "Bold/Revert/Discuss". You did a "bold" change. That's correct behaviour. I did not agree, so I reverted it, and started this discussion. That's also correct behaviour. You don't want to discuss but start re-introducing the change and ignoring the discussion. That's against Wikipedia policy. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

European Communism Ended because of...

The declination of European communism began in the 70s actually. It ended in Austria's fear for expansion. In order for Communism to thrive, it needed to expand and no way were they able to expand into Austria. Austrian economy wouldn't allow it. They began war with Russia and Germany in their history. They created Prussia. The Austrians hate Communism because they love civilization and art. I know this for a fact because I am half Austrian. It wasnt the Hungarian Revolution after all, it was Austria. The bohemians or what many call the remaining romanos are in austria. Expansion requires succession and they were complete protectionists. Communism should expand like conquering territory in world war I, except world war I was non-partisan (the fault of Communism). Territory can't be conquered without war or succession. Strikes in Austria began in the 1950s immediately when the cold war started. The party totally ignored the Hungarian Revolution. Key factures to expansion is to capture the peoples heart and Kruschev was an idiot at doing that. Italia's idea of Eurocommunism totally failed here (the austrian party went into decline before the revolution, and even moreso after from 350,000 to a few thousand by 1970). Basically they never fixed the problem in infiltrating the key western democratic systems such as control of its presidency in the early 1950s. So is there a way to add anything about the failure of communist expansion in Europe? --64.9.237.86 (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Berkman should be included

The article should have more information about the anarchist school of communism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.23.242 (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The USSR

Their Marxist-Leninist beliefs typify socialist communism! They also used 'Socialist' in their national name!--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The philosophical off shoot known as Trotskyism owes part of it's beliefs to Anarchism, so should Trotsky be considered a Anarchist as well as a communist?--86.29.140.149 (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Stalinism was the "theory and practice of communism" practiced by Joseph Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union from 1928–1953. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, "Stalinism is associated with a regime of terror and totalitarian rule." Stalinism was reliant on Gulag labour and Maoism diverged of from Stalinism, not Marxism-Leninist in the late 1940's. --P. E. Sonastal (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Cuba

Their Marxist-Leninist-Castroist beliefs also typify socialist communism! They also used 'Socialist' in their national name! most Communist states followed the Soviet Union's variant.-- --86.29.140.96 (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Red China

It was originally a Maoist state, but the PRC ditched this deviant form of communism for Marxism-Leninism, despite using the term "people‘s republic" in there national name! The term was also used by Mongolia, East Germany, The Congo-Brazzaville and Vietnam at various points in their socialist eras.--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Clement Attlee

Clem, as he was known at the time, was a socialist, but not a communist. He created the British NHS system. Labour used to sing the Red Flag song and wave there red flags back then with pride and joy as the party AGM closed in Blackpool every year!--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Nepal

Nepal elected a Maoist government in 1996, which was removed in 1997 by the king, and has had one since 2008, which exiled the king. --86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

What the...? There may have been elections in 1996, though I don't remember them and I certainly don´t remember a Maoist victory or them forming a government. 1996 was the year they launched the "People's War", however. Also, there was a brief time during which the Maoists were in power after the king voluntarily abdicated. They won the 2008 election but lost power in 2009 when a new coalition government was formed - excluding them. Also, if "the king" did something in 1996 that would be a different king than the one who abdicated in 2006. You know, after that guy went batshit with a machine gun back in 2001 and wiped out part of the royal family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.167.158.252 (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The IRA

I believe the IRA claimed to be a ‘Socialist’ movement in the late 1970’s!--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The ANC

I believe the ANC claimed to be a ‘Socialist’ movement in the 1960's and 1970’s.--86.29.130.210 (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Tony Blair and Gerhard Schroeder

Both Tony Blair and Gerhard Schroeder have both described them selves and their parties as reformed socialists from time to time in the early 2000’s.--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Algeria, Libya, Iraq and Syria

Algeria, Libya, Iraq and Syria been accused of being Islamic Socialist states in the late 1970’s and most of the 1980's by various Western sources, such as the CIA, MI5 and Mossad!--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Sweden

Sweden has been a Nordic Socialist state since the 1970's, yet it's all about a no smack policy in it's schools, environmentalism and good public transport, not nationalization or foaming at the mouth Bolsheviks as some British and American radicals have claimed in recent years!--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

India

The Indian Constitution says that India is Secular Socialist and Hindu Socialist.--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Animal Farm investigated

Both socialism and communism were put under the spotlight by George Orwell's book Animal Farm and the later 1954 cartoon film. Boxer the horse was a socialist worker, if not a full blown Commy, while Napoleon the pig was a corrupt datcha communist that would have felt at home during Leonid Breznev's later years as Soviet premier.--86.29.130.210 (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Benjamin the donkey had socialist tenancies and was probably a social democrat, but definitely not a Red. Snowball the pig had ideas similar to Trotsky's idea of Permanent Revolution and was probably a full blown communist and not a socialist. Their idealistic little ditty Beasts of England was a freedom song that had no political colours to it, but the ideology of Animalism was a piss take on the failure of both communism, socialism and lefties in general! --86.29.141.168 (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

George Orwell

George Orwell, a democratic socialist and a member of the Independent Labour Party for many years, was a critic of Joseph Stalin and was suspicious of Moscow-directed Stalinism after his experiences with the NKVD during the Spanish Civil War.--86.29.130.210 (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Christianity and Judaism

Both Christian values and Rabbinical Jewish values are also morally leaning towards socialism to.--86.29.130.210 (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we know, BTW also for Sikhism and others, but that is for Socialism. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The SLP and SDP

The UK's Socialist Labour Party is an example of a socialist communist party. Germany's Social Democratic Party is an example of reformed socialist party.--86.29.130.210 (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Lark Rise to Candleford investigated

Both Lark Rise to Candleford and the modern Lark Rise to Candleford (TV series) mentions situations and ideas that can be considered to be relevant to socialism in late Victorian rural England.

• 1 Episode- The young country girl Laura Timmins leaves her friends and family in the hamlet of Lark Rise to start her first job at the post office in nearby town Candleford. Postmistress Dorcas Lane gives Laura a warm welcome but other residents of Candleford aren't so generous. When Lark Rise residents challenge the post office's 'eight mile rule' that forces them to pay for delivery of telegrams, Laura finds herself torn between communities.

• Episode 6- Robert takes pity on a homeless family and brings them to stay at his house for the night. In the morning the family have departed, leaving their little daughter Polly behind. Lady Adelaide meets the girl and falls in love with her, wanting to adopt her, but Sir Tim thinks that adopting Polly would be inappropriate. Tim takes Polly to the Post Office where everyone struggles to think of a solution to the problem. Twister's delusions grow worse as he sees visions of his dead sister, and Queenie worries about his health.

• Episode 31- When the Lark Rise school loses its teacher, Emma steps in and discovers a talent she never knew she had. But Margaret also covets the role of teacher, and the two women become rivals for the job. Over in Candleford, Thomas and Dorcas are at odds. The postman is agitating for better working conditions, and Dorcas isn't taking it well.

• Episode 34- When the postmaster at Inglestone, with an old score to settle, tries to force Dorcas into selling up, she is faced with the heartbreaking prospect of losing her home and denying Sydney his dream of running the post office one day. --86.29.141.168 (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Like this gem I found on a socialist related page!--86.29.135.94 (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

What are Communisum and Socialism?

This should define the difference between Communism and Socialism.--86.29.135.94 (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no clearcut difference. Up until the October Revolution the words were pretty much synonyms. After that communists usually argued for a violent revolution and socialists not. After the fall of the Soviet Union both words are loosing their meaning, and seems to mean less and less. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

What OpenFuture? The difference is pretty clear, even the proponents of Communism state it themselves. Capitalism is the now, and industrialization shows the transformative ability of individuals to act on material things. Their ultimate goal is Communism, a state (not as in a nation-state or political entity) where every individual owns their means of production (to make things to provide for themselves and society), and there's an entire philosophical component to why this is important to communists that can't be summed up in a single sentence. In this state, people can't own other people's means of production and according to their logic, can't exploit them economically or socially (e.g., wage slavery, company scrip, etc.). Companies, if they wanted to exist as such, would be democratic entities. The society would be classless. But society can't get to this state overnight so communists accept an intermediate period of socialism. They would retain currency, capitalist structures of supply and demand, etc, but alleviate the byproducts of capitalism (social dischord, necessary social stratification based on wealth and class status, market dysfunctions) with political intervention. Under socialism, national democratic governments (ideally, under Communism, the necessity of central government would cease to exist once everyone owns their means to production) would still exist during the transformation of a capitalist society to a communist one.Abadgaem (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You are using the word socialism in a very specific meaning used by some Marxists, in practice equating socialism with the dictatorship of the proletariat. That definition is in no way generally accepted, and in fact is completely different from both common, original and current usage. so not "even proponents of communism". *Only* proponents of communism use that definition, and not even a majority of them do it. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Socialism/Archive_11 has a discussion of the definition of socialism and mode of production has a definition of the ideal of communism, the failure of the realization of which is generally well known if not well understood. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

But User:86.29.135.94 is right. There is some difference between Communism and Socialism. Communism is either regarded as a stronger or more advanced version of Socialism, or in some traditions (the modern Socialdemocratic one) a failed/heretical version of Socialism. While Socialism regards humans as fundamentally equal, Communism stresses the equal share in provisions and the adapted-equal share in working effort. Now both the words 'Communism' and 'Socialism' are jumbles of diverse meanings confusing any discussion of the concepts. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

86.29.135.94

All or most of the threads above appear to be the result of this user airing its trite opinions as if this page were their personal blog. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

He has made two comments. Just like you. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The user does have more than IP but it's clear it's the same person and they are only different in the subnet address and the first seven are identical.But what fucking ever. Mine are similar tor Lycurgus or 72.228.177.92 (talk) have gone around with you before and this time you can talk to the hand.

If you think the hand is likely to make constructive comments and contributaions, I'd be glad to. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Also the same blithering stuff was posted to Talk:Socialism. "Lark rise to Candleford", sheesh! 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Battlecry's changes.

I undid user:Battlecrys changes as his quote doesn't exist in the source he has given, and he also misinterprets it. This is why it's Wikipedia policy to not interpret and draw conclusions from sources, that would be WP:OR. The quote (which is actually from Engels "Scientific Socialism") talks about the superabundance of work under capitalism. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

cf. Scientific Socialism 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)