Talk:Communism

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11

Typo?

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

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

Citation necessary?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In regards to the article itself,

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

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

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

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

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

Remove "Background" Section

Could someone please remove the dubious "background" section? It's vague and poorly stated; and there are no sources. -Rich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.48.188 (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I find this sentence to be rather poorly written:

Though centrally planned economies are said to be less efficient than free markets[attribution needed], communist states such as Soviet Union and China did succeed in becoming industrial and technological powers, challenging the capitalists' powers in the arms race and space race and military conflicts.

"Free-market" is a rather ambiguous term to use. To a libertarian, it means no state intervention at all, whilst a state-capitalist considers a heavily regulated market (such as the US has now) to be a "Free-market". Marxist and new left tend to consider anything that isn't centrally planned to be "Free-market", which is the POV of this quoted sentence. I personally think it'd be correct to specify state-capitalism in place of capitalists' powers and mixed-market in place of free markets

Also, shouldn't in the arms race and space race and military conflicts. be restructured?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaphar (talk • contribs) 04:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Plato

is write "In his 4th century BCE The Republic, Plato considers the idea of the ruling class sharing property" but the communism is "a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production". So the Plato ideas is not near communism idea, there are classes, state and there isn't common ownership of the means of production. There is only sharing property of ruling class, anf for true i remember that he writed there is none property for ruling class. So i think is best deleted Plato ideas from this article --Francomemoria 00:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Plato most definitely wasn't any sort of communist. So I have no problem removing all references to the proto-fascist bastard who wanted to systematically lie to the population and also remove art from his "Republic".AFA (Fuck you!) 16:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. --Duncan 23:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The article does not attempt to portray Plato as a communist, nor does it attempt to depict his ideas as equivalent to modern communism. The reference to Plato's idea of communal property should remain because it is relevant to the origins of the central doctrine of modern communism. If the reference to Plato were to be removed, we would also have to remove the references to Thomas More and Jean-Jacques Rousseau who, although not communists, made significant contributions to communist theory like Plato. -- WGee 20:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

if this is true, and i not think so, give reference of this --Francomemoria 23:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Two references are already provided for you in the article:

• "Communism." Dictionary of the Social Sciences. Craig Calhoun, ed. Oxford University Press 2002. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.
• Angela Hobbs, "Plato." The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Ed. Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan. Oxford University Press, 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.

-- WGee 00:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

i need many time for find this books in some library but i'm sure this is a position have not many fans in communists thought, only who don't knowing communist idea can write him Republica as reference. in MIA only reference for Plato is " Disciple of Socrates, objective idealist, fought against the materialist teachings of his time. Plato developed the theory of existence of immaterial forms of objects which he called "forms" (or "ideas"). To Plato, the sensible world is the product of these "forms", which are eternal, while sensible objects are transient and changeable" --Francomemoria 12:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are having trouble finding the aforementioned sources, the Columbia Encyclopedia, the Encyclopedia of Russian History, and the Legal Encyclopedia also refer to Plato in their discussions of the origins of communism. They are viewable online here. -- WGee 02:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Columbia write "Plato, in his Republic, outlined a society with communal holding of property; his concept of a hierarchical social system including slavery has by some been called “aristocratic communism.”" but the write false in "outlined a society with communal holding of property" there isn't this in The Republic, so this source is not serious.

Russian write "The term has been applied to premodern social and political constructs, such as communal societies propounded in Plato's Republic" a few, not motivations for this.

Legal write "As early as the fourth century b.c., Plato addressed the problems surrounding private ownership of property in the Republic" they have a bad lecture of The Republica, Plato not addressed the problems of private ownership but only of "Guardian" ownership.--Francomemoria 10:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Let us not digress. This article says that "Plato considers the idea of the ruling class sharing property." All of the sources just provided for you (as well as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [1]) verify this statement. There is nothing more to discuss unless you have some reliable sources that contradict these ones. -- WGee 01:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

yes the article says that but also that there are connections fra Plato and Communism, the communism is for all members of society (and in Utopia is so) not for a little. the point is the Plato idea is not related with communis idea not that sharing pownership of guardians classes--Francomemoria 12:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

More, Utopia and Communism

The article suggests that communism has origins in More's Utopia. I don't think that quite stands up. Communism is discussed in Utopia with reference to the Utopian system, i.e. it was an established and understood concept at the time of writing. Epeeist smudge 10:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit of a non sequitur. When any term is first discussed in print, then it is at that moment established in print. That does not mean that it is not the original instance of it. The term communism doesn't appear as far as I recall in the book, but it clearly is the first exposition of communism, and an excellent one at that. --Duncan 23:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the first? I seriously doubt that. For example, monasteries practiced communism for many centuries before More--surely someone wrote about it. (Right? shrug). I'd be hesitant every to call anything the first statement of something, seeing as I haven't read anywhere near everything. -Jemmy Button 23:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The article suggests that communism has origins in More's Utopia. I don't think that quite stands up. Communism is discussed in Utopia with reference to the Utopian system, i.e. it was an established and understood concept at the time of writing. General Neelie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.57.22 (talk) 22:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a circular argument: using it there can be no first use of a term in print because, for the term to be used, it must already exist. That's a simple logical fallacy. There is no earlier reference to the use of the term communism. If you have one, then let's use it. --Duncan (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Comparing "Communism" to "communism"

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

Marxism-Leninism/Trotskyism

The article currently says: "During Trotsky's exile, world communism fractured into two distinct branches: Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism. Trotsky later founded the Fourth International, a Trotskyist rival to the Comintern, in 1938." This is problematic, as Trotskyists consider themselves to be Marxist-Leninists. Can someone think of a better way of re-wording. How about something like "fractured between the official Communism of the Comintern and the Trotskyist current that formed the Fourth International in 1938." That's too cumbersome, but the current wording is unsatisfactory. BobFromBrockley 12:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically, aren't "Marxist-Leninists" Maoists? Stalinists are either Stalinists or simple Leninists, usually.--Red Deathy 12:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No, thats incorrect. All major streams stemming from the main communist tradition, with the exception of Eurocommunist sectors, considers themselves as Marxist-Leninist. Trotskyists generally avoid the term ML, initially at least preferring the term Bolshevism-Leninism. --14:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soman (talk • contribs)

trotskysts most use the term leninism, never ml --Francomemoria 17:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree, Trotskyists tend not to use the term M-L, but do consider themselves Marxists and Leninists. Would they actually reject the name Marxist-Leninist? BobFromBrockley 15:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Trotskyists don't consider themselves to be Marxist-Leninists: just look for references! Marxists, yes. Leninists, yes, but Marxism-Leninism was coined to mean the mainstream Communist Parties and those emerged from them after the second world war. Eurocommunism often avoided speaking of Lenin but, politically, it is in the Marxist-Leninist tradition. --Duncan 16:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

USSR criticized for fascism

I keep adding this (with more references each time) and having it removed. Now, I hardly want to defend the criticism itself, but it is very common; indeed, I have cited an entire book about it. Not a book which calls the USSR fascist, but a book about the fact that Americans consider the USSR fascist. To say this cliche is not common (as has been said in edit summaries) simply baffles me. It's all over the place, at least in writing contemporary with the USSR's existence. -Jemmy Button 23:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with the cut. This article isn't about the USSR. Refernces to this view are perhaps useful in the article on the USSR, but is not a notable comment with regard to communism. What you're written also seems close to original research, for example in suggesting the Trotskyists share this view. That is not the case: Trotsky said that Stalinism exceeded fascism in its violence, but that is a comment about Stalinism and not communism, and not a statement that Stalinism is fascism. --Duncan 00:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Communism and religion

Previous posts on this talk page which I have archived brought up the subject of communism and religion. This article does not describe that relationship at all, yet the atheism of the Soviet Union seems to have been a major reason for American opposition. Which of the various threads of communist thought or governance are atheistic, and where does that come from? -- Beland 00:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Communism and religion is probably a notable enough topic for its own article. Some related articles on Wikipedia are religious communism and Christian communism. Marx was a strict atheist since his youth and Marxist philosophy and nearly all strains of Marxism are atheistic. Some of the smaller strains of communism are also atheistic for independent reasons, though they are less likely to include views on religion as part of their dogma. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 01:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

On Merging with "World Communism"

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

It's still Communism. Zazaban (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats like saying that Peanut Butter and Jelly should be merged because they both go well on toast.--69.152.132.177 (talk) 06:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's like Blueberries and Strawberries should be grouped together because they're both berries. Zazaban (talk) 07:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

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

No mention about Communist crimes against humanity?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think there should be a section quoting the following from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights... "Article 17. (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.", and "Article 17. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.". I think its important to note than communism conflicts with human rights as we understand them today.

No, because that would be taking a side, and would be a POV. Zazaban (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Even though its a fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.186.169 (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be worth pointing out the the UN POV is still a POV nonetheless. The UN version of human rights is based on a capitalist idea of human rights in the first place, so communist ideals would be in conflict with it. Also, communism predates the UN. Zazaban (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Private Property, IE a factory, a mining operation, a bank is different that what the UN is describing as property which is personal property the difference is clearly defined, such as a car, a house, a tv set, a spoon, and so on. It should be noted that the Soviet Union help draft the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Incorrect. The UN World Declaration merely talks about property but does not clearly define what constitutes property and what does not. It can therefore be interpreted which way you want. However Article 30 clearly makes limiting interpretions a crime against humanity efficiently making communism a crime against humanity. Which it is. The articles on Nazism and Fascism contains references to the crimes against humanity committed by Nazis and Fascists (two socialistic ideologies, both marxist in part). So should this one. There has never been a Communist system that did not commit crimes against Humanity. This article is one the biggest evidence of the corruption of the "elite".Dylansmrjones (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is long enough as it is, and a reference to the crimes committed by self-professed communists would make it meaninglessly longer. To say that their crimes equate to an inherent crime in the theory of communism is as absurd as saying that David Koresh's actions are typical of people with brown hair. Indeed, perhaps I should point you to Karl Marx's own words. He declared in an article in the New York Tribune that capital punishment was an abomination in any nation that called itself civilized. In the Manifesto itself he wrote that, "in place of the old bourgeois society--with its classes and class antagonisms--we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all. (emphasis mine) At any rate, your position is not NPOV. If you want to argue this further, there are plenty of forums on the internet to go do it in.Sarcastic Avenger (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, two points - 1)A communist would disagree that property is a human right; 2) We could write on the Capitalism page about it's crimes against humanity, given the UNDHR talks about a right to work 9something I believe the Soviet bloc got inserted).--Red Deathy (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Socialist Revolutionaries won the election in Russia two to one over Lenin's party. See, for example,Menshevik#After_the_1917_Revolution But Lenin had the guns and took over. The last I heard, we were electing our government every four years, every two in some states and cities. The communists don't bother with such niceties. Too much feedback which differs with "the book."

Sweden has capitalistist corporations and capitalists. See for examples Jan Stenbeck[2], a billionaire. And more wiki category Swedish billionaires. And corporations that work Category Swedish Companies in which people actually want to invest in. More socialist than us but not mindlessly stupidly communistic, the reason for their success. People vote. The Swedish government changes and giveways are stopped when they threaten the economy. Doesn't happen in a Communist society. Which is why they all failed. No feedback. Or no response to feedback, which is the same thing. They "know" they are right and when it doesn't work, it is somebody else's fault! And the people aren't allowed to vote them out because they aren't at "that phase" of development "yet." (and never will be either. It's just against human nature on both property and religious grounds (and probably others). Student7 (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page Vandalism and Removal of Facts to Skew POV

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

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

So if I remove references to "someone" then it will be ok? The quotes from the UDHR are the facts, regardless of who says it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.186.169 (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That the UDHR says what it says is a fact; that the UDHR is relevant to communism is an analysis, or a point of view. Quoting the declaration without citing a source claiming that the DHR is relevant to communism looks like putting forward your own point of view about the relationship between the two, which is not compatible with NPOV. Note also that the article already mentions criticisms of the human-rights records of communist states, so I'm not sure what we add by quoting the UDHR; if we had a cite of a specific argument that has been made quoting the declaration, it would be clearer why it's worth mentioning. VoluntarySlave (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Vandalism by Communist History Revisionists

Due to vandalism from people who are self-declared communists (but not Communists), I've added a disputed-tag to the article. The history revisionism goes along the lines of "No system so far has been true communism" which is a logical fallacy (No True Scotsman). This logical fallacy is used as an excuse to remove criticism of Communism, particularly crimes against humanity. The article should have same build-up as the articles on Fascism, Nazism and National Extremism. Fact is that nobody denied the Communist nature of the socialist regimes in East Europe until the mid-90'es and the increased critique of Communism. The Far Left bias on Wikipedia is becoming increasingly problematic. VoluntarySlave and Zazaban are both pro-Communist according to their own statements (look at their user pages and their comments at this talk page), none-the-less they still remove critical information. This is a conflict of interests. Dylansmrjones (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC) PS: The Communist History Revisionist are effectively turning Wikipedia into a Communist equivalent of Conservapedia. Such a process should be stopped immediately. Dylansmrjones (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone objects to including criticisms of those regimes that called themselves communist on this page, as long as those criticisms have been put forward by sound sources as criticisms of communism. There are lots of things you could say about particular communist states, but only some of them are related to communism - to take an extreme example, Russia is very cold, but that has nothing to do with the fact that Russia was a communist country, so it doesn't make sense to mention it in this article. On the other hand, mentioning the human rights record of Communist states is reasonable, because it can be backed up with references to the (fairly common and notable) claim that communism per se is closely related to violations of human rights.

The section you recently added on Soviet Imperialism, though, didn't attempt to make any connection between the foreign policy of the USSR and communism; perhaps some people have made such a connection, in which case it would be appropriate to mention that, with suitable sources, in the article.

(On a point of fact - you're wrong that no-one denied that Eastern European countries were communist before the mid-90s. The SPGB has been denying it since 1917, and Trotskyists have been debating whether or not the USSR is/was communist or state capitalist since the 1920s). VoluntarySlave (talk) 07:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The SPGB actually predicted in 1908, or thereabouts, that a revolution in Russia could only lead to state capitalism. --Duncan (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Another small point - the No True Scotsman fallacy works by agreeing that Jimmy is a Scotsman, but arguing that if he does not possess a quality that the speaker holds to be true of all Scotsmen, then he is not a true one (i.e. Scotsmen possess essential feature A, but Jimmy is a Scotsman, without A, so he's not a True Scotsman). It is a variant on Moving the Goalposts and a violation of the law of the excluded middle, by arguing that A is not A. It is very different from saying that there are essential features to being a Scotsman, which, if Jimmy does not possess them, means he is not a Scotsman at all.--Red Deathy (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

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

If you view the page on Nazism, it mentions the holocaust and the deaths of 11 million people under Nazi rule on the first page, despite the fact that Nazism does not advocate either. But it is accepted that Nazism leads to genocide because it is anti-Semitic. I only ask that this article on communism be treated in the same fashion. Mrdarklight (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, nazism does advocate genocide. Also, the ideology of the countries you speak of is stalinism, which is generally despised by other forms of communism. Also, I have no idea how I'm a historical revisionist, or how my user page shows that I'm 'pro-communist' (I'm an anarchist by the way.) Zazaban (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Resolving the disputes

Could the people who put the disputed tags list the changes they would like to see made, so we can discuss them?--Red Deathy (talk) 11:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It be my first time visiting this article, and I chuckled seeing "citation needed" at the end of the first sentence. Indicates to me that this is gonna need a heck of a lot of work. ^_^ -- Phoenix2 03:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

DuncanBCS has reverted Jimmy da Tuna, an unregistered user's, changes to the intro by saying "see earlier comments." I do not see these "earlier comments." What comments are those? It seems to me that this editor's changes were worth considering, though his reference from an encyclopedia would probably need upgrading. Also, the intro might not be the right place. At least it was a stab at justifying what is there. Nice to have new edits that are factually based IMO. Student7 (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. I remember leaving an edit summary on the page to explain that the Columbia reference Jimmy added seemed, to be, to be POV because the quote claimed' that communism differs from socialism in that communism is revolutionary, thus suggesting that socialism is reformist. I cant see that edit summary there now, so I must have done something wrong. However, that deleted view seems to be simplistic, and inaccurate. Revolutionary socialism exists, and the Second International also had a revolutionary orientation. --Duncan (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Making the article meet neutrality standards

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

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

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

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

Criticism of Communism

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

High percentage of national product is spent on the military

(this is not a typical of socialist state, it's easy see that also not under communist ruler have high spent on military, and this is eventually is a critic at the states)

Poor economic policies can cause widespread famine. Notable examples include Holodomor (class and :national) and the Great Chinese Famine

(or the famine was caused volontary (this the position widespread) so it's not a poor economic :policies or this are poor economic policies and aren't massacre. and famine aren't typical of socialis :state, and this eventually is a critic at the states)

Excess deaths due to Marxist regimes have been estimated as high 110 million people from 1917 to 1987 :according to some critics

(this not excess deaths, we can't know how many deaths in that time and state with an other regime, :and this eventually is a critic at the states)

Power is concentrated in a few individuals.

(also this is not typical of socialist state and obvsiously this is a critic at the states)

Communist ruled societies have often exhibited lower output and income compared to their non-communist :counterparts, for example North Korea vs. South Korea and West Germany vs. East Germany.

(this is not scientific conparation is a near country not is same start situation, for many years :income of East Germany was over many capitalist country (also this is not a scientific comparation) :and also this is a critic a the states)

--Francomemoria (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Theoretically, you could have capitalism without banks. That aside the crimes of "communist" states are seen by some partisans of the theory of state capitalism as being analogous with similar crimes of advanced capitalist states during primary accumulation. Which is to say, that the question is actually quite complicated, so a nuanced approach would be needed.--Red Deathy (talk) 11:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

famineis not so common like you think all socialist country with famine problem have this problem also before of communist take power, central europe countries hadn't this problem in capitalist rule and hadn't in communist rule, some poor capitalist state suffer famine also today and none write is a common feature of capitalist state, or maybe?. dictatorship is not a question, for wikipedia it's a communist state if there is a dictatorship so this obvsiouly recurrent. --Francomemoria (talk) 12:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I read the entire article and still have no idea of what communisim is.

Communists believe that the working class, also called the proletariat, would have to start a revolution in order to change from a competitive capitalist society to a co-operative communist society.

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

I think the reason is that there is no generally accepted definition on what communism is. I think there are some common themes recurring within communism, who aren't exactly unique:

• common property: either communal or owned by state,
• no classes, everybody belong to same "class",
• the individual cannot be defined except in a social concept (the "mind-trap of socialism" by my estimation) - which is heavily used as an argument for oppression,
• materialism: no god, only goods and share/share-alike, this life is the only life,
• no arguing with the enemy bourgeoisi propaganda (the "cult-processing mind-trap of so called Marxism-Leninism" by my estimation.

Said: Rursus ☻ 19:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Violence

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

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

I guess I was not so much protesting about the lack of publicity for Communist crimes as I was protesting the inclusion (undocumented) of violence against Communists in the US which was very local, illegal and most likely punished or investigated. Violence was not institutional. It was not condoned by government. Young people may read this and not realize that. At the very least, the comment about violence (the only mention in the article) in the US should be qualified and footnoted. Can anyone appreciate the bias here? Violence by a few unauthorized thugs (maybe) in the US trumps 20 million institutionalized deaths in the USSR and China. Student7 (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, some of the violence, in the 1920s was at a state level. But I agree, the section does need considerabelee overhaul, along with the subject of violence overall...--Red Deathy (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Successful communist regimes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most of this needs to be re-written

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China

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

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

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

Cold War Years

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

Criticism of communism

First, this section is criticizing something, which they do not know nothing about. So is pointless. Secondly, why isn't there a section "Meriting of Communism"? Since there isn't i believe this article to be POV, when it should be NPOV. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You could add the meriting of it, but I doubt you'll find many sources. Anyway, how many other merit sections have you seen? I can't think of any, but for example, Liberal#Criticism_and_defense_of_Liberalism has both sides of the arguement... I know absolutely nothing on Communism, so I'd be of no help, but maybe you could change this section so it has defences too? --Scareth (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia

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

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

Fascism vs Communism

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

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

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

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

More exactly, what you're comparing is fascism and bolshevism, the comparisons wouldn't hold for a communist like Kropotkin or Shūsui Kōtoku or William Morris. The main difference between bolshevism and fascism was, though, that fascism preeched unity of the classes under the "nation", whereas the communists sought to eliminate class. Whilst in practice they established a new capitalist class through their state capitalism - but that's neither here nor there, the main difference was ideological. Much as, say, (and doubtless you may disagree here) Democrats and Republicans behave almost entirely the same in office, but use different narratives to justify those behaviours.--Red Deathy (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right in saying that a western state would call something they didn't like as communist. And the east such as Soviet states would call something they didn't like as Fascist. However if they were actually fascist or communist is completely different. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

McCarthyism

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

RESPONSE to McCarthyism

As it is true that McCarthy's witch hunts only lasted a short period of time, it is extremely untrue to state that they were "overrated." McCarthy collapsed under his own weight after attacking such American patriots as Secretary of State George Marshall (for his Marshall Plan to rebuild post WWII Europe) to President Truman himself. But in the few scarce years that this little Senator from Wisconsin held power he destroyed the lives of many liberal Americans, going so far as to imprison American patriots that fought fascism as volunteers in the Spanish Civil War because those opposing General Franco had socialist views. He discredited and blacklisted actors such as Howard Da Silva of 1776 fame, Jack Gilford of Cabaret, radio announcer Madeline Lee, and thousands of US citizens with absolutely no ties to communism. His movement revoked the security clearance of J. Robert Oppenheimer who was an early proponent of nuclear disarmament & possibly would have helped the US to avoid the Cold War, Brinkmanship, & nuclear build up. McCarthy's "teachings" have spread into the present, where US knowledge of communism is looked down upon--in fact most Americans can hardly define it due to the stigma that was brought in the McCarthy Era, some few years after Eugene V. Deb's last run for president of the United States under the Socialist banner. McCarthyism can be seen today with the Right Wing label of CNN as the "communist news network," again making the assumption that communism is evil, the labeling of Hillary Clinton as "communist" because of her economic views though they are far from communistic. Had it not been for McCarthy, communism would not carry the stigma that allowed for the UFCO (United Fruit Company) sponsored US coup in Guatemala--which congress endorsed due to UFCO's labeling the democratically elected president of Guatemala as a "communist" for no other reason than his sought after democratic economic reform--in other words he was a "communist" because he wanted UFCO to actually pay taxes on the land they held. McCarthy's few years in power allowed for damage to the freedom of thought & the reading of economics and philosophy in America than event before or since. By & by, it was Miller's intent to leave The Crucible as thinly veiled an attack as possible & still allow it to be published under McCarthy's heightened censorship. (67.184.109.172 (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

Background

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

This Article is vague and does not even tell us what Communism is!!

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

Euge246 (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Would "each according to his ability, each according to his means" be better? (67.184.109.172 (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

Organization of "Growth of Modern Communism"

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

This article is the worst!!

I have read this whole article through and it does not even tell us what communism is!! It is vague and pointless. I strongly suggest someone deletes the whole thing and rewrites it.Euge246 (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. Quite obviously anyone who has taken part in writing this article does not know anything about communism or what it is. I wouldn't be surprised if the people who wrote this article have not read a single word of Marx's work. This article needs deleting. I think I might nominate it for deletion. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

If any further people want to speak out about this subject please write in this talk box as I will be monitering it.(Im the creater of this talk box)Euge246 (talk) 06:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

re-write the whole page

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

Deletion tags

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

DON'T DELETE THIS ARTICLE

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

this

this is crapDg5748 (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Unpleasant comments

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

Another map

Under that map there should be another map that shows countries currently operating under communism. The current map makes you think that there is that many countries that are still communist. Kosova2008 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

nevermind I did NOT see the map below which shows countries that are still to this day communist. My apologies. Kosova2008 (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Human universals

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

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

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

Third opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:TALK. More specifically, Wikipedia:Talk#How to use article talk pages: "Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Utopia

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

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

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

Genocide

Let's talk about how we can discuss the various and multiple acts of genocide in communist countries. The events are well proven. They are a hugely important story, and yet this root article does not include one single reference to communist genocide. The Nazism article, for example, mentions the Holocaust multiple times in its root article. Why does communism get a pass here? Mrdarklight (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should add a seperate article as a disambiguation ("Crimes Under Communism"?).Eckwritj (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"Crimes Under Communism" would be stupid, it needs to be something about the crimes that only happens because of Communism such as freedom of Speech abuse, dictatorship etc. Crimes Under Communism is too wide, then there should be a Crimes Under Capitalism as well then. Speaker1978 (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from. If we did an article like this, it would have to include only crimes in which humanitarian rights or international laws were violated. Otherwise, any crime from shoplifting to traffic violations, crimes not necessarily caused by communism, could be listed. Also, the article could be divided by nation, leader, etc. to allow a more in depth approach to these articles.Eckwritj (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Merger?

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

stateless?

Shouldn't we broaden the defintion of communism so it can include those who don't support a state (Marx, Lenin) and those who do (Stalin, Mao) or at least note the statelss aspect of communism hasn't been practiced? Bobisbob (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That's an incorrect perception. The Marxist notion is not that the state would be abolished overnight, but as the society would develop into a classless society and thus the state would become superfluos. There is no difference between Marx and Stalin on this point. --Soman (talk) 07:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Soman, I was with you until that final sentence, there is a huge difference between Marx & Stalin on this point. Marx wanted communism to develop until there was no need for the state. Stalin was the state & beware anyone that opposed him. (67.184.109.172 (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC))