Talk:Communism/Archive 9

message: There seems to be a lot of discussion/disagreement on this topic.  I have added Wikinfo links to articles both sympathetic and unsympathetic to communism.  Please feel free to edit them - your opportunity to stick to your ideas and non be obliged to attempt the unreachable ideal of NPOV. Roger 23:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikinfo links 

message: I propose and will make the following changes in order to move towards a NPOV (and, quite frankly, towards some connection with reality) for the article.  First, I will introduce the communist political philosophy and ideology, not according to the imaginary ideal of some communists of a "stateless" society, which has never been the actual political practice of communism, but as one that "generally promotes totalitarian control of the state over the economy."  "Generally" of course means there are exceptions, i.e. the people who advocate the "never been tried" varieties of communism.  But this fact is "generally" true, i.e. it has been true of all the politically successful communist movements, and is true of all of the communist movements named in this article (Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism, and Trotskyism).216.15.60.162 04:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be incredibly POV and I strongly urge you not to make that edit. You are only looking at a very narrow definition of communism. Go ahead and talk about all the crap Stalin and Mao and Lenin and Trotsky and all those other people did. Don't go and say though that communists advocate totalitarianism, only a few do and most don't. You can talk about the diffence between what they say and what actually happens when a communist state is attempted. Then again, really we've only talked about Marxist attempts at communism, which is not the only type of communism. As mentioned elsewhere in this talk page, look at the Spanish Revolution and Paris Commune. The Ungovernable Force 15:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Stalinism was not a communist movement; it was a hijacking of the communist movement. There are libertarian communists who strongly protest their inclusion as part of communism in the first place, part of the history of communism perhaps. Reality? The fact is, communism aims for a stateless society (ie. anarchist communism), this aim has been attempted in the past (do read Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell about communist and anarchist Spain before the fascist takeover) — to introduce these changes would in fact violate neutral point of view. Most modern communists you see, don't advocate mass murder. A lot of them advocate revolution and disdain nonviolent revolution (to the horror of pacifists), but that's another thing. The communist philosophy is meant to be stateless. The Cult of Mao is not part of the "philosophy of communism", perhaps the "philosophy of the Chinese Communist Party", but not of communism. Philosophies and ideologies of Communist parties (with a capital C) are different from the philosophies and ideology of communism itself. Totalitarian control by the state over the economy is nationalisation and centrally planned economics, which is state socialism and not advocated by many communists. See anarchist communism. Also, I see you made legal threats on your talk page. I'd advise you not to do so. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 13:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See comments above.216.15.60.162 15:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You should keep your comments in one place then.  Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 15:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  LOOK - Communism is a theory. It never really worked as you describe it here. So please change the article into something more NPOV - like state that it is a theory in the lead or something.  ackoz  23:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it is not clear enough, but the first line of the article says that communism is a conjectured classless society.  "Conjectured" meaning something similar to "theoretical".  --BostonMA 23:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to repeat what others have so eloquently said: Elle and The Ungovernable Force are absolutely correct.  IP 216.15.60.162 has not done his/her research.  As far as I'm concerned, this particular case is closed. -- WGee 01:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually it's not bias but rather trying to maintain a delicate balance in the article upon which consensus has been reached upon. Many anti-communists again, aren't in fact "critics of communism", because to offer criticism it has to be substantial, ie. something about the economics, not why communism is t3h evil because it's a Jewish disease. User:172 is a historian, so, it's not half-knowledge. The part that you tried to insert is not relatively new, but in order to prevent undue weight and to uphold neutral point of view (as it is already discussed somewhat throughout the article), the entire "communism isn't necessary totalitarianism" sentence is unnecessary. If you take a look at the article you find Wikipedia does not make this assertion, although it states that one side believes it leads to it, and states that there is another other camp believes it does not (and another further still who actually believes in totalitarianism anyway, ie. Stalinists). Hitler is a significant anti-communist, but not a significant critic. When anti-communists seek to criticise communism, they refer to the works of Adam Smith, or some economist, and when communists seek to rebuff them, they refer to other works (not necessarily that of Marx) - no one ever uses Mein Kampf in a debate. Mein Kampf was a rant. I don't see how it was a criticism. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 08:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it is not. First off, its not a 20th century movement at all- its a 19th century one. Secondly, as noted above, Communism is NOT fasicm or Nazism, as it is a purely economic system- the government putting it into power is foolish. // The True Sora 21:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Changes Towards Restoring NPOV and Reality to the Article "Communism" 

message: I am—as with many Americans—largely unfamiliar with communism and the different idealogies (I know the names, not what they stand for).  I think it would be a good idea to create a page that summarizes or, even better, compares the differences between Maoism, Marxism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, and other schools of thought.  Again, as I am unfamiliar with the actual details, I do not know how practical/feasible/viable this is, but if it is so, it would be quite useful.—Kbolino 21:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the idea is feasible or useful. The communism article as it stands is supposed to be such an article. 172 | Talk 23:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Anarchist communists propose a gift economy, ie. self-interest in self-regulation. Anarchist communists do not accept an interim authoritarian government, either, which is why they oppose Marxism. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 23:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People arguing against say it probably isnt possible to be achieved, because of basic human needs and wants (ex. unique individualistic ambition versus conformist drone mentality), it won't work if not enforced (tragedy of the commons); and will topple eventually if enforced (as shown by history).  It seems like true communism itself is purely theoretical, just of like Anarcho-capitalism.  At most it seems to work in basic, simple, and networked species (ants, bees). Oh and answering your question, the only way to go stateless is viva la revolucion of course!  The events of the Tiananmen square protests were a cry for less state control and democracy, but they were crushed.  You need revolution after revolution, then maybe eventually you may get something close to what you like.  By then, you find out it doesn't work. :(
PS: Sorry for the slight POV.
--Exander 08:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary/Comparison of Schools of Thought 

message: Could you guys please make up your minds about whether to insert  or  into articles? Atm it's split - Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Communism sidebar and Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Communism sidebar have more or less equal inclusion. -- infinity0 22:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's that important to you, why can't you do it? "The Free Encyclopedia" isn't for nothing, you know. • TheTrueSora 23:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the  template is much too vivid and thus inappropriate for an encyclopedia.  We should be using  for now. -- WGee 01:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: We should try to aim for featured article status ... lead section is too long, so we need to trim that. Also, apparently there is a bit of systemic bias in regards to China...Chinese communism wasn't all about Maoism, you know. According to the article at Chinese anarchism, anarchist communism had become the dominant thought in China by 1907, and Sun Yat-Sen had declared that the Three Principles of the People were meant to implement anarchism and socialism/communism. I eventually intend to cover Sun Yat-Sen and other Xinhai revolutionaries, many of which were communist in nature (although most were republican). Any objections? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 18:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not from me.  Just be sure to discuss the ideological ambiguity of Sun Yat-Sen, for according to what I've read in the Wikipedia articles it is debated whether Sun Yat-Sen and his Three Principles of the People advocated anarchism, communism/socialism, or merely Western-style social democracy.  He has on occassion been accused of "opportunistic posturing". -- WGee 01:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  so where are we heading ... no coverage of Sun Yat-Sen? 

message: I created a todo section, since we should be eventually heading somewhere (else we should have this as FA). Please modify as appropriate. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 01:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  todo 

message: I'm a little surprised Richard Wright is on the list of ant-communists.  He was a Communist Party member and later became a critic of the Party. However, I do not think this was an ideological shift but more of a break over the autoritarian controls of the Party. Unless someone has a good source, I think its a stretch to call Wright an anti-communist when the article focuses on the ideological ideal rather than the Communist Party.--Bkwillwm 02:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely familiar with Wright, only read 3/4 of Black Boy (had to turn it back in to the library and never got around to picking it up again), but I think you're probably right. Don't quote me on it though. The Ungovernable Force 03:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Wright 

message: Anyone care to comment on the socialism NPOV disputes?  I feel that an accurate socialism article is necessary for a sound understanding of communism. -- WGee 02:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{Article|Socialism sidebar}} 

message: Over the course of the last few weeks on this article, you may have noticed the template changed between  and .  I have felt that the Communism sidebar template is cleaner, and is one which I did create.  I also wanted to use it over the original due to the fact that it makes use of , and image that is unfortunately being neglected.  Sorry for going personal, but in my mind it is the most "pure" of the hammer/sickle images on Wikipedia and that aside from being used by the communism vandal it saw no other purpose until now.  --NicAgent 15:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've said before that your template is much too large and vivid for an encyclopdia, and 172 has styled it "an eye-sore".  I'm not saying that the  is perfect, but it is, thus far, the most appropriate.  And how do you justify your re-insertion of the template when nobody has expressed support for it and two people have explicitly opposed it?  You should, at the least, wait for the opinions of other editors before you go inserting this template into dozens of articles. -- WGee 19:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps maybe I can shrink the widths of it.  Originally, I had it with the same dimensions as , but I guess for some reason it was changed by another user.  In the meantime I have other shit to do, but perhaps I can fix that template.  Since  is v-protected, it detracts from its purpose, as no one but sysops can change it.  The least that could happen is for the *.png version of the Hammer and Sickle to be inserted into that template.  --NicAgent 21:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The second template is an eyesore and is unlike most of the other poltics templates in format, so I support version 1 both because it looks better and is more consistent. The Ungovernable Force 03:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well the least that I could reinstate the Communism sidebar template but change the colors and shrinken it somewhat.  --NicAgent 19:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some disputes over which template to use 

message: Natalina, wouldn't most of your recent changes fit better in the History of communism article? The intro is already a bit on the long side as it is. And though I'm a proponent of offering thorough historical context here, if anything, I think the history may already be on the long side as it is. 172 | Talk 05:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored part of the additions in the Maoism section, but hid them for the time being. I suggest working in a sandbox until you have a firmer idea of what you want to insert. For now, I think you're going into way too much detail, particularly on the historical origins of Chinese communism, for a general survey article like this one. 172 | Talk 05:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Natalinasmpf

message: Well, I think the article needs a total rewrite to account for the history of communism subarticle. As well as to allow for a better scope and focus, especially concerning non-Marxist groups, or at least since some pre-CPC communist groups could be classed somewhere - although I am aware of the entire undue weight issue (we can resolve that with a subpage). Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 05:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There has already been a discussion of a possible merger. The consensus was that the history of communism needed work, not this article. The communism entry does offer a lot of historical context, but this is necessary in the discussion of the different branches and offshoots of communism. As for a greater focus on non-Marxist groups, I strongly disagree. Marxist-Leninist groups, particularly Moscow allied Communist parties and the Maoists, deserve by far the most coverage here because of notability. These groups, after all, are the only ones to have seized state power. 172 | Talk 05:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well specificially I meant non-CPC groups (ie. the leftist faction of the KMT led by Wang Jingwei), and since they were involved with the Kuomintang and Sun Yat-Sen, and thus played a part in the Xinhai Revolution, and well pretty much involved themselves in some major state politics, then yes. I'm not asking for greater focus either, just a small section, perhaps, for all the varieties that are. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 06:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd favor discussing the pre-1949 communist movement in China in greater detail in the history of communism article. We have to keep in mind the need to keep things simple for readers, who may not even know the differences between any of the different strains of communism. 172 | Talk 07:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  D'accord, details should be mentioned there but I think a contextual mention of it (a few sentences) should be included - hence, the need for reorganisation. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 23:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need a new organization per se, just, perhaps, better linking to more specialized entries. 172 | Talk 18:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total rewrite needed 

message: How many people has Communism killed? I've heard estimates of anywhere from 60 million to 200 million, world wide. One source is Le Monde.
In China, the Chinese government itself concedes that Mao killed 20 million. Other sources say 60 million.
This is not vandalism, even if my edit needs a source. --Uncle Ed 21:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how that sentence make any logical sense. Does the fact that most modern commies are Marxists have anything to do with the number of people they have killed? It seems like a trollish statement to me. If you are going to put it in do it somewhere else (like in the area in the intro where it talks about the social stigma attached to communism in the US) and source it. The Ungovernable Force 22:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ed, just because Stalin, et al., killed millions of people, doesn't mean Communism stands for killing- in fact, quite the opposite. Therefore, your post is a troll. // The True Sora 22:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Also it's the People's Republic of China, not China. Please do not equate the Gongchandang with the "government of Chinese". Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 10:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Communism and human death

message: Cut from article:
:Communism carries a strong social stigma in ...
I'm not sure what this means. Murder also carries a stigma. Is this some contributor's POV that Communism should not carry a stigma? --Uncle Ed 18:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a pretty minor change, considering the fast pace at which you are making sweeping changes. Slow down and discuss your edits. Then maybe it won't be necessary to revert them. 172 | Talk 18:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stigma

message: Hello 172! You rollbacked all of my edits claiming they were more appropriate for Marxism or history of communism. I do not agree with you, this article needs lots of work & I changed some false statements, such as "The revolutionary Bolsheviks broke completely with the non-revolutionary social democratic movement, withdrew from the Second International, and formed the Third International, or Comintern, in 1919.": this is quite erroneous, since social democracy was really able to define itself as a movement only because of this break-away.
Hence, the Bolcheviks couldn't have broken away with something that didn't yet exist, at least not as structured parties (yes, there was "revisionism" in the socialist movement, but globally Bolsheviks broke away from all of the socialist movement, which was not reduced to some social-democrats, which would only become a powerful force later on). It is quite an inversion of history to claim Bolcheviks defined themselves in opposition to social-democracy, while in fact it is the parts of the socialist movement who didn't accept Bolchevism (Blum for exemple) whom created what we call "social-democracy". There were others obvious improvements, and I don't understand how you can claim that adding one of Marx's definition of communism on a page titled "communism" is irrelevant. Thanks for discussing potential points of contention here before making complete rollback. Tazmaniacs 16:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the first sentence you quote seems pretty nitpicky. The Bolsheviks did break away from something; they broke away from the Second International. Still, I don't mind clarifying the setence. Second, I don't see the problem singling out U.S. anti-communism for particular attention in the intro, as the U.S. would go on to lead the Cold War against international Communism. Third, in response to your final point, no it is not possible to discuss communism without discussing Marxism and the history of socialism as background and context. The problem with your edits is that they go beyond the scope of the article, bringing up topics more relevant in related entries such as history of communism, history of socialism, and Marxism. Regarding your point on "cordon sanitaire," the term "containment" is more familiar in the English speaking world, and this is the English Wikipedia. 172 | Talk 21:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have some points, I'm not claiming the reverse. However, complete roll-back is most unerving... especially when you admit that I do make some valid points: first of all, I'm thankful to see that you "don't mind clarifying the sentence", so maybe we could find something for this. Second, concerning the US, I'm sorry but this is UScentric, however big was the role of the US as a Superpower during the Cold War. As you nicely remind me, the English word for cordon sanitaire is effectively containment: so why delete all this part and just replace cordon sanitaire by "containment"? Third, I am not engaging in some "nitty-picking" when I include Marx's definition of communism as a negativity at work in society: it is a quote, it is not original research (easy enough to find second sources if you want some), it is quite interesting definition (as it precisely oppose the definition of "communism" as the "last stage of history") and it is perfectly legitimate to include here, as, after all, we're discussing "communism", aren't we? We probably don't agree with "what" it is, but then, who has agreed on that in the past? The problem is that by rolling-back everything, you admit in the same time that some points are valid; furthermore, some points are clearly valid; finally, something like deleting this reference to alternate definitions of Marx is POV. I can't put it in another way, insofar as the current article makes assertions about Marx's thought which are, as any philosophical affirmation, a partial interpretation of Marx, precisely based on an evolutionist lecture. Thus, I do not understand why you persist in deleting this alternate definition, which shows that things maybe not so simple. Tazmaniacs 00:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: PS: the usual way to proceed if your critics are right is not to delete everything but moving them to the relevant articles... Tazmaniacs 00:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily. The author of the text is probably better able to integrate his or her text with more relevant specialized entries. 172 | Talk 02:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: (1) I pointed out that you do make some valid points, but those points had nothing to do with restoring huge chucks of text that go into a level of detail more appropriate in Marxism, history of communism, and history of socialism. (3) I strongly disagree that the article is too U.S.-centric, not only because of U.S. superpower status but also because this is the English Wikipedia, with a readership mostly hailing from the U.S. and mostly interested in the U.S. frame of reference. (4) I do not necessarily disagree with your interpretation of the quotation from The German Ideology. I am removing the content because it is too tangential in a general entry on communism, not the main article on Marxism. The German Ideology represents only the very early Marx, and was not even published until 1932 anyway. (5) As for the alternative interpretations of Marx, I actually regard the work of both Lukacs and Althusser farily highly. Hence the substance of your additions doesn't necessarily bother me. Nevertheless, this article must maintain a focus on the Marxism-Leninism of ruling and formerly ruling Communist parties, in other words the communists who managed to seize state power, and not become overly focused on nuances in Western dicourses on Marxism more suited for specialized entries. 172 | Talk 02:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: They cut off with socialism or with the Second International, not with "social-democracy" (Jean Jaurès didn't consider himself as a "social-democrat", although he surely was!) In the same sense, the SFIO was not "social-democrat", but "socialist", as far as I know... Tazmaniacs 00:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not the terms "social democrat" and "socialist" were used interchangeably often depended on place and time. 172 | Talk 02:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will abstain from adding again this in the time being. I just changed "non-revolutionary soc-dem" to plain "socialism": it is in my eyes quite debatable to say "non-revolutionary soc-dem" (and I am far from being an apologist of Communism, if need be to make this denegation). I think Jean Jaurès and the SFIO' trajectory is a very good reason for being opposed to what is, IMO, an anachronism — although things are complex. Concerning your claims about the Wikipedia readership, you may very well be right, but this in no ways entail a US centric view — English happens to be the international language, there is quite a lot of foreign peoples in this readership... it'll be interesting to make some polls... Anyway, this goes against Wikipolicies if you force me to remind you that! Furthermore, I do not even think that it is historically as important as you put it — notwithstanding the Cold War, anti-communism was strong in European countries and, as given by the deleted classic example of André Fontaine (of course, that's not a US ref, but it is a classic historic ref) of the cordon sanitaire, France, among other countries, had an important role in that. And must I talk about fascism & nazism?... Anti-communism definitely is not a US privilege! Tazmaniacs 03:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: How about these?  (of course) 172 | Talk 03:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well images are for starters, but persona can be left to the history article...I remember many a diagram... Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 09:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rollback 

message: Why is there no reference to this in the article? Intangible 20:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the place for that is the Communist state article... -- Nikodemos 20:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  communism and totalitarianism 

message: Communism is authoritarianism. It is not stateless. There are governomnets in communism. Stateless is probably more appropriate for Maxism. Critik 16:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are Communist Parties which form governments. This is detailed in the article and in more detail at Communist state. The section in question refers to communist society as the end goal of communism as an ideology, which is indeed stateless. It is for that reason that "communist" governments invariably refer to their societies as "socialist" - communism being a stage in the future. It is perfectly in order to point out the gulf between theory and practice, which I think this article does, but this is the theory. Mattley (Chattley) 17:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Mattley. Ostensibly communists are anti-statist. In reality, they are often incredibly statist (at least when they get power). We definitely should point out the difference between what they say and what they do, but communism is supposed to be stateless in the end. And Mattley is right, communist parties when they are in power often refer to the governement as socialist instead of communist because the theory is that a state has to go through a socialist transition phase before it becomes communist. Many people incorrectly label the socialist transition as the end goal of communism, when really it's supposed to be a means to an end. Of course, I think it's a bunch of crap since people in power aren't going to be too willing to give it up, and I think history has demonstrated that these "communist" governments continue to consolidate power and have no intention of disolving themselves. But in theory communism is supposed to be stateless. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 19:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, we can discuss it further. But two editors have explained here why they think stateless is appropriate and two other editors have reverted your removal of it, one giving his or her reason on your talkpage. Discussion should be on the basis that it remains in the article until there is consensus that it should be removed. I don't follow your logic about there not being similar statements in Marxism, Leninism and Maoism. Mattley (Chattley) 20:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the two forms of communism I'm most familiar with are Marxism, and libertarian communism (esp: anarcho-communism). They're all anti-statist (at least as far as the end goal). Which types aren't? Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 20:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Communist parties are not "communism", they are, in (Marxist) theory, the way to achieve communism. Thus, the fact that so-called "communist" governments tend to be authoritarian has nothing to do with the fundamental idea of communism - though it is the core principle of the anarchist argument against state socialism. There is a huge problem about this whole article in that it associates communism 100% with Marxism and Marxist-inspired governments (the Hammer & Sickle is not a symbol of communism, it's a symbol of the brutal corruption of communist ideas that was the USSR). The fundamental theory of communism is one of social and economic, not political, organisation that both (communist) anarchists and state socialists seek to achieve. It has never actually be achieved in the modern era. As I've highlighted above in the (ignored) NPOV topic, the whole article is unbalanced. Donnacha 21:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) I don't think you really understand what's being debated. Communism has statelessness as a stated end goal, but many forms use authoritarianism to achieve this goal (so they say). I agree that it's contradictory, but as a philosophy/ideology (which is what this page is about), communism is anti-statist. Again, the disparity between what they say and what they actually do should be pointed out. But the first sentence of this article says "Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a future classless, (stateless,) social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production and the absence of private property" (emphasis added). The USSR, China and North Korea aren't/weren't classless either, but we still include that because it's the stated end goal. So is statelessness. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 21:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  not stateless 

message: shootdown of a hot air baloon with US citizens onboard? Has anybody something on it?--Stone 16:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation needed

message: The start of the article needs a bit of re-arrangement - the LEAD section is too long. I would have nominated it as a Good Article but this would need sorted out first. I'd rather leave it to the established editors to do. Good work though. Regards SeanMack 03:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I still think it's far to narrow in scope to be considered a "good article". Perhaps this is my own bias as an anarchist, but I really think this article focuses far too much on Marxism and not enough on communism as a general concept (the article on socialism is better in that regard I think). Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 09:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree with the above. The division between Bakunin and Marx and its subsequent influence on left-wing politics is one of the primary elements of communist development, yet here it's an afterthought. Donnacha 14:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:LEAD]]

message: What do you people think? Necrowarrio0
:Seeing as this is an article on the theory of Communism, that would not be appropriate here.  It makes sense, however, to place one in the article on the Communist state, which is fact, includes a section listing both current Communist states and defunct Communist states.  Good idea, just in the wrong place.  Crito2161 18:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I think there should be a list of communist countries

message: I was wondering, why is it that the socialist template isn't used here?  Under socialism currents, there are six different theories listed, all of which use the socialism template, except for the Communism article.  Since communism has its own template, I guess that should be put up before the socialism one, but why isn't the socialism template then put underneath it?  Does that clutter it up too much?  It's just awkward to be using the socialism template to browse through the various articles under socialism and then have one of them missing the template.  Can somebody clarify?  Crito2161 19:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialism Template 

message: I was wondering if it would be alright for me to make a post which states that wikipeida, along with other wikis are perfect examples of communism systems, this is true, as like the soviet union, the wikimedia foundation board is like the politiburo, Jimbo Wales is like the genral secritary and the users are an example of people working togeather for the good of the community, everyone working for everyone. So shall i post?Zepher25 13:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an inaccurate analysis as wikis only meet half of the primary maxim of communism - "From each according to their abilities" fine, but not "to each according to their needs". Communism is both a social and an economic theory, and collaborative efforts such as this lack the economic element of redistribution. Also, the Soviet Union is not an example of communism as it was never achieved. It's arguably an example of the dictatorship of the people, but most people recognise that that wasn't true either. Donnacha 17:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikis 

message: Trotsky never described the Soviet Union as "state capitalism" and argued against that wording. His formulation was of a "degenerated workers state".  I'm editing to correct this.
Ecadre 16:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please cite reliable sources?  Otherwise, your contributions are presumed to be original research, and are liable to be removed from the article. -- WGee 05:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ecadre is correct, as well as the articles on "state capitalism" and "degenerated workers' state". As for finding reliable sources to prove this point, roughly every book by Trotsky will do. I'm correcting this. Any further questions on this point should be taken to the talkpage on State capitalism. Jon Sneyers, 128.250.33.84 09:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "State Capitalism"

message: I found this article - and the discussion - incredibly frustrating because it didn't seem to be about what I thought it would be about. I am interested in all definitions of communism but to me the word is not synonomous with bad commies murdered millions/ good anarchos/capitalists whatever love freedom. To me the word communism refers to what Marx called a mode of production - a particular type of social and economic organisation. Now Marx notoriously only ever talked about communism in very abstract terms - he never got down to the nuts and bolts, because he thought everything would work out fine. Anyway, what I want to know about are the nuts and bolts - how production is related to consumption, who takes economic decisions, how distribution works etc. As regards marxist communism I want a marxist to explain what he or she ideally thinks communism should work (i.e. the relationships between production, distribution and consumption)  and then contrast it to how it was actually implemented in different places. Maybe there is a case for an article on marxist communism. And an anarchist should write the anarchist section etc - and maybe critics should have their own section leading to other articles etc. In contrast what I am actually reading is references to various people having a go at each other about things which by the way I am completely familiar with but are irrelevant to why I, at any rate, am reading the article.
Donnard 13:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mode of Production 

message: i am brand new to wikipedia and have never edited or entered a discussion before, but i have a problem with this article, not because i'm a communist, but bc i expect the information here to be factual, not a personal attack.
this is how the article starts:
Communism is an ideology for totalitarian faggots. that seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization, based upon common ownership of the means of production.
when i went to edit, the "totalitarian faggots" didnt show up in the text. what does this mean and how does it get edited if thats the case?
:Hi, what happened is that someone vandalized the page.  Someone else reverted to a non-vandalized version.  You happened to see the version that was vandalized, but by the time you went to edit, it had already been corrected.  Welcome to Wikipedia! --BostonMA talk 16:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  inappropriate comment 

message: This article seems to display an abnormal support for communism, including facts lessened for the sake of making communism seem "better." The fact is that this page needs to be cleaned up, and points emphesizing communist anarchy, oppression, genocide, and the hundred million deaths directally related to communism, along with the simple fact that communism can not work whatsoever due to human nature mostly. It's common sence really.
If you disagree, I don't care. It's democracy, so LEARN TO LIVE IN IT!
:Sign your posts.  Second, much of your post is off-topic.  Third, this article presents Communism much as it would be presented in a text-book: in a straightforward manner.  Seems to me you weant an article that says, "this is why communism sucks".  Sorry, but that's not our job here.  •Jim62sch• 09:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of neutral point of view / failure to emphesize what communism really is 

message: I've had this debate with a few people, and they all link to the Wikipedia article on the subject, but I know it's typically better than to rely on one source, so here's the question.
Is it supposed to be that Socialism is the step into Communism?  I.e., Socialistic means of production by the government meant to eventually lead into state and class-less soceity of Communism.  Or the same sentence with Communism and Socialism switched around?  129.186.18.100 20:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither, both, a little of each, none of the above.  In other words, it's not that simple or simplistic. •Jim62sch• 22:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question