Talk:Communism

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2016

Communism is a social and [extreme left wing] political movement...

The reason is to add "extreme left wing is to clarify the source of the movement just like "populism" is an extreme right wing political movement. Many people fail to understand that communism just like populism are political movements from different ideology extremes, one is extreme left wing and the other is extreme right wing, respectfully. In today's society the left wing in he United States is the Democratic Party and Republicans are right wing. The further extreme left wing political ideologies lean towards communism aka totalitarian, and the further extreme right wing political ideologies lean towards anarchy aka no hierarchy . If you have any questions please drop me a line at benjaminfraklin755@gmail.com

COMMUNISM IS THE WORST EVER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.102.45 (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC) Stellaring (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Stickee (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You don't understand concept of left and right wing politics. Also, you must understand that the Soviet Union is not the example of communism, but rather a system which is officially and constitutionally devoted to developing socialism and by long term communism, such states we call socialist states and such system we call state socialism. Communism is left wing because it is a classless, moneyless and stateless society in wich means of production are in common ownership and left wing is the term applied for philosophies that promote social equality an egalitarian society, i.e. social democracy and social liberalism are center-left and anarchism and communism are far-left. On the other hand right wing are philosophies that promote a society based on hierarchy and tradition and hold that people are by default unequal and that is therefore natural that the economic and social status is also unequal, christian democracy and conservatism are center-right, and fascism and nazism are far-right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IWA1864 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I think this zeitgeist movement wikipedia article would be greatly improved if it was deleted right now.Toodamntimeofatime (talk) 08:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Russia isn't communistic

You have a Russian symbol at the start of an article on communism, but Russia is much more socialistic, and that's what the 2nd S in USSR stands for. Seems inconsistent to me. Comments? Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The USSR (which ceased to exist in 1991, by the way!) described itself as "socialist" but was led by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, ostensibly with the goal of advancing to a communist society. The USSR used the hammer and sickle, and it is universally accepted as a symbol of the Communist movement. It is a problem that "communist" and "socialist" are used with different meanings, but that doesn't affect the relevance of the symbol.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Remove "Radical"

The adjective "radical" should be removed as it is improperly used to describe Communism. In Friedrich Engels PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNISM, question 25, he uses the word "radical" to describe other parties not associated with Communism. These parties were incongruous to the ideals of Communism through the many avenues Communism often travels. Moreover, the term "radical" should not be applied to such an established political system. By doing so, the author implies a bias to the views on political, social, and economic thought and action. Instead, elaborate with simple words and terms that further explain the differences of Communism from other parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thuoy (talk • contribs) 13:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Engels talks about the Radicals (UK) and the Swiss Radicals. Historically there have been many groups called Radicals who are not Communist. However, in the general sense of the term "radical" can certainly be applied to Communism. I don't see any bias in doing so.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Well I see your point. My concern is that radical, when directly defining Communism, infers an approach from outside the normal or established political system. Radical also implies that the "idea" is not commonplace or an acceptable choice in political practice, due to the fact that many other pages on wikipedia discussing political theories do not use any adjectives in directly defining said theories. Regardless of political theory, adjectives should not be used in directly defining for they push the reader to guided perspectives of the author, forfeiting unbiased informative fact based journalism, disallowing the reader to decide which ideas are radical or not. In Engels perspective, Communism is not seen as the radical party. Therefore making it historically accurate to state that it is not radical. Changes in any political climate can be interpreted as radical, regardless of the ideals that change is founded upon; especially in the time those changes are occurring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thuoy (talk • contribs) 02:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Dilma Rousseff

Needs to be edited to reflect the fact that Dilma Rousseff is no longer president of Brazil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.253.104 (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Done.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Clarify role of Rosa Luxemburg

Luxemburgism is mentioned as a current of Libertarian Marxism, but Rosa Luxemburg is not listed as a "Notable theorist of libertarian Marxism" in the very same paragraph. Rosa Luxemburg's photograph appears in the "Left Communism" section, but without a caption or any context as to how she is associated with left communism. So does she fit under Libertarian Marxism or Left Communism or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.253.104 (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Libertarian Marxism, Council Communism, and Left Communism have a lot of overlap. I don't think having separate sections is really justified here. To take another example, Antonie Pannekoek is listed here under Libertarian Marxism but his article describes him as a leader of Council Communism. Another point is that Luxemburg was killed in 1919, so her legacy was able to be claimed by many camps, including the Leninists.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Fog alert

All these hold in common the analysis that the current order of society stems from its economic system, capitalism, that in this system, there are two major social classes: the working class—who must work to survive, and who make up a majority of society—and the capitalist class—a minority who derive profit from employing the proletariat, through private ownership of the means of production (the physical and institutional means with which commodities are produced and distributed), and that political, social and economic conflict between these two classes will trigger a fundamental change in the economic system, and by extension a wide-ranging transformation of society.

103 words, Gunning Fog index (on one site I checked) = 30, where 17 = college graduate. Third sentence in lead, verging on parody of impenetrable Marxist theory. This early on, anything much over 10 is suspect. — MaxEnt 03:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it was hard to understand, but I have shortened it and removed some of the Marxist jargon. It would be ideal to break up the sentence, but this is hard to do because it is all governed by: "All these hold in common the analysis that..." Each new sentence would need to be repetitively qualified by: "According to the analysis..."--Jack Upland (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Distinctions in:

I haven´t noticed any of the individuals with knowledge ever having made the following simple distinctions:

Communism: Common Level parquo at social security levels, in pertinence to an army or military. (IE: All armies are defacto communist, lowering the costs to the most common level being the only form and manner to maintain a standing army [or navy], no matter if that is done through subsidiation or other simpler forms).

Socialism: Labour force, workers, wage level, including bonifications.

Capitalism: Those that go for it themselves, whom set up a venture, fail or make. (IE: commerce, small to medium industry. Large industry caters to communism, some, catering solely to the military).

These three simple distinctions are never removable and exist in all and every society, therefore there is no such a thing as a pure communist state (unless you count a nation whom has an ongoing waract, or is in the grasp of a fast depression cycle), nor a pure socialist state, nor for that matter a pure capitalist state.