Talk:Stateless communism

Re: Theoretical Problems with Stateless Communism
This entire section is nothing more than poorly written editorialising. It makes assertions based on no evidence (unsurprisingly, since nobody is claiming that Stateless Communism actually exists anywhere). I can see no reason why it should not be deleted entirely AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, stateless communism has existed. You should read about Anarchist Spain. 99.236.15.197 (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the section as it currently exists is, as you say, almost entirely editorializing, but it should be possible to include a section on broadly this topic that was properly written and sourced. The problem, though, is that most criticism has traditionally focused on actually existing communist states, not the hoped-for stateless communism; I don't know if criticisms of stateless communism go beyond broad claims that it is utopian, though we could include that criticism. We could also include criticism of the idea of the withering away of the state here (particularly as Withering away of the state redirects here).VoluntarySlave (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree. A properly-sourced critique section would be well worth having, though there is already a Criticisms of Marxism article which possibly covers most of this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a lot of criticism on communism and stateless societies from a theoretical standpoint, and all of this also applies to stateless communism. As long as it's properly sourced (which it seems to be, with the exception of the first part) I don't see a problem with theoretical criticism against something that is purely theoretical in the first place. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think one could call the existing section 'properly sourced'. The reference for 'Civilization Versus Anarchy' is to a self-published article on a website, and from what I can tell, Ludwig von Mises may never written a book called 'Human Nature' - it isn't in the Wikipedia article bibliography.AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, better sources would be needed in that case. On the other hand, reading through the article again I'm doubting that this article has any purpose by itself. It completely fails to explain what the difference from communism is, or what the difference (if any) is from the likewise theoretical final stage of development of the modes of production. As it stands now it's pretty pointless and should probably be merged, but maybe it could be expanded? --OpenFuture (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It could do with a link to Stateless society as well - the 'archaeological and anthropological interpretation' section at least seems relevant in countering the outright dismissal in the 'theoretical problems' revision, though one needs to understand the distinction between a 'less complex' community and the sort of society that Marx envisioned. If Withering away of the state is redirected here, there ought to be a little more on the Marxist rationale for its occurrence, too - a description of what it is, without further explanation, seems a little lacking. I'm inclined to think it might be best to delete the 'theoretical problems' section for now, and instead provide a link to the Criticisms of Marxism article, with perhaps a brief précis of the more relevant details. If I can get my brain into gear, I'll maybe try to do this myself, if nobody else has further suggestions, though I'm a noob at Wikipedia editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The beauty of Wikipedia is that someone else can fix it if you mess up, so go ahead. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Von Mises did write a book called "Human Nature" and it's very good. It exposes the problems with communism and other similar systems that give vast powers (such as the power to reorganize production to achieve "social ideals") to unspecified groups of people. Except it's called "Human Action"... just checked my shelf. OK let me fix this... Thanks for finding the error.


 * How can Von Mises' book expose 'problems with communism' when no communist society has ever existed? And as for 'systems that give vast powers... to unspecified groups of people', the objective of communism (as described by Marx) is to distribute power amongst all within society, not to concentrate it in the hands of the few. Is Von Mises book about the theoretical concept of a communist society, or about formerly existing societies that were run by 'communist parties', but considered themselves socialist - not having reached the stage of stateless communism? Unless he distinguishes between the two, his book is of no relevance to the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Exposing problems in theoretical communism is a theoretical exercise that typically would be done in a book of political/economical theory, like Human Action. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that 'expose' is really the right word then. To expose something implies that one has demonstrated it exists, rather than merely argued that it might. 'Human Action' is available online, and I've just taken a very brief look - I don't think it appears particularly significant, in comparison to other critiques of Marxism, though it will need closer inspection.AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Expose seems to be an good choice of words. It's perfectly possible to expose problems with a theory. These problems exist, just as the theory exists. I suggest you drop this, it's not going anywhere. It's IMO perfectly acceptable to criticise an unimplementable theory by theoretical examination. In fact, it is the only way to criticise it. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To say its 'an unimplementable theory' is just pure speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.59.106 (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of 'Problems with Stateless Communal Ownership' section
I have deleted this section, since the only reference quoted makes no such assertions, and arguably suggests the exact opposite: "In the end, civilized societies are nothing more than anarchy with legal recourse. When wars occur, this indicates society has re-embraced the purity of anarchy. It's re-embraced every time a war or 'state of emergency' is officially declared. Anarchy is the fallback point… it can always be counted on to solve major problems." []. I don't consider this a valid source in any case, but even if it was, it does not support the argument put in the now-removed section. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Original Research
Unless I'm missing something, "stateless communism" is a tautology: communism is by definition a stateless society. Carl Marx predicted communism, not "pure communism". Please provide reputable references which dsicuss this concept as opposed to "simply communism" or some other forms of communism. Lovok Sovok (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that "stateless communism" is an independent scholar concept. The [google scholar seems to show that in all usage cases of the phrase the context in indirect, and the usage is just a shorthand for "communism, which is stateless" or "a stateless society, communism". [[User:Lovok Sovok|Lovok Sovok]] (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this page should be deleted. "pure communism" and "stateless communism" is a non-concept, I couldn't find it anywhere in any published material. User:Goti1233 —Preceding undated comment added 08:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

copy of discussion in Talk:Left-wing terrorism


Since y'all are versed in communism there, let me bring your attention to a page I accidentally noticed: Stateless communism. For me it sounds like a tautology and I intend to put it for deletion, unless someone proves (usig valid sources) that the term has reputable. (One reasonable usage is what is called "contrastive focus reduplication" in wikipedia, but this case does not call for a separate page. Another kind of usage is, like, "in the month of May"; Again, this tautology is for stylistic purposes only, i.e., there hardly be an article month of May oops!:-) month of April). Lovok Sovok (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Another huge piece of original research is IMO in "Christian communism". It seems that communists are freely roaming in wikipedia to disseminate their studies unchecked. I guess, nobody really cares to look into these subjects but them. Lovok Sovok (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, the Christian communism article seems reasonable enough to me - it needs more citations, but that isn't grounds for deletion. The Stateless communism article needs expanding, but I'd say it is worth keeping too.


 * In any case, this is a talk page on a particular subject, and posting here about deleting other articles might possibly be taken as canvassing, since they are only peripherally related. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As you may notice, I am not suggesting to delete the Christian Communism. I am saying that IMO it is OR. And many parts look quite suspicious to me. And are you saying that "stateless communism" is a valid scholar concept? Well, [google scholar seems to disagree with you: in all cases the context in indirect, and the usage is just a shorthand for "communism, which is stateless" or "a stateless society, communism". [[User:Lovok Sovok|Lovok Sovok]] (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Stateless communism was created by User:Ed Poor. If he's a Communist, then Rush Limbaugh is a Maoist.  Anyway, it probably is not helpful to discuss here.  TFD (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I did post a notice there. The notice here is merely an attention attractor. Lovok Sovok (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, Ed Poor's text says "Stateless communism is an ideal future state of society which Karl Marx predicted", which is false. Marx predicted communism, not "stateless communism". Lovok Sovok (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have asked Ed Poor to respond to this discussion. TFD (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Marx predicted communism, not "stateless communism""


 * In Marxist terms Communism entails the disappearance or "withering away" of the state. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I surprise myself by agreeing with JM here. As Marx saw it there would be an ongoing process which went from 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' to 'socialism', and then to 'communism'. Only at the final stage could the state cease to exist, as 'communist' society would no longer require a state which he saw as a mechanism of class struggle. The implication is that 'the withering away of the state' would occur in the last 'communist' stage. This is all rather off-topic anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree. But whether or not there is an accepted term called "stateless communism" that deserves its own article or it is a term created by an editor is something to resolve in that article.  TFD (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The term "Stateless Communism" would be a tautology had we restricted ourselves with the works of Marx and Lenin. However, the term "Communism" has two quite different meanings in contemporary literature, namely it refers to the classless society briefly in vaguely described by the classics of Marxism, and to the totalitarian societies in the USSR, China, etc, which have almost nothing in common with the stateless Communist society from Marx's and Lenin's dreams. The claim that "Stateless Communism" is tautology means that "Communist state" is oxymoron, whereas this term is being used very widely. Therefore, although, formally speaking, true classless society (Communism) implies disappearance of any state structures (which, according to Marx are needed just to suppress certain classes by the ruling class), existence of numerous "Communisms" (in the USSR, China, etc) makes the term "Stateless Communism" (or its equivalent) necessary.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (to Paul Siebert) I agree with you here. (In fact, "contrastive focus reduplication" I mentioned in the beginning was an atempt to indicate at a kind of such usage. However the term I had in mind was "retronym".) However in a wikipedia article you:
 * (a) have to provide the solid reference which describes such a retronymy
 * and (b) such an article must be about the term, not about the concept. For comparison see the article about snail mail. Evenm though the concept of mail greatly changed, the article "snail mail" is not about the ordinary, old-fashioned mail, it is about the retronym.
 * Also, yes, many say that Communist state, however some others disagree and say this is a linguistically legitimate coinage for a "state ruled by communist party"; just as "communist" is not a "citizen of a communist society", but a "member of communist party", who himself may well be a "petty bourgeois". Lovok Sovok (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Further, about existence of numerous "Communisms" (in the USSR, China, etc): you are speaking here in paparazzi style here, not encyclopedic one, so it is very difficult both to prove and disprove this claim. Two possible objections: there was no "communism society" in any of them, neither in their opinion, nor on this side of the "iron curtain". Second: indeed, one may say there were "numerous communisms", but this would be true when "communism" is understood as ideology, not as state of society. Lovok Sovok (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (to AndyTheGrump) 'the withering away of the state' would occur in the last 'communist' stage. Smart thinking and a legitimate, although disputable, development of communist theory. However to put this in wikipedia, references, please. Lovok Sovok (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I added find sources at the top of this discussion thread so we may determine if this article is about a legitimate topic. TFD (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify here. I am not saying that these words are not used. I am saying that it is not a concept different from "communism". In other words, I challenge you to find references which define this concept, i.e., phrases like "The stateless communism is...", or "...is callled the stateless communism", etc. To compare, you may search google for "free democratic society" and find "about 126,000 results" like "The religious freedom, one of the leading principles in a free democratic society, ...." Does that mean that "free democratic society" is something different from "democratic society"? Freedom is a distinctive feature of democracy, and the expression "free democracy" like in "Islam vs. free democracy" is used to stress this trait of democracy. Similarly do the phrases "classless communism", "stateless, classless communism", "stateless communism".  Lovok Sovok (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I looked into the "communism" article and started to weep. It is a loose essay, in best traditions of "dead-tree" encyclopedias, full of unreferenecd and dubious opinions about facts and opinions about opinions, not mentioning communist propaganda. I think I go away from this whole subject, since, judging from its imbalance, it looks that nobody but left wing is editing them. Lovok Sovok (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It is essential to understand that whilst Marxism does preach the abolition or “withering away” of the state, as explained by Lenin in The State and Revolution:


 * “The proletariat needs state power, the centralized organization of force, the organization of violence, both for the purpose of crushing the resistance of the exploiters and for the purpose of guiding the great mass of the population – the peasantry, the petty-bourgeoisie, the semi-proletarians – in the work of organizing Socialist economy.”


 * So, before the revolution could get anywhere near the promised land of “stateless communism”, there would admittedly be a period of “socialism” in which the bourgeois (capitalist) state is replaced by the “proletarian (socialist) state”. All communist states got stuck in the socialist state phase that is known as “communist state” in both academic and popular literature in the same way as a state might be referred to as “Christian” even though it has not realized (and perhaps never will realize) the aspired “Christian Kingdom of God on earth”. As pointed out by Pipes, Lenin himself was responsible for this by renaming his party from “Social Democratic” to “Communist”. Communist states, of course, were aware of the fact that they hadn’t achieved Communism, hence they officially referred to themselves by such names as “socialist/people’s/democratic republic”, etc. The term “democratic republic” is particularly amusing as according to Lenin, “a democratic republic is the best possible political shell for capitalism” and “under Socialism all democracy withers away”. Which is probably why he renamed his party. Justus Maximus (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge with main article on Communism
I think the lead of this article should be incorporated into the lead section of the main article on Communism, and the rest of the points incorporated into subsections of that article. I have never heard the phrase "pure communism" in any academic publication; furthermore communism initially (and still does, in Marxist and socialist perspectives) refer to a classless, stateless society based upon common ownership of productive property and maximum individual autonomy. Battlecry (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Time to go
The two references are to Engels and Bukharin, in support some basic facts about Communism. They don't introduce the term "stateless communism", because this is a tautology, by definition, communism is a stateless society. Please do not restore the article which is an original research, tagged so for two years and criticized in talk page, without hint of improvement. Lovok Sovok (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, Lovok, I just wanted to let you know that I've declined your request for a third opinion, as there appears to be no prior discussion about this specific debate (I saw the discussion above, but it appears to be a year and a half stale and doesn't involve the other editor currently in question). 3O is intended for discussions which have come to a standstill.  If you can get the other editor engaged in a dialogue here, and the discussion becomes deadlocked, feel free to repost your 3O request.  Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I asked for third opinion precisely because the discussion had come to a standstill and stays so since 2010. I didn't see the arguments that prove that the text in question in not original research, i.e., the notion of "stateless communism" has something unique, but my attempts to implement the wikipedia rule WP:NOR, based on old discussions, was met with knee-jerk reverts from people who neither discussed the issue nor contributed to the article. I believe I waited sufficiently long time. Therefore I have to ask for people who actually look into the issue, not just some formal "drive-through" editing. Lovok Sovok (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine; it's just that 3O's not the right venue for it. 3O is more for disputes that are at a standstill because neither side can agree, not because neither side has posted about it for a year or more. You might want to try the original research noticeboard; that's probably more what you want.  Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * can this entry be deleted already? No scholarly concept, no sources, and a tautology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goti1233 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal
This article should be merged with Communist society and World communism because they are all about the same topic (a fully-developed communist system/society). Moreover, I have never heard the term "stateless communism" used in canonical literature on the subject; Marxist theorists presume that communism is by definition stateless. - Battlecry 11:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I am going to merge this article with the much better sourced article Communist society which covers statelessness as a feature of a fully-developed communist system. This article relies heavily on primary sources and is poorly sourced. - Battlecry 06:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)