Portal talk:Communism

Welcome
'''Welcome to the newly-created Communism portal. Please edit it mercilessly!'''

"To do" box
I've searched some of the backlogs in order to find content suitable for the "to do" box. If you have articles that can be included, just add them to the list. Thanks! Mário 17:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"Topics" box
Please, suggest a structure to the topics box. Mário 17:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Improve the box, please. Mário 18:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Related Portals?
Why is this portal linked to from the Fascism portal, but not vice versa? Or maybe I should ask: while this portal is NOT linked to the Fascism from itself, but why is the Fascism portal linked to here?207.216.33.144 (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is capitalism linked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesf200 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Subtopics such as state capitalism and welfare capitalism are related to communism. Even if we regard capitalism as the opposite of communism, there's an argument for linking complementary topics in the same way that, for example, Portal:Christianity links to Islam and Judaism. Certes (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Selected content discussion
I propose that the selected article, picture and biography stays in the portal for 2 weeks. What do you say? Mário 20:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Portal looks great
Nice job in setting up the portal. I think it looks great. -Aude ( talk contribs ) 00:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC) I agree. Great work. --Zoz (t) 18:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice work Silva, really impressive.--Jersey Devil 06:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Best-looking portal yet. - THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 08:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The picture
why is the flag and symbolism of the soviet union used for generic communism flag? This Hammer_and_sickle - Inception indicates that the design was chosen after a competition in 1917. It was also featured on chilean peso prior to that with no relation to communism. This is historical revisionism that ignores the Paris origins of communism in favor of a soviet fiction. This is certainly not neutral. For most of the history of this symbol, it has represented a soviet regime that was authoritarian and repressive -- things that are not properly associated with the political philosophy of communism. What of Cuba? China? Vietnam? Laos? Why are their flags not the symbol of communism. here is a radical concept -- ideas dont need flags. Get rid of this trash. 75.118.211.74 (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The selected picture is inappropriate for this portal, as it has nothing to do with communism. It's like showing the Iwo Jima picture to illustrate the concept of capitalism. Zocky | picture popups 12:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It represents the communist victory in WWII, it features the communist flag, it is a symbol of the anti-fascist movement, what do you want more? Mário 12:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's the flag of the Soviet Union, not the communist flag. It could also be argued that the American flag is a symbol of capitalism. The picture represents the fall of Berlin, which was not a communist revolution, but an anti-fascist victory in an international war, and not all anti-fascists were communists, even in countries where communist parties lead the struggle against fascism. Zocky | picture popups 13:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The flag of Soviet Union is the flag of communism, hence the hammer and sickle, the star and the red. Shortly before, the anthem of the Soviet Union was the Internationale. The Soviet symbols were the communist symbols, not the opposite. I believe this may be a hard concept to understand, but because the Soviet Union was a worker's state, it was communism in its practical application. Therefore, a Soviet victory was a communist victory. The Great Patriotic War was a war between communists and nazis, an ideological conflict. Iwo Jima may be a representation of the victory of the American political system, not the victory of America's economic system. Furthermore, the Japanese economy was also a capitalist economy. That's the origin of your confusion. While communism is both a political and economic system, capitalism in its strict sense, is not. While capitalists cannot celebrate the end of WWII as a victory of their own, the communists can. Mário 14:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say that my primary and secondary school history which I learned in socialist Yugoslavia, makes me informed enough to know what communists claimed and didn't claim as their own. A single-handed victory of communism over nazism is one of the things they didn't. WWII was a war between fascists and anti-fascists, and all countries had both. The international war was between countries where fascists and antifascists were in power. The name Great patriotic war was chosen in the Soviet Union exactly to represent the wide front against German invasion, much wider than just communist. The communist party was the avantgarde, and most Soviet citizens and soldiers were not members, and the Soviet Union didn't claim to be a communist country. USSR means Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, not Communist republics.
 * The fact that USSR used a communist flag (there are others) as its own does not make it the same thing. The flag was raised in Berlin as the Soviet, not communist flag. Zocky | picture popups 14:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As a member of a marxist-leninist party I can assure you that the communist movement celebrates the Soviet victory with joy. The difference between communist and socialist state is away from what we are discussing here - while USSR never became a communist state, it had achieving communism as its major objective, following the marxist-leninist way of reaching it. I'm not claiming that the victory is only a communist victory, I'm just claiming that it was also a communist victory, therefore, having the picture in the portal is a fair thing. Along with that, making ideological comparisons between socialist Yugoslavia and Soviet Union is a theoretical fault. Mário 14:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What the communist movement in your parts celebrates with joy has nothing to do with this. The question is what the picture represents. "Victory of Soviet Union over Germany" or "Fall of Berlin" would be correct answers, "Communism" is a wrong answer. Zocky | picture popups 15:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So, topics related to Soviet Union are not communism-related? Mário 15:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not automatically, no. The Romanoff dinasty, Estonian composers, bridge construction in 1970s in Siberia, etc. are all related to Soviet Union, but putting a picture of any of them on this portal would look very much wrong. Zocky | picture popups 15:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right, but Soviet military victories are. The deeds of communist countries are communism related, because of the ideological motivation behind such deeds. Or do you believe that Soviet Union had won the war without the anti-fascist motivation? Such motivation was given by the country's ideology. The communists had a major role in almost every resistance movement. As a Yugoslavian you certainly know that, you liberated yourselves from nazism, about that, probably, I only have things to learn from you. My final conclusion is that the victory in Berlin was motivated by the fierce will of the communists and soviets in general to defeat the nazis, in the same way, if the Germans had captured Moscow, a picture from such victory would be a fair presence in a nazism portal. Mário 15:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that "lead by communists" is not the same as "communist". In Yugoslavia, the national liberation army was lead by communists, but the communist party didn't have its own units or its own victories, and neither did it in the Soviet Union. Look at it this way, would a picture of a dead quisling, who was killed by communists because he betrayed his country, not because he was not a communist, be a good illustration of communism? Zocky | picture popups 15:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course it wouldn't be the best illustration of communism but would be an illustration of a certain manner of dealing with loyalty and patriotism inside the communist movements. The soviet army has its roots on the people's army gathered during the civil war. But this discussion will lead us to no way, I promise to choose less problematic pictures in the future, I invite you to keep visiting the portal and presenting your opinion about the content every time you want. Thanks! Mário 16:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I kind of agree with Zocky on this. The Soviet flag on the Reichstag isn't really represntative of a "Communist victory" but rather just part of Soviet history. Two very different things. Just my two cents.--Jersey Devil 22:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You both fail in understanding that the Soviet Union was communism (in its socialist stage) put in practice. That's why it had the red flag and the internationale (until 1944) as national symbols instead of just manipulating the former national flag or finding another anthem. It doesn't matter if the first worker's state in history was the Soviet Union, because internationalism is a major guideline of every marxist-leninist state, hence the star in the flag. The Soviet Union was the first territory the workers claimed as their own, so, a Soviet victory means a victory of the workers. The first article of the 1936 constitution was The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a socialist state of workers and peasants. What other state in the world claimed to be the state of workers and peasants? Soviet union was not the state of the soviets or the russians, just like the majority of the states that claimed to be the state of a certain people, no, and I repeat, it was the state of the workers, that makes the victory of Berlin a victory of the workers, of the labour movement, the communist-influenced labour movement. That makes it a communist victory. Of course the communists didn't won the war alone. Nevertheless, they won it too. (If you can't interpret any part of my reply, just ask, I'd explain myself better in Portuguese) Mário 23:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there could be disagreement that the Soviet Union itself was Communism in it's transitional Socialist stage especially after Stalin took power and killed all the Old Bolsheviks of whom it could be said "truly" followed Marxist/Marxist-Leninist doctrine i.e., if the picture was of say, Lenin making a speech during the October Revolution that would be more appropriate but this picture is more reflective of Soviet history in general. Anyway, this thing all seems to be settled now.--Jersey Devil 09:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm reading this exchange long after the fact, and I'm in textmode and haven't seen the picture and don't know what was eventually decided, if anything; but it troubles me that someone taking on the job of managing something as important as this portal refuses to seriously contemplate the very real difference between the concepts "communist" and "socialist" (not that he's the the only one), and sticks to a too-familiar doctrinaire stance. Like we all aren't aware of what he means or something.


 * Zocky | picture popups is clearly correct here. If the picture hasn't been changed to something less obscure, especially to the uninitiated -- this is a public encyclopedia, after all -- then the subject-matter and the movement are being done a small disservice. No matter what else is exemplary, or otherwise, about the portal.


 * Pazouzou 02:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Communist Parties in Europe" template
I noted the template "Communist Parties in Europe" on the page of Communist Party of Sweden (1995). This template assigns one communist party to each country of Europe, but surely there must exist many different communist parties in each country? --213.65.178.172 12:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The template more or less corresponds to the mainstream of the European communist movement, by which there is usually one referent parties in each country. --Soman 13:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What is the source for the statement that these parties are "the mainstream"? And if there is "usually" one "mainstream" party, I guess there are cases where there are more than one. In Italy, for example, there are two communist parties in the governing coalition. In Sweden, there are lots of small communist parties, neither of which has any chance of entering the parliament. --213.65.178.19 14:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oaxaca
Are you thinking on doing/writing something about the revolt in Oaxaca? 

Is communism always "Radical"?
I do not agree with the introduction of this Communism Portal. I think communism does not have to be necessarily a radical ideology (I believe myself to be an example of this, and the procedure of the communist party in my country, Spain, during the transition period to democracy, is a much better one). In my opinion, the word "radical" should be deleted from the article. I hope many more people who visit this page (even the radical ones) will understand that not all communists have to be radical. It would be great if they explain here their opinion too, so as to make the word be finally wipped out. Thanks a lot. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.55.200.239 (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

My reading of that word "radical" was in reference to the "Left, Right, Center" school of political distinction, not as a commentary on the people involved in a this particular political ideology. See: Radicalism. Also see: Left-Right_politics for a rundown of left vs. right political thoughts and halfway through the article, a brief history of the French Revolutions political system that brought these terms into being.

But you would be correct. One would not have to be "Radical" in order to believe in a communist ideology, but in the political spectrum, it is seen as extreme. Hope that all makes some sense. Bone in thigh 13:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That was the first thing I noticed on the portal too. And not the only thing. It's great that someone took the initiative to create and maintain this project; but most of all, this portal now requires some professional, expert attention to detail. Afer all: it now represents the communist movement to a large body of people on the Internet.


 * So I would suggest an, ah... committee effort to look into crossing the "t's" and dotting the "i's" here.
 * Pazouzou 03:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Pazouzou 03:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Communism by its very nature is revolutionary and always radical. To say otherwise is not being said by a communist, but rather a reformer or perhaps socialist.

Portals Communism and Portals Marxism
I will add the links to Portals Marxism (Fr:Portail:Marxisme (in construction) and De:Portal:Marxismus), subjects are sames. To talk : here !.

Visual symbols
Howdy... While I'm a great student of this subject matter and a very interested person, I wonder about using the soviet sybolism for this portal. The USSR was a test in communism, but certainly not a perfect marxian representation of the social/economic system. By all means this social construct was home to many very powerful artistic devices, I wonder if perhaps a visual character which did not envoke the USSR and it's possible failure would be more appropriate to a more "universal" understanding of communism. Bone in thigh 04:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

-I agree. I'm not sure which one that should be used however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.39.12.20 (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Help! Communism against free trade?
Hey. I'm not sure if this is the place to ask questions about communism but I wonder if someone could point me in the direction of an article that shows very clearly that communism is against free trade somehow? Thanks in advance! 85.228.200.162 14:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Article proposal!
I would like to see the Taistoism article in English Wikipedia. Taistoism (taistolaisuus in Finnish) was the idea of the people who were in "the opposition" of Communist Party of Finland. Taistoism "blossomed" in 1970's but is still great topic in Finnish media. 84.251.73.218 14:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Leif

Can we make a neutral portal?
I noticed that the featured quotes (21 April 2008) are all violent and negative. --212.99.225.66 (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist." is violent and negative? Zazaban (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I was talking about the ones who are featured now. --212.99.225.66 (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That one is featured now. Zazaban (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. Working men of all countries, unite!"
 * Karl Marx


 * “Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine. This is what our soldiers must become…”
 * Che Guevara


 * "Whether you like it or not. history is on our side. We will bury you!"
 * Nikita Khrushchev


 * "You are pitiful isolated individuals; you are bankrupts; your role is played out. Go where you belong from now on -- into the dustbin of history!"
 * Leon Trotsky


 * And right under Trotsky we find this quote:


 * "The devotion of such titans of spirit as Lenin to an Ideal must bear fruit. The nobility of his selflessness will be an example through centuries to come, and his Ideal will reach perfection."
 * Mahatma Gandhi --Hillawiya (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of those, but the quote I mention was there too. So not ALL of them are violent and negative.
 * Ah, well, I hope you get the point anyways. --Hillawiya (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They are negative, you are right, and completely inappropriate. Do we quote Senator Joseph McCarthy in the Capitalist portal?  No, we don't.  The neutrality of this article is in question, and should be investigated.  Voodoobagin (talk) 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Communism in North Korea
Nominated for deletion...


 * That was a strange nomination, but the article was not deleted. Dzhugashvili (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

executive vice chair of the CPUSA after the death of Henry Winston
Hey, I'm from the german WP and trying to write an article about Gus Hall, but I have one problem: I can't find anywhere the executive vice chair of the CPUSA from 1986 to 1993, can anybody help me? greetings--Cartinal (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Vempatapu Satyanarayana
This article on an Indian Communist revolutionary leader needs outside sources. All current info is just from the Party website. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Proletarier aller Länder, vereinigt euch
I am a beginner student of German and wondered if, for the page Workers of the World Unite it would be appropriate or accurate to include the translation 'Proletarians of all lands, unite yourselves'? Urpunkt (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Related AfD at List of socialist countries
List of socialist countries has been put up for deletion here. You may not be aware that this list exists. Various proposals are being debated including; keep, delete (and merge any useful information into the relevane articles), and rename. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

removed inappropriate browsebar at top
removed politics browsebar at top; these topics have absolutely nothing to do directly with communism and at the very least doesn't belong right below the title; it's confusing. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

proposal over at 'radical left' article
There is a proposal I've started over at Radical left wherein I've definitively stated that "Radical Left" is what anarchists, left-communists, militant communists, militant socialists etc etc define themselves as in self-description, and not "far left". As you can see if you go to the link, I go into the reasons, but there's a grand total of 3 people currently involved in the discussion, and I need input from this WikiProject and other similar ones to provide me with the backup I need to push the proposal through. Please join in and offer your viewpoints. Thanks. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Love
Hello. We are currently discussing some edits I did to the article Love, about how capitalism affects to that concept, that were reverted for lack of consensus. Maybe you'd like to go there and give you oppinions, thoughts and facts. Thank you. --Dalton2 (talk) 07:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Selected content candidates
Hi,

Is anyone watching Portal:Communism/Selected content candidates? I proposed a new image there. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection status
Hey guys. Personally, I think this page is quite vulnerable and needs semi-protection so that only reliable sources can edit. Kieran P. Clark (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

How to nominate an article for the Did you know... section
Hello! I have just published the article Yearbook on International Communist Affairs, and I wonder if/how I could nominate it to be included in the Did you know... section of the portal. Here are a couple of suggested hooks:


 * ... that the Yearbook on International Communist Affairs was the most comprehensive annual survey of Communist activities worldwide from 1966 to 1991?
 * ... that the Yearbook on International Communist Affairs served as a detailed annual historical record of the activities of Communist parties around the world from 1966 to the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991?

Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 01:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Status report from the Portals WikiProject
WikiProject Portals is back!

The project was rebooted and completely overhauled on April 17th, 2018.

Its goals are to revitalize the entire portal system, make building and maintaining portals easier, and design the portals of the future.

As of April 29th, membership is at 56 editors, and growing.

There are design initiatives for revitalizing the portals system as a whole, and for each component of portals.

Tools are provided for building and maintaining portals, including automated portals that update themselves in various ways.

And, if you are bored and would like something to occupy your mind, we have a wonderful task list.

From your friendly neighborhood Portals WikiProject. &mdash; The Transhumanist  03:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Template color discussion

 * Template:Communist parties
 * Template:Marxism–Leninism sidebar
 * Without going to a formal RFC can there be a discussion on the over-use of red in the above templates? All the countries don't need to be highlighted in red as a "look at me" or advertising. This especially looks gaudy when the two are on the same article.  Otr500 (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Otr500 Agree. It's visually overwhelming. We could adopt the design of Template:Social democracy sidebar or Template:Social democracy sidebar. Listing this discussion at WikiProject Socialism too. --MarioGom (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not see the "warning" that this page was not watched by many users. I was about to move the discussion to the template page and a RFC. Otr500 (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I moved the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates. Otr500 (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Marxism–Leninism called Communism
I invite you all to check the latest discussions I started (the IP is always me) at Talk:Communist state, Talk:Crimes against humanity under Communist regimes, Talk:History of communism and Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes to better understand my position. What I simply ask is to call Marxism–Leninism... well, Marxism–Leninism and not Communism; even if the source says communism or Communism, what matters is what the source is referring to and talking about; and in most of these case it's overwhelming referring to so-called Communist states/regimes, i.e. states governed by Marxist–Leninist communist parties. Indeed, many communist parties are actually called and referred to as democratic socialists (a term which, among other things, has been also used to refer to these reformed communist parties, altough it's misleading since they remain committed to communism) and communist parties opposed to it added the word Marxist–Leninist to their name. Communist state also seems to be more of a Cold War academic concept used to refer to all allied states of the Soviet/Communist bloc rather than a Marxist–Leninist concept since these states never called themselves as such and so I have started a discussion about the scope of the article. Maybe it's time to create a Portal:Marxism–Leninism.

Anyway, the Communism word to refer to Communist states (more accurately, Marxist–Leninist states) is an old Cold War concept and that's why it's still the common name, but what matters is that it's used to refer specifically to Marxist–Leninist states and that we should use the word Marxism–Leninism because it's confusing and likewise so is its capitalisation, even according to our own Manuel of Style. According to political science, Marxism–Leninism is or refers to the official state ideology of the Soviet Union, of the parties of the Communist International after Bolshevisation and the ideology of Stalinist political parties (per Cook, Chris (1998). Dictionary of Historical Terms (2nd ed.). pp. 221–222, 305), i.e. all so-called Communist states. Ideologies like Maoism, Titoism, Ho Chi Minh Thought, etc. are simply Marxism–Leninism adapted to their respective countries' material conditions, that's why it isn't called Marxism–Leninism–Titoism, etc. On the other hand, Marxism–Leninism–Maoism is considered by its proponents to be higher than Marxism–Leninism and universally applicable. These state's constitition clearly refer to Marxism–Leninism as well, so I don't believe there's any doubt that so-called Communist states all followed Marxism–Leninism one way or another. Am I wrong?

Do you believe in this case accuracy triumph over common name, especially when the same word is used to mean different things (communism → communism; Communism  → Marxism–Leninism) in a confused way?--95.245.199.21 (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Just one quick, random example of what I'm talking about and that in practice it's referring to Marxism–Leninism: Busky, Donald F. (20 July 2000). Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey. Praeger. pp. 7–8. ISBN 978-0275968861. "Sometimes simply called socialism, more often than not, the adjective democratic is added by democratic socialists to attempt to distinguish themselves from Communists who also call themselves socialists. All but communists, or more accurately, Marxist-Leninists, believe that modern-day communism is highly undemocratic and totalitarian in practice, and democratic socialists wish to emphasise by their name that they disagree strongly with the Marxist-Leninist brand of socialism."

Thoughts? and any other who may want to discuss this.--95.245.199.21 (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would suggest to stick to the point instead of posting these walls of text in multiple talk pages.
 * The cite you provide to (Busky, 2000) doesn't seem to support your point. It is merely specifying for a part of communists and not all of them with respect to a supposedly universal position (All but communists [...] believe that modern-day communism is highly undemocratic sounds more like an unverifiable opinion piece, but that's not so relevant here).
 * The relevant discussions at Talk:Communist state, Talk:Crimes against humanity under Communist regimes and Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes were already closed with a consensus for not move. --MarioGom (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it actually states that it's only communists [who] believe that modern-day communism isn't highly undemocratic? Doesn't that actually prove my point that the word communism is used as a synonymous for Marxism–Leninism and that likewise all these sources that says communism, communist regimes, etc. are actually talking about and referring to Marxism–Leninism and a socialist state governed by a Marxist–Leninist party? Anyway, it was just one random source I found as an example. Well, let's have the relevant discussion here (where I should have started from) because it isn't about moving pages, it's about (as in the case of History of communism) referring to Marxism–Leninism as such and not as communism, something which also seems to agree with me. You can reply to my last comment in Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes here, too. Thank you.--95.245.199.21 (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree. When it comes to Marxist–Leninist regimes, it will be correct to use the more precise term Marxism–Leninism instead of the unreasonable use of the broader and vague term communism. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion listed at WikiProject Politics and WikiProject Socialism. --MarioGom (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

What is the exact proposal anyway? Changing the word "Communism" with "Marxism-Leninism" in every place that it is used in relation to a Marxist-Leninist party? --MarioGom (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly, as simple as that. It's also wrong to capitalise communism, a noun, isn't it? And I have seen many pages here that do exactly that and capitalise it, just like many reliable sources also did (do they use more communism or Communism, I don't know; is it possible to verify that? It also avoids any further confusion with communism as a whole and communist regimes. If the sources using communism or communist regime are actually referring to really existing socialism or socialist states governed by a communist party (a communist party following Marxism–Leninism), i.e. a specific variant of communism and not communism as a whole, then I believe it should be called for what it is, i.e. Marxism–Leninism; and not communism or Communism. Am I wrong in this? Do you believe in this case accuracy triumph[s] [...], especially when the same word is used to mean different things (communism → communism; Communism → Marxism–Leninism; which in the latter case is, even more confusingly, also written uncapitalised!) in a confused way? That's all I'm asking for.--82.53.106.200 (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I could not find any reliable source stating that "communism" is communism in general and "Communism" is Marxism-Leninism. If you think that is the case, please back it with reliable sources. Otherwise, this is going absolutely nowhere. --MarioGom (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal") is the philosophical, 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 and the absence of social classes, money, and the state.
 * This is what communism lead actually says, i.e. communism in general and not just Marxism–Leninism; if that's correct, then we should change the word "Communism" with "Marxism-Leninism" in every place that it is used in relation to a Marxist-Leninist party, i.e. using Marxism–Leninism instead of communism when sources are talking about or referring to really existing socialism or socialist states governed by a communist party (a communist party following Marxism–Leninism) and not communism as in the lead I have shown you above. As things stand, communism is used to refer both to the general concept of communism as I showed above and specifically to Marxism–Leninism and communist regimes/really existing socialism/socialist states governed by a communist party. Is this so hard to understand? seems to understand what I'm saying and agrees with me; maybe he/she can also explain you it better than I did.--82.53.106.200 (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Communist regimes Marxism-Leninism" on JSTOR.--82.53.106.200 (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Really existing socialism Marxism-Leninism" on JSTOR.--82.53.106.200 (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Communist state", "Communist states", "Marxist-Leninist state" and "Marxist-Leninist states" on JSTOR.
 * "Marxist-Leninist regimes" on JSTOR.
 * "Communist regimes" on JSTOR.
 * "Really existing socialism" on JSTOR.
 * "Real socialism" on JSTOR.
 * Aren't they all referencing to the same thing by different names, i.e. what is described in Marxism–Leninism?--82.53.106.200 (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Aren't they all referencing to the same thing by different names, i.e. what is described in Marxism–Leninism?--82.53.106.200 (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Note that the user who opened this discussion is now blocked. --MarioGom (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)