Template talk:Communism sidebar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Socialism (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Template organization[edit]

I don't agree with the current organization of the template with "show" buttons. I think it is fairly more practical to have templates without "show" buttons. They are more easily manageable. I subsequently ask to return to the prevoious version without "show" buttons. --Checco (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There has been considerable discussion on the issue of the collapsable sections of templates like this, such as {{Social democracy sidebar}}, {{Christian Democracy sidebar}} etc. I created a centralized place for discussion about this issue here. I invite every one to participate. C mon (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Can we get an expanded and footer version of this template, like the other templates now have? - rst20xx (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I made a {{Communism}} and a {{Communism sidebar expanded}}C mon (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Tito =/ Mao[edit]

Can anyone find a good Tito picture to replace the one we have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is to include only the few that are widely recognized as prominent communists. That's clearly not the case for Tito. I think we should only keep Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Rosa Luxemburg and Vladimir Lenin : this four are undeniable. --Inbloom2 (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I see no reason to break with the existing consensus. C mon (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Tito is a Communist of significant importance in the world. He was leader of the non-aligned movement.--R-41 (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Many communists who are or were of significant importance in the world are not included - this needs to be a very short list. Being leader of the Non-Aligned Movement is of course significant, but it has had many leaders, a few of whom were communists, so it does not persuade me that he should be included here. Warofdreams talk 19:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The list should include major Communist theorists who founded widely popular branches of Marxism. (Evidently Marx should also be in this) Titoism really isn't much of an ideology, just like Stalinism. There aren't any Titoist parties (even when Tito was alive) and very few Stalinist (as in those who view Stalinism as an ideology and uphold it) as opposed to Hoxhaist, Maoist, Marxist-Leninist, Trotskyist, etc. If Tito is in this list then Kim Il Sung, who has Juche which is much more of an ideology than Titoism (and also focuses on the Non-Aligned Movement) with more support (there are Juche study groups all over the world) to boot should also be in. For that matter, Enver Hoxha should also be on here since, like Titoism, Hoxhaism isn't much of an ideology per se (but more so than Titoism), rather something one calls him or herself to distinguish said person from anti-revisionist Maoism, and plenty of parties call themselves Hoxhaist today. --Mrdie (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Red background[edit]

Could we possibly lose the red background? I know the colour red is associated with communism, but there are serious access issues for people who have problems reading things against a background like that. And it is a bit overpowering for most people anyway, regardless of the access issues. Carcharoth (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've painstakingly changed the entire colour scheme to red on white, it's much less distracting. Also, the previous colour-scheme wasn't very "Wiki-ish". MetallicHydrogen (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The Countries list is wrong[edit]

The DPRK was a Chinese satellite? It was always independent both of Maoism and Soviet Marxism-Leninism via Juche, and although it had a falling out with the USSR in the 50's and 60's, it came back to the Soviets after Mao's isolationist Cultural Revolution in China.

Furthermore, Albania was also not a Chinese satellite. It started out as a satellite state of Yugoslavia from 1945-48, then pro-Soviet 48-61, then pro-Chinese 61-78, then independent. It defied all three, with Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union posing the biggest threat.

Vietnam being called a Chinese satellite is also spurious. It had, to my knowledge, started out semi-Maoist but always held fairly close ties with the USSR, especially after China's isolationism during the Cultural Revolution. Today it's seen as pro-China (as is Laos), but yeah.

Do we really even need this list in the template? Aren't ideologies and popular figures among other things enough? One could just link to "communist state" in concepts. --Mrdie (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree : we should delete that list. --Inbloom2 (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Being a Chinese satellite doesnt make a country communist and being communist doesnt make you a Chinese satellite. Pakistan has always been a Chinese satellite and they're not communist at all. Vietnam is NOT a Chinese satellite and it IS Communist. So far as Communism is concerned, whether your a Chinese satellite is neither here nor there.Staygyro (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Too many people...[edit]

We should only mention the Communists impossible to circumvent, who make consensus. --Inbloom2 (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The template just reverted to the infamous "Marx, Engels, Lenin, Luxemburg and Trotsky are the key Communists in the history of the entire movement" format that is neither accurate nor NPOV. I'm reverting it, especially since it is a substantial change from what was there. -Mrdie (talk) 08:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What's infamous about that ? If you disagree about Trotsky, we can delete it. But you can't deny that Luxemburg has to be included.
"Communist state" is already in the Template. --Inbloom2 (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
This is just bizarre - Luxemburg more important than Trotsky? Stalin? Mao? I understand that her influence is very important to you, but to the world as a whole, she is far less influential than those three. Marx, Engels and Lenin are the absolutely obvious choices, then Stalin, Mao and Trotsky have been important theoreticians (however much you may disagree with them) who have been enormously influential in major international movements. Stalin and Mao have also led major states which have claimed to be based on communist principles. Luxemburg is of interest and some importance, but takes her place only in a longer list of prominent communists. Warofdreams talk 13:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Luxemburg is on every list of prominent communists. THat's not so for Stalin and Mao. --Inbloom2 (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Define "every list." Certainly just about every not-by-communists list has Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao as major figures of Communism, Trotsky is sometimes in this list, with Engels, Luxembourg, Hoxha, etc. mentioned occasionally in more academic lists. The question is, what does this list represent? I assume people who have lead ideological lines and said lines are popular, yes? In this case we could include Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Mao, Hoxha, Kim Il-Sung, Che Guevara (Focoism), and possibly others.

I actually think we should delete the list of people. There are simply too many Communists with their own line, and when you think about it, it's fairly redundant in face of the Ideologies section. (Marxism? Marx! Leninism? Lenin! Juche? Kim Il-Sung! Hoxha? Hoxhaism! Etc.) What about Neo-Marxists? Bordigists? Etc. They're left out of a list that is either short to the point of not being neutral or long to the point of being ridiculous and confusing to newbies. --Mrdie (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Are we forgetting Josip Broz Tito (workers' self-management, leader and founder of the non-aligned movement)? Titoism? I don't mind a short list (Marx, Engels, Lenin), but a large one should definitely not exclude him. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed to delete the list of people. --Inbloom2 (talk) 11:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with adding Titoism is that it was never really adhered by anyone outside of Yugoslavia. That isn't so with his neighbor's ideology, Hoxhaism, which had (and still somewhat has) a strong following in certain parts of the world. I'd say it's similar to adding in Bordigism, it's unique but never had much of a voice outside the country it was based in.

As for deleting the list of people, anyone else agree to this? --Mrdie (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Titoism essentially meant independent state communism, proponents of independence from Soviet control were hunted down as "titoists" during several periods, especially after the Tito-Stalin split. The label was used often enough within the eastern bloc in the early cold war period. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say Titoism is pretty much National Syndicalism with a Communist tone. Regardless, just because it was used as a term used widely in the 40's and 50's doesn't make it an ideology. Stalinism isn't really an ideology either, it is a style of rule, architecture, etc. If we were to add Titoism and Stalinism, we should also add Khrushchevism (refutation of Proletarian Dictatorship in favor of a "State of the Whole People", Peaceful Coexistence, etc.), Brezhnevism (Brezhnev Doctrine), etc. We should focus on international ideologies in the Communist movement and less on historical ones used only in the country of its origin. --Mrdie (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That's why we should delete on the "Ideologies" section : Hoxhaism, Deng Xiaoping Theory, Titoism & Castroism.
Either we delete the list of people, either we let only the main ones : Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, Lenin. --Inbloom2 (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Did no one else see Barack Obama? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Portraits in People section lining up to the left of the template[edit]

I just redesigned Template:Fascism sidebar and I'm having a problem with the People section. In the People section of Template:Communism sidebar all the portraits line up to the left of the template but in the Fascism sidebar they line up in the middle (at least on my computer). The section looks much better with the portraits lined up to the left so I want to change the Fascism sidebar. I've looked at the code of both templates but I can't account for the difference at all. The code looks to be exactly the same to me. What's the difference? Ecto (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I managed to figure it out. Ecto (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hammer and Sickle[edit]

(copied from "communism" page, I was said it belonged here)

Why is the Hammer and Sickle the symbol for the Communism sidebar? USSR adopted it as a flag in 1923. It was a recent symbol first used around the 1917 revolution from what I can find. The are 70 years between The Communist Manifesto and the 1917 Russian Revolution. Furthermore, USSR had fewer people than China which called itself "communist" and didn't use that symbol (China used a Red Star). Hammer and Sickle is specific to the Russian Revolution and USSR, it was also used in the 3rd world by countries trying to emulate USSR. But USSR is now long dead and communists are still here like they were before USSR. Communism is should be described as a set of ideas appearing in many different forms, with USSR being its most visible namesake.

Communist currents like left communists, council communists, autonomists, anarchist-communists and others who are anti-Leninist and very anti-USSR (which they said was state-capitalist) did not and do not use the Hammer and Sickle for themselves. I believe that these communists had way more connections to the original communist movement than the leaders of USSR. For example, Hungarian workers on strike in 1956 started forming "soviets" (or councils) in the so called "Soviet Union". These were very communist organizations in the broad sense: by forming "soviets" workers were taking control over the factories, deciding what to do in common and refusing managers' authority. These "soviets" (councils or assemblies) were seen as a great threat by the leaders of USSR. Many workers were killed by USSR to suppress "soviets" and other rebellion. You could say it was "communists" fighting "communists", but saying that would obscure everything important about what happened. So I think it makes no sense to identify "Communism" as a movement of many diverse currents (many of which were anti-USSR and anti-state in general) with USSR and the Hammer and Sickle. I propose using a Red Star instead. This was a symbol used by all kinds of people calling themselves "Communist" and being more general it better represents the general dispersal of communist ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

See also: Hammer and sickle --OpenFuture (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The hammer and sickle (and variants such as the cog and machete in the current flag of Angola) symbolize the union of the peasantry and the proletarians and the overthrow of the ruling classes. Seen in this way, i.e. as the symbol of the union of the so-called working classes but with imagery which can vary with locale and time, it is of enduring value. This is appropriate as long as the traditional systems of class are in place since it is the valuation of different kinds of work, say an OR nurse. school teacher, etc. vs. say a lawyer, middle manager, or stock trader and of course the completely parasitic classes that live off capital and the resultant valuation of the associated human beings concretized in these value relations that is at issue. (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure why is that a reason to use the Hammer and Sickle for communism though. Is it because Communism is most precisely defined as unity of proletariat and the peasants? This is untrue - neither Marx, nor many other communist thinkers considered peasants to be revolutionary agents of communism - in fact they claimed communism could not develop first where proletariat was not a major class (Tsarist Russia for example). Communism more precisely should be defined as ideas in favor of ending private property, value/exchange, wage labor, competitive separation between enterprises, money and ending existence all classes (including peasants, workers and ruling classes) - abolition (and self-abolition) of all classes, not overthrow of ruling classes. According to communist thinking workers have the special role in this because they are most profoundly a part of capital themselves - much more than peasants. Workers were the base and origin of communist ideas when they first were formed. Bolsheviks added peasants to their idea of communism (contradicting communist/marxist theory) because Russia was mostly a peasant country. Finally, I don't mean to be blunt, but anyone who supports communist ideas can not support USSR (their leaders being a different kind of ruling class, where wage labor was not different from the capitalist countries) and would not identify themselves with the most famous symbol of USSR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
How communist thw USSR was is a matter for debate, but there is no doubt that during the majority of the existence of USSR the vast majority of communists in the world supported and was supported by the USSR. That the hammer and sickle thus would become a widespread communist symbol isn't very surprising. --OpenFuture (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
That's the debate I'm taking part in. I'm saying that USSR was not communist in any sense. In USSR, workers worked for a wage so labor was bought and sold as a commodity. The very idea of communism is that works stops being a commodity. The slogan that says "from each according to ability, to each according to need" says that there is no more measuring of value and work - no more exchanging them on the market. I am not arguing if communism is possible, I just pointing out that what is called "communism" did not exist in any form in USSR. The closest USSR can claim to being communist is ending private property. But private property in USSR just became state property which was controlled by a different ruling class. One class controlled the property (bureaucrats), while another class worked for them (workers). That is not communism. So communist should not be identified with USSR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
"Any" sense is an overreach. In the sense that they claimed to be plus the additional senses you list, they were. The matter of fact of "communist state" being an oxymoron at some point becomes pedantic. It would be less so if the largest and most successful "communist state" ever were not so far down the capitalist road at this critical juncture. Perhaps this latter condition will lead to a greater appreciation of the matter of principle (currently considered pedantic). (talk) 07:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Well,, as I told you on your talk page, that's up for debate, but the place to debate it is not here. Wikipedia is not a political debating forum. If you want to discuss it, you can mail me or suggest a political debating forum or similar, but I don't agree with you and would be happy to explain to you why. But that's not the topic here, so I won't do it here. The topic here was why the hammer and sickle was used in this article, and the answer is, "Because it was a popular symbol for communism". --OpenFuture (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

As a member of the ISO (International Socialist Organization) I agree with the removal of the hammer & sickle, as it does represent only one political state it seems to attribute communism only to Russia, never mind the rest of the communist world, it is roughly tantamount to using the stars and stripes in the sidebar of capitalism, or the union jack in the sidebar for empire. However, in the spirit of resistance that prevails in communism, and the fact that the majority of communist movements through out the globe have at point in time or another used it as a symbol for their movement, I recommend changing the sidebar to the clenched fist. ( (talk) 06:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

In fact,the wikipedia article about the raised fist links the image to leftist movements. I'd change it myself, but I have no idea how. ( (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

It is not just a symbol of one country. See Hammer and sickle. Also relevant is [1] --OpenFuture (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
And if there were anything on the google search, would that be a valid reference? I don't think so at all. The hammer and sickle (embodied on a red star? That is almost never used except for pins!) is much posterior to Karl Marx original formulations (which are the basis for communism as described in this article). And many communists and communist movements do not feel identified with it at all. Some of them even downright reject it. That should change. I propose a left clenched fist outlined in red in front of a red star. Something similar to this: [2] , is far more universal for communists worldwide. -- (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious from the references I gave above that your statement that the hammer and sickle is almost never used is completely false. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
You are distorting my words. The hammer and sickle is very popular, I don't doubt it (specially from capitalist and conservative sources nowadays, and as an insult, used in most absurd forms as to accuse Obama...) but the variant of the hammer and sickle over a red star was almost exclusively used in medals and pins, not as a primary ensign. And never in those proportions, except for the URSS military insignias (which represent military achievements, not even communist activism... awarded for things like the number of nazi kills in the WWII), and they are neither universally recognized nor representative of communist ideology (even for those who created them). Incidentally, the war for whch they were awarded was called in Russia the "Great Patriotic War", linking it with "defending the motherland". The Hammer and Sickle in those insignias is no more communist than eagles are "capitalist eagles" in USA medals and such. Their are referencing their country. -- (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
So you want a hammer and sickle on a red square instead, or what? Won't that remind people even more of a USSR flag? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps. At least it would me more accurate than to reference a seemingly unrelated war insignia that was not used outside the URSS, while the flag with the hammer and sickle was used worldwide. Still not the bets insignia but definitely would be more representative than the current one... -- (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I find it highly unlikely that anyone will make that association. The five-point star is generally associated wit socialism, and the hammer and sickle with communism. That the combination somehow makes you think about certain obscure war insignia is hardly a cause for any major concern. But if you want to change it, bring it up at Template_talk:Communism_sidebar. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Hardly is that an "obscure" insignia. Look at here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders,_decorations,_and_medals_of_the_Soviet_Union . And that particular design is the only one corrently publicly displayed regularly in Russia, even by the current capitalist government, because in symbolized specifically the victory against nazi germany in WWII. I doubt that "combination" has been chosen incidentally, as it is the one that mostly remembers specifically the Soviet Union, for it's use in current Russia. Plain red background, yellow hammer and sickle would better symbolize Communism, if still soviet-slanted.-- (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I vigorously contest OpenFuture's assertion that "the [red] five-point star is generally associated with socialism, and the hammer and sickle with communism." Both communists and socialists have been known to use the red flag, but socialists, unless you're talking about communists that used the term "socialism" (which is different), generally do not use the red star. Generally, anarchists use the black star, left communists and libertarian socialists use either the fully-red star or a half-red, half-black star (or even a mostly-red star with a black corner), and socialists (as in the people in between capitalism and communism who advocate a mixed economy and/or social democracy) generally use...well...no star of that type at all, to my knowledge. I don't know where OpenFuture gets his sources from, but my sources come from extensive first-hand experience inside radical left movements, and I can say with relative authority that socialists do not use the red star, and that communists and other radical leftists do. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It isn't possible to agree with OpenFuture and others. So simple: Hammer and Sickle are "not" use by "all" communists and communist movements. We can see in article that marxism-leninism and/or "sovietism" were not only representetive of communism. So i change the image; "red star" is more generic symbol; it is also used by anarcho-communists, non-leninist communists, other marxists etc. DerosneC (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC+2)

my removal of Juche from the communism sidebar[edit]

I am removing "Juche" from the "variants of communism" subsection of the Communism sidebar/template due to the Juche article's own admission that "After the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, North Korea’s greatest economic benefactor, all reference to Marxism-Leninism was dropped in the revised 1998 constitution. ...Marxist-Leninist phraseology remains in occasional use...establishment of the Songun doctrine in the mid-1990s, however, has formally designated the military, not the proletariat or working class, as the main revolutionary force in North Korea." It is absolutely unreasonable, given the admission here, that Juche should remain in the sidebar as a "variant of communism". Further, it is an insult to nearly all other self-declared communists around the world that are active in political and labor movements — something that cannot be said for any other listed "variant of communism", since every other listed "variant of communism" on the Sidebar's list is considered a valid "variant of communism" by somebody. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

North Korea and the Korean Worker's Party is still generally recognised the world over as Communist and they still branched out of the Soviet Communist Party. They still use Marxist-Leninist phraseology and portraits of Marx and Lenin can still be seen in state events so lets include them.Staygyro (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Reinstate the hammer and sickle into the sidebar?[edit]

I do not understand why the previous discussion thought of it as a symbol only related to the Soviet Union. Many other communist countries uses the hammmer and sickle, or at least a recognizable variation of it in communist political parties. Perhaps the hammer and sickle can regain it's rightful place on the sidebar? SixthAtom (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hammer and sickle issue again. How does it represent non-Bolshevik and non-Marxist-Leninist inspired communists?[edit]

I am raising this issue here because I am concerned that using the hammer and sickle symbol to represent generic communism may be violating NPOV, because the hammer and sickle is a Bolshevik symbol that became the symbol of Marxism-Leninism. There have been non-Bolshevik and non-Marxist-Leninist communists. If the issue comes down to a matter of WP:WEIGHT in which "majority rules", then the obvious political dominance of Bolshevik-inspired communism affects the issue here and thus the hammer and sickle symbol could be kept. If however there is the issue of non-Bolshevik inspired communism not being represented then either another symbol or no symbol should be used. If another symbol should be used for NPOV, I would recommend a picture of the title page of the original Communist Manifesto as shown on its article.--R-41 (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


Messages of support and congratulation were received by the new "king" of North Korea from a number of communist regimes. I think, until there is a clear break by other communist parties, Juche, belongs in this template. The recent edit removing it, while perceptive, does not reflect the current state of international solidarity. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

While the DPRK is a self-proclaimed socialist state, they are NOT a "communist state". They have effectively replaced Communism entirely in their constitution and legal framework with military-first policy and Juche. While Juche is officially socialist (explaining the solidarity with other Communist-led socialist states), their actions in systematically removing references to communism and replacing them with references to Juche affirm that the DPRK does not see its ideology as a Communist ideology. --Michaelwuzthere (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Most mainstream English language sources describe N Korea as Communist, so Juche should be here. After all, he Worker's Party of Korea still attends the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties. The only important thing here is how English language sources describe them, not how they describe themselves. (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
And Castro sends congratulations? And China sends aid? User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 
I agree with Fred Bauder that Juche should be included as one of the Communist ideologies. North Korea has tried maybe harder than any other country to have centralized planning of the economy, with distribution centers for food, clothing, etc, rent-free housing, etc. (talk) user:Al83tito 17:45, 6 Mar 2014

Pol Pot[edit]

Isn't Pol Pot a notable communist?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I have the same question. (talk) user:Al83tito 17:48, 6 Mar 2014
Every time I attempted to attach the sidebar to any article relating to Cambodian Communism it was quickly removed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Link coloring[edit]

as per Help:Link color, I have moved the coloring from the background to section border colors. this helps to conform with accessibility guidelines. feel free to discuss here if you have an alternative solution. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


If Stalin is qualified a "leader of communism" here then why are Pinochet or Hitler not considered a leader in the capitalism sidebar from their reactionary endeavors to stop workers' revolution, protect private property and preserve capitalism? Oh, of course, they weren't "establishing" capitalism, they were only "preserving" it. Yeah, all excuses to damage communism. I may as well argue that Stalin wasn't working to establish communism, a view which would actually be held by plenty of communists. I think the "Leaders" section in this sidebar should either be removed or replaced for a section which only mentions ideological leaders (e.g. Marx). Zozs (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

i think they should be in that sidebar. i agree with your views but general opinion and these leaders' statements/works matter. kazekagetr 16:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Symbol necessary?[edit]

In view of the occasion, do we really need a symbol here at all? Honestly, I am quite sceptical about the use of such highly ideological symbols as "decoration" for templates etc. on Wikipedia. But I'm sure there have probably been already several general discussions on that issue before…--Siebi (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I see no problem with having an image in the template. One can argue over which variant of symbols best represent communism as a global topic, but compared to the overall state of the template I'd say the image is the least of its problems. The current image represents well the modern communist movement in its formative stage (1920s and 1930s), and is thus not an entirely bad choice although the use of this variant of red star+hammer and sickle (sometimes referred to as 'Soviet star' or 'Bolshevik star') certainly declined over past decades. --Soman (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It is pretty much normative to put relevant symbols into sidebar templates for socio-political topics and I'm not seeing a reason for making an exception here. Yes, the hammer and sickle is controversial, and for some deeply offensive. But we don't censor. I'd also note that the Swastika is on the sidebar for Nazism. I'm not seeing an issue here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, I think this is unnecessary folklore, in fact, and we really neither need that nor should endorse ideological fixation with symbols by adding those merely as decoration for templates (!).--Siebi (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
It's not folklore. It's history. Symbols are an often important and indeed WP:NOTABLE part of history. This sounds like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And for the record I think the hammer and sickle occupies the exact same spot on the moral axis as the Swastika. But again, we don't censor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: Of course, you are quite right when you say "Symbols are an often important and indeed WP:NOTABLE part of history". However, I would say that symbols do not make very much sense when used in this way as a mere illustration of a template. It might be a nice eyecatcher, but there is not very much informative content or added value to it – IMHO very much unlike here, for instance, where you get a detailed description of what you see… But as applied here, it rather promotes what I already mentioned above: a certain symbolic fixation as one of the main features of most extremist movements and ideologies.--Siebi (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. However if you want to pursue that line then logically it needs to be applied throughout the project and we need to remove controversial symbols on all templates dealing with ideological extremism. And that is a discussion that needs to be had elsewhere. I would suggest WP:VPR. I don't think such a proposal is likely to be well received, but that is really where it belongs if you want to go down this particular road. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't think I'll have the time and ressources to do so, but at least I would have been interested in what respect you disagree and for what exact reason...--Siebi (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I believe that the principle symbols of political ideologies, including extremist ones, are an important aspect that needs to be covered. Placing them in appropriate subject sidebar templates is not purely decorative as these symbols were often an integral component of the movements. Further I think that removing them, especially for essentially IDONTLIKEIT reasons, breaches WP:NOTCENSORED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I can put up with your POV. What I strongly object to, though, is your reference to IDONTLIKEIT & WP:NOTCENSORED, since I think I did give comprehensible factual arguments about why a template use of extremist symbols appears questionable to me that go far beyond a stance based on my personal taste.--Siebi (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
We are both looking at the same arguments and seeing different things. That suggests that we may have reached the point where it is best to just acknowledge that we don't agree and move on. If you do decide to take this to WP:VPR (or maybe WP:VPI) do kindly ping me. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: I've changed my mind – here we go...--Siebi (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Update: The Village Pump discussion has concluded with overwhelming consensus. The proposal for "banning the uncommented use of extremist symbols" has been rejected. Wikipedia strives for radical detached impartiality. Controversial subjects should be treated no differently from mundane subjects. Subjects which are notably abhorrent should should be treated no differently than subjects which are notably beloved. Any imagery in this template should not be singled out for different treatment than is commonly applied to other templates. Images are routinely used in templates to provide at-a-glance identification. Pages are commonly saturated with thousands of words. Images can aid the reader in swiftly finding content they are seeking, and more significantly they can aid the reader in swiftly disregarding a block of content they are not interested in. Alsee (talk) 10:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hammer and sickle[edit]

@Karl.i.biased: Hammer and sickle is a symbol of class struggle, but communism is a classless society. Therefore using of hammer and sickle as a symbol of communism is incorrect. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes a word can have multiple meanings. Communism is primarily a modern political movement originating with the work of Marx and Engels. --Soman (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Almost every communist movement or party in recent history has used some variation of the hammer and sickle on flags, banners, etc.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Communism isn't equal to Leninism. I think we shouldn't repeat this mistake here, even if it's common.
Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The "Variants section" is misleading[edit]

The Variants section is useful however we are putting variants of variants in that section. For instance as of now there is a link to Marxism since it is a variant but also a link to Marxism-Leninism, a variant of Marxism. That link belongs specifically to the Marxism template. I'm removing all links that are variants of an already stated variant. Mangokeylime (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)