Talk:Communism

The USSR

Their Marxist-Leninist beliefs typify socialist communism! They also used 'Socialist' in their national name!--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The philosophical off shoot known as Trotskyism owes part of it's beliefs to Anarchism, so should Trotsky be considered a Anarchist as well as a communist?--86.29.140.149 (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Stalinism was the "theory and practice of communism" practiced by Joseph Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union from 1928–1953. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, "Stalinism is associated with a regime of terror and totalitarian rule." Stalinism was reliant on Gulag labour and Maoism diverged of from Stalinism, not Marxism-Leninist in the late 1940's. --P. E. Sonastal (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Cuba

Their Marxist-Leninist-Castroist beliefs also typify socialist communism! They also used 'Socialist' in their national name! most Communist states followed the Soviet Union's variant.-- --86.29.140.96 (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Red China

It was originally a Maoist state, but the PRC ditched this deviant form of communism for Marxism-Leninism, despite using the term "people‘s republic" in there national name! The term was also used by Mongolia, East Germany, The Congo-Brazzaville and Vietnam at various points in their socialist eras.--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Clement Attlee

Clem, as he was known at the time, was a socialist, but not a communist. He created the British NHS system. Labour used to sing the Red Flag song and wave there red flags back then with pride and joy as the party AGM closed in Blackpool every year!--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Nepal

Nepal elected a Maoist government in 1996, which was removed in 1997 by the king, and has had one since 2008, which exiled the king. --86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

What the...? There may have been elections in 1996, though I don't remember them and I certainly don´t remember a Maoist victory or them forming a government. 1996 was the year they launched the "People's War", however. Also, there was a brief time during which the Maoists were in power after the king voluntarily abdicated. They won the 2008 election but lost power in 2009 when a new coalition government was formed - excluding them. Also, if "the king" did something in 1996 that would be a different king than the one who abdicated in 2006. You know, after that guy went batshit with a machine gun back in 2001 and wiped out part of the royal family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.167.158.252 (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The IRA

I believe the IRA claimed to be a ‘Socialist’ movement in the late 1970’s!--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The ANC

I believe the ANC claimed to be a ‘Socialist’ movement in the 1960's and 1970’s.--86.29.130.210 (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Tony Blair and Gerhard Schroeder

Both Tony Blair and Gerhard Schroeder have both described them selves and their parties as reformed socialists from time to time in the early 2000’s.--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Algeria, Libya, Iraq and Syria

Algeria, Libya, Iraq and Syria been accused of being Islamic Socialist states in the late 1970’s and most of the 1980's by various Western sources, such as the CIA, MI5 and Mossad!--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Sweden

Sweden has been a Nordic Socialist state since the 1970's, yet it's all about a no smack policy in it's schools, environmentalism and good public transport, not nationalization or foaming at the mouth Bolsheviks as some British and American radicals have claimed in recent years!--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

India

The Indian Constitution says that India is Secular Socialist and Hindu Socialist.--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Animal Farm investigated

Both socialism and communism were put under the spotlight by George Orwell's book Animal Farm and the later 1954 cartoon film. Boxer the horse was a socialist worker, if not a full blown Commy, while Napoleon the pig was a corrupt datcha communist that would have felt at home during Leonid Breznev's later years as Soviet premier.--86.29.130.210 (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Benjamin the donkey had socialist tenancies and was probably a social democrat, but definitely not a Red. Snowball the pig had ideas similar to Trotsky's idea of Permanent Revolution and was probably a full blown communist and not a socialist. Their idealistic little ditty Beasts of England was a freedom song that had no political colours to it, but the ideology of Animalism was a piss take on the failure of both communism, socialism and lefties in general! --86.29.141.168 (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

George Orwell

George Orwell, a democratic socialist and a member of the Independent Labour Party for many years, was a critic of Joseph Stalin and was suspicious of Moscow-directed Stalinism after his experiences with the NKVD during the Spanish Civil War.--86.29.130.210 (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Christianity and Judaism

Both Christian values and Rabbinical Jewish values are also morally leaning towards socialism to.--86.29.130.210 (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The SLP and SDP

The UK's Socialist Labour Party is an example of a socialist communist party. Germany's Social Democratic Party is an example of reformed socialist party.--86.29.130.210 (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Lark Rise to Candleford investigated

Both Lark Rise to Candleford and the modern Lark Rise to Candleford (TV series) mentions situations and ideas that can be considered to be relevant to socialism in late Victorian rural England.

• 1 Episode- The young country girl Laura Timmins leaves her friends and family in the hamlet of Lark Rise to start her first job at the post office in nearby town Candleford. Postmistress Dorcas Lane gives Laura a warm welcome but other residents of Candleford aren't so generous. When Lark Rise residents challenge the post office's 'eight mile rule' that forces them to pay for delivery of telegrams, Laura finds herself torn between communities.

• Episode 6- Robert takes pity on a homeless family and brings them to stay at his house for the night. In the morning the family have departed, leaving their little daughter Polly behind. Lady Adelaide meets the girl and falls in love with her, wanting to adopt her, but Sir Tim thinks that adopting Polly would be inappropriate. Tim takes Polly to the Post Office where everyone struggles to think of a solution to the problem. Twister's delusions grow worse as he sees visions of his dead sister, and Queenie worries about his health.

• Episode 31- When the Lark Rise school loses its teacher, Emma steps in and discovers a talent she never knew she had. But Margaret also covets the role of teacher, and the two women become rivals for the job. Over in Candleford, Thomas and Dorcas are at odds. The postman is agitating for better working conditions, and Dorcas isn't taking it well.

• Episode 34- When the postmaster at Inglestone, with an old score to settle, tries to force Dorcas into selling up, she is faced with the heartbreaking prospect of losing her home and denying Sydney his dream of running the post office one day. --86.29.141.168 (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Like this gem I found on a socialist related page!--86.29.135.94 (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

What are Communisum and Socialism?

This should define the difference between Communism and Socialism.--86.29.135.94 (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no clearcut difference. Up until the October Revolution the words were pretty much synonyms. After that communists usually argued for a violent revolution and socialists not. After the fall of the Soviet Union both words are loosing their meaning, and seems to mean less and less. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

What OpenFuture? The difference is pretty clear, even the proponents of Communism state it themselves. Capitalism is the now, and industrialization shows the transformative ability of individuals to act on material things. Their ultimate goal is Communism, a state (not as in a nation-state or political entity) where every individual owns their means of production (to make things to provide for themselves and society), and there's an entire philosophical component to why this is important to communists that can't be summed up in a single sentence. In this state, people can't own other people's means of production and according to their logic, can't exploit them economically or socially (e.g., wage slavery, company scrip, etc.). Companies, if they wanted to exist as such, would be democratic entities. The society would be classless. But society can't get to this state overnight so communists accept an intermediate period of socialism. They would retain currency, capitalist structures of supply and demand, etc, but alleviate the byproducts of capitalism (social dischord, necessary social stratification based on wealth and class status, market dysfunctions) with political intervention. Under socialism, national democratic governments (ideally, under Communism, the necessity of central government would cease to exist once everyone owns their means to production) would still exist during the transformation of a capitalist society to a communist one.Abadgaem (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You are using the word socialism in a very specific meaning used by some Marxists, in practice equating socialism with the dictatorship of the proletariat. That definition is in no way generally accepted, and in fact is completely different from both common, original and current usage. so not "even proponents of communism". *Only* proponents of communism use that definition, and not even a majority of them do it. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Socialism/Archive_11 has a discussion of the definition of socialism and mode of production has a definition of the ideal of communism, the failure of the realization of which is generally well known if not well understood. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Mention 1 & 4 hour workday?

I would like to see some mention here, if possible, that Upton Sinclair said in "The Jungle" that with Socialism (& Communism) all people could work 1 hour a day, & Bertrand Russell said that we could all have a 4 hour workday? Whereas with Capitalism they make half the people work 40-80 hours a week while the other half starve. http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html & http://www.zpub.com/notes/rfree10.html Stars4change (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is a common observation of more than those mentioned above (B.F. Skinner for example in Walden Two where 4 hours were the mandated amount) who wish to overturn the current order. The truth of this is intuitively clear to any thinking adult with any in depth knowledge of the capitalist workplace. Aside from situations such as on an assembly line where the volitional element the person contributes has relatively little value, socialist labor is (in principle) unencumbered by the haggling between the capitalist master and his wage labor slave, so there's the contribution of a fully motivated worker at the limit of their potential productivity. Besides that it's universally understood that the purpose of capitalist labor is to produce profit for the owners of the enterprise (the modality in which (purportedly) socially useful for-profit work is performed), which normally is couched in the form of the fixed length working day where the socially useful value the worker produces is divided into that she requires to reproduce her means of sustenance, the portion over that which the capitalist remits to her, and the portion he keeps for himself without which he would not engage in production. By eliminating the parasitic context in which all work occurs a realistic accounting is generally believed by those cited to result in a drastically reduced workday, but not in general as little as 1 hour/day. Lycurgus (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

But a 1-hour work day would be possible if we get all people/nations to build only tower cities connected to mag-lev trains, with all things in every tower city. Does anyone know if anyone ever suggested towers & trains before? Stars4change (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget massive parallel 4D teleconferencing. It's an absolute must. And orange juice. Loads of orange juice. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

'cept 4 you. You get watered down Tang. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Towers & Trains (T&T) would have destroyed USA Capitalism. But America was blinded by all the empty free land in 1900 & even 1950. Now we can look backward & see where & why the huge empty USA did everything wrong. Stars4change (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

86.29.135.94

All or most of the threads above appear to be the result of this user airing its trite opinions as if this page were their personal blog. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

He has made two comments. Just like you. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The user does have more than IP but it's clear it's the same person and they are only different in the subnet address and the first seven are identical.But what fucking ever. Mine are similar tor Lycurgus or 72.228.177.92 (talk) have gone around with you before and this time you can talk to the hand.

If you think the hand is likely to make constructive comments and contributaions, I'd be glad to. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Also the same blithering stuff was posted to Talk:Socialism. "Lark rise to Candleford", sheesh! 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Battlecry's changes.

I undid user:Battlecrys changes as his quote doesn't exist in the source he has given, and he also misinterprets it. This is why it's Wikipedia policy to not interpret and draw conclusions from sources, that would be WP:OR. The quote (which is actually from Engels "Scientific Socialism") talks about the superabundance of work under capitalism. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

cf. Scientific Socialism 72.228.177.92 (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Cambodia, a communist country?

The image (here) that shows the current "communist" countries has Cambodia shaded as one. Yet the Cambodia Wiki page (here) says that Cambodia is a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary representative democracy. Which is correct?