Talk:Communism/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Wikinfo links

There seems to be a lot of discussion/disagreement on this topic. I have added Wikinfo links to articles both sympathetic and unsympathetic to communism. Please feel free to edit them - your opportunity to stick to your ideas and non be obliged to attempt the unreachable ideal of NPOV. Roger 23:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

This article seems to virtually ignore anarcho-communism, and doesn't even mention libertarian communism. I really think there should be a section on libertarian vs authoritarian communism--Marxism is not the be-all-end-all of communism. In the archive there didn't seem to be any consensus regarding whether or not to take it out, and so this is my attempt to formulate a consensus. The Ungovernable Force 22:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because daddy hit you doesnt mean you have to hate the government you little weinie

No personal attacks, moron.

I'm retitling this a NPOV dispute because this article promotes the idea that communism is synonymous with Marxism and has Bakunin and Kropotkin as virtual footnotes to the piece. This is fundamentally inaccurate, the Marx/Bakunin split is one of the dominant features of modern left-wing politics and remains active. Donnacha 19:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Internal Contradictions

This page blatantly contradicts itself and is very far from containing an NPOV (neutral point of view). It refers to an imaginary "stateless" society and then implies that this view was or is held by followers of heads of state and would-be heads of state (e.g. Stalin, Mao, Trotsky) who advocated and practiced totalitarian control by the state over the economy -- i.e. advocated and practiced the strongest kind of state. The pages is also heavily biased in refering to the imaginary ideals rather than the brutal reality that has been the main consequence of this ideology. This page needs to be substantially edited to remove these gross contradictions which amount to naive pro-totalitarian propaganda for an ideology that has killed tens of millions of people.208.59.114.65 03:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)216.15.60.162 03:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The page needs to talk about both what they said and what they did. Marxists claim to support the idea of a stateless society as an end goal, but that a country first has to be socialist and eventually evolve to statelessness. Of course, their brand of socialism does seem to often involve ruthless dictatorships. The Ungovernable Force 04:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the philosophy is introduced by one particular innocent-sounding and esoteric goal, stated by Marx in one of his rare asides where he actually talked about what his imagined communist society would look like, and believed by only *some* Marxists -- i.e. the stateless society -- instead of the political philosophy actually practiced by those named in the article (Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, and Mao) and the many other and more important stated goals of Marx and the named communists ("liquidating" capitalists, the "dictatorship of the proletariat", the centrally planned economy, etc). It's like introducing Nazism according to one of its innocent-sounding ideals (e.g. "deep devotion to family and community" to quote from the more balanced Wikipedia entry on Nazism) and ignoring the more politically important and deadly aspects of the philosophy.216.15.60.162 04:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

What? You forget the other communists then, Kropotkin, the Communards of the Paris Commune, the Christian communists, the anarchist communists. This has been discussed long ago — the page is to discuss the ideology and what effects the ideology has. The ideology itself does not advocate a totalitarian state. Rather, leaders have used this ideology to justify a totalitarian state. It's not ignoring anything. By your logic, the article on Christianity is heavily biased because it talks about innocent sounding ideals and "turn the other cheek" while in fact torture, massacres and holy wars have been carried out in its name. But the fact remains, those were acts that were carried out in the name of Christianity, but arguably not sought by Christiainty itself. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 13:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The page is labeled "communism," not "communisy ideology." As such, it should discuss the actual history of communism as it was implemented, including the most politically important aspects of its ideology in pririty to the imaginary aspects of ideology. The summary should reflect this. It's interesting that you see one of the strong resemblances between communism and supernatural religions. Your invocation of early and unsuccessful fringe elements of communism does not deprecate the mainstream of practically sucessful communism involving Marx, Lenin, and Stalin.216.15.60.162 14:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

No, because communism is an ideology. That is what the entire suffix -ism is supposed to imply. Thus, it does discuss the actual history of communism. The reality is: the communist ideal is such and such — Marxist-Leninism is the most prominent. This is a fact. However, we then proceed to say that many movements associated with it are revolutionary/violent, and its name has been used by communist states (which is in another article) - and communist parties of which many are totalitarian or dictatorial in nature. Interesting? Christian communism is a widespread movement. I suggest you look into it. Christian communism predated Marxist-Leninism by the way. "Early communism" was hardly fringe and unsuccessful. Of course, how are Stalinist governments successful? They aren't. The Paris Commune was successful in its own right, because it kept its virtue, and could in fact have won if their virtue did not extend to refusing to take the gold bullion stored in the Paris bank (which was in fact later borrowed by the Versailles government against the Communards) — Peter Kropotkin is hardly a "fringe" or "unsuccessful" thinker - many people adhere to his ideas. What about Noam Chomsky? Anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism have many things in common. Deprecate? The anarchist communists do not believe the Leninists are in fact communists at all. Just as someone conquers and crusades in the name of Christianity does not mean they are actually Christian, just because there have been widespread movements who use the name of communism to further their cause does not mean they are actually communist. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 15:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Communism is NOT an ideology and the article is fundamentally incorrect on that point. Communism is a theoretical form of social and economic organisation, and not political, thus does not meet the definition of an ideology. It is only when it's attached to a political idea that it becomes a true ideology and there are a number of different communist-based ideology, the predominant forms being Marxism (and its antecedents - Trotskyism, Leninism, Maoism) and anarchist-communism. Donnacha 01:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Bingo! The Ungovernable Force 15:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

162 is right. The introduction introduces people to imaginary communism, not to communism as it was actually practiced when people who called themselves communist gained political power. The Christianity page is primarily about Christians who have actually practiced, not merely preached, their religion. "Communism" is the Wikipedia entry most will turn to first when they want to learn how communist countries worked. Communism is primarily a political philosophy, not a religion, and the entry "Communism" should stress the actual practice of people, political organizations, and governments that have called themselvs "communist" as well as the theory of communism. The introduction should reflect this. Christians in contrast have practiced their religion in polities as various as can be found on the planet. 162 is quite correct to observe that the current introduction is in flagrant violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy and factual orientation. I will restore 162's edits and add a sentence of my own naming the leading practitioners of communism.128.164.132.31 20:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a far more serious NPOV problem to include such statements which are more contentious than the previous. If they want to know how many communist countries worked, they should look at communist state. Effectively, most of what you have described is already at communist state. This distinction was made long ago, and to include it here would effectively render that article useless. The actual practice of communism? You can find people are practicing anarchist communism in various ways, just not necessarily without the takeover of a state. Now, if you define the success of a movement by merely its success in overthrowing another government, I think that's a logical fallacy. A movement does not have to engage in violent revolution in order to be considered. The other encyclopedias define it as a system where goods are held in common. In most opening lines there is nothing about totalitarian control, which is effectively fascist. A lot of people associate communism with totalitarianism , but it's like associating Islam with terrorism. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think the article is not bad overal, it just need to venture into more deep about such wide concept as communism (and/or Communism if you will). The largest communist experiment ever was the Marx-Leninism with the emphasis on the communism as being the ultimate goal. No Communist state ever practized communist system and no Communist state even caimed that they do. This is what I see the major problem here - the miss-ussage of word Communism in context reffering to the Totalitarian Socialism. The article tries to differentiate this at first somehow but then soon enough mixing all that back again (with the dubious "C" and "c" differentiation) What west calls "Communist" states were not communists (no communism was ever practized there) but instead the communism was their long-term goal. They themselves defined the Marx-Engels-Lenin future communism as most notably abolishing of any private property and abolishing means of exchange (anybody works as much as he can and anybody can take in return what he needs). I don't think that "stateless" society was any of the Communist countries goal - not even in their propaganda. In fact they believed that a new communist society would for most of its time require a strong state to protect their values - hence very little dissagreement between Communist parties about creating a police state.

Proposed Changes Towards Restoring NPOV and Reality to the Article "Communism"

I propose and will make the following changes in order to move towards a NPOV (and, quite frankly, towards some connection with reality) for the article. First, I will introduce the communist political philosophy and ideology, not according to the imaginary ideal of some communists of a "stateless" society, which has never been the actual political practice of communism, but as one that "generally promotes totalitarian control of the state over the economy." "Generally" of course means there are exceptions, i.e. the people who advocate the "never been tried" varieties of communism. But this fact is "generally" true, i.e. it has been true of all the politically successful communist movements, and is true of all of the communist movements named in this article (Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism, and Trotskyism).216.15.60.162 04:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be incredibly POV and I strongly urge you not to make that edit. You are only looking at a very narrow definition of communism. Go ahead and talk about all the crap Stalin and Mao and Lenin and Trotsky and all those other people did. Don't go and say though that communists advocate totalitarianism, only a few do and most don't. You can talk about the diffence between what they say and what actually happens when a communist state is attempted. Then again, really we've only talked about Marxist attempts at communism, which is not the only type of communism. As mentioned elsewhere in this talk page, look at the Spanish Revolution and Paris Commune. The Ungovernable Force 15:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Stalinism was not a communist movement; it was a hijacking of the communist movement. There are libertarian communists who strongly protest their inclusion as part of communism in the first place, part of the history of communism perhaps. Reality? The fact is, communism aims for a stateless society (ie. anarchist communism), this aim has been attempted in the past (do read Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell about communist and anarchist Spain before the fascist takeover) — to introduce these changes would in fact violate neutral point of view. Most modern communists you see, don't advocate mass murder. A lot of them advocate revolution and disdain nonviolent revolution (to the horror of pacifists), but that's another thing. The communist philosophy is meant to be stateless. The Cult of Mao is not part of the "philosophy of communism", perhaps the "philosophy of the Chinese Communist Party", but not of communism. Philosophies and ideologies of Communist parties (with a capital C) are different from the philosophies and ideology of communism itself. Totalitarian control by the state over the economy is nationalisation and centrally planned economics, which is state socialism and not advocated by many communists. See anarchist communism. Also, I see you made legal threats on your talk page. I'd advise you not to do so. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 13:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

See comments above.216.15.60.162 15:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You should keep your comments in one place then. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 15:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

LOOK - Communism is a theory. It never really worked as you describe it here. So please change the article into something more NPOV - like state that it is a theory in the lead or something. ackoz 23:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is not clear enough, but the first line of the article says that communism is a conjectured classless society. "Conjectured" meaning something similar to "theoretical". --BostonMA 23:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat what others have so eloquently said: Elle and The Ungovernable Force are absolutely correct. IP 216.15.60.162 has not done his/her research. As far as I'm concerned, this particular case is closed. -- WGee 01:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

-->Quite frankly Im astounded, this is one of the most biased articles Ive come across in Wikipedia. Several times I have suggested changes, and they are always refuted. One of my favorites is that while we are listing people opposed to communism, there is a list of philosophers and "good" people. But when I added National Socialist leader Adolf Hitler to the list (if youve read Mein Kampf, you would understand why) it always gets removed. If we are so absolutely unbiased, we should post on the page the people who hate communism, whether they are "good" or "bad". If Hitler proclaims a "socialist" organization, it is absolutely pertinent that we post him as someone opposed to communism to show the interesting contradictions in history. But no, instead Wikipedia has been ruled by dogma alone, we cant possibly have someone EVIL hate communism, it makes history gray and not black and white as we want!

Further, I believe the article should contain something highlighting the fact that in popular culture, "communism" and "totalitarianism" are used interchangably. This post was removed as being "off topic"...if the editors actually left their expensive computer rooms and actually spoke to people, they would find that this lack of understanding of words is a common problem, which Wikipedia should address. True, the USSR and China have become totalitarian states. But states that aspire to socialism have in general NOT been totalitarian.

To say that communism never really worked and therefore will never work is a foolish statement made from erroneous logic. I have news for you, the first democratic capitalist society was destroyed...by a more communal slave-owning society! Certainly its been over 2000 years since Sparta conquered Athens, but government types cannot be judged on the basis of one example or a small handful of examples. Otherwise the west would be without democracy...

Finally, I see that although Wikipedia proclaims to be an unbiased encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" this is obviously not the case. Wikipedia has become a haven for people who only half know things, who fail to use primary sources, and fail to make changes that disagree with their doctrines. Its a sad day when I can hand you a primary source, but you havent the courage to actually read it because it might change your opinions. Its a sadder day when poor students, unable to think critically about what they are reading, just copy down your idea of "knowledge". Wikipedia isnt peer reviewed, although it needs to be, to minimize the influence of people like you User: Astroceltica.

Actually it's not bias but rather trying to maintain a delicate balance in the article upon which consensus has been reached upon. Many anti-communists again, aren't in fact "critics of communism", because to offer criticism it has to be substantial, ie. something about the economics, not why communism is t3h evil because it's a Jewish disease. User:172 is a historian, so, it's not half-knowledge. The part that you tried to insert is not relatively new, but in order to prevent undue weight and to uphold neutral point of view (as it is already discussed somewhat throughout the article), the entire "communism isn't necessary totalitarianism" sentence is unnecessary. If you take a look at the article you find Wikipedia does not make this assertion, although it states that one side believes it leads to it, and states that there is another other camp believes it does not (and another further still who actually believes in totalitarianism anyway, ie. Stalinists). Hitler is a significant anti-communist, but not a significant critic. When anti-communists seek to criticise communism, they refer to the works of Adam Smith, or some economist, and when communists seek to rebuff them, they refer to other works (not necessarily that of Marx) - no one ever uses Mein Kampf in a debate. Mein Kampf was a rant. I don't see how it was a criticism. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 08:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but Communism is a failed ideology like fascism and Nazism, it has remnants in Cuba and China, but is generally a failed 20th century totalitarian movement. The fact a few eccentrics don't accept this is not POV, no rank and file member of a movement considers themselves "totalitarian" in the first place. It is sad that an ideology responsible for the murders of millions is given such a fair hearing compared to the previous mentioned fascism/nazism... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.215.225 (talk • contribs)

No, it is not. First off, its not a 20th century movement at all- its a 19th century one. Secondly, as noted above, Communism is NOT fasicm or Nazism, as it is a purely economic system- the government putting it into power is foolish. // ^The True _Sora 21:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Larunchia 18:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Summary/Comparison of Schools of Thought

I am—as with many Americans—largely unfamiliar with communism and the different idealogies (I know the names, not what they stand for). I think it would be a good idea to create a page that summarizes or, even better, compares the differences between Maoism, Marxism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, and other schools of thought. Again, as I am unfamiliar with the actual details, I do not know how practical/feasible/viable this is, but if it is so, it would be quite useful.—Kbolino 21:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the idea is feasible or useful. The communism article as it stands is supposed to be such an article. 172 | Talk 23:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Achieving Stateless Societies

I'm looking at the matter wholly from a theoretical perspective, which as we have seen is largely irrelevant to history, but presumably demands some scrutiny as an intellectual kickoff. If in fact a stateless society is the goal of "true communism", how is it to be achieved? I'm not interested enough to wade thru the primary texts and the various dialectics but am curious: having attained a position poised on the brink of "going stateless", what then? What are the presumed political/administrative mechanics? Maybe I'm just skeptical of human nature, but when has ANY government of any stripe voluntarily dissolved itself? The USSR only did so when the enormous political, social, and economic burdens toppled it.

Thanx for considering my query. I thoroughly enjoy Wikipedia.

Anarchist communists propose a gift economy, ie. self-interest in self-regulation. Anarchist communists do not accept an interim authoritarian government, either, which is why they oppose Marxism. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

People arguing against say it probably isnt possible to be achieved, because of basic human needs and wants (ex. unique individualistic ambition versus conformist drone mentality), it won't work if not enforced (tragedy of the commons); and will topple eventually if enforced (as shown by history). It seems like true communism itself is purely theoretical, just of like Anarcho-capitalism. At most it seems to work in basic, simple, and networked species (ants, bees). Oh and answering your question, the only way to go stateless is viva la revolucion of course! The events of the Tiananmen square protests were a cry for less state control and democracy, but they were crushed. You need revolution after revolution, then maybe eventually you may get something close to what you like. By then, you find out it doesn't work. :(

PS: Sorry for the slight POV. --Exander 08:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think "anarchy" should not be translated into "stateless society", but into "leadless society" (i.e. without a pyramidal asset). So, in fact, Anarcho-communism does require a form of government - a state - to work: but this is supposed to work as a direct (and not representative) democracy.

Template

Could you guys please make up your minds about whether to insert {{Communism sidebar}} or {{Communism sidebar}} into articles? Atm it's split - Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Communism sidebar and Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Communism sidebar have more or less equal inclusion. -- infinity0 22:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

If it's that important to you, why can't you do it? "The Free Encyclopedia" isn't for nothing, you know. • TheTrueSora 23:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the {{Communism sidebar}} template is much too vivid and thus inappropriate for an encyclopedia. We should be using {{Communism sidebar}} for now. -- WGee 01:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

so where are we heading ... no coverage of Sun Yat-Sen?

We should try to aim for featured article status ... lead section is too long, so we need to trim that. Also, apparently there is a bit of systemic bias in regards to China...Chinese communism wasn't all about Maoism, you know. According to the article at Chinese anarchism, anarchist communism had become the dominant thought in China by 1907, and Sun Yat-Sen had declared that the Three Principles of the People were meant to implement anarchism and socialism/communism. I eventually intend to cover Sun Yat-Sen and other Xinhai revolutionaries, many of which were communist in nature (although most were republican). Any objections? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 18:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Not from me. Just be sure to discuss the ideological ambiguity of Sun Yat-Sen, for according to what I've read in the Wikipedia articles it is debated whether Sun Yat-Sen and his Three Principles of the People advocated anarchism, communism/socialism, or merely Western-style social democracy. He has on occassion been accused of "opportunistic posturing". -- WGee 01:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

todo

I created a todo section, since we should be eventually heading somewhere (else we should have this as FA). Please modify as appropriate. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Reinsert info on anarchism and other libertarian forms of communism. The Ungovernable Force 03:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Richard Wright

I'm a little surprised Richard Wright is on the list of ant-communists. He was a Communist Party member and later became a critic of the Party. However, I do not think this was an ideological shift but more of a break over the autoritarian controls of the Party. Unless someone has a good source, I think its a stretch to call Wright an anti-communist when the article focuses on the ideological ideal rather than the Communist Party.--Bkwillwm 02:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely familiar with Wright, only read 3/4 of Black Boy (had to turn it back in to the library and never got around to picking it up again), but I think you're probably right. Don't quote me on it though. The Ungovernable Force 03:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Socialism sidebar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anyone care to comment on the socialism NPOV disputes? I feel that an accurate socialism article is necessary for a sound understanding of communism. -- WGee 02:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Some disputes over which template to use

Over the course of the last few weeks on this article, you may have noticed the template changed between {{Communism sidebar}} and {{Communism sidebar}}. I have felt that the Communism sidebar template is cleaner, and is one which I did create. I also wanted to use it over the original due to the fact that it makes use of [[Image:Hammer and sickle.png]], and image that is unfortunately being neglected. Sorry for going personal, but in my mind it is the most "pure" of the hammer/sickle images on Wikipedia and that aside from being used by the communism vandal it saw no other purpose until now. --NicAgent 15:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've said before that your template is much too large and vivid for an encyclopdia, and 172 has styled it "an eye-sore". I'm not saying that the {{Communism sidebar}} is perfect, but it is, thus far, the most appropriate. And how do you justify your re-insertion of the template when nobody has expressed support for it and two people have explicitly opposed it? You should, at the least, wait for the opinions of other editors before you go inserting this template into dozens of articles. -- WGee 19:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps maybe I can shrink the widths of it. Originally, I had it with the same dimensions as {{Communism sidebar}}, but I guess for some reason it was changed by another user. In the meantime I have other shit to do, but perhaps I can fix that template. Since {{Communism sidebar}} is v-protected, it detracts from its purpose, as no one but sysops can change it. The least that could happen is for the *.png version of the Hammer and Sickle to be inserted into that template. --NicAgent 21:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The second template is an eyesore and is unlike most of the other poltics templates in format, so I support version 1 both because it looks better and is more consistent. The Ungovernable Force 03:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the least that I could reinstate the Communism sidebar template but change the colors and shrinken it somewhat. --NicAgent 19:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Natalinasmpf

Natalina, wouldn't most of your recent changes fit better in the History of communism article? The intro is already a bit on the long side as it is. And though I'm a proponent of offering thorough historical context here, if anything, I think the history may already be on the long side as it is. 172 | Talk 05:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I just realised that article existed, which needs to be correlated anyway. Could you not revert my changes (I think they are general improvement overall) for the time being, as I plan reorganising much of the material and getting others to pitch in would also be nice ... I'm sure it doesn't look too ugly that it has to be reverted, right? :-) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I restored part of the additions in the Maoism section, but hid them for the time being. I suggest working in a sandbox until you have a firmer idea of what you want to insert. For now, I think you're going into way too much detail, particularly on the historical origins of Chinese communism, for a general survey article like this one. 172 | Talk 05:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Total rewrite needed

Well, I think the article needs a total rewrite to account for the history of communism subarticle. As well as to allow for a better scope and focus, especially concerning non-Marxist groups, or at least since some pre-CPC communist groups could be classed somewhere - although I am aware of the entire undue weight issue (we can resolve that with a subpage). Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There has already been a discussion of a possible merger. The consensus was that the history of communism needed work, not this article. The communism entry does offer a lot of historical context, but this is necessary in the discussion of the different branches and offshoots of communism. As for a greater focus on non-Marxist groups, I strongly disagree. Marxist-Leninist groups, particularly Moscow allied Communist parties and the Maoists, deserve by far the most coverage here because of notability. These groups, after all, are the only ones to have seized state power. 172 | Talk 05:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well specificially I meant non-CPC groups (ie. the leftist faction of the KMT led by Wang Jingwei), and since they were involved with the Kuomintang and Sun Yat-Sen, and thus played a part in the Xinhai Revolution, and well pretty much involved themselves in some major state politics, then yes. I'm not asking for greater focus either, just a small section, perhaps, for all the varieties that are. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd favor discussing the pre-1949 communist movement in China in greater detail in the history of communism article. We have to keep in mind the need to keep things simple for readers, who may not even know the differences between any of the different strains of communism. 172 | Talk 07:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

D'accord, details should be mentioned there but I think a contextual mention of it (a few sentences) should be included - hence, the need for reorganisation. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't need a new organization per se, just, perhaps, better linking to more specialized entries. 172 | Talk 18:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Communism and human death

How many people has Communism killed? I've heard estimates of anywhere from 60 million to 200 million, world wide. One source is Le Monde.

In China, the Chinese government itself concedes that Mao killed 20 million. Other sources say 60 million.

This is not vandalism, even if my edit needs a source. --Uncle Ed 21:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how that sentence make any logical sense. Does the fact that most modern commies are Marxists have anything to do with the number of people they have killed? It seems like a trollish statement to me. If you are going to put it in do it somewhere else (like in the area in the intro where it talks about the social stigma attached to communism in the US) and source it. The Ungovernable Force 22:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ed, just because Stalin, et al., killed millions of people, doesn't mean Communism stands for killing- in fact, quite the opposite. Therefore, your post is a troll. // ^The True _Sora 22:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Also it's the People's Republic of China, not China. Please do not equate the Gongchandang with the "government of Chinese". Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 10:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Figures for the number of people killed by communist regimes are notoriously tricky and prone to massive over or under estimates, depending on people's politcal persuasion. A lot of figures for the Soviet union include people who died fighting on the Eastern Front during WW2. Also, I think there should be some sort of discussion about the various points of view regarding whether or not "communism" killed people. Nazism is an inately murderous ideology, but Marxism isn't. Is communism inantely murderous when put into practise, is this because it is totalatarian, is it just because mad dictators like Stalin and Mao have come to power under communism. There isn't one simple answer to these questions, there has been much discussion amongst historians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.196.239.189 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC).

And "How many people has killed" by the Catholicism?--Jaro.p 10:46, 6 June 2006(UTC)

Wow! "How many people has Communism killed? I've heard estimates of anywhere from 60 million to 200 million, world wide. One source is Le Monde." Hmm, how does communism kill people? Well let's put it this way - how many starves to death every day because of capitalism? - Anonymous 7th August 05:25 (GMT +01:00)

Unexplained reversions

From edit summary:

Ed Poor, affter all these years, I wish you would start making a habit of reading the entire article before making sweeping changes to intro paragraphs. Your point was covered in another section. [1]

What point was covered? And where?

Are you saying the info you took out shouldn't be in the article at all, or just that it doesn't need to be in the intro?

I found a tiny section about communism (small c) vs. Communism (BIG C). Is that what you were talking about? --Uncle Ed 18:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This will be the last time I respond to you in a section heading referring to my username. I know you've disliked me for the past few years; still, try to avoid personalizing disputes. At any rate, yes, I was referring to the section on usage. I was also referring to the section on criticisms of communism and the specialized entry criticisms of communism. 172 | Talk 18:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ed Poor, slow down your editing. You're putting loads of information in the wrong places. Do you even finish reading articles before editing them? Your discussion of the research of detailing deaths in this history of communist regimes is totally out of place. Have you noticed that that topic is addressed in extensive detail in the criticisms of communism article? 172 | Talk 18:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't dislike you and never have. I merely disagree with a lot of your edits. I've changed the section heading above, so it no longer refers to you username.

I'm not sure it's a dispute between small c and BIG C usage. Looks more like a claim (by one side, but improperly sourced) that villains like Stalin and Mao weren't really "Communists" or really "practicing Communism" or that they departed from the "true teachings" or something vague like that. I think this should be made less vague and more specific.

Who says that Stalin wasn't a Communist, or motivated by Communism, or acting as a Communist leader, or anything like that? Without clarification, it sounds ridiculuous. You recall my comparison to gravity vs. the concept of graviti on another talk page? --Uncle Ed 18:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, I've been the main force here insisting that we need to stay focused on the Communism of Stalin and Mao because the most relevant material is the material on the communists who have seized state power, not the anarchists and the like. See some of my discussions with Natalina. So quit going after me. My POV on communism is probably closer to your POV than many of the other active editors around here. 172 | Talk 19:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the anarchists did seize power, see Spanish Civil War. Not contesting the current state though, but I think just brief mentions where it is timely would be better. In Homage to Catalonia Orwell writes how the Soviets were trying to jockey for position so the anarchists wouldn't finish the revolution once the Fascists were defeated (and eventually the infighting meant the Fascists won) ... to me, if anarchists managed to seize factories, form their own governments and comittees for several years, run their own armies and hold their own ground against Franco, then that is an example. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, some did, but only very briefly. We shouldn't lose sight of the big picture. 172 | Talk 00:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand, because Spanish Catalonia didn't contain hundreds of millions of people, but I'm sure this qualifies it somewhat. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Stigma

Cut from article:

Communism carries a strong social stigma in ...

I'm not sure what this means. Murder also carries a stigma. Is this some contributor's POV that Communism should not carry a stigma? --Uncle Ed 18:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty minor change, considering the fast pace at which you are making sweeping changes. Slow down and discuss your edits. Then maybe it won't be necessary to revert them. 172 | Talk 18:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: Ed Poor (READ)

From the top of this article:

This article is about communism as a form of society and as a political movement. For issues regarding Communist organizations, see communist party. For issues regarding communist party-run states, see Communist state.

The last part of this, regarding Communist states, is what concerns me. You are adding facts about Communist countries (USSR, China) to an article which isn't about them. If you want to add them to Communist state, fine, be my guest. But do not add them here. Do not clutter this page with imformation that the article doesn't concern.

Therefore, I will be reverting your edit every time you attempt to add this information. I don't want to start an edit war, but you are adding information which is irrevelant and usless. Therefore, stop adding it.

Best wishes, // ^The True _Sora 18:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ed Poor seems to be making sweeping changes at a mile a minute without reading the article on many pages appearing in my recent editing history. After all these years, I wish he would slow down and start editing in a more methodical and deliberative manner. 172 | Talk 18:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Communism as a political movement has killed tens of millions of people. That fact is relevant. If you want to move details about these murders to a better article, that's fine. Whatever helps the reader.

But please do not censor delete information with sweeping reverts. And please do not declare ownership of the article by announcing your intent to revert "every time I attempt to add" certain information. --Uncle Ed 19:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Refrain from allegations of "censorship." While there are a few apologists for Communist regimes on Wikipedia (such as a particular editor Adam Carr and I have been challenging on the Cuba-related articles), I'm pretty sure that none of them are editing this article. The concern here is how to circumscribe an extremely complex and diverse topic. We need to make sure readers understand all different kinds of communism there are and the general history of the communist movement before we can make such broad generalizations. 172 | Talk 19:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to steer off course, but I'm confused; I thought Adam Carr was an anti-communist. From the Miami Herald: "Sorry, comrade, no dice," answered Carr, one of the few writers who posts a description of himself. "These comments show quite clearly that you are a communist, or at least someone who actively supports the Castro dictatorship, not just ... someone who is naïve about the realities of Cuba." Mind you, I haven't edited with him at all, and I'm basing my thoughts entirely on the Miami Herald article. -- WGee 20:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he is an anti-communist. I think you misunderstood my comment. I said that he was challenging the work of a pro-Castro editor, not that he was the pro-Castro editor. 172 | Talk 01:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. -- WGee 03:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, 172. Saying Communism has killed millions of people is misleading to a reader. Communism itself has not killed millions of people. Governments claiming to be Communist (which, in itself, is another debate entirely) may have killed many people, but putting that information into an article about the Communist ideology it completely irrevelant. Communism hasn't killed anyone- Communist states have. Regarding my "censor"ship of your comments, that's completely false. I requested you put them into another article, and said I would remove them from the article where they don't belong. // ^The True _Sora 19:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have not declared ownship of the aritcle. I am merely more familiar with how the article is organized and the relationship between this article and its sub-articles and related articles because I have been participating in the talk page discussions for a much longer period of time. 172 | Talk 19:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe he was referring to me, 172, but I replied to that above. // ^The True _Sora 19:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict recovery:

I've changed "censor" to "delete", in view of of your comment. I also like tho idea of explaining all the different kinds of communism there are. I only know about one in modern times: the totalitarian kind which killed tens of millions of people.

I'm well aware of Marx's theory about the transition from "socialism" to "communism". If his theoretical stage is another "kind of communism", it should be mentioned somewhere, to be sure.

I've heard vague claims about various types of communities which voluntarily held property in common. Some call these communes or communitarianism - perhaps this is yet another "kind of communism".

But the kind which controlled 1/4 to 1/3 of the planet in the 20th century seems like the main kind to be described in the article. It seizes power (or if you want to be picky, its adherents seize power) and suppresses all opposition just as ruthlessly as the fascism of Hitler and Mussolini; even more so in cases like Cambodia and North Korea. --Uncle Ed 19:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ed Poor, the article already mostly focuses on Stalinist and Maoist Communism. "But the kind which controlled 1/4 to 1/3 of the planet in the 20th century seems like the main kind to be described in the article."-- agreed. However, I your edits do not help. The article already has focues mostly on Communists who have seized state power. For further details on criticisms of communism based on the actions of those regimes, see criticisms of communism. 172 | Talk 19:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Communitarianism is a euphemism for communist tendencies, just to avoid all the stigma. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

section be merged with Anarchist communism

I think that this article or section be merged with Anarchist communism

Who is the Dummmy who put that pic up?!

Rollback

Hello 172! You rollbacked all of my edits claiming they were more appropriate for Marxism or history of communism. I do not agree with you, this article needs lots of work & I changed some false statements, such as "The revolutionary Bolsheviks broke completely with the non-revolutionary social democratic movement, withdrew from the Second International, and formed the Third International, or Comintern, in 1919.": this is quite erroneous, since social democracy was really able to define itself as a movement only because of this break-away.

Hence, the Bolcheviks couldn't have broken away with something that didn't yet exist, at least not as structured parties (yes, there was "revisionism" in the socialist movement, but globally Bolsheviks broke away from all of the socialist movement, which was not reduced to some social-democrats, which would only become a powerful force later on). It is quite an inversion of history to claim Bolcheviks defined themselves in opposition to social-democracy, while in fact it is the parts of the socialist movement who didn't accept Bolchevism (Blum for exemple) whom created what we call "social-democracy". There were others obvious improvements, and I don't understand how you can claim that adding one of Marx's definition of communism on a page titled "communism" is irrelevant. Thanks for discussing potential points of contention here before making complete rollback. Tazmaniacs 16:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC) PS: you also rollbacked the modification I made to anti-communism in the introduction. It is really a UScentric view to speak of anti-communism only in the US and is quite strange not to see any reference to the cordon sanitaire in an article about communism. Before any obvious claims that I'm talking about "history of communism" and not "communism", I have to ask if it is at all possible to speak about communism without speaking about 1/ Marx 2/ Socialist movement (which the page previously had a bit of problem defining in comparison to communism, although everyone knows that the distinction was made latter) 3/ History of communism. This means that one can't define communism only according to this or that theoretical definition; this also means that one can't define communism according to this or this specific history. Thus, Marx's various definitions of communism of course have their place in this article, even and all the more if they contradict themselves; as do all "real socialism" examples. Tazmaniacs 16:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the first sentence you quote seems pretty nitpicky. The Bolsheviks did break away from something; they broke away from the Second International. Still, I don't mind clarifying the setence. Second, I don't see the problem singling out U.S. anti-communism for particular attention in the intro, as the U.S. would go on to lead the Cold War against international Communism. Third, in response to your final point, no it is not possible to discuss communism without discussing Marxism and the history of socialism as background and context. The problem with your edits is that they go beyond the scope of the article, bringing up topics more relevant in related entries such as history of communism, history of socialism, and Marxism. Regarding your point on "cordon sanitaire," the term "containment" is more familiar in the English speaking world, and this is the English Wikipedia. 172 | Talk 21:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You may have some points, I'm not claiming the reverse. However, complete roll-back is most unerving... especially when you admit that I do make some valid points: first of all, I'm thankful to see that you "don't mind clarifying the sentence", so maybe we could find something for this. Second, concerning the US, I'm sorry but this is UScentric, however big was the role of the US as a Superpower during the Cold War. As you nicely remind me, the English word for cordon sanitaire is effectively containment: so why delete all this part and just replace cordon sanitaire by "containment"? Third, I am not engaging in some "nitty-picking" when I include Marx's definition of communism as a negativity at work in society: it is a quote, it is not original research (easy enough to find second sources if you want some), it is quite interesting definition (as it precisely oppose the definition of "communism" as the "last stage of history") and it is perfectly legitimate to include here, as, after all, we're discussing "communism", aren't we? We probably don't agree with "what" it is, but then, who has agreed on that in the past? The problem is that by rolling-back everything, you admit in the same time that some points are valid; furthermore, some points are clearly valid; finally, something like deleting this reference to alternate definitions of Marx is POV. I can't put it in another way, insofar as the current article makes assertions about Marx's thought which are, as any philosophical affirmation, a partial interpretation of Marx, precisely based on an evolutionist lecture. Thus, I do not understand why you persist in deleting this alternate definition, which shows that things maybe not so simple. Tazmaniacs 00:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: the usual way to proceed if your critics are right is not to delete everything but moving them to the relevant articles... Tazmaniacs 00:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The author of the text is probably better able to integrate his or her text with more relevant specialized entries. 172 | Talk 02:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

(1) I pointed out that you do make some valid points, but those points had nothing to do with restoring huge chucks of text that go into a level of detail more appropriate in Marxism, history of communism, and history of socialism. (3) I strongly disagree that the article is too U.S.-centric, not only because of U.S. superpower status but also because this is the English Wikipedia, with a readership mostly hailing from the U.S. and mostly interested in the U.S. frame of reference. (4) I do not necessarily disagree with your interpretation of the quotation from The German Ideology. I am removing the content because it is too tangential in a general entry on communism, not the main article on Marxism. The German Ideology represents only the very early Marx, and was not even published until 1932 anyway. (5) As for the alternative interpretations of Marx, I actually regard the work of both Lukacs and Althusser farily highly. Hence the substance of your additions doesn't necessarily bother me. Nevertheless, this article must maintain a focus on the Marxism-Leninism of ruling and formerly ruling Communist parties, in other words the communists who managed to seize state power, and not become overly focused on nuances in Western dicourses on Marxism more suited for specialized entries. 172 | Talk 02:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

They cut off with socialism or with the Second International, not with "social-democracy" (Jean Jaurès didn't consider himself as a "social-democrat", although he surely was!) In the same sense, the SFIO was not "social-democrat", but "socialist", as far as I know... Tazmaniacs 00:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the terms "social democrat" and "socialist" were used interchangeably often depended on place and time. 172 | Talk 02:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I will abstain from adding again this in the time being. I just changed "non-revolutionary soc-dem" to plain "socialism": it is in my eyes quite debatable to say "non-revolutionary soc-dem" (and I am far from being an apologist of Communism, if need be to make this denegation). I think Jean Jaurès and the SFIO' trajectory is a very good reason for being opposed to what is, IMO, an anachronism — although things are complex. Concerning your claims about the Wikipedia readership, you may very well be right, but this in no ways entail a US centric view — English happens to be the international language, there is quite a lot of foreign peoples in this readership... it'll be interesting to make some polls... Anyway, this goes against Wikipolicies if you force me to remind you that! Furthermore, I do not even think that it is historically as important as you put it — notwithstanding the Cold War, anti-communism was strong in European countries and, as given by the deleted classic example of André Fontaine (of course, that's not a US ref, but it is a classic historic ref) of the cordon sanitaire, France, among other countries, had an important role in that. And must I talk about fascism & nazism?... Anti-communism definitely is not a US privilege! Tazmaniacs 03:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is far from complete, although 172 seems to favour the status quo. I guess he is apprehensive of any change because a stable article is better than a potentially messy one, but we need images. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

How about these? [2] (of course)[3] 172 | Talk 03:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well images are for starters, but persona can be left to the history article...I remember many a diagram... Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 09:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

communism and totalitarianism

Why is there no reference to this in the article? Intangible 20:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Because the place for that is the Communist state article... -- Nikodemos 20:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

not stateless

Communism is authoritarianism. It is not stateless. There are governomnets in communism. Stateless is probably more appropriate for Maxism. Critik 16:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There are Communist Parties which form governments. This is detailed in the article and in more detail at Communist state. The section in question refers to communist society as the end goal of communism as an ideology, which is indeed stateless. It is for that reason that "communist" governments invariably refer to their societies as "socialist" - communism being a stage in the future. It is perfectly in order to point out the gulf between theory and practice, which I think this article does, but this is the theory. Mattley ^(Chattley) 17:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Mattley. Ostensibly communists are anti-statist. In reality, they are often incredibly statist (at least when they get power). We definitely should point out the difference between what they say and what they do, but communism is supposed to be stateless in the end. And Mattley is right, communist parties when they are in power often refer to the governement as socialist instead of communist because the theory is that a state has to go through a socialist transition phase before it becomes communist. Many people incorrectly label the socialist transition as the end goal of communism, when really it's supposed to be a means to an end. Of course, I think it's a bunch of crap since people in power aren't going to be too willing to give it up, and I think history has demonstrated that these "communist" governments continue to consolidate power and have no intention of disolving themselves. But in theory communism is supposed to be stateless. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 19:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a communism expert. But I don't see similar statements in Marxism, Leninism, Maoism . Since commuminsm is a general word for all of these. It is NPOV not to write stateless in the article. It just contradicts the real picture. Critik 20:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, we can discuss it further. But two editors have explained here why they think stateless is appropriate and two other editors have reverted your removal of it, one giving his or her reason on your talkpage. Discussion should be on the basis that it remains in the article until there is consensus that it should be removed. I don't follow your logic about there not being similar statements in Marxism, Leninism and Maoism. Mattley ^(Chattley) 20:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well only Marxism is stateless. Other communism is not. Stateless is not a common feature of communism. So this word shouldn't be used. Critik 20:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the two forms of communism I'm most familiar with are Marxism, and libertarian communism (esp: anarcho-communism). They're all anti-statist (at least as far as the end goal). Which types aren't? Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 20:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the communism practiced in People's Republic of China, North Korea and Cuba is usually considered authoritarinsm or dictatorship. They are no way stateless. Critik 20:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Communist parties are not "communism", they are, in (Marxist) theory, the way to achieve communism. Thus, the fact that so-called "communist" governments tend to be authoritarian has nothing to do with the fundamental idea of communism - though it is the core principle of the anarchist argument against state socialism. There is a huge problem about this whole article in that it associates communism 100% with Marxism and Marxist-inspired governments (the Hammer & Sickle is not a symbol of communism, it's a symbol of the brutal corruption of communist ideas that was the USSR). The fundamental theory of communism is one of social and economic, not political, organisation that both (communist) anarchists and state socialists seek to achieve. It has never actually be achieved in the modern era. As I've highlighted above in the (ignored) NPOV topic, the whole article is unbalanced. Donnacha 21:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think you really understand what's being debated. Communism has statelessness as a stated end goal, but many forms use authoritarianism to achieve this goal (so they say). I agree that it's contradictory, but as a philosophy/ideology (which is what this page is about), communism is anti-statist. Again, the disparity between what they say and what they actually do should be pointed out. But the first sentence of this article says "Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a future classless, (stateless,) social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production and the absence of private property" (emphasis added). The USSR, China and North Korea aren't/weren't classless either, but we still include that because it's the stated end goal. So is statelessness. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 21:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Trotskyism

"After Trotsky's exile, world communism fractured in two distinct branches: Stalinism and Trotskyism." This is inaccurate, only Marxism-inspired statist commununism fractured - the anarchist communists were still a major force in the world at this point presenting a third distinct branch. Any suggestions on how best to rephrase that sentence without going too into detail?

Citation needed

shootdown of a hot air baloon with US citizens onboard? Has anybody something on it?--Stone 16:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

The start of the article needs a bit of re-arrangement - the LEAD section is too long. I would have nominated it as a Good Article but this would need sorted out first. I'd rather leave it to the established editors to do. Good work though. Regards SeanMack 03:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I still think it's far to narrow in scope to be considered a "good article". Perhaps this is my own bias as an anarchist, but I really think this article focuses far too much on Marxism and not enough on communism as a general concept (the article on socialism is better in that regard I think). Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 09:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with the above. The division between Bakunin and Marx and its subsequent influence on left-wing politics is one of the primary elements of communist development, yet here it's an afterthought. Donnacha 14:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be a list of communist countries

What do you people think? Necrowarrio0

Seeing as this is an article on the theory of Communism, that would not be appropriate here. It makes sense, however, to place one in the article on the Communist state, which is fact, includes a section listing both current Communist states and defunct Communist states. Good idea, just in the wrong place. Crito2161 18:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I say go ahead, absolutely nothing wrong with it, its a perfectly sensible suggestion and will give people vaulable information which may be useful to them.Zepher25 14:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Socialism Template

I was wondering, why is it that the socialist template isn't used here? Under socialism currents, there are six different theories listed, all of which use the socialism template, except for the Communism article. Since communism has its own template, I guess that should be put up before the socialism one, but why isn't the socialism template then put underneath it? Does that clutter it up too much? It's just awkward to be using the socialism template to browse through the various articles under socialism and then have one of them missing the template. Can somebody clarify? Crito2161 19:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikis

I was wondering if it would be alright for me to make a post which states that wikipeida, along with other wikis are perfect examples of communism systems, this is true, as like the soviet union, the wikimedia foundation board is like the politiburo, Jimbo Wales is like the genral secritary and the users are an example of people working togeather for the good of the community, everyone working for everyone. So shall i post?Zepher25 13:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That's an inaccurate analysis as wikis only meet half of the primary maxim of communism - "From each according to their abilities" fine, but not "to each according to their needs". Communism is both a social and an economic theory, and collaborative efforts such as this lack the economic element of redistribution. Also, the Soviet Union is not an example of communism as it was never achieved. It's arguably an example of the dictatorship of the people, but most people recognise that that wasn't true either. Donnacha 17:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Is communism even an ideology?

I've argued a couple of times that this article is too focussed on Marxism and sidelines anarchism too much. However, I've got a major issue with describing it as an ideology. Communism is a theoretical form of economic and social organisation. To be an ideology, it needs a political angle as well, which communism lacks. It needs to be combined with a political ideology (Marxist, anarchist or other) to become an ideology in its own right. Donnacha 23:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna give it a week and then update. So, discuss now or don't complain. Donnacha 21:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please refer here for a definition of ideology, because your assertions suggest that you do not understand the meaning of word. Also, your allegation that communism lacks a "political angle" confuses me greatly, as it would anyone who has studied political science. In any case, please do not attempt to arbitrarily re-classify communism without a reliable source: that is original research. -- WGee 21:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so rude, I'm trying to have a discussion here, yet my posts have consistently been ignored above. I'm an expert on political theory and know exactly what I'm talking about. The two dominant primary threads of communism - Marxist and anarchist - have absolutely conflicting political angles. Thus, communism as a theory cannot be said to have a political angle unless attached to a separate political theory. This article is ridiculously skewed towards Marxism and its descendents, which is strongly POV. Anarchist Communism is well developed trend in left-wing politics with very different characteristics. Communism is a socio-economic theory of organisation, not strictly an ideology like Marxism, Anarchist Communism or any other variant. Donnacha 10:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my above post wasn't intended to be rude.

Communism is an ideology in and of itself. For example, Thomas More's 1516 treatise Utopia outlines a communist society, but certainly not an anarchist or Marxist one. However, as the article points, "Communism also refers to a variety of political movements which claim the establishment of such a social organization as their ultimate goal." Thus, sometimes the word communism refers to the indivisible ideology that is communism; other times it refers to a genre of ideologies, as you point out. All sources and editors thus far have agreed (or have not disagreed) with this.

-- WGee 23:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, going by the article, most editors have been happy to accept an article ridiculously skewed towards Marxism. As you correctly argue, it's not simple and just calling it an ideology is not completely accurate. The whole article needs reworking, I'm just starting with the first sentence! Donnacha 18:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, so skewed in favour of Marxism that, when I simply added anarchist communism into the first list of types, it was removed. Donnacha 19:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a slight point in mentioning that Marxist communism was not intended to be anything more than a political and economic framework. It might be worth mentioning how Marxism evolved from that into something more (i.e. a sociological viewpoint). (Note: before I get jumped on, note I said Marxism, not communism). Karm Locke 06:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You wrongie. Me japanaese Maoist, and me know. Communism is thing make man go to heavenie.

heaven only reached by communism. understandie?

Makin Takeru 18:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Because no polity has ever claimed or aspired to be anarcho-communist, anarcho-communism should not be discussed in the lead. I suggest that you raise your concerns with User:172, though; he is a historian focusing on international political economy and can better explain the historical importance of anarcho-communism. He can help determine whether or not it should be discussed in the lead, and whether or not Marxism is disproportionately covered in the article. -- WGee 05:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought that you wanted to devote an entire paragraph to describing anarcho-communism; but I have no objection to it merely being mentioned in passing, in a list. By the way, my revert was not intended to target your edit; "unconstructive edits" mainly referred to Spylab's restructuring of the lead. -- WGee 05:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Then why has it been removed again? As for whether any polity has aspired to be anarcho-communist, you are very, very wrong. Ukraine, Catalonia, the Jura Federation among many others. In the early 20th Century, before the Russian Revolution, anarchist communism (of which anarcho-syndicalism is a sub-set) competed directly and successfully with Marxism until the Bolshevik revolution both drew support away from it and increased repression of it worldwide. Donnacha 11:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

In Catalonia, the anarcho-syndacalists were in conflict with the "purist", more radical anarcho-communists. Eventually, the minority anarcho-communists, who lacked a powerful and distinct revolutionary association, were forced to assimilate into the more moderate anarcho-syndicalist struggle of CNT-FAI . Also, many parts of Catalonia, where socialism was predominate, were not under direct worker control; those areas retained a capitalist monetary system (or, at the least, money), as well.

I also think you might be exaggerating the success and importance of the Jura Federation and Ukrainian anarcho-communist insurgencies. I'm less familiar with those examples, but my brief research indicates that they failed to establish a sustainable, real polity amidst the preponderant Marxist revolutionaries. And, obviously, in the end, anarcho-communists were crushed by Marxists; thier empheral "success" in competing with Marxism should not be overstated. Finally, unlike Marxists, anarcho-communists have utterly failed to unite an entire state against capitalism for any significant length of time.

-- WGee 17:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but nothing I've ever read about Catalonia has even hinted at conflict between anarchist communists and syndicalists. Anarcho-syndicalism is a strategic variant of AC, not an alternate philosophy. Communism/collectivism was more common in rural areas, while syndicalism, for obvious reasons, was primarily based in the factories. As for how Marxism was so much more successful because Trotsky stabbed Makhno in the back, that's absolutely spurious. Popular Ukrainian support for the Makhnovistas was strong until the superior military power of the Reds crushed the revolution. Finally, communism has never fully been achieved anywhere, so the "success" of Marxists is meaningless. This article is about communism, not Communism as it points out at the very top. Donnacha 17:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Marxists were successful in gaining control of large nation-states, which is certainly not meaningless; I never said that they were successful in realizing communism. Overall, I think you are failing to analyze the importance of anarcho-communism relative to Marxism. Marxism has been much more important in both academia and world politics than anarcho-communism. Unfortunately, the "popular support" for anarcho-communism (which, again, should not be exaggerated) failed to materialize into much.

Here's what User:172 had to say about orthodox communism's preponderance, some time ago:

The New Left academics of the U.S. and UK broke ranks with Soviet Communism, but they were for the most part rooted in the Old Left. In France, structural Marxism did not even represent a break with the PCF. Its leading proponent, Louis Althusser, defended Communist orthodoxy until the end. Sarte, unlike many structural Marxists, broke with the PCF, but he cannot be reasonably described as a "libertarian socialist," since his roots lay in existentialism, not in anarchism or syndicalism. In Germany, the Frankfurt School represented the leading current of socialist thought in academia, and it firmly established itself within the social-democratic orthodoxy of the postwar period. In short, communism and social democracy not only are clearly more notable than "libertarian socialism" in terms of their influence on states, but also on academia. 172 | Talk 03:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

-- WGee 21:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL - "influence on states"! Given that anarchists of all stripes oppose the state, that's not surprising. Marxism has been successful, yes, in bringing the world the grotesque parodies of communism that were Bolshevism, Stalinism, Maoism and every other authoritarian. Anarcho-syndicalism, on the other hand, hasn't achieved it's ultimate end, apart from a short period in Catalonia, but it hasn't been debased and discredited like Marxism has. Donnacha 21:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism can have an influence on the economic and social structure of the state, insofar as to effect the abolition state. So it's not oxymoronic. -- WGee 23:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, but that's not the same thing. Anarchism has failed to dismantle the state, true, but Marxism, despite many opportunities, has failed to achieve the transition from State Socialism to communism. Thus, they are both, to date, failures. However, Marxism's failure serves absolutely to back-up the anarchists' analysis of the fundamental flaw in Marx's ideas - becoming the State is not the way to achieve commmunism. The Marxist analysis of anarchism - primarily that without becoming the State, anarchism does not have the military strength to bring communism about - is increasingly irrelevant as the threat of military action against political alternatives lessens (cf. Zapatista Army of National Liberation). Donnacha 23:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to your rewritten post (don't do that, please, repost if you want to correct yourself, don't change after a response has been posted) - I'd argue that, through syndicalist influence on trade unions in the first two decades of the last century, as well as through Emma Goldman's influence on the New Left, anarchism has had quite a substantial impact on the economic and social structures of many states. Of course, as anarchists don't run for elections, other leftists have tended to claim credit for them. The Mayday martyrs were anarchists. Donnacha 23:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not a Marxist and I do acknowledge the practical failures of Marxism; nevertheless, I disagree with you that the Marxist analysis of anarchism is irrelevant. The Marxists are right in that, without its own authoritarian revolutionary machinery, communism cannot supplant the existing authoritarian framework of capitalism. The Marxist analysis is vindicated by the fact that only Marxist parties have succeeeded in abolishing capitalism on a national level for any significant period of time. A "horizontal network of voluntary associations" cannot, evidently, survive in a world of coercive, centralized states. The Zapistas, for example, may have established themselves in a few villages, but if the Mexican government begins to feel that its hegemony is threatened, it will surely quash the rebellion. -- WGee 00:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant to re-insert anarcho-communism after my revert, but forgot to, evidently. -- WGee 17:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Too long

This article is extremely long, and this message appears when editing: "This page is 38 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size."

There's probably some repetition of content (especially stuff that's in the intro), and many people won't bother reading through everything for that reason. Also, the "See Also" section should be unneccessary, because important links should already be in the article and in the Communism box.Spylab 15:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Spylab

The mere appearance of that message does not mean that the article is too long. Firstly, the message is merely a "reminder that the page may be starting to get too long"; thus, there is no need for hasty attempts to shorten it. Secondly, the message indicates the article size in total, whereas one should only consider the size of the main body of prose, as per WP:SIZE. In any case, it is important to remember that Wikipedia's size recommendations are not obligatory; that being said, I reckon that this article is an appropriate size.

Regarding the See also section, I've already told you that it is a standard appendice. You seem abnormally preoccupied with removing those sections. In fact, you might be the first user to suggest that the See also section of a major article be removed entirely; most other users have realized that the section is a harmless navigational aid, whose role is not entirely satisfied by a template. And one of the primary purposes of the section is to house relevant links outside the main prose, for ease of access. guide to layout, which was formulated by a consensus among editors, acknowledges the useful role of a See also section; this guideline implies that the existence of links within the main prose does not make the section "unnecessary".

Furthermore, the lead is supposed to summarize and hence repeat the content of the article, as per WP:LEAD. And you shouldn't assume that the article itself is repetitive or verbose merely because of the warning message.

-- WGee 04:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the first person at all to delete redudant and repetitive See Also sections. I've seen it with other articles, mostly about music genres. Maybe this article could use a few links that aren't already in the Communism template, but as it stood, the See Also section was an eyesore, especially with that ugly multicoloured ideologies box, that is not directly about communism, and I've only seen here and in the socialism article. So apparently people who work on articles about other ideologies have a greater appreciation for asthetics. As for my edits to the article itself, the changes I made were to things like writing style, organization sentence and paragraph structure and grammar. I made it flow better and much easier to read. I didn't delete or change any information. They edits were, in fact improvements, and should stay.Spylab 13:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

Several people disagree with your idiosyncratic perception of the Political Ideologies template. At least two people (User:172 and I) also disapprove of your "improvements" to the lead. The bottom line is that you do not have the right to unilaterally override the opinions of these editors, because Wikipedia operates by consensus: it is not "your way or the highway."

I ask that you begin to show respect for others' opinions, lest you will exhaust the community's patience with your egotistical edits. Thank-you.

-- WGee 03:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"State Capitalism"

Trotsky never described the Soviet Union as "state capitalism" and argued against that wording. His formulation was of a "degenerated workers state". I'm editing to correct this. Ecadre 16:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you please cite reliable sources? Otherwise, your contributions are presumed to be original research, and are liable to be removed from the article. -- WGee 05:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ecadre is correct, as well as the articles on "state capitalism" and "degenerated workers' state". As for finding reliable sources to prove this point, roughly every book by Trotsky will do. I'm correcting this. Any further questions on this point should be taken to the talkpage on State capitalism. Jon Sneyers, 128.250.33.84 09:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Mode of Production

I found this article - and the discussion - incredibly frustrating because it didn't seem to be about what I thought it would be about. I am interested in all definitions of communism but to me the word is not synonomous with bad commies murdered millions/ good anarchos/capitalists whatever love freedom. To me the word communism refers to what Marx called a mode of production - a particular type of social and economic organisation. Now Marx notoriously only ever talked about communism in very abstract terms - he never got down to the nuts and bolts, because he thought everything would work out fine. Anyway, what I want to know about are the nuts and bolts - how production is related to consumption, who takes economic decisions, how distribution works etc. As regards marxist communism I want a marxist to explain what he or she ideally thinks communism should work (i.e. the relationships between production, distribution and consumption) and then contrast it to how it was actually implemented in different places. Maybe there is a case for an article on marxist communism. And an anarchist should write the anarchist section etc - and maybe critics should have their own section leading to other articles etc. In contrast what I am actually reading is references to various people having a go at each other about things which by the way I am completely familiar with but are irrelevant to why I, at any rate, am reading the article.

Donnard 13:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

inappropriate comment

i am brand new to wikipedia and have never edited or entered a discussion before, but i have a problem with this article, not because i'm a communist, but bc i expect the information here to be factual, not a personal attack.

this is how the article starts:

Communism is an ideology for totalitarian faggots. that seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization, based upon common ownership of the means of production.

when i went to edit, the "totalitarian faggots" didnt show up in the text. what does this mean and how does it get edited if thats the case?

Hi, what happened is that someone vandalized the page. Someone else reverted to a non-vandalized version. You happened to see the version that was vandalized, but by the time you went to edit, it had already been corrected. Welcome to Wikipedia! --BostonMA ^talk 16:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Communism logo

The Wikipedia articles on communism use the hammer and sickle as a logo. But that's specifically the USSR, which, afaik, didn't even call itself communist (but socialist, preparing for communism). Wouldn't a red flag make more sense? What flag was carried around during communist demonstrations? That seems to me to be the best indicator of what communists identify themselves with and that was a red flag. DirkvdM 06:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The red flag was a socialist symbol as well. The socialism template already uses the red flag. And although the USSR was not communist, they were ruled by the Communist party and that was their logo, so it does make more sense than the red flag IMO. When most people think of communism, they think of the hammer and sickle. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 08:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I supose the differnce between the original meaning and what people have made of it is a real problem here. In the text you can explain that, but for a logo you have to pick one, which forces you to choose sides (such as referring to Derry automatically forces a political statement). I have a tendency to stick to the original meanings of words (I would never say Londonderry), so I'm not too happy with the choice that has been made. The red flag was a combined flag of socialism and communism. When they rose and the flag was picked there was little difference between the two.

But mostly, picking the flag of one specific country is rather odd. During a discussion at the ref desk (which brought me here), a yellow pentagram against a red background was suggested as a logo for communism. Would that make sense? DirkvdM 20:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I just realise that that is the Vietnam flag. I we are to pick one country's flag it might as well be this one. But the question is if it more represents communism in general. Does it? DirkvdM 07:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

16.11.2006. The red flag with hammer and sickle is a communist flag, not the flag of the USSR. USSR embraced the flag as its own to accentuate its role in development of communism and as the first country that actually became a socialist country. Above writer, albeit in his-her total ignorance of the facts, correctly points out that USSR was a SOCIALIST country, not the communist one. There was never a communist country anywhere. Such a statemet is a combinatoin of both capitalist and dictators brainwash tyrrants used to hide behind in those "communist" countries where the tyrrants were killing workers faster than capitalists in their own states. They were "communists" just as much as that nazist Bush. Or socialist as his grandfather´s friend Hitler.

Lack of neutral point of view / failure to emphesize what communism really is

This article seems to display an abnormal support for communism, including facts lessened for the sake of making communism seem "better." The fact is that this page needs to be cleaned up, and points emphesizing communist anarchy, oppression, genocide, and the hundred million deaths directally related to communism, along with the simple fact that communism can not work whatsoever due to human nature mostly. It's common sence really.

If you disagree, I don't care. It's democracy, so LEARN TO LIVE IN IT!

Sign your posts. Second, much of your post is off-topic. Third, this article presents Communism much as it would be presented in a text-book: in a straightforward manner. Seems to me you weant an article that says, "this is why communism sucks". Sorry, but that's not our job here. •Jim62sch• 09:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• To whoever wrote that poetic unsigned post, Your making yourself sound idiotic. Communism is another term for marxism. Nazi's called them Self National Socialists, but does that mean they were socialists? No. --Zhukov 17:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Question

I've had this debate with a few people, and they all link to the Wikipedia article on the subject, but I know it's typically better than to rely on one source, so here's the question.

Is it supposed to be that Socialism is the step into Communism? I.e., Socialistic means of production by the government meant to eventually lead into state and class-less soceity of Communism. Or the same sentence with Communism and Socialism switched around? 129.186.18.100 20:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Neither, both, a little of each, none of the above. In other words, it's not that simple or simplistic. •Jim62sch• 22:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If i understand your question the answer is yes... I do not know that anyone has ever claimed Communism is a step to Socialism. And I think as Marx used the words, socialism was an intermediate stage prior to communism. So, if you're asking which is the step and which is the end point, socialism = step, communism = endpoint. LordBrain 05:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)