Talk:Totalitarianism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Relationship between totalitarianism and authoritarianism

A new editor, User:LDBen, has raised this issue on my talk page after I reverted his edits. Pointing to the lead where it says "Totalitarianism is a political concept of a mode of government that prohibits opposition parties, restricts individual opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control over public and private life. It is regarded as the most extreme and complete form of authoritarianism." he argues that the first line of the third paragraph, which says that "Totalitarian regimes are different from other authoritarian ones", contradicts this suggesting that it is not a subset of totalitarianism and is something different. That's their argument. However, looking at Subset, an example there is that regular polygons are subsets of polygons. Regular polygons are different from other polygons, so I'm not sure I see the problem. Comments? Doug Weller talk 13:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doug. The purpose of my edits was to say that Totalitarianism IS a subset of authoritarianism. I did not want to say that the two are distinct. I did not want to separate authoritarianism from totalitarianism. I just wanted to make it clearer in the article that Totalitarianism is a subset of authoritarianism. I totally agree with your analogy of polygons, but I tried for my edit to clarify this. The lines, " [The] authoritarian state [...] is only concerned with political power and as long as that is not contested it gives society a certain degree of liberty".[6] Authoritarianism "does not attempt to change the world and human nature".[6] In contrast, a totalitarian regime attempts to control virtually all aspects of the social life, including the economy, education, art, science, private life and morals of citizens." cite a distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarianism when in fact totalitarianism is a subset. I hope that this can be remedied. User:Doug Weller. LDBen (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

"possible possession of WMD"

Is this from the book that is cited as the single source for the intro definition?

It sounds like it is an individual dig at Iraq under Hussein, with the 'WMD' scandal of the US justification of invading the country.

Otherwise, how is that (as it s phrased) a criteria of totalitarianism? 67.230.130.131 (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

IP edit

Dear IP,

it seems you still do not undertand the situation, you follow an argumentation that does not condtradict the original addition, neither my adherence to it. So I try to summarize to you again: adding in his view is completely unnecessary and it is obvious, because the added material mentions the book and the author namely, it is equivalent with according to, which we add if we wish to address something to someone. Hence your argumentation of defining this case as an NPOV issue is totally false, since because of the earlier mentioned is already impartial and the summarization did not present opinion as fact, it only presented what the author outlined in the book.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC))

@91.127.132.128 please read this Thepenguin9 (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

precise dates

Since books have dates of publication, using dates in headers is more useful than terms like "cold war" "early" or "recent" which have widely varying or vague meaning. So I added more dates, moves some paragraphs around and added a few new cites. Rjensen (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

IndigoFenix

For those concerned with the editor here see also List of totalitarian regimes. -- GreenC 21:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Never mind now blocked - thank you. -- GreenC 21:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Lack of mention of totalitarianism and authoritarianism in the Communist article

The fascist page mentions those two words 20 times, the communist page mentions them 0. I find that odd. I understand that totalitarianism and authoritarianism are not a dejure aspect of the philosophy but they are a defacto aspect of the real world application of communism. Dcut74 (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

This has been the subject of something an unregistered user's been trying to edit war on, so I'll add to this old conversation. It certainly holds true that many a Marxist-Leninist state could be classified as totalitarian. However, they do not hold a monopoly on communism in theory nor practice. Shall we describe the anarcho-communist Free Territory of Ukraine as totalitarian? The autonomous Shinimin zone? Revolutionary Catalonia? The Zapatista municipalities? Marinaelda? What we really mean, clearly, is Stalinism. Docktuh (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Once again, Stalin wasn't the only totalitarian Communist leader, so no, what we really mean isn't "Stalinism", none of the mentioned territories were Communist, and in Revolutionary Catalonia at least, repression against right-wingers, churches, etc, existed just like in Communist regimes. -- 179.183.159.3 (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The IP has right, Communism should not be excluded, pretty much known of it's totaliarian being outside Stalin, by many other countries in Central-Eastern Europe much later...(KIENGIR (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC))

The Soviet Union itself started to liberalize after Stalim's death in 1953, and all reliable sources confirm that the era of totalitarianism in the USSR and most of Eastern Europe ended after Khrushchev took office. Of course, the USSR was still authoritarian, but its rule was no longer so repressive so as to constitute totalitarianism. Another example would be János Kádár's government in Hungary, which was substantially less repressive than most Warsaw Pact countries, and Yugoslavia under Tito, which followed its own version of state capitalism as opposed to a centrally planned economy, and allowed its citizens to travel to the West unimpeded. And we aren't even mentioning the plethora of libertarian strands of communism that are not authoritarian or totalitarian, such as anarcho-communism, libertarian Marxism, christian communism, council communism, etc. 91.127.132.128 (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, you miss the period after Stalin's death, and the horror reign of Mátyás Rákosi, which led eventually to the Hungarian uprising of 1956. Regardless of the late Goulash-period, it has been still pure totalitarian, one-party oppression.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC))

Just noticed the recent edits @Asqueladd:, no way, if you read the lead about totalitarianism, if perfectly fits i.e. to Hungary even after Stalin's death a long-long time until the 80's, anyway @Rjensen: has right, and denying this is not fringe but rather seems a whitewashing of Communist oppression and crimes.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC))

Reliable sources clearly state that totalitarianism in the USSR ended after Stalin's death in 1953 and the resulting thaw under Nikita Khrushchev.

Likewise, there was political and economic liberalization under János Kádár, and the regime's control over Hungary was no longer so pervasive so as to constitute totalitarianism. In fact, its improved human rights record compared to other Eastern Bloc countries and its period of economic prosperity led to Hungary being dubbed as the "happiest barrack in the Eastern Bloc". Of course, the MSZMP was still the dominant party, but the reign of terror from Rákosi's era ended by the early 1960s.

References

And you are also forgetting that it was the Soviet Union under Khrushchev that recommended Imre Nagy shall lead Hungary after Rákosi's death, and totalitarianism in Hungary ended under Nagy's government, although his attempts at deeper reforms were forcibly cut short by the USSR in 1956, who wrongly feared that Nagy would align Hungary with the west. With all of this along with libertarian variants such as anarcho-communism et al in mind, it would be erroneous to unilaterally classify communism as inherently "totalitarian", especially since there are only a few such countries that would fit the specific criteria for being totalitarian, and communism doesn't even list totalitarianism as a basic principle. 91.127.132.128 (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

what is totalitarianism? Raymond Aron named five main signs of totalitarianism:

1) One-party has a monopoly on political activity only.

2) A state ideology upheld by the ruling party that is given status as the only authority.

3) State information monopoly that controls mass media for distribution of official truth.

4) State controlled economy with major economic entities under the control of the state.

5) Ideological terror that turns economic or professional actions into crimes. Violators are exposed to prosecution and to ideological persecution. Aron drew parallels between Soviet communism, Nazism and Italian Fascism. Aron considers all three political regimes to be totalitarian. [see Democracy and Totalitarianism (1968)... I think USSR always had these 5 as did Hungary at the time. We are talking about governments here. not various writers who are not speaking abouyt actual Communist governments. Rjensen (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear IP,

thank you that you akcnowledged that in Hungary there has been a totalitarian Communist rule (you jalmost avoided this an referred to later eras when some circumstances became a bit reliefed, but in fact did not change the system), and @Rjensen:'s criteria held until 1989...it is anyway not about the basic principles, but in fact what Communism really was...and we add as well categories to pages that even partially apply, so this is not an argument...it can be fairly added, along with the near end result of 100 million deaths caused widespread in the world of Communist totlaitarian regimes.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC))

I think it is very simple. Communism has a libertarian strand, fascism does not; therefore, we should only list the authoritarian strands (Stalinism et al), not communism which is often conflated with Marxism–Leninism, the official state ideology of Communist-party ruled states. Raymond Aron's five main signs of totalitarianism may fit Marxism–Leninism but not communism. Furthermore, the totalitarian concept has been criticised, especially by the so-called revisionist school. As for the 100 million claim, it was discussed at length here. In regard to this, there was no consensus to have it in the first place and it has been disputed.--Davide King (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, these issues were throughly discussed here, that claimed libertarian really strand(ed) as it was not in practice, and everything fits to Communism very much. Also regarding other pages you are mixing the things, since the challenging user(s) have broken our policies and the other seem like to be identical with the previous one.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC))

Excuse me, who are those users who [have] broken our policies and who seem identical with the previous one? That is a big accusation. And I am not sure about your claim that libertarian communist societies such as the Free Territory, the Korean People's Association in Manchuria and anarchist territories during the Spanish Revolution of 1936 were authoritarian or even totalitarian; do you have sources to back this claim? You seem to think of totalitarianism as a fact when it is more of a term and concept and that a number of academics and scholars have since disputed it, including the totalitarian twins concept and the view that countries such as the Soviet Union were totalitarian, but I digress Either way, I see no consensus to include communism; what I see is a dispute and the next step is to discuss that. Here, you wrote Rjensen has right [sic], and denying this is not fringe but rather seems a whitewashing of Communist oppression and crimes but note that Rjsensen has actually written Aron drew parallels between Soviet communism, Nazism and Italian Fascism. Why add the qualifier Soviet if communism itself is totalitarian as you seem to imply? Scholars do actually distinguish between communism and Soviet communism; I do not see why we should not do the same.--Davide King (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hobokenobi and Indigofenix. Check their activity in parallel, the earlier account has been created a few days after the other's unblock request were declined, etc. Discuss with Rjensen what you mentioned in connection with him.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC))

Everyone calm down and assume good faith. What do sources say? I think it's a hard call in one regard, there are some non authoritarian forms of communism anarcho-communism and left-communism for example. But all the sources I read refer to Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, Bolshevism, Maoism, the Shining Path, the khmer rouge etc as totalitarian...I don't think anyone who has read extensively on the subject would disagree, it's a silly debate, revisionism - these governments were absolutely totalitarian. Can anyone think of a single communist government that wasn't totalitarian? Maybe Cuba and Vietnam, but they were and continue to be highly controlled single party states, despite their successes in certain regards. I guess the issue is this: are those governments totalitarian? Yes. Is communism totalitarian in and of itself? I err towards often, but not always. Then there's the real question: What do reliable sources say? Most I've looked at say totalitarian or authoritarian. So do we distinguish between governments and ideology? (though Marxism-Leninism is explicitly authoritarian and totalitarian, that's not debatable) Bacondrum (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into all the arguments, many of them are so wildly detached from anything I've ever read about the subject that I can't be bothered. But this, "Reliable sources clearly state that totalitarianism in the USSR ended after Stalin's death in 1953 and the resulting thaw under Nikita Khrushchev" is absolute nonsense. While the horror show slowed right down under Khrushchev, it did not stop. And then came Brezhnev who had at any given time around 10,000 political and religious prisoners in the GULAG, Stalin's terrifying forced hospitalisations came back, the KGB monitored every aspect of life, Brezhnev came short of the all-out terror of Stalin's rule, but that is all. Even under Khrushchev the Cheka/NKVD/KGB still monitored the population in an oppressive manner, I think it was known as the MVD at the time, the GULAG institution was supposedly closed but for all intents and purposes it continued unabated under new names as forced labor colonies for political and criminal prisoners and essentially still operates today, in-fact I believe Putin has been busy removing memorials to the victims. There's a lot of denialism and historical revisionism going on here. Bacondrum (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

At Soviet Union, we do say it was totalitarian between 1927 and 1953 in the infobox. When describing the Soviet Union as totalitarian, sources do mainly discuss or concentrate on that. Although Khrushchev was an hypocrite for taking part to many of crimes he accused only to Stalin, there was de-Stalinization which brought reforms and changes, although this was slowed and reversed Brezhnev, but I am not sure whether scholars did consider the Soviet Union post-Stalin totalitarian, so I do think the IP had a point. As far as I know, the Soviet Union has not been totalitarian all its history. Some say it started being totalitarian under Lenin (others say it was an authoritarian dictatorship of the party different from the one-man dictatorship under Stalin; some such as Lee (2003) and Ryan (2013) dispute that Lenin's government was a dictatorship, viewing it as an imperfect way of preserving elements of democracy without some of the processes found in liberal democratic states; and then there also also those who dispute the whole totalitarian concept, albeit they were a minority and I assume they still are); the vast majority of sources do concentrate on Stalin as the period under totalitarianism (there is probably only disagreement on when it did start, whether in the late 1920s or 1930s); and I have not seen sources describing the Soviet Union as still totalitarian post-Stalin.

Actually, this discussion should be at Talk:Communism. The op is asking us to say communism is totalitarian. There are already problems with that article as it gives too much weight exactly to those Communist states, despite only Marxists–Leninists and anti-Communists agreeing that they were socialists.--Davide King (talk) 10:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to add, I would like to link this interesting comment with references by C.J. Griffin, with this relevant comment (Historian John Henry Coatsworth, for example, has pointed out that US backed regimes in Latin America alone probably repressed and killed more people than the USSR and its satellite states from 1960 onward. And finally, as Benjamin Valentino says in his work on mass killings, MOST communist regimes did NOT engage in mass killings, making those few that did EXCEPTIONAL cases and NOT the norm.); or Albert Szymanski's views that on the whole, it appears that the level of repression in the Soviet Union in the 1955 to 1980 period was at approximately the same level as in the United States during the McCarthy years (1947–1956). So there seems to be a clear difference between the totalitarian Soviet Union under Stalin and the still authoritarian but less repressive Soviet Union post-Stalin.--Davide King (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Statism

Levivich, do you think Category:Statism is supported by the main body? I could not find any explicit mention to it and it is not clear what it means, whether the pejorative adopted by Ayn Rand and American libertarians, or the belief or doctrine that the political authority of the state is legitimate to some degree.--Davide King (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Having "communism" as a category of totalitarianism

Communism is listed as a category of totalitarianism, which is inaccurate. Communism has within it a wide variety of ideologies, many of which are vehemently against any form of totalitarianism. I recommend that rather than having "Communism" as a category, that it be replaced with ideologies that specifically have implemented totalitarianism, such as "Juche" and "Maoism". As for having "Marxism-Leninism" or "Stalinism" as categories, "Constitution (Fundamental law) of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics With Amendments and Additions adopted by the First, Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Sessions of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R." shows that there were some levels of democracy in Stalin's USSR, which I think removes it from the totalitarianism category. I think at the very least, "communism" should be replaced as a category by "Marxism-Leninism" or "Stalinism", "Maoism", and "Juche". HoboKenobi47 (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC) HoboKenobi47 (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica[1] states "Nazi Germany (1933–45) and the Soviet Union during the Stalin era (1924–53) were the first examples of decentralized or popular totalitarianism". Under "Leninism"[2] it states "Leninism thus created the first modern totalitarian state". "Communism"[3] does not mention totalitarianism at all, and unless someone has strong sources we should replace communism with Marxism-Leninism. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Not Marxism-Leninism, that article doesn't say it's totalitarian either. Stalinism definitely does. Doug Weller talk 13:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't consider that very relevant, Wikipedia is not a WP:RS. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Um, I know that. The point is that if it was considered by academics to be totalitarian, I'd expect it to say that. But then I actually had to study it in political science. Doug Weller talk 12:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

This issue has been already/as well discussed above, categories even holding partially may be given to articles.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC))

This issue was not discussed at all above first of all. If you can put communism as a category there then capitalism should also be able to be put there by that logic because there have been totalitarian capitalist governments, meaning that it holds partially to the subject to. This is a very loose use of categorization just to push an agenda. The ideology of communism, just as with capitalism, has no relation whatsoever to totalitarianism. HoboKenobi47 (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC) HoboKenobi47 (talk) 1:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

In the 5th section is the discussion.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC))

I have read this, and the discussion is not directly related to this one. In addition, I also still disagree with the result of it. Totalitarianism is not ideologically related to communism, which is an important reason why communism should not be listed as a category of it. Also, even if there were many totalitarian communist countries, there have also been non totalitarian ones, such as that of the Zapatistas and the Spanish Republic. Even if you use this logic to say that since there were some totalitarian examples that it should be listed, this does not make sense because totalitarian examples have occured of almost every ideology, including capitalism. This is why I think it should be removed as a category. HoboKenobi47 (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)HoboKenobi47 (talk) 1:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

But yes, it is related. The category of Communism defines what is it for, and totalitarianism is part of it.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC))

Totalitarianism would still be part of the category of communism by virtue of Marxism–Leninism et al being themselves part of the same category. By the way, should we add capitalism and liberalism too because fascist regimes were capitalist and Pinochet was an economic liberal? By your reasoning, we should add them too.--Davide King (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Zapitista movement is not a national government; The Spanish Republic was not a communist country--in history all the communist governments of actual countries were totalitarian (as were the Communists in the Spanish Republic) Rjensen (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The Zapaitista movement not being a national government shows why communism is unrelated to totalitarianism. The Spanish republic was led by a coalition of communists and anarchists, so by most logic it would be considered communist. Again, it shouldn't even matter about communist countries, communism is an ideology, and is not defined by its users but by its inventor, who defines it as "a stateless, classless, moneyless society". In addition, having communist leaders does not in any way make your nation communist. I will say again that leaders with a wide range of ideologies have been totalitarian, so associating totalitarianism with an ideology that has no mention of it and no ideological similarity makes no sense whatsoever. It would be like putting "capitalism" or "conservatism" or "neoliberalism" as categories of totalitarianism. HoboKenobi47 (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)HoboKenobi47 (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Only governments in TOTAL control can be TOTALitarian. Zapaitista movement is not a government and it's probably not "communist". The Soviet-style Communists never were in full control in Spain and indeed were overthrown toward the end. Rjensen (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@HoboKenobi47 Are you claiming that "Communism is unrelated to totalitarianism" is the mainstream view, or are you arguing page editors' views on the matter should instead be what determines categorization? If the latter, then that's not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rjensen governments with total control means that they have total control of their citizens lives. The Zapatista movement is communist and not having a state shows why it isn't totalitarian. Keep in mind that state and government aren't the same thing. Also, there were never Soviet-style communists in Spain, they were other types of communists, and they did have significant control even if the fascists overthrew them. Also, @Rolf H Nelson, we should not be following a so-called "mainstream" view but rather the one that is factually true, and it is that communism is ideologically unrelated completely to totalitarianism. HoboKenobi47 (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)HoboKenobi47 (talk) 5:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

the rS do not say the Zapatista movement is communist. What sources are you using?? Rjensen (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation

In the ideology section of the page, it explains that they have Marxist influence, which makes them essentially no different than other so-called "communist" nations. HoboKenobi47 (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

no--"Marxism" can include democratic rules. Totalitarianism is a characteristic of actual governments and for them Communism = Marxism PLUS LENINISM .... it's Leninism where the totalitarian control of all of society and all of thought and media comes in (as in China where MAOISM is very similar to Leninism). Rjensen (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Hence why we should only list Marxism–Leninism and Maoism. As far as I know, scholars do not refer to communism or Marxism as totalitarian because, as you noted "Marxism" can include democratic rules; and they do distinguish between communism and Marxism–Leninism; it just seems they use Communism, often capitalised, to refer to those Communist Party-rules states. What matters is what they actually refer to by that, not the word itself; and they use it to refer to those Marxist–Leninists regimes which they do characterise or describe as totalitarian.--Davide King (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I hope you can do the same thing you did here at Authoritarianism and remove categories not supported by the body.--Davide King (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yesterday I removed Category:Communism from Category:Totalitarianism (apparently I'm the umpteenth editor to do that); and just now I moved this article to the subcategory Category:Anti-communism because pretty much every time the article discusses communism, it's actually discussing anti-communism, and Category:Communism should be diffused, meaning articles should be moved into sub-categories (Category:Anti-communism is a subcategory of Category:Communism). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, thank you. Can you please check other ideologies too? For example, neither Falangism nor Italian Fascism has Category:Authoritarianism or Category:Totalitarianism while Nazism only has Category:Authoritarianism. On the other hand Juche has Category:Authoritarianism, Category:Communism, Category:Communism in Korea and Category:Totalitarianism, Leninism has Category:Authoritarianism, Maoism had both Category:Authoritarianism and Category:Totalitarianism and Marxism–Leninism also has both Category:Authoritarianism and Category:Totalitarianism. Please, verify if the main body support their addition or removal. There should also be some consistency.--Davide King (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, sorry, no :-) I agree that in every article, the categories need to be supported by the article body per WP:CATDEF, but I just don't have the time or interest to go through a bunch of them correcting it. I'd rather work in areas other than categorization. Same for the Statism thread below... I don't know what statism is, either :-) I'm hoping our recent discussions will clear the way for you to clean up the categories in other articles if you decide to do so; if you still get persistent resistance against policy, it might be time to seek admin intervention. HTH! Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Good joke, so then also what about anti-fascim? What an apparent cherrypicking both of you do again. Davide King, is not a good thing you try to solicitate other users to commit your desired changes and such insisting breaking policies, time to stop.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, what does anti-fascism have to do with this? Did you miss the part where we say The term gained prominence in Western anti-communist political discourse during the Cold War era as a tool to convert pre-World War II anti-fascism into post-war anti-communism.[3][4][5][6][7]? Also, your accuses are nonsense; I simply asked another user, in this case Levivich, to verify the categories specifically because I thought the user in question is more knowledgeable than me about this and I wanted to have some input and consensus, something that you do not seem to gasp, rather than just do it myself. You keep saying there is consensus, but I see none; au contraire, what I do see is dispute having communism as a category.--Davide King (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I did not miss anything, you don't see that unilateral changes are not useful...yes you asked, before I hope you can do the same thing, that's all about "nonsense". Sorry, you don't grasp our policies fully, unfortunately...(KIENGIR (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, funny you say that, when you did unilaterally reverted my sourced addition about fascism which has nothing to do about our dispute over communism and that simply further verify that fascism as a category of authoritarianism is appropriate. That is notwithstanding the fact Bacondrum, C.J. Griffin and Levivich agree with the view that communism as a category is problematic and the same is happening here; you are still the only one who support adding communism as a category to both Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism when it fails verification per WP:CATV; and yet, you are unilaterally reverting to a version which include communism as category, even though there was not even a consensus to have it in the first pace and that communism has been added and removed back and forth over the years. I think our guidelines are clear. As there was no discussion or consensus to add communism as a category, it should be removed; and the onus would be on you for why it should be added. As of now, you are the only one to support its addition.--Davide King (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, reverting to the last stable version per policy is not an unilateral revert. Bacondrum is not present as well in this discussion. Repeating the same more times is again not useful, WP:CATV do not fail here, on the other article is as well dubious as you try to use this argumentation just to achieve your preferred version. You just again proved you don't know our guidelines properly. The category Communism has been part of the article before I even encountered here and even before our dispute, hence it is a legitimate part of the article. So your fallacious argumentation about adding something with the rest etc. is null and void, since the issue is here only your preferred removal.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, what you missed is that it was not always there in the first place. I checked the article's history and it was added and removed back and forth without any serious discussion or consensus. In this case, since there was no discussion on consensus to have it added in the first place, it should be removed until there is actual consensus to have it added. The onus is not on me to remove it, because there was no consensus to have it there in the first place; the onus is on you and those who wish to add it to give a valid rational, in line with our guidelines, for why it is appropriate to be added. You failed to do that. Doug Weller, since you are an admin, please help us solve this situation and which path we should follow to solve this dispute. rolf h nelson, you did correctly note that communism does not mention totalitarianism; and Doug Weller noted that [the] article doesn't say it's totalitarian either. Stalinism definitely does. [...] The point is that if it was considered by academics to be totalitarian, I'd expect it to say that. I believe what we should discuss is whether to add it, not whether to remove it, because there was no consensus to have it in the first place. I believe this is in line with WP:BRD; adding communism to categories was the bold part, it was removed/reverted and it has been disputed, so we should return to the status quo version before the bold addition and discuss whether to add it.--Davide King (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Witt this wall of text again you perfectly demonsrated the recurrent NON understanding of our policies I drawed your attention more times. I have to inform you last stable version and status quo ante without intemediary edits is the revision of 23:24, 20 June 2020‎.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC))

No, I did not. On the other hand, you did prove there is a misunderstanding. I am not referring to the whole article, I am referring only to the edit that added communism to categories and that should be reverted because it has been disputed and there was no consensus to have it in the first place. I am not asking us to go to a version which did not include communism (this makes no sense; it would also revert many other edits that are fine and that have nothing to do with it); I am just proposing to remove communism as categories because this little edit itself has been disputed and there was no discussion about whether to include it.--Davide King (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

But yes, I did not misundestand you, but this is irrelevant to the current situation, as you change your way of argumentation time by time as you realize why it was problematic before. For any discussion and proposals the base is not an edit in far past that anyway gained consensus since then, but the last stable revision.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, yes, you did misunderstand me, so I do not understand whether you were meant to see that or whether you botched. How exactly did I change my way of argumentation? What this discussion shows to me is not consensus but rather dispute, so this should not have been used to revert a removal like you did here. Again, that so-called far past edit was removed and re-added back and forth, so there was a dispute and it cannot be claimed there is consensus. Either way, it makes no sense to discuss this any further just you and me here; we just have to agree to disagree. You are free to write me back at my talk page or email me if you would like to discuss further. For now, let us wait what other users say.--Davide King (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I did not misunderstand you. You change time by time as you reveal which policies you don't know, or don't know properly, and try to introduce new aspects contrary to the previously failed argumentations. Similarly like now, which is the combination of what I said in the earlier sentence. Reverting removals to last stable versions (= automatic consensus) is not what you try to insist, since you still don't know the definition of consensus. I am not intending to talk in your talk pages or e-mail, since they are not appropriate places for this, and frankly, I got from you dozens of pings, so not even I am generating the discussion.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC))

I find it funny you say that when you have shown a non-understanding of WP:CATDEF and WP:SUBCAT as shown here by Levivich, debunking yours and Rjsensen claim that mere relation is enough. See A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define. This may well be true for Maoism, Marxism–Leninism and Stalinism, but not for small-c communism. On the other hand, it is a defining characteristic of both fascism and Nazism.

As things stand, the main body still does not support the claim that one of small-c communism's characteristics is totalitarianism. WP:Consensus say Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I do not see this. When it was disputed and reverted the addition of communism as a category, there should have been a discussion and based on that discussion could consensus be established; this was not done it. As of now, in this discussion it is only you and Rjensen who do support the category; and that is notwithstanding Rjsensen's rationale do support only Marxism–Leninism, not small-c communism, including the historian cited who wrote of Soviet communism. Why add the Soviet qualifier if it is so obvious communism is inherently totalitarian? Maybe because small-c communism is not?--Davide King (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

It is very unconstructive you flood the talk page again with the same arguments which I already explained and reacted, you act if you did not hear that, or just not willing to understand. No problem here with catdef. Still you don't know/accept the policies, or did not read it properly with all related, in connection with last stable version, that means automatically the last consensus. Don't bludgeon the process, give the space to others.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC))

Apologies for that, it was not my intention; I believe there was some misunderstanding and that it is nothing personal, just two different views. I agree we are at a stalemate and we really do need other users to take part, so I ping Bacondrum, C.J. Griffin, Docktuh, Doug Weller, The Four Deuces, HoboKenobi47 Jack Upland, Levivich, MarioGom, Rjensen and rolf h nelson, who were either involved here or at Talk:Communism, to please express their thoughts, reply to points and other issues raised, etc. to reach some consensus together. Thank you. A similar discussion has been ongoing at Talk:Authoritarianism.--Davide King (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

What's the issue? TFD (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, I also draw your attention the massive pinging you recurrently carrying out could be disturbing, since you have already pinged many users more than once, and extensive pinging from other pages could raise the problem of WP:CANVASSING. Give time to others, this is not a rush solved in a few days, not everyone is replying in that amount or reaction time as you do.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC))

Please, stop with personal attacks and accusations. I did ping all the users that were involved in the discussion and merely also those who were involved at Talk:Communism, which is where all this should have started, since Communism rightly does not have neither Authoritarianism nor Totalitarianism as categories, yet it is wrongly (in my view) in both Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism.--Davide King (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

You were the one to write give the space to others which is exactly what I did by pinging them to remind them of the discussion, in case they forgot about it, etc.--Davide King (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, please stop using of improper description of the happenings, no personal attacks have been made (another policy you seem not to understand properly), what I have stated are the descritpion of what happened. Such statements from your behalf like I would have give space to others cannot be taken really serious, since in majority your comments are occupying the talking space, with an immediate flood in case any step forward. I don't think they would forget it after so many times, please respect other's response time.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC))

The Four Deuces, the issue is about the addition of communism as category to both Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism (by the way, Communism has neither of those categories and probably it should have been discussed there in the first place, but I digress). This was added and removed back and forth, so I do not see much consensus to add it, but KIENGIR insists I do not know policies. Even if there was some consensus, both claims are not actually supported by sources and the main body, despite KIENGIR's belief to the contrary; on the other hand, Category:Anti-communism, which is actually supported in both the lead and body of Totalitarianism, has been promptly removed by KIENGIR.--Davide King (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, as addition to Davide Kings's summarization (althoug it would have been better to read you from the beginning to see the whole process), that here there is no issue about the article of Authoritarianism, that is another issue and discussion. It has been clearly demonstrated Davide King did not know much of the policies of consensus, which may be found also here and in our personal talk page discussion. What he claims is dubious, since he dislike sources added by another user, or claims the sources mentioning "Communism" does not refer to it in his considerations. As well, he forgets to mention by the additon of the Category:Anti-communism, the user removed the subject category of this issue without consensus, etc..(KIENGIR (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC))

If you want people to read through the discussion thread, try using smaller indents. I was pinged and wanted to know what the issue was. TFD (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@KIENGIR:, do you believe that all totalitarians are communist? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

My beliefs are totally irrelevant. However, your question is quite interesting, since totalitarianism touched also others than Communism, you certainly aware of.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, please, no word games. Do reliable sources say that all totalitarians are communist? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I am not doing word games. Your question seems unrelated, since Fascist or Nazis are not Communist, despite they have also to do with Totalitarianism, so your suprising question has an easy answer.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC))

I think we should bear in mind that categories are navigation devices not name 'em and shame 'em badges. I don't find Category:Totalitarianism and Category:Authoritarianism useful. Totalitarian was a concept in the Cold War designed to link the new enemy, the Soviet Union, with the old enemy, Nazi Germany. Authoritarianism less unclear defined. It used to be used to describe dictatorships who were our friends (see the Kirkpatrick Doctrine.) Today it's used to describe our "adversaries," such as Russia and Venezuela. While categories are useful for members of ideological families, such as communism, liberalism and Christian democracy, they are less useful for controversial and ambiguous groupings.

In any case, I don't think that anyone has argued that communist ideology was necessarily authoritarian or totalitarian, just that Stalinism had been. All ideologies become authoritarian if challenged by serious internal and/or external opposition.

TFD (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, thanks for your comment. I agree. I think for Authoritarianism we should only link fascism (if we are to add any ideology as category at all) because it is supported by the main body and sources saying all fascist regimes being authoritarian but not all authoritarian regimes being fascism (so maybe we should only add Category:Authoritarianism at Fascism and not add any ideology as category at Authoritarianism?). On Totalitarianism, the main body supports anti-communism, fascism (they did use totalitarianism in a positive way before its Cold War usage), Italian Fascism, Nazism and Stalinism as categories. However, I do agree the problem is that totalitarianism is taken as a fact when it is a political concept and that it has been disputed by reputable historians or scholars, which makes it all the more absurd we still have communism as category in both articles despite Communism rightly having neither as categories.--Davide King (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Here, Mr G did raise a point about our use of Conquest's (an avowedly Cold Warrior) definition of totalitarianism. Never mind, Mr G was a sockpuppeter of Wayne Smith but they still did raise a point which I am not sure it has ever been addressed.--Davide King (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I have to inform you this talk page is not for discussing matter of the Authoritarianism article, that is another discussion. Here also the article discuss Communism. However Communism article could without problem include those categories as well.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC))

That may be another discussion, but it is very related, hence why it would have been probably better to discuss both at Talk:Communism, but we cannot change the past, it went this way. I did also wrote about this very situation; for example, what do you think about the issue raised by Mr G? Could the definition be improved by combining the most objective elements of [The Cambridge, Oxford Living, Shorter Oxford and Miriam Webster definitions of "totalitarian" [which] are perhaps slightly better] with the objective elements of Robert Conquest's so that the definition is something like: "a system of government that subordinates all institutions to the government, prohibits opposition parties, restricts individual opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control over public and private life. As for communism, this article discusses a very specific type of Communism, not communism in general; hence why we should only list those specific types of communism and yet that may still not be enough, other than Stalinism, for there have been democratic Marxist–Leninists and Maoists, so that leave us only with Stalinism. Obviously, I disagree with you that Communism article could without problem include those categories as well for it is not actually supported per WP:CATDEF as a defining characteristic.--Davide King (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

By principle I would avoid to care issues raised by sockpuppets. As for the rest, you practically repeating the points already debated/answered, but now you seem also extend them for further removals...again categories may be added even by partial relation, it is quite strange you wish to remove Marxism-Leninism and Maoism as well just because claiming partial democratism...this is really concerning (at least borderline whitewash seems). Also disagree how you use catdef in support of your point, since the Communism article also contains and naturally mentions material fit to those categories. I could say, if the wish would be the categories Maoism, Marxism–Leninism or even Stalinism to be removed; it would be only applicable if the category of Communism remains at the page (but it would not mean the respective articles categorization would be altered in spite of these).(KIENGIR (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC))

We should focus on the content, not on the user; so if that was an interesting point worth discussing, I do not think it should matter too much whether that was a sockpuppeter or other qualifiers. Your accuses of whitewashing are absurd and I may just as well argue that you are showing an anti-communist bias but I will not do that; I focus on the content, not on the user. By the way, that point was made by C.J. Griffin here. Again, the issue is that we are interpreting the guidelines differently because I believe WP:CATDEF is clear about how [a] central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having [...]. So where do you get this categories may be added even by partial relation from? I am not going to repeat how we also interpret sources differently; you believe they are saying communism is totalitarian (rather than Stalinism et al.) or that the mere fact Marxism–Leninism is a communist ideology, then that justifies us putting communism as a whole when sources do not do that and are clearly using qualifiers such as Soviet communism so this is going nowhere and we need input from more users. But I do believe, for what is worth it and at least as of now, more users are agreeing (if they disagree or feel I misinterpreted them, they are free to tell me or correct me), both here and at Talk:Authoritarianism, with my interpretation of WP:CATDEF and so on. Hence, I suggest you, please, to stop acting like I am some fringe, that I do not know what I am talking about, or falsely accusing me of whitewash.--Davide King (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but since I experienced deliberate mess raised by sockpuppets in the past which took months and only later it has been revealed in fact what they were, they disrupted the discussions and processes, we should not give a ground so sockpuppeters may think they can influence happenings (even temporarily, and here the focus on content/user principle/approach is not that traditional one). Griffin's remark has nothing special, forgetting that categorization may also partially apply, as it is generally applied in WP articles (i.e. if x category hold y % to the article related, in other words, with whole or partial coverage it's ok, btw. it never neccesarily meant full coverage). This article has defining charachteristic of Communism, since the sources point ot that, per your claim, emphasizing on several sub-types of Communism as well.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC))

I asked you a simple question: where do you get this categories may be added even by partial relation from? Again, I believe WP:DEFCAT is self-explanatory. So C.J. Griffin was right, just like Levivich was. You claim This article has defining charachteristic of Communism but the characteristic of communism is a classless, moneyless, stateless society based on the common ownership of the means of production; nothing authoritarian or totalitarian about that. You further claim since the sources point ot that, per your claim, emphasizing on several sub-types of Communism as well but sources are not referring to communism, they are referring to Communist regimes which have been described by many academics and scholars as state capitalist just as totalitarian, so why should we not simply categorise the ones which are actually supported by the body and sources are actually referring to? Marxism–Leninism et al. are in Category:Communism because they are sub-types of communism, so there is not whitewashing; we should simply list those whose defining characteristic was totalitarianism, hence Stalinism, not communism; because not all communism is totalitarian and if mere relation was enough, we ought to categorise a huge bunch of ideologies, including capitalism, conservatism, liberalism, nationalism and socialism. That would make no sense and fascism, Italian Fascism, Nazism, Stalinism and perhaps Maoisim and Marxism–Leninnism should be listed.--Davide King (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, what I am referring to is obvious. Pages are in more categories, not necessarily related to each other, but the page, and any defining category may be added even if the page does not have everything that the category would cover entirely (in other words, do not confuse inclusivity with completeness). Defcat does not contradict this. Communism includes Communist regimes, etc. everything related, also the subject of the article. Please do not confuse pages in categories with categories, the category of Marxism-Leninism is i.e. not the subcategory of Communism, does not even contain it, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC))

Clearly, there are users who disagree or otherwise agree with me, so that should be weighted and you cannot dismiss like this. WP:DEFCAT contradicts your claim that mere relation is enough; and even if you were right, that may still be not enough because perhaps Communist state or their actual state ideology would be more appropriate or enough. By the way, I hope that for consistency's sake, since you believe that mere relation is enough, you will not have problem to add capitalism, nationalism and perhaps others? Since you believe I am confusing things, do not know the rules, etc., then I let C.J. Griffin, Docktuh, Doug Weller, The Four Deuces, Jack Upland, Levivich, MarioGom, Pfhorrest Rjensen, rolf h nelson and anyone else to reply back to you. Maybe they agree with you or changed their mind; or maybe they can give you a better argument and points without making my same confusion. I think it is a waste of time discussing this between you and I only, so I will try to avoid write you back to leave those other users' space to express their thoughts.--Davide King (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, to move forward we have to clearly set and point out the details, and first of all we should clearly avoid any confusion regarding pages in categories and categories itself (along with their relation & hierarchy), similarly referred above. However, I never mentioned mere relation (as especially what we speak of is definetly not "mere"), I clearly outlined above inclusivity vs. completeness.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, I wish other users would have replied in the meantime and weight their thoughts, but I agree and I think this comment of yours was helpful. However, I think mere relation may apply to have category:Marxism–Leninism in category:Communism or a subcategory or whatever of that because it is related and I am fine with that. However, this is different from categories in the articles which need to be a defining characteristics of the article and be supported by the main body rather than mere relations; category:Communism is not supported to be in either category of Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism, but perhaps category:Communist states is. After all, that is what sources are talking about, communist states, not small-c communism. They are talking about the state ideology of those states rather than small-c communism.

I also believe Rjensen's addition here is helpful

John Connelly argues that "Totalitarianism" is a useful word but the old 1950s theory about it is defunct among scholars

This is actually one more reason why we should remove communism as category. Because we are acting like it is a fact rather than a theory and that the old 1950s theory which included communism (or whatever they meant by it) is defunct among scholars. At most, we should simply substitute it with category:Communist states.--Davide King (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

We already agreed that category:Marxism–Leninism has to be the subcategory of category:Communism, etc. The rest you reiterate what we have already discussed and disagreed, so I avoid repetition. You should dicuss with Rjensen the specific issue you raised, IMHO (also about the Communist states category proposal, as you know my stance, as considerable).(KIENGIR (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC))

Consensus on adding Category:Communism

Here, KIENGIR did add it making reference, I assume, to the above discussion. But I do not see consensus, it is just you and Rjsensen. Another issue is that it seems we do interpret WP:CAT differently. For example, you and Rjsensen seem to say we should add it merely because it is related but then we should add capitalism, conservatism, liberalism, nationalism and who knows how many more ideologies for having authoritarian strands in theory and reality. I believe we should add only ideologies whose core characteristic is authoritarianism/totalitarianism; and the only ideologies who pass this would be fascism, Nazism and Stalinism. I also believe Levivich has a better or more correct understanding of guidelines when writing Per WP:CATV, WP:CATDEF, and WP:DEFINING, the article should say, with sources, that "communism" is a defining characteristic of "authoritarianism" before we can put the article Authoritarianism into Category:Communism. Not that communism is an example of authoritarianism, but that it's a "defining characteristic". I believe the same applies here. Rjensen wrote Aron drew parallels between Soviet communism, Nazism and Italian Fascism. In other words, sources do not support the addition of small-c communism, just of Stalinism and maybe Maoism and Marxism–Leninism. Per this, Category:Anti-communism is also more appropriate because it is actually supported both in the lead and main body. So at the very least, I do not see a definitive consensus to add communism; au contraire, I do see a dispute.--Davide King (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to open repetitive problematic argumentations that are anyway discussed in abother section, by the way as pointed out even the title of this section is misleading, since the subject is not adding, with the rest already explained above.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, the point is that main body does not make any explicit reference to communism as ideology, just to Marxist–Leninist regimes (which are called Communist regimes because they are or were governed by a Communist Party, not because they are or were communist). The other point is that you re-added it during a dispute as other users were reverting and disputing it, citing the above talk page as some consensus, when it is just you and Rjensen. Again, what I see is a dispute, not consensus. This is relevant because you previously claimed consensus to support the addition. Davide King (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

You just again reiterate that argumentation of yours which problematic points have been already adressed above, and with your recent argumentation you are falling back of not-understanding what finally you seemed to understand above (and won't repeat here anything because of that), hence I have to draw your attention this page is not a forum and opening further sections of a topic already discussed in the same talk page is highly unconstructive.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC))

Now you are just deflecting. Whatever consensus there may have been, it is no longer here as more users have been disputing communism as a category here and an actually discussion, still ongoing, has been opened and I see no consensus to support it, apart from you and Rjensen. Opening a discussion on whether there is an actual consensus and whether the above discussion show or constitute consensus on communism as a category is not highly unconstructive as you claimed. I believe it is a legitimate question, especially if you think the above discussion somehow constitute consensus for your position. Whatever you think of me, I did not boldly remove the category again and I simply believe that whether communism be added as a category here should be further discussed to establish a clear consensus. Davide King (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Deflection? Again you don't understand the policies regarding consensus. The discussion is not here, but in the above in sections. This talk page is not meant for discussing WP editing policies entirely, which does not belong here, you've been explained enough times.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC))

See continuation just for reference.--Davide King (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

A personal discussion does not necessarily belong here, let's close this thread.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC))

I agree! I was just pointing out and making clear that I wrote you back there for anyone interested in following the discussion and wanting to reply to each of our points, etc. However, if there is anyone who agree with my BRD's view or that believe we should discuss whether to add it or remove it, this is the thread. If no one agrees, I agree it should be closed.--Davide King (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Should there be a request for comments about whether adding or removing Category:Communism from both Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism? Davide King (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

This is the same you asked in the Authoritarianism article, no need to double, answered there.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, this does not change the fact that we have only you and Rjensen supporting the addition and at least C.J. Griffin, The Four Deuces, Levivich and I opposing it. The fact a similar thing is happening at Authoritarianism does not mean we should not discuss it. rolf h nelson also correctly noted that the Encyclopedia Britannica article on communism does not mention totalitarianism at all, and unless someone has strong sources we should replace communism with Marxism-Leninism. Doug Weller also correctly pointed out that if [communism] was considered by academics to be totalitarian, I'd expect it to say that. So it should not be hard for you to provide some reliable sources that explicitly states that communism (not Communist states or Stalinism which have their own category which we may add), but you have provided none and you commit the fallacy that because Communist states were totalitarian, then so was communism. Even The Black Book of Communism distinguish between small-c communism and capital-c Communism, describing Leninism et al. as totalitarian but not small-c communism which has existed for centuries and millennia. Davide King (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

You should only discuss here what belongs here, not a identical repetitive combo on both pages serving your own desires. So you again start to flood talk pages, mass pingings and talk on others behalf. This is not contructive, as well you reiterate your argumentations once already have been discussed and answered extensively. Sorry, I won't be a partner for repeat something that may already read above, so my answers would be as already mentioned, so I recommend you don't write again lenghy essays and don't flood talk pages with repetitions, information are already above.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, and what belongs here is discussing whether communism should be added or removed as Category. You would be right about me being disruptive if I was the only one to support removal, but I am not. You cannot ignore all the other users who took part at this discussion. If we really have to put ideologies (again, totalitarianism is a concept/theory which has been criticised and is not supported by all scholars, not a fact, so personally I would only leave Totalitarianism, 20th century in politics, 21st century in politics, Authoritarianism, Forms of government, Political philosophy, Political science terminology, Political systems and Political theories as Categories), my proposal is to leave only Communist states (as they are discussed) and Stalinism (as it is relevant to the totalitarian concept, see Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism), which both are or should be Subcategories of Communism (so there is no need to list every single, national communist ideology) as well as Fascism (it is mentioned as Fascists coined the word totalitario) and Nazism (Nazi Germany is most discussed alongside the Soviet Union as totalitarian). I would also remove Statism as Category because statism "is the doctrine that the political authority of the state is legitimate to some degree", so that would make all ideologies but anarchist totalitarian; and because it seems to be put as a pejorative and not as supported by sources. Davide King (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@KIENGIR: since I've been involved in this discussion before I'd hope to be pinged. And I note that Rjensen, who agrees with you, was also pinged, so there is nothing wrong with that. Your response simply shows a lack of good faith and I will also note that there is nothing wrong with asking the same question on the talk page of two articles if the issues are the same, in fact that seems a good thing. Doug Weller talk 09:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:,

I can assure you I don't lack of good faith, on the other hand I have been extemely patient with Davide King and his blog style recurrent flooding interaction in my personal talk page also, and forever repetitive content to be added we already discusssed to pull out the discussion is really exhaustive and after a point unnecessary. If I'd do the same, I'd be accused of WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOTBLOG, disruptive editing, or just being tendentious, etc. He pinged not twice, but five-six or I don't know how many times recurrently a group of other users, but after they don't appear, what's the catch to repeat it recurrently, though they apparently received it or were active? If I'd to that, would be accused of canvassing. I did not do the same, shall any user support anyone, did not even harass Rjensen. Now he suggest I cannot "ignore all the other users who took part at this discussion", although I never even intended/said/did that, so it is quite provocative. Regarding the other page, really has a catch to repeat the same twice, already here or vica versa? Doug, I am just not blind and have much experience with this issue (I was targeted with it and carefully read though everything), however, thank you for your feedback.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, the Category issue you keep talking about can be easily solved by making them as subcategories of Communism as proposed by Levivich and Pfhorrest. You have yet to provide any source that explicitly describes communism as totalitarian. As for the rest, I repeat you would be right if I was the only one supporting this view (if I was the only one, I would realise myself it would be disrupting to further discussing and I would have simply stopped writing, but this was not the case), but several users have actually agreed with me and I apologise if I am not good at summarising, but I do not think I violated any rules and I am simply trying to discuss the article by disputing communism as Category. It is not supported by main body (Communist states and Stalinism are) and no reliable sources have been provided to link communism as a whole to totalitarianism. Communism is also not as fascism that is inherently authoritarian and anti-democratic as there exists democratic and libertarian forms of communism. No similar examples are found in fascism. In conclusion, I believe Doug Weller is right is writing you are showing a lack of good faith towards me. I already apologised for overpinging or not being able to summarise my argument with shorter comments, if that is a cause of concern or annoyment among other users, too. Davide King (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

N+1 repeat again, n+1 pinging again :), never ending and sorry, don't play on that I would not have good faith, you recurrently do what I percieve, as also now. Regardless how much you try to drag me again in a discussion we already did, all of the content issues have been overdiscussed already above, I won't repeat it.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, let me just add that your English style or the way you write sentences is not the most clear (no offence, English is not my first language either); and I have not been the only one to state that. Either way, you are basically saying I should simply stop discussing this when other users have been in agreement with me (and they are no sockpuppets of mine, if you go so far as to believe that) or disputed your claims. The reason why I pinged others was because we need more users to discuss this other than you and I, especially when we are so far away from the way we see the issue. So from now on, let us avoid replying to each other and only reply to other users. Davide King (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

You should stop giving sentences in my mouth I did not say (otherwise this answer would not exist). What I said, no need to repeat that may be already read above and overdiscussed, your repetitive and other inventive explanations (my English style, funny :D a reason for repeating you already written over ten times maybe with your English :) ) and reasonings I won't react, since it is useless, you'll come out another explanations and reasons to pull the discussion over and longer and you can again repeat somthing you told x times. Sorry, boring.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC))

Marxists

If Marxist historical figures are put among "totalitarians", than the capitalist figures that are alleged with similar term must be added as well, such as Pinochet, to make the article more neutral. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Comrade-yutyo, I am not aware of Pinochet or his regime being called totalitarian by "reliable sources", although I think we should make more clear that figures like Mussolini and Hitler presided over capitalist regimes; that Soviet regimes are disputed as being "socialists", or called "state capitalists" or "administrative-command" systems by notable scholars; and that "totalitarianism" is more of a concept and theory than a fact; and that many scholars have disputed it, including the claim that fascist regimes and the Soviet Union were "totalitarian" under the theory. We have John Connelly summarising that "totalitarianism is a useful word, but that the old 1950s theory about it is defunct among scholars". So why do we still take it as a fact, including having communism as Category? Davide King (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Davide King indeed, the regimes of Hitler and Mussolini were capitalists, and USSR after 1953 took market measurements while not being a capitalist as there wasn't a capital that owned means of production and the soviet system of council democracy existed (even if damaged) until the dissolution of the nation. That being another discussion, what I wanted to light was inclusion of neoliberal "totalitarians" as they are dismissed, more likely due to the non-neutral potrayal of liberalism as freedom.

If you would like to see a reliable source about Pinochet and his regime being called "totalitarian", I recommend you this book. It is much more reliable than sources citing socialism as a totalitarian ideology. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of RFC at Category:Communism

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

Levivich, I have boldly removed any ideology, for fascism et al. (including Marxism–Leninism‎) are already part of Category:Totalitarianism. Similarly, I have not added Communist states because it is already part of the same category as part of Totalitarian states. I do not understand why KIENGIR removed Political systems; it is not a subcategory and perhaps we should remove also Forms of government since totalitarianism is more of a theory and concept and only fascists have proposed it positively. Davide King (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I removed redundant categories, being subcategories of an already mentioned category. Please check first before commenting. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, Marxism–Leninism‎ is already also a subcategory of Totalitarianism; did you miss it? Davide King (talk) 09:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC))

The way I read the Wikipedia:Categorization guideline is: if all fascists (X) are totalitarian (Y) (and totalitarianism is a defining characteristic of fascism), then we put the article Fascism (X) in Category:Totalitarianism (Y) (or an applicable subcategory, in this case Category:Fascism). We do not do the reverse; we do not put the article Totalitarianism (Y) in Category:Fascism (X). So this article Totalitarianism should not be in Category:Fascism or Category:Marxism-Leninism.

The tree should look like this:

Category:Political philosophy

• Category:Political theories
  • Category:Political ideologies
    • Category:Political systems
      • Category:Authoritarianism
        • Category:Totalitarianism
          • Category:Fascism
      • Category:Communism
        • Category:Marxism
          • Category:Leninism
            • Category:Marxism–Leninism‎

The corresponding articles should be in their WP:EPONYMOUS categories. So the article Marxism–Leninism‎ should be in Category:Marxism–Leninism‎, Fascism in Category:Fascism, Communism in Category:Communism, Authoritarianism in Category:Authoritarianism, and Totalitarianism in Category:Totalitarianism. None of those should be in any parent categories or subcategories. Lev!vich 19:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Now, by this article what you raised is not anymore the question, in general even if you read like so, since even partially related things may be categorized, I am afraid such approack cannot be applied universally. About the "eponymous" question, even it it would be adequate and logical, such is not necessarily applied in may articles. Especially it would be good to know the exact difference between [[Category:Totalitarianism| ]] and [[Category:Totalitarianism]] and similar. So still more discussion is needed, cetagorization is anyway and ongoing mess in WP, as I just said. I would make a limitation to evaluate currently existing categories, logically, appropriately build a hierarchy that is either professionally and mathematically is accurate is valid, and until no new categories could be added or invented. Afterwards, any new proposal or addition should be reviewed and evalutaed on the same ground. Otherwise, the inconsistencies will never end in WP.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC))

The difference between [[Category:Totalitarianism| ]] and [[Category:Totalitarianism]] is that the first one is a "piped category link", explained at WP:Piped link#Piped category links. Piping the category link changes the sort order when categories are displayed; it doesn't affect the category tree or how things should be categorized.

Where you're incorrect is your statement "even partially related things may be categorized". Partially related is not a reason to categorize anything. Our category guidelines (WP:Categorization) is very clear about this. Partially related is not good enough for a categorization, it must be defining.

It's true that many articles do not comply with what WP:Categorization says, but, well, the fact that people are miscategorizing other articles doesn't mean we should miscategorize, too. We should follow WP:Categorization. Lev!vich 13:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I agree, especially with how "many articles do not comply with what WP:Categorization says, but, well, the fact that people are miscategorizing other articles doesn't mean we should miscategorize, too." We should, perhaps, actually follow the policy for all articles, rather than use that as an excuse not to follow it. Davide King (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, your 'tree' looks correct to me. We should remove fascism and Marxism–Leninism‎ from Authoritarianism because they are already in the Category Authoritarianism, with the added bonus that this will likely avoid endless wars about why those two ideologies are there and why others are not, etc. Both fascism and Marxism–Leninism‎ already have Authoritarianism as category in their respective articles but they should not be added at the Authoritarianism article itself, too. Davide King (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Levivich,

I see. Sorry you may have misundertood something, I already explained it in the talk pages, when I said partially, it did not exclude being defining, since a person of Italian and French descent may be equally in Italian and French categories with FULL inclusion, etc, and I never said we should follow miscategorization, what I said is clearly read above (I really don't know from where you draw such erroneus conclusions...) Davide King again copypasted something that is the subject of another article, and not related the main discussion here necessarily.

Your category tree needs explanation, since it seems you wish to identify i.e. Marxism-Leninism would have no relation Totalitarianism or Authoritarianism, etc. (and many more issues, which I don't mention at the first glance until i.e. this one is not clarified)(KIENGIR (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC))

If consensus was that totalitarianism is a defining characteristic of M-L, then I think the article M-L should be in Cat:Leninism and Cat:Totalitarianism, and Cat:M-L should be a subcat of Cat:Leninism and Cat:Totalitarianism. Lev!vich 02:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Before interpreting what you said, I tell you what I see by your proposed tree:

it shows cat:Totalitarianism is the subcat of cat:Authoritarianism, however cat:Fascism is the only subcat of cat:Totalitarianism, while cat:Communism and its subcats are separated. So indeed you did not consider like so and I misinterpret your original intention, but logically at first glance these came through from the tree...(KIENGIR (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC))

NPOV to be Added

The article is clearly unbalanced and deserves an NPOV. Despite the scholarly consensus that communism is totalitarian and a recent resolution by the EU equating Communism and Nazism, the article quibbles over a minority of Marxist academics who challenge the consensus for political purposes. This is a form of denial similar in tactics and outcomes to "holocaust deniers": it uses the same specious arguments. In Wikipedia we have to assume good faith, this article does not pass scrutiny in that sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.148.125 (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm taking the tag off as this is pretty much a content free rant insufficient to justify the tag. I'm not going to revert the rest of your edit but that is not an endorsement either. I'd like other people to take a look at that and see what they think. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello. First of all, totalitarianism within Communism would mainly be restricted to Marxist-Leninism, and Classical Marxists, including Marx himself, do not hold with totalitarian beliefs (at least in the long term), especially given their belief in the eventual end of the state. Naturally, addressing both sides of the issue (with WP:Due in mind) would be a great approach, given how nuanced and complex ideology is. ¡Ayvind! (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Image and Difference between Totalitarianism and Authoritarianism

Pinochet was not a Totalitarian dictator, he was a an Authoritarian dictator without any official political doctrine. According to Friedrich Hayek, Pinochet was some kind of liberal dictator, absolutely non comparable with totalitarian dictators like Hitler or Stalin. 2800:484:6E84:FF28:91BC:BFA0:151:5EFC (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hayek can even have symphaty to the dictator that threw leftists out of helicopters because Pinochet sustained "free libertarian ideology of capitalism" rather than being an "evil totalitarian socialist".--Comrade-yutyo (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)