Talk:Communism/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Addition of material to lede, etc

Could you please explain what was wrong with my edits on the Communism page? Didn't Communist regimes end up becoming Totalitarian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro8790 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Pedro, the stuff you added to the lede (beginning of article) is not a significant part of the article body so definitely does not belong in the lede; in fact it's not mentioned at all. Even if it was, it still doesn't belong in the lede per WP:Weight. Regarding its addition in general, you just stuck it in the middle of sourced material without it actually being sourced; for that have a look at WP:Citing sources. You appear to be focused on the idea of Totalitarianism and Communism for some reason, so as I've mentioned to you before (in the talk page section above), the best place to dive into that would be the Communist state article, which is the main place to find info on communist regimes; also have a look at Criticism of communist party rule, and the One-party state. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I already added it, but just for curiosity, why can't Communism be considered an Authoritarian and Totalitarian ideology? Isn't the fact that every single Communist regime was a Totalitarian dictatorship rather hard to ignore? Couldn't this mean that Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism are the only way to implement Communism? Also, didn't Marx and Engels advocate revolutionary terror? Wasn't this the basis for which Communist regimes used to persecute their opponents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro8790 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You just answered your own question; Communist regime as you phrased it is synonymous with Communist state, not the concept of Communism itself. As I told you in the preceding section, the concept of Communism existed long before Marx and has nothing to do with Authoritarianism or Totalitarianism. "Couldn't this mean that Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism are the only way to implement Communism?" - what you're doing with this question is called Original Research (WP:OR); you're theorizing, and in this case committing a logical fallacy; you have no way to determine if all possibilities (in regards to the implementation of Communism) have been exhausted, but it doesn't matter because what Communism is is separate from how one goes about trying to implement it. And Wikipedia aims for specificity, which is why I suggested you have a look at the articles I listed in my first comment. I have nothing more to add here. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

So let's just go by the argument that the article is about the concept of Communism (even though the current ideology was heavily influenced by Marx and the sidebar uses the symbol of "Marxist Communism"), would it be justified then to consider Marxism or Marxism-Leninism as Authoritarian and Totalitarian? -- Pedro8790 (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

We don't "justify", we source. In this case, from political scientists. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Should the Sickle & Hammer image be removed from this article?

People often associate the term "communism" with the USSR, but since the ultimate goal of communism was the abolition of the state (well as far as I'm aware) and since the USSR was a state, then doesn't the presence of the Sickle & Hammer image fly in the face of the very concept of communism? 95.146.53.89 (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The hammer and sickle represents the union of agricultural and industrial workers. It is generally used as a universal communist symbol, the most recognizable at least. The USSR was the first to use it but they were also the first socialist state. I don't see the need to get rid of it. 72.65.242.92 (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a universally recognized symbol of Communism. We don't impose our own judgments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Was the USSR a great example of the concept? Not at all. But, I don't see how we can avoid the fact that this symbol was so closely associated. I could be convinced otherwise based upon related academic studies. O3000 (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

We have discussed this before. The hammer and sickle has been used by many organisations which described themselves as "Communist", including the Trotskyist Fourth International which criticised the USSR. In fact, it's hard to find any "Communist Parties" which don't use the symbol. We should not alter this article to cater to a political movement that doesn't actually exist.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The hammer and sickle is not just a symbol of the USSR nor is it a national symbol. I've seen hammer and sickle images in China and Cuba, and it's used on the flag of Angola, in a modified form, too. Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Remove. Sickle & Hammer is a symbol of some socialists, not communists. Most of nowadays socialist and communist, don't identify with USSR or its puppet states. Anarchists are a part of the movement, that has nothing to do with S&H. Eurocommunism is another trend. I guess we should take this discussion somewhere more appropriate. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to see some evidence of these "communists" who don't use the hammer and sickle. With regard to Eurocommunism, the Italian Communist Party used the symbol on its flag.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Communist regimes map

In the map of current and former Communist regimes, Grenada, which was under Communist rule from 1979, until the U.S. invaded it in 1983, is not painted in orange (which is the color of former Communist countries), has someone noticed this error? And can someone, please, fix it? -- Pedro8790 (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Try contacting the person who made the original map. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

It could be because the government of Grenada isn't widely recognised as such, though it did identify as Marxist-Leninist.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Except that in this map, Grenada does appear as a Communist country, it is small though, so you will have to zoom in in order to see it: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Communist_countries.svg

Now, I never tried to contact the person who made it, however I did try to contact the person who made the most recent edit on it, and I wasn't answered. -- Pedro8790 (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Why is the criticism so short?

On "Capitalism" the criticism is about 15 lines and more. And on "Communism" the criticism is 3 lines?

Because very few people have criticised Communism! But seriously, this is one of the worse pages relative to its importance. I think there are two issues:

• the article has long been a battlefield of political opinions, where no one can agree on the content.
• the ambiguity of what is meant by "communism". We have at least three relevant main pages: Criticism of communist party rule, Criticism of Marxism, and Criticism of socialism.

I can see three possible ways forward:

• expand the section, which would risk reigniting old arguments.
• write a subsection summarising each of the main pages listed. This would avoid the issue of ambiguity.
• eliminate the "Criticism" section and simply list the "Criticism" pages under "See also".--Jack Upland (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

There was no attempt at communism or equality in the Soviet Union

WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"The Leninist antagonism to the most essential features of socialism was evident from the very start. In revolutionary Russia, Soviets and factory committees developed as instruments of struggle and liberation, with many flaws, but with a rich potential. Lenin and Trotsky, upon assuming power, immediately devoted themselves to destroying the liberatory potential of these instruments, establishing the rule of the Party, in practice its Central Committee and its Maximal Leaders — exactly as Trotsky had predicted years earlier, as Rosa Luxembourg and other left Marxists warned at the time, and as the anarchists had always understood. Not only the masses, but even the Party must be subject to “vigilant control from above,” so Trotsky held as he made the transition from revolutionary intellectual to State priest. Before seizing State power, the Bolshevik leadership adopted much of the rhetoric of people who were engaged in the revolutionary struggle from below, but their true commitments were quite different. This was evident before and became crystal clear as they assumed State power in October 1917." Additionally, one merely has to take a glance at the weight classes in the USSR to know that starving peasants did not have the same income or wealth as Soviet athletes or Soviet leaders. That there was no attempt at communism or equality in the Soviet Union and other countries under regimes masquerading is socialist is extremely easy to prove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rly1987 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Social Democracy vs. Democratic Socialism

"Communism and Social Democracy were the two main types of socialism". But Social Democracy is not socialism. Replace ther term Social DEmocracy with DEmocratic Socialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.166.207.185 (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

No, social democracy is the appropriate term.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Communism on political spectrum

Ritchie92 can you stop removing sentence you don't like, not because they lack sources but because of your POV? Why did you ignore https://www.facinghistory.org/weimar-republic-fragility-democracy/readings/weimar-political-parties? Also you not liking name of sources is not legitimate criticism.Sourcerery (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The Forbes article was opinion, and incorrect in places. Investapedia is not WP:RS. Brittanica can be RS, depending on the article. Although, I believe they now allow some wiki-style editing in the online version, and we generally avoid tertiary sources if secondary sources are available. O3000 (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sourcerery: Why are you assuming my POV? I obviously agree that Communism is placed on the far-left, I just don't find your sources appropriate, but more sort of randomly picked on the web. Again, the facinghistory article is an opinion article and it's about the Weimar Republic, I think there must be many more generalized sources putting Communism on the left. Since you're the "Sourcerer" why don't you pick these? --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I misinterpreted and you didn't clarify like you did in later edit. No hard feelings. I will, I will.Sourcerery (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

March is absolutely the best source available, but (as has been discussed ad-nausium on Far-left politics; see eg. here for some discussion whose salient points seem to apply here as well), he's also nearly the only major scholar to reliably use the term "far-left" at all, and his definition is fairly idiosyncratic. March himself has a few papers on why this is (far-left politics were never as successful in the west, leading to less scholarship on them and less of a unified focus on it as a concept; there's also bigger divisions between eg. Anarchism and state Communism, which makes it a less useful categorization); also note that March himself eventually stopped using the term far-left (it never really caught on elsewhere in academia.) But the upshoot of all this is that March's categorization is WP:UNDUE for the lead - I get that you want this page to mirror Fascism, but there simply aren't anywhere near as many sources discussing Communism as a far-left movement, making that aspect a less significant part of the topic and less due for weight in the lead. We can and do mention Communism on Far-left politics, because when the term is used it's often applied to Communism; but it's not a common descriptor or field of study by any means, whereas the study of far-right politics is a major field within which Fascism in its various forms is essentially the centerpiece. I wouldn't mind mentioning March's categorization in the article body, rather than the lead (ideally with an inline citation to make it clear it's March's categorization, since just one source clearly isn't enough to establish that it's anything more than that), but I don't think there's enough sourcing to indicate that it's a sufficiently major facet of how Communism is studied or categorized to put it in the lead, especially given that March himself no longer uses the term. --Aquillion (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Honestly that's a joke of argument and I will restore it and it definitely needs to be in lead, radical left means far-left. If you want to change it to radical left instead of far-left be my guest but there is no excuse for deleting it. I am willing to bet I can find 10 reliable sources calling it far-left, radical left, extreme left. And when I do are you willing to create entire section focusing on it's place on political spectrum? Because you say article doesn't focus on that, which is shortcoming of article since this is political ideology and that's important.Sourcerery (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

If you can find the sources, do so. But neither March nor a cite to Encyclopedia Britannica are enough to support putting this in the lead; it's clear that March, your only really usable source, doesn't think radical left or far left have the same meaning, but beyond that you need to find sources showing that this is a major aspect of the topic if you want to put it there. Again, you came here from Fascism; take a look at the level and quality of sourcing there (most of which isn't just individual sources saying that it's far-right, but summarizing coverage to say that it is generally described as far-right.) Find comparable sources here, write a section based on them, then put it in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources for the lead are absolutely fine, RS is good and it's your arbitrary decision to tell me to find more (for the lead to be clear, we do need more for section). So instead of being counter productive you could help me improve this article instead of reverting my edits.Sourcerery (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Your edit summary is way out of line. WP:SUMMARYNO WP:NPA O3000 (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry for harsh words, but my point still stands.Sourcerery (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

If it's so easy to find additional sources, go ahead and find them! That would be more productive. My contention is that the terms "far-left" or "radical left" aren't commonly used for this topic the way comparable terms are for eg. Fascism; obviously, the easiest way to resolve that dispute is to find a bunch of sources saying they are, rather than just hammering one source and a dictionary entry over and over. Beyond that, we need better sources for the lead than the body (especially when the debate is over WP:DUE.) Like I said, March's paper could justify one sentence in the body, attributing it to Luke March (eg. "According to Luke March, a scholar of far-left movements, Communism is a far-left or radical left movement.") But if you want to put it in the lead - and especially if you want to imply, as your edits do, that that's a common way for it to be described - you need more and better sources; nothing in March implies that it's actually a common categorization, and in fact (as I pointed out above) March himself doesn't think it's common to discuss the far left the way people discuss the far right. But all these problems could disappear if you'd just produce a few academic sources saying things like "Communism, commonly agreed to be on the far left of the political spectrum..." or words to that effect. --Aquillion (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Aquillion and others. Political and economic philosophies are complex and come in many flavors. And most of the commonly used words are overused in simplistic manners by politicians and wannabe economists. Let’s not trivialize them. Find good sources. O3000 (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

- Adding expansion tag as we have consensus that article needs to reflect this topic.Sourcerery (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing consensus for your proposed addition, and it's unclear what you want added beyond that. What people are saying is that you could potentially add it if you can find more / better sources, not that it's necessarily something the article needs. --Aquillion (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

There isn't consensus for this header tag. I previously asked this editor to look at WP:OWN but I assume he did not. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

And just to be clear, I don't think anyone here is against adding new information to the article, but trying to edit-war that material into existence, through header-tags or whatever, is not going to work out in your favor. Discussion + Consensus is the only route. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Link to last WP:AN/3 one week ago [1] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

There is consensus right on this topic, and instead of threatening you should gain consensus it shouldn't be included if you want tag to be removed.Sourcerery (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

There is not consensus for your HEADER TAG - Do you understand that? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

But there is consensus article lacks topic of Communism on political spectrum, and how are we gonna make that clear on article other than adding tag?Ridicilous.Sourcerery (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

No there isn't. See Aquillion's comment above. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Absolutely no one but you has supported you in your opinion that the article needs a topic of "Communism on the political spectrum." There is a clear consensus against your proposed addition. Three editors (myself, Somedifferentstuff, and O3000) have specifically said it is unnecessary. Two editors have opposed your specific addition and given no indication that they think any version is necessary. If you really think you have consensus, start a WP:RFC to demonstrate it, but by my reading you are literally the only person who has said anything that could remotely be construed as supporting this template, while 3-5 people have opposed it. --Aquillion (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Missing template

Adding missing template because article is lacking some types of communism, where is communism on political spectrum.Sourcerery (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

You need to explain what types of communism are missing, and its better to then add a subsection, such as this, then to add a header tag. I've moved your tag to the appropriate section. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Quite a bit, Titoism, Juche, Eurocommunism. Maoism shouldn't be reduce to single sentence, it warrants it's own section and explanation of its evolution Socialism with Chinese characteristics.Sourcerery (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Have a look at the sub-sections I've added on Eurocommunism and Maoism. Maybe you could try adding the rest? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

One sentence doesn't mean it's covered, I mean seriously? That's just disruptive editing, if you don't want to take on this seriously don't to be counterproductive to someone who will. Also, don't remove tags unless you get consensus on talk.Sourcerery (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

What? I created subsections and added paragraphs from the relevant articles; in others words, I did some of the work that you were unable to and this is your response? You clearly aren't here to collaborate and build an encyclopedia. You should heed the warning you received here [2] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

By my reading you're the only one who feels that this is a serious problem with the article; certainly I'm not seeing the need for a tag at the top. --Aquillion (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Yep, you are correct sir. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It is not clear whether Juche counts as communism. It has largely abandoned several concepts key to communism and Marxism–Leninism.:

• "Throughout the 1990s, the North Korean regime became increasingly nationalistic—at least, in its official pronouncements—leading Kim Chonghun to state that "Socialism of our Style" was really "Socialism without Socialism". Speeches and official announcements made references to socialism, but neither to Marxist–Leninist thought nor to any basic communist concepts. Shin Gi-wook argues that "there is no trace of Marxist–Leninism or the Stalinist notion of nationhood [in North Korea]. Instead, Kim stresses the importance of the Korean people's blood, soul and national traits, echoing earlier Korean nationalists such as Sin Chaeho, Yi Kwangsu and Choe Namson. He no longer has any interest in applying Marxism–Leninism to the North Korean situation; indeed it is no longer useful for the country".
• "Charles K. Armstrong says that "North Korean Communism would not only be quite distinctive from the Soviet model, it would in some respects turn Marxism–Leninism upside-down". The key differences are that the North Koreans place the primacy of ideology over materialism, retaining the vocabulary of family lineage and nationalism and giving it primacy over class struggle and supporting social distinction and hierarchy over classless society and egalitarianism. He concluded that North Korea may look "Stalinist in form", but that it was "nationalist in content".

Juche also has strongly religious features, typically absent in communism. Our article even mentions that Juche has its own version of the imperial cult, largely copied from State Shinto as practiced by the Empire of Japan (1868–1947). Dimadick (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

While I agree it evolved in its own way in 1990s, it definitely embraces historical materialism and it started of as communist. That's why I find it interesting and think article should include it, along with evolution of system. That's why I mentioned Maoism and it's evolution into Socialism with Chinese characteristics, think article really needs it. National Communism could also be included, although I think it would largely be covered by Titoism.Sourcerery (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

That is represents the view of a few people about Juche. Most people agree that the Kim personality cult is a copy of the Stalin cult. The pseudo-religious elements began with Stalin. Maoism has also been identified as nationalistic and as supporting the primacy of ideology. Moreover, as Juche continues to support a radical version of socialism, it clearly should be mentioned in this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Since Sourcerery keeps adding a tag requesting his desired edits... is there anyone, other than Sourcerery, who supports the "communism on political spectrum" tagging? By my reading, three editors (myself, Somedifferentstuff, and O3000) have objected to the inclusion and to the content the tag is asking for; two others (Grayfell, Ritchie92) have objected to his specific additions. Only Sourcerery himself feels that this addition is required or that it calls for a tag. --Aquillion (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

That's a bold lie, O3000 supported addition only disagreed with sources. Ritchie not only support addition in general, he supported my specific addition. You and Somedifferentstuff are only one objecting, and that's not consensus.Sourcerery (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I said you needed better sources. That's not really support for addition. That would depend on the existence of such sources. I do not support the tag. O3000 (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

But tag would make it clear to other editors to look for such sources? Bit weird but ok.Sourcerery (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I am confused, I don't know where did I say or show my support for Sourcerery's edits. I actively reverted all his/her edits adding dubious sources putting Communism on the far-left. My only contribution to this discussion was explicitly rejecting the POV accusation of Sourcerery, but even though I have my POV I believe RS is needed to justify a sentence in the article. To be clear I'm against all the templates Sourcerery has been adding in the last period. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

DEATH TOLL

Congratulations, Comrades!

You have managed to avoid any mention whatsoever of the inglorious death toll of communism. Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot are very pleased! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.38.246.80 (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

You are in the wrong article. Visit the article Mass killings under communist regimes. Dimadick (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of it at all? Why no reference or hyperlink? Who is behind this hogwash? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.185.54 (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a valid point, I'l add link under criticism.Sourcerery (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Not sure this is valid. Many regimes have resulted in mass killings, whether on the right or left. Then there were massive deaths due to colonization and slavery, which occurred on differing types of economic systems. O3000 (talk) 12:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Well you should know that communism isn't just economic system, it's political and social as well. You could make death count articles for all those economic and social systems, I fully support it.Sourcerery (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)11:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Your argument is Wikipedia:Other stuff exists? Dimadick (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Resource Based Economy (Anarcho-communist/Decentralized planning economy)

Peter Joseph mainly known as a social activist\filmaker founder of The Zeitgeist Movement also one of the very few economists who addresses economic calculation problem within decentralized planed RBE(anarcho-communist economy). I recomend u to chech out the "Economic Calculation in a Natural Law / RBE" video or works like "TZM Defined" and "The New Human Rights Movement: Reinventing the Economy to End Oppression"(might download for free on rutracker etc) , imho it provides a interesting look on how anarcho-communist decentralized economy (RBE) works. Cheers! Badmaan (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

These are poor sources WP:RS. Please respond on your talk page about your possible conflict of interest. O3000 (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

O3000. responded! Badmaan (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Non-controversial internal inconsistency correction on term critics that should be criticisms

There are three instances of the word "critics". The first of those three objectively should be "criticisms". The form-only reason for this replacement of critics is to conform with the later usage of criticisms. The substance-only reason for this is because the critics of communism most typically criticize communism for both of the types of reasons given, and hardly ever for merely one or the other. 2600:1700:D50:1740:195E:C547:4D10:D1E (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Remove blank space at the start

There's an error which causes an awkard blank space. I don't know if I explained myself well. Just remove the blank space at the start between the templates and the text right at the start of the page. Thank you.--79.41.31.92 (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done Apparently line breaks at the beginning and end of the template had that effect. It should be fixed now. Thanks for the heads up. --MarioGom (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@MarioGom: Thank you. It's fixed with the sidebar, but not with this page. When you did this edit, there's still a blank space right before the text, shouldn't it be removed? It causes still an awkward blank space. Do you see it too here, or is it just me?--79.41.31.92 (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

1 !

Once I ran the translation software it became very clear that WP:NOTFORUM applied to this person's opinions. Borderline vandalism.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Коммунизм - это Робинзон Крузо на им обитаемом острове ! ) - потомушто у него всё - есть ! Жри от пуза !! Это я "Радиву КаПец" .. все-му ))) .. придурошные конкретно вообще .. ?? Любите монументы ? Любите ! Мать вашу !! 85.140.19.70 (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent edit

@Somedifferentstuff: According to Wiktionary, an analysis isa "detailed examination of the elements or structure of something." According to Merriam-Webster, an analysis is "a detailed examination of anything complex in order to understand its nature or to determine its essential features : a thorough study" That's obviously not what Communism is, it's an ideology. As it stands the article is presenting Communism/Marxism as an objective description of reality, when what this section is discussing is what Communists believe will/should happen. Therefore, 'theory' is the appropriate term to use here. This should not be controversial. Also, the sentences I modified were not sourced. --St Judas the Lazarene (talk) 09:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, you're referring to the 2nd paragraph which is discussing schools of thought. Marxism, along with other schools of thought are based on analys(es) done by figures such as Marx and Engels. The current wording/terminology used there is appropriate. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I just explained why it isn't. Please explain what you mean by "analyses". St Judas the Lazarene (talk) 11:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

No you didn't, and I'm not going to explain to you what words mean. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

DR Congo

In Current situation section, in the map, why Democratic Republic of Congo isn't colored? Aminabzz (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

It was never under a "nominally Marxist–Leninist communist government." Laurent-Désiré Kabila had identified as a Marxist for many years, but by the time he came to power, according to a 1997 NY Times article, "he says he has abandoned Marxism and now favors multiparty democracy." As for Lumumba, he stated in a July 22, 1960 interview: "I am not a Communist." --Ismail (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Deaths

I tried to add this to the lede, but was reverted. Isn't this quite relevant information though?

Communist regimes have been accused of causing, directly or indirectly, more than 94 million deaths in the 20th century, from mass starvation, executions and deportations.

Narssarssuaq (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

References

It could maybe be rephrased into "The Communist movement" so that it corresponds with the opening sentence.Narssarssuaq (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty bad when three of the contributors to the source you provided disassociated themselves from the very conclusion that you wish to include. O3000 (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate one-line zingers are not helpful in achieving consensus. As The Black Book of Communism#Criticism explains, the book was criticized for both underestimating and overestimating deaths, and the criticism was of the editor's introduction to the book, not of the "meat" of the book. Even those criticizing the book for overestimating thought the accurate estimate was somewhere in the 60–90 million range rather than 94 million or 100 million+. That's really a distinction without a difference: it hardly matters whether "communism killed 60 million" or "communism killed 100 million"; the point is that communist regimes killed a whole lot of people. Even more than Nazis. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Certainly not the "movement" – movements don't kill people, people kill people. Regimes of people kill people, but not movements. Movements are ideas and ideas can't kill. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

In a certain sense you are correct of course, but by analogy that would mean that the Nazism article should be stripped of all information on the Holocaust. I don't think that would be proper. Narssarssuaq (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the opposite: by my logic, the Holocaust should be mentioned in Nazism and Mass killings under communist regimes should be mentioned in Communism. But those two things really aren't the same and aren't analogous. Nazism is the ideology of the German Nazi party. It really doesn't extend further than that (facism, national socialism, and neo-nazism all being something different). Unlike communism, there weren't multiple Nazi regimes in multiple parts of the world, and nazism wasn't a political ideology written about by political scientists across multiple centuries. Nazism, the movement or the ideology, cannot really be separated from Hitler and the NSDAP. NSDAP "owns" nazism and is responsible for everything that happened in the name of "nazism". By contrast, the communist ideology spans two centuries and all corners of the globe. "Communism" is separate from "communists" in way that "nazism" is not separate from "nazis". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I noticed this proposed sentence added to the lead was removed twice, once as being WP:UNDUE for the WP:LEAD, and the second time for being an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim (without the required extraordinary sourcing). My thoughts:

1. I do not think this is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. In fact, I think it's extremely common knowledge that "communism killed 100 million". (The Black Book of Communism's 94 million figure is 23 years out-of-date.) There are a ton of sources supporting this "claim" (actually, it's an "estimate" more than a "claim"), and some of them are compiled at Mass killings under communist regimes#Estimates. Some of the estimates are higher, others are lower.
2. However, the sentence as it was inserted was cited only to one source. If it's only one source, it should be attributed; to say it in wikivoice, it should be cited to multiple recent high-quality sources. I think the Black Book can count as one such source, but it can't carry the statement in wikivoice by itself.
3. A separate question, as is always the question, is the framing of who, exactly did the killings. It certainly wasn't the "communist movement". "Communist regimes" is also a bit of a misnomer: the classic argument is that the regimes of Stalin and Mao were not actually communist, even if they called themselves communist. Those were totalitarian regimes using communist propaganda, but not actually implementing communist ideology (not really). Our article covers this already, but we should clarify this when talking about deaths caused by governments calling themselves communist.
4. Then there's the WP:DUE question. Right now, the main topic article Communism doesn't mention, at all, Mass killings under communist regimes, except in "See also" and a template. The WP:LEAD should summarize the body. The body should be expanded on the point of impacts of communism, and "Mass killings under communist regimes" is part of that. The lead should also include mention of this, though carefully-worded.
5. Bottom-line: I fundamentally support inclusion of this content in the body and the lead, but not necessarily the exact sentence proposed above. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? The regimes of Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Il-Sung etc. were and are normally perceived as "communist", isn't that so? Dismissing any classification of these regimes may simply be perceived as a crafty way of avoiding scrutiny. At the very least this would require an alternative term (e.g. "quasi-communism" or something of the kind) which is in widespread use. Narssarssuaq (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

As for WP:DUE, the article Nazism does mention genocides in the lead, whereas this is not very developed in the rest of the article. I think this provides some reasonable context. Narssarssuaq (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree that it's odd that Nazism doesn't have a "Holocaust" section, it just mentions the Holocaust and links to it a few times, although it is in the lead. I would argue all that means is that the body of Nazism should be expanded.

W/r/t USSR, China, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba being perceived as "communist", I would say the correct formulation is this: they called themselves "communist", they were commonly called "communist" or "socialist", but all academics recognized that none of those regimes were actual communist or socialist regimes. Rather, they were state capitalist regimes, which itself a euphemism for totalitarian. At no point in any of those countries did the people control the means of production.

Saying "communism killed millions of people", just like that, with no explanation, and pointing to the USSR or China, etc., as the basis for the statement, is kind of like saying "democracy killed millions of people" and pointing to, say, the USA bombing cities in World War II. It's not the ideology that caused the deaths, it's the people who cloak themselves in the ideology who are causing the deaths.

In the case of communism, what makes "deaths caused by communism" significant and worth mentioning is that governments calling themselves "communist" have killed more civilians than all other governments combined. It's also true to say this: dictatorships have killed more civilians than all other governments combined. So I think when saying that "communist regimes" are (basically) extraordinarily murderous, we also have to explain that this is because "communist regimes" were all totalitarian dictatorships, which can only stay in power through democide. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

...all totalitarian dictatorships, which can only stay in power through democide. Exactly. Communism usually flourishes in a country in which the workers have had the short end of the stick, and were already under authoritarian rule. So is it communism or authoritarian government that killed these folk? There are certainly non-communist authoritarian governments that have killed large numbers of people. O3000 (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

It can be spun as: authoritarian governments calling themselves communist have killed more innocent people than all other authoritarian governments in human history combined. Of course, the reason that's true is because authoritarian governments calling themselves communist arose in recent history, after the industrial revolution, when the Earth's population has exploded, in two of the most populous countries. Someday in the future, this statement will no longer be true, when some other authoritarian government arises, calling itself something else, and it has the honor of being the first to kill a billion people. But I think the answer to this, as with all things, is "follow the sources". We obviously shouldn't say it in the form of my OR spin statement; we should say what the most-reliable sources on the subject say. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how the same argument is made for Nazism though. Deaths were obviously caused by ideological incitement of hatred towards certain groups, and by an ideologically based culture of violence. Mass starvation has been attributed to the ideological eradication of markets and a fundamental redesign of supply chains. These are not necessarily features of all totalitarian governments. Narssarssuaq (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I’ve always been bothered by the concept that famines are caused by communism. Surely bad planning and upheaval can result in famines. But, see: List of famines. O3000 (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Gee, I thought my one-line zinger was pretty good.. I have two main problems with this. The first is the number/source combination given that half the contributors to the source don’t agree with the number. But, my main problem is attaching a number like this in reference to the quite broad concept of communism. Yes, one article covering all variations makes sense. But, assigning to the umbrella term such a number makes no sense to me considering all the characters and history involved. Do we include all of Hitler’s deaths under the umbrella label of capitalism? Stalin and Hitler were Christians. Do we also ascribe all their killings to Christianity? For that matter, if Stalin found it more convenient to operate as a capitalist, I would imagine that he would have and would have killed as many. Communism didn't kill these people; Stalin did. I don’t see this as useful in the lead. O3000 (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  LOL, ok it was pretty good. The thing about "Stalin and Hitler were Christians", yes, I see that point, pretty much same as saying "Stalin and Hitler were dictators", and it's dictators, not communism or nazism, that kill people. But I think the fatal counterargument is sources. There are lots of sources talking about "how many people died under communism", it's definitely a 100% genuine area of academic study. We have to include this content because the sources include this content. Of course, there are all the caveats and explanations that go along with it. "94 million" (or 100 million) may not be the right number. This one source may not be the best source. And as I've said above, we have to explain that dictatorship is the common denominator to communist regimes. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  An additional level of complication is separating out the deaths. There's a distinction between deaths caused by policies instituted by communist regimes (like Stalin's 5-year plans), and deaths caused by communist regimes killing people to silence political dissent (like Stalin's purges), and deaths caused by wars or revolutions started by communist regimes, and so on. The "100 million" number is not wrong, but it's not helpful to give that number to the reader without a whole lot of explanation. I think our article Mass killings under communist regimes does a pretty good job of explaining all of this, and perhaps in this top-level article we can simply condense and summarize that article into like a paragraph for this article, and a subsequent sentence or two for the lead. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Death tolls by The Black Book of Communism or the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation are WP:EXTRAORDINARY, if not plain WP:FRINGE lunacy. For the later, you can grasp the magnitude of this from the following update: Victims Of Communism Memorial Foundation Adds Global Coronavirus Deaths To Its Tally Of Historical Victims Of Communism ([3]). There is no way we can put any these figures in Wikipedia voice (WP:INTEXT) and there is no way we can put them in the lede (WP:DUEWEIGHT). --MarioGom (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• "Causing, directly or indirectly,... deaths." I think this is practically highly problematic. Everybody dies. The causes are generally multifactorial and unknowable. The claim that deaths are "premature" or that they would not have occurred if not for a particular factor are speculative and largely unproveable. The Bible gives the expected lifespan as 70, but there is no accepted "deadline". Someone could die at age 111 and still be considered a victim of Communism. The victims of the Chernobyl accident are still dying. How many deaths were caused by capitalism and feudalism, directly or indirectly? Can the famines in British India be set against the famine in Soviet Ukraine? If Communism had failed to take over the territories it did, would there have been more deaths or less deaths? Is this relevant? In the end the death rate is 100%. I think we should move on from pseudo-mathematics.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with MarioGom on this. Given the controversial nature of these sources, especially the latter which is basically a political organization with ties to the right-wing think tanks like The Heritage Foundation, they are absolutely unreliable for an encyclopedia on their own, even more so given the removed statement from the article was in Wikipedia's voice. I was unaware that the so-called "Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation" sought to include those who have died of Coronavirus to Communism's death toll, which perfectly demonstrates not only how unreliable such a source is, but how ridiculous this ideologically-driven "Communist death toll" project has become. It is problematic on several levels. Firstly, historians and researchers such as J. Arch Getty, Michael Ellman and Kristen Ghodsee have pointed out correctly that most of the "victims of communism" and Stalin's regime itself were caused not by actual killings but famines, disease and war, falling into the "excess deaths" category, and it is also debatable how many of these excess deaths can be attributed to communist ideology itself. Excess deaths is an unbelievably problematic category anyway. How many "excess deaths" can be attributed to American capitalism? Studies have shown that the US for-profit healthcare system alone results in some 45,000 excess deaths annually due to lack of universal healthcare coverage for the population, as just one example. It is also disputed how many were killed by communist regimes, with archival researchers such as Stephen G. Wheatcroft coming to radically different estimates than those put forth by the BBoC and the so-called "Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation". Interestingly enough, an academic consensus seems to be forming on much lower gulag fatalities than postulated by Rummel, Conquest, Solzhenitsyn et al, further demonstrating why the inclusion of this material is absolutely UNDUE. And if we are to include death tolls caused by communism, then certainly we should also include deaths caused by anti-communism, which, if excess deaths were excluded from the former, would probably be of similar magnitude. Historian John Henry Coatsworth, for example, has pointed out that US backed regimes in Latin America alone probably repressed and killed more people than the USSR and its satellite states from 1960 onward. And finally, as Benjamin Valentino says in his work on mass killings, MOST communist regimes did NOT engage in mass killings, making those few that did EXCEPTIONAL cases and NOT the norm. So the bottom line is that inclusion of this material is problematic on myriad levels, especially in the lede. It should be noted that the Mass Killings under communist regimes article was locked down completely for several years because of persistent edit conflicts over similar issues.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with and support C.J. Griffin, Jack Upland and MarioGom's arguments and support. I also remember (I couldn't find the link) one interesting The Four Deuces's point that even The Black Book of Communism specifcally referred to Marxism–Leninism and that's why I previously proposed to move the related articles from Communist to Marxist–Leninist (while not the most common name, Marxist–Leninist is stil widely used and I believe it would have helped to clarify, especially considering that even all those who say Communist, they recogise they weren't really communist, i.e. a communist society; and they either consider them to be totalitarian or state-capitalist in practice; so I believe that it would have made it more neutral/clear and avoid many discussions; I also made the point that if by Communism they really mean those Communist states and Marxism–Leninism, then the Communism article should be mainly, or exclusively about them, but that's not what we do because even those who use Communism for Marxism–Leninism recognise that communism is broader than that, but I digress). Back to my point, many of their own state's constitutions explicity mentioned Marxism–Leninism and in general followed the communist ideological variant of Marxism–Leninism which in it itself has had various national variants like Maoisim and Titoism, but they were all, one way or another, Marxist–Leninists; hence why, if this is to be added at all, it should be at Marxism–Leninism, not here where communism is a broad ideology unlike fascism and Nazism which are a single ideology that has commonality between all variants which in themselves only varies due to the different national conditions.--Davide King (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively before so I will briefly comment on the points that were raised. It is not common knowledge that Communism was responsible for the deaths of 100 million people. The figure was picked by anti-Communists in the 1990s as part of an effort to defend fascism which was responsible for the deaths of only 50 million people. The moral was that anyone who supported the Allied cause was fighting on the wrong side. The only plausibly reliable source whether that estimate was used was the introduction to the Black Book, although the main contributor to the book said that the estimate was false and did not represent the estimates in the book. Respectable scholars provide a much lower estimate.

Another issue is whether the vast majority of deaths, which were caused by famine mostly in China, can be described as mass killings. We don't for example refer to the Irish famine of 1848 as a mass killing, although British policies were responsible for the deaths of 1 million people.

The vast majority of the deaths were recorded in three countries under three rulers: Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China and Pol Pot's Cambodia. While scholarship has linked mass killings in these regimes to a shared Stalinist ideology, they have not developed a general theory linking Communism to mass killings. There were for example no mass killings under Gorbachev's leadership.

Also, we should never use weasel wording such as "have been accused of."

TFD (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Please edit "Marxist Communism" section

Under "Marxist Communism:" "These classes are directly antagonistic: the bourgeoisie has private ownership of the means of production and earns a profit off surplus value, which is generated by the proletariat, whom has no ownership of the means of production and therefore no option but to sell its labor to the bourgeoisie."

Both "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" are technically plural nouns. Singulars are "bourgeois" and "proletarian". So I think the final clause of the quoted sentence above should read " . . . WHO HAVE no ownership of the means . . ." "Whom" is not correct in any case. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semprestudioso (talk • contribs) 04:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

No, they aren't plural nouns. But I agree about "whom".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The inital description of the term at the top of the page needs an addition. It is not made clear where the ideology of communism exists on a political spectrum or quadrant. It should be described as far-left or radical leftism, just as fascism is described as far-right or reactionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordo60 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The bias of the authors is readily apparent. Far-right ideologies are disparaged in every manner on WP while communism is referred to in a purely neutral tone. No mention of it being the antagonist of humanity and killing a hundred million people in the course of decades. The "criticism" section doesn't even include any criticisms, it's a joke and I'm sure the communist editors who are responsible will not show their faces. 108.46.59.94 (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

"killing a hundred million people in the course of decades" Wrong article. See: mass killings under communist regimes. Dimadick (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

But the crimes against humanity perpetrated by fascists are mentioned on every single WP page dealing with fascism. It seems that none of these overt measures to avoid offending adherents to the ideology are taken into consideration for the far-right as they are for the far-left. And that article's title is written so evasively -- "mass killings under communist regimes", which insinuates that communism has NO causal relationship to the killings. By the way, that article is also not linked to ANYWHERE on this page. The bias is astounding. 108.46.59.94 (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Considering far-right ideologies tend to be explicitly based on favoring personal autocracy over democracy, threatening genocide, regarding war as a positive experience, etc., it isn't difficult to understand why there's a much easier time linking, say, Nazism with mass death. One can certainly make the argument that attempting to realize or lay the foundations for a communist society can only end in tyranny and misery, but the mere act of desiring a society where private property has been abolished and goods are distributed based on need is clearly not equivalent to desiring Lebensraum or the Holocaust. It's also important to differentiate criticisms of communism as such (e.g. whether it's feasible or desirable) from criticisms of Marxism. For example, Engels wrote that Robert Owen's Book of the New Moral World contained "the most clear-cut communism possible," yet critics of Owen don't claim he was responsible for the "death toll" of Communism, which is criticism almost invariably aimed at Marxism and/or states led by avowed Marxists. Such criticism evidently has a place in the article, but the focus should be criticism of the concept of communism. --Ismail (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Proletariat and Bourgeoisie are collective nouns. Wandavianempire (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Kommunism - as more far-est Kosmos.

That we can see only with big telescopes. В обыкновенные, оптического диапазона электромагнитных волн, телескопы. Но можно даже Луной ослепить глаза как если глянул на электросварку. Или когда встречная машина прёт с "дальним светом".

А socialism - как "ближний Космом". Когда смотрим "своими глазами". Можно увидеть и другие "Галактики". Мы и в своей-то ещё не мотались и не знаем..

А здесь на Земле много ли нас в других странах побывало?

В фотоаппаратах есть настройки "утро", "вечер", "солнце", "лампы освещения". Радуга как- бы семицветная. Может быть и да. Но спектр-то - сплошной. Не линейчатый. Зачем тогда спектр Бальмера? Цветы такие. Вначале на первые цветные ТВ дольше 5 минут не мог смотреть. "Глаза на лоб вылезали". Потомушто также как с киноплёнками было. Одни фильмы были синевато-зеленоватыми, другие "зеленовато-красными", третьи "холодными", .. "Шоткинский комбинат"? "СВЕМА"? была и "немецкая".. а потом вроде "Штаты" с чем-то. "Унибром"? "Унихром"? "Йодохром" .. Уходит всё.. забываетца..

Для меня самые лучшие фильмы - "научные", "документальные". Люди разные. Кому-то нравятца холодильки. Кому-то - лёд таскать. Зимой трактора тросами лёд тягали.. А могли бы холодильников понакупать как тачек .. ;)

176.59.204.247 (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit waring

@Bcliot33: Regarding this revert, you have violated WP:3RR, and have blanked every attempt to discuss edit warring from your talk page. I encourage you to self-revert and discuss these changes. The content of the other paragraph is not the same as your changes, for many reasons. The significance of this quote still needs to be contextualized by reliable sources, and this needs to be done without the loaded language and ambiguous, potentially misleading wikilinks. The burden is on you to gain consensus for these changes. Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Why was Bcliot33 edit removed in the first place? @Grayfell

" The significance of this quote still needs to be contextualized by reliable sources"

I already have provided multiple sources.

In 1845, Karl Marx writing about the Cercle Social, a paramasonic society considered key to the development of the communism, he stated:

The revolutionary movement which began in 1789 in the Cercle Social, which in the middle of its course had as its chief representatives Leclerc and Roux, and which finally with Babeuf’s conspiracy was temporarily defeated, gave rise to the communist idea which Babeuf’s friend Buonarroti re-introduced in France after the Revolution of 1830. This idea, consistently developed, is the idea of the new world order.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcliot33 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your reverted edit [4] - "In 1845, Karl Marx writing about the Cercle Social, a paramasonic society considered key to the development of the communism"

• Ref1 - Hobsbawm, Eric. How To Change The World: Tales of Marx and Marxism - does not support this claim. If you have a page number please add
• Ref2 - Rose, R. B ., 'Socialism and the French Revolution: the Cercle social and the Enrages' - states that the claim is unrecognized / unsupported by scholars - "This view, as it relates either to the Revolution or to the origins of communism seems to have received little or no attention from Marxist historiography" ... "with the exception of a pioneer study published in 1899,4 there has been no serious attempt to assess the influence and significance of the Cercle Social nor, even, a recognition of its place in the development of socialist thought." If you accept this as a RS, the above would mean it is WP:UNDUE.
• Ref3 - The Cercle Social, the Girondins, and the French Revolution - does not support this claim. If you have a page number please add. The author states on page 4: "In his Holy Family of 1844, Marx remarked that the Cercle Social was the first truly "revolutionary" group, one of the earliest precursors of his own ideas. Unfortunately, Marx's remark was taken literally by his followers, and is still today the standard view of the Cercle Social." ... "The problem with Marx's contention becomes evident when he leaders of the Cercle Social and allowed to emerge from behind their rhetoric."
• Ref4 - "The Holy Family by Marx and Engels" - WP:PSTS. Source also does not support the claim it states "The revolutionary movement which began in 1789 in the Cercle Social ... gave rise to the communist idea". In addition, Marx was often mistaken, just because he wrote something about communism it is not infallible, which is why reliable secondary sources are needed.

Since you have been involved in an edit war regarding this addition, I will point to WP:ONUS and WP:CON – three editors have already objected to this addition.   // Timothy :: talk  14:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

TimothyBlue explains this very thoroughly. I will only mention one specific red flag this raised, which is the wikilink to new world order. That links to a disambiguation page, and it's not clear without context what Marx meant by it, but its connection to New World Order (conspiracy theory) is suggestive, more so by the passing reference to the Conspiracy of the Equals. This is especially odd when prefaced with the unusual term "paramasonic". Modern readers are not expected to understand these terms in the same way they were intended, so these hints towards nebulous conspiracy theories are too suggestive to be neutral. All of this would need to be directly explained by reliable, independent sources, as already mentioned. Grayfell (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Criticism of Communism

The "Criticism of Communism" section is extremely pathetic. Not a single actual critique is even touched upon or enumerated. It seems this article was written on eggshells trying to appease communist sympathizers. Communism killed 100 million people in the 20th century and its historical failure in every state in which it has been applied is indisputable historical fact.

Much like the Holocaust, we need to make sure that these millions of deaths are remembered by future generations so they will not allow the same mistakes to repeat themselves. 108.46.59.94 (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC) Thank you!Wandavianempire (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wandavianempire: I agree completely. Like all the articles on far-left politics on Wikipedia, this article was clearly written by extreme leftists themselves, which is obviously far from ideal to say the very least. I'm new to Wikipedia and only edit incidentally, but if you have some good (sourced) criticisms to add, please do. St Judas the Lazarene (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

As the article states, we have two other articles Criticism of communist party rule and Criticisms of Marxism. We do not need to duplicate all that content here.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The "criticism" section of Capitalism is about eight screens long on my screen. In short, WP:summary style isn't working on either of these pages. Here, criticism is essentially a stub and needs to outline main points. Conversely, it's too long on Capitalism, despite the available "child" articles. I think the OP has a point. It would do Wikipedia well to make each section of the main article comparable in length. I would try to cut down the paragraphs on Capitalism but imagine someone would yell at me. Outriggr (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

In case there is more (and more diverse) criticism of Capitalism than there is of Communism then the two sections must be different in size. It would just be a consequence of what reliable sources say. Wikipedia should not be WP:CENSORED, so I would not reduce the Capitalism section in size just for it to be comparable to the "opposite" Communism, in some sort of politically-correct equalization of the two ideologies. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Obviously capitalism is the more accepted of the two ideologies in the world. To suggest otherwise is absurd. The inequality of these articles more likely stems from the fact that capitalists are busy producing capital, while communist are busy producing wikipedia activism. If only propaganda could sustain an economy...Awhodothey (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the "inequality of these articles" is simply due to capitalism being a system which has actually existed for hundreds of years and has thus accumulated massive amounts of specific criticisms. Criticism of communism is either based on arguing why it can't exist due to "human nature" and the like, or arguing that communal settlements (such as those set up by the Icarians) and/or avowedly socialist countries like the USSR prove attempts to establish or otherwise transition to communism are illusory. It's naturally easier to find criticisms of social systems that actually exist. --Ismail (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

In fact Communists did not kill 100 million people. That's a number thrown around in far right texts, including those that trivialize the holocaust, but has little or no mainstream support. Criticism in articles is usually taken from what appears in mainstream sources. Furthermore, it is supposed to be incorporated into the article not presented as a section of the article. There's no criticism sections for Adolph Hitler or Charles Manson for example. TFD (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Please go read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes Communism as a whole killed even in the most optimistic estimates at least 65 milion people, the very fact that this is only seldomly mentionned on this article let alone not even put in the first paragraph is abhorrent. The article on National socialism mentions genocides in the first section, this should definitely also apply to this article on Communism, ideology who did more in terms of genocides than even Nazism. 24.154.27.212 (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

One of the big differences is that Nazism is not only an ideology that implicitly endorses genocide against Jews and other "inferior" peoples, but is uniquely bound up with the NSDAP. Communism by contrast long predated Marx and Lenin, with Thomas More and even Plato often counted as contributors to communist thought. As I wrote in an above discussion, "critics of [Robert] Owen don't claim he was responsible for the 'death toll' of Communism, which is criticism almost invariably aimed at Marxism and/or states led by avowed Marxists. Such criticism evidently has a place in the article, but the focus should be criticism of the concept of communism." Hence why the article you cite speaks of "communist regimes" rather than communism as such. --Ismail (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Historical materialism is not a determinism

The people working on the Mega2 (Marx-Engels’ collected works) have pointed out that historical materialism was not a determinism, that at the time it was published Darwin’s theory of evolution was considered a historical determinism and that Marx’s works were interpreted in that way but that he never made them out to be or acted like they described some kind of deterministic view of history. I would like to remove the bit were it claims that it is.NatriumGedrogt (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Communism is the far left ideology

In many source in internet,It is written that communism is a far left ideology. Doom marauder (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Find good sources according to WP:IRS. Also, try the archives search near the top of this page as this has been previously discussed. O3000 (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that there are no absolute markers along the left-right axis. What is considered as 'left' or 'right' in one society might not apply in another. In France, the tradition has been to label the Communist Party and the Socialist Party as 'left' and the groups to the left of the Communist Party as 'far left'. In societies were the Communist Party is the sole legal party, what makes it far left? If we look at debates on Soviet domestic politics in the 1980s, the Communist Party hardliners were often labelled as 'conservative' in Western press. Etc, etc. --Soman (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Marx using Communism and Socialism interchangeably

The article currently reads, of Marx, that He used these terms completely interchangeably. Did he? I almost changed the first sentence of that section, which claimed the split in definition originated in the 1840s, to reflect this. I was prepared to add something like "though, notably, it was used interchangeably by Marx and Engels in their 1848 Communist Manifesto". However, doing some reinspecting of the Manifesto, it seems that Marx did indeed distinguish the two terms. Either way then: one or the other of these sentences needs to change. Wolfdog (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Do we have a secondary source noting that point? If not, we should probably just drop it, since it definitely seems like interpretation or analysis to me. --Aquillion (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Wolfdog, it actually states

According to The Oxford Handbook of Karl Marx, "Marx used many terms to refer to a post-capitalist society—positive humanism, socialism, Communism, realm of free individuality, free association of producers, etc. He used these terms completely interchangeably. The notion that 'socialism' and 'Communism' are distinct historical stages is alien to his work and only entered the lexicon of Marxism after his death."

What is wrong with that? The etymologically communist–socialist split has nothing to do that; that is about Marxist socialists (communists) and non-Marxist socialists (socialists). The Oxford Handbook of Karl Marx is referring to the mode of production, i.e. that both the so-called "lower" and "higher" phases, there is no distinction, both are communist; that it was with the Bolsheviks that socialism came to refer to a distinct stage (the so-called "lower stage") between capitalism and communism. Davide King (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, that's perfectly fine. Then I think I'm justified in adding the clause I offered above: though, notably, it was used interchangeably by Marx and Engels in their 1848 Communist Manifesto after the first sentence. That seems the proper place to mention the interchangeability. Wolfdog (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Wolfdog, could you please clarify that? I am not sure of what you are referring to or what is the issue. Are you referring to Friedrich Engels argued that in 1848, at the time when The Communist Manifesto was first published, "socialism was respectable on the continent, while communism was not". It is saying that socialism referred to those utopians and reformists whereas communism was used for revolutionary, proletarian socialists. Marx and Engels simply referred to their conception of socialism as communism and socialism interchangeably. So when we are saying that, we are talking about this; that is not referring to this earlier distinction. In other words, while there is a distinction between communism and socialism (communism as socialising distribution rather than only production as socialism; and communism as representing revolutionary, proletarian, Marxist socialism), there was no similar distinction in Marxian communism/socialism. This came out later with the Bolsheviks. Marxists simply used communism and socialism interchangeably to mean and represent the same thing, sometimes favouring communism and other times socialism, see By 1888, Marxists employed socialism in place of communism which had come to be considered an old-fashioned synonym for the former. The Oxford Handbook of Karl Marx is referring only to this latter thing within Marxist communism, not to the earlier distinction. Marxists only make a distinction between communism and socialism as the first being revolutionary, proletarian socialism and the latter representing utopian, bourgeois socialism (as did Marx and Engels in 1848). Otherwise, at least until the Bolsheviks popularised socialism as a distinct stage, they simply used communism and socialism interchangeably and to mean the same thing. Davide King (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, thank you for your very thorough and useful explanations, but I didn't mean for you to spend so much time on this! All I was asking is if we can move up the "interchangeability" comment earlier in the section. However, we can drop the whole discussion if you like. Again, I didn't mean to create so much discussion if there was such an easy answer to my initial question! Wolfdog (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Wolfdog, I did that because it was not clear what you were arguing and suggesting about and I think I got it. I do not think it is necessary because we already use the qualifier usually, meaning that communism and socialism were not always distinguished; and that [b]y 1888, Marxists employed socialism in place of communism, meaning that Marxists were the ones who did not distinguish them. So I think we already say that in very short and concise terms. Davide King (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Lack of François-Noël Babeuf

There is no mention of François-Noël Babeuf on this page. He and his followers were the first group to be referred to as communists in English. This is a glaring omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.190.8 (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Even in the history section, there is no mention of all the dissident communisms such as anarcho-communism, council communism, left communism, and libertarian communism/Marxism in general. It is all about communist states.--Davide King (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

That is mentioned later. Are you suggesting duplication?--Jack Upland (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Jack Upland, yes, it is mentioned later, but some of it should be mentioned in the History section. This is a problem itself with the History of communism article that does not really discuss those dissident communisms (other than a passive mention maybe) and is mainly about communist states. Not only that, but it speaks or refers to Marxism–Leninism as communism. Davide King (talk) 11:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that mentions of "dissident communisms" are warranted, but it makes sense for an overview of the 20th century to focus on "communist states," insofar as these were clearly the most important in terms of power and influence. If someone in the world circa 1918 to the present refers to "communists," they're very likely to be referring to (or at least having in mind) Marxist-Leninists, not Anton Pannekoek or what have you. --Ismail (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Ismail, I do understand that, but I wish we could add a few sentences about communist opposition to communist states and both Leninist and Marxist–Leninist communism, their role in the New Left and other libertarian forms of communism and Marxism, etc. Davide King (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of RFC at Category:Communism

Your participation is invited at Category talk:Communism § Categorization of Communism, Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism. Thanks, Lev!vich 03:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The rise of Socialism within American Academia

Can anyone provide evidence or narrative to what seems as a heavy rise of socialism viability being taught in Colleges and Universities? Even though Venezuela seems to really be stuggling under recent change to Socialism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:407:C580:E820:B5A1:C3C4:2850:D41B (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Out of topic here, but read the article Political views of American academics. The polital ideology of Venezuela's government is Chavismo, but the state is neither socialist nor communist. "In 2009, roughly 70% of Venezuela's gross domestic product was created by the private sector.". Dimadick (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2021

Critics of Communism allege it has caused the deaths of 100,000,000 worldwide.

See https://www.amazon.com/dp/0674076087/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_imm_YS4HDF35BS9M5DF7MGH7 2601:C2:980:89C0:1817:BC1A:6A0:2063 (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

You have to get consensus from editors in order to make the change. TFD (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Criticism

The section on criticism of communism ought to be enlarged. There is no explanation of what the criticism entails and the average reader would gain nothing from the section as it currently stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viktory02 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Criticism sections are bad style. Criticism should be incorporated into the relevant sections. TFD (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

A better approach is to explain what someone did, how they justified it, what criticisms there were and what weight they held. For example, we wouldn't introduce relativity into the article about Einstein by saying, "Einstein was criticized for his theory of special relativity, which denied the existence of the ether. Einstein defended himself by saying that his calculations were supported by evidence." We would explain Einstein's theory, any criticisms and what the general view is. TFD (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARYSTYLE

As per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, when we cover an aspect of a subject in a different article, we need to summarize it appropriately. The summary presently in the criticism section is clearly inadequate compared to the amount of material in the other articles and the prominence of the subtopic in the overall sourcing about the subject. I had a go at making some minor changes to the section while incorporating some of the material from the lead of criticism of communist party rule. The Four Deuces reverted with the edit summary The estimates are higher than generally accepted and the other criticisms go against weight.

Regarding The estimates are higher than generally accepted, again, I pulled them directly from the other article, with sourcing. If it conflicts with sources that you have, I invite you to go ahead and fix it.

the other criticisms go against weight - you couldn't possibly mean that, for the whole body of literature about communism, the appropriate weight for criticism amounts to exactly three sentences? I would've figured someone would've added to what I started with rather than made a weight argument when removing all of it. The only way I can make sense of the argument would be if you had specific objections to those specific claims (i.e. that of course the criticism section doesn't adequately summarize the other articles, but that I did such a poor job of selecting text from the lead of the other article that it needed to be reverted). In that case, what would you propose as an alternative summary? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

You should be able to write a neutral article without a criticism section. Criticism should be mentioned in the main text. There is no criticism section in the articles about Adolf Hitler or Charles Manson. Also, no one cares what Hayek thinks about Communism. He thought that social security was a stepping stone to a new holocaust, but took the money. TFD (talk) 05:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

So it's not accuracy and it's not weight, but rather organizational? Or weight of a section header? But you didn't remove the criticism section. It's still there. It's just awkwardly inadequate. Based on this most recent response, you'd be fine with the same content being added elsewhere (without Hayek, I guess -- again, it's just taken from the lead of the other article)? If no, please elaborate. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It's all three. You say that Communist rule is characterized by economic stagnation, yet China is on target to become the largest economy in the world, and long overtook non-Communist India, which is close in population. Wouldn't it be better to have a section that explained how Communists managed the economy before jumping into criticism? It seems that the criticism is valid for some examples of Communism, but not for others.

Notice that the article on Nazism, which most people think was far worse than Communism, does not have a criticism section. So that you don't accuse me of bias, there is a discussion on the Capitalism article about removing the criticism section there.

TFD (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

You say that Communist rule is characterized by economic stagnation - err, no, that's in a sentence attributed to Hayek and Friedman. And that you are able to argue otherwise doesn't change that the criticism exists and has been much cited/repeated. It seems that the criticism is valid for some examples of Communism, but not for others. - yes, which is why we separate criticism of the ideas behind communism from criticism of how it's actually been implemented as a form of government ("communist party rule"). And that it's not universally true could indeed be part of the "criticism" (wherever it may land). Notice that the article on Nazism, which most people think was far worse than Communism, does not have a criticism section - indeed, but it also doesn't omit the material that would go in the criticism section. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

As I said, criticism sections are inherently bad style. Instead of saying how economic stagnation was caused by state ownership and a planned economy attributed to Hayek and Friedman, it would be better to explain that they in fact had state ownership and a planned economy and why they did this. Then you might want to explain how accepted this criticism is. Hayek after all is a cult figure among libertarians.

Also, before you add estimates of deaths, you should familiarize yourself with the topic. Authors who mention the range of deaths then state the the highest estimates are wrong. Just cherry-picking a quote out of context is misleading.

TFD (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

David Ramsay Steele

The book From Marx to Mises: Post Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Ecomic Calculation by David Ramsay Steele is cited (without attribution in the body) as a source for factual claims a few times in this article in the sections where "communism" and "socialism" are defined. It is published by Open Court Publishing Company, who seem to be reputable, but it seems to me like a potentially quite fringe. Is it a solid enough source for the uses it has here? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Google Scholar indicates Steele's book has been cited a bit. It also doesn't seem to make any particularly "fringe" arguments on the subject of the economic calculation problem. I think the issue is that it's a book about said problem, so I don't see why the author should be cited (as he is currently is) as an authority on how the distinction between socialism and communism was supposedly "introduced by Vladimir Lenin as a means to defend the Bolshevik seizure of power against traditional Marxist criticism that Russia's productive forces were not sufficiently developed for socialist revolution." --Ismail (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a reputable publisher hence meets rs. The political orientation of the author (he is a fellow of Ludwig von Mises Institute) is irrelevant. TFD (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism

The lead states "After 1917, a number of states were identified as communist: these states espoused Marxism–Leninism or a variation of it." Later on, it is stated that "Stalinism represents Stalin's style of governance as opposed to Marxism–Leninism." While I don't think this there's a per se contradiction in that, I find it confusing: the lead would suggest that Stalinism was a "variation" of Marxism-Leninism (because it was in use in a communist state) but the section would suggest that the two are "opposed". As I am not well-versed in this subject, I wanted to bring it to others' attention.

As a side note, after reading the article, I think the lead gives far too much weight (in the third paragraph) to the scope of the term "Communist" and various issues having to do with terminology. I believe that this content should be moved to the "Etymology" section (which could be renamed if appropriate) and that the lead should be refactored to be a true summary of the article, in accordance with MOS:LEAD.  Mysterymanblue  07:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Good points.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Communism has directly killed more human beings than any other socioeconomic ideoogy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It is estimated that Communism has killed over 150 million people world-wide through torture, slave labor or political persecutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:4EC0:CA18:7D43:9D0:CBD:E9E8 (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.