Talk:Communism/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

M-L in intro

Communism is commonly equated to Marxism–Leninism, a controversial version of Marxism developed by Joseph Stalin, which became the official ideology of the Soviet Union and the Communist movement loyal to it. ref name="made_by_stalin">Г. Лисичкин (G. Lisichkin), Мифы и реальность, Новый мир (Novy Mir), 1989, № 3, p. 59 (in Russian) /ref>ref>History for the IB Diploma: Communism in Crisis 1976–89. Allan Todd. Page 16. "Essentially, Marxism–Leninism was the 'official' ideology of the Soviet state" and all communist parties loyal to Stalin and his successors - up to 1976 and beyond."/ref>

I agree with severe trimming of this paragraph, however the phrase has an issue, namely the term "controversial" I am not sure this word is supported by the refs cited. Regardless, IMO the word is ambiguous here. It is better instead to expand the phrase with something like "Opponents of ML within the communist movement consider ML as a detraction from the genuine Marxism. What do you think? -M.Altenmann >t 03:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I would say it would be better to delete the word "controversial" if it offends. I think the Communist opponents of ML are really a construction of this article. Who are these people? For example, Trotsky used the term "Marxist-Leninist" with approval, as shown in the Marxists Internet Archive. I think we should avoid this. In addition, linking to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy (from "genuine Marxism") replicates the problem I am trying to avoid: the use of the article to put forward a point of view on Communism.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

'No true scotsman' was a joke to illustrate, rather than replicate the problem: within many political movements there are plenty of splinters which accuse each other of detraction of some "genuine" idea. As for "opponents", we need references to find ones. -M.Altenmann >t 18:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand why this article should so much weight to smaller communist movements, when 90 percent of the communist movements has been made up, historically, of people proclaimed to be marxist-leninists. Communism changed; it didn't mean the same when Marx lived as when Lenin lived or in the time we live now. You don't see the leads in the liberalism, social democracy or other "ism" articles discuss why some view (and don't view) those ideologies as sufficiently correct. A generalization description of communism is a movement which tries to seize power (either through election or revolution) and believes history is on the march towards communism (all communists agree on this; what they disagree on is the road to getting there).. --TIAYN (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Please explain which exactly pieces have too much weight. In addition, what is your opinion about the theory that M-L was "invented" by Stalin? In particular, how Trotsky comes into the picture? -M.Altenmann >t 21:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The term was coined by Stalin, but he did not invent M–L.... Trotsky supported M–L because he practiced democratic centralism, and as communists are fond of saying; you can discuss democratically until the decision is taken, and after that you have to follow it. Bukharin also endorsed M–L, but he supported running a mixed economy rather then a fully nationalized economy based on planning (arguing, like the Chinese today, that Russia was simply not advanced enough). What is now considered M–L came into being after the purges of the internal party opposition, and after all democratic procedures within the CPSU had disappeared.... I'm not sure what you mean with "pieces", but the lead should state the bloody obvious; the different communist movements essentially differ on two thing, how one is supposed to abolish capitalism and how one should construct socialism. China, Laos and Vietnam obviously believe that you can use capitalists to advance towards socialism (essentially focusing on Marx's writings on technology and economic development), the USSR (and its allies) believed you could use socialist productive forces in a non-socialist economy to skip capitalism and advance to socialism immediately (which the Stalin leadership, Soviet M–Ls argued, did) or the electoral (represented by eurocommunism and the Japanese Communist Party) which states that Marxism is democratic in nature and does not support blind oppression of the opposition since, as they accurate state, the whole point of socialism is that its supposed to be more democratic and just then capitalism. The eurocommunists, or better, the "democratic communists" are, to say the least, the continuation of the Marxist social democratic movement (which died together with the end of World War II). That is, the belief that, if elected, they can guide the country from capitalism to socialism. Lenin dismissed the social democrats because he believed that social democrats, if they ever took power, would eventually become capitalists (and he was right). The social democrats counter arguement was that socialism was synonymous with democracy, and that experience had shown taking power through revolution would inevitably lead to dictatorship (and dictatorship led to, to summarize, "anti-socialist behaviour", they contended).... When we speak of communism today we don't speak about the communism in Marx's time, but the communism that was conceived by Vladimir Lenin. The former lead was proof of that; it fails to mention both council communism (the most popular form of communism in Europe before Lenin took power) and Rosa Luxemburg. --TIAYN (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

As this discussion indicates, there are two enduring truths about this article: (1) it is too tendentious, (2) it is too hung up with terminology.

"Marxism-Leninism" is associated with Stalin, and more latterly with Maoists. But is there any Marxist party that has overtly attacked M-L? Give details.

Council Communism, as the article shows, was a tendency that existed in the 1920s, after Lenin took power, and then dissipated. Rosa Luxemburg is recognised as an important figure by Marxist-Leninists, and by hardly anyone else.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Jack Upland, you are wrong! The Soviets are a perfect example of council communism—but then Lenin and Co instituted the one-party dictatorship.... This is how the lead should be organized;

1. Short introduction of communism the movement (since the movement produces the theory and practice)
2. Short summary that communism is not a unified movement since they disagree on how to abolish capitalism and develop socialism
3. Examples on how they differ; USSR example (that is, the state socialism variant), the market example (represented by the China, Laos and Vietnam) and eurocommunist example
4. Communism connection to Marxism.

Does this work? --TIAYN (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it does work. I think the lead is good as it now stands. We have to avoid framing the information. We have to allow the readers to make up their own minds. The relationship between different strains of Communism is controversial. The Trotskyist version should be confined to the Trotskyist section. The Libertarian to the Libertarian. Etc. I think the distinction between M-L and "Marxism and Leninism" should be removed because it is confusing, and it doesn't seem to be made in sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the article. THe current lead fails to summarize the article! And the article is already "framed"; It barely mentions China, Cuba, Vietnam or Laos (which you would have thought mattered since they are remaining communist/socialist states). --TIAYN (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree there should be more references to actual Communist governments. But what I mean by framing is contextualising the information, explaining the differences. Once you say that the USSR was an example of "state socialism", or anything like that, you are introducing a particular point of view into the article. Others might say it was state capitalism, or a bureaucratic degeneration, or the homeland of the world working class, or a Russian empire. The more "explanation" given, the more problematic it becomes. Because the status of a particular variant of Communism, its relationship to the rest of the Communist movement, is absolutely pivotal to the controversy. I might say that Council Communism was a passing phase in the early days of the Comintern. You might say it is the authentic inheritor of the soviet tradition. Some might say Trotskyism is the authentic continuation of Leninism. Others might say it was a deviation from Leninism, or purely the product of leadership rivalry between Stalin and Trotsky, and not fundamentally different from Stalinism. The article can't take a stand on any of these issues. We the current editors can't even agree amongst ourselves on these issues.

In any case, this framing of the topic degenerates into pedantic lectures about terminology which add very little to the article. The whole discussion of "Marxism-Leninism" is a clear example. There is little explanation of what M-L actually involves. It is distinguished from Trotskyism by the doctrine of "Socialism in One Country", but "Socialism in One Country" was effectively abandoned by Stalin after World War Two.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

1848 to 1917 skipped over in the flow of the article

We go from Marx to Lenin; one would imagine that the intervening years would be crucial to bridge these eras.66.64.72.10 (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to see here, move along

"In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis – common, universal)[1][2] is a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production, absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state." "...and the state" has no reference, so I suggest you remove it, considering this is an objective lexicon and all that... That is if you want to continue to call yourself an objective lexicon edited by subjective sheep. NO REFERENCE = REMOVE, unless it fits your own indoctrinates ofc, and thats why its still there... Sincerely yours Kaptein Fittekost, Norway.

I have added in references, for more information, see: Withering away of the state.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The Map Needs To Be Replaced

This article's map is unreliable, if only due to the fact it includes both parts of Yemen as having had Communist governments and excluding Madagascar.Eharding (talk) 04:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It's also very questionable to say that North Korea is no longer Communist, as its system has not changed markedly.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Communist Party of Brazil currently governs a state after winning its first state election for governor in 2014

This should be added. They elected communist Flavio Dino as governor of the Maranhao state. The article only mentions the party's presence in the Brazilian Congress, but they also have executive power now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.17.116 (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is horrible.

What the hell happened?

This article used to be relatively decent. Now it just looks like a dead battlefield where ideological hardliners fought against each other and had to water everything down until nothing makes any sense. I'm not here to push my own ideology or perspective on what TRUE communism means, unlike some people on here.. I just came here to say that this article is a disgrace to Wikipedia and that this article now needs MAJOR work. Stop trying to promote your brand and just fix the article so it works for everyone. In the mean time I hope to god no one ever comes here expecting to get first timer info on what communism is. --Mundopopular (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The number one criticism of Communism which I have heard countless times, is that it disincentivizes workers and citizens from being productive members of society. You may argue with that truth, but it is still deserving of being listed first under the criticisms section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.232.6 (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Which is probably (not) why the USSR launched the first satellite.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

А также в области балета

Мы впереди планеты всей.

In other words, I smell a missing topic here. - üser:Altenmann >t 19:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

"it disincentivizes workers and citizens from being productive members of society."

Bullshit. Wikipedia is a counter-example. It is unbelievable how many people work for fun. The problem starts when some other people start killing you when you refuse to have fun. And this has nothing to do with communism. (Or, in a way it does: communism does not have built-in mechanisms against evil. Because evil is not supposed to exist during communism.) In other words: there never was communism and the statement cited is not even wrong. A more meaningful statement would be: "socialism disincentivizes workers and citizens from being productive members of society". And the latter statement is a falsifiable one. - üser:Altenmann >t 19:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting phenomenon - missing information about communist-occupied Poland

An interesting phenomenon can be observed in the article. The phenomenon is that you're unable to find any information about the comminust murderers who killed hundreds thousands of Polish people in the years 1939-1989. Communism in Poland was a very fierce and ruthless regime, which took lifes of many many families (only one ethnic cleasing would perish around 20.000-25.000 people, and there were a few such events). After the war, a lot of Polish heroes who faught against the nazi occupation and against the soviet regime, were simply executed like some criminals (see: Witold Pilecki). The communist persecuted the Polish ex-Home Army guerrillas and tried to execute them all. Communists also repressed the average Polish citizens who were too patriotic or too religious. Nearly all of the Jews who survived the German-Nazi occupation, became communists after the WWII. Many Jewish communists such as Józef Różański, were high-ranked NKVD officers and colonels, who personally tortured and murdered the Cursed soldiers - Polish war heroes and patriots. Why isn't the dark side of communism mentioned in context of the communist persecution of Poles? 192.162.150.105 (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is a general text about Communist ideology. If you interested in the particular implementation of Communism in Poland, you may want to start from Polish People's Republic, Communist crimes (Polish legal concept), Institute of National Remembrance, Lustration in Poland among the major ones. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I think, that the communist crimes against the Polish nation were exceptional and very remarkable. Hundreds thousands of victims and the whole nation oppressed for about 50 years after the WWII. It should be definitely stated in the article. As I see, there is not even a one sentence about it. 192.162.150.105 (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess that's why the ex-Communists were voted back into government in the 1990s.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, well. I just hope someone really takes care about this and put this important aspect inside the article, as communism in Poland was the most harsh type of communism in all communist-occupied Europe. It was because the Poles didn't want to surrender so easily as the Yugoslavs. 192.162.150.105 (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

So harsh. Bread was so cheap the peasants fed their animals with it.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2016

167.217.31.169 (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Plato

The article asserts that,

'The idea of a classless, egalitarian society first emerged in Ancient Greece. Plato, writing in The Republic around 380 BC, described it as a state where people shared all their property, wives, and children: "The private and individual is altogether banished from life and things which are by nature private, such as eyes and ears and hands, have become common, and in some way see and hear and act in common, and all men express praise and feel joy and sorrow on the same occasions."'

That material is factually inaccurate in several ways. Plato's utopia in The Republic is not egalitarian, inasmuch as his proposed society divides people into different groups with different duties. Despite what the article states, the sharing of property wives, and children only applies to members of the guardian class, not to society as a whole. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You're right. I will remove that.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

A word of caution: while I don't particularly care about this part, but let me notice that scientists so not say "Plato suggested communism" they would rather speak about "elements of communism". otherwise this would be anachronism. Here is an example: the Utopia speaks about everybody will be equal and happy... and everybody will have at least two slaves. I hope you got the point. Is a reputable source cited mentions Plato's ideas were precursor of communism, we have to report this. as for people having different duties, it is common sense and no contradiction: Please don't confuse duties with rights. Anyway, just stick with the sources, avoid too liberal interpretation thereof and all will be fine. - üser:Altenmann >t 20:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Criticism

Is this even a seirous section? I'm not even going to get into the whole "slow or stagnate technological advance (USSR winning the space race), or reduce prosperity (Cuba being #64 out of 193 countries in the UN GPD world rank)" nonsense. But come on, all the references to criticism are based either on liberal economical theory or capitalist propaganda. Criticism is needed, yes, but is this supposed to be taken as a neutral article ...or is it all just a big joke? Engalazillo (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is a "dead battlefield", as noted above. It does need a lot of work, and has been tagged as such. However, this is such a contentious topic it is difficult to find common ground, or agree on a neutral wording. The term "communism", or "Communism", is very ambiguous. We all have made complaints, but not many improvements on the article!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Someone should write a sentence about the instances of religious persecution by various communist governments due to policies like state atheism. 174.4.33.196 (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Communism is a failed ideology responsible for many deaths and the destruction of economies

This needs to be made clear in the lead. Anyone still calling themselves a communist today or denying its failure and responsibility for many deaths is clearly out of touch with reality. Viriditas (talk) 05:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Where's proof of its failure, if we (that I know of) haven't even seen a stateless, moneyless and classless society in recent history? What about the closer approximations that we did see, like the Free Territory, and worker-control during the Spanish Revolution of 1936, which apparently resembled more libertarian socialism? Socialistguy (talk) 19:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this could be worded neutrally...--Jack Upland (talk) 05:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted this user's non-neutral additions to the article. I suggest that the user reexamine his motives for editing this article and produce figures for how many nations were ruined and people were killed by capitalism. →Σσς. (Sigma) 08:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Or documenting the destruction of the Chinese economy.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

So you are saying that communism was and is a success? Why does the scholarly literature say otherwise? Viriditas (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you actually get reliable secondary sources, present them in a neutral way, and then stick them...in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Fake ideas are labeled as hoaxes. Bad ideas are classified as failures. You never answered my simple question. Was communism successful as an ideology? Why does the mainstream literature describe it as a dangerous, murderous failure? Viriditas (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

What today we call mainstream is just the S-bend of history. Are Soyuz spacecraft used to transport American cosmonauts to the International Space Station? Are the Antonov transport planes used by aid efforts around the globe? Is the AK-47 still the weapon of choice of anti-Fascists 50 years later? Is the Rubik's cube still confounding the minds of the West? Let history judge. Communism was unsuccessful as an ideology, but successful as an economy. But don't worry. Money isn't everything.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's test your hypothesis: if communism facilitates technological development, then non-communist countries must be deficient in this area. When we look at such countries, do we find their technology lagging behind? If we don't, then we must discard your idea in favor of better ideas that have more explanatory and predictive capability. It would be silly to hold bad ideas, so let's look at your claim in depth, otherwise admit it is in error. Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, actually the USA is lagging behind in space technology, even though the USSR has been gone for 35 years.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Is SpaceX lagging behind? What about all the other private space companies paving the way? Your example is simply ridiculous. I don't see a Russian moon base or Mars colony. Viriditas (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, SpaceX is lagging behind, because it is Soyuz spacecraft that are transporting crew to the ISS. Soyuz meaning "union" as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.I agree with the comment above that there is a missing topic here.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

As our article on the Soviet space program makes abundantly clear, the philosophy of "communism" had zero role in its development. More to the point, communist ideas had no influence on the theories of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, nor influence on Nazi engineers. This is a post hoc fallacy. Virtually all of your arguments up above are fallacies composed of red herrings and tu quoque distractions. Was communism a failed philosophy? Yes, according to our best sources. Viriditas (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, no, "post hoc" is valid, as you are saying that Communism destroyed economies. Doesn't look like it.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It is a post hoc fallacy to claim that communism was responsible for the success of the Soviet space program when all the evidence says otherwise and points to other factors. It is, however, a historical fact that communism destroyed entire economies. Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

BAHAHAHA. Communism ideology is so failed, that a tiny nation as Cuba that faces a half century economic blockade, has 0% child malnutrition[1], a lower infant mortality rate than USA[2] and an higher investment in education than nordic countries[3]. And all that without invading any country, meanwhile "advanced" capitalist economies bomb other nations and cause wars and millions of deaths to steal their resources. Try again. emijrp (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I have spent the last decade criticizing capitalism here on Wikipedia. Why is communism above the same criticism? Your examples implicitly argue that communism doesn't scale as a philosophy, and engages in multiple fallacies of scale and comparison, from apples and oranges to tu quoque. Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Soviet Army soldiers chatting to the children just liberated from the Auschwitz concentration camp.

Wikipedia isn't the place to criticize anything, communism or capitalism, better leave your activism out of Wikipedia. My example argues that communism isn't "a failed ideology that destroys economies" as you opined. To compare economic systems you need to compare economic indexes and contexts, that is why I offered some references and examples. The only one who is using fallacies and comparing apples and oranges it is you, comparing Nazism and Communism (putting people inside gas chambers deliberately and the deaths allegedly caused by communism ideology). It is far worse that comparing apples and oranges. emijrp (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the most recent revert, Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. (emphasis mine). The article previously existed without the addition I reverted, so I have restored the status quo and call upon Volunteer Marek and Viriditas to demonstrate why their addition is neutral. →Σσς. (Sigma) 01:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be using a different definition of "neutral" than the rest of is. And your criticism of the Black Book is yet another fallacy known as trivial objections. One minor flaw does not discredit an entire body of work. Please stop trying to whitewash the historical crimes of communism, a political movement responsible for the most deaths in the 20th century. This is an undisputed fact. Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but can you please explain exactly how not including "Communism killed everyone" at the top of the article constitutes non-neutrality? →Σσς. (Sigma) 01:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

In mainstream academic sources, Communism is responsible for a large number of deaths in the 20th century. I'm sorry if you personally feel otherwise, but we write articles based on reliable sources. There is no neutrality problem here whatsoever nor can you show one. People who live or lived in communist countries were and are constantly living under threat. There are no capitalists where I live threatening to kill me or prevent me from speaking or living any way I choose. Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Viriditas. I came across this Talk Page by randomly clicking on a "diff" link on Special:RecentChanges. I think it is pretty clear from your first contribution to this thread as well as the tone of the additions you propose that you have very strong, anti-communist opinions. Regardless of whether your strong opinions are validated by "scholarly literature" or whatever else, it's not appropriate to make a statement such as "the practice and implementation of communism caused x deaths," because that is not a specific, verifiable fact. What constitutes "practice and implementation" of a political system? The everyday affairs of the country? Could we then say that the "practice and implementation" of capitalism resulted in the imprisonment of 2.2 million people? Of course not. Because some of those imprisonments resulted from crimes that have no connection whatsoever to capitalism other than having been prosecuted by a state with a capitalist economy. My suggestion is that if you want to show the world how terrible communism is, add specific facts with specific citations. The article should not contain a condemnation of the concept. Nor should it read like praise. It should be a transparent description. Sincerely, Rajulbat (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. I've made 144,000 contributions, none of which could possibly be described as "anti-communist". Citing historical sources dos not make one an anti-communist. Please stop whitewashing history. Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

At Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-01-13/In focus, a user observed a sort of anarcho-capitalistic sentiment in your responses. There is no need to dig further. →Σσς. (Sigma) 02:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I have never expressed a single tenet of anarcho-capitalism at any time anywhere. Your illogical approach to discussion appears to consist solely of distractions, evasions, and denial while ignoring the actual subject under discussion. Appealing to ad hominem and character assasination is about as far from a rational debate as you can get. Is this what communists think substitutes for logic? That would explain their penchant for death and destruction. Viriditas (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you tell me what page number of your reference supports the holding that "scholars estimate that the implementation and practice of Communism led to the deaths of 85–100 million people in the 20th century, with the majority of deaths occurring in the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union"? I'd like to have a look at it. Thanks, --Rajulbat (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't believe you just happened to show up by pure chance to discuss and revert, and I don't believe you are unable to read the linked source article for yourself which directly cites the numbers. So once again, I don't believe you. Viriditas (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Take care not to be condescending. Such acts may escalate this crisis. (in the writing of this message, I do not mean to suggest that you are being unhelpfully and/or annoyingly condescending.)

I call on you to demonstrate why there is no problem with neutrality; I'm sorry if you personally feel otherwise, but the very fact that this talk page discussion is happening is a symptom of dissent against your claim that "there is no neutrality problem".

I do not contest the role of ideology in death. As consequence of deadly force, the IMF, the World Bank, etc, to name a few, it's a vacuous action, to speak of the plight of the oppressed when discussing ideology.

Why should your claims be put in the lead section and not the "criticism" section? →Σσς. (Sigma) 01:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean "that which I agreed with", nor do I have any idea why you think it does. Please demonstrate a neutrality problem with properly summarizing in the lead. It is significant that communism is considered one of the most murderous political movements in human history. Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I've already highlighted an excerpt from policy in my initial message today, and I continue to eagerly await your response. →Σσς. (Sigma) 02:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You've done nothing of the sort, other than to distract, deny, and evade from the subject under discussion. You're engaging in non-neutral editing by repeatedly deleting a reliable source that contradicts your pet beliefs. Please report yourself. Viriditas (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Who says that it is a failed ideology? Who says that it destroys economies? You add unreferenced statements to the article[4]. emijrp (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Can I just say that modern China is anything but a failure? Its run by communists and they're doing a pretty awesome job! Of course, there are many problems, but so there is in the United States so.... --TIAYN (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

While I do not have any strongly-held beliefs on communism, we already have an article called Mass killings under Communist regimes. It states: "In his summary of the estimates in the Black Book of Communism, Martin Malia suggested a death toll of between 85 and 100 million people." If Viriditas wants to connect the two articles and point that communism has had some deadly effects, he/she can point to relevant sources. And while we can not state in Wikipedia's voice that Communism, Capitalism or anything else is a "failed ideology", we can still summarize the arguments and data of notable critics.

The effects on communism in various economies, positive or negative, will need their own sources to be included. Blanket statements like all communist countries face/have faced financial crises are not particularly useful, since they do not actually point out reasons. More useful articles such as the Era of Stagnation (in the Soviet Union) actually stress that there is no consensus on exact reasons. The stagnation has been blamed on "systemic flaws" in the Union's planned economy, on the lack of significant reforms over a prolonged period, and on high expenditures on defence detracting from the economy. Such arguments are useful on pointing how the Union and its policies have been perceived. Dimadick (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

On the economic issue, we have criticism without any background on what is being criticised. There is no information here on the economic performance of Communist-run states (apart from a postage stamp, perhaps) or even much on what Communist economic policies were hoping to achieve. (Editors have often argued that this is not an article about Communist states, and this ambiguity has been one of the ongoing problems with the article.) During the so-called Era of Stagnation, the USSR experienced a respectable economic growth rate for most of the time as well as making world-beating advances in space technology etc. It did not have any financial crises. Many of the criticisms of economic performance in the USSR and other countries were made in the context of the Communist movement lauding their achievements. This context is now gone, and taking this criticism in isolation would lead you to believe that the USSR was in continuous economic decline from 1917. We have to remember that some people come to Wikipedia for information, not just to have an argument.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This article fails to follow the most basic policies and guidelines, from sourcing to NPOV to summarizing the body in the lead. The majority of mainstream sources describe communism as a failed ideology which was responsible for more death and destruction than any other political philosophy in the 20th century. It's amazing to me that you would claim you are "informing" people about communism by continually deleting the most important facts about its failure and death count. Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and I tagged this article for POV and lack of sources a few weeks ago. Adding in more opinionated statements without citations does not help.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

As the user who nominated the Brezhnev and the History of the Soviet Union (1964–82) to GA status, and wrote the referenced parts of the Era of Stagnation article, I'll have to say that the Soviet growth rate of the1970s and 1980s were anything but respectable. Considering that the USSR was trying to catch up with the West it was in many ways a disaster. The Soviet system was one which produced the most educated populace on Earth, but was unable to use them in a productive way. .. Of course, as Schumpeter points out, a system which produces less growth in the long run could be better than a system which produces continuos growth and material wealth. For instance, an American conservative Christian would probably be fine with reduced economic growth (and material comfort) if it ment that gays could not marry and the state didn't restrict the rights to buy and sell guns. Maybe the person in question would consider it a fair sacrifice; freedom, the person would argue, is more important then material comfort... A Soviet communist would probably say freedom is worth sacrificing for the sake of equality and modernity (which is the basis of Soviet communism). Soviet communism, as communism in China, was first of all an ideology which sacrificed everything for the sake of modernity (even equality, as we see in China and the late USSR).

The question, how bad was communism is uninteresting to say the least. No one in the West believes in communism either so I don't get why people are so focused on fighting an enemy which does not exist! --TIAYN (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The EU's annual growth rate is currently 0.3% pa. Even the CIA admits that the USSR was doing better than that. Catching up with the West was a tall order. To do that, the Soviet growth rate would have had to be much higher than the West's was. Since WW2, the USA has grown at about 3% pa (with much variation). That was not higher than the Soviet economy, but the problem is that if US GDP is twice the size as the USSR's, the Soviet growth rate has to be... you do the maths. Stalin's famous statement in 1931 was: "We are 50 to 100 years behind the advanced countries of the West. We must make up this gap in 10 years. Either we do this or they crush us." Ten years later, Germany invaded, and the USSR defeated Germany, but the Red Army came to Berlin with camels. Catching up was a tall order. Nevertheless, the USSR launched the first satellite, and Soviet technology continues to be used to take US cosmonauts to the International Space Station today. In any case, the issue of "Communism" (whatever it means) is contentious. Why this is so is an interesting question, but TIAYN knows this to be true.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

<sigh> As an eyewitness I can anecdotically claim that soviet union was time of lost opportunities. While successes in some areas, there was huge wastage in others. ordinary people simply didn't care anymore to live on sustenance level in order to put some rockets to space and some underground. as one writer quipped, the idea of "Socialism in one country" turned into "Communism in one city" (guess which one). People had drive to rebuild the country after three devastating wars, but during peace time they lost it. "communism for grandchildren" is "pie in the sky"... and so on... yes it was stagnation, but probably not the way this article describes. the country used to be a racing car, but turned into an overloaded cartwheel on steroids. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Jack Upland, you are right to note that Soviet communism, despite its underdeveloped, managed to introduce technological wonders out of this world! Which is surprising, since they were unable to produce enough clothes or food for the general populace.. Communism at its best was the best; the education system, the space program, urbanisation el cetra it surpassed all its competitors. What people don't understand is how a system like this was unable to produce enough meat and why it decided that coal was more important than cloths.... But the numbers. It doesn't matter if the United States or France grew less then the Soviet Union, these countries are advanced and therefore produce less growth.. When the majority of the economy is "top-notch" growth rates automatically becomes much slower. .. This has nothing to do with the system, more with its advanced state... Of course, one could argue that if the system had not become rotten to the core (as happened under Brezhnev's watch, maybe the system could have survived).. Maybe, if the political system had been more open (and not everything top-down commands), the party would have been able to reform it. Alas, the Soviet system was a top-down system to the extreme. Gorbachev was correct when he said in 1987 that the Soviet system was not Leninist per se, it was Stalinist. The first one allowed discussions (at least in theory), the other one made rooms for commands only... ... But I agree with you, the Soviet system was not a disaster, but it turned into one, and political leadership is mostly to blame. --TIAYN (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

why "coal was more important than cloths" - that's an easy one: communists' ironclad dogma of the priority of the production of the means of production. While the principle is economically sound, any dogma eventually leads to absurd. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is an example of the confusion pervasive in wikipedia between "communism" and "communist state", the latter has nothing in common with the utopia of communism. There have never actually been "communist economy" implemented.

Another common blunder is to consider Soviet Union as a staple of "communist state". Life in Polish komuna was way better than in Russia, not to say East Germany and Hungary, which, btw., as I remember were economically drained by the Soviets by means of artificially low currency exchange rate. I even vaguely remember that in Hungary the prices of some commodities were artificially risen so that hordes Soviet tourists could not clear the shelves. BTW, the latter is a funny quirk of Socialist economy: Hungary could have become dirty rich by increasing production of these goods instead. And it also demonstrated that problems of Soviet Bloc have nothing to do with planned economy per se: the idiots in management simply did not plan properly. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I propose we end this discussion as it's morphed into a general discussion about communism itself. The talk page is supposed to be a discussion on what should exist on the article. The user who originally started the discussion was opining that the lead should say that communism is a "failed system." I assume we all agree that due to Wikipedia's policy on neutrality, Wikipedia can't just say that as fact, especially not in the lead. Anywikiuser (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, assuming that the proposal is in the section title, it has 3 fairly independent statements: "failed ideology", "responsible for deaths" and "destruction of economies". At least the deaths part is true, because from the very onset it calls for dehumanization and physical elimination of "parasitic classes". However I agree that the lede must support the article text. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's any utility in trying to philosophise about whether any of those claims are true or not. Were they true, would it be fit to place them in the lead section, and if so, how?

I agree with Anywikiuser and I propose that the status quo be maintained and this discussion hatted, as was done several days ago; this isn't going anywhere. →Σσς. (Sigma) 18:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean "not going anywhere"? The consensus is clearly against the suggested phrasing. - üser:Altenmann >t 23:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, let me clarify. I meant to say that yes, we do have significant opposition to the change, and we should close this thread because the more recent comments are no longer actually addressing the topic at hand. →Σσς. (Sigma) 04:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Dubious criticsm of communism

The section "Criticism" says: "Many people have criticized socialism and by extension communism".

One can crticisze socialism, and cspecially the Soviet form thereof. But Communist society is a speculative society. How can you criticize a crystal ball? They say under communism there will be abundance. Hence no need in price signals. Under communism, work will be a person's satisfaction and intrinsic necessity. Hence to need in stick and carrot stimulus. People will be good, hence no need of police. And so on. How can you freaking criticize this except by saying this is all fantasia? - üser:Altenmann >t 00:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. But this stems partly from the ambiguous nature of the word. I would say there is a distinction between communism, which is what you're talking about, and the Communism, the political movement. However, usage varies, and many would find this distinction incomprehensible or nonsensical. Arguably this page should be a disambiguation page, with one page about the theoretical concept of the communist society with no state, money etc, which could mention Christian communism and anarchism, and one page about the Communist movement of Marx and Lenin.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Jack Upland, can we turn it into a disambiguation page? Socialistguy (talk) 19:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, confusion exists, but wikipedia should not propagate it. Criticism of communist movement is not to be confused with Criticism of communist states. But I am afraid that "NPOV-pushers" will oppose creation of "Criticism of .." pages. therefore the suggested disambig page would be a list of redirects to criticism sections of the criticized concepts. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

However at the moment I am casting doubts on the validity of a specific phrase. Criticism of socialism belongs to "Socialism" article. And this criticism has lots of specifics incompatible with "communism". My point is this mess must be untangled and ignorant word usage must be avoided for the sake of clear exposition, even if some would love to declare the distinction nonsensical, just like some just love to conflate "capitalism" and "democracy". - üser:Altenmann >t 05:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

At the moment this article is seems to be trying to provide a disambiguation function while simultaneously giving a detailed overview of the subject. The conflict between these objectives gives rise to some of the problems, as is apparent in the "criticism" section. We could replace this article with a disambiguation page, but it would be odd for WP (or indeed any encyclopaedia) not to have an actual article for such a well-known term as "communism'. An alternative would be for this article to continue to perform the function of a disambiguation page (explaining the different uses of the term and redirecting readers to other articles) but cease to provide detailed information on the subject. This could be achieved by re-arranging existing content between articles and slimming this page down. Criticism could then be relegated to the other articles – Christian communism, communist society, communist state, articles on marxism and anarchism and so on. We could split some of the content on this page between an article on communist ideology (currently just a redirection page to this one) and a new article called something like "communism (political movement)" so as to have one article devoted to communist theory and another to its practice. Polly Tunnel (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

re "seems to provide a disambiguation function". Disambiguation pages are special navigation pages. This is an overview page for the whole concept. It probably can be slimmed deown per Wikipedia:Summary style. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Polly Tunnel, PBS-AWB, and Altenmann, how do the authors of refs. 59 and 60 discuss known exactly what communism would be like, and if there would even been such extreme egalitarianism? What kind of egalitarianism, specifically? It's partially about making the means of production and distribution accessible by those who use them, with accountability. May I please add a disclaimer? Socialistguy (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

First of all, you have to read the sources and see what exactly they are talking about. From the quote given in the footnoite the context is not completely clear. Second, you can add a disclaimed only if someone in sources rebuts this critique; a wikipedian is disallowed to do this by his own opinion only.

<looking at the quote in the footnote>: Of course "Extreme equality" which "overlooks the diversity of individual talents" is a logical blunder, a straw man. Equality does not imply "Procrustean bed, just the opposite, apologists of Communism declare unrestricted blossoming of individual talents and everybody will use their best skills in the best ways for the bestment of everybody. Further, this author say, this "save in a utopian society of unselfish individuals would entail strong coercion" Another logical sleight of hand; why would unselfishness be only in utopia? And so on... But as I say, it is not our job to argue with the writers. Our job is to report such disputes. Since Communism is a speculation, a huge number of criticism is of type "if all women be common (in Communism), this will lead to huge epidemies of sexually transmitted diseases" (this 'criticism' contains 5 most common blunders of such criticisms). - üser:Altenmann >t 04:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The criticism section on this article is only supposed to be a summary. The topic of criticism of communism is dealt with in depth in two articles: Criticisms of Marxism (the theory of communism) and Criticisms of communist party rule (how nominally communist governments have governed in practice). There is a page called Criticism of communism, though this is more or less a disambiguation between the two aforementioned topics and does not discuss either issue in depth. An article on Criticisms of socialism also exists. This article as a whole should only need to be an overview. Personally, I think the Criticism of communism page isn't necessary as its content could be incorporated into this article. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Altenmann and Anywikiuser, is it allowed to add source-backed rebuttles to the criticisms? Socialistguy (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It is technically allowed as long as they are reliable sources and the edits do not disrupt the neutrality of the article. However, I'd be wary about adding too much detail to the "Criticism" paragraphs as these should only be an overview of the issue, perhaps summarising the key points of the Criticisms of Marxism and Criticisms of communist party rule articles. Those two existing articles ought to be the place to describe in detail the debates between critics and proponents. Anywikiuser (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Funky fresh

I edited the article to make it more coherent :-). PS: Karl Marx is a funky dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangeDitto (talk • contribs) 16:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Ortography

The correct way to write State is with a capital S. --83.39.16.236 (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2016

Communism is a social and [extreme left wing] political movement...

The reason is to add "extreme left wing is to clarify the source of the movement just like "populism" is an extreme right wing political movement. Many people fail to understand that communism just like populism are political movements from different ideology extremes, one is extreme left wing and the other is extreme right wing, respectfully. In today's society the left wing in he United States is the Democratic Party and Republicans are right wing. The further extreme left wing political ideologies lean towards communism aka totalitarian, and the further extreme right wing political ideologies lean towards anarchy aka no hierarchy . If you have any questions please drop me a line at benjaminfraklin755@gmail.com

COMMUNISM IS THE WORST EVER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.102.45 (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC) Stellaring (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Stickee (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't understand concept of left and right wing politics. Also, you must understand that the Soviet Union is not the example of communism, but rather a system which is officially and constitutionally devoted to developing socialism and by long term communism, such states we call socialist states and such system we call state socialism. Communism is left wing because it is a classless, moneyless and stateless society in wich means of production are in common ownership and left wing is the term applied for philosophies that promote social equality an egalitarian society, i.e. social democracy and social liberalism are center-left and anarchism and communism are far-left. On the other hand right wing are philosophies that promote a society based on hierarchy and tradition and hold that people are by default unequal and that is therefore natural that the economic and social status is also unequal, christian democracy and conservatism are center-right, and fascism and nazism are far-right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IWA1864 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I think this zeitgeist movement wikipedia article would be greatly improved if it was deleted right now.Toodamntimeofatime (talk) 08:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Remove "Radical"

The adjective "radical" should be removed as it is improperly used to describe Communism. In Friedrich Engels PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNISM, question 25, he uses the word "radical" to describe other parties not associated with Communism. These parties were incongruous to the ideals of Communism through the many avenues Communism often travels. Moreover, the term "radical" should not be applied to such an established political system. By doing so, the author implies a bias to the views on political, social, and economic thought and action. Instead, elaborate with simple words and terms that further explain the differences of Communism from other parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thuoy (talk • contribs) 13:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Engels talks about the Radicals (UK) and the Swiss Radicals. Historically there have been many groups called Radicals who are not Communist. However, in the general sense of the term "radical" can certainly be applied to Communism. I don't see any bias in doing so.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Well I see your point. My concern is that radical, when directly defining Communism, infers an approach from outside the normal or established political system. Radical also implies that the "idea" is not commonplace or an acceptable choice in political practice, due to the fact that many other pages on wikipedia discussing political theories do not use any adjectives in directly defining said theories. Regardless of political theory, adjectives should not be used in directly defining for they push the reader to guided perspectives of the author, forfeiting unbiased informative fact based journalism, disallowing the reader to decide which ideas are radical or not. In Engels perspective, Communism is not seen as the radical party. Therefore making it historically accurate to state that it is not radical. Changes in any political climate can be interpreted as radical, regardless of the ideals that change is founded upon; especially in the time those changes are occurring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thuoy (talk • contribs) 02:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Dilma Rousseff

Needs to be edited to reflect the fact that Dilma Rousseff is no longer president of Brazil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.253.104 (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Done.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Clarify role of Rosa Luxemburg

Luxemburgism is mentioned as a current of Libertarian Marxism, but Rosa Luxemburg is not listed as a "Notable theorist of libertarian Marxism" in the very same paragraph. Rosa Luxemburg's photograph appears in the "Left Communism" section, but without a caption or any context as to how she is associated with left communism. So does she fit under Libertarian Marxism or Left Communism or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.253.104 (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Libertarian Marxism, Council Communism, and Left Communism have a lot of overlap. I don't think having separate sections is really justified here. To take another example, Antonie Pannekoek is listed here under Libertarian Marxism but his article describes him as a leader of Council Communism. Another point is that Luxemburg was killed in 1919, so her legacy was able to be claimed by many camps, including the Leninists.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Fog alert

All these hold in common the analysis that the current order of society stems from its economic system, capitalism, that in this system, there are two major social classes: the working class—who must work to survive, and who make up a majority of society—and the capitalist class—a minority who derive profit from employing the proletariat, through private ownership of the means of production (the physical and institutional means with which commodities are produced and distributed), and that political, social and economic conflict between these two classes will trigger a fundamental change in the economic system, and by extension a wide-ranging transformation of society.

103 words, Gunning Fog index (on one site I checked) = 30, where 17 = college graduate. Third sentence in lead, verging on parody of impenetrable Marxist theory. This early on, anything much over 10 is suspect. — MaxEnt 03:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it was hard to understand, but I have shortened it and removed some of the Marxist jargon. It would be ideal to break up the sentence, but this is hard to do because it is all governed by: "All these hold in common the analysis that..." Each new sentence would need to be repetitively qualified by: "According to the analysis..."--Jack Upland (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Distinctions in:

I haven´t noticed any of the individuals with knowledge ever having made the following simple distinctions:

Communism: Common Level parquo at social security levels, in pertinence to an army or military. (IE: All armies are defacto communist, lowering the costs to the most common level being the only form and manner to maintain a standing army [or navy], no matter if that is done through subsidiation or other simpler forms).

Socialism: Labour force, workers, wage level, including bonifications.

Capitalism: Those that go for it themselves, whom set up a venture, fail or make. (IE: commerce, small to medium industry. Large industry caters to communism, some, catering solely to the military).

These three simple distinctions are never removable and exist in all and every society, therefore there is no such a thing as a pure communist state (unless you count a nation whom has an ongoing waract, or is in the grasp of a fast depression cycle), nor a pure socialist state, nor for that matter a pure capitalist state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.44.74.111 (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Dubious claim

Re: "Early modern" section. It's true that some modern-era political thinkers and authors claim that the Spartacus revolt was motivated by a desire to establish some form of communism. Ancient sources, however, offer no evidence that it was, not does the supporting citation. The attempt to construct the revolt as an attempt to "end slavery", or as focussed somehow on notions of "human rights" seems misleading; simple "freedom" - for themselves -would be more accurate. The cited websource offers this quotation from Erich Gruen, The Last Generation of the Roman Republic (University of California Press, 1974) 20-21:

"It was not the governing class alone that would react in horror to the prospect of a slave insurrection. Whatever the grievances of men disenfranchised and dispossessed by Sulla, they would have found unthinkable any common enterprise with Thracian or Gallic slaves. It causes no surprise that Marxist historians and writers have idealized Spartacus as a champion of the masses and leader of the one genuine social revolution in Roman history. That, however, is excessive. Spartacus and his companions sought to break the bonds of their own grievous oppression. There is no sign that they were motivated by ideological considerations to overturn the social structure. The sources make clear that Spartacus endeavored to bring his forces out of Italy toward freedom rather than to reform or reverse Roman society." Haploidavey (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The Spartacus page has a quote from Marx, but this is just from a letter to Engels in 1861. In a quick search of the Marxists Internet Archive, I couldn't find any lengthy discussion of the revolt. Marxists have seen Spartacus as a name to conjure with — most notably, the Spartacus League — but little more than a name. Maybe some Marxist historian has argued that Spartacus aimed to carry out a social revolution, or even introduce communism, but this would be a fringe opinion. Since the current text says that Spartacus's revolt was not a real communist movement, it's hard to see why it belongs here. I will remove it.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Russia isn't communistic

You have a Russian symbol at the start of an article on communism, but Russia is much more socialistic, and that's what the 2nd S in USSR stands for. Seems inconsistent to me. Comments? Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The USSR (which ceased to exist in 1991, by the way!) described itself as "socialist" but was led by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, ostensibly with the goal of advancing to a communist society. The USSR used the hammer and sickle, and it is universally accepted as a symbol of the Communist movement. It is a problem that "communist" and "socialist" are used with different meanings, but that doesn't affect the relevance of the symbol.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Just because they call themselves socialist or communist doesn't mean they are. And communism is a form of socialism. Socialism was not present in the USSR (the presence of money, being a state and means of production being state-owned all saying otherwise). And it probably isn't a good symbol to use either. brmbrmcar (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

References

I tagged this as "refimprove" last January. This was removed in May. However, in January there were 72 references, and now there are only 62. Many of them are primary sources, which leaves an uninitiated reader wondering if this is original research. There are swathes of the article which have no reference at all. I suggest that the tag remains until there is genuine improvement.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

[5] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

There are many sentences without references. It makes no sense to tag them all. This is a valid use of the "refimprove" template.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Not every sentence needs a reference. Sometimes there will be a reference at the end of a paragraph, but this is not against policy. Show me some examples of what you're talking about and we can try to get it cleaned up. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Just did some work on the article. What do you think? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the point of what you've done. There's a lack of references overall.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I removed some unsourced material as well as did some tagging; what work have you done on the article? Nevertheless, show me some examples of what needs to be fixed (be specific). -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It is not a specific problem. This is why I tagged the whole article. The Pokemon article has twice as many citations.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

There are 64 references being used here so you need to provide examples of what specific parts of the article you want changed. -- [[User

|Somedifferentstuff]] (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

This is pointless. You are just ignoring what I am saying.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I've asked you for specific examples and you haven't provided any. I just finished removing a bunch of unsourced material and I need your input regarding the continued improvement of the article. It's best if we can work together in getting this article cleaned up. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2017

I would like to see an addition to the first part right after deffinition. If you see article about Fascism, you will see the following: "Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[3][4]". I think for Communism something similar would be quite appreciated. For instance: "Opposed to Capitalism, Communism is usually placed on the very left within the traditional left–right spectrum." or something like that. Vixip (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Dissolution of the Soviet Union

The section in the article under "Dissolution of the Soviet Union" has nothing about the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

There was recently a large scale removal of unsourced text, which has left several important issues uncovered. The article needs to be rebuilt.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2017

Change:
(under History > Modern communism:)
"Lenin's Bolsheviks"
to
"Vladmimir Lenin's Bolsheviks" (with links to both topics)
because
The first mention of Lenin does not state his full name, nor does it link to the page about him.

Carterpape (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Totalitarianism

It looks like a pretty decent ideology considering the sixty million innocent civilian victims killed in peace time compared to the six million victims of Nazism, which, I don't know why, is considered totalitarian by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doru001 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2017

Grammar mistakes vary a lot. RealJohnSmith (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 13:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2017

In the sidebar, the term "Trotskyism" is misspelled. Kmmusic01 (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I corrected the spelling at the template, but it's not corrected here. There is obviously some technical issue that is beyond me.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jack Upland and Kmmusic01: Seems to be fixed now. The templates take time to update in articles, or you can purge the article and force an update. —Guanaco 01:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Communism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051211121016/http://libcom.org/library/ to http://www.libcom.org/library

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Synonym (Communists don't use it)

councilocracy (read sovet without the "i") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8489:4400:F438:C3FD:4864:7173 (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2017

In the sentence "is the philosophical, social, political and economic ideology and a movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money[3][4] and the state.[5][6]" the word movement needs to have the words "left-wing" next to it. Communism is ultimately a left-wing ideology and its definition needs to reflect that if Wiki want's to properly educate its viewers. Gumby39 (talk) 07:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Trivial. The lead is well written, I don't think such is necessary. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

This paragraph is extremely unclear

In [Marxism] "Historical materialism goes on and says: the rising bourgeoisie within feudalism, through the furtherance of its own material interests, captured power and abolished, of all relations of private property, only the feudal privileges and with this took out of existence the feudal ruling class. This was another of the keys behind the consolidation of capitalism as the new mode of production, which is the final expression of class and property relations and also has led into a massive expansion of production. It is therefore only in capitalism that private property in itself can be abolished.[35] Similarly, the proletariat will capture political power, abolish bourgeois property through the common ownership of the means of production, therefore abolishing the bourgeoisie and ultimately abolishing the proletariat itself and ushering the world into a new mode of production: communism. In between capitalism and communism there is the dictatorship of the proletariat, a democratic state where the whole of the public authority is elected and recallable under the basis of universal suffrage.[36] It is the defeat of the bourgeois state, but not yet of the capitalist mode of production and at the same time the only element which places into the realm of possibility moving on from this mode of production." Nesdon (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to ban extremist political symbols from templates

There is a discussion at the Village Pump that may be relevant to this article. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

benefits and criticism section?

I propose that a benefits and criticisms section to this article. -aman0226 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aman0226 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

There is already a "Criticism" section that links to two separate articles.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The article mentions none of the millions and millions of deaths from communism?!

Communism is responsible for the deaths of millions of people, among which are 50+ million in China; 10+ million in the Soviet Union, 1+ million in countries like Cambodia, North Korea, Ethiopia etc.

None of these deaths are mentioned in this article! Are we supposed to forget about all these people, pretend they never existed or that their death is unrelated to communism? Shame on you, Wikipedia!!!

Capitalism is responsible for much more deaths than communism.Some people believes that communist states killed 100 million people, while I personally think the US alone is responsible for much more innocent deaths than the USSR and China combined.Shall we add all those who died because of slave labour,exploit and countless of wars launched by capitalist countries to the article Capitalism? By the way,North Korea is not a communist state.--60.214.30.59 (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

See the article Criticism of communist party rule.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2018

the surperior government 96.254.69.50 (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. This is subjective personal opinion, and there is no reliable source provided to support the statement. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Totalitarianism and Authoritarianism

Why should Communism not be considered a Totalitarian and Authoritarian ideology even though every single country that tried to implement it always ended up becoming a dictatorship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro8790 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Communism is considered by many people as a totalitarian ideology, just like many people consider Capitalism a form of modern slavery. That's why both articles have a section titled "Criticism", which noone stops you from expanding. -- Radiphus 20:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The difference is that Communism always ended up in dictatorship, whilst Capitalism doesn't always end up like that, so this is not comparable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro8790 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not a forum, and i am not interested in continuing this discussion with you. Seeing as you fail to contribute to the page from a neutral point of view, and your edits are the result of original research, i suggest you avoid making any edits to the article that might undermine its encyclopedic tone, which should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate. -- Radiphus 20:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me how placing Communism in these categories violate the NPOV rule? Also no offense, but the fact that you don't even want to discuss doesn't bode very well for you, it makes you look like you don't have any real argument to remove the categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro8790 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I said that i am not interested in discussing with you why Communism and Capitalism are good or bad. Per WP:NONDEF, the categories added to a page should be based on the subject's defining characteristics. So, adding this category to the article suggests that authoritarianism is a defining characteristic of Communism. However, this is based on your personal point of view and is not supported in the article. Please remember to sign your posts by typing WP:FOURTILDES at the end. -- Radiphus 20:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

But Marx himself advocated for revolutionary terror:

"The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror." -- Pedro8790 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The idea of communism existed 100 years before Marx's Das Kapital. I already told you that you should be editing the Communist state article instead of this one, but you don't seem to grasp why this is so. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

But Marx is the most important theoretician of Communism, the word and the concept may have existed before , but the entire ideology was basically shaped by him. Pedro8790 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Then edit the Marx article; authoritarianism has nothing to do with the concept/ideology (this article) of communism, but I have nothing more to offer you. -- Somedifferentstuff

(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Since the ideology was basically shaped by him, it has absolutely everything to do, his followers merely followed what he said. Pedro8790 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

from the intro: " the practical aspects of 20th century communist states"

Is "the practical aspects" supposed to be an euphemism for the 100+ million deaths that communism has caused? Also, the crimes of North Korea (among others) are a reality in the 21st century as well.

This article is communist propaganda. Laughable.

Reedseque (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

From Propaganda, we find that it "is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented"

The whole passage, of which you cited only a part, describes the two rough categories into which critics of communism can be placed. By using that selected extract as you did, you placed yourself firmly into the category that you yourself described. Additionally, by your use of a disputed claim and your final sentence, you are yourself guilty of propaganda. Although you might believe that the cause of the crimes of North Korea is primarily because it is a communist state, you haven't demonstrated that it IS a communist state (when it is more akin to an oligarchy based upon a hierarchical personality cult).

That highlights the need for some expansion of the article to describe how the word "communism" (among others) has effectively lost its meaning in some societies due to its use by a person as a pejorative to describe any social, political or other belief or activity that is perceived as unlike his or her own.Twistlethrop (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

"Although you might believe that the cause of the crimes of North Korea is primarily because it is a communist state, you haven't demonstrated that it IS a communist state"

Ah, the endless excuse for any communistic crime: 'this was not the real communism!'

Just as the People's Republic of China (~65 million deaths), the Soviet Union (~20 million deaths), Cambodia (~2 million deaths), Vietnam (~1 million deaths), as well as the tragedies committed in Eastern-Germany, Yugoslavia and many, many other places, were all not the real communism. Why don't you get off your champagne socialistic ass and book a plane ticket to visit one of these countries and explain the families of the people who were killed that this was all not the real communism? I'm sure they'll be very interested.

Reedseque (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

This is not a WP:SOAPBOX. If you have suggestion based on reliable secondary sources, you are welcome to make it. WP:IRS WP:NPOV Also, please be WP:CIVIL. O3000 (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

You seriously need reliable sources for the crimes of communism?

See the literature cited in The Black Book of Communism (the actual book, not the Wikipedia-article). Or any other book about communism from any respected historian, for that matter.

Reedseque (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

You completely missed the point. This page isn't a forum for discussing the topic, this page is for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia article. If you have suggestion for how to improve the article based on reliable secondary sources, you are welcome to make it. Grayfell (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Suggested improvement: mention the killings of 100+ million people by communists.

Reliable source: The Black Book of Communism, or, as you wish, any book every written on communism by a historian from a serious university.

Reedseque (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

Finally, they didn't kill their own people for no reason. The people who say this usually point to the Great Leap Forward and the Holodomor famines so I will debunk both. Firstly, the Great Leap Forward because I know more about Mao's story here. The Great Leap Forward was meant to industrialize China to become self-sufficient. The Economic Restoration campaign of 1949-1952 was successful in bringing back Chinese production back to pre-revolution years, as well as suppressing banditry, bringing back a stable Chinese currency and restored the railway system to operation. The First Five Year Plan laid the ground work for industry. Industry increased in a lot of fields but it was not enough because China was still dependent on the Soviet Union. Mao wanted China to be independent so he launched the Great Leap Forward. There were a lot of mistakes made! But Mao didn't just order his people to be killed. Let's first understand that China is an agrarian nation and they work within the seasons. They group them into busy seasons (midsummer to midfall) where they sow, harvest and consume a lot, and idle seasons (winter to early spring) where they consume less. However a lot of Chinese peasants remember the GLF as having built many dams, reservoirs, factories, wells and whatnot. How did this come about? By turning idle seasons into busy seasons in order to industrialize the rural areas to provide for their needs. It wasn't a bad plan. They could just ration the food so that the workers would have enough and in the next seasons they also would do that so that harvest could come back up. The only problem was that natural disasters happened in many areas, drought in some, floods in some and pest attacks in others. So there was food shortage. The numbers have also been inflated by using bad methodology in order to count famine deaths. Chinese media says around 15 million and Western sources range from 40 million to 70 million. I don't know how much really did die, but I'm positive that it was lower than 10 million because journalists who have toured at China by that time note that there was hunger due to the shortage but not a lot of deaths. So in part it was the fault of Mao sort of, but mostly it was because of the natural disasters. The industrial workshops and factories they built were really able to satisfy the needs of the masses there. They experimented with the backyard furnaces (which Western sources exaggerate too much, they built 600 000 furnaces which is really small in a country as big as China) but it didn't work so they cut funds to it shortly after. The Great Leap Forward had many bad sides and good sides and they overexaggerate the bad sides and many times unscientifically blame it on Mao which is NOT true. Secondly, the Holodomor famine. This might be shorter and I feel like I won't be able to sufficiently explain it but I will put sources below so if you really want to learn more about it, please check them! First off, Soviet archival data show that the 1932 "Holodomor" famine was a lot smaller than it actually was! Food shortages were already common in 1931, and the low harvests in 1932 made things worse and famine likely if not inevitable in 1933. Procurement quotas (i.e. what the state took from their harvest in order to distribute to the various sectors of the economy) for grain decreased in this period in order to allow peasants to sell their grain. This would technically leave a lot of grain for the farmers to sell. However due to summer conditions, up to 30% of the harvest was lost in 1931 and 40% in 1932, in other words, the bad weather of the time reduced the harvest in Ukraine. However things went pretty smoothly after the famine, which was not man made or a genocide, and Soviet industry and agriculture actually flourished. Sources: On the Cult of Personality: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1926/06/08.htm https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1931/dec/13.htm https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1930/08/x01.htm On the Great Leap Forward Famine: Farmers, Mao and Discontent in China by Dongping Han - https://monthlyreview.org/2009/12/01/farmers-mao-and-discontent-in-china/ The Chinese Road to Socialism: The Economics of the Cultural Revolution by E.L. Wheelwright - http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=5ba75f3113b0e1e4f36fc587ddfe2826 Did Mao Really Kill Millions in the Great Leap Forward by Joseph Ball - https://monthlyreview.org/commentary/did-mao-really-kill-millions-in-the-great-leap-forward/ Revisiting Alleged 30 Million Famine Deaths During China's Great Leap - https://mronline.org/2011/06/26/revisiting-alleged-30-million-famine-deaths-during-chinas-great-leap/ On the Holodomor Famine: 1.The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933 by Mark Trauger- https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-eTgjCs2lzpQllPVzQ2UFd3aWM/view Fraud, Famine and Fascism by Douglas Tottle - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-eTgjCs2lzpQllPVzQ2UFd3aWM/view The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931 - 1933 - http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=32DAA2871728468189A57E0233492A3A (Credit to /u/theredcebuano