Talk:Communism

"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 [1] nor the 1911 Britannica [2]. 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. 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)

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)

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)

Partly done: Added a few, but we don't want to overlink CTJF83 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)

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. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 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)

"communist state" in the intro

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 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)