The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, labor, traveled), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
From Propaganda, we find that it "is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented"
The whole passage, of which you cited only a part, describes the two rough categories into which critics of communism can be placed. By using that selected extract as you did, you placed yourself firmly into the category that you yourself described. Additionally, by your use of a disputed claim and your final sentence, you are yourself guilty of propaganda. Although you might believe that the cause of the crimes of North Korea is primarily because it is a communist state, you haven't demonstrated that it IS a communist state (when it is more akin to an oligarchy based upon a hierarchical personality cult).
That highlights the need for some expansion of the article to describe how the word "communism" (among others) has effectively lost its meaning in some societies due to its use by a person as a pejorative to describe any social, political or other belief or activity that is perceived as unlike his or her own.Twistlethrop (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
"Although you might believe that the cause of the crimes of North Korea is primarily because it is a communist state, you haven't demonstrated that it IS a communist state"
Ah, the endless excuse for any communistic crime: 'this was not the real communism!'
Just as the People's Republic of China (~65 million deaths), the Soviet Union (~20 million deaths), Cambodia (~2 million deaths), Vietnam (~1 million deaths), as well as the tragedies committed in Eastern-Germany, Yugoslavia and many, many other places, were all not the real communism. Why don't you get off your champagne socialistic ass and book a plane ticket to visit one of these countries and explain the families of the people who were killed that this was all not the real communism? I'm sure they'll be very interested.
You completely missed the point. This page isn't a forum for discussing the topic, this page is for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia article. If you have suggestion for how to improve the article based on reliable secondary sources, you are welcome to make it. Grayfell (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Suggested improvement: mention the killings of 100+ million people by communists.
Reliable source: The Black Book of Communism, or, as you wish, any book every written on communism by a historian from a serious university.
Could you please explain what was wrong with my edits on the Communism page? Didn't Communist regimes end up becoming Totalitarian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro8790 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Pedro, the stuff you added to the lede (beginning of article) is not a significant part of the article body so definitely does not belong in the lede; in fact it's not mentioned at all. Even if it was, it still doesn't belong in the lede per WP:Weight. Regarding its addition in general, you just stuck it in the middle of sourced material without it actually being sourced; for that have a look at WP:Citing sources. You appear to be focused on the idea of Totalitarianism and Communism for some reason, so as I've mentioned to you before (in the talk page section above), the best place to dive into that would be the Communist state article, which is the main place to find info on communist regimes; also have a look at Criticism of communist party rule, and the One-party state. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I already added it, but just for curiosity, why can't Communism be considered an Authoritarian and Totalitarian ideology? Isn't the fact that every single Communist regime was a Totalitarian dictatorship rather hard to ignore? Couldn't this mean that Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism are the only way to implement Communism? Also, didn't Marx and Engels advocate revolutionary terror? Wasn't this the basis for which Communist regimes used to persecute their opponents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro8790 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
You just answered your own question; Communist regime as you phrased it is synonymous with Communist state, not the concept of Communism itself. As I told you in the preceding section, the concept of Communism existed long before Marx and has nothing to do with Authoritarianism or Totalitarianism. "Couldn't this mean that Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism are the only way to implement Communism?" - what you're doing with this question is called Original Research (WP:OR); you're theorizing, and in this case committing a logical fallacy; you have no way to determine if all possibilities (in regards to the implementation of Communism) have been exhausted, but it doesn't matter because what Communism is is separate from how one goes about trying to implement it. And Wikipedia aims for specificity, which is why I suggested you have a look at the articles I listed in my first comment. I have nothing more to add here. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
So let's just go by the argument that the article is about the concept of Communism (even though the current ideology was heavily influenced by Marx and the sidebar uses the symbol of "Marxist Communism"), would it be justified then to consider Marxism or Marxism-Leninism as Authoritarian and Totalitarian? -- Pedro8790 (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
We don't "justify", we source. In this case, from political scientists. Doug Wellertalk 14:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Should the Sickle & Hammer image be removed from this article?
People often associate the term "communism" with the USSR, but since the ultimate goal of communism was the abolition of the state (well as far as I'm aware) and since the USSR was a state, then doesn't the presence of the Sickle & Hammer image fly in the face of the very concept of communism? 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
The hammer and sickle represents the union of agricultural and industrial workers. It is generally used as a universal communist symbol, the most recognizable at least. The USSR was the first to use it but they were also the first socialist state. I don't see the need to get rid of it. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
It's a universally recognized symbol of Communism. We don't impose our own judgments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Was the USSR a great example of the concept? Not at all. But, I don't see how we can avoid the fact that this symbol was so closely associated. I could be convinced otherwise based upon related academic studies. O3000 (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
We have discussed this before. The hammer and sickle has been used by many organisations which described themselves as "Communist", including the Trotskyist Fourth International which criticised the USSR. In fact, it's hard to find any "Communist Parties" which don't use the symbol. We should not alter this article to cater to a political movement that doesn't actually exist.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
The hammer and sickle is not just a symbol of the USSR nor is it a national symbol. I've seen hammer and sickle images in China and Cuba, and it's used on the flag of Angola, in a modified form, too. Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Remove. Sickle & Hammer is a symbol of some socialists, not communists. Most of nowadays socialist and communist, don't identify with USSR or its puppet states. Anarchists are a part of the movement, that has nothing to do with S&H. Eurocommunism is another trend. I guess we should take this discussion somewhere more appropriate. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to see some evidence of these "communists" who don't use the hammer and sickle. With regard to Eurocommunism, the Italian Communist Party used the symbol on its flag.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
In the map of current and former Communist regimes, Grenada, which was under Communist rule from 1979, until the U.S. invaded it in 1983, is not painted in orange (which is the color of former Communist countries), has someone noticed this error? And can someone, please, fix it? -- Pedro8790 (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Try contacting the person who made the original map. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
It could be because the government of Grenada isn't widely recognised as such, though it did identify as Marxist-Leninist.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Now, I never tried to contact the person who made it, however I did try to contact the person who made the most recent edit on it, and I wasn't answered. -- Pedro8790 (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)