Talk:Communism/Archive 12

Misconception
Karl Marx never intended that there would be a negation of all private property, or personal property. In Marxist terminology, "private property" referred to private ownership in capital, which at the time meant the means of production - not personal property. It is misleading not to state this in the beginning summary.
 * Do you have a source for that? I'm not aware of anywhere were Marx made that distinction, and there are places in Marx (the discussion of civil society in On the Jewish Question, his criticisms of Stirner) which suggest to me that he wouldn't be very enthusiastic about the language of personal property. I realize some later socialists and communists have put more weight on the distinction between personal and private property, but that seems to be a response to bourgeois nonsense about sharing toothbrushes, which would be better responded to with Marx's line from the Manifesto: "In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend." VoluntarySlave (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? Here's Marx, in the Communist Manifesto:

"We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

"Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

"Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?

"But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation." -- Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)

There are quite a few other passages in the Marxian classics where Marx distinguishes between private property as things people own and private property as capital - ie, that private property which is gained from the capitalist mode of production. Very useful stuff.

166.217.172.156 (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's true Marx here distinguishes private property as capital from other sorts of private property; but not from "things people own" in general, but rather from another historically specific form of private property. He doesn't show any objection to the abolition of that other form of private property, and he doesn't suggest that there's any other form of private property that coexists with private property as capital, so I don't see any reason here to think that Marx didn't intend to abolish "personal property" alongside abolishing capital. VoluntarySlave (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Typo
In "Communism is the idea of a free society with no division or alienation, where humananity is free from oppression and scarcity. A communist society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions."

Is "humananity" supposed to be "humanity"? I have no idea what humananity is supposed to mean. Please clarify.

"or the first human spacefligh (1961)," I assume should say "or the first human spaceflight (1961),"

Citation necessary?
Why is citation needed on: "It is usually considered a branch of the broader socialist movement that draws on the various political and intellectual movements that trace their origins back to the work of Karl Marx", when this is common knowledge? Why is no citation called for further down when specific statements are made regarding Marx's influence on later ideas? 24.72.117.131 (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We editors fall back too much on "common knowledge" sometimes. Common knowledge for who? Kids born in 1985 who never knew anything about the USSR? Those "kids" are 23 years old. Why is someone reading this? Because they know all about it and want to see if we got it right? How about this: they know next to nothing about Communism and are trying to learn?


 * Footnotes means that (if they are doing research) they can use the same reference. It also means (if they are knowledgeable about Wikipedia), that the editor is not making this up. There are too many articles with few references. Sometimes when the issue is forced, the statement made so blatantly "goes away." While wikipedia is often not allowed as a primary source (nor are most encyclopedias), they are considered a good source for references.


 * Anyway, there are other roots for communism besides Karl Marx. The French had a commune back when, didn't they? Maybe Marx took his ideas from them. I, for one, would like to see a scholarly citation that indicates that Marx is the sole root of all Communism. If this is so obvious, it ought to be real easy to come up with a reference. Student7 (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

i'm agree with 24.72... it's common knowledge. also if there is some trouble with pre marx communism, but the pre marx communist aren't common knowledge. --Francomemoria (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You could be right, of course. Maybe I can learn something. Can you tell me where in WP:FOOT or perhaps another standard, where "common knowledge," as reason to skip footnotes, is cited? Thank you. Student7 (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * all phrases need a footnotes with your thinking--Francomemoria (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What I tell newbies ('cause I can get away with it :), it that "2 plus 2 doesn't equal 4 in Wikipedia unless they can find a reference to it." It helps avoid top of the head syndrome which plagues us all. Having said that, I have been known to put in "obvious" stuff myself without a footnote....until some bright-eyed editor notices and zings me!   :) Student7 (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try and make this as short as possible, but it is difficult in squeezing this in as someone with a Masters in political science really likes to speak.

Communism is the evolved form of Marxism and on the political wing the more "intense" version of a Socialist government. It is safe to say that Karl Marx is indeed solely the founder of Communism; this is because he founded its modern principles. Any Socialist or Communist-like style of government before his time was a very loose principle of some sort of economically balanced society. This is similar to the fact that before modern Capitalism, ancient Italian merchants had similar economic ideals, although they were VERY different and more loose then what modern Capitalism is today.

In regards to the article itself,

I believe it does indeed need an entire rewrite. Not only is lacking citations and footnotes to backup its claims and statements, (many statements are true, many are not and unbiased) but it is too "loosely written" and needs major reorganization in the establishment of the ideology of this type of government.

This English article is a major shame to many other of its version in different languages. For example the German article of Communism is a major success in amplifying its system and precursor Marxist ideologies. The main reason is because the current generations of Americans have been taught very little about this style of government which has inarguably plummeted knowledge on such a thing because of the current political status of the time. I would vote in favor of a rewrite. This article should strive to be at least of the same quality as the capitalism article.

Also I find it strange for an article to begin with some very strange quote commenting on this government type.

MrBosnia (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There are a lot of non-Marxist versions of communism that don't get much mention here. Marx wasn't the first to advocate collective ownership, and production and distribution, but (in my opinion and correct me if you think I'm wrong) there is not doubt that his outlook was unique and cannot sufficiently account for all "communisms". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprachwissenschaftler (talk • contribs) 21:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove "Background" Section
Could someone please remove the dubious "background" section? It's vague and poorly stated; and there are no sources. -Rich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.48.188 (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I find this sentence to be rather poorly written:
 * Though centrally planned economies are said to be less efficient than free markets[attribution needed], communist states such as Soviet Union and China did succeed in becoming industrial and technological powers, challenging the capitalists' powers in the arms race and space race and military conflicts.
 * "Free-market" is a rather ambiguous term to use. To a libertarian, it means no state intervention at all, whilst a state-capitalist considers a heavily regulated market (such as the US has now) to be a "Free-market". Marxist and new left tend to consider anything that isn't centrally planned to be "Free-market", which is the POV of this quoted sentence. I personally think it'd be correct to specify state-capitalism in place of capitalists' powers and mixed-market in place of free markets
 * Also, shouldn't in the arms race and space race and military conflicts. be restructured?
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaphar (talk • contribs) 04:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree the "centrally planned economies are said to be less efficient" needs footnoting. This sounds top of the head. Even democracies have gone to central planning in time of war. They are not inherently less efficient, they just become detached from reality after a while. The Soviet Union often met 5-year quotas. It's just nobody wanted the stuff they made. It was either obsolescent or did not keep up with people's expectations as to quality. A capitalist system does this "automatically" but results in job displacement which the communists were trying to avoid.


 * Through central planning, the USSR did put its best trained engineers and managers on arms and space. Space turned out poorly for them, I think. They did better at arms. "Technologically" seems a stretch. How technologically? They weren't any better at military conflicts than anyone else. Historically they have been worse during the fight for Poland at the start of WWII. Supposedly they don't fight well off their own land. Certainly no better in Afghanistan than the US in Vietnam. So the "military conflicts" thing is dubious I think. Student7 (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Plato
is write "In his 4th century BCE The Republic, Plato considers the idea of the ruling class sharing property" but the communism is "a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production". So the Plato ideas is not near communism idea, there are classes, state and there isn't common ownership of the means of production. There is only sharing property of ruling class, anf for true i remember that he writed there is none property for ruling class. So i think is best deleted Plato ideas from this article --Francomemoria 00:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Plato most definitely wasn't any sort of communist. So I have no problem removing all references to the proto-fascist bastard who wanted to systematically lie to the population and also remove art from his "Republic".AFA (Fuck you!) 16:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree. --Duncan 23:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The article does not attempt to portray Plato as a communist, nor does it attempt to depict his ideas as equivalent to modern communism. The reference to Plato's idea of communal property should remain because it is relevant to the origins of the central doctrine of modern communism.  If the reference to Plato were to be removed, we would also have to remove the references to Thomas More and Jean-Jacques Rousseau who, although not communists, made significant contributions to communist theory like Plato. -- WGee 20:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * if this is true, and i not think so, give reference of this --Francomemoria 23:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Two references are already provided for you in the article:
 * "Communism." Dictionary of the Social Sciences. Craig Calhoun, ed. Oxford University Press 2002. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.
 * Angela Hobbs, "Plato." The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Ed. Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan. Oxford University Press, 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.
 * -- WGee 00:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * i need many time for find this books in some library but i'm sure this is a position have not many fans in communists thought, only who don't knowing communist idea can write him Republica as reference. in MIA only reference for Plato is " Disciple of Socrates, objective idealist, fought against the materialist teachings of his time. Plato developed the theory of existence of immaterial forms of objects which he called "forms" (or "ideas"). To Plato, the sensible world is the product of these "forms", which are eternal, while sensible objects are transient and changeable" --Francomemoria 12:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are having trouble finding the aforementioned sources, the Columbia Encyclopedia, the Encyclopedia of Russian History, and the Legal Encyclopedia also refer to Plato in their discussions of the origins of communism. They are viewable online here. -- WGee 02:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Columbia write "Plato, in his Republic, outlined a society with communal holding of property; his concept of a hierarchical social system including slavery has by some been called “aristocratic communism.”" but the write false in "outlined a society with communal holding of property" there isn't this in The Republic, so this source is not serious.
 * Russian write "The term has been applied to premodern social and political constructs, such as communal societies propounded in Plato's Republic" a few, not motivations for this.
 * Legal write "As early as the fourth century b.c., Plato addressed the problems surrounding private ownership of property in the Republic" they have a bad lecture of The Republica, Plato not addressed the problems of private ownership but only of "Guardian" ownership.--Francomemoria 10:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Let us not digress. This article says that "Plato considers the idea of the ruling class sharing property." All of the sources just provided for you (as well as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ) verify this statement. There is nothing more to discuss unless you have some reliable sources that contradict these ones. -- WGee 01:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * yes the article says that but also that there are connections fra Plato and Communism, the communism is for all members of society (and in Utopia is so) not for a little. the point is the Plato idea is not related with communis idea not that sharing pownership of guardians classes--Francomemoria 12:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no question that Plato's communism bears very little relation, if any, to Marxist communism. But Plato is often called communist by writers, which should be the standard for the encyclopedia, no? - Jemmy Button 23:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What is missing from the above discussion is that Plato also described his Republic as appointing a dictator for life, with the title of 'tyrant'. The Tyrant was to have absolute power. This, in conjunction with the communal holding of property, starts to look very much like Stalin's USSR. Thus I feel it is relevant to the far-lefts 'Communism' but not to Marx's 'communism'. Again I suggest two separate pages for communism. kimdino (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

More, Utopia and Communism
The article suggests that communism has origins in More's Utopia. I don't think that quite stands up. Communism is discussed in Utopia with reference to the Utopian system, i.e. it was an established and understood concept at the time of writing. Epeeist smudge 10:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a bit of a non sequitur. When any term is first discussed in print, then it is at that moment established in print. That does not mean that it is not the original instance of it. The term communism doesn't appear as far as I recall in the book, but it clearly is the first exposition of communism, and an excellent one at that. --Duncan 23:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly the first? I seriously doubt that.  For example, monasteries practiced communism for many centuries before More--surely someone wrote about it.  (Right?  shrug).  I'd be hesitant every to call anything the first statement of something, seeing as I haven't read anywhere near everything. -Jemmy Button 23:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And some branches of the Mennonites. I non-citably suspect there is some cultural influence from the bible, that created the communism. Said: Rursus (☻) 07:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The article suggests that communism has origins in More's Utopia. I don't think that quite stands up. Communism is discussed in Utopia with reference to the Utopian system, i.e. it was an establis ==

Headline text
==

Headline text
==

Headline text
[[ Link title  Insert non-formatted text here

]] == == == hed and understood concept at the time of writing. General Neelie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.57.22 (talk) 22:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a circular argument: using it there can be no first use of a term in print because, for the term to be used, it must already exist. That's a simple logical fallacy. There is no earlier reference to the use of the term communism. If you have one, then let's use it. --Duncan (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Comparing "Communism" to "communism"
Perhaps a better title for this section? Like "entomology of" or "application of term"? This title just seems a poor choice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.88.168.68 (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC).


 * I don't know about the section (it's gone now), but I'd like the article to briefly discuss the capitalization issue. The article is inconsistent about this; it uses both forms. --Adoniscik(t, c) 18:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Lower case is correct in present-day English. Of course use upper case when it is part of the name of a political party or organisation. It is a different situation from "Marxism" or "Trotskyism", where the initial capital is suggested by the inclusion of a proper name. The article should be consistent and I don't think it should discuss the issue, which is really only one for style guides. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * One sentence would be enough for me. --Adoniscik(t, c) 19:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Marxism-Leninism/Trotskyism
The article currently says: "During Trotsky's exile, world communism fractured into two distinct branches: Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism. Trotsky later founded the Fourth International, a Trotskyist rival to the Comintern, in 1938." This is problematic, as Trotskyists consider themselves to be Marxist-Leninists. Can someone think of a better way of re-wording. How about something like "fractured between the official Communism of the Comintern and the Trotskyist current that formed the Fourth International in 1938." That's too cumbersome, but the current wording is unsatisfactory. BobFromBrockley 12:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Technically, aren't "Marxist-Leninists" Maoists? Stalinists are either Stalinists or simple Leninists, usually.--Red Deathy 12:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, thats incorrect. All major streams stemming from the main communist tradition, with the exception of Eurocommunist sectors, considers themselves as Marxist-Leninist. Trotskyists generally avoid the term ML, initially at least preferring the term Bolshevism-Leninism. --14:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soman (talk • contribs)
 * trotskysts most use the term leninism, never ml --Francomemoria 17:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree, Trotskyists tend not to use the term M-L, but do consider themselves Marxists and Leninists. Would they actually reject the name Marxist-Leninist? BobFromBrockley 15:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a Marxist-Leninists and I do not consider myself a Stalinist, I don't understand why Stalinism is replacing Leninism. I follow Marx and Lenin not Trotsky or Stalin. I Don't give two shits as to who first used the term. I think its just a slur to call us Marxist-Leninist stalinists. No Communist Party in the world classifies themselves as Stalinist. They call themselves Marxist-Leninists and I didn't see any pictures of Stalin in any of the public debates or videos of Communist Parties, I see Lenin though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.114.155 (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Trotskyists don't consider themselves to be Marxist-Leninists: just look for references! Marxists, yes. Leninists, yes, but Marxism-Leninism was coined to mean the mainstream Communist Parties and those emerged from them after the second world war. Eurocommunism often avoided speaking of Lenin but, politically, it is in the Marxist-Leninist tradition. --Duncan 16:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the terms Stalinism and Trotskyism would be more accurate? Stalin's apologists don't much like the word, but Marxism-Leninism wasn't a term used until the '50s, and even if Trots don't like using it it still is a term which describes us.

As well, I think that it would help to summarize the ideologies of the different communist streams in that part of the article. The way it is, it only talks about history. 71.198.98.233 16:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

USSR criticized for fascism
I keep adding this (with more references each time) and having it removed. Now, I hardly want to defend the criticism itself, but it is very common; indeed, I have cited an entire book about it. Not a book which calls the USSR fascist, but a book about the fact that Americans consider the USSR fascist. To say this cliche is not common (as has been said in edit summaries) simply baffles me. It's all over the place, at least in writing contemporary with the USSR's existence. -Jemmy Button 23:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I do agree with the cut. This article isn't about the USSR. Refernces to this view are perhaps useful in the article on the USSR, but is not a notable comment with regard to communism. What you're written also seems close to original research, for example in suggesting the Trotskyists share this view. That is not the case: Trotsky said that Stalinism exceeded fascism in its violence, but that is a comment about Stalinism and not communism, and not a statement that Stalinism is fascism. --Duncan 00:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)We need to remember that Stalin killed 20 million russians between 1930 and 1953, people who were suspected of not being communist were brought to concentration camps also known as Gulags.


 * I didn't say anything about Trotsky. I inserted a George Orwell quote that said that.  Sure, the article isn't about the USSR, but the subsection is about criticism of communist states, and the USSR is one of those. --Jemmy Button 00:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If the article isn't about the USSR, then why is the page littered with the hammer and sickle, the official logo of the USSR, NOT of communism? That logo has NOTHING AT ALL to do with true, orthodox communism... which is what this article should be about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empco (talk • contribs) 02:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Communism and religion
Previous posts on this talk page which I have archived brought up the subject of communism and religion. This article does not describe that relationship at all, yet the atheism of the Soviet Union seems to have been a major reason for American opposition. Which of the various threads of communist thought or governance are atheistic, and where does that come from? -- Beland 00:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Communism and religion is probably a notable enough topic for its own article. Some related articles on Wikipedia are religious communism and Christian communism. Marx was a strict atheist since his youth and Marxist philosophy and nearly all strains of Marxism are atheistic. Some of the smaller strains of communism are also atheistic for independent reasons, though they are less likely to include views on religion as part of their dogma. ~ Swi tch  (✉ ✍ ☺ ☒ ) 01:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Amazing that there is no mention of religion at all. One wonders about what happened to attempted prior edits. Student7 (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Communism is essentially a religion, rejecting other religions. In practice it has adopted the logical positivist stance against religion, that all metaphysics is improper (ethics), except that happenstance logical positivism is defined by metaphysical reasoning (circularly built thought-taboo) which in essence makes both logical positivism and communism structured analogously to major religions. Let's say, that the topic communism versus religion requires its own article, but that the adherents of communism here edit by a bias they have no own control over, neither would admit to themselves, because of the forementioned thought-taboo. I was one of them, so I know how much work and pain it requires to broaden ones own reasoning. Said: Rursus (☻) 08:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This is User: Political dweeb here and I I'm responsible I think for creating this article on Communism and religion. The reason I created this article was to ask a question. It was that firstly I am saying do any of the political parties, movements, organisations etc that believe in communist ideologies called Leinism, Trotskyism, left communism, Marxism-Leninism and council communism believe in either of two political positions on atheism? These two political positions I am talking about are either making sure that religion is apart from the state and society or that it is necessary for the world to exist without all of its religions.

I hope what I have said is suitable and apart from the questions I've asked above if there's any other questions anyone wants to ask me on this subject please talk talk to me on this discussion page or on my talk page thank you. .--Political Dweeb (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think blind adherence to some ideologies, without questioning, has been the hallmark of ALL religious believers, and SOME less-rational political/socio-economic thinkers. Enough said, I think.24.80.236.14 (talk) 08:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

On Merging with "World Communism"
The two are different concepts and shouldn't be merged as the ideas advocated by Trotsky are radically different from the common interpetation of Communism. I would like the link to this discuss page to be taken down ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casey QuestionMark (talk • contribs) 03:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's still Communism. Zazaban (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats like saying that Peanut Butter and Jelly should be merged because they both go well on toast.--69.152.132.177 (talk) 06:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's like Blueberries and Strawberries should be grouped together because they're both berries. Zazaban (talk) 07:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and like "counting apples and pears" (Swedish telltale), and as regards to Blueberries and Strawberries, the latter is to be preferred on Pancakes. Said: Rursus (☻) 08:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats a far better comparison. I was trying to think of something, but I was tired...--69.152.132.177 (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No mention about Communist crimes against humanity?
Why there is no mention in this article about the 120 millions that communism has killed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.102.18.181 (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Because communism itself did not kill people, but the leaders of so-called communist countries did. If you looked at the article on Stalin or Zedong(actually most people would say they didn't), you will see that their acts are defined, but the system of communism itself did not make them harm people, it was their own doing, unlike fascism, which advocates this sort of thing. --69.94.181.132 (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How can a system advocate anything? It is the people who support it who do. I can quote Mao and others as suggesting that many people will have to die to usher in the new age and get the retort that "it should be in their bio" not communism. At what point does communism differ from fascism? Who speaks for either one or both? At what point does either system become liable for what their implementers do? Are the statements "acceptable" only because they sound "nice" and therefore are "communistic" and belong in here? The differences between the two systems are so tiny that they were indistinguishable to liberals in the thirties. One is Socialism, the other National Socialism. They are both very pretty on paper. Once thugs start implementing them that both become distasteful. Student7 (talk) 13:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"Because communism itself did not kill people" -- thank you for inadvertently providing the biggest laugh I've had in a long while!!! Glad to see that Wikipedia's usual standards -- meaning, atrociously laughable standards -- continue in full force!!! *smile* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.28.69 (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Stalin killed those people. Not communism. And to the dork above, even the editors at Brittanica would laugh at this guy. 74.251.24.251 (talk) 05:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Even though it's Britannica, not Brittanica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andres07 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.--69.152.132.177 (talk) 06:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there should be a section quoting the following from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights... "Article 17. (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.", and "Article 17. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.". I think its important to note than communism conflicts with human rights as we understand them today.
 * No, because that would be taking a side, and would be a POV. Zazaban (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Even though its a fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.186.169 (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be worth pointing out the the UN POV is still a POV nonetheless. The UN version of human rights is based on a capitalist idea of human rights in the first place, so communist ideals would be in conflict with it. Also, communism predates the UN. Zazaban (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Private Property, IE a factory, a mining operation, a bank is different that what the UN is describing as property which is personal property the difference is clearly defined, such as a car, a house, a tv set, a spoon, and so on. It should be noted that the Soviet Union help draft the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
 * Incorrect. The UN World Declaration merely talks about property but does not clearly define what constitutes property and what does not. It can therefore be interpreted which way you want. However Article 30 clearly makes limiting interpretions a crime against humanity efficiently making communism a crime against humanity. Which it is. The articles on Nazism and Fascism contains references to the crimes against humanity committed by Nazis and Fascists (two socialistic ideologies, both marxist in part). So should this one. There has never been a Communist system that did not commit crimes against Humanity. This article is one the biggest evidence of the corruption of the "elite".Dylansmrjones (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is long enough as it is, and a reference to the crimes committed by self-professed communists would make it meaninglessly longer. To say that their crimes equate to an inherent crime in the theory of communism is as absurd as saying that David Koresh's actions are typical of people with brown hair. Indeed, perhaps I should point you to Karl Marx's own words. He declared in an article in the New York Tribune that capital punishment was an abomination in any nation that called itself civilized. In the Manifesto itself he wrote that, "in place of the old bourgeois society--with its classes and class antagonisms--we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. (emphasis mine) At any rate, your position is not NPOV. If you want to argue this further, there are plenty of forums on the internet to go do it in.Sarcastic Avenger (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, two points - 1)A communist would disagree that property is a human right; 2) We could write on the Capitalism page about it's crimes against humanity, given the UNDHR talks about a right to work 9something I believe the Soviet bloc got inserted).--Red Deathy (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's just get an actual communist's viewpoint in here. I think that the people maintaining that communism kills are in severe need of extra-government education, and that those making personal attacks at intelligence are just a bunch of typical capitalists. Further, I don't think fascism advocates murder or crimes against humanity any more than communism, no matter how much i disagree with such an ideology. Further still, I would agree that property is a human right, though unrestricted gain of property is not a human right. Back on the subject of crimes against humanity, no system I know of, and not any that the above speakers are referring to, has ever committed any crime against humanity. I do believe however, that the crimes against humanity by people and states claiming to be communist should be mentioned in an article on this page. I would also like to see a section explaining that many new communists do not support nations like the USSR or PRC, and in some cases may even be against their practices, as they are not truly communist, and they give us a really bad name. Llama (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

120 Million?? Did you count that? That is simply not true. If you count every single person that died in China, and Russia during Mao Ze Dong or Stalin's rule, then you might get that number. You might want to blame all the people who died in the great depression on Hoover, or blame all the people killed in Japan in WWII on Roosevelt then. Now, if you blame all the innocent (non military) people killed in Vietnam on Kennedy, that would make more sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.224.65 (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we please stop this for this article? The editor is correct about a system murdering no one. The correct place for murders by ruler is Criticisms of Communist party rule, though I didn't notice any there either. Deaths by ruler were pretty bad, but they don't go here. But try at the pointed article. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a graph that displayed the deaths under communist rule from several commuist countries. The section also included estimates from several different academics and groups from a mild 18 million to a super wild 200+ million. It was removed by a horde of communists who basically ran this page a few years back. I think a compromise was reached to put in on a criticism page but they still managed to have enough reverts to keep it off. I think people basically gave up since certain people don't want sourced criticism of their favorite dogma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.172.111 (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the theory of communism, not it's practice. And the death related to communism are hotly disputed and exagerated with american propoganda saying over 200 million which in my opinion, is a gross exageration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CCCPSOVIET (talk • contribs) 13:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Man is evil, not communism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.241.37 (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm seriously getting substantially pissed at how often I hear "Communism = evil", Who exactly was given the scepter with which to say what is or what isn't evil? Communism is an ideology with it's PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE claims and COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE faults. THATS NEUTRAL. I've seen several comments on this page by people who call out the "evils" of communism, but completely overlook the Bosnia air campaign, which was a flagrant device to intimidate Eastern Europe, the bombing of "anything that moves" in Vietnam, flagrantly intended to kill civilian targets, and furthermore the trade embargo on Cuba, all of which have essentially killed people and all of which have been executed by capitalist societies. I don't presume to know the totals of these atrocities, but I can make a guess unintended to slander an ideology based upon the acts of man. Of course communism has attained a lesser status due to it's, lets face it, slightly deranged leaders, but I don't strut around slapping Christians in the face for the murders executed by that branch of theology during the Crusades. Look at Che, man was a communist, man killed people, man did it for his reasons, man died. That simple, little arbitration noted. I'll entertain the idea of Che being “evil”, and I'll definitely play ball with the notions of Stalin and Zedong being “evil”, but at the end of the day, it truly is the people whom are “evil”, not the ideology. I truly would not mind living in a communistic society. But unfortunately people aren't perfect, and people implement ideologies, hence the imperfection of people is inherent with their actions, not the imperfection of an ideology, which is not present. Man isn't evil, man implies totality, men are "evil".


 * Can you say the same about "Fascism" with a straight face? Reading the entry on the latter makes you wonder how they got into the same encyclopedia. It's "not nice" to take stuff away from other people and distribute it to people who seem needy. Who is the "decider?" That is crucial. The Party says "We are the deciders." But they were seldom elected in a fair election. The system stinks. Most Communist governments have been run by self-appointed thugs. Some of the Fascists actually got themselves elected! It is "not nice" to be a thug and claim immunity using Communism, but that is what most have done. Systems actually using democratic communism have mostly failed except those with a Christian basis (monasteries, convents). Not a great system. The Soviets system failed, Cuba is falling, North Korea has failed but nobody there seems to know it. Communism has been a human disaster. Student7 (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The president is the "decider" in this country, right now the Democratic party are the "deciders" in Congress, and I guess the Supreme Court justices are also "deciders". Every single revolution turns into stale bureaucracy at some point, that's unfortunately true. Fascism is something I greatly disagree with, but Francisco Franco did bring stability to Spain, much like Castro ended American Imperialism in Cuba. Both were dictators, both used harsh measures. Furthermore I didn't hear any mention of Sweden in that last remark. Sweden, at the moment is on the upturn in terms of their economy, they are making progress where we have long stopped, environmentally, socailly, economically. I think of Sweden as far more "Communistic" than the Soviet Union, and in those Scandanavian countries Socialism isn't implemented in the form of a bloody revolution but that of the ballot. The Soviet Union was not communism, that was what has been termed commu-capitalism, with the richest individuals still controlling all things. Before I slander my own country as to call it "fascist", I think that you should slander your own arguement by giving more credit to the Soviets. When the Bolsheviks took over, your common Russian was all for it, a release from serfdom, and then things got ugly. Things turned into an aristocracy. Unless my history is mistaken, my country was founded by aristocrats. All of my elected leaders cherrypick their messages to further themselves, themselves being aristocrats. Much like the "Comrade" propaganda of the Soviets we here in America have the media. Were this country to turn overnight into a system of direct-democracy, the media would hold power. Barack Obama is an excellent example of how the media can catapult public officials in this country. His keynote speech got the media talking, and they really didn't shut up about him. To slander communism by it's ventures in culturally detiorating places is in my mind foul play. I won't slander capitalism by it's imperialistic dogmas, I also take into account the social uplifting one can execute if one has that will. I won't slander communism by it's "deciders", I also take into account the truly altruistic aspect of it. Equality. I dislike being told that I am less than someone, and in capitalism I combat this in the workplace, by accumulating status, wealth. In communism people are empowered to change their environment, to go forth with everyone in the boat, no man left behind, and our country, the epitome of capitalism, referred to the bullet for it's system, in Sweden they referred to the ballot. Communism isn't a failure, any authority or government is illegitimate lest it justify it's presence, as you noted the Soviet Union, North Korea, and Cuba cannot justify their presence. Fascists would agree with me about a governments subjectivity, Franco loved subjectivity. And I would say that about Fascism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.218.146 (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Socialist Revolutionaries won the election in Russia two to one over Lenin's party. See, for example,Menshevik But Lenin had the guns and took over. The last I heard, we were electing our government every four years, every two in some states and cities. The communists don't bother with such niceties. Too much feedback which differs with "the book."


 * Sweden has capitalistist corporations and capitalists. See for examples Jan Stenbeck, a billionaire. And more wiki category Swedish billionaires. And corporations that work Category Swedish Companies in which people actually want to invest in. More socialist than us but not mindlessly stupidly communistic, the reason for their success. People vote. The Swedish government changes and giveways are stopped when they threaten the economy. Doesn't happen in a Communist society. Which is why they all failed. No feedback. Or no response to feedback, which is the same thing. They "know" they are right and when it doesn't work, it is somebody else's fault! And the people aren't allowed to vote them out because they aren't at "that phase" of development "yet." (and never will be either. It's just against human nature on both property and religious grounds (and probably others). Student7 (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I never said that communism is right, or that Sweden is completely socialist. Communism can't have "failed", there are still many different factions vouching for position, I'd say that prone to failure is a better way of saying this. It can't be completely against people's property grounds, before the manifesto it was common knowledge in workplaces that workers SHOULD own the mills, people are greedy, but it's just a different way of looking at things. Through the writings of the prominent figures of C. I've noticed that they feel that the power of the individual is "unleashed" through communism, many of the "evil" figures argued over above were freaking nuts. I respect communists, as long as they are Maoists, Leninists or Stalinists, because it takes an extremely strong person to advocate that for a very long time. Humanity survived pre-history in many places without notions of personal property, but public property. Communism, as put forth by Marx is a nearly perfect theory, much like Fascism, Capitalism, any other theory. There is no such thing as human nature so anything related to said argument is a moot point. There is little mindlessly stupid about communism. In the manifesto Marx makes audaciously good claims, such as class conflict, wage slavery, and trade wars, all of which we see afflicting our society today. It is believed in communism that "the people" will take power in degrees, or in one decisive blow, and we, in human history, have seen this progression from despots, to kings, to regents, and most recently to representatives. I don't see WHY anyone would not want to live in a communistic society as it should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.218.146 (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wage slavery is voluntary. The one-company towns of yesteryear are history. Primitive man survived because he had his own spear, arrows, firemaking tools, clothes (!), amulet (religion). Civiilization didn't get off the ground until people learned to exchange trinkets/money for things. Theoretical communism planned to have no correct price for anything. Unfortunately the theory was followed and managers had no basis for decision-making. This is why poorly made goods piled up in warehouses and why the Russian Mafia began. (No not when communism fell - that's when they got publicity for the first time). Only the mafia could help a manager make quota in the absence of input goods from another incompetent factory. Incompetence is enshrined in communism. Only by ignoring it, could communism in the Soviet Union survive as long as it did - money into rockets, atomic weapons, and international strife. (the "theory" covered strife too, you see. Us nasty capitalists would try to bring them down so they had to kill us) (Like we're doing to Sweden, right?)


 * No such thing as human nature? Ah, the "new socialist man." I think I will stop here.Student7 (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Communism is no more immmersed in strife than Capitalism. The Constitution is just as bloodied as the Manifesto. If you mean by "voluntary" you mean depletion of other economic opprotunities then yes, I would say that wage slavery is voluntary by the inclination of people to prefer slaving to starving. No correct price because the unit of worth is the work a person puts into an object as opposed to the object itself, honestly, I'm not too sure that "capitalism" or natural economies can be avoided, I just find it is better to proceed forward with everyone in tow, not just blundering through the ages like bulls in Madrid. If capitalism is allowed to run rampant, with no control, we will see conflicts, in my mind, of a larger scale than ever before. The probability of a nuclear strike within the next ten years has never been higher, and as we see "globalization" taking hold, which actually means the concentration of 86% of the world's wealth into the top 20% of the population, we see Romanesque wars of neverending objectives. Currently, we're at war with a noun, not even a proper noun, a noun, in order to continue our hegemonic domination of the world, forcing other countries into corners, economically, militarily, and politically, till they lash out. These in my mind, are the consequences of rampant capitalism. I could care less about what Chavez says about New Socialism, I personally think he is kind of a prick. The human nature thing is more existentialist, and no I'd rather not discuss that further than each and every person being individuals, individuals in that my clinical reaction will always be different from yours. I favor the Zapatistas more than any other political affiliation. If "nasty capitalists" afflict my country, assail my country, and intimidate my country, they would be my enemy, and I hope that the same would apply to you, were the situation in your lap. I'd rather not see the ideals my country is built on obliterated for the sake of our hegemony over the world. Happened to Rome, will happen to us. The Dark Ages happened, they can happen again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.218.146 (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know about doing anything to anybody else, but Communist countries have been pretty good about eliminating their own populations - Stalin's purges of the 30s, Mao's of the 40's and Pol Pot's of the 80s(or so) were worse than most wars. Tens of millions for the first two. The latter maybe not so much but a heavy percentage of the country in the effort to "create a new man." Well, they didn't create a new man, they simply eliminated a lot of their old ones. Trying to run a country now with half of their people and most people with education, dead.


 * Democracies, which Communists seldom are, have never warred on one another in the last 200 or so years with the sole exception (small window) of India and Pakistan. Small window because Pakistan isn't democratic very often or long! :(  Unelected communists, and there are seldom any other kind, are the ones that have promoted conflict from 1945-1990. Today, it's countries who have governments that are not popular, similar to the way Communists hold office.


 * It is capitalism which triggered the industrial revolution. Ask anyone old if they want to go back to the past. While there is lots of nostalgia for lost culture and social opportunities, no one wants to retreat to lesser prosperity.Student7 (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And when the industrial revolution began to interfere with the living quality of average man communism developed. It was not capitalism, it was people becoming more scientifically intelligent, that's like blaming the system of communism for the insanity of a few mad men. Oh. You speak constantly of people losing property, and lesser prosperity, yet after the Cuban revolution the quality of living for the many was greatly increased, Fulgencio Batista would keep the many in the poorhouse for as long as he could, also enforcing brutal measures. Also supported by a domineering world power. The Cuban Revolution sparked great improvments in Cuba, I have several friends whom went on a humanitarian mission to Cuba, when I asked of the Cuban people's condition their response was "Estan felices, la problema mas importante es de transportacion publico." The people are happy, the biggest problem is public transportation. But how could this be? Castro's a criminal! Oh my. On that note how do you think that capitalistic countries hold power or dominate the world? The way Rome did, The way We do, the bullet, not the ballot. Before you insist that Communism insists on strife look America up and down and judge it. FDR. Murderer. Truman. Murderer. Johnson. Murderer. Kennedy. Murderer. Clinton. Murderer. Jackson. Murderer. Washington. Murderer. No big ol' tally for them now is there? Of our conflict with the Soviets I do know one very intriguing detail; We didn't bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war quickly, a blockade would have been much more "peace-loving capitalism", a blockade that wouldn't have snuffed the lives of thousands to intimidate the post World War World. No. We saw the imperialistic side of capitalism, the side that you have not explained yet, the side that justifies it's acts insofar by "greater prosperity". "Greater prosperity" meaning the concetration of 86% of the world's wealth into the top 20% of the population. Want to speak of the deprivation of liberty, life, and the pusuit of happiness? Lets talk U.S. Lets talk our foreign policy under Bush, and every other president for the last 20 years. Foreign policy being a bomb. And in November when Barack is president it will be a bomb nonetheless, albeit a bomb with a smiley face on it. America, I am so sorry, we have been led astray. So long as we consider Hamas a terrorist organization will we wage wars on democracies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quixotic0823 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Lol, lot of people (e.g.: Student7) are engaging on very seriously POV discussions on this page. This is Wikipedia after all! NPOV! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.236.14 (talk) 08:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Page Vandalism and Removal of Facts to Skew POV
Someone erased the whole thing.

Someone keeps removing my changes from the criticism section, despite me providing a source for the information I added. Do I need to remind people that we must keep NPOV, and not remove FACTS just because they do not suit our agenda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.186.169 (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Be careful in using the label "Vandalism." The editor removing your changes is concerned that the critics you mention (the "Some critics") are not specifically identified (see WP:WEASEL), and that you have not provided an actual source saying something like "Dr. Mork Frankenbaum says that Communism violates the following articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights..."   If you are unable to provide a reliable source to attribute this point of view, then it cannot stay in the article.  Silly rabbit (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * An almost 1 year late note: this is a case where the and similar templates should be used. That is: instead of a straight removal. This is not a vandalism case, it is a brute force edit case, where some templating should be preferred in order for the text writer having a chance to improve the text, or else - after a delay - remove it. Said: Rursus (☻) 08:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So if I remove references to "someone" then it will be ok? The quotes from the UDHR are the facts, regardless of who says it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.186.169 (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That the UDHR says what it says is a fact; that the UDHR is relevant to communism is an analysis, or a point of view. Quoting the declaration without citing a source claiming that the DHR is relevant to communism looks like putting forward your own point of view about the relationship between the two, which is not compatible with NPOV. Note also that the article already mentions criticisms of the human-rights records of communist states, so I'm not sure what we add by quoting the UDHR; if we had a cite of a specific argument that has been made quoting the declaration, it would be clearer why it's worth mentioning. VoluntarySlave (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to be that way, how about America's crimes against humanity, specifically in the Philippines, Chile, Brazil, Guatemala, Cuba, Costa Rica, & so forth, plus those of the twentieth century. How about Capitalism's crimes against humanity, child labor, forced labor, slavery, corporate sponsored coups perpetrated by democratic governments, sweat shops, exploitation on natural resources & the work force. The evidence is there on both sides. In actuality--possibly because communism is fairly new--capitalism has committed far more crime against humanity than communism & thanks to this new war in Iraq, is continuing to commit crimes against humanity. Coins have two sides, a public face & an evil face. Look before you leap, or rather watch the actions of those you defend, they're not as rosy as you'd like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.107.87 (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Is the preceding comment in the right section? I don't see what it is responding to.


 * Communism is responsible on a time-matched sequence to everyone else. Pol Pot to the (say) capitalist India in the 1980s. Communism wasn't around in the 19th century to perpetrate any abuses. Democratic capitalism has solved a lot of the problems you mentioned. The only way problems get solved in a communisst tyranny is to overthrow the government.


 * As far as Iraq goes, they just got rid of the "yellow cake" uranium the other day which Saddam had accumulated for some reason. Really breaks my heart to see him gone. Student7 (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by Communist History Revisionists
Due to vandalism from people who are self-declared communists (but not Communists), I've added a disputed-tag to the article. The history revisionism goes along the lines of "No system so far has been true communism" which is a logical fallacy (No True Scotsman). This logical fallacy is used as an excuse to remove criticism of Communism, particularly crimes against humanity. The article should have same build-up as the articles on Fascism, Nazism and National Extremism. Fact is that nobody denied the Communist nature of the socialist regimes in East Europe until the mid-90'es and the increased critique of Communism. The Far Left bias on Wikipedia is becoming increasingly problematic. VoluntarySlave and Zazaban are both pro-Communist according to their own statements (look at their user pages and their comments at this talk page), none-the-less they still remove critical information. This is a conflict of interests. Dylansmrjones (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC) PS: The Communist History Revisionist are effectively turning Wikipedia into a Communist equivalent of Conservapedia. Such a process should be stopped immediately. Dylansmrjones (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone objects to including criticisms of those regimes that called themselves communist on this page, as long as those criticisms have been put forward by sound sources as criticisms of communism. There are lots of things you could say about particular communist states, but only some of them are related to communism - to take an extreme example, Russia is very cold, but that has nothing to do with the fact that Russia was a communist country, so it doesn't make sense to mention it in this article. On the other hand, mentioning the human rights record of Communist states is reasonable, because it can be backed up with references to the (fairly common and notable) claim that communism per se is closely related to violations of human rights.
 * The section you recently added on Soviet Imperialism, though, didn't attempt to make any connection between the foreign policy of the USSR and communism; perhaps some people have made such a connection, in which case it would be appropriate to mention that, with suitable sources, in the article.
 * (On a point of fact - you're wrong that no-one denied that Eastern European countries were communist before the mid-90s. The SPGB has been denying it since 1917, and Trotskyists have been debating whether or not the USSR is/was communist or state capitalist since the 1920s). VoluntarySlave (talk) 07:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The SPGB actually predicted in 1908, or thereabouts, that a revolution in Russia could only lead to state capitalism. --Duncan (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Another small point - the No True Scotsman fallacy works by agreeing that Jimmy is a Scotsman, but arguing that if he does not possess a quality that the speaker holds to be true of all Scotsmen, then he is not a true one (i.e. Scotsmen possess essential feature A, but Jimmy is a Scotsman, without A, so he's not a True Scotsman). It is a variant on Moving the Goalposts and a violation of the law of the excluded middle, by arguing that A is not A.  It is very different from saying that there are essential features to being a Scotsman, which, if Jimmy does not possess them, means he is not a Scotsman at all.--Red Deathy (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add my name to those who believe this whole section skews heavily toward an apologist view of communism. Communist nations have been heavily prone to dictatorship and genocide, caused by irrational adherence to political beliefs over realist beliefs. This is demonstrated by the massive numbers of people who died under communist rule in many nations (Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, North Korea). The arguments that these deaths have nothing to do with communism are equivalent to saying that the holocaust had nothing to do with Nazism, because Nazism doesn't ever mention the mass murder of Jews. It is preposterous, in other words.

If you view the page on Nazism, it mentions the holocaust and the deaths of 11 million people under Nazi rule on the first page, despite the fact that Nazism does not advocate either. But it is accepted that Nazism leads to genocide because it is anti-Semitic. I only ask that this article on communism be treated in the same fashion. Mrdarklight (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, nazism does advocate genocide. Also, the ideology of the countries you speak of is stalinism, which is generally despised by other forms of communism. Also, I have no idea how I'm a historical revisionist, or how my user page shows that I'm 'pro-communist' (I'm an anarchist by the way.) Zazaban (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not true, National Socialism didn't, as an ideology, advocate genocide; and in no tract or writ was it considered part of the ideology by any of it's thinkers or theorists during it's contemporary reign. The sole country to come to power under Nazism/National-Socialism simply ended up integrating it into their system as an acceptable process. I suppose if there were only one instance of a self-professed 'communist' nation in history, anything it would have done would have been considered the eternal communist ideology too, but you have to remember it is more complex, and there is more to the letter of the ideology than just what comes to fruition. Rather the ideology itself is an abstract thing, but a measurable thing nonetheless. 67.5.156.242 (talk) 09:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This pages links to Criticism of communism, and readers can find those facts there. Ths page is about Communism as an ideology. Information on other pages simply needs to be linked to with the shortest of summaries. --Duncan (talk) 07:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Diving into an old debate here, just because a country calls itself "Democratic" doesn't mean its actually democratic (i.e. the DPRK). Likewise, even though a country calls itself "Communist" doesn't mean they are actually "communist". The article on communism should focus on the idea, not on historical events surrounding countries who labeled themselves as such. 68.148.0.191 (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolving the disputes
Could the people who put the disputed tags list the changes they would like to see made, so we can discuss them?--Red Deathy (talk) 11:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It be my first time visiting this article, and I chuckled seeing "citation needed" at the end of the first sentence. Indicates to me that this is gonna need a heck of a lot of work. ^_^ -- Phoenix 2 03:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * DuncanBCS has reverted Jimmy da Tuna, an unregistered user's, changes to the intro by saying "see earlier comments." I do not see these "earlier comments." What comments are those? It seems to me that this editor's changes were worth considering, though his reference from an encyclopedia would probably need upgrading. Also, the intro might not be the right place. At least it was a stab at justifying what is there. Nice to have new edits that are factually based IMO. Student7 (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I remember leaving an edit summary on the page to explain that the Columbia reference Jimmy added seemed, to be, to be POV because the quote claimed' that communism differs from socialism in that communism is revolutionary, thus suggesting that socialism is reformist. I cant see that edit summary there now, so I must have done something wrong. However, that deleted view seems to be simplistic, and inaccurate. Revolutionary socialism exists, and the Second International also had a revolutionary orientation. --Duncan (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The article 08:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC) says:
 * Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless society based on common ownership of the means of production and property in general.
 * and cites three sources! I think this is very good. The editors have succeeded exceedingly well in such a "hot" topic. The formulation is very clear and seems perfectly correct to me. Said: Rursus (☻) 08:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Making the article meet neutrality standards
Maybe there should be a section of arguments for Communism next to the Criticism of Communism section This would not only make the article much more neutral, but also be a place to put some of things in the introductory paragraph that don't belong there. Jimmy da tuna 20:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

good god - how has no-one got enough wits to right a neutral article here? e.g., i think that it's ok to say that communism led to these deaths, but it's too much to say that "communism killed them" - what would a statement like that mean? marx killed however million people, rosa luxemborg, the working class, russians, stalin, a general strike, Das Kapital, the political activism of left wingers, the red threat??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.248.49 (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know how long the "companion" article on Fascism has been around, but it's worth looking at. They have their problems as you might expect. In a slightly different vein, when the media learned that conservatives in the new Russia opposed reform, they began calling them "right wingers" because the media hates right wingers, not because Communists are actually right wingers! So much for "neutrality" from them!  :)   Student7 (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Recently learned that WE Dubois and other liberals thought the German and Italian regimes (National Socialists) were just wonderful right up until 1937 or so. Then (and not until then!) obvious abuses of Jewish and other minorities caused a revulsion and they (and their cohorts in the media) began calling them "right-wingers." Funny how that works! Student7 (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Communism
I didn't follow the reasoning behind Francomemoria's deletion of specific criticism (because they are discussed elsewhere?) Is that what he said? Criticism is often part of any controversial topic. What is there about this topic that is non-controversial and therefore immune (?) to criticism in the same article? I don't understand the deletes. I thought the criticisms were good but needed specific footnotes. Student7 (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * High percentage of national product is spent on the military
 * (this is not a typical of socialist state, it's easy see that also not under communist ruler have high spent on military, and this is eventually is a critic at the states)
 * Poor economic policies can cause widespread famine. Notable examples include Holodomor (class and :national) and the Great Chinese Famine
 * (or the famine was caused volontary (this the position widespread) so it's not a poor economic :policies or this are poor economic policies and aren't massacre. and famine aren't typical of socialis :state, and this eventually is a critic at the states)
 * Excess deaths due to Marxist regimes have been estimated as high 110 million people from 1917 to 1987 :according to some critics
 * (this not excess deaths, we can't know how many deaths in that time and state with an other regime, :and this eventually is a critic at the states)
 * Power is concentrated in a few individuals.
 * (also this is not typical of socialist state and obvsiously this is a critic at the states)
 * Communist ruled societies have often exhibited lower output and income compared to their non-communist :counterparts, for example North Korea vs. South Korea and West Germany vs. East Germany.
 * (this is not scientific conparation is a near country not is same start situation, for many years :income of East Germany was over many capitalist country (also this is not a scientific comparation) :and also this is a critic a the states)

--Francomemoria (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Criticism of communist "states" (as opposed to "communism") is a valid complaint, except where patterns of outcomes are evident. If every communist state ends up in dictatorship, for example, then it is fair to say that communist states tend to end up as dictatorships. Likewise, famine is unusually common in communist states. Often the causes are known, such as attempts to alleviate some Capitalist ill by completely changing the way agriculture is managed, for example. If several communist states have suffered from famines because they fundamentally misunderstand agriculture and economics, then it is fair to say that communist states are prone to famine for those reasons.


 * If every capitalist state has banks, and I want to point out that banking is a part of capitalism, it is ludicrous to oppose this statement because "yes, these STATES had banks, but Capitalism doesn't necessarily have banks." Mrdarklight (talk) 01:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Theoretically, you could have capitalism without banks. That aside the crimes of "communist" states are seen by some partisans of the theory of state capitalism as being analogous with similar crimes of advanced capitalist states during primary accumulation.  Which is to say, that the question is actually quite complicated, so a nuanced approach would be needed.--Red Deathy (talk) 11:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * famineis not so common like you think all socialist country with famine problem have this problem also before of communist take power, central europe countries hadn't this problem in capitalist rule and hadn't in communist rule, some poor capitalist state suffer famine also today and none write is a common feature of capitalist state, or maybe?. dictatorship is not a question, for wikipedia it's a communist state if there is a dictatorship so this obvsiouly recurrent. --Francomemoria (talk) 12:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is some erratic thinking here. There's no such thing as: "since communism is just a theory, it cannot be criticised, just the practice of it". This is kind of a mind trap, the same kind that evil cults uses to control people. Of course the communism and communist thinking can be criticized! A theory is a model, an instrument that is intended to predict, if it never predicts correctly, the theory is wrong, and shall be rejected! If the theory says that: "if you do this and that, then you get a utopian eternal society", and anyone does what the theory says, then getting a burning hell, then the theory can be criticized for being faulty. So:


 * this article shall contain criticism, otherwise I will suspect a situation similar to the scientology and Landmark Education articles,


 * all criticism here, should be either of principal kinds such as contradictions or logical fallacies, or


 * of the generalized kind, such as that there's almost invariably too much blood-shed, the bureaucracies invariably produced by communist thinking, won't see to any others' wellfare than it's own, except weren't there a threatening central committee, etc. etc. ...


 * Said: Rursus (☻) 08:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I should like to see the critique against those states(failed c. states?), that they only posted to be communist; I know there is some who claim those states wasn't communist but CAPITALIST:
 * "The President(US, Mr. Dulles) is aware that you(Russian Deputy PM, Mr. Mikoyan) operate under a system of State capitalism, and he hopes that has been useful to you to have seen the progress of our people under our system of individual capitalism. We are sure that you have found the experience interesting." ((Daily Telegraph. 21st January, 1959), from the Socialist Standard, Mars 2009).
 * IE a balancing act...
 * Reading this discussion I get the feeling that someone is trying to explain something they haven't (fully) understood. You should read what KARL MARX says (both on capitalism and on socialism(/communism))...don't be afraid, I know I'm not..;-) --85.166.98.216 (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I read the entire article and still have no idea of what communisim is.
Communists believe that the working class, also called the proletariat, would have to start a revolution in order to change from a competitive capitalist society to a co-operative communist society.

Why is there no simple explanation or example of what a "competitive capitalist society" and what a "co-operative communist society" is after this sentence (which would be the appropriate place to explain these differences)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.133.99 (talk) 12:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the reason is that there is no generally accepted definition on what communism is. I think there are some common themes recurring within communism, who aren't exactly unique:
 * common property: either communal or owned by state,
 * no classes, everybody belong to same "class",
 * the individual cannot be defined except in a social concept (the "mind-trap of socialism" by my estimation) - which is heavily used as an argument for oppression,
 * materialism: no god, only goods and share/share-alike, this life is the only life,
 * no arguing with the enemy bourgeoisi propaganda (the "cult-processing mind-trap of so called Marxism-Leninism" by my estimation.
 *  Said: Rursus   ☻   19:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The intro is a bit full of jargon. While the above needs a bit of cleanup from POV, maybe some of it could be substituted? Some of the Marxist jargon is (let's face it) so the masses could be told that the concepts were "beyond them" and therefore only a priesthood of intellectuals could understand it, much like quantum physics or something. "Dialectical materialism" kind of falls into that category. Also (if we are talking seriously here) some nomenclature between "individual cannot be defined" (a bit hard to grasp) and whatever jargon the Communists gave it; and "no arguing with the enemy" and whatever jargon,,, etc. Student7 (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My statement is more like OR (claiming that cultisms also occur in neo-liberalism, aside the normal religious cults and the business cults) than not-NPOV, so it must be cleaned up – yes! Much temper in my statements.  Said: Rursus   ☻   05:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Violence
Now why is it, again, that we must omit the murder by Stalin, of 10,000,000 of his own countrymen during the purges and deliberate famine of the kulaks in the thirties, the murder by Mao of about the same number of landowners when he took charge in 1948 and the insanity of the Cultural Revolution, yet the beating up of a few intellectuals in the United States is mentioned prominently under "Fear of Communism" subsection? Well, I guess to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs, right? And democracy has no such forgiving motto for violence. Student7 (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, not all communists advocate violence. A section on the question of violence could be useful, since we could therefore mention the acts of revolutionary violence under that rubric...--Red Deathy (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess I was not so much protesting about the lack of publicity for Communist crimes as I was protesting the inclusion (undocumented) of violence against Communists in the US which was very local, illegal and most likely punished or investigated. Violence was not institutional. It was not condoned by government. Young people may read this and not realize that. At the very least, the comment about violence (the only mention in the article) in the US should be qualified and footnoted. Can anyone appreciate the bias here? Violence by a few unauthorized thugs (maybe) in the US trumps 20 million institutionalized deaths in the USSR and China. Student7 (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, some of the violence, in the 1920s was at a state level. But I agree, the section does need considerabelee overhaul, along with the subject of violence overall...--Red Deathy (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"Power corupts" thats all there is to it. While communism is not about that it is still the logical and actual conclusion. Skeletor 0 (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That section really meant the (perhaps justified) targeting of Chinese communists by the Nationalists. Somebody also should note that the education code of California still does not permit the hiring of any member of the communist party or teaching which promotes communism or overthrow of the country, there's a controversy right now over a proposal to scrap anti-communist language. Also there isn't any mention yet of Communists contributing as allies in WWII against the Axis powers (though some say Stalin started out making a deal with them) Bachcell (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Successful communist regimes
An editor is stating that communism was successful in military, arms and space. Perhaps this will obscure the fact that they were hopeless in economy a field in which they were supposed to be expert and their reason for coming to power. Instead, I submit that the armies fought to a standstill in Korea where swift intervention by weak but determined democratic powers stopped North Korea from overrunning the peninsula. Vietnam was essentially a guerilla war. Anybody can look good in guerilla war if they have the people. Look at the Afghans vs the soviets in the 1980s. This was hardly equals against equals. The soviets would have annihilated them had they "come out and fought." The American Revolution was often a guerilla war. The British often won when Washington "came out and fought." In either case, has either country been contesting each other for territory that neither owned, like Madagascar, the most powerful country would have won. England in th 1790s, America in the 1960s. And the Afghan war brought down the Soviet Union. The vietnam war clearly had it's political victims in America, but didn't bring down the country. Britain held after the loss of the colonies.


 * This was specifically a reference to the early space race, where Russia was ahead for a while (until Gemini), the arms race where Russia had moments of superiority in quality / quantity of some weapons (first in Korea with a swept wing fighter, briefly, RPG still considered to superior to western counterparts), and some military/political victories (withdrawal of US from Vietnam with subsequent fall of US sponsored Saigon government). For all of the problems of communism, what should come out of the article is its relative success as an alternative to Western capitalism / colonialism and as a force in bringing industrial development to the former Russian and Chinese empires. Article probably needs more balance in bringing out both the worst and best historical contributions of communism, and perhaps its influence to policies in western liberal democracies. Bachcell (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

In arms, maybe the editor was thinking of the Kalashnikov? Hard to think of too many soviet successful arms that actually worked. The space program was largely a disaster after sputnik. Lots of successful American, British and French arms. Student7 (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, the socialist nations like the USSR could have been economically successful, had they not concentrated on weapons production. USSR ended the cold war because it couldn't keep letting it's people starve while it built weapons (if someone could remind me of the soviet leader who did this, I'd appreciate it).  Further, in a guerrilla war, the guerrillas will almost always beat a conventional force, no matter who's communist, capitalist, or fascist.  And besides, USSR was incredibly successful in all three areas.  It scared the US out of their pants, didn't it?  They were a world power.  additionally, china has been extremely successful economically.  Also, the USSR ended itself, really, not a single war.  as I said before, one of the soviet leaders actually exhibited aspects of true communism and acted in the interest of his people, even at the expense of his pride and power, and ended the cold war.  Llama (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the USSR was "superior" in space until the West decided to enter the race. Kind of like the US winning the "World" series in baseball - nobody else plays! :)  The perception, not the reality, during the 1960 presidential campaign, was that the USSR was "ahead" in ICBMs. It turned out that assessment was wrong. They built bigger "throw" capacity rockets, BUT, so what? No better offensive capability and the rockets killed their cosmonauts. Yes, they had their "best and brightest" on space and weaponry, but that wasn't good enough. The statement about MIGs being better might be true, but under closer analysis they were often outfought (in Korea) by US better trained pilots in their temporarily less capable planes. The communists never achieved air superiority there and counted on bad weather for advances on the ground.


 * As far as military victories goes, they won at Dienbienphu, and beat the Germans in WWII (with massive assistance from the US). The US won the day at "Tet" in 1968 but didn't know it and pulled back. A great propaganda and political victory but a Pyhrric military victory if ever there was one (losses were 10:1). Fortunately for the VC, the US was naive. Which Giap counted on.


 * Name one communist country at the same level as a capitalist one at the end of WWII that achieved anything comparable industrially. How about East Germany and West Germany? How about Japan (in little pieces at the end of WWII) and anybody else? How about East Europe and West Europe? Communism was a terrible terrible alternative and the countries conquered by them (who voted?) paid a terrible price. Student7 (talk) 12:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Where, where, where? You mean the Chinese so called communists? Yeah, they've made as well as Francisco Franco, or Augusto Pinochet for that part!  Said: Rursus   ☻   19:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of this needs to be re-written
This article doesn't even mention what communism really is. There has never been so such thing as a communist country. No country has ever claimed to be communist, only working towards communism. The USSR was not a communist country. Why? Union of the Soviet Socialist Republic, it was socialist. You can not have a leader of a communist country, but you can of a socialist country, this is so the leader can see and control the transformation from socialism to communism. In fact there can not be a communist country, because under socialism the state fades away, then when it has faded away and the leaders have given up power, that is when communism is achieved. I could go on forever, but i really can not be bothered. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What a great idea! This means that communism can never fail! Why didn't our politicians think of that? So I guess we can change the title of the article to "Communism (theoretical)" since there has never been a communist regime. And what did we worry about between 1948-1990? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! Student7 (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your a genius. If you actually read what i said, you would have noted that not country has every been communist, but communistic. So they were socialist. Just because the communist party is in power, does not mean a country is communist, it is quite the opposite. Our governments were worried becuase the USSR was powerful and was seen as a threat to the west. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The one problem with "Communism is not to blame" theory is that failure governments (like Russia then, Iraq in the 80s, North Korea, etc. and most dictatorships, HAVE to occupy people minds with the threat of attack from the outside in order to maintain power. Democracies don't have to do this. Communism is an economic disaster and quickly leads the regime that has espoused this philosophy to confrontation to distract the masses. 2) In communism's special case, they were supposed to overthrow or help overthrow all capitalistic regimes. Part of their mantra. So threatening others was part of their theology.


 * Russia is not as threatening today, not because they don't pretty much have the same weaponry they had before, but because they have espoused capitalism and limited "democracy" such as it is. They now try to live in the real world instead of trying to confront it. Student7 (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * But if you read Marx's work on communism, you can't have a communist government. I know what you mean about failures of Russia's government. Lenin went around the wrong way of applying Marxism to Russia. He applied it to a peasant based country, not an industrialised country. So consequently all these countries have given communism a bad and false view on communism. And yes all the countries which have supposedly been "communist" were actually dictatorships. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * But what do you call a system that cannot be implemented by several otherwise brilliant minds in several distant lands at different times? We call Christianity "Christianity." We don't say, well, it was never implemented as Christ would have wanted it so none of it is Christianity and because none of the people living today are truly 100% Christian. Not Mother Teresa, not Billy Graham, not the pope. And those people would tell you that. What defenders of communism appear to be looking for is credible deniability. Denial of responsibility. Credible systems don't do that. They don't feel the need to. It seems less than truthful to me. A system that is designed to be implemented by human beings has to have "slop" in it. If only perfection is acceptable, it is not a system designed for humans because humans err.


 * It's like saying that what we have here is not Wikipedia because we fall short of what Jimmy Wales theorized. Student7 (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If Mother Theresa, Billy Graham, and the Pope all said "I'm not Christian, I follow a transitional religion which is intended to become Christian some day," it might be reasonable not to refer to them as Christians; and that would be the correct analogy with states like the USSR. The point is not that the USSR etc were not "perfect" versions of communism; the point is that they were not, and never claimed to be, communist at all.VoluntarySlave (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, but the criteria for transitioning to Communism was probably impossible given human failings which are natural to our state (not understood by 19th century people who presumed that people were "changeable" beyond what we have since discovered is not possible). Therefore, Russia and China were as communistic as any state can possibly get, given the fact that getting there is actually impossible. I don't know how else to evaluate something that has established an impossible goal. It is easy for the bystanders to say, "Well, they didn't do it right. Let's take another shot at it." This is why Cubas and North Koreas should be allowed to exist as long as they don't endanger the rest of us physically = people can see how crazy it is. Meanwhile, the theoreticians at the top always had some 'out' when asked when and how actual communism would be attained.


 * In short, they had their chance. No country was ever a showcase. Socialism is not a path to communism. There is no path to communism because the path doesn't exist.


 * Communists (they existed) derided religion with "pie in the sky when you die." Pretty much a projection of their own political activity in the state it would seem. No rewards for anybody except the plutocrats at the top.


 * It's like saying when a capitalist country failed (not very often if ever) that it "wasm't really capitalist." If they had been, they wouldn't have failed. A bit of circular logic it seems to me. Student7 (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This article gives a pretty good "definition of communism" namely the first sentence. Maybe that one should be elaborated so that many of those guys nagging about "no definition" can find it easier.  Said: Rursus   ☻   19:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Besides: the abstract "communism" wished for above, that has never been implemented, is of less interest in a material world of praxis (Marxist terminology), where ideas have no place unless practiced. Now, what?? Can we save save our illusions? They lack meaning.  Said: Rursus   ☻   19:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

China
under the heading "After the collapse of the Soviet Union", there is map it says that the PRC is one of the remaining communist countries. What a load of rubbish, The Peoples Republic of China has the worlds fasted growing economy, how is this possible under communism. This article is seriously incorrect and pro American. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This is simply your personal opinion, the CCP still declares their state communist.

Chinese government claims China is communism still tho. Even tho it is really not communism anymore. Speaker1978 (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Cold War Years
under this article, why does it say the words "Communist government". There can not be so such thing as a communist government. As that would imply some one running a country, which can not happen under communism and a communist country, which can not happen either as i have explained earlier. This article is awful Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of communism
First, this section is criticizing something, which they do not know nothing about. So is pointless. Secondly, why isn't there a section "Meriting of Communism"? Since there isn't i believe this article to be POV, when it should be NPOV. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You could add the meriting of it, but I doubt you'll find many sources. Anyway, how many other merit sections have you seen? I can't think of any, but for example, Liberal has both sides of the arguement... I know absolutely nothing on Communism, so I'd be of no help, but maybe you could change this section so it has defences too? --Scareth (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This section says anti stalinist leftists are anti communists however, not all anti stalinist leftists are anti communists for instance, Communist anarchists and trotskyists are anti stalinist leftists but are also communists.--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it needs to tell the truth and with a neutral perspective, so that readers can make up their own mind on communism. So this article needs meet neutrality standards. This article is full of rubbish, obviously no-body here knows what communism really is and you have all been Brainwashed by the west into you thinking what it has told you to think about communism and what it is. Needs to be at least re-sorted out if not re-written. Ijanderson977 (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Everything should be regarded neutrally, so that the reader can decide by himself/herself. It's correct that the West thinking makes a deep impact on each and everyone's thinking - in that you're right. But whether you like it or not, the communism is/was a product of West, namely late-positivist-west. There's not any other culture thinking at all in communism - it explicitly reject religion, on so called "scientific" ground (logical-positivist cult ground). Real science existed in shamanoid polytheist ancient egypt, in polytheist greece, in high islam of the 1000ths, some science persisted into high catholicism, etc. etc.. Real science is about practice (experiments and similar) and "proofs" as the "acceptance of a critical audience." West science involves mad ideas about anything not measurable being anathematized as "metaphysics" and "despiseable", and mixed in a great deal of fanatical adherence to either a emotionless strangling bureaucracy, or a charismatic cultism exploiting the individual, as highest values. I.e. bipolar disorder as a virtue.  Said: Rursus   ☻   19:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is a mess because it appears to me that most people editing it share a very common misunderstanding of communism. There is the communism as described by Marx and Communism as ascribed to Marx by many people through a large part of the 20th century and they are very different things. Unfortunately Marx, though a great thinker, was not a great writer & leaves most readers confused and open to bullshit from those with hidden agendas. I have spent ten years reading (or trying to read) Marx and see no relationship to the 20th centurys 'Communist' states. The USSR was not communist until common misuse of the word created a new meaning, it was a dictatorship that found Marx could be used to justify its existence. So now we have two different meanings, most people are ignorant of the original while others see the original meaning as too important to give up. Common usage, even misusage, is the accepted definer of a word and this says that communism is the system practised by the USSR et. al. However, I maintain that Marx's definition needs to be retained as this comes from a series of great philosophical works and one of the soundest (even admitted by Wall Street stockbrokers) works on economics. BTW Before the accusations start flying I must point out that have been described as a right-winger. So seeing as we cannot undo 80 years of abuse the question is can the issue be resolved? Perhaps we could allow two definitions on Wikipedia? Kimdino (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't this new article be called "Marxism?" Again, most defenders of the system want to whittle it down so that no obvious faults are included. The only way that can be done is by eliminating any implemented system. Marx never implemented a system. All on paper and therefore perfect.


 * On the other hand, what would you call a pass option play on the third down that nobody had ever successfully tried but sounded real good on paper? I'd call it (sorry) nonsense! Student7 (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it 'Marxism' as that would ignore Winstanley, Owen et. al. And how about all the communist societies that existed way before Marx etc. were around to examine them. I believe that to not call an article describing a society where the economic focus is on the 'community' as about 'communism' would be to mislead and cause confusion.

If we did it as part of 'Marxism' the article would have to be equally devoted to classicism, feudalism & especially capitalism. I believe this, as a single article, would become too big & unwieldy. A series of articles maybe?

Re. your second paragraph. It sounds quite technical on something I am unaware of. Sorry, I don't understand it Kimdino (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We are agreed, aren't we, that Marx called for the extermination of the upper class and bourgeois? How exactly do you go about butchering people in a democratic free society? Ah. They were to be "instructed" (brainwashed?) into yielding their property? It seems to me that nobody is going to be able to take property away from anybody without a fight which Communists, ideal or otherwise, has only been too willing to give them. In other words, you can't get to there from here with "breaking eggs" as Mao put it. Perhaps this is the "flaw" in Marxism. Student7 (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, we're not agreed on that at all - he certainly wanted to abolish the bourgeoisie as a bourgeoisie, but there is no indication that he thought it necessary to exterminate large numbers of people - indeed, he even considered communism possible via the ballot box in democratic countries...--Red Deathy (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Are we not going off-topic? Is this not a page to sort out the 'Communism' article, rather than a place to argue the merits & pitfalls of communism itself. Student7, I will answer your above point (if you wish?) but I don't feel this is the right place. You can email me via my talk page. kimdino (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Fascism vs Communism
It always seemed to me that these terms were used rather loosely to label things the speaker didn't like. For example, a left-winger would describe something he didn't like as "fascist." A right-winger would describe something he didn't like as "communist." Except for the governments espousing them, who disliked one another, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of outward differences between the two. After cutting through the jargon and fascism supposedly allowing industry to exist, what were the differences? The Nazi version was even called "National Socialism."

I don't know how many nanoseconds the footnoted quotation from von Mises comparing the two will be allowed to exist in the article, but it seems apt. Student7 (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "National socialism" originally emerged as a nationalist reaction against the internationalist policies of socialism. If I'm remembering correctly, Gregor Strasser, the founder of German nazism, was thrown out from a social democratic party. Some ideas was shared between the original left-nazism and socialism, ideas that got a violent end at the Night of the Long Knives. But on the other hand: nobody fight as violently between each other as left-wing socialists, foremost anarchists and independents, on one hand and nazis and xenophobes (European popular right) on the other hand; so we cannot easily equate "Fascism" with "Communism", even though there are strong tendencies, such as Stalin, Mao and Pol-Pot.  Said: Rursus   ☻   08:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Trying to answer your question more directly: the main differences between right and left, are the concepts of solidarity (lacking in fascism, replaced by coerced collaboration), internationalism (lacking in fascism, replaced by xenophoby and sometimes with übermench-theories and offensive aggression).  Said: Rursus   ☻   08:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * More exactly, what you're comparing is fascism and bolshevism, the comparisons wouldn't hold for a communist like Kropotkin or Shūsui Kōtoku or William Morris. The main difference between bolshevism and fascism was, though, that fascism preeched unity of the classes under the "nation", whereas the communists sought to eliminate class.  Whilst in practice they established a new capitalist class through their state capitalism - but that's neither here nor there, the main difference was ideological.  Much as, say, (and doubtless you may disagree here) Democrats and Republicans behave almost entirely the same in office, but use different narratives to justify those behaviours.--Red Deathy (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right in saying that a western state would call something they didn't like as communist. And the east such as Soviet states would call something they didn't like as Fascist. However if they were actually fascist or communist is completely different. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Kropotkin was an express anarchist. Not a communist. Socialism split between anarchism (Bakunin's faction) and communism/social democracy (Marx'es faction) by the first international. Marx was not the coiner of the word "communism", but he worked within a socialist culture where communism was stressed hard. So your reasoning simply uses the wrong terms. Those guy's weren't communists. The branches of communism:
 * social democracy "split off" and partially renounced Marx, adopting a conservative-like or republican-like (in the 19th century French sense) ideology,
 * Rosa Luxemburg heavily criticized Vlad Lenin, and Gramsci followed in the same track, escaped ejection from the Italian communist party because he was in Mussolinis' jail and thereby a martyr/victim,
 * Lenin did what everybody know.
 * Except eurocommunism (Luxemburg and followers) there are no communism surviving except Leninism. Said: Rursus (☻) 08:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I like this stuff of comparing communism with fascism. Maybe we could add a little section about it. They were very different in theory, but both were able to establish powerful totalitarian governments very quickly and both were very important to 20th century history.Jimmy da tuna 23:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy da tuna (talk • contribs)


 * User:Red Deathy! You speak of Kropotkin as "communist" which is not correct according to my north western Europaean tradition – according to my tradition, he is anarchist. But the Northern American tradition put the words differently? An as little or much as i've read Kropotkin writes about Mutual Aid, which is solidarity in a nut-shell. Otherwise I don't exactly see what you say is different from what I say.  Said: Rursus   ☻   05:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Jimmy da tuna! You speak about something interesting (but not in itself likeable). As many have noted, I'm not exactly positive to C., that's mainly because I was a communist, but was forced to abandon the theory because of the sheer inhumanity of its practice. I believe there's some kind of collective mood where the individuals partaking are unwilling to wield to reality, and deals aggressively against "threats" against status quo and mental integrity. But this topic is some kind of mass-psychology, and only indirectly related to the ideologies, where minor and otherwise unimportant statements in the "theory" actually play an important role in maintaining this destructive collective mood. I'm not opposed specifically against F. and C. - I'm opposed against mind-traps.  Said: Rursus   ☻   06:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference is who is involved in the economic system. Simply put Fascism is exclusive socialism, economic & political equality for a certain specific part of society (example: only white Christians) excluding all others. After all Nazi Germany operated under National Socialism, & a nation--strictly speaking--is a certain specific segment of a population. Communism is inclusive allowing political & economic equality for all regardless of race, religion, or creed. In this respect, to far right-wingers who tend to have an exclusive view of the world, everyone that doesn't agree with their point of view is in fact (& almost correctly so) a "communist." Conversely, to far left-wingers who tend to have a far more inclusive view of the world, anyone that doesn't agree with their inclusive view is in fact (& again almost correctly so) a "fascist." The devil is in the details, & I'm not saying that the terms aren't entirely overused, but put yourself in their respective shoes & it does sort of work. However, I would argue Jimmy da Tuna's point about both having the goal to "establish powerful totalitarian government" as where this will be the point of a legit exclusive government such as fascism, the end result of an inclusive government, such as communism would be an equality that renders the need for a state, strong or otherwise, meaningless. The label of communism as a "totalitarian government" is discounting communism from a strict Marxist point of view & instead limiting communism to the views of Mao & Stalin alone. (Spookybubbles (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

McCarthyism
This has been considerably overrated. It lasted from McCarthy's first remarks on the Senate floor early in 1950. It was definitely over in 1954. But Arthur Miller was "so intimidated" in 1952, that he wrote "The Crucible," a thinly veiled attack on McCarthyism. Miller was later adjudged to be a Communist sympathizer. During most of those four years, McCarthy was under considerable attack himself. These counterattackers finally overwhelmed him and he lost. Student7 (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE to McCarthyism

As it is true that McCarthy's witch hunts only lasted a short period of time, it is also extremely untrue to state that they were "overrated." McCarthy collapsed under his own weight after attacking such American patriots as Secretary of State George Marshall (for his Marshall Plan to rebuild post WWII Europe) & President Truman himself. But in the few scarce years that this little Senator from Wisconsin held power he destroyed the lives of many liberal Americans, going so far as to imprison American patriots that fought fascism as volunteers in the Spanish Civil War because those opposing General Franco had socialist views. He discredited and blacklisted actors such as Howard Da Silva of 1776 fame, Jack Gilford of Cabaret, radio announcer Madeline Lee, and thousands of US citizens with absolutely no ties to communism. His movement revoked the security clearance of J. Robert Oppenheimer who was an early proponent of nuclear disarmament & possibly would have helped the US to avoid the Cold War, Brinkmanship, & nuclear build up. McCarthy's "teachings" have spread into the present, where US knowledge of communism is looked down upon--in fact most Americans can hardly define it due to the stigma that was brought in the McCarthy Era, some few years after Eugene V. Deb's last run for president of the United States under the Socialist banner. McCarthyism can be seen today with the Right Wing label of CNN as the "communist news network," again making the assumption that communism is evil, the labeling of Hillary Clinton as "communist" because of her economic views though they are far from communistic. Had it not been for McCarthy, communism would not carry the stigma that allowed for UFCO (United Fruit Company) sponsored US coup in Guatemala--which congress endorsed due to UFCO's labeling the democratically elected president of Guatemala as a "communist" for no other reason than his sought after democratic economic reform--in other words he was a "communist" because he wanted UFCO to actually pay taxes on the land they held. McCarthy's few years in power allowed for more damage to the freedom of thought & discussion, & the reading of economics & philosophy in America than almost any event before or since. By & by, it was Miller's intent to leave The Crucible as thinly veiled an attack as possible & still allow it to be published under McCarthy's heightened censorship. (Spookybubbles (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC))


 * Take a look at Robert_Oppenheimer and see if you would want him having security clearance well past "Secret" for your government. Eisenhower, no McCarthy supporter, revoked Oppenheimer's security. When a philosophy was developed (MAD) to contain the Soviets and it looked like it was working, national fright (McCarthy faced election every six years. He wasn't a dictator. Sorry) reduced to the point where he could be rehabilitated. But I don't think even the Democrats gave him his clearance back. Student7 (talk) 11:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, America had nothing to fear from Oppenheimer, he was, in fact, a well known anti-communist & in no way a threat to national security. His clearance was revoked primarily because he supported the sharing of atomic technology with our WWII allies (not that he would have acted on that without congressional approval) & because he knew communists on a social basis, not so much because of the Chevalier Incident. It's a sin, in some circles in America (as it was then) to associate with people of a political persuasion & an economic/philosophical ideal that doesn't conform to that of the masses. Secondly, MAD, was only proven to work because the Soviets wanted to avoid a nuclear war at all costs. Several times the US bought the world to the brink on of nuclear war (hence "brinkmanship), each time it was avoided it was because of cooler heads in the USSR, not in the USA. This isn't to deny the Chevalier incident, but really, was Oppenheimer a scientist or a counter-intelligence agent, you can't honestly say you'd persecute a man for defending someone he believed to be innocent, especially in a time when accusations were thrown out as readily as "anti-American" is today.  Although, in Oppenheimer's time, the accusations held a far more ominous promise for the accused's future. Pathological conservatism is really just as bad as pathological liberalism, both stem from falsehoods perpetrated by propagandists & the amazingly ill informed & subsequently are used to force concepts on the people that have little, if any, grounds in reality.  Also, do you only have internet sources?  Can you give me something a little better than  Wikipedia? I don't let my students use it as a source, it's a good enough place to start, but not exactly academic. If you want further information--not from the internet--on both American Nuclear policy during the cold war and the loss of Oppenheimer's Security clearance you can check out the following books:

Bird, Kai, & Sherwin, Martin J. (2005). ''American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer''. New York, New York: Vintage Books.

Herring, George C. (2002) ''America’s Longest War: The United States and Vietnam, 1950-1975'': Boston, Massachusetts: McGraw Hill Books

Lafeber, Walter (1994) ''The American Age: U.S. Forgein Policy at Home and Abroad, Volume 2 Since 1896 2nd edition''. New York, New York: W. W. Norton & Company

Morgan, Ted (2004) Reds: McCarthyism in Twentieth-Century America. New York, New York: Random House

As I love to tell my students; "don't take my word for it, find out for yourself." (Spookybubbles (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC))


 * Oppenheimer was also less than forthcoming to HUAC. It was one thing for Hollywood and artistic types to stonewall them and self-congratulate themselves afterwards, quite another thing for a person who wanted to keep or get back his security clearance. We need people we can trust in government, and not just at the elected levels either. They need to be trustworthy (and forthcoming when questioned by their leaders, however little they may respect or like them. I want bureaucrats to answer their bosses questions. I don't really care whether they love or respect them or not. I'll try harder on election day, but I want their questions answered now. He may not have been a spy, but even in restropect, with the spying problem gone, he doesn't look credible either.


 * Is your criteria for clearing someone is that they've never been convicted of spying? The governments is somewhat more fussy than that for some reason. Do any of the books you recommend say that the Democrats gave Oppenheimer his security clearnance back?


 * The way to counter MAD, of course, was to maintain a huge standing army to thwart the Red designs on Western Europe. The people didn't want this. Therefore MAD.


 * BTW, McCarthy didn't censor anything. He was a US Senator, who. like most senators, talked a lot.


 * The US brought the world to the brink? I see..... I hope you aren't teaching American children. Student7 (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty, there were many people that were less than forthcoming to HUAC, all of which you should look on as heroes that stood up against oppression, that up for the first amendment, & did not caved under pressure from a tyrants. What HUAC was was an example of a government insanely afraid of its people. Also, when did I say the Democrats gave Opjie his security clearance back? Do actually bother to read? You've mentioned that twice. I never directly attacked the Republican party either, yet that's the way you seemed to take it & then compared them directly to the democrats in defense of a political party I never attacked. I'm starting to see a pattern developing here. You are pathologically conservative, aren't you? I had a student like you in my Revolutionary American History undergrad course, I'm not joking, we were discussing Thomas Paine & he got so mad that he told me I should "watch less CNN & more Fox News," as if that applied to Common Sense. Please don't tell me I'm arguing with one of those people, not to make sweeping statements, but their usually the types that here my last name & call me the "K" word. So let me ask you a few questions: By "trustworthy & forthcoming" are you referring to the millions of Americans willing to point fingers & throw around unfounded accusations to HUAC in order to save their own skins? Are those the people you can trust? Secondly, can you tell me what is wrong with being a communist? How are communists a threat to the US? Is it right to turn in your neighbor because the government tells you too? Should patriotism be blind? Have you actually read Marx, or Mill, or Hegel, or are you the student that is commenting on things he/she hasn't exactly taken the time to learn? The type that lets other people tell him what is good & what is evil, & then blindly follows? Honestly, the patriotically vapid people exhaust me. (67.184.107.87 (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC))


 * Well, back when China fell in 1948 and 10 million people were murdered by the incoming mob/army, it seemed somewhat less than benign. Also when they shoved Jan Masaryk out a window, this seemed less than we tend to expect from "open government." When the Chinese-supported invasion of North Korea marched over the south in 1950, the US had to send in soldiers to thwart a permanent takeover and a threat to the new Japanese government. The US lost over 50,000 soldiers then. That was the atmosphere in which people were exercising their "constitution right" to thwart a legal investigation of their activities by our elected leaders. Kind of like stonewalling after 9/11?


 * Games by Hollywood may get high fives from the media and others, but games by people who have access to government secrets simply cannot be tolerated. If you wish to challenge what has been said about Oppenheimer, please do so in that article. Certainly references (or most often lack of in-line references) can and should be challenged.


 * In each article there is a side box to the left. One item is "Cite this page" which suggests that scholars might not want to use this material directly since it is a tertiary source.Student7 (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Background
The background in this article is vague and does not specifically state the facts. Please edit or delete the background. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euge246 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This Article is vague and does not even tell us what Communism is!!
Through this whole article, it does not even tell us what Communism is!! Sure, it has the odd fact here and there, but it is too vague. It does not specifically state the facts. If a person that had no idea of what Communism was, and read this article, the person would still not understand what Communism was!! I strongly recommend that somebody deletes the whole thing and rewrites it.

Euge246 (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, "Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production." First line? Seems pretty clear to me--Red Deathy (talk) 09:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with you. The whole article is vague and pointless.Euge246 (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Red Deathy the article's understandable the first line says it all, perhaps you mean it's not clear enough and does not state the motives of communism in a list?79.131.144.211 (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Would "each according to his ability, each according to his means" be better? (Spookybubbles (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

Also this article is strongly biased with a western view. The person who wrote it is obviously western and does not see communism from a different views. An american man might agree with him but a chinese man will probably not agree with many of the statements he has made here. I strongly advise for this article to be changed as to show the different views on communism.--Euge246 (talk) 06:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Organization of "Growth of Modern Communism"
Is there any reason why the subheadings in the "Growth of Modern Communism" section are are not grouped in their own Types of Communism section.--Jimmy da tuna 23:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Most likely because there are thousands of types of communism & grouping them & listing them in a single article would take far too long & require far too much effort. (Spookybubbles (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

This article is the worst!!
I have read this whole article through and it does not even tell us what communism is!! It is vague and pointless. I strongly suggest someone deletes the whole thing and rewrites it.Euge246 (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Quite obviously anyone who has taken part in writing this article does not know anything about communism or what it is. I wouldn't be surprised if the people who wrote this article have not read a single word of Marx's work. This article needs deleting. I think I might nominate it for deletion. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I propose another, much simpler procedure, that I use to use when pages are in flux and chaos: make a heading reordering, and a plan to enhance the sections. I propose a Definition section before the section Early Communism, and I also propose that Early communism, Emergence of modern communism and Growth of modern communism are dethroned from level == (2eq), are dethroned to 3eq and put under the heading History. The definition section could start like a stub-section, containing the seed of the 1st sentence of the article repeated.  Said: Rursus   ☻   06:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Done.  Said: Rursus   ☻   06:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If any further people want to speak out about this subject please write in this talk box as I will be monitering it.(Im the creater of this talk box)Euge246 (talk) 06:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, am I sure glad that someone else didn't get what communism is out of this article. I was afraid of saying anything, as it would be easy for someone knowledgeable to just simply call me an idiot. I looked up this article because I wanted to see what the specifics on the socio-political structure of communism were, and all I got was a philosophy lesson.  Okay, so I get it that communism promotes a classless society, but what does that mean in practical terms?  It talks about the working class, but are all profession included?  Does this mean that doctors and cooks make the same thing?  Is all education paid for by the state and who decides who goes to further their education as well as who gets what job?  These are just examples of things that I came to this article for. I don't intend for anyone to answer these questions, just examples of what I think should be included in the article.  Kman543210 (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production. first line much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.229.51 (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't this better describe Communism: "It is the belief that all people on earth own all things. Capitalism means that a few rich people own all things and "create jobs" and pay low wages, and cut/automate jobs to raise profits."   Or something along that line; maybe someone else could word it better; I'm not good with words. Just 5 words: All people own all things.  It's simple.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stars4change (talk • contribs) 16:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

re-write the whole page
Quite obviously anyone who has taken part in writing this article does not know anything about communism or what it is. I wouldn't be surprised if the people who wrote this article have not read a single word of Marx's work. It doesn't give a correct definition of communism. It is completely pro western. China- under the heading "After the collapse of the Soviet Union", there is map it says that the PRC is one of the remaining communist countries. What a load of rubbish, The Peoples Republic of China has the worlds fasted growing economy, how is this possible under communism. Cold War Years- under this article, why does it say the words "Communist government". There can not be so such thing as a communist government. As that would imply some one running a country, which can not happen under communism and a communist country, which can not happen either as i have explained earlier. This article is awful Criticism of communism- First, this section is criticizing something, which they do not know nothing about. So is pointless. Secondly, why isn't there a section "Meriting of Communism"? Since there isn't i believe this article to be POV, when it should be NPOV. If a person that had no idea of what Communism was, and read this article, the person would still not understand what Communism was! This just gives the pro-western perspective of communism. There is many complaints of this article in its discussion page. [1]. The article is also missing citations or footnotes, Its neutrality is disputed and Its factual accuracy is disputed. This article needs to be deleted and re-written Ijanderson977 (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that your logical is too logical. Painting pretty jargon over ugly communism is a denial. Liberals know that their policies are fundamentally inseparable from their destination, communism. If the article had the same introduction as Conservapedia, it would do this site a justice. Right now, people who had their ancestors slaughtered like sheep, or their food stolen so they would die of hunger, and all of their freedoms abolished by communism are reading this article and thinking "is this website a joke? Communism does not work and is a flawed system. It IS responsible for all the deaths."

You know what though? It doesn't even matter. The majority of editors don't have the balls to tell the truth about communism. Don't even bother wasting your time with Wikipedia, it's a lost cause. 71.204.61.136 (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't you see what's going on here? Oh, but you must see. Communism will never die as long as someone doesn't understand why it doesn't work. But what happened here? This page is edited by people promoting communism. The communists have found Wikipedia as a way to spread pro Communism propaganda. You are absolutely right in that this page has nothing about communism. That's because they are trying to promote something, and as it turns out, promoting communism is the same as getting a bunch of people to drink lethal kool aid. It's hard to make communism look good by saying what it accomplishes because what it does it make everyone (except select few in authoritarian power) equally poor, and destroys all businesses all incentives to do anything good and destroys the country. You can't make that sound like it's something good so what do you do on Wikipedia? You ignore history and just go "it's where you share" and end it there because if you say "oh...except you will instantly become poor lose everything and be executed or die, inevitably under and because of communism" what hope will you have of getting elected as the first black president (killed two in one I did).


 * Can I suggest you be bold and propose your NPOV re-write to address the alleged biases. Also, could you tell us whenever the Kibbutzim have murdered anyone, the Benedictines?  the Shakers?  Or numerous other communist sects than the Marxist-Lenninist variety?  I suggest you may wish to draw on the communism article from the | Catholic Encyclopaedia which is critical, but in a measured way.  You'll notice it demonstrates the truth that America is the true home of communism, certainly, it was American communism inspired Freidrich Engels to the cause. --Red Deathy (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion tags
Please do not cite the necessity for a total rewrite as a reason for deletion, as it is not. The article could benefit from a major revamp, but that is not a valid reason for deleting an article. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

DON'T DELETE THIS ARTICLE
I understand where you are coming from, this article is disorganized and filled with rubbish, but deleting will not work. You seem to have bunches of ideas on how the article could be better, why don't you use them instead of insisting we start from scratch. Just because you are too lazy to make a few changes to an article you find inadequate, doesn't mean you should throw away the whole thing. If you really feel this article is unfixable, I sincerely suggest you start your own one. P.S. I just read over wikipedia's deletion policy, and have no justifyable reason to delete this article. Angrily yours, Jimmy da tuna 00:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No chance/risk. Said: Rursus (☻) 08:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Unpleasant comments
BTW, I've sat in on various discussions trying to get a GA article to FA. The above is the sort of comment you get during that stage, in case any of you were ever thinking of developing an article to that state! :)  Student7 (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Another map
Under that map there should be another map that shows countries currently operating under communism. The current map makes you think that there is that many countries that are still communist. Kosova2008 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * nevermind I did NOT see the map below which shows countries that are still to this day communist. My apologies. Kosova2008 (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Human universals
Just found this blog apparently taken from a Cato Institute report. http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/03/biological-fantasies_22.html. I don't know how long the discussion censor will allow this message to persist but I will be looking for supportive information. There is a lot of dissenting info as well. This article is one-sided. Student7 (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah.The Cato institute original. http://www.cato.org/research/articles/wilkinson-050201.html

Student7 (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
A third opinion was requested about the removal of this text. While I agree with User:VoluntarySlave that this post may be off-topic, I'm curious to see where this takes us. Student7, you keep making these posts; what is the purpose of them? What contribution would you make to the article with them? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a new tack entirely. I don't want to develop a paragraph that gets instantly reverted. I was hoping to find support from other editors and other references in favor of the argument that Human Universals contradict Communism. That is, that 19th century communism, assuming that people were totally moldable, didn't overreach and try to set out a task that was, in fact, completely unreachable. I want to avoid OR. I want good references. There may be other editors who are already familiar with this line of thought. BTW, I have located a lot that contradicts this suggestion (nurture not nature), which is why I want to be careful. It needs thoughtful discussion. (and benign neglect would do the same thing, unfortunately for my train of thought!) Student7 (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, most editors have not had to defend themselves against censorship on the discussion page. There are incredible diversions above that were never censored. Plato? Come on! My question would be the reverse. Why did the editor censor it? It was simply an remark that was tied in with the topic at least as well as Plato. While I applaud editors who delete total nonsense, I don't see that it was obvious that my topic was in that category. It rather seemed to me that I may have been too much on topic and the editor censored it because he was afraid it might go to far. Why am I the one who has to defend myself here? Do we need yet a third page to discuss potential entries on the discussion page?Student7 (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So if I'm understanding this correctly, you want to add a section to the text that would be well sourced and that isn't WP:FRINGE. Assuming you have more references than just the Cato Institute one, I'd recommend you post here the text you'd like to insert, and then people can discuss it. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see, you are considering adding a section on this to the article; if I'd realized that (or, you'ld explicitly said it) I wouldn't have deleted your comments. You might want to considering adding it to Criticisms of communism as well or instead of here - I think this article probably ought to limit itself to the most commonn criticisms of communism, to avoid getting too long.VoluntarySlave (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't have a second reference. Nor do I want to spend several hours looking for one! Nor do I want to quote a conservative think tank and then be forced to write a lengthy criticism of it from contrary sources! There's no reason that this can't sit here as a neglected issue forever!


 * Nor do I wish to ask the discussion page "owner" (on his page) for permission to post discussion to this page! I don't mind, and even appreciate, someone deleting obvious vandalism, scrawls of children, and inappropriate remarks from drunks. I don't see how any of this fell into that category.


 * In another article, with equally interested editors, I got into a discussion with another editor. We realized after several days that we had long digressed from the article and (embarrassed) moved our discussion to another page. I "hid" all discussion after the first two sallies. No one complained. People just jumped over it and/or ignored us as they saw fit. This is the first page (and I have a few edits behind me) where I have seen discussion edited out based on the whim of one editor. I was surprised when I was the one questioned by the third party.


 * Having said that, should we move this discussion on censorship, which does not appear to benefit the other editors to a Wikipedia policy page on censorship of article discussion? Student7 (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh, what? If you want to discuss the merits of communism, this isn't the place for it. This talk page is meant as a discussion for the Communism article on Wikipedia. If you want to talk about the content within the Cato article or anything like that, take it elsewhere. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm finished with this line of discussion about communism. I want to continue the discussion about censorship of article discussion pages. Where do you want that discussion to continue? I presume on a Wikipedia policy page on discussion article censorship. Let me know where that page is and I will meet you there. Student7 (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:TALK. More specifically, Talk: "Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 06:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know if student7 has ever read anything dealing with communism or American History for that matter? shouldn't we be discussing facts, or in this case philosophies rather than posting propaganda? (67.184.109.172 (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

Utopia
No I am not saying Communism is A Utopia but i do not see in this article a mention or a link to "De Optimo Republicae Statu deque Nova Insula Utopia" the work by Sir Thomas More Which includes many Communist Ideals.Jpc100 (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Communism is indeed an Utopia, the things communists trying to achieve are good but in real world it will never happen. Speaker1978 (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

communism is the failboat... not a utopia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.229.51 (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the word you're thinking of is "dystopia", which refers to a failed utopia. Basically all attempts at utopias become dystopias due to human nature and natural variations that are impossible to control, but this is just a small and unimportant factoid.  &mdash;– Nuck Chorris (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That is not true; not all attempts at creating a utopia result in a dystopia. Moreover, communism is not a dystopia. References to Thomas More have been added, but I am not sure who added it, or when; look at the history, or use WikiBlame (Google search) if you want to find out who added it. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood me. I was saying that history has shown that utopias fail most of the time, since humans don't much like being repressed at all, and in a utopian society, if you speak out against the repression, all you get is more repression, and this repression just builds and builds, and eventually id becomes a dysfunctional utopia, which is impossible, since utopias are supposed to be societies of equality and perfection, so it becomes a simple dysfunctional society, a failed attempt at perfection, a dystopia.  That wasn't my main point, though.  What I was trying to say was that a dystopia is a utopia that has failed and is overly repressive.  This, of course, is highly objective, since it all depends on what you consider overly repressive, but I just pulled this definition out of my own experiences with the terms, so it probably isn't perfect.  Anyone agree or disagree with me on this? &mdash;– Nuck Chorris (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You have a good point IMO.Student7 (talk) 12:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Genocide
Let's talk about how we can discuss the various and multiple acts of genocide in communist countries. The events are well proven. They are a hugely important story, and yet this root article does not include one single reference to communist genocide. The Nazism article, for example, mentions the Holocaust multiple times in its root article. Why does communism get a pass here? Mrdarklight (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should add a seperate article as a disambiguation ("Crimes Under Communism"?).Eckwritj (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Crimes Under Communism" would be stupid, it needs to be something about the crimes that only happens because of Communism such as freedom of Speech abuse, dictatorship etc. Crimes Under Communism is too wide, then there should be a Crimes Under Capitalism as well then. Speaker1978 (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I get where you're coming from. If we did an article like this, it would have to include only crimes in which humanitarian rights or international laws were violated. Otherwise, any crime from shoplifting to traffic violations, crimes not necessarily caused by communism, could be listed. Also, the article could be divided by nation, leader, etc. to allow a more in depth approach to these articles.Eckwritj (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * By not including the Khmer Rouge, The Great Leap Forward, the Pacification of South Vietnam after the war, the Political Prisoners of Cuba, the Gulags of Stalin, the Stasi of Eastern Germany the article white washes Communism as certainly as if the Fascism article forgot to mention the Holocaust. Let's take off our rose colored glasses and look clearly at the historical facts of this 20th century ideology. Just because many of us may be western leftist intellectuals it doesn't mean the article has to look like it was written by one. Neutralaccounting (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Like Student7 said below, just because communist leaders ordered these atrocities, that doesn't mean that Communism calls for those measures, nor does it mean that the aforementioned leaders were acting within communistic principles. Eckwritj (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see a majority of Scholars call the Great Leap forward genocide. Horrible economic plan, sure. genocide? Hardly. Comparing the GLF to the holocaust is a joke. (Comparing Mao's huge and tragic economic and political mistake, though actually trying to better China and its people, to Hitler wiping out the jews). The Khmer Rouge, sure. Either way, you see the point.(Majin Takeru (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC))


 * The article on Cultural Revolution (which included the GLF) mentions a death toll of 500,000. Some of that, I suppose was from "bad planning." But some was caused by the Red Guards.Student7 (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Crimes committed by Communist leaders should be listed under their own bios or pages for those specific regimes. Or do you think that the genocide of the plains indians should be a part of the Democracy page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.36.77.35 (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Scholars (which are the people we are talking about here, not our own opinion) have figured out what Communist leaders were just using Communism as a vehicle for their own career and which ones were truly dedicated to communism. It seems to me that Stalin's paranoid purges of the 1930s, riding his ranks of truly loyal supporters, should probably go in his article and not here. But Pol Pot was trying to create a "new man" by ridding the country of the old, a communist "goal." Mao killed landlords as a means of easy land reform and to get rid of opposition. This was done at the high level without a lot of debating, I think. "We can do it. It's popular. Let's do it. We're in charge. We make the rules." That seems more communistic somehow, but debatable. Early purges of Russian peasants seem communistic in their goals. I don't know that they go here automatically though. Probably should be discussed on a case by case basis. Need a sound reference before we start arguing though. Forget top of the head "I think that" which I have done here! :)  Student7 (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Merger?
Maybe we should merge the "Capitaliztion of Communism" section into the "Terminology" section for organinization. Also, Capitalization in this context could be confused with economic capitalism, implying a change in communist economic policies rather than the use of communism phonetically.Eckwritj (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

stateless?
Shouldn't we broaden the defintion of communism so it can include those who don't support a state (Marx, Lenin) and those who do (Stalin, Mao) or at least note the statelss aspect of communism hasn't been practiced? Bobisbob (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an incorrect perception. The Marxist notion is not that the state would be abolished overnight, but as the society would develop into a classless society and thus the state would become superfluos. There is no difference between Marx and Stalin on this point. --Soman (talk) 07:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Soman, I was with you until that final sentence, there is a huge difference between Marx & Stalin on this point. Marx wanted communism to develop until there was no need for the state. Stalin was the state & beware anyone that opposed him. (Spookybubbles (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

And actually, Bobisbob has a point, the far left is super fragmented, maybe there shouldn't really be an article detailing communism, but rather a list of see also links: Hegel, Marx, Lenin, Fruabach (or however you spell his name), Mao, & so on & so on & so on & so on & so on & so on (Spookybubbles (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC))discription communism is a system that for example, say your a hard worker in america if you work hard you can get very rich and famous but in communism you would live a life in a cottage and get only enough food to feed yourself and your family but if your a person that has 13 or 14 children you would live in a manson and be wealthy so in communism if you work hard and get alot of money the police take it from you so why work hard in communism if you dont get credit for it why work?

Proposed Intro
Communism is a athiestic authoritarian political ideology and party based movement that holds modern notions of advancing national and international interests through revolution, and which seeks to achieve an eventual near-eschatological rebirth by exalting most commonly the leaders of the movement (see also Nomenklatura), which customarily practice a centralized economy, land redistribution, and an abolishment of alternative ideologies such as religion or individual rights. Neutralaccounting (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My pov: I don't care for communism myself.


 * Nevertheless, calling it "atheistic" straight off tends to convey that the editor is religious. Religion was probably not very high on Marx's original list. It sort of just "fell out" from his other goals. I'm afraid I can't agree with the religious slant of the proposed change. Please try to understand that sophisticated readers look at this stuff. The more heavy handed we are, the less they are likely to believe it. A subtle approach is better IMO. Student7 (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The proposed opening paragraph was on Communism, not Marxism and I would appreciate you keeping that in mind when making a comment. That aside lets look at the rest of your paragraph. You mention keeping in mind sophisticated readers, heavy handedness, and subtle approaches. I would appreciate criticisms much more based on NPOV and verifiability. Neutralaccounting (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, as discussed in the article, not all communism is athestic, anarchist communism isn't authoritarian, and exultation of leaders is not an essential feature of communist ideologies/organisations. thus, it fails verifiability, factuality and POV.  Hope that helps.--Red Deathy (talk) 10:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Add leninism
How come that there is marxism, stalinism, etc, but not leninism?

I tyhink a leninism sectio with a link to the main article should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.49.177.96 (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

POORLY WRITTEN ARTICLE.
I still do not seem to understand what communism is based on this article. I have read a lot of this article and I can neither make heads nor tails. It would have been better if simple terminology was to be used. I have a bachelor degree in mathematics, but I can hardly understand anything at all in this article and I have still no clue what really communism means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyz887 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production and property in general - that sentence seems pretty clear to me, and doesn't seem to use any special vocabulary - and seems a pretty deft definition of communism...--Red Deathy (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. Those of us who read our Marx in the morning and in the evening will not have any problem to understand this sentence. Those who don't will have a problem with this definition. What are "means of production"? what are "classes"? it is also one of just many possible definition. it is in slight contradiction to how Marx defined the term: Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence. Siee: . etc.. I think the basic concepts should be understandably to those without a major in phil. Mond (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What about Moldavia
You apparently do not count Moldavia as crrently being run by a communist party. (Or was I confusing theat map to correspond to non democratiacly elected communist parties, and elected ones?) Because if that is so never mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.82.239 (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

COMMUNISM IS NOT EVIL!
I would like some feedback on this article and it is copyright from the Chloe & Co. website so you can't take it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.116.190 (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Copyright? Huh? You had best remove it. If it is here, it belongs or should belong to Wikipedia. Copyrighted material must be immediately removed!


 * Second. I don't know about "evil" but it is just that, outside of religious institutions, no one has been able to make it work. For example, to meet the five-year plan, the Russians came up with the Russian Mafia. It was the only way to meet quota! What good is a system that is so naive that it can't be implemented? Student7 (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the things that should give anyone pause is the fact that a cadre is the fount of all knowledge. The cadre must run things because the "people" are too ignorant. So the philosophy is elitist and condescending on one hand and (automatically) totalitarian on the other. The people cannot be allowed to make decisions because their decisions have been anticipated and will be wrong. Communisim is intuitively and instinctively anti-democratic. The peoples wrong decisions cannot be allowed to "jeopardize the revolution. There is too much at stake." This suggests an organization with bigger thugs as you go up the scale, in order to enforce "philosophical" decisions. With the biggest monster at the top.


 * Only modern China has run somewhat counter to this model allowing capitalists to make "low level" decisions while the thugs at the top run foreign affairs and national security. When one comes into conflict with the other, we will find out what happens after that. In the meantime, however, they have long since jettisoned anything resembling communisim. Student7 (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Authoritarian Leninist states such as China, Cuba and the former Soviet Union are not communist. They represent betrayals of genuine communist ideology. Therefore it is unfair to say communism is undemocratic and totalitarian based on the actions of Leninist states. In fact true communism is more democratic than bolth capitalism and Leninist states. In a capitalist system economic and political power tends to be concentrated in the hands of the very wealthy and in Leninist states economic and political power tends to be concentrated in the hands of the Party bureaucracy.

Also Communistic economic systems were successfully implemented in Anarchist Catalonia, Freetown Christina and the Kibbutz (but again not through Stalinist coercion).

Furthermore you are wrong in saying "Only modern China has run somewhat counter to this model allowing capitalists to make "low level" decisions while the thugs at the top run foreign affairs and national security" China is not the only communist state now that allows capitalists to make "low level" decisions. Vietnam has also become more capitalist and allows private corporations to make "low level" decisions.--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that in the current financial debacle, no one has yet come out and disclaimed that the system that it took place in, and caused it, was capitalism. Yet that is what communism is always doing. If it wasn't perfect, it wasn't communism. I am too ignorant in philosophy to come up with a name for this sort of thing (always disclaiming imperfection), but there has to be one and it should appear, with proper citations in this article or in the criticism of communism. Student7 (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're thinking of the No true scotsman fallacy, but you must note that for it to hold then the obnject in question must be a scotsman first, for the holders of, say the state capitalism thesis of the Soviet Union it is entirely reasonable to state that essential features of communism were not present. If you look at the capitalism page, btw, you do find some who wouldn't describe the present system as capitalism, but as a mixed economy, because *any* government intervention is socialism...--Red Deathy (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Leninism?
As far as I know, Marxism and Marxism-Leninism are separate systems (although with many overlaps). I think Leninism (not refering to Stalins constructed person cult) should deserve one section by itself (or, for the sake of terminological correctness "Marxism-Leninism" as being different from Marxism).  Said: Rursus   ☻   06:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Is this tomorrow.jpg
The image Image:Is this tomorrow.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --04:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How is communism "free"?
I have a question about whether communist theory is deeper than communist practice.

The article says "In the schema of historical materialism, Communism is the idea of a free society with no division or alienation". What specifically does "free" mean? If I lived in a communist society, what would my rights be, especially pertaining to economic activity? A free market establishes that I can enter into any transaction so long as all other parties that exchange property in the transaction are willing. Is there a rule like that in Communism -- a rule that tells your every citizen what he's allowed to do -- or is the whole economy just run by a Communist Party or something like that? Clearly the popular perception is that the Communist Party runs the whole economy, but I was wondering if there was anything deeper than that in the theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.244.178 (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I am with you. The original idea, which sounded great on paper, is that communism would create a "new man" since human nature, in the communist view was plastic and not fixed. This seemed reasonable enough in the late 19th century to some people. I think most of us know better today. The horrors of Cambodia apparently were part of an effort to "get rid" of the "old man" which was perversely unplastic, in favor of the untutored who could be molded.


 * Anyway, a "new man" would not want to enter into a contract that might benefit only himself, you see. A new man would check first with his cadre to ensure that his planned actions would be properly beneficial. Yeah, right! What grates on our nerves here, is that the article talks blithely about what communism intended. Critical comments are relegated to another article. I'm okay with this, but it does seem unrealistic at times. Student7 (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, William Morris presents one view of how this would work in News from nowhere the idea of the free association of producer is that no-one would be compelled to work but would only do so from the self interest of ensuring the maintenance of the communal arrangements. I think Student7 overdoes the "New Man" concept which is a later invention (I don't really find it among 19th C. communists) - after all, Marx' concept of species being implies that tehre is some realised essence of humanity involved.  I'll also add my favourite line - communism is a "society in which the condition for the advancement of all shall be the advancement of each".--Red Deathy (talk) 07:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Now, getting back to the issue of freedom. It sounds like the communist argument is this: If everybody wants (or can be made to want) the same things, then everybody is free. All "wants" would always be eventually approved (after your "wants" go through enough modification by the Party). The theoretical problem is that it's actually a lot of work to revise "wants" to get them to the point of economic sustainability. Any professional or entrepreneur can confirm that. Furthermore, getting the "wants" additionally revised to satisfy a political Party compounds the already difficult problem of profitability. These are theoretical problems not just practical problems. The Party itself would have to make up most of the economy, no matter what the practical issues. So based on theory alone I would say communism is either total state industry or unfree. Of course in practice it's both: the only ones with any freedom OR money to speak of in real Communism are indeed the Party members themselves.
 * You sound like you're discussing the Economic calculation problem - without launching into debate, I'd note that no-one wouldb have money in commonuism, there wouldn't be any, nor would "The Party" still exist, after all, the intent is to abolish the political state.--Red Deathy (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda in the Introduction
I found the introduction containing a highly POV statement and promptly deleted it. People making statements such as "Indeed virtually all countries such as the Soviet Union and Mao's China, which have been ruled by self described communist parties in the twentieth century wound up as totalitarian dictatorships, whose Marxist governments have been responsible for deaths numbering in millions. " should remember that these deaths include those caused by wars waged by capitalist nations on communist ones. Still more died from civil wars and acts of terrorism performed by the ousted ruling classes. In spite of all this, in poor countries like China, Russia etc. were millions died regularly due to various reasons, the number of deaths gradually went down after the revolution. Srijon (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the Communist parties of those countries were responsible in large measure (with which capitalist nation was the Soviet Union at war in 1930? With which one was China at war with in 1958?) for millions of deaths is a well documented fact, and it had been cited accordingly. Restoring the POV deletion which seeks to eliminate any negative mention of communism.radek (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how best to describe the Communist states in the intro - I don't think we should just cite an extremely controversial source like the Black Book of Communism, but I'm not sure we should be getting into a debate about numbers of deaths in the intro, either (which debate belongs at Communist state). But the description of Communist states as "totalitarian" strikes me as pretty straightforward, so maybe we should just mention that in the intro.VoluntarySlave (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's fine the way you wrote it. Basically I think that the lead, in addition to all the idealized stuff, needs to contain some description of the really existing stuff. The Black Book of Communism is controversial amongst some, but at the same time it's a scholarly worked and is considered a reliable source. But like I said, what you wrote's fine.radek (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Two things
One: the discussion page should be structured according to the current state of the page "communism." All those discussions whose topics have already been applied to the page should be filed and not be readily visible, I mean, when someone opens the discussion page one should be able to look at the current discussion and not at discussions that are no longer applicable.

Two: the issue of the numbers of people killed under the banner of communism. One thing that is totally not acceptable is either lack of objectivity or just plain anticommunist bias. I bring to the attention the fact that for Nazism, for example, there was Nuremberg, and investigations have come up with clear numbers and registered historical data. In the case of communism, however, there has not been a "Nuremberg." Historically speaking, we, in the present generation, know only three things for sure: 1, that there were policies under communist states which were aimed at certain social groups in order to break opposition to communist economic policies. That, we know for sure, and that people were killed in the application of those policies. Two, the self-proclaimed communist governments kept their files secret and many of those were destroyed (as it is also the practice under all U.S. governments about Pentagon, CIA, NSA, and FBI documents). Up to here, we are objective. 3, we have knowledge of communist dissidents who claim that those policies applied by communist states led to genocide. The problem with these claims is that we do not have a documented historical evidence about this. We only have these people's opinions, and that is not objective. Many people and sources talk about "millions" slaughtered under communism. One can say whatever one wants, but a Wikipedia article is not about one's opinions or "perceptions". A Wikipedia article is about facts that can be readily proven or are already documented. Interestingly enough, the anticommunists who claim that millions were slaughtered under communism seem not to have one single word about all the aboriginal peoples exterminated by Europeans. Again, we know that that happened, but we do not have historical evidence to prove how many aboriginal people were slaughtered by Europeans. We can only have partial data in specific cases about this. In this context, those are the only two things for which we can objectively account for in this article. We cannot say that God exists just because the word "God" is found in every dictionary. That's just plain sophism. By the same token, we cannot repeat the unfounded claims of certain individuals about "millions slaughtered under communism" because they are nothing more than opinions. Reinaldo Contreras. (Reinaldo Contreras (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinaldo Contreras (talk • contribs) 21:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

We can, however, cite autobiographical accounts of people who were forced into conditions in which many of these alleged deaths occured. I look to Eugenia Ginzburg, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and Varlam Shalamov, for example. You may label these people as dissidents, but you would only be showing your own bias. Scholars can triangulate a perception of the truth through the accounts of people, people who were not statespeople or convicts; authors, guards, wives, children. We can also cite those scholars who have made these allegations. Displaying their research as research is objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.134.66 (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Khmer Rouge motto needs a cite
"One of Khmer Rouge mottos, in reference to the New People, was: 'To keep you is no benefit. To destroy you is no loss.'"Quite a controversial statement! Please provide a good cite for this. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the prolbem is not that people do not understand communism, but everyone has be given and percieved different persepectives of the definition. It is a specific word which does not have one meaning but many, that branch off each other creating a whole new meaning. there are so many reasons why communism is here and how it got here and what it is today, but who really cares, we are all alive right?

just research it (not on wikipedia) under people like hilary clinton

lea-anne osborne —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.81.16 (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Capitalism/Communism
Shouldn't we mention something about the difference between communism and capitalism on this page-- Or at least differentiate between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Climenole (talk • contribs) 21:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No. 143.89.188.6 (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If we say what communism IS then it's easy to understand the difference:
 * 1. NO CLASSES ie NO RULING CLASS.
 * 2. NO MONEY ie NO MONEY SYSTEM.
 * 3. EVERY NEED is supplied. (The keywords is NEED and SUPPLY).
 * 4. Every one does what she wants to do (those who want to work do that...ie like editing wikipedia if they chose to: plenty to do then...it is going to take forever anyway...AND those who don't want to...don't work ;-).
 * Just as capitalism(goal: profit, and to hell with the environment) is a system of cooperation, communism is also cooperation but now production is not to make money but to supply the needs of the community. Ie food production because there is a need to eat.
 * 5. NO CRIME, no prisons, no police...
 * 6. NO WAR, no weapons...
 * HOW? Well those are all practical problems that can be solved with no lack of brainpower....85.166.98.216 (talk) 01:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Capitalism and democracy?
This coming from the section "Fear of communism" talking about the polarization of the world between the capitalist states and the communist states: "...supported the spread of their economic and political systems (capitalism and democracy vs. communism)..." Does not the "spread" of capitalism directly contradict democracy? We've seen many cases in history where the U.S. or another Western power quashed a communist movement in some other country in the name of democracy - while, in reality, the communist movement IS the supposed democracy. The U.S. has supported more military coup d'etats against elected governments than any other country in history, often in the name of democracy. While communist governments have their own notorious examples of intervening in another country's affairs, it has always been the Western powers who were most eager to destroy the people of another country and support their totalitarian regimes which happen to be pro-American. 143.89.188.6 (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, thank you for saying that. I wanted to but you said it best.  Thank you, thank you. Stars4change (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

All of that is in "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower" by William Blum, so please read it. Stars4change (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Right-Wing Bias
This article should be put up for dispute. There are so many objectionable conclusions made in this article. For example, "Cambodian" communism doesn't exist as a philosophy, and many scholars dispute whether or not Pol Pot even knew what communism meant. Furthermore, I've seen users purposely delete "stateless" from the definition of communism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBTMANIAC5 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Juche is NOT Marxist
I suspect this is rightist misinformation to discredit Marxism.-unsigned

Truth about Communism
Here: Video —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.190.44.4 (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Communism has failed, why no mention?
Communism has failed to deliver on its promise of increasing social welfare in every country where it has been tried. The U.S.S.R., China, North Korea, and Cuba are some examples where inefficient allocation of resources has resulted in starvation, unemployment, general social unrest, and among the lowest per capita GDP in the world. Communism is no longer just a theory. It has been tested and has been proven to be a failure. A section that includes some objective data on the failure of communism to improve people's lives would be a useful addition to this article.
 * Chiefly because it would lead to endless wrangles about which sort of communism had failed. The Shakers seemed to do alright by their members, the Kibutzim haven't done too badly, the anarcho-communists would say it wasn't communism that failed, but Leninism, Christian monasteries lasted for around two thousand years, etc.--Red Deathy (talk) 08:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Its ridiculous that people don't remeber what Communism has done in the last years, fot those men that I call "STUPIDS" that say communism is good I want to remember some data to those who wrote the main article:

-Lenin killed at least 135000 men and women in executions -Stalin killed 66 million people form his own country, although the main article says Communists were sucessfull making weapons and advancing technologie, well, maybe they forgot that they produced that because the rest of the population was in total misery and because people had not even the write to choose their Job, for those who say "WOW, THEY HAD A GEAT EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM", well, they had it, but when you ended school you had to work where they wanted. Following this, no economy has ever been sucessfull within a Communist countries, they balance their economies by killing people and letting the others starve. Although, to prove thngs we need examples: -Bulgaria, Romania, Eastern Block Countries (Ucrania, Latvia, Belarus), Poland and others had an economy up to 89% less developed then other European countries (even Fascist states had ranked better like Spain or Portugal, that surprinsingly where rising), Communist are so bad in economics that even Fascists can be better. It seems that Communists have one single Ability, and that is to ASSASSINATE. And looking to further economic examples I give you East Germany that is still today delaying the process of economic evolution of Germany because of its total misery, YOU KNOW WHY URSS HAD GREAT WEAPONS??? All the money they had they wasted it in weapons. Man, that's nothing special, you saw the same in the Nazis, when you invest in weapons you make them great. -In East Germany and other eastern block countries all of people's houses were wired, so that KGB and Stasi could hear phone talks, and beyond that they even intercepted every single mail letter and opened it before it was delivered in someones house. They had a detailed file about all the people living in the Eastern Block. I hope that doesn't exist in China, cause you'd be killing a lot of trees :). Following that you all saw that after the Berlin Wall fell people didn't even knew how to eat fruit, they just ate it all without peeling it, that means those men and women never had eaten fruit. -In countries like Cambodja, Mister Pol Pot, beated a great record by killing 2 million men in two weeks. -In China Mister Mao and the actual leaders that inspire students and people that think tha they are intelligent (snobs) and see them as symbols of freedom, well, symbols of freedom that ended Tibet because of their religion (WOW!!! FREEDOM), that arrest you because of searching Fascist, Democracy or Freedom in internet browsers (WOW!!! FREEDOM) and that killed an estimated number of 100 million men in China (WOW!!! FREEDOM) -Well, Che Guevara is seen like a Hero but most of the people don't know that the only big thing he did in his short life was beginning wars throughout the world and massacring people. THAT'S SOMETHING VERY HEROIC, isn't it??? -Another big thing that Communist did was creating the People's Party in almost every African Country, they are supposed to help people, but know what??? They help them by making genocides and starving them to death, well, maybe that's their idea of happiness. -They are today defending freedom, defending the gay marriage, the legalization of marijuana but 20 years ago in the Eastern Block (namely: Bulgaria) a men named Dimitar Petrov was executed in front of his family because of wearing JEANS. In those "FREE" countries you could be executed because of hearing the BEATTLES, wearing JEANS or having a book about KEYNESIAN ECONOMIES. Wonder what they did to those who had MEIN KAMPF!!! By the way it seems like Communists have forgotten that their hero Joseph Stalin was once the biggest buddie of a man named Adolf Hitler, and it seems that the Jewish communities just cared about Polish and German Jews. Because the 18 million Jews killed in URSS by order of Joseph Stalin were not important. To show very quickly how people can be stupid there was in the 60's, 70's and 80's a wave of Jewish Communists. MAN, that's the same as I beeing a BLACK NAZI or even a JEWISH NAZI. I make a lot of Fascist and Nazi references but I want to say that I am neither Nazi nor a Fascist, just want that cleared so that you don't think I came here to say bad thing about Communism. The thing is Communism has nothing good, the initial values of Marx and Engels maybe right in something but only in paper because when applied you say what they resulted in. Neither Fascism nor Communism have anything good, but Fascism on the contrary of what people think can be better then Communist when applied less harshly, I mean the case of Portugal. Communism and Fascist are basically the same thing, a group of crazy men that join to make a party and kill people. In my case, in Portugal people hate Salazar because 34 men died in the prison of Tarrafal in 50 years and because you couldn't have the Mao's red book, but they worship men like Lenin, Stalin and Fidel Castro that killed millions and millions and started wars all over the world. Communist has killed almost 300 000 000 000 men in the 20th Century, open your eyes and your mind, don't let yourselves be controlled by Communist, Fascism or other extremist politics. Nazism and Fascism are almost gone, it is time, I think to end once and for all COMMUNISM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polenz357 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh my, I've never seen someone so misinformed about communism before. Maybe you should go and check the accuracy of the various ridiculous claims you make? Tatarian (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Polenz357, go and learn history, maiby you'll invent less vacuous text there. Only implementation of communist ideas allowd to the people of Soviet Union to get out of their poverty at Russian Empire (the same poverty comes for much people in up-to-date Russia). Each person had right to education, to every job he wished. And the most essential - he had prospects of both his own development and development of all society on basis of social justice, humanistic morals.
 * By the way, communists couldn't kill almost 300 000 000 000 men in the 20th Century even they wished, general number of Earth's inhabitants now is only 6 500 000 000!!! Nut1917 (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to check mister Tatarian, your a 16 year old boy as you say in your profile and I am 35 years old and I have a degree in world history, beyond that I've been in the Stasi and KGB archives thing that I think that you didn't, although I can say that it is not in the KGB archives that you'll find any info on Stalin's massacres, because it seems to me that Russia is still very closed.

Mister Nut1917, I meant 300 millions and not those billions, the same message goes to you, the text you've wrote just shows your type of instruction, a man that writes definitions without knowing their meaning, a man that talks about basis and morals in a completely unappropriatted situation. Although my friend if your into discussing poverty that comes before the Lenin Era then we can discuss it, but I assure you that it doesn't apply here. Maybe before talking you should check real information and not the information that comes in your School History Books, or Wikipedia or those miserable Documentaries that people get from the internet.

Please, before commenting, be sure you're not some snobs that are trying to teach History to a man that dedicated is live to study 20th Century Regimes. You can teach me about Egyptian Mythology and Greek Philosophy but I'm sure you never been to Russia talking with specialized people on Communist Regimes and people that lived that Regime. Please don't be stupid, talk about what you know! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polenz357 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, congratulations? You're more than double my age, yet demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge in Communism and the figures you mentioned are laughable. Stalin killed 66 million? Nope, even the anti-communists agree on around 20 million, and there were roughly 15 million unaccounted for deaths during his reign, so assuming he was responsible for 100% of them that will still be less than a quarter of what you claim. Also, you claim Stalin ordered the deaths of 18 million Jews, you're seriously claiming Stalin is responsible for treble the number of Jews, than the Holocaust? And wow, you even put the starvation and genocides in Africa on Communism, are there any problems in the world that weren't caused by Communism? Tatarian (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Polenz357, first of all, I'm not "mister". Secondly, I in fact was born in Soviet Union, so it's rather easy for me to get real information at first hand. You know, in socialist countries we had high-quality education that allowd us to get informations not only from school textbooks. Also I speak with high-class historians from time to time. That's why I do able to point at your incompetence and at groundlessness of most of your so-called "facts", though you are 35 years old and you have a degree in world history. If it's hard for you to find out relationship between new morals and communism it shows that you are not well informed about the subject of this discussion. Nut1917 (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You should know that wikipedia maintains a NPOV policy thats why no mention. It also requires citations, could you cite any of your claims about 18 million jews killed? Or ev19en that that number of jews ever even lived on earth at one time? LevoTyro (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Accordind to results of census of the population of USSR in 1939, total number of jews in USSR was 3,02 millions. In 1940-41 (after reunification of Western Ukraine, Western Belorussia and Bessarabia) this total nomber grew up to 5.07 millions. Nut1917 (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Material is properly contributed, with WP:FOOT from RELY sources in Criticisms of communism summarized rather superficially in the article under Communist. We have a whole generation of children who have grown up after 1990 who think this is all wonderful. A good reason to keep Cuba, Venezuela and other tyrannies run by egotistical maniacs around. A state-dictated economy is a dictatorship by definition. Hard for some people to grasp. Student7 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Gentleman, to begin, and for commenting mister Tatarian I would like to say the following: - In Poland during the years when Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were friends, they even had a blackboard in the bridge that separated the two Poland where they kept updated lists of how many Polish (not only Jews) they were killing, from the bigging to the end the Russian kept a higher levels of deaths and they actually very proud of it. If you think, there is maybe some reason why the Jews flew to Portugal to go to America instead of going to the East. Why? Because Stallin's hate for the Jews was in truth one of the things that unified Stallin and Hitler. Although the Gulag's didn't stopped after Stallin's death and I can say that Brezhnev was as a paranoic as Stallin. Commenting the Africa situation, after the end of Colonialism, Africans had no basis on anything, they were poorely educated and they had no knowledge on Politics. Although wise men like the English and French kept an eye on the countries which they left. Although if you see countries like Somalia, Ethiopia, Angola or Mozambique, you can see that after Colonialist countries left they all turned Communists, and as a matter of fact the Communists were guilty for almost all of the genocides in Southern Africa. Today you see men like Robert Mugabe that have parties that were founded on Communist basis, there is a good example for a current genocide conducted by Communist formed Leaders. Then you see wars like the Portuguese Colonial war that were caused not only by Communists but also by men like the American Hero JFK, that financed military regiments to kill innocents in South Angola. See men like Jose Eduardos dos Santos, the current president of Angola, he is a Communist that went to University in Russia. He is responsible for the poverty and genocides in Angola, because he is worried about having his Hummer and his personal Jet but not with the millions starving in the streets, the same ha ppens in Communist based Politics like Somalia or Ethiopia. I never said Communists had the fault of every genocide, because the French killed thousands in Argelia for example. I don't know if you are indeed a Communist, because if you are, the it is well explained why you are saying that, if you aren't try to not only look at the facts but see what's behind them, that is what diferences an intelligent man of a well-informed man.

First, I apologise Nut1917 for calling him mister, maybe I rather call you miss??? That is a basic example of education, and if you had the right to so good education you should know that. Secondly, it is not true that a man who live in Russia has better information about his country, it is exactly the oposit. You can't get good information about Soviet Union living in Russia, the same happens in the USA or any other country. I live in Portugal and the information that I have about Portuguese history inside Portugal is worse then the one I could get for example in England or France. If you lived in Soviet Union you'd be also able to understand that the education in the Soviet Union was completely controlled, mostly the History and that the education served only to direct people for the area in which they needed you. So you could have a degree in medicine, but you ended it you'd be working in a Nuclear Station, because the State knew form birth what they were going to do with people. I don't know how you don't know this if you live in Russia, and it is indeed one of the most discussed things about the Soviet Union.

Following that I don't give it as an advice to trust any census made in the USSR, as those were completely controllated, although I admit that I can't be sure how many Jews were killed, but if we don't trust anything, we can also say that the Neo-Nazis are right when they say that there was no Holocaust. The difference is this, Jews have a money-directed mentality, they saw they could win a lot with the Nazi-Killed Jews but nothing with the one's who died in Russia. As a matter of fact, Stallin was very proud of saying he was a better Jew-Killer then Hitler. I don't unerstand quite well why Russia is still so closed, in the end of the KGB they said there were only 138,000 deaths but by today the official deaths of their records have as big as millions. That only shows that there is still a lot to know about the Soviet Union. But maybe our Soviet Union born citizen can explain why Russia is letting information out as they want and how and when they want, and maybe explaining why they kept a file with my name and nationality when I visited the KGB records. Seriously I think somthing is not right in Russia, but I believe the following, the only reasons to keep secrets are the following three: -There was a lot more then they say -There was a lot less then they say -Or they want to keep everyone wondering around without possibly knowing the truth, a very well known Stallin strategy for fooling the Americans during the Cold-War. I want to say that I respect people's ideas, I don't hate anyone for being a Nazi or a Communist, but I only hate the one's that can't admit what they've done, that is why I hate Communists, because after 10 years of the end of the Soviet Union and almsot every Communist State they still refuse to admit that they were the biggest criminals of human history and have no shame saying they are dream and that they never made anything, fools are those who believe them. Take a history book and see where the Communist dream leaded Russia, Bulgaria, East Germany, Vietnam or Cambodja, then come and tell me what they made beyond great attrocities and ruining the lives of a generation of people. I give you this example, when I was in Bangkja I talked to an old women that seen his husband being taken to prison for 30 years and being killed inside in mysterious causes because he weared Jeans, something that was against the regime at the time, it was seen as a sign of being Pro-USA. This is an example of the freedom that exists in Communist countries, but they have the shame of making propaganda in Democratic Countries saying there should be more freedom. Please try to analise this example and tell what were your conclusions you took next time you comment.


 * Well, it’s so incredible to read so uncorroborated facts from the person who call himself scientist…
 * About Poland. First of all, in 1939 Red Army only restored Ukrainian and Belorussian lands that were occupied by Poland in 1920, and allowed to reunite these nations. Secondly, USSR and Germany were friends not more than Poland and Germany, when they jointly invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938. At the time of condonation to Germany’s aggressive east politics from British and French politics Soviet authorities had no alternative but subscribe non-aggression pact. And above all, that nonsense you wrote here about blackboard etc. was absolutely impossible. Soviet Union was internationalist society, all nations lived at its territory were equal. There were absolutely no difference whether you are Russian, Georgian, Jew or Pole – you can improve your culture, had every job you wish. And there is no strange that very many nations were represented in soviet government. For example, Kaganovich, Mekhlis, Litvinow were Jews, there were many Jews and Poles between Red Army commanders. By the way, J. Stalin said “Anti-semitism is a modern version of cannibalism” and was main lobbyist of creation of Israel state.
 * Africa. Socialistically oriented politics were the most consistent fighters against racial discrimination, colonialism and tribalism. Robert Mugabe’s ZANU never was a communist party, it was nationalistic anti-racist movement, so there is no wonder that after stopping support from their allies they visualized more right and nationalistic politics. Jose dos Santos is really cool man, he did a lot for his motherland Angola, but saying of genocide in Angola, didn’t you mean UNITA terrorists leaded by bloody butcher Savimbi and existed on South African racists cash?!
 * USSR. If I live in former Soviet Union a DO able to have much more information about life in USSR 50 years ago, because I can speak with 1000 times more people than you, I can compare different sources of information, not only bare (and also biased) literature as you but also real life of different people. We have much enough published documents about the USSR history of 20th century to have an idea of social processes we had. I can see this process in dynamics, can compare starting and end points of development of different sides of life. And it’s easy for me to understand that there were unprecedented success in formation of egalitarian technologically developed society without exploitation and nationalist hate, that allowed to escape the situation, where “Dog eat dog” (that is a basis of capitalist society). It’s pity that leaders of socialist countries became renegades and decided to turn away from social progress. So, any questions to up-to-date Russia’s government is not to me. And that’s why I hate anticommunists: they are always ready to lie, put-up job and destroy all progressive undertakings, drive millions of people to poverty – and all this is only to implement their dogmatic ideas.
 * I can display some more faults in your text, if you wish. Pol Pot’s Angka never wished to build communism: communism is impossible without high level of technical progress, Pol Pot did the opposite, he destroyed Cambodia’s economics and by the way he killed the majority of communists. That’s why USSR condemned his regime and Vietnamise communists saved Cambodia from his genocide.
 * About jeans. I can say nothing about Bulgaria, but in Soviet Union people wore jeans without particular problems. For the first time they get jeans from trips at West countries, later (at 1970th) several socialist countries of Comecon began to produce jeans, as well as Soviet plants. I have a suspicion that the actual cause of 30 years arrest were slightly deeply then explanation that woman gave.
 * By the way: user Polenz357, you would rather call me using neutral term “comrade”.Nut1917 (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

add one IW please
wuu:共产主义 202.12.233.23 (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

An advocation for a total rewrite
I would be willing to help in rewriting this whole article. It's plagued with bias, hypocrisy, and inaccuracy.

A valid definition of communism needs to be stated to, whether we keep what is given at the top of this article currently, or an altered one. As it stands, by defining communism as a stateless and/or classes society, renders the USSR not communistic. In fact, it would render a communist state as oxymoronic; which I would fully agree with. However we should look at definitions from various dictionaries, and then at the actual history of socialist thought, and the origin of the term of communism, and try to determine what communism really means so that we can properly define it.

I am new to Wikipedia, but if there is any sort of punishment, or way to control/moderate/close this article as it is being worked on, I would consider doing one of the above, so that those that have a strong leaning against a collectivist economic system can not interfere with truth.PrometheusAndSisyphus (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with a need for at least a major rewrite, if not a total rewrite. Currently this reads like a propaganda pamphlet, all about the wonderful ideals of communism, while avoiding as much as possible mentioning any instances of actually existing communism.radek (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were, by their own definition (that I'd disagree with) socialist not communist, they were working towards communism, which they would ahve agreed was a stateless, classless moneyless society. So the USSR was not communist, it simply was ruled by an allegedly communist party.--Red Deathy (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Communism is very different from Socialism. Socialism is usually defined, even on Wikipedia, as a step towards Communism. It's defined in the "Communist Manifesto" (by Karl Marx) as a middle-class revolution, as opposed to Communism which is a working-class revolution. Socialism does have a structure, while in Marxist Communism it is accepted that everyone does the work and they fairly divide it, which has never been implemented. I think the article should be rewritten, but by a neutral expert or someone who has there facts together, like Red Deathy. Williamrmck (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I also believe that there should be a total/major rewrite of this article. It is biased with western views and does not show different views.--Euge246 (talk) 06:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This page misses the point. Completely.
The page is too wordy. The most predominant historical aspects of communism are the millions of deaths caused because of communist governments, and the flawed fundamental aspect of communism. Let me rationalize this. Communism is flawed because it has never worked, therefore there is no credible dispute here.

When a person surfs over here do you think they would care that the type of society they're reading about causes mass executions, widespread poverty, and can never work anyway?

Or do you think they just don't care about that stuff, and would rather read a bunch of wordy paragraphs?

For a site that tries to become a reliable source, this page is nowhere near reliable for information on Communism. I suggest a change. 71.204.61.136 (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We could re-write it in that way, but the Shakers never killed anybody and lasted 200 years, Christianity managed to retain communism for a couple for hundreds of years, and still operates communes all over the world (Monasteries, nunneries, etc.), the Kibbutzim for all their faults are still going, and have never slaughtered millions. It would be undue weight solely to discuss Marxism or Bolshevism in this article.  We could then all go over the the capitalism page and make the first paragraph all about worldwide starvation rates, and all the deatsh communists attribute to capitalism.--Red Deathy (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has to have an NPOV. We can include how many people have been hurt by communism, and that it hasn't worked, and that there is criticism that it could never work, but we can't say the it can never work. I think it is too wordy but we need to redo the way it's written, not the content. Williamrmck (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

m —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackandwhitespectrum (talk • contribs) 20:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can't say it can never work, but I think it is fair to say that there has been no evidence of it working. The Shakers were not truly communists because they actually based their beliefs on religion, whereas in communism there is no religion, there is only the State. The fact that whenever communism is tried as a country it fails is indeed a fact. Any country turns to communism, and everyone can predict its downfall. Similarly, communist states only start to recover when they employ capitalist policies, such as what China did. 71.204.61.136 (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, I'm going to add another reply, actually. You did what I would expect. I say this page misses the point that communism kills, and you state the Shakers as the HOLY SHRINE of communism. Listen, my point still stands. When people come over here they would probably rather know the effects of trying to implements communism, not some confusing way to say "communism means you share what you don't want to share." Right now I feel that trying to fix this broken page is a futile attempt, and I would like to thank all those opposed to correcting this page with their undo-edits for helping destroy wikipedia so people could get REAL information elsewhere. Have fun defending your burning castle that you yourself set aflame and kicked me out of after I offered water. Peace. 71.204.61.136 (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is too anti-communist, Stop and wake up people!
Clearly the majority of those commenting on this page are anti-communist, predictable, uninteresting capitalists. Even those absolutely opposed to communism should understand what a neutral, accurate response is. May i add, what have people beeen reading when it was said by most in this discussion that "they had no idea what communism was after reading it" and "it was awfully written" etc. I personaly think this article has been writen extemelly well, from a neutral point of view. Furthermore, is nobody else incredibly bored with 'Stalin killed this many millions' an 'stalin is awful' and therefore 'Commmuism is awful' and 'inhumane, wrong, barbaric and impossible' Seriously, whoever believes Stalin is a real communist, is either deluded, stuck in the fear of Stalins regime, a hardline Soviet, or completelly stupid. Ask yourslef what communism is, then tell yourself what Stalin did, and comapre the two,.... Stalin ruined the Soviet Union, and saved it. He developed into into a prosperous nation that contended with the US, but he destroyed the reputation of comunsim and destroyed any trust with the USSR and the outside world. I suggest those on this article saying Stalin is naughty and Stalin was bad, should really research what communism is, and what the USSR was. Does anybody truly think that a modern day communist party could kill millions and destroy opposition parties like happened in the days of the early USSSR, it is just not possible. Cuba,communist for 50 years and recovering even though blocked off from the US, Vietnam, N.Korea, Laos, Cyprus, Moldova, Nepal, all communist or similar, and all fine. Basically, it can work, get over your mental capitalist block! Thanks Blackandwhitespectrum (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * N. Korea is WRONG, get that in your head. But i agree with your arguement.... --This Feels Right (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well of course when your fellow countrymen are looted and slaughtered by a totalitarian government that came to power by falsely promising to have a classless society one is tempted to be "anti-communist." Ask myself what communism is? okay. Communism is an idea that cannot work, and whose existence relies solely on the ability of certain leaders to trick people into handing over their freedoms.71.204.61.136 (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I do believe that the north koreans have got their idea of communism wrong but there still is a place for communism in the world. This article is so focused upon the negative side of communism it totally forgets that there are many different views on this topic. One positive is that there is less criminal offences in communist societies. For example, in China if you commit a serious crime you are shot, no questions asked. The world today has become too soft and it is in need of discipline. In New Zealand there is no death penalty and life sentences are 25 years at the most. Any serious crime should be dealt instantly with a shot to the head. This way innocent people are saved and the world will open its eyes and see the drop in crimes and follow. I believe that certain aspects of communism are correct and should be adopted by every government in the world. --Euge246 (talk) 07:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Marxian?
In the first paragraph, the word "marxian" appears when im pretty sure its supposed to be the adjective "marxist". confirmation, anybody? 74.160.39.208 (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Marxian" and "Marxist" basically mean the same thing. "Marxian" tends to be a bit broader, encompassing theories influenced by Marx's concepts, which don't necessarily subscribe to all of Marx's ideas. So "Marxian" is probably the right word to use here, although "Marxist" would work, too (and has the advantage of being a more common word).VoluntarySlave (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we agree on a universal-wikipedian definition of communism, and enforce it?
There seem to be a multitude of ways to define communism, and for Wikipedia to uphold a certain amount of quality within its articles, I believe we need to address this issue.

Marx described communism in a, "single sentence: Abolition of private property." Microsoft Encarta described communism as a, "classless society of abundance and freedom." The way we define communism will determine whether or not we can term, or label, something as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QFlux (talk • contribs) 19:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Communist Party of China is not communist, then? This comes to basic problems with terminologies for such things - is a party communist because it espouses communist principles?  Or is it communist because it once espoused communist principles and continues to call itself communist?  I don't think there's any way to create a wikipedia definition of communism, as this would be OR. john k (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To the question, No. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding links
If no one objects, I am adding some very important links as follows: Capitalism. Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower. Wage slavery. When Corporations Rule the World. The Post-Corporate World: Life After Capitalism. Enclosure. Taxation as slavery. Debt bondage. I better stop there, but they are all related. Stars4change (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Capitalism is already linked in the article, so you don't need to add that. Wage slavery should probably be linked somewhere in the "Marxism" section; Enclosure could be linked there too, if we included a discussion of Marx's theory of the origins of capitalism in primitive accumulation. As to your other links, I don't see the relevance. William Blum's Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower appears to be a book about US foreign policy after the cold war, which isn't really relevant to communism; When Corporations Rule the World appears to be a book contrasting contemporary capitalism with some supposed "real" free market, which doesn't seem relevant to communism (except to the extent that communists would call this idea that the free market is something different from contemporary capitalism an ideological illusion). Taxation as slavery is some kind of libertarian nutjobbery, which has nothing to do with communism, and debt bondage is only tangentially related, as debt bondage is largely a pre-capitalist phenomenon. VoluntarySlave (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked through this 5 times & I only saw the word "capitalism" once & it wasn't in blue as a link. One other place it mentions "state capitalism" which is different than just the "capitalism" article. "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower" isn't at all about after the cold war. It's all about the tortures & murders of millions of people killed in many (40+) wars started by America over the previous 50-70 years in order to destroy communism before it could succeed in order to force capitalism onto the entire world, which is now almost entirely poor & dying through no fault of their own, & it's caused by American capitalist slavery, so "Rogue State" is the most important link that could ever be listed. Today we're all forced to live in debt bondage our entire lives which makes it impossible for 99% of people to survive, with 30 year loans, huge debt from college attendance, & forced to need a car. Enclosure shows how "private property" enslaved the majority who could never hope to own anything, especially land. "When Corporations Rule the World" shows we should fear corporations much more than governments. Taxation as slavery shows we're enslaved by taxation, so we're not free as in "liberty & justice for all." Now what do you think, VoluntarySlave? Stars4change (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, now I see the link to capitalism. Stars4change (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Karl Marx said "The slave, together with his labour-power, was sold to his owner once for all... The [wage] labourer, on the other hand, sells his very self, and that by fractions... He [belongs] to the capitalist class; and it is for him... to find a buyer in this capitalist class." That is saying the wage is slavery...but for low wages, which is cheaper for owners than "real slavery" was.

From "Proslavery in the antebellum United States" it says wage slavery was worse than slavery: Slavery, it was argued, also protected slaves from the harshness of the emerging market economy and prevented them from suffering the fate of "Northern wage slavery" alongside period immigrants. Moreover, many Southerners felt that the paternalistic master-slave relationship provided slaves with a source of care and stability in their old age. Stars4change (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are excerpts from Bill Blum's books, including wars started by America & torture: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/William_Blum.html Stars4change (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

soviet union
alright so im doing homework and i cant figure out why the soviet union or USSR was created? i have a general understanding but some specifics would be awesome —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.59.202 (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"socialism" the first stage towards communism
User User:Zd12 reverts the part of the article that states that socialism is the intermediate stage towards communism and replaces "socialism" with dictatorship of the proletariat. this does not make much sense. while marx uses the terms "first phase of communism" and "higher phase of communism", engels already uses the term "socialism" to refer to the "first phase" and the use of the term "socialism" for this phase is established among marxists today... Mond (talk) 10:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have a ref. for Fred using it to mean an intermediate phase? As the socialism page, and quite a few authors note, up until Lenin, really, the socialism and communism were used interchangeably (often one or the other being favoured for radical commontations, and atheism).  It's certainly more a Leninist formulation than a Marxist one...--Red Deathy (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * well you are right: the use of this terminology became prominent with lenin. but rosa luxembourg and trotsky used them as well. in any case it is well established terminology today (thousands of websites, articles, etc.. about communism use it in that way): thus an encyclopedic article should use it and explain it. Mond (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is absolutely no problem. As for Marx's and Engels' opinion, both socialism and full communism (that is generally correlated with simple word 'communism') are two successive stages of so-called communist formation. Confusions you are talking about were among not very vell-educated socialists and communists but not among Marx and Engels :)

Read what you're actually saying. The lower and higher phases of COMMUNISM. Lenin didn't correlate the lower phase with the DotP, but he did come up with the dinstinction of the lower phase as socialism. Thousands of articles and websites say that Marxism wants to establish a totalitarian dictatorship, so that isn't much of an argument. The Critique of the Gotha Program is one of Marx's own works, there can be no better source for Marxist theory. Zd12 (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Nut1917 (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Europarliament's resolution
The Europarliament has passed a resolution condemning crimes of humanity and violations of human rights committed by Communist regimes:. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 15:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Editsemiprotected
Page has been deleted.
 * No, it has not been. Please use the editsemiprotected template cautiously. Killiondude (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Communism in the animal kingdom
Shouldn't there be something on how ants, bees, termites etc use communism or a communist-like structure in the real world ? Quite interestingly, these are some of the most successful species on earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.7.219 (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This article primarily deals with the human aspect, that is, how humans have thought of communism, and its effects on our world. True ants and bees may seem to be communist (E.O. Wilson once stated that Karl Marx was right, only that he got the wrong species (ants, instead of humans)). Articles on social insects can be found at:


 * Eusociality
 * Presociality
 * Evolutionarily stable strategy
 * Task allocation and partitioning of social insects
 * Stigmergy
 * Reciprocity (social psychology)
 * Patterns of self-organization in ants
 * Dense heterarchy

Hope this helps :) --Spotty11222 (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Microsoftism?
This is freaking ridiculous and absolutely irrelevant. Not even close to NPOV either. If this section is not removed soon, I will do so myself unless someone can provide a good counterargument.

--71.56.124.57 (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Split to List of communist ideologies
User:Ioannes_Pragensis is working on a split to List_of_communist_ideologies, as discussed there and at User_talk:Ioannes_Pragensis. At first, I think I completely misunderstood his intentions, but I think I get it now -- I think he intends to split the article, putting the "Terminology" section into the new article, then improve both articles using translations from other-language wikis. But I might still misunderstand. --SV Resolution(Talk) 14:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am trying to split it in order to simplify the work on both the list (a verbose copy of list-like arts of the article) and the rest (definition + history of communism). I try to replace the current content with my new text with much simpler structure now. Please forgive my bad English; I will be very grateful for various improvements.
 * I am very well avare that my new version (inspired by but by far not identical with the parallel Czech article) is far from perfect, but I hope that it will move this stalemated article to the state where changes are possible and welcome.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

hi there
i believe that certain things are better said then done.--128.221.197.55 (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)--128.221.197.55 (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)