Talk:Communism

Lead section images
Hi @The History Wizard of Cambridge, I notice you recently added five images to the lead section. Images are often the first thing readers look at in articles. For that reason I prefer having no lede images in broad topic articles, such as communism is. Could you explain how you chose the current picks? There is a demonstration, a revolution, an anti-fascist victory, a Marxist–Leninist leader visiting another Marxist–Leninist ruled country, and a propaganda poster for Marxism–Leninism–Maoism. No libertarian tendency represented. –Vipz (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, well my 2 cents are there is no need for a lede images in broad and wide topic articles and this is exactly one of that articles. Cheers 79.101.141.7 (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I support these images.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

My justification for the lead image choices

I apologise for my late reply to you @User:viz. I chose photographs on a basis of how iconic and recognisable they were, coupled with their effects upon history and real world events.

Communist parade (6297059793).jpg - Modern India because this represents the largest communist movement outside of a communist country active today.

Fidel Castro and his men in the Sierra Maestra.jpg - Cuban revolution. Cuba is among the longest lasting communist governments, as well as one of the few remaining, and the only one in the Americas, with Fidel Castro being one of the most easily identifiable communists in history.

Raising a flag over the Reichstag 2.jpg - The Soviet victory over Nazism. In my opinion this is the most iconic photograph ever created by communists. The only other images representing communism that are as easily recognisable are the hammer and sickle (which is in this photograph), and Che Guevara shirts which are already somewhat represented by the Cuban revolution image.

Bundesarchiv Bild 183-48550-0036, Besuch Ho Chi Minhs bei Pionieren, bei Berlin.jpg - Ho Chi Minh in East Germany. This one I was on the fence for but I wanted to find an example of both an iconic communist practitioner, who also had a large effect on real world events, and represented some form of interaction between different communists.

Marxismo Leninismo Pensamiento Maotsetung.jpg Artistic poster of marx, engels, lenin, stalin, and Mao. As the five communists whose theories and actions have had the most influence upon real world events, this needs little explanation, though I also wanted to include an image I felt was typical of communist art and culture, hence why I chose an art piece.

Over-representation ? You mentioned that there are "no libertarian tendency" represented in the images, and that Marxist-Leninists are over-represented. This is likely because Marxist-Leninist communists are responsible for the vast majority of communist revolutions and governments, while "libertarian communist" have had relatively little noticeable effect on real world events. While Marxist-Leninists had military, scientific, and economic superpowers, libertarian communists don't appear to have made much of an impact on world history. That is not a comment on which ideology is supposedly more correct, that's just how it looks from a historical viewpoint. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I didn't think much of an explanation or debate is even needed to explain why those images were inappropriate, especially for such a diverse political topic. However I will partially explain my reasoning for removing these images specifically.
 * The reasoning for the inclusion of these images you've provided doesn't justify inclusion. The first image you suggested certainly couldn't be described as major or important, the only justification given is because it is modern and therefore relevant. The size of a "communist movement" isn't just defined by party membership to begin with so even the very claim itself that it is the largest movement outside of a communist country is doubtful.
 * The main issue with including the image of the Cuban revolution is that revolutions aren't really the focus of this article and this article doesn't really focus on Cuba and no reason is given as to why this revolution is of special importance. It is also factually incorrect to say that it was the only Communist government to have existed in the Americas.
 * The Reichstag flag image is iconic but it isn't really associated with Communism so much as it is associated with the Soviet Union and WW2 which is why it generally appears in articles and books on those topics as opposed to ones on Communism. The facts that it includes a hammer and sickle or that it is an iconic image created by communists are not justifications for including the image in the lead.
 * The Ho Chi Minh image also has issues but since you were "on the fence" for this image it seems unnecessary to explain my reasoning for removing it.
 * "Artistic poster of marx, engels, lenin, stalin, and Mao" is a charitable way of describing a propaganda poster of which there are countless. The inclusion of propaganda posters isn't necessarily an issue but in what way is this poster representative of Communist art and culture? Communism encompassed multiple different countries and billions of people over a century since the October Revolution which literally cannot be represented by one poster. By chosing one poster that isn't really very notable it can appear as if you are suggesting that one country or viewpoint is more important or correct than another.
 * There are many, many more issues with these images but fundamentaly the main issue is that images were included in the lead in the first place, not what the images are. Much of the criteria you've laid out feels arbitrary(why do forms of interaction between different communists need to be included?) and self contradicting. Regardless of how "correct" Communism is it is often associated with economic backwardness and starvation. It is also often associated with massive military and technological development, cults of personality and liberatarianism among other things. This is a "High-importance" article on Liberatarianism after all. Originalcola (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

"Cummunism" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cummunism&redirect=no Cummunism] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * what 2.30.180.204 (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * i’m as confused as you are anonymous user ~ eticangaaa  ( talk ) 21:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

András Bozóki
So I saw the Bozoki para was removed. I didn't remove it myself because whether it should be included depends on two questions:

1) Is his (rather confused and likely incorrect) opinion regarding the history of communism WP:DUE 2) If it is WP:DUE was the statement accredited to him accurately recorded or was it garbled? Let's discuss.

I'll note I'm not particularly familiar with Bozoki. I'm not impressed with what I see here but my level of impression isn't a criterion for inclusion or exclusion on Wikipedia (alas). Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I removed it because the very long-winded and jumbled paragraph contradicted itself, and tried to create very blanket statements. For example, it said that a bonus of communism was greater rights for women but a negative was "less freedom", as if to imply women having equal rights isn't freedom. It also said that communist movements created xenophobia, which is extremely bizarre when you consider that most communist parties were a century ahead of most other movements when it came to race relations.
 * Perhaps the paragraph cited an article which only focused on a specific country but this wasn't mentioned in the text. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Definition of Communism
Because of widespread usual primary use and relevance of this word, I think that Communism should rather be primarily defined as a mode of government that is justified with an ideology wherein the state would ultimately wither away, rather than primarily as the apparently practically irrelevant ideal of that ideology. 2A02:3038:413:E801:1:0:4F77:A487 (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Right this way: WP:PROOF. –Vipz (talk) 04:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Some flaws in "analysis" section
I think there is quite a lack of balance surrounding opinions in this section, with approximately two thirds of loaded (i.e., opinions) statements somewhat defensive of communism, and the remaining third critical. (about 70% and 30% respectively). Here's my breakdown of most of the section. I shall use blue as those defensive of communism / critical of anti-communism, and red for those critical of communism.





















Total: 1240 words





Total: 658 words

My rationale for these highlights: language emphasising the violence of anti-communism, the notion that some right-wingers describe Marx as responsible for the Holocaust, emphasis on rejection of the "100 million" made-up statistic - or rejection of the "Victims of Communism" concept -, and on the notion that state-sanctioned violence under "socialist" states were aberrations - these are all clearly defensive to varying degrees, either in defence of communism or criticism of the opposition to communism (colored in red). I have nothing wrong with the majority of the cited material here. Please note that these highlightings are entirely my own opinion; please write if you disagree my assessment of imbalance.

So, by sheer A) word count, it certainly does appear significantly tilted to one side. But that skew is not necessarily bad in itself, only that it would require the academic and reliable-source consensus to be so skewed. But is that the case? I am not sure, but let's look at two more things: firstly, B) structure, and I will conclude not by merely saying that this article is unfixable, nor a great wrong (as many conspiratorial IP editors have done for years), but by writing C) other topics which are vastly sourced in relation to the topic of the analysis and reception of communism, and are more relevant than some of the arguments present - both on the critical and defensive sides.

STRUCTURE


 * Reception
 * For the reception section, there is Paczkowski's statement about how hopeful communism seemed to many, followed by Mises' clear rejection of communism due to lack of price signals.
 * Then, an entire paragraph - which fills half of the "reception" section - focuses on anti-communism. The entirety of this paragraph focuses not on anti-communist intellectuals or critical opinion, but solely of organised, violent repression, such as mass killings during the Cold War.
 * From this section as "reception", it 1) summarises virtually nothing about how communists, socialists, and various other sympathetic groups have received communism itself. That should indeed be commented on briefly, both a small summary of how a) some view the regimes in history as aberrations, b) some moved to the right (an example would perhaps be the Social Democratic Party of Germany, and c) some view the regimes as a success to some degree, as Ther writes later. 2) It describes anti-communism only in relation to organised mass killings and violence; that absolutely must be mentioned, but to shorten "anti-communism" under the reception section to solely that is clearly misguided; there is a vast amount of anti-communist material that can be sourced - I have linked some under "other topics".


 * Excess mortality in Communist states
 * The first paragraph describes the "death toll", from lows of about 20 million, to highs of approx. 100 million. The following sentence criticises the higher estimates, methodology, and the "unwarranted" links with communism. This is excessive focus on the "100 million" figure, which is a figure supported by very few historians, including anti-communists - incl. Courtois' co-authors, like Werth and Margolin. The counter-critique to the mention of the death toll is not to acknowledge that tens of millions died under "socialist" regimes, but solely to criticise the upper estimates. While I absolutely agree that the fact that some historians like Courtois have had agendas and dubious estimates against communism, this does not need to be mentioned as a sort-of rebuttal per se to the very fact that millions died. The very fact is that millions died, and indeed Ghodsee and Sehon's quote acknowledges this.
 * Furthermore, the critique of those pointing out excess mortality says this: the suggestion that "victims of civil wars, the Holodomor and other famines, and war-related events should not be included". That is outright obnoxious; the subject is "excess mortality" - and then it is suggested that famines, wars, etc. shouldn't be included? They perhaps wouldn't be relevant for a section on "mass killing", but this is completely different; there was historically undeniable high excess mortality during periods throughout e.g., the USSR and China's histories, the vast vast majority of such excess mortality being directly related to war and famine. That is undeniable, and thus an argument is incorrectly inferred from these sources to "not include" them. Someone probably this copy-pasted from the Mass killings article, which is a different topic than "excess mortality".
 * In my opnion, the next paragraph is mostly fine, describing notions of "genocide", "classicide", and related terms, with opnions from both "most Communist states did not engage in mass killings" and Gray et. al's opinion that communist ideology played a role.
 * The next paragraph is completely unbalanced. The opinion, "Many commentators on the political right point to the mass deaths under Communist states, claiming them as an indictment of communism" is presented, (of 21 words), followed by a 158-word outright rejection of this notion, including: what is frankly whataboutism† of mass killings under capitalist regimes (a completely different topic that may be only tangentially relevant): Katz's rejection of the "double genocide theory" as a response seems like a strawman†, as this is the only opinion presented regarding comparisons with Nazism (some academics and historians, for instance compare Stalinism and Nazism, some don't - the former isn't mentioned). The section closes with the notion that comparisons are widely rejected in Western Europe. Regarding structure, this is a particularly egregious example of an anti-communist opinion that supports an "indictment" of communism being met by entirely tangential whataboutist and strawman responses; such opinions in that 158-word rejection are not inherently bad, only that they must be in response to something - there are no opinions of academics such as Snyder, Nolte, Brzezinski (and more which I will get to) are presented that do compare Communist regimes and Nazism. Furthermore, there is Katz's mention of the "double genocide theory" associated with the support of far-right conspiracy theorists, such as in the Baltics. Therefore, anti-communist opinions are ignored from academics, and mentions of them are supposedly relevant when considering far-right extremists; this paragraph clearly reads like a dismissal of anti-communism in its entirety as un-academic or extremist in some way.


 * Mermory and legacy
 * The first paragraph commits to the same structure: at first, a critical (of communism) opinion of 23 words, describing the aforementioned "indictment" of communism as an ideology, followed by a 52-word defensive rebuttal that describes excess deaths as due not to communism, with the repeated notion of deaths under capitalism as a "counterpoint". Because both the critical and defensive rebuttals are entirely repeated here from the last two paragraphs of Excess mortality in Communist states, I suggest removing this paragraph from "Critics of communism on the political right..." onwards.
 * I am mostly fine with the second paragraph; it clearly presents the defensive (of communist) view as "Victims of Communism" often relating to the "double genocide theory", rejecting comparisons of Nazism and Communism. I support this relevant mention, although this statement onwards describes a clearly widespread view among anti-communists, "Proponents posit an alleged link between communism, left-wing politics, and socialism with genocide, mass killing, and totalitarianism", followed by a clearly fringe view, "Some right-wing authors allege that Marx was responsible for Nazism and the Holocaust" - Again, this suggests a degree of absurdity in anti-communist arguments, by employing the motte-and-bailey fallacy to say that "some anti-communists even believe X!"; we should be focused on what anti-communists generally believe.
 * The next paragraph presents the critical (of communism) view, with various mentions of the criminalization of communism in the public sphere to give a degree of balance. I support this paragraph, and the next one, which describes both the communist's supposed failure to live up to their proposed society, while also mentioning Ther's acknowledgement that live had in some ways improved.
 * The next two paragraphs - 501 words - describe the quality of life dropping after communist regimes had fell in the 1990s. I think that this material should be merged into one paragraph. Should the "legacy" of communism be focused on how bad the aftermath of it was? I think that 1990s capitalist tyranny which caused potentially millions of excess deaths should be mentioned, but "legacy" certainly also the legacy of history long before the 1990s, such as the legacy of Stalin, or indeed outside Europe, such as Mao, who isn't even mentioned at all in this section.
 * The final paragraph definitely is unbalanced. A 13-word quotation "...as unqualified failures" is presented, followed by a 225-word section from the other side, firstly by Dean, then by Ghodsee, Scheidel, et. al. The description of "failure of communist regimes" as "unqualified" to be met by a 20x-larger critique that starts by saying "this limits the scope of discussion around political alternatives to capitalism and neoliberalism" is clearly very unbalanced. I agree with the mention of these 225 words, but it seriously feels like only one side is being presented. I have some suggestions below for further quotes to be used.

C) OTHER TOPICS

So, here are topics I think are relevant to add, regarding reception and analysis, and many of these I think are much more relevant than arguments I mentioned under (C). Many of these are already sourced and mentioned in articles such as Mass killings under communist regimes (an article which I think shouldn't exist as SYNTH, only with some of its contents included in this article), and Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism.


 * For Excess morality in Communist states:
 * In 1993, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter, wrote that "the failed effort to build communism in the twentieth century consumed the lives of almost 60,000,000."
 * In 2005, professor Benjamin Valentino stated that the number of non-combatants killed by communist regimes in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia alone ranged from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million.
 * Political scientist Rudolph Rummel and historian Mark Bradley have written that, while the exact numbers have been in dispute, the order of magnitude is not.
 * According to historian Klas-Göran Karlsson, discussions of the number of victims of communist regimes have been "extremely extensive and ideologically biased." - this quotation seems relevant for the first paragraph, instead of the unquoted source that begins "The higher estimates have been criticized by several scholars..."
 * Daniel Goldhagen argues that 20th century communist regimes "have killed more people than any other regime type." - This could be a relevant quote, as this section merely mentions Goldhagen, Pipes et. al, without providing any of their quotations.
 * Benjamin Valentino writes: "Although not all the deaths due to famine in these cases were intentional, communist leaders directed the worst effects of famine against their suspected enemies and used hunger as a weapon to force millions of people to conform to the directives of the state." - this could be a good quotation for the first paragraph, as it addresses the slight ambiguity surrounding famines; famines were not necessarily unintentional.


 * For Memory and legacy:
 * The European Parliament has designated August 23 as the Black Ribbon Day, a Europe-wide day of remembrance for victims of the 20th-century totalitarian and authoritarian regimes.
 * Mention of legacy outside Europe and former-USSR
 * Mention of the totalitarian model (debate) and its critics


 * Other general potential areas:
 * The effects of collectivization in Communist states
 * Comparisons with anti-communist mass killings
 * Examples of communist terrorism (so long as they are adequately sourced in relation to "reception", "excess mortality" or "memory and legacy")
 * Anarchist opposition to communism (under "reception" section)
 * Anti-communist former communists, e.g., writers of The God that Failed, and Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism
 * The rise of inequality in post-communist states

 What I have done:
 * Potentially relevant links:
 * "Communist Legacies and Left Authoritarianism" - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0010414019879954
 * "Historical Legacy of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Inequality" - Evidence from Post-Communist Regionshttps://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/201912/3/Libman_Obydenkova_Inequality.pdf
 * "The Collectivization of Agriculture in Communist Eastern Europe: Comparison and Entanglements" - https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7829/j.ctt6wpkqw
 * Changed what is a clear error:
 * Removed "Higher estimates are criticized for being based on sparse and incomplete data when significant errors are inevitable, skewed to higher possible values, and that victims of civil wars, the Holodomor and other famines, and war-related events should not be included."
 * Added just two quotations:
 * Daniel Goldhagen argues that 20th century communist regimes "have killed more people than any other regime type." to the second paragraph of "Excess mortality"
 * Political scientist Rudolph Rummel and historian Mark Bradley have written that, while the exact numbers have been in dispute, the order of magnitude is not. - to the end of the first paragraph of "Excess mortality".

I hope some of my further criticisms above will be taken account into further proposed changes, as I think that this section of the article is very tedious, like any "reception" and "legacy" section.

Zilch-nada (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Balabce doesn't mean that we provide equivalence to pro and anti-communist positions, but that we provide weight appropriate to the literature. There are actually three positions here, in order to weight in reliable sources: mainstream, communist and anti-communist. They could be described respectively as majority, minority and fringe.
 * Articles for example do not give equal weight to opinions expressed in the Washington Times and in the Washington Post. TFD (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "could be described respectively as majority, minority and fringe"; one could say that, but like I said, I don't know if it's the case that there is such a scew. The impetus of my post was that I have seen eschewed historical context and sources, such as "reception" consisting almost entirely of the brutality of anti-communism. That's why I have added additional sources, but I still think much more needs changed. Zilch-nada (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In order to determine the weight of the material in the article, you need to look at books about communism. The article is already skewed toward a fringe perspective that makes it read like something written in the 50s. Mises and Goldhagen for example are not experts on communism so there's no reason to provide their opinions.
 * Richard Pipes was an expert of sorts, but much of his interpretation turned out to be false. The Soviet Union for example was not leading the arms race and was not a threat to th U.S. in the 1980s. TFD (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Likewise, Katz, Sehon and Dean are scholars in tangentially related fields. Why are you only pointing out one side of the story? Zilch-nada (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "was not a threat to the US" is quite subjective, especially given that the USSR was engaged in imperialist warfare in Afghanistan; detente wasn't so clear at all. Zilch-nada (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how Soviet warfare in Afghanistan was a threat to the U.S., considering that if Kabul is 7,000 miles away from Washington. A lot of dominoes would have to fall before it became a problem with Georgetown homeowners.
 * Pipes falsely claimed that the Soviets had submarines so sophisticated that the U.S. could not detect them. He knew they were sophisticated because the U.S. could not detect them. Of course, this was irrational circular paranoid reasoning. Why should opinions of people who made claims that had no credibility even when they were made be given any weight?
 * I agree that the experts used on mass killings under Communist regimes have little relevance to the topic. But mass killings has little relevance to the topic, based on the literature about communism. It's more a reflection of what some editors consider important. Notice for example that the article on Nazism spends far less space on their genocide and responsibility for WWII. TFD (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding the skew in the "Reception" sections, we have a significant issue in the lack of a WP:Global perspective in this area. It is a failure of due weight that we do not yet have perspectives of Chinese Marxists (consider that the CPC is one of the largest political parties in the world, and China's is the longest tenured socialist government in history). I understand of course editors' language limitations but we are quite parochial at the moment. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did mention the potential inclusion of Mao in the "legacy" section. But you strangely insist on Chinese Marxists, not academic commentary on China in general. Why? Zilch-nada (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Odd response. It reads as though you think it is a "Gotcha!" of some sort. First, I haven't "insisted" on anything. Second, I already explained my rationale in the parenthetical already. To phrase it another way, we are missing a major school of analysis on the subject. JArthur1984 (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We're not just missing a "major school" covering China, but any coverage of China whatsoever. Seriously note WP:NPOV, regarding not only any inclusion of China but the insistence on a specific "major school". We need to find sources covering China first, regarding "analysis" of communism. Zilch-nada (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But first you have to establish the weight of coverage it receives in reliable sources about communism. TFD (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, but JArthur has seemingly decided already, without considering weight. Zilch-nada (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The weight of different aspects must be determined by coverage in the literature. For example, what degree of coverage would a standard textbook on communism give to China or to mass killing or to socialist realism art? Before complaining about balance in the article, you need to establish this. See Neutral point of view and for more information. An American who sleeps with his guns in his bomb shelter at night will have a different perspective than an unemployed villager in a third world country about to be hired by the Belt and Road initiative. TFD (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Millions died, yes, but that doesn't in any way undermine or invalidate communism as a viable, even necessary economic and sociopolitical system (Let's hear your solution for advanced automation and artificial intelligence, replacing wage-labor, without socialism or communism..Good luck!).
 * Class warfare is bloody (The powers that be, don't peacefully relinquish their power), and let me remind you that capitalism has its own mountain of dead rotting corpses under its stinky feet, so all of you capitalist-apologists should find another line of criticism, because you have no moral high ground upon which to stand and point fingers, with your death-toll arguments. Spare us all your crocodile tears. John Bilbao (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Property Definition Correction:
"According to this analysis, a communist revolution would put the working class in power, and in turn establish common ownership of property, the primary element in the transformation of society towards a communist mode of production."

The above statement is incorrect. The common ownership of PRIVATE property, not personal property. Private property is all property used to exploit human labor for a profit. A person's house, car, computer, and "Fruit Of The Looms", are personal property, that isn't publicly owned. You have a right to your personal property in communism (I haven't met one communist yet, that would disagree with that statement and I've been a communist since 1988). This Wikipedia statement, that the communists are attempting to make ALL property "common" or publicly owned, is WRONG (It will give people the wrong impression, that we're coming after their stuff when we're not). Incorrect. John Bilbao (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)