Talk:Communism/Archive 14

Cambodia, a communist country?
The image that shows the current "communist" countries has Cambodia shaded as one. Yet the Cambodia Wiki page (here) says that Cambodia is a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary representative democracy. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.84.204 (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems like a mistake in the image to me. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The entire image is problematic, the Sino-Soviet split has been overbridged long ago. Cuba has good relations with PRC. None of the existing socialist states form part of any bloc in the sense they did in the 1970s and 1980s, there is no organ of coordination like the Warsaw Pact, Cominform or COMECON. The image seems to suggest that Vietnam and N. Korea are Chinese client states, which is not correct. --Soman (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for the map of countries who declared themselves to be socialist/communist states
Hi I suggest in order to see the developments of Socialism/communism any country who had a socialist/communist revolution or e.g. after a democratic election like Chile should be included in another color. E.g. Germany had 1918/1919 a socialist revolution were 56 of the biggest towns were soviet republics and whole bavaria. Also Spain before the German fascist bombardments and war of dictator General Franco in 1939 was a Socialist republic. Also many more South-American countries and Iran, Afghanistan.

I think the map should be more complete in this sense. May be to add the situation of 2010 with much less Socialist/communist countries should be included too. So the development and changes become much more clearer. --Edgar8 (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Communism need not be democratic
Additional comments to what noted in the edit summary: Communism is finally, democratic in real effect but not necessarily in practice. As an ideal, it posits a future state of affairs of human society where production processes at every level are no longer mired in class relations which have either withered to vestiges or been eliminated entirely. In this situation there is no bar to a pure division of labor with decision making processes delegated appropriately at higher levels and only practically democratic at general policy making or local community levels. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Attempted to apply this in named account although the edits made by IP. Unfamiliar with the new review feature and not clear what TRTTD is so leaving as is. Lycurgus (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Similarly, the perception of autonomy or the lack thereof is irrelevant to the goal of communism which is to maximize the potential of every member of society. In fact both these (autonomy and (normally fake) democracy) are prime elements to which class-based society appeals in maintaining itself, the various identity groups, nation states, etc. that support it. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * From its inception in 5th century Athens, Western democracy has been a means by which the upper classes share rule with the ruling elites, that is to say it is an integral mechanism and symptom of class rule. Neither primitive communism nor the future ideal have a place for voting at the level of political units, and both make much greater use of it at the lowest levels (the head of soviet communism died when the soviets became irrelevant to the central state power, though the body lived on). When the people are actually in charge, there is no need for referenda on their being in charge! In primitive communism, as in the modern attempt, a faulty leadership is the cause for its replacement. If the system is not responsive in recognizing and addressing such failures, then revolution or systemic collapse occurs, as it did finally in the already long dead soviet communism. In the world historical context, the modern failures of communism are precisely the learning experience required so that the next time the same mistakes are not repeated. Another perspective on this is gained by the example of China, which although the cultural and technological peer or superior of the West until the 17th century, never had such an institution. Instead, there is the Mandate of Heaven the implicit notion that government derives its legitimacy from its competence in executing its function, and the failure of the latter is a just cause for new government. Completely new, not an alternation between flavors of the old thing which still maintains its grip on power but with bitterly contesting factions playing a game of musical chairs in the seats it creates for them, but a completely new system. Dynasties provided this and it has already been remarked that the current PRC regime is a "Mao Dynasty". Bourgeois democracy is a conspicuous failure in this respect more (as in the USA where essentially the same system has been in place for 235 years) or less (such as Italy, France, etc) for this reason, although it is the propaganda for this system that it is the exactly the opposite, that only bourgeois democracy is responsive to the needs of the people but in fact it actually only hides the fact that it cannot address problems at a system level and is therefore inferior to precisely the extent that it suppresses such needed systemic change by meaningless plebiscites. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but just so you know: Wikipedia is not a Forum. We don't discus the topics, we discuss the articles. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To the extent that the matter of fact of any article or portion thereof, in this case the reviewed edits upon which this thread is contingent, must be discussed, it is in fact a forum for the discussion of that editorial and subject matter. Otherwise there would be some kind of unclear Miss Manners arbitrariness where the discussion you appear to want to suppress by calling it a forum would be replaced by what? Trivial matters such as style and gaming various wiki policies such as I believe I've observed you to do in the past? I'm not cynical enough to say no one has a right to expect wikipedia, the peoples knowledge source, such as it is. to be an exception to this sort of thing. Lycurgus (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To the extent - Yes. Which is very small. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

British Empire and Unification
I must say I agree with this edit:. I find the comparison of an ideology and an empire bizarre. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's the typical simpleminded conflation of Stalinism, "an evil empire" with an actual Empire. The editor apparently saw the entire set of so-called communist states of the previous century as such, in spite of the fact that there were bitter antagonisms between China and the Soviet Union. The fact that there was in fact no underlying polity upon which such an empire could be based, the vitiating element for such a comparison, is lost on such an editor. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see no way all communist states can be viewed as the same type of empire the British Empire was. Good catch, considering someone undid the edit.


 * IP, there's no need to lambaste the person who wrote that; I'm sure they were only trying to improve the article. Swarm Talk 09:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Swarm, point taken, but didn't really look at the actual edits, only replied to Open Future's report of it. Good intentions count for relatively little, but they do count for something if verified, which I doubt they would be given the report. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It's all about the mode of production
In Marxist theory and in reality the essence of class social orders is the material mode of production which is the base upon which such orders are built up. The achieved result that would exist in communism is the elimination of such classes and the formation of a classeless, and ultimately stateless common human society. "however the mode of production achieved was essentially state capitalism not the ideal of communist production." which Mkdw reverted, attempted to make clear that in this sense the former and current so-called Communist states are by no means realizations of pure Communism, an absolute, which is what the lede &para; is about. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha. Is this an attempt to discuss the article? If so, that is unclear. Is there a problem? Do you have a suggested change? Or? I'm not sure what you are trying to say. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should consult some of the other "Illuminati". 72.228.177.92 (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It would go much faster if you simply explained what you were trying to say. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As you noted above, this is not a forum for me to have a discussion with you. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so you admit that your comment was not about the article at all, but off topic and in violation of WP:NOTAFORUM. You could have said that earlier, or even better, not posted the comment at all. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In a shitty world, you are a minor irritation, I won't respond further to your trolling. My apologies to the community for not having observed before now the don't feed a troll rule. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks doesn't strengthen your case. Again, this place is for discussing the articles. Not for discussing communism. You can do that somewhere else. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Some problems with current lede

 * Communism is bigger than Marxism. The term was in use before Marx was born and should probably date to at least the Paris commune of 1789-95. The overall lede is consistent with a view of communism as effectively equivalent to orthodox marxism, which it may be too soon to say is the complete end of the story as there are states claiming to be communist and others claiming to be on the socialist road (presumably to communism).
 * Singling out class divisions based on race. That's just wrong. There's no reason to do that. The goal of communism is a classless society, to the extent the concept is realizable, and particular class structures or their bases shouldn't be singled out in the lede like that and if there were one that should be simply economic class.
 * "property" in the first sentence should be "means of production", since not all formulations (e.g. the current PRC) of communism are incompatible with private property per se.

72.228.177.92 (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, this introduction pretty much just discusses Marxist theory, not communism as a whole. I'll try and do something about it. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC))
 * What are you thinking of doing? It would be better to discuss before we make any major changes. I generally agree with the IP user however. Class division based on race is something that doesn't really exist in communism. ValenShephard (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, just remove a lot of the specifically Marxist information that is currently in the lead, whilst adding a little bit on the history of the ideology. By the way, nice work on the lead ValenShephard, thank you! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC))
 * No problem, its a pleasure. I don't think we should mention Proudhon, even if your source does, because he is probably one of the least communist of the left anarchists. Peter Kropotkin created much more material and was much more communistic. But I wouldn't mind discussing this. ValenShephard (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah fair enough, I'm by no means an expert on socialism and communism, my expertise tends to lie in occult history. But this page really does need some work; I'm really just going by what my source material says, so please correct any mistakes.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC))
 * Well you aren't making any mistake, just keep up what you are doing, its useful. Finding sources for already existing statements in the lead (even though they are very well known in communism) would also be very useful, to give it some credibility, even if the statements are not controversial. You are doing well, keep it up. ValenShephard (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that (aside from adding references, generally from academic books rather than websites) there are several key things that need to be done with this introduction. Firstly the first paragraph, which involves defining communism and its relationship with socialism, needs clarifying. Now this appears to e a very contentious issue, so we’re going to have to find a way of doing this that explains the varying points of view. Secondly, the three paragraphs that deal with communist theory perhaps need condensing. Any other ideas? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC))
 * Well my understanding is that socialism is the first stage of attaining communism. This is classical Marxist theory and is used in basically all communist movements from Leninism to Chinese Communism (even now), I have never seen or heard of a communist movement which believes there should be no transition through socialism. Its an important clarification to make because the performance of "communist states" like the USSR is often used to understand communism, even though they themselves did not call what they were doing communism! Its important to seperate socialist experience from communism, which has never existed in the modern world. Do you get what I mean? That's what I was trying to say, based on material already there. ValenShephard (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand, but that attitude, to me, seems simply to be that of Marxism. The term "socialism" and "communism" were at some times in history essentially used interchangeably. I think that the article has to reflect these different viewpoints.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC))
 * Communism basically is Marxism, with the additions and contributions of a few others. But the basics are shared across basically all movements, and all stem from Marx. ValenShephard (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems to be the dominant view certainly, but there are those who would classify many non-Marxist forms of socialism as communism. I'm not expert enough to tell you who they are, but they exist. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC))
 * If you can post some sources here, I would glady work with you to include them, if they are useful. :) ValenShephard (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there confusion between communism and communalism? Hardyplants (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I dont think so. What do you mean? ValenShephard (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am asking in relation to the post that asks " but there are those who would classify many non-Marxist forms of socialism as communism" which might have more to do with communalism that any direct link to communism. Hardyplants (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't really comment on that statement because I havent seen any sources on it. Lets see what they have to say then we can judge what it really means. ValenShephard (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledging responses to this thread which I began. Lycurgus (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree with "end of wage labor and private property" unless qualified. See also the Lycurgus/CRGreathouse thread in talk:wage slavery Archive 3. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Missing mention of communist class
The communist class that is defined in the communist manifesto. Why do people keep removing the communist class from the list of "minor classes". Clearly this class is neither proletariat nor bourgeoisie, and it has been extremely important in shaping every communist society. Why can't this class even be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.251.8 (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Even more frustrating is that the communist class is defined in no other document than the communist manifesto itself: there is the "10-point plan" and "relation of communists to others". Yet these idiots keep wanting "more references". What better reference is there than the communist manifesto itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.251.8 (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Moved this ignorant unsigned drivel into its proper chrono order. The editor is confused but if e were'nt an ignoramus would probably be referring to New Class, Aggravation of class struggle under socialism, professional revolutionaries, cadres, etc. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Why should the communist class be relegated to later forms of Communism when it is right in the original manifesto? The special privileges (power to implement the 10-point plan and to write openly about it) are accorded the communists are described right in the original document. Don't blame Stalin, it was all in the original version of communism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.251.8 (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, will respond as if. It is true that in a mathematical sense any collection of persons with a shared attribute can be referred to as a class. Then for example, Jews, Tea Partiers, cancer patients, wikipedia editors, those between the ages of 33 and 36, and of course those advocating communism, would in that sense constitute a class. However this kind of use of language is generally considered perverse and it is especially idiotic in this case because communists and the Communist Manifesto are reasonably clear and explicit about the goal of a classless society i.e. the negation of class as a concept as it is commonly understood in ordinary discourse, was meant in the Manifesto, is meant in the context of this article, etc. That sole meaningful sense was covered in my original response to the thread, which I probably should have just moved and not given this much credence to but here it is. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No the communist class is not just a random collection of people. The manifesto grants the communist class general powers in the following clause: "In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they [the communists] always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.251.8 (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That describes the activity of a group of people. It doesn't describe communists as a class, and it doesn't grant them "general powers." But as we clearly disagree about the interpretation of the Communist Manifesto, a primary source, I would ask you to provide secondary sources to support your interpretation.VoluntarySlave (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

list of Communist states table
This article would be more helpful if somewhere there were a link to a supplemental table of states past and present implementing communism. Suggested format for the table: [ Nation | Founder/tradition | Start - End date ] Suggested sort-order by Start date (early to late), Nation (alphabetical A to Z). I1abnrk (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There was not a single state which "implemented" communism. May be Moscow 2042. 16:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovok Sovok (talk • contribs)

Introduction must be shorter!!!!
The intro of the main page MUST BE SHORTER,and CLEARER! I spend about 2-3minutes of my time reading the whole text and I still don't know a good definition of Communism! It is not clear, goes around the bush too much, and is just too long to read!

Optimally the meaning of the word should be in ONE sentence on the top of the page, right under the title. Then a small paragraph explaining; Not a whole paragraph of nonsense of "he thought this, and she thought that..." I don't care, all that crap can be written here in the discussion section; but the first 2 lines should say the whole story! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.254.64.146 (talk) 09:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree the lede is too long. A new section marker ==Overview== should be placed after the 1st &para;. Will do so if there are no objections. Lycurgus (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * So made this change, but FTR objection I've made above to "communism" uniformly implying "abolition of wage labor and private property", still cogent I believe. These things could exist in something that was a valid communist system (unlike the PRC which is basically Capitalism with a Stalinist political apparatus/state power) albeit on a radically reformulated basis, they're not somehow essentially anti-thetical to communism except as they are an extension of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (or some "new class"). 72.228.177.92 (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, the advance of human history leads to a superabundance of productive capacity/capability not material wealth. The capitalist system sequesters the produced wealth in the traditionally owning classes and countries and finally its inability to use that productive capacity for any goal other than the enrichment of the top accumulators becomes glaringly obvious to all with the eyes to see it. But it is only by action of those doing the actual producing that the change occurs, just as it did, albeit within the context of continuing the general modality of the prior regime when bourgeois forces replaced the European old order at the end of the 18th century. Because the change currently being forced by circumstances cannot happen within the nation-state context, it will be fundamentally different than anything that has occurred before. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference to Columbia encyclopedia
The article has way too many references to the article in Columbia encyclopedia. Setting aside the fact that IMO the Columbia article is complete crap even compared with the Wikipedia artice, I don't think that references to tertiary sources (i.e., a thoroughly regurgitated and usually heavily biased (single author) info) is a good idea to use in wikipedia. Any thoughts? Lovok Sovok (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Missing sources
"The exact definition of communism varies, and it is often mistakenly used interchangeably with socialism; however, Marxist theory contends that socialism is just a transitional stage on the way to communism. Leninists revised this theory by introducing the notion of a vanguard party to lead the proletarian revolution and to hold all political power after the revolution in a transitional stage between capitalism and socialism. Some communists, such as council communists and non-Marxist libertarian communists and anarcho-communists, oppose the idea of a vanguard party and transition stage and advocate for the construction of full communism to begin immediately upon the abolition of capitalism."

This entire paragraph is unsourced. Surely, it could do with one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.101.250.250 (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

deleted &para;
"Karl Marx, as well as some other communist philosophers, purposely never provided a detailed description as to how communism would function as a social system. In the communist manifesto, Marx lays out a 10-point plan advising the redistribution of land and production to achieve his social ideals. However, Marx fervently denies that this plan is to be carried out by any specific group or 'class'. According to Marx, communal ownership of the means of production and the end of wage labour inevitably arises due to contradictions and class conflicts existing in capitalism, and the communists are merely professors who help frame struggles in terms of class struggle.[3] In this way, communism avoids the contradiction of creating a new class to replace the old one." Restored this it's the typical tedious complaint which some linking and explanation, e.g. to new class would address except of course that it already has been. Not endorsing text above as well composed but its bulk removal in an article as contentious as this requires more process. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

"Today, Marxist revolutionaries are conducting armed insurgencies in India, Philippines, Peru, Bangladesh, Iran, Turkey, and Colombia."

A mention of this without further information or links to other articles treating this information renders this a side comment that serves no purpose. Until such information be available it would be best if it is removed (at least in the meantime). While some of these revolutions still continue, there is no further information as to why, or if, they are marxist (for example, their ideology), or if they are still ongoing or have been suppressed. This would make a great article to link to, by the way. Bonzano (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

First sentence
There should be an 'and' in the first sentence, so that it reads:

"Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate."

Otherwise, it reads that communists want private property in the means of production and real estate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.240.133 (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

General Grammar Errors
There is a grammar error under History>Early Communism. The text there should either be in quotes, or if the box stays, the "and where" needs to be removed. Since the article is locked, I cannot do it myself. The idea of a classless society first emerged in Ancient Greece.[32] Plato in his The Republic described it as a state where people shared all their property, wives and children, and where[32] the private and individual is altogether banished from life and things which are by nature private, such as eyes and ears and hands, have become common, and in some way see and hear and act in common, and all men express praise and fell joy and sorrow on the same occasions

I advise you to create a Wikipedia account. Meanwhile, I have tried a new box.43?9enter (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Burma
Is the Communism in Burma forgotten? Or was the Burmese Communism to despotic?Haabet 20:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Not sure but Michelle Bachmann is a communist! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.49.161 (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Sebrider, 8 August 2011
For "Further reading" : thank you. Sebrider (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Alexandre Zinoviev, The Reality of Communism (1980), Publisher Schocken, 320p, 1984


 * Yes check.svg Done Topher385 (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

disappearing/reappearing
did anypone else see the disappearing reappearing christian communism section. adding unaccurate information is against the rules of wikipedia. you cant put it on and off temporarily. please stop doing this

Delighted eyes (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Role of "Overview"
What's the role of the section "Overview"? I suggest merging this into the lead section, which hasn't properly summarised the article. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 09:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"As a social movement"
"As a social movement" sounds like original research, so I don't think there are any sources. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 23:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Error in italicised explanation line at start of article
It says: "Communism" redirects here. For the form of government in which a state is controlled by a communist party, see Communist state.

Communism doesn't redirect here. This article is Communism. Please will someone remove the first (3-word) sentence.

Thanks.

81.158.12.19 (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Bility (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"Further reading" section
In the context of such a broad subject, "Communism", the section "Further reading" seems pointless: There are thousands of books and other texts written on the subject. I would understand that the article is a stub and much remains missing, then "further reading" would make sense, as an initian pointer. But here... What is the purpose of this list? The article is thoroughly referenced. If some major issues are missing, let this be pointed out and filled in. Otherwise "Further reading" is just a random collection of WP:NOT. Lovok Sovok (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Could we add James Connolly's june 1889 Article "State Monopoly Versus Socialism" as it deals directly & very bluntly with the differences between actually communism (as controlled by the people) & what is essentially state monopolies & capitalism under the guise of socialism? 24.12.3.209 (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Theory conflicts
It says in the first bit of the article that in Marxist theory Socialism is a transition period to communism. This is not the case. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx used the words interchangeably. Lenin was the one to make the distinction between socialism and communism (therefore, it should say "in Leninist theory" not "in Marxist theory" ). Political discussion aside, this is the truth. It's important to differentiate between these two theories. 184.151.63.247 (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 December 2011
This is my first contribution, so I will start with something relatively easy. Hope I should be doing this correctly.

On this article, there are some references to Karl Marx under the Etymology and terminology section and under the Early Comunism subsection that can me linked to the Wikipedia page for Karl Marx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx)

Similarly, in the Notes section, on notes #1, #42 and #43. Thank you.

Azrockclimber (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Added a few, but we don't want to overlink C T J F 8 3  14:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request, Growth of Modern Communism section. 11 Dec 2011
At the end of the first paragraph, discussing Plekhanov and Russian Marxism, I have a reliable source on the topic. Catherine Evtuhov, David Goldfrank, Lindsey Hughes, Richard Stites. A History of Russia: People, Legends, Events, Forces. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. p 500. Confirms the statements made in the paragraph.

Marxalot (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"Non Marxist" schools of communism
I'm not sure that this label is entirely accurate for the contents. For example Many anarcho communists would regard themselves as hetero-orthodox Marxists (I do!). I would change the title myself, but I can't think of a better one that fairly represents all the views the section contains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.186.8 (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This Marxist Anarcho-Communist Agrees. Marxism describes the formation of a classless AND stateless society. "Non Marxist" Communism is an oxymoron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.191.208 (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Non-Marxist Communism is not an oxymoron. Though I don't think it's arguable Anarcho-Communism may be related to Marxism in the minds of many, though not all, adherents, religous forms of communism are very often non-Marxist in nature. More importantly to my mind however is the lack of historical context for the wide space of opinion in Pre-Marxian communism. If you want proof of these I know where to get it, but I think these are well known enough known to not require proof on the talk page. Walras101 (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not just make it "Other schools of communism"?--Pigchickencow (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

pov
The whole article is hopelessly pov, as has already been mentioned many times above. It seems to be written as some kind of inside-joke/inside-argument between various factions of communists/anarchists/syndicalists or what have you. It completely ignores - or almost ignores - the existence of "actually existing communist" states and in places where it acknowledges that such may have existed it whitewashes the whole thing by either making excuses ("they weren't really communist, they were capitalist, really!") or attributes any negatives about such places to "cold war propaganda". Which is of course somewhat schizophrenic to begin with. It's a pretty bad article overall. It's just so long, and so well guarded that any hope of rewriting it in a neutral manner is unlikely to succeed in the near future. But let's at least make the potential readers aware of that.  Volunteer Marek  07:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * None of that is particularly constructive, do you have any specific suggestions? It seems to me the socialist states get reasonable coverage (AFAICR they never claimed to have communism, but to be transitional states), and criticism gets mentioned and the main articles are linked to: the bulk of the article seems to be descriptive of the various trends/theories.  For anyone genuinely interested in improvement, I always think the Flat Earth is the acme of NPOV, so compare/contrast from there might be worthwhile...--Red Deathy (talk) 10:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's a quick (non-exhaustive) litmus test: the phrase "centrally planned" "central plan" "command economy" do not even appear in the article. "Centrally planned economy" and "5 year plan" appear exactly once each. Yet, pretty much ANY source on the subject discusses these concepts at length. Like I said, this is just a quick test of one particular issue. There are many others.   Volunteer Marek   18:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why "central plan" is a litmus test -- it doesn't occur once in the Catholic Encyclopedia nor the 1911 Britannica . The reference in  the article to central planning is prominent, and we can't assess balance by counting word frequencies.  We'd also need to be careful, in that the centrally planned states were socialist states, they claimed not to have attained communism, which si what this article is about.--Red Deathy (talk) 08:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, it's just one example of problems with this article. Reading the whole thing one more time it seems like most of the POV problems are in the lede itself. Other parts of the article also have other problems but these tend to be different in nature, for example the "As a social movement" section.
 * I don't think that an encyclopedia from 1911 is a good standard of comparison here. Obviously certain things have happened in the world, regarding "Communism" since 1911. Likewise the Catholic Encyclopedia tends to focus on the relationship between Catholic doctrine and history and Communism, which is also something that we don't want to emulate here (though mentioning it would be ok).  Volunteer Marek   00:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe, once upon a time, those two formed the basis for the text (and play a role of benchmark for WP generally. You're right that, obviously, they are outdated with regards the history of communism, but insofar as the concept itself hasn't changed in the last hundred years, they do provide a useful comparator.  I'll look at teh lead, always worth examining (looks a bit ragbaggy to me).--Red Deathy (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This article appears to be under attack, presumably from right wing types who want their simple minded point of view reflected in the article. The actions and statements show a distinct crudeness and lack of understanding of wiki process that belies the 6 years Volunteer Marek has been editing. Fortunately this is a main article for this topic and the regular wiki process will do what it does whenever there's sufficient attention as there will be in this case. There are sufficient numbers of persons who oppose socialism and communism and yet are knowledgeable and intellectually competent to weight in here that you don't have to humor the others. The complaints about sources are legitimate but it's overkill to cite tag every sentence and the sections too. The others are bullshit and should be removed. People in this time in societies that never had totalitarian socialist regimes don't give a shit about how messed up things were in whatever your old country was or what you think socialism or communism are. They want to know the objective truth, not of your old country reality but of the intellectual movements in question as distinct from that. There is a whole category of articles on communist countries where you and others can and do ride that hobby horse. This is not the place for it. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This article is not under any kind of "attack". The entirety of your comment essentially involves one big personal attack, which means it's not really worth responding to. [[User:Volunteer Marek| Volunteer Marek  ]] 00:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty new to this... but this whole pov section seems like it's getting a bit heated (it’s like a mini cold war in itself). I think the article seems neutral for the most part - but it's difficult for myself to perceive my personal degree of bias. The whole "joke/inside-argument between various factions of communists/anarchists/syndicalists or what have you" comment doesn't seem entirely respectful, and makes potential contributors feel they might be attacked and/or labeled for not giving what some readers view as the appropriate input. It seems like the main issue for marek is that there isn't enough reference to the actual functioning of the economy in communist states that have existed since the Bolshevik revolution? My suggestion would be to add an economy section maybe? Or perhaps add further information on the functioning of the economy under specific names (i.e. Stalinism or Maoism). The problem with this is you can't really do that with Marx and Lenin, as Marx's theories were never put in to practice by himself, and Lenin was not around long enough to see that his theories were put into play the way he had intended. I would suggest that the history of "actual existing communist" states might be more appropriately covered under their own entry (i.e. Maoist China - or whatever). On comparing with the "Capitalism" entry, which doesn't have a neutrality flag, the tone seems similar to the “Communism” article. Also, under the Capitalism entry, it does not go into great length about the practices of “actual existing capitalist” states. One thing that is done on the “Capitalism” page (and also on this page) that might make readers like Marek feel that communism is fairly covered is the addition of more “Main article:” and “See also:”’s to expand on specific topics loosely covered (i.e. command economy – which has its own entry already… well, a redirected one). These would be my suggestions to try and make this article more neutral – unless there are more specific pov issues; in which case, it would be more productive to pick out examples of specific sentences where bias is found, so that they may be corrected.--AnieHall (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is, "communist state" is a contradiction in terms. State means government, and in communism, there is no structured government. A better term may be "Communist nation" as a nation is simply a large group of people inhabiting a territory united by common culture. There currently is not, and never has been, any nation that has achieved communism. Remember, there is a difference between a nation that is Communist, and a nation that is controlled by a communist party. So that is why different countries aren't analysed here.--Pigchickencow (talk) 0:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I see what you mean: Marx's ideal final state of communism would be free of government, police and other "state"-like things, therefore the Soviet Union (for example) cannot be defined as a communist state? But unless every state on earth becomes a state with a government that has a communist party in parliament and then each eradicates all the borders that define and enclose a state and then disband all forms of governing, there will never be a "communist" nation/state/nation-state. and also, then what umbrella category would states like the soviet union and Cuba who were/are attempting to achieve communism be called? Socialist by Lenin's definition I suppose. But as noted above, Marx used the terms socialist and communist interchangeably. On the nation word... I'm not so sure communist nation would work, since in one state there can be many nations. In Canada, for instance, you have the Metis, Cree, Tsimshian nation, etc. all coinciding in one sovereign (hopefully) geographic area or state. ... Further, in the definition of communism on this page "Communism is a social, political and economic ideology that AIMS at the establishment of a classless, moneyless, stateless" - so, a communist state would be a state aiming towards these ideals. But I think I see your point, and that is, that many of these "communist states" stray greatly from Marx's idea of communism? (please correct me or expand if I've misunderstood). On another note, I do find it interesting that there is not a page for "capitalist state", while there is one for "Communist State". I can imagine a number of reasons for this, but I’m not bother speculating here. Carrying on - having a “communist state” page seems kind of redundant, as you have a page for each state that is governed by some kind of communist/socialist party and there is a page defining communism itself. Just like as under the "Capitalism" page we are given a definition, and then states which have a capitalist economic system have their own page. Also many states do not fit exactly into one definition or the other, and instead are some kind of synthesis, or a state may call itself one thing, and not be that thing at all, as pointed out previously. It does seem like, to at least maintain evenness (redundancy aside – better too much info than not enough), the “Communist State” page should be removed, or a “Capitalist State” should be added?AnieHall (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there no "Commune" in "communism?"
It seems that the concept of a commune, as actually applied in Communist countries, has been virtually ignored in this article. Communist revolutionaries in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, and others went about setting up communes— especially agricultural communes— as the central tenet of their communist system. "Commune" is the root word for the philosophy, after all! Land was forcibly and brutally taken from landowners, and then "collectives" (another vital word made scarce in this article) were set up. Particularly in the Ukraine in the 1930s, mass terror and starvation were often employed to force people onto the communes. A simple Wikipedia search of the terms: "commune," "collective," and "Ukranian famine" will shed much light on this. I am wondering how an article on communism virtually ignores the communes and collectives as they were implemented by the Communist states. Anyone agree that this should be corrected? Overholt001 (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is probably as this article is on the ideology known as communism; Other articles should and, as you said, do cover this content. ~  Swi tch  ( ✉ ✍  ☺  ☒ )  09:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

But James Connolly, in his article "socialism & the Irish republic" (I think) made a point to illustrate the difference between "state-based capitalism" where the state owns the property & means of production, & actual communism, where the workers collectively own the means of production & the community collectively owns its resources. That certainly adds the "commune" to "communism" per philosophical definition. It should be included, as, many people see it as a basic tenent of communism, especially when dealing with the means of production & natural resources & agrarian lands. Kotar72 (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The huge problem with "commune" and "communism" and a perfect demonstration thereof by the Soviet Union and other communist states is that the idea for workers to actually "collectively owns its resources" becomes impossible to implement once "its resources" are on the country-wide scale. Read  Milovan Đilas' "New Class" for details. Long story short: vast resources require lots of people to manage. The category of these people, however they are called officially, are de-facto bureaucracy. "Management = power" + "power corrupts" = "new ruling class".  As early as Lenin recognized this, but he, in all his alleged geniality, thought this is but a vestige of the old society, that it is sufficient to hang/shoot a sufficient number of bureaucrats (together with other enemies of the people), to pave the road to the shininig horizons of communism. However it turned out that the Soviet people were exceptionally good at generating their own enemies :-) Lovok Sovok (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The lead, per BRD
Given that Engels was inspired by the American Commune movement and the precedent of the Catholic Encylopedia, the lead is currently misleading, the "ideology" of communism is inextricably linked in with the human experience and practice of communism.--Red Deathy (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that makes sense. When I first waded into it, I rather hastily assumed that the article was about "pure communism". I was partly misled by redirects, but I should have taken the time to read the whole article.


 * My experience over 10 years at Wikipedia is that our article on the various types of "communism" have not been of high quality: they lack coherence and are often confusing. I think rather than a Communism (disambiguation) we need a Definitions of communism article, because the word is used so many different ways; it's hard to keep track of context, etc.


 * One major organizing principle would be to distinguish the Marxist from the non-Marxist varieties.


 * Another would be to distinguish between theory and practice. Marxism and its variants are worldviews. On the other hand, the term Communism in some contexts refers more to the political aspect: the rise (and occasional fall) of Communist states. (When historians say "Communism dominated Eastern Europe" they mean practice more than ideology.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

No Chinese Communism
"The Hurun rich list, which has been tracking China's tycoons since 1999, on Wednesday said it had counted 271 dollar billionaires in China last year,

China's billionaires double in number, By Malcolm Moore, Shanghai 10:52AM BST 07 Sep 2011 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8746445/Chinas-billionaires-double-in-number.html

A society with billionaires - communist?

--88.104.31.252 (talk) 07:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The People's Republic of China does not claim or pretend to be communist. See: Socialist market economy. Aridd (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Communist Party of China says: The Communist Party of China (CPC), also known as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), is the founding and ruling political party of the People's Republic of China (PRC).
 * However, "According to CIA World Factbook, China's government is still considered a Communist State. ... A country's economic policy is only one part of it's government, so just because economic policies are changing doesn't necessarily mean the system of government has changed."
 * For decades, people have wrangled over whether a particular country is "Communist" - generally by considering or ignoring certain aspects. In terms of religious freedom, political freedom, or economic freedom, each Communist country falls in its own particular place (in all three spectrums).


 * Anyway, since the article you cited is not a general one, but is specifically about China (and its self-description), I've moved it to Socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics. Actually, it was better at the more well-known title Communism with Chinese characteristics, unless people think that violates NPOV somehow. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Commune
What does "commun" or "commune" mean as it appears in Communism?

In the article, the meaning of the Latin word is given. But it is the meaning of the old Latin word. It is where it comes from. Meaning of the Latin word is not what it is.

What does "commun" or "commune" mean in the modern English, as it appears in the word "communism"?--98.196.232.128 (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"communist state" in the intro

 * In the modern lexicon oĉf what many sociologists and political commentators refer to as the "political mainstream", communism is often used to refer to the policies of states run by communist parties, regardless of the practical content of the actual economic system they may preside over

This phrase contains the logical error. Recently Moldova was run by a communist president and his party, yet it was not called "communist state". I clarified it to:
 * In the modern lexicon of what many sociologists and political commentators refer to as the "political mainstream", communism is often used to refer to the policies of communist states, i.e., the ones totally controlled by communist parties, regardless of the practical content of the actual economic system they may preside over.

Please comment. May be I misunderstood the purpose of this sentence. By the way, on the second thought, I now think this whole paragraph does not belong here: there is a hatnote already: For the form of government in which a state is controlled by a communist party, see Communist state.. Lovok Sovok (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A "Communist state" is a state organized according to Leninist or Marxist-Leninist principles (a single-party vanguard state based on democratic centralism). Moldova is not a "Communist state" simply because it was run by a Communist government because the institutions and structure of the state remained the same (essentially a parliamentary republic with a capitalist economy). Usually when Western commentators and political scientists use the word "Communism", they are referring to the state and governmental structure of the Marxist-Leninist/Leninist countries as opposed to talking about the classless, post-socialist stage of history predicted by Marxism. Battlecry (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Pure communism -> full communism
as written in sources --76.118.66.64 (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

NeoCommunism?
I am I neocommunist and I am wondering why there is a lack of neocommunism everywhere on Wikipedia. Infrastation (talk) 05:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Infrastation

Please insert urdu "Communism in other languages" — Preceding unsigned comment added by فیروز اردووالا (talk • contribs) 07:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"Free world"
I do not think that it is objective to call the western bloc "The Free World", so could we maybe rename is to, fx. The western block?

(In the first chapter) Billehoj — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billehoj (talk • contribs) 11:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Or simply "capitalist". It's hard to call Japan and South Korea "Western". --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnieHall (talk • contribs) 07:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

"mankind"
I find it ironic that this page says, "In the schema of historical materialism, communism is the idea of a free society with no division or alienation, where mankind is free from oppression and scarcity." Mankind is an alienating term; what about humankind? Moreover, one cannot edit this page without being registered: irony number two. Clearly, a feminist communist *did not* write this page.
 * good point. humankind/humans/people/etc. something gender neutral would be an improvement.AnieHall (talk) 06:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See vernacular.  Royal Mate1  18:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * what, in particular, should we be looking at under vernacular.AnieHall (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * this has been changed to people - can/should this be archived/deleted?AnieHall (talk) 07:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

accuracy of third paragraph?
The sentence "and non-Marxist libertarian communists and anarcho-communists oppose the ideas of a vanguard party and a transition stage, and advocate for the construction of full communism to begin immediately upon the abolition of capitalism" doesn't seem fully accurate to me, and the entire paragraph is noted for missing citation. how are libertarian communists "non-Marxist", is this a fact? My reading of Marx has left me with the impression that his ideas are rather libertarian. Perhaps someone has a source for this so that it's less questionable, unless it actually is not quite accurate?AnieHall (talk) 07:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Conflating Communism with State Socialism
With all due respect, this Wikipedia entry on Communism is a sad joke in that the article is mainly about Marxist and Leninist State Socialism, which is not at all the same as communism. Communism pre-existed Marx and as Marx recognized in his writing, what he advocated was a particular version of communism, i.e. so-called "Scientific Communism". The societies that developed based on trying to implement Marxist theory never achieved communism, if that was ever truly their goal. This Wikipedia article either ought to be renamed "State Socialism" with the rather substantial distinctions between communism and state socialism made clear and the erroneous references to "Communism" where what is actually being referred to is State Socialism should be corrected, and an accurate Wikipedia on the subject of communism created, OR else the material on State Socialism ought to be cut from here and put instead in a separate article, with a disambiguation link so those who persist in conflating state socialism with actual communism no how to reach what they are really looking for.

The definition of communism offered by this article is absurd and completely erroneous. Communism is not socialist. Nor, ultimately, is communism a social movement, although there can be communist movements. Generally speaking -isms are sets of principles, i.e. applied philosophies, and/or sets of practices that correspond to those principles, rather than movements per se, e.g. consumerism, capitalism, liberalism, etc. That is no less true for communism than other -isms. Common or collective ownership of property is NOT part of communism. That, again, is socialism. Communism entails negation/abolition of property insofar as property is a exclusionary social relation. This is challenging for people in a capitalist culture to understand because the concept of property is so engrained here as to seem entirely "natural" that most people don't even recognize it as a social relation, but common property and the lack of property are not at all the same thing.

Also how is it that all consideration of Christian communism is summed up in a few brief paragraphs, but the article goes on at length about Marx and the incorrectly identified State Socialist societies? Christian communism has a much longer history in this world than Marxist communism, and arguably may also have had wider effect in terms of number of people impacted. It deserves a lot more treatment than it gets here. And there are errors in this part too. Christian communism is not a form of Christian socialism. Christian communists do not, generally seek socialism as their goal.
 * Well. The terms communism and socialism have not been static over time, which may account for the overlap that you write of. In the modern world, our understanding of communism/socialism largely arises from the writings of Marx and Lenin. religious communism and pre-marx communism aren't given much space here, but they do have their own articles: "Early Communism

Further information: Primitive communism, Religious communism," The article does go into specifics about "communist" leaders and their politics... which could be considered questionable ?, since the "capitalism" article does not go into detail about actual capitalist states and their leaders interpretation and implementation of capitalism, and instead focuses on economists and philosophers. Interesting to ponder - however, not sure if I would suggest it be changed ,but also not sure I would oppose a change either...AnieHall (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to include men such as Stalin or Mao on a page about communism. State capitalism has its own page, and frankly that is where dictators who controlled their country's economy belong. A man who can double his country's production of goods and not increase at all his country's consumption of goods is not a communist in any sense of the word. I believe there is grounds for their removal. I know some say that they called themselves communists and therefore they should be included, but Hitler called himself a socialist and he doesn't have a section in the page on socialism. Sarg Pepper (talk) 05:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You have to acknowledge the way the word Communist is generally used. The theory of "state capitalism" can be discussed on its own page. It's basically an intellectually empty exercise in labelling.  If you can call the USSR "capitalist", you can call anything "capitalist".  Why not go down the path of Stalin and label people imperialist secret agents?  And by the way, consumption always balances production.  The economy you describe is not only bad; it's also impossible.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

State Capitalism
I've removed this from the intro:


 * ...by non-Leninist socialists and later by communists who increasingly opposed the post-Stalin era Soviet model as it progressed over the course of the 20th century (e.g., Maoists, Trotskyists and libertarian communists)—and even at one point by Vladimir Lenin himself.

Some socialists have used the term about actual Communist economies, but this reference is misleading. Orthodox Trotskyists have never used it (in this way) and their objection starts with Stalin, not the post-Stalin era. Maoists, on the other hand, objected to the denunciation of Stalin and sided with China in the split. Any description of the USSR as capitalist was subordinate to this. There was no serious argument that the Soviet economy had significantly changed in 1956. Finally the reference to Lenin is taken completely out of context.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Untitled
Citation for "one third of the world was living under communism" can be found on p. 55 and p. 73 of Hobsbawm, E. The age of extremes : a history of the world, 1914-1991. New York: Vintage Books, 1996. Same spirit, if not exactly the same quote, if anyone has the time to update, cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.12.144 (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC) 269.65693.262

In the map under "History," Cuba needs to be red. It's definitely communist. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popdabuba90 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Communist society is "moneyless" -- first sentence
First sentence says communist society will be "moneyless" but nowhere in the article is anything about this mentioned. I suggest adding some quotes or references to back this up. Here's a good one from Frederick Engels: "Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain." -- ENGELS, Principals of Communism, 1847, Section 18.

In section 20 of, "The ABC of Communism", Nikoli Bukharin talks about how, in Communist society, money and barter will not be necessary. Raquel_Baranow (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Moneyless" was removed recently here and now restored with references. Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Council Communism etc
This article gives too much space to minor movements such as Council Communism, which never had much support and certainly don't now. They could all be merged under Libertarian Marxism.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds like anarchism. But then you know that. AECwriter 08:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)AECwriter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aecwriter (talk • contribs)  lol hahah

These things do shade into each other. And there are Marxist anarchists as well as non-Marxist Communists. Perhaps Alternative Marxism might be a better heading. But it seems odd to give these movements more prominence than variants of Communism that formed major parties and actually took government around the world...--Jack Upland (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

National Socialism
Why isn't there a section for National Socialism? It is a form of socialism. I suspect the reason it is left out is due to its root in the Nazi Party. Adolph Hilter refered to himself as a Socialist. Why Nazism is always listed as right wing is nonsense. Nazism is National Socialism that is a fact, in which the ruling Party of 30's and 40's Germany labeled themselves as. 24.101.172.61 (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to get into a discussion on why Nazism ⊄ socialism or Hitler's own views, but the debate is covered and referenced on the Nazism page. The page on communism is not the place for this.MikeJamesShaw (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * National Socialism is not communism, just like Social Darwinism is not Darwinism. Although the name may be misleading to someone who has not studied Germany in the twentieth century in depth or socialism/communism, the two, at least in theory, are very different. The National Socialist party was anti-communist. The Nazi party sent communists to the camps. Nazi Germany was not communist, rather, it redistributed the property of people who were considered enemies of the state due to ethnicity, religion, politics, sexuality, and so on. If you were the kind of German that the Nazi party wanted you to be, then capitalism was alive and well. I could go on, but there's little point really. It seems obvious that National Socialism does not belong under a communism article, except maybe as an antithesis... also, National Socialism already has its own article. So what I'm getting at is that I would suggest that this suggestion could be removed? But I'm not familiar with when "talk" can be removed or if it ever is, so I'm not going to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnieHall (talk • contribs) 06:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I do agree that Nazi where not part of Communism but rather socialists. Hilters core beliefs was the German government should control industry and the countries (as well as other countries resources) this is easily available for reading in Hilters Bio he wrote from prision. Not sure why you are attack Capitailism with your false ties to the Nazi party. Hilter repeaditily spoke of his hatered of Capitialism and its evils. You may be versed some form Nazi Germany, I guess a liberal east coast college, but you ingore the source material. THE WORDS SPOKEN BY HILTER HIMSELF. Your comments "If you were the kind of German that the Nazi party wanted you to be, then capitalism was alive and well." Seem like an open and sensless attack on Capitalism. I enjoy your hint to censor my suggestion I guess it fits well under the Communism talk page it seems they did alot of that. I do agree with your statement the the NAZIS do not belong on this page and I appologize for my mistake. It belongs on the Socialism Page. 24.101.172.61 (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not intend to attack capitalism. Are you intending to attack socialism? or are you stating what you think is an accurate description? I was intending to state what I have learnt in an Albertan college (Alberta is arguably the most conservative province in Canada) and, yes, a liberal -west- coast university, and from independent reading. If Hitler openly despised capitalism ( I haven’t read this, but I have also not read otherwise, so I’m not disagreeing - i could imagine he would have had strong criticisms after the failure of the treaty of Versailles), he also openly despised communism and socialism (not a huge difference between the two; communism and socialism, that is - same side of the spectrum, though the distinction can be complicated (ie, some (Marx) use the terms synonymously)). There is a reason he clarified the name of the party is modified by “National”, and that is that the “socialist” aspects of the party’s state policy were for national interest – or in the interest of propping up the Aryan nation. So that if need be, the state would “nationalize” an industry for the purpose of spreading Germany’s dominion in Europe. And nationalizing industry is generally considered to be socialist, but Nazi Germany was overwhelmingly capitalist. Much of the nationalizing and socialization was aimed at moving goods and the means of production from Jewish (or communist or socialist or homosexual etc.) hands, and placing them under the ownership of friends of the Nazi party – not the state. I imagine you would be extremely hard pressed to find any historian, political scientist, economist that would support a thesis suggesting that the national socialist part was indeed socialist. Yes, Nazi Germany did have a mixed economy to some extent, but that economy favoured the capitalism, and used the state to relocate capital. But I imagine you will be continuing this discussion under the socialism page, which should be interesting.AnieHall (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I will see you there comrade and I will bring qoutes from the Nazi themselves and not the monday mourning quaterbacks. Nazi Germany was not overwhelmingly capitalist. As the government had total control of business during Nazi Germany, NOT A CAPITALIST IDEA AT ALL. See you on the socialist page Anie24.101.172.61 (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is about communism, not socialism. TFD (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Nazism has nothing to do with socialism except it has socialism in the name. The similarities end there. Socialism is by its very definition international and universal, so national socialism is impossible. The Nazi party involved the allowing of private property, as long as it was owned by white people rather than by anyone. That is not socialism, and has no place in a page about socialism or communism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarg Pepper (talk • contribs) 05:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

the key point is that socialism is worker ownership of the means of production. this was neither present in germany, nor in the soviet union, meaning that neither were socialist. however, they both held to the idea that the collective is greater than the individual, which is something called collectivism. collectivism is often confused with socialism and that is where the confusion arises. however, socialism does not necessarily take this position - some socialists are also liberal individualists (anarchists). collectivism was, however, very important in the formulation of both nazism and the various spins on sovietism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.24.43 (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

state socialism / mercantilism
something should be said about the strong similarities between state socialism, classical conservatism, monarchism and mercantilism, in the sense that they both have state-controlled monopolies. stalin was basically running a conservative monarchy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.24.43 (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is really very little similarity between mercantilism and the command economy, between (for example) the East India Company and the USSR. They are worlds apart. There is a fundamental difference between capitalist monopolies which stifle competition and often engineer scarcity, and command economies which try to maximise production and co-operation according to an overall plan. As for the accusation of monarchism, let's take your example of Stalin.  Conservative monarchies by their nature are hereditary.  Yet Stalin was the estranged son of a worker in a shoe factory who belonged to an ethnic minority.  No family connection to the Tsars or Lenin.  Of his children, one died a POW, one was jailed, and one defected.  No hereditary monarchy at all.  And after his death he was denounced.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Mass killings
I was doing research for Mass killings under communist regimes and was amazed at the killings perpetrated. Late Polish President Lech Kaczynski said billions were killed (Translation: "He emphasized that communism was a 'genocidal system that led to the murder of tens of billions of people.'") I am surprised that communist mass killing isn't mentioned in the lede. Thousands of times more people were murdered by genocidal communists than died in the genocidal Holocaust. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I can't read Polish I can't see whether he said "billions" or "millions." "Tens of billions" would be more than the entire population of humans on earth over human history, so I'm assuming "millions," which is not "thousands of times more" than the Holocaust. In general, I wouldn't consider mass killings under communist regimes as lede material, since mass murder was a feature of the individual regime rather than the politico-economic system.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think so because there were billions of people alive at any one point in time throughout the twentieth century. Since communist regimes controlled nearly half the world, the number is plausible. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. This definately should not be included on this page - it's a page about a theory, not an article about inflated comments made my a random president. 2. There isn't even consensus to include this statement on the page specific to mass killings. 3. The number is not plausible, and even if it were, it's irrelevant. 4. ridiculous. 5. by that logic, all the estimates on deaths caused by capitalism should be included on the capitalism page, no matter who made the claim and how obviously inaccurate. 6. etcetera.AnieHall (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The estimates on deaths caused by capitalism should be included on the capitalism page; my logic is sound. Mass killings under capitalist regimes + Mass killings under communist regimes = All mass killings in the modern world. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe there is an article. We should redirect or let it be a stub to Democide Faro0485 (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The point is that communism never works. It is based on a utopian idea that just doesn't work in the real world. You give the government too much power over people and the government takes advantage of people.70.178.153.27 (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Please notice that none of the articles on any major -ism (communism, capitalism, socialism, liberalism, conservatism, fascism, nationalism, etc.) mention any criticism of that -ism in the introduction. Furthermore, none of them mention any estimated numbers for the people killed by that -ism (not even the article on fascism!).

There is a good reason for this. The estimated numbers of people killed by an -ism are always extremely controversial. For one thing, no one can agree on what the precise numbers are. But more importantly, there is a big difference between something like the Holocaust and something like "mass killings under communist/capitalist regimes". The Holocaust was ONE event, caused by ONE government. "Mass killings under X", on the other hand, is an attempt to add together a variety of different events caused by a variety of different governments in different countries at different times. As such, there is a lot of room for subjective opinion: Which events do we count as "mass killings"? (most of them are not nearly as clear-cut as the Holocaust) Which governments do we count as "communist" or "capitalist" or whatever? Can we really blame an idea for the actions done by people claiming to support that idea? Is communism to blame for anything bad ever done by communists? (and likewise for any other -ism and the things done by its supporters) And so on.

The purpose of the main article on an -ism is to describe the ideas that are part of it and to briefly summarize its history. Arguments about whether the -ism is good or bad (including claims that it caused very good or very bad things to happen in the past) belong elsewhere. -- Amerul (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that someone who called himself a communist (a communist dictator is as very obvious oxymoron so mentioning them here is a farce anyway) killed lots of people does not mean that it should be included in any discussion about communism itself. Only if the very ideology of communism actually says that one must kill millions (which it does not) can such a fact be included. For example the page on Nazism could include a statement that it can cause killings because the very ideology of Nazism says that certain members of society should be killed. If no such statement is made by the ideology, then slaughters by dictators belong in descriptions of those respective dictator. Communism never says that anyone must be killed in its creation. Communism does not involve the government having any power at all: it is stateless, so to say that giving too much power to the government causes death is not in fact a criticism of communism, but of totalitarianism. You may very well think it can never work in reality, or that it kills, but that belief has no place on wikipedia except for on the 'criticisms of communism' page. Sarg Pepper (talk) 05:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Iran
The 5th century Mazdak movement in what is now Iran has been described as "communistic" for challenging the enormous privileges of the noble classes and the clergy, criticizing the institution of private property and for striving for an egalitarian society.[12]

The country name Iran has been used since the time of the Sassanian period who used the term Iran as an ethnic designator and referred to the country as Iranshahr (Iran = Aryan people ;  shahr = country/place. Mazdak, who lived during the Sassanian period used the name Iran so it is incorrect to imply that the name Iran was called something other than Iran during that period.

Under the collapse of the soviet union there is no link to the soviet union wikipedia page this would be a minor edit but add a lot to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hward4116SS (talk • contribs) 21:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Should there actually be food disambiguation page to distinguish between "communist" movements throughout world history and the more common use of the word "Communism" to describe the Marxist-Leninist movement?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

No because the later represents the only established form, The former is a hypothetical superset that does not have general agreement on ontology. The later is the only know established form of communism.

Plato quotation in "Early Communism"
The quotation is from Laws, not The Republic.

Laingdk (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The citation supports the claim that the quote came from The Republic. Do you have a source that proves it did not? § FreeRangeFrog croak 05:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Mention of Marxist-Leninist atheism
So there is a whole article that seems relevant that is not linked here, that of marxist-leninist atheism? Should this be linked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.3.29 (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Gun control RFC
There is an ongoing RFC that may be of interest to editors in this article. Talk:Gun_control Gaijin42 (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

access or excess??
Sorry, this sentence confused me, as I have never heard of this term before:

"According to Marxist theory, higher-phase communism is a specific stage of historical development that inevitably emerges from the development of the productive forces that leads to access abundance to final goods"

I've never heard of this term, is it supposed to be "excess" but even that doesn't make sense because of "to final goods"... or maybe just remove that world altogether? Cadiomals (talk) 01:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * it does sound confusing as if it's translated from German. I think "access-abundance" means there will be access to an abundance of goods & services. I like the winklinks to those word-phrases Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It should be "excess abundance of final goods". I've corrected it. But it isn't well expressed and is hard to understand. Perhaps it could be simplified.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding an introductory explanation about the philosophical and moral background of the communist theory.

Guicciardo Ughi (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Communism is a political movement whose doctrinal lines, first theorized by Thomas Moore and Tommaso Campanella, and then defined by Marx in his post- Hegelian synthesis, pursue the improvement of the living conditions of the lower classes, propose the abolition of private property, the redistribution of wealth, the creation of a socio-economic system planned in the interests of the people, the provision to every citizen of the resources needed for the satisfaction of his needs, and to this end promote the forced overthrow of the state order, the insurrection, the armed struggle, provided that it is in the name of the egalitarian theory. Unlike socialism, which seeks only the pooling of means of industrial production, the operation of the communist structure needs to be specially delegated to a management class coordinators, acting in the name and on behalf of the sovereign people. In practice, precisely this mechanism has proved the main obstacle to the realization of the communist design, leading to the creation, wherever tried, of a nomenklatura, ie, a new class of exploiters , who, without having to account for their actions, due to their high moral endowment, led to the creation of authoritarian, militarized and economically inefficient systems, in which citizens have been deprived of political and civil rights, so that the connotation of the coercion is joined in the universal perception of communism. A major, albeit incomplete, historical realization of the communist idea was that the Soviet Union in the period 1917-1989, extended during the Second World War to China and to the countries of Eastern Europe, while in Western Europe it was attempted, without success, the parliamentary way to communism, at the hands of communist parties framed in the national democratic systems, none of which, however, never succeeded in breaking through free elections. These parties, however, have influenced the economic and cultural life of Western Europe, contributing to the creation of full-bodied welfare state apparatus and also giving rise to mass movements such as those of 1968 and onwards, until 1989, when, following the fall of the regime Soviet, they have changed name, taking on new party labels, such as environmentalist, socialist, democratic. In Italy, the country where the Republican establishment has been largely influenced by the doctrine of the communist movement, together with the Christian Democrats in power after World War II , was made a mixed form of democratic republic founded on work , in which, alongside a state liberal universal suffrage , there is a parallel state of universal inspiration , represented by a class of public employees (so-called [ [ institutions ]]) responsible for the protection of citizens, with broad expertise in the field of health, education, welfare, social justice. Encyclopedia Italian, Issue 1929 , and subsequent updates, items: ITALY , COMMUNISM , RUSSIA, SOVIET UNION, POLITICS, PARTIES. 

Guicciardo Ughi (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You are now autoconfirmed so you can add it yourself, but it seems a little opinionated. 14:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI it was a long-term troll, formerly known as "ULTRAS VERONA 95" I've just globally locked. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Fairly blatant POV in lede
Specifically this sentence(emphasis added): "Some of these communists have specific plans for the types of administrative bodies that would replace the current ones, while always qualifying that these bodies would be decentralised and worker-owned, just as they currently are within the activist movements themselves."

I object to the part in bold, it is unsubstantiated and very broad. What it's saying is that those communist activist organizations which advocate decentralized, worker-owned administrative bodies are themselves decentralized and worker-owned (they act as examples of the kinds of societies they seek to create). But how do we know this is actually the case? There are no doubt many communist activist organizations and they probably have varying types of administration as well as ownership of assets. Not to mention the fact that even if a communist activist "collective" claims it is decentralized, that might not necessarily be the case in practice (think of all the notionally "democratic" communist parties which were anything but). I suggest the statement in bold should be removed.--87.114.154.138 (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've removed the whole sentence. It's a mixture of POV and vague.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)