Talk:Communism/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Full Communism (album) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Marxist-Leninism

The description of Marxist-Leninism as Communism violates WP:NPOV, as the lead for the Communism article states:

Several academics and economists, among other scholars, posit that the Soviet model under which these nominally Communist states in practice operated was not an actual communist economic model in accordance with most accepted definitions of communism as an economic theory but in fact a form of state capitalism, or non-planned administrative-command system.

92.0.35.8 (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Problems with sections of the article

The sections on the Soviet Union and the Cold War, especially the Cold War section, spend less time explaining the notable events that took place under the Soviet Union and communist countries, and more time talking about the debate surrounding communism and the Soviet Union. Having a debate like this is fine, but it's a bit weird to not have much on notable events under these countries. Summarizing the content from the history of communism article could help fix the problem. There should also be more about China in the history section. The Soviet Union section gives UNDUE weight to the more fringe revisionist school of thought, rather than the mainstream totalitarian school of thought. The Cold War section contains far more information from scholars who are pro-communist or anti-anti-communist than ones who are anti-communist or ones who take a more neutral view. The dissolution of the Soviet Union section only contains analysis from an anti-anti-communist scholar, which is more UNDUE weight. I'm not going to put POV tags in these sections just yet, but if the problem isn't solved, I might have to. X-Editor (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the info, since most of it is historiography and not history. X-Editor (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2022

change "Communism (from Latin communis, 'common, universal')[1][2] is a far-left[3] philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common or social ownership of all property" to "Communism (from Latin communis, 'common, universal')[1][2] is a far-left[3] philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common or social ownership of all private property" Tr0users83 (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: In a communist society, there is no private property. Private property, by definition, cannot be commonly nor socially owned.
-JonahGae (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Some distinction needs to be made. Communists do not advocate for the common ownership of all property. They don't suggest that toothbrushes and underpants should be shared among the community. Communists make a distinction between private property - that which produces value, and personal property - that which doesn't. If you can find me communists who thinks that a person's glasses should be owned by the community, then I admit defeat, otherwise the entry as written is manifestly incorrect, and needs attention. Tr0users83 (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Some communists do advocate for the common ownership of property. In fact the very first known use of the word communist, coined by Victor d'Hupay, does exactly that, see his Projet de communauté philosophe where all private property is banned. The issue with defining communism by Marx's communism is that, for Marx, communism is socialism. He uses both terms interchangeably and therefore any attempt to describe communism as distinct from socialism by Marx's definitions is moot. What is the point of using this wikipedia page to solely describe one variety of communism in the lead, rather than utilizing all definitions and relegating what is an interpretation of Marx's personal definition to subsections on Marxian communism/socialism? Darkmagine (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Communism vs anarcho-communism vs marxian communism

Much of this article misrepresents communism as solely Marx's version of communism (a variety of anarcho-communism), I've adjusted a few such mistakes, however it is still obvious that many editors have solely defined communism by Marx's particular version of it. Much of the information for instance in the lead is solely relevant to Marx's communism and not communism in general. Darkmagine (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

While it's true that Marx was not the sole person to advocate some sort of communist society, I don't think it's wrong for the article to emphasize Marxist understandings of the term given that the vast majority of references to "communism" in the 20th and 21st centuries have been in relation to Marx and avowedly Marxist movements. Also, outside of anarcho-communists like Kropotkin, I'm not aware of any other variety of communist thought that is still relevant. You don't see anyone proposing we reorder society on the basis of Morelly's Code de la Nature, or that we set up towns and villages on Owenite lines. --Ismail (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It can emphasize, but it still should attempt to include all definitions, if you want to make a lead about marxian communism, then go to a page on marxian communism. This page is about communism in general, and should attempt to describe non-marxian communisms in addition to marxian communism in its lead. Darkmagine (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure common ownership of production applies to all forms of communism. Marxian communism is also the dominant form of communism, meaning Wikipedia's article on communism will reflect that. X-Editor (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The article already has sections titled "Early communism" and "Other types of communism." While I'm sure these could be improved upon, including "all definitions" is unnecessary given how the vast majority of "communisms" are long defunct. I think it's safe to say the bulk of people looking up communism in an encyclopedia don't care to learn how individuals like John Humphrey Noyes and Étienne Cabet used the term. They're far more likely to care about how Marx and ruling parties in the USSR, China, Cuba, etc. have understood the concept. --Ismail (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2022

Under the section; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#Memory_and_legacy. The last sentence contains a spelling error:

"Both Gerstle and Scheidel posit that as economic elites in the West became more fearful of possible communist revolutions in their own societies, especially as the tyranny and violence associated with communist governments became more apparent, the more willing they were to compromise and collaborate with the working class, and much less so once the threat wained."

Wained should be waned. This is a common misspelling. Sersteven (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2022

Please edit this page to remove the section making the contrast "a more vanguardist or communist party-driven approach through the development of a constitutional socialist state followed by Friedrich Engels' withering away of the state" as this confuses the reader to believe that the name drop of Engles implies that Leninist Vanguardism is something endorsed by or derived from Engles when this has no basis. This page is often abused as a tool to conflate "in name only" communist countries with the political philosophy of communism. Misnomers exist and should be clearly identified as such. Marx's communism does not prescribe the Marxist Leninist philosophy and strategy of government. Britannica makes this distinction very clearly as an example of better practice . Please add this sentiment in the first paragraph with a clearly written paraphrasing of 'However, none of these (nominal communist countries) meet the true definition of communism... While all five countries (nominal communist countries) have authoritarian governments, their commitment to abolishing capitalism is debatable.' Houseratz (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

When you make an edit request, you should provide the re-wording you want. TFD (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2022

Add the article to Utopias category/series (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia) as a practically unachievable (which was proven historically) model of society. 126.113.237.114 (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Curbon7 (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

That's only one interpretation. Another is that they achieved what they intended. TFD (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

There is an unmet burden of proof for it being practical unachievable. History is itself constantly debated, in question and cannot be a reference of 'proved things'. Ergo this is an unsourced assertion. Please either present credible evidence for a real contradiction implied by the premise of communism or cease your attempts to insert your feelings based ideas into this medium. Houseratz (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

No feelings here, just trying to flesh things out. If practice is not a proof, then such section as "utopia" itself does not make any sense: we can not, prove the impossibility of, say, transhumanism, which does belong to that class, as well. However, further dispute does not make much sense, as seems like I was wrong, and Communist society (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society) is already included into Utopias, so as for me everything is now fine and no amendments required. Thank you for the response. 126.113.237.114 (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to predict what social organization will be in 1.000 years, 1 million years or 100 million years time. Certainly the ancient Greeks could not predict modern capitalism, so it's hard to believe that post-WW2 ideology is necessarily the end of history. TFD (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

What is communism?

An encyclopedia is supposed to inform about that what a word is usually used for. In face of that, it might be rationally relevant that none of the states that were, or periods of time in which they were, referred to as communist states by their leading employees or usually elsewhere, often as the only word to describe the difference between them and the other states in economical policy, came anywhere close either in practical intent or in implementation to “the absence of social classes, money, and the state“, the latter two at least. Because these states or periods of time in the history of states are what the word Communism is used for most, possibly this part of the definition of communism here should be changed to something like “in communist teaching is the ideal of the absence of social classes, money and the state“.

--46.114.149.97 (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

maybe because it's not a possible thing to achieve in reality :^) 2601:18F:E82:97C0:0:0:0:8054 (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't the definition be what the creator of the definition made it, they created the term. You can explain that the term is generally used to mean how the countries that claim to be communism turned out. This also goes for fascism, Wikipedia page for Fascism, including the talk page are both semi-protected so I couldn't type this there. However the way fascism is described in the article has very little to do with the actual meaning of fascism in the fascist manifesto. Is it the same for the Communist article, is the article only describing the description of countries that claim to be communist and offer no information on what it mean in the Communist manifesto? 2603:90C8:503:BE18:A1DD:1767:B72:A10C (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a bad faith, baseless and unconstructive comment. This pages discussion should be limited to educational discourse not empty posturing by the insecure. Houseratz (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The current version of the article already does what you are saying it should. TFD (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

It might, but the page for Fascism does not. Why am I mentioning it here? Because the talk page for fascism is locked. Where are we suppose to state things about articles of the talk page is locked? If the Communism article does so, why doesn't the fascism article? 2603:90C8:503:BE18:2DA5:6110:764:DA9B (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Good point..I would debate the whole idea of communism being far left although fascism seems to fit as far right..to me communism is only a word that describes living in a communal way..I guess in the popular sense it does fit as a bunch of people living in a house sharing resources and all that implies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2340:9470:3D3F:2251:46DE:D9FE (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I don`t think it does. What I meant is that the article says "communist society also involves [...]", rather than "communist teaching also says that communist society involves [...]". 129.69.140.138 (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

It should be clear at the very beginning of the article that 'Communist states' are misnomers. The role of an encyclopedia should be focused clear education. Corrupt governments have a vested interest in disguising their politics as less offensive through their branding. Wikipedia must undercut this dishonesty and be clear about the facts of the matter. Communism describes X, these countries brand themselves as X but function on the basis of Y. Having an article where cynical branding is lumped with honest philosophy is irresponsible and unethical. Houseratz (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Which is my point, the Communism article mentions the definition as written, and also the definition of how states that used the term acted. But the Fascism article doesn't mention the term in the way it was written. I read the manifesto, it does not fit the wikipedia definition of facisim at all. 2603:90C8:503:BE18:252D:CACC:B4F7:B2C7 (talk) 05:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

This is the author of the original argument posted from 46.114.149.97. I want to say that my point of view is that both the practical and the theoretical meaning of communism should be mentioned, but perhaps the practical meaning (that is also probably relevant to the majority of people, that is probably not communist), including the resulting abuses, first. My primary concern is that in the cause for "the absence of social classes, money, and the state", communism is a roadblock by its authoritativeness about how it embodies and champions such a cause, while it is in practice mainly concerned with locking down culture, public expression, and voting systems in favor of state economy, and then perhaps formal equality of people of different fixed traits like gender and religion, and perhaps some environment protection. How libertarian aspects might be insinuated by the precedence of such a definition, however meant by the original authors of communism, in effect is a neglection of neutrality in favor of its misleading advertising to a libertarian clientele (by libertarians, I mean radical proponents of personal freedom also against the implications of property). I distance myself from what 2603:90C8:503:BE18:2DA5:6110:764:DA9B apparently perhaps meant, that it would also resolve this issue if fascism were given the first word on Wikipedia about what it actually is. 129.69.140.138 (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

According to the Fascism article Fascism is far right, a giant red banner with a hand saying this can not be changed, except the fascist manifesto is no way is similar to far right. Why is there no giant red banner saying Communist if Far left, when the Communist manifesto is far left? Why am I posting this here? Because th4e fascism TALK page is locked.

Things that are in the fascism manifesto corporations can do as they wish, UNLESS they harm the environment OR citizens then we'll restrict them. Nationalism is good - Nationalism doesn't mean the country it means the collective of the citizens. Things like that? So that's what you're saying is far right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:90C8:503:BE18:E18A:9049:BC5C:33EE (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

No criticism of ideology unlike other pages?

Where did it go? Camelfan 42817 (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

See under "Analysis".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is there an out-of-place, one-sentence claim that communist china reduced its poverty rate to 6%

1. Per the world bank, "By 2022, 10.8 percent of the population in China are expected to fall below the $5.50/day per person poverty line."

The only way to get that 6% is to cite blatantly lying state media propaganda.

2. Why is this even in the Post-Soviet Communism section?

It has 2 paragraphs, and one of them is that single sentence proclaiming to the world that 6% is the poverty rate.

I can't edit this page but request that someone who can do two things:

i.) Remove the offending sentence from the end of the Post-Soviet Communism section.

ii.) Report the account that added that sentence. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's process for investigating accounts, but I am sure we have a strong consensus here that state media should not be writing Wikipedia articles, particularly on topics sensitive enough that administrators locked all editing. 76.188.120.7 (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This is sourced to the World Bank. The main researcher was Martin Ravallion, who had a PhD in economics from the London School of Economics. Hardly "blatantly lying state media propaganda". You might check the source before making accusations and calling for an investigation". Now, that number is from 2001 and may need updating. But, the number you quote is what it is expected to be, not measured. This is not a surprise given the effect of the pandemic on China and the extreme lockdowns. Once the dust settles, this can be updated. But, the point of the sentence is that economic reforms did, in fact, dramatically improve the poverty rate, extreme in older days. The next two decades are another discussion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The 6% number is absolutely not found in the World Bank page you mentioned. It's also not asource with "World Bank data, but that is beside the point.

The source does not support the claim. It also is irrelevant to the section. O3000, why are you lying to push the state narrative?

Additionally, imagine if a paragraph were added detailing the increase in poverty under Xi's reign. Such a paragraph would be equally irrelevant to the Post-Soviet Communism section as the unsorted paragraph I proposed deletion of.

I can't edit this page but request that someone who can do two things:

i.) Remove the offending sentence from the end of the Post-Soviet Communism section.

ii.) Report the account that added that sentence. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's process for investigating accounts, but I am sure we have a strong consensus here that state media should not be writing Wikipedia articles, particularly on topics sensitive enough that administrators locked all editing. O3000 also appears to be a sock of the Communist Party.76.188.120.7 (talk) 1 February 2023 (UTC)

[1] O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Uncertain Phrase

A friend of mine and I talked about Wikipedia accuracy on certain topics and he brought up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#:~:text=According%20to%20Rachel%20Walker%2C%20Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism%20is%20an%20empty%20term (According to Rachel Walker, Marxism–Leninism is an empty term that depends on the approach and basis of ruling Communist parties, and is dynamic and open to re-definitions, being both fixed and not fixed in meaning.), saying that this is wrong. I am not very informed on this topic and while I see that the article is citing someone (ie. Rachel Walker), I don't exactly understand why Rachel Walker is being brought up here, especially when, by all I know, Marxism-Leninism isn't an empty term. I personally think this is minor, ie. not article-breaking, but as it was brought up by him as an inaccuracy I'd be interested to understand why this paragraph is as it is. Thanks a lot, ULTRACOMFY (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the view as expressed by that sentence as phrased is worth inclusion in the article. Like all political terms, it is "both fixed and not fixed in meaning" but to say that the term is "empty" is a point of view so WP:exceptional that it should require a higher degree of sourcing. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thank you very much! Normally I'd feel inclined to change the section in question, but when it comes to communism then I know for sure that I'm no qualified to make judgements or act on behalf of the judgement of other people. I'll just leave it to someone who knows what they're talking about. Either way, thank you for your time. ULTRACOMFY (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree this should be deleted.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Political position

WP:NOTAFORUM/WP:OR— provide reliable non-primary sources or forever hold your peace Dronebogus (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Recently, I made an edit describing communism as "far-left", not left wing. Now, I’m saying this with pretty much the entirety of the political spectrum in mind. I can’t see how an idea that encourages not just the elimination of social structures, but also the abolition of private property, religion, and the extermination of a entire structural group - the bourgeoisie - is not considered to be on the farthest left on the spectrum. Also, I’ve found that Wikipedia’s attitude to communism is far too relaxed. For example, Wikipedia says, on the fascism page, Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. Now, I’m not saying this isn’t true, but you can’t go and say all of this and just characterise communism, an ideology that has killed over 100 MILLION people, in addition to its deplorable ideological system of abolition of private enterprise, the bourgeoise, etc. as simply “left wing to far left” and be so ignorant to its authoritarian nature. This site is supposed to be unbiased, but providing a refuge for such a detestable system is just very hard to stomach, especially when I’ve seen editors who have - on this site - openly identified as Marxists, socialists, Maoists, the rest. I think to be unbiased, you MUST abide by the traditional political spectrum. I’m a conservative, no doubt, but I can speak to a liberal. If Wikipedia, however, is to characterise someone like Pres. Trump and his ideology as far right, even fascist (read the Trumpism article) but simply call communism “left-wing”, it shows the site is ridiculously intolerant toward some positions, whilst embracing others (like communism) that are indubitably worse. The Hammering Hammer (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Communism has many flavors, which the article discusses. Indeed, China, Russia, and Cuba have private enterprise. All systems have problems. No purist system seems to work at a large scale. The US is a capitalist/socialist country as pure capitalism could be described as immoral. But, we aren’t here to decide what is a good vs. bad system. To remain unbiased, we cannot make statements like communism requires an authoritarian nature as, unlike fascism, it doesn’t. Although current, large examples are authoritarian. We must cover the entire subject in an unbiased manner, which we do. As for the 100 million deaths, you might want to read the section on “Excess mortality in Communist states”. Over the centuries, there has been no shortage of deaths at the hands of humans. As an example, it is estimated that 90% of the indigenous populations in the Americas died. As for your statement: the site is ridiculously intolerant toward some positions, whilst embracing others (like communism), that is way, way out of line and should be stricken. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Actually, I have read that section. It seems like it’s been manipulated to achieve very much an agenda. Just read this, Many authors have written about excess deaths under Communist states and mortality rates, such as excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. Some authors posit that there is a Communist death toll, whose death estimates vary widely, depending on the definitions of the deaths that are included in them, ranging from lows of 10–20 million to highs over 100 million. The higher estimates have been criticized by several scholars as ideologically motivated and inflated; they are also criticized for being inaccurate due to incomplete data, inflated by counting any excess death, making an unwarranted link to communism, and the grouping and body-counting itself. Wikipedia doesn’t provide a source here. It’s like saying, "There is no consensus the Great Depression happened because not every one lived during that time". Wikipedia doesn’t provide a source, plain and simple. I’m not questioning any thing about fascism. And I didn’t say anything about the indigenous people. Basically, Wikipedia’s entire section is saying, We’re not sure if these things happened. "Unwarranted link to communism." Saying that is just mad. It’s actually quite disgusting. The consensus of several scholars doesn’t change anything about these atrocities, and the fact that Wikipedia is even casting doubt on the horrific stories of communist regimes is beyond wrong. As for arguing with my describing it as authoritarian, perhaps you’d like to view the fact Marx describes the bourgeoisie as the responsibility behind despicable natures in society, and as such puts forward their demise as their answer. Marx writes this - there’s no disputing this. Oh, yes, and read this Marx work: "I shall build my throne high overhead, cold, tremendous shall its summit be…Then I will be able to walk triumphantly, like a god, through the ruins of their kingdom. Every word of mine is fire and action. My breast is equal to that of the creator… I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above." The Hammering Hammer (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC) The section I referred to links to an article on deaths under Stalin with 97 refs and there are many more in that paragraph. You have grossly mischaracterized the section. As for Marx, as I said, there are many flavors of communism. Echoing one quote from Marx as if it defines all communist variants is pointless. Did I quote Hitler, who despised communism? Your comparison to the great depression is not on point. I feel this is not going to be a useful discussion as you appear to want to turn this into a screed instead of an unbiased article on a complex subject. "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." -John Kenneth Galbraith O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Those quotes are taken from different works. The first is from a book of poetry he wrote at 19 before he became interested in ideology. It's easy to cherry pick quotes from a prolific writer whose views evolved over time. Why not quote his essay written two years earlier, "The Union of the Faithful with Christ?" Then one could speculate that the Communists were secretly Christian. TFD (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC) I agree that communism should be described as far-left in the introduction, instead of being labeled as simply "left-wing to far-left". This is because communism is a political ideology that requires a radical and complete overhaul to the current economic and social structures of society and in most parts of the world it is very far of the overton window. Even the few last remaining relevant communist parties like CCP and JCP have, in pratice, moved away from the literal interpretation of communism that was present in their original ideologies. Lucasdmca (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Regarding the left-right axis question: there are no universal standards for left-right positions. Depending on where you stand, things might seem further to the left or further to the right. Characterizing communism as 'far-left' is misleading, as communist parties constitute the mainstream left in many countries and in some countries is the sole legal party (making left/right labels for parties superflous). --Soman (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC) I would like that you provide examples of countries where parties defending literal communism is the mainstream left. As far as I know, there are only two countries praticing anything that remotely resembles communism, NK and Cuba. Today most communist one-party states like China and Vietnam are communist in name only. Lucasdmca (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC) No country ever practiced "literal communism," which is a society where the state has ceased to exist. While they share a belief that is the ultimate destiny of mankind, in practice communists select their policies according to conditions. In China for example the government determined that allowing private enterprise would lead to greater wealth for their people. Earlier, they defended a planned economy on the basis that it would bring about rapid industrialization. What distinguishes them is the ideological reasons for their policies. TFD (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Lucasdmca - I'd say France, India, Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Iraq, Russia, Brazil, Chile, etc. are some contemporary examples. If we can include past periods, Italy is a clear-cut example as well. --Soman (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Cambodia was certainly communist, as was Cuba (under Castro). The Hammering Hammer (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC) They were not communist, because the state had not withered away, which is the definition of communism. They called their states socialist, although whether or not they actually were is contentious. The most you can say is that they were ruled by communist parties. But communist parties can pursue a range of policies, just as liberal and conservative parties can. TFD (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC) Cuba is not a good example of anything other than survival. Since tossing out Batista's police state, Cuba has been under punishing economic sanctions making any system challenging. As TFD said, no country ever practiced "literal communism". Perhaps there was some semblance in small examples like some early Native American or other aboriginal groups. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC) Cambodia, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Cuba, China, Soviet Union — all of them were indubitably communist. You can’t just say "it’s contentious whether or not they were socialist", they were all communist they were just preparing for a stateless society. Pot achieved a society that neared stateless nature. You judge communism by the people that described themselves as communists. If someone is a Christian, but say "real Christianity" has never been tried, you’d laugh in their face, as billions of people are Christians…just abiding by the GOAL of communism (which, ultimately, is for the entire world to become a communist state, unlike what you have said), does not change these countries were communist…it is unarguable that they were communist countries, as they went by a communist image. Stop trying to make it out like the far-left has never been responsible for something truly disgusting, e.g. the Khmer Rouge…it was communist, and to say anything else is ridiculous. The Hammering Hammer (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC) There is a distinction between the ideology of the government and the type of economic system it has. The government of Scotland for example supports independence but nonetheless Scotland is not an independant state. Anyway, to say that a state is preparing to become communist is not the same thing as saying it has achieved that. How can you say that Pol Pot's plans for achieving communism were right and modern China's isn't? In fact none of them have achieved communism so we cannot know which would work best. And yes the description of socialist is contentious because it is questionable whether the working class actually controlled the state or whether it was controlled by party elites. Some writers for example say it was failed socialism because worker democracies were never achieved, while others say that was never the intention. Only you and the Communists themselves believed that they had achieved socialism. TFD (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC) I think that some of this discussion shows confusion between communism, which is a more general category, and Marxism–Leninism, which is the actual specific ideology of the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and so on. Marxism-Leninism was historically the most prominent type of communism, so it often gets called simply "communism", but that's like how we usually refer to Conservatism in the United States as just "conservatism", although conservatism is actually a much broader category. So, Wikipedia has two different pages for them, one for the broad category and one for the more specific ideology, even though they are usually called by the same name. That's how it is with communism (broad) and Marxism-Leninism (specific), too. The Hammering Hammer, you should check out the articles on other forms of communism, like anarcho-communism and eurocommunism for example, and you will see that they are very different from Marxism-Leninism (and from each other). Eurocommunism is not usually considered far-left, and some of its leaders were even instrumental in creating the European Union. Anarcho-communism is far-left obviously, but not in the same way as Marxism-Leninism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liv Karbt (talk • contribs) 06:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Communist parties have been part of governing coalitions in many democratic countries, such as in France in the Plural Left government of 1997-2002. We cannot say that these moderate communists were "not real communists" just like we can't say that Mao was "not a real communist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liv Karbt (talk • contribs) 06:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)